Caroline Flack found dead

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 06:36PM

Harleen Quinzel wrote: »

I know it’s the sun, but in this it clearly states Caroline was cut during the incident.

https://www.thesun.ie/tvandshowbiz/4886356/caroline-flacks-boyfriend-lewis-burton-looks-dishevelled-as-he-breaks-cover-after-her-arrest-for-attacking-him/

“Caroline later needed hospital treatment after accidentally cutting herself on broken glass during the incident.”

Now as long as you can read, you’d understand that if two people are cut, blood at a crime scene will not just be from one source.

Yes, the headline is click bait, but that’s what tabloids are.

I cant believe you made me click and copy a Sun link

:P

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4940442/shocking-pic-shows-caroline-flacks-blood-soaked-bed-after-her-lamp-attack-on-boyfriend-lewis-burton/

Hammer89 · 19-02-2020 06:37PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I never suggested anyone connected any dots.

And Retro, you're showing search results from AFTER Burton came out about the pic. The pic had been churned out BEFORE the searches you are showing.

I think she means me. I blocked her because it's a waste time of arguing somebody who doesn't even know what my argument is.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 06:39PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I never suggested anyone connected any dots.

And Retro, you're showing search results from AFTER Burton came out about the pic. The pic had been churned out BEFORE the searches you are showing.

Sorry I’m confusing you with Hammer. The H confused me :pac:

I believe the original image circulated on the 1st of January, I don’t think it was stated whose blood it was— just that there was blood— and after Lewis denied the blood was his that evening on his Instagram, reports followed on the 2nd of January that clarified the situation and expressed his version of events. I don’t find that too appalling.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 06:43PM

Hammer89 wrote: »

I think she means me. I blocked her because it's a waste time of arguing somebody who doesn't even know what my argument is.

Funny that you blocked me right after I proved what you were saying was completely misinformed and not the truth. I guess it’s easier to do that than admit you were wrong.

Oh wait, you won’t see this

:pac:

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 06:47PM

retro:electro wrote: »

They didn’t let us connect the dots. I remember it being widely reported that it was Caroline’s blood.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=caroline+flack+blood+bedroom&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ie&client=safari

These results are all from 2nd of January. They mostly all clarify in the headline that the blood is hers.

And even so, you’re just as bad as people who believe the tabloids version of events- you’re just believing the opposite. We actually have no idea whose blood it is, and wouldn’t have known until it was brought to trial. Lewis is denying it was his but he also denied he was ever hit. So there’s that.

retro:electro wrote: »

Sorry I’m confusing you with Hammer. The H confused me :pac:

I believe the original image circulated on the 1st of January, I don’t think it was stated whose blood it was— just that there was blood— and after Lewis denied the blood was his that evening on his Instagram, reports followed on the 2nd of January that clarified the situation and expressed his version of events. I don’t find that too appalling.

Have another search did ya? :pac:

It wasnt widely reported as Caroline's blood, as you suggested. The picture was jumped on flown around and then Burton himself had to come out and clarify.

So I say again, no one is asking for reporting to stop. People are asking for this type of sh*t to stop.

Hammer89 · 19-02-2020 06:48PM

Harleen Quinzel wrote: »

I know it’s the sun, but in this it clearly states Caroline was cut during the incident.

https://www.thesun.ie/tvandshowbiz/4886356/caroline-flacks-boyfriend-lewis-burton-looks-dishevelled-as-he-breaks-cover-after-her-arrest-for-attacking-him/

“Caroline later needed hospital treatment after accidentally cutting herself on broken glass during the incident.”

Now as long as you can read, you’d understand that if two people are cut, blood at a crime scene will not just be from one source.

Yes, the headline is click bait, but that’s what tabloids are.

Right, so there's 551 words in his article from The Sun, which is directly about the 'bloodbath' angle. You have to read 357 words before there's any reference of her being cut.

The public will have read about there being a pink toothbrush on the ground, the valuation of her home and the fact there was cat-themed artwork on the wall BEFORE reading about how she was cut or shed blood too.

aare · 19-02-2020 06:48PM

I don't think this is as simple as looking for a body, or a person, to blame or scapegoat. A lot of people behaved bady, and that is quite normal around any case that reaches the courts. It is more important to try and proof our judicial system and the process of civil and criminal law against the possibility of any form of unnecessary disadvantage and exceptional damage to vulnerable people.
https://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/death-by-due-process/

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 06:49PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Funny that you blocked me right after I proved what you were saying was completely misinformed and not the truth. I guess it’s easier to do that than admit you were wrong.

Oh wait, you won’t see this :pac:

You didn't prove anything. Your google link was wrong.

One eyed Jack · 19-02-2020 06:50PM

Boggles wrote: »

Acute mentally ill people don't always make rational decisions.

One doesn't normally chose to kill themselves, they kill themselves because they feel they have no other choice. There is a very big distinction there.

Of course she hung herself, but that does not mean certain people are not responsible for what led to that.

There’s no distinction there only semantics. One chooses to take their own life, and in any case, no - nobody else is responsible for what led to it. We don’t hold people responsible for things they haven’t done, and when someone chooses to take their own life, that’s entirely their decision. Anything else is just looking for rational explanations to explain irrational behaviour.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 06:52PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have another search did ya? :pac:

It wasnt widely reported as Caroline's blood, as you suggested. The picture was jumped on flown around and then Burton himself had to come out and clarify.

So I say again, no one is asking for reporting to stop. People are asking for this type of sh*t to stop.

But how were the press to know whose blood it was without someone clarifying? To everyone’s eyes it’s just blood. It also wasn’t stated that it was Lewis’ blood, just that there was a lot of blood, which there was.

It wasn’t until Lewis clarified that it wasn’t his when the media similarly clarified and stated same. Now if they hadn’t had done that and had stuck to their initial reporting I would agree that would have been unfair. But it seems they were happy to clarify on this matter.

And I still maintain that none of us actually know whose blood it was. Just because someone says it’s not theirs doesn’t mean it’s true, especially when this revelation comes in the middle of a pattern of downplaying the event.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 06:55PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

You didn't prove anything. Your google link was wrong.

Wrong how? The image circulated on the 1st and headlines clarified on the 2nd. Hardly leaving people to “fill in the blanks” and “manipulative”.

Boggles · 19-02-2020 06:55PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no distinction there only semantics. One chooses to take their own life, and in any case, no - nobody else is responsible for what led to it.

Really, so in cases where people are bullied to the point where they take their own lives.

The bullies should shoulder absolutely no responsibility?

Really?

Society has moved on, as has the thoughts around suicide and suicide prevention.

Harleen Quinzel · 19-02-2020 07:00PM

Hammer89 wrote: »

Right, so there's 551 words in his article from The Sun, which is directly about the 'bloodbath' angle. You have to read 357 words before there's any reference of her being cut.

The public will have read about there being a pink toothbrush on the ground, the valuation of her home and the fact there was cat-themed artwork on the wall BEFORE reading about how she was cut or shed blood too.

But it’s clearly written that she was injured.

And edit to add, I clearly added that I was sorry it was a sin link

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 07:00PM

retro:electro wrote: »

But how were the press to know whose blood it was without someone clarifying? To everyone’s eyes it’s just blood. It also wasn’t stated that it was Lewis’ blood, just that there was a lot of blood, which there was.

It wasn’t until Lewis clarified that it wasn’t his when the media similarly clarified and stated same. Now if they hadn’t had done that and had stuck to their initial reporting I would agree that would have been unfair. But it seems they were happy to clarify on this matter.

And I still maintain that none of us actually know whose blood it was. Just because someone says it’s not theirs doesn’t mean it’s true, especially when this revelation comes in the middle of a pattern of downplaying the event.

And back round we go. The photo was purchased by some no mark from some no mark and splashed all over the tabloids.

It was very much unclarified and it was cheap nasty journalism.

Tabloids and their M.O. maybe your cup of tea, but its not mine and I'd welcome the day theyre stopped pulling their lazy a**ed click bait nonsense. Particularly when it clearly added nothing but distress to the two parties involved.

One eyed Jack · 19-02-2020 07:00PM

Boggles wrote: »

Really, so in cases where people are bullied to the point where they take their own lives.

The bullies should shoulder absolutely no responsibility?

Really?

Society has moved on, as has the thoughts around suicide and suicide prevention.

Shoulder responsibility for bullying, certainly.

Shoulder responsibility for someone else’s decision to take their own life, nope.

That kind of thinking where you try and hold other people responsible for someone’s decision to take their own life leads to vigilantism and mob justice when people go looking for someone else to blame other than the person who carried out the act.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 07:04PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

And back round we go. The photo was purchased by some no mark from some no mark and splashed all over the tabloids.

It was very much unclarified and it was cheap nasty journalism.

Tabloids and their M.O. maybe your cup of tea, but its not mine and I'd welcome the day theyre stopped pulling their lazy a**ed click bait nonsense. Particularly when it clearly added nothing but distress to the two parties involved.

I agree with you that it was proper gutter stuff to even print the image. Grossly unfair to everyone involved and not in the interests of justice. You won’t get me arguing with that.

But I disagree that people were left with the lasting impression that it was Lewis’ blood. This is untrue and an exaggeration. It seems the matter was clarified as soon as Lewis took to Instagram with the clarification.

Hammer89 · 19-02-2020 07:07PM

Harleen Quinzel wrote: »

But it’s clearly written that she was injured.

And edit to add, I clearly added that I was sorry it was a sin link

It matters a great deal where that information is placed in the article because not everybody reads full news stories. That's why in any news story you read you'll read the most important information first. And the fact that The Sun on this occasion deemed the price of her home and the colour of a toothbrush on the ground more important than the fact Caroline was cut, in a story about a bloodbath, is hugely damning.

Harleen Quinzel · 19-02-2020 07:12PM

Hammer89 wrote: »

It matters a great deal where that information is placed in the article because not everybody reads full news stories. That's why in any news story you read you'll read the most important information first. And the fact that The Sun on this occasion deemed the price of her home and the colour of a toothbrush on the ground more important than the fact Caroline was cut, in a story about a bloodbath, is hugely damning.

You won’t find me disagreeing that the Sun is trash.
But earlier it was claimed that it wasn’t reported that Caroline was injured and was bleeding as a result.

Now it’s that it was reported, just too high a word count placed before it.

If someone wants to read gossip, you’ll be damn sure they’ll read to the end to get all the details.

Hammer89 · 19-02-2020 07:24PM

Harleen Quinzel wrote: »

But earlier it was claimed that it wasn’t reported that Caroline was injured and was bleeding as a result.

Well again, have a go at them. Nothing to do with me what other people said. I said The Sun let people connect the dots. And they did. If they write a story about massive blood loss and neglect to mention the fact that the perpetrator also shed blood until way down the article, after a lot of people will have stopped reading, then it's extremely significant.

Hammer89 · 19-02-2020 07:37PM

Hammer89 wrote: »

Well again, have a go at them. Nothing to do with me what other people said. I said The Sun let people connect the dots. And they did. If they write a story about massive blood loss and neglect to mention the fact that the perpetrator also shed blood until way down the article, after a lot of people will have stopped reading, then it's extremely significant.

I should probably say why it's significant because nobody gets it. But if you read that Caroline Flack struck her boyfriend with a lamp, and then see pictures of the crime scene, what are you going to do? Obviously you're going naturally assume that the blood loss happened as a result of what she did, but if you read about how she also shed blood in perhaps the next paragraph, then automatically you're given access to form a much more balanced view.

But if that information is hidden from you for literally over the half the article in this case then there's a very good chance you'll come away believing that he lost a lot of blood when she hit him. And that's a problem because a lot of people who haven't been following this as closely as us will still think that. And it's wrong and very sad.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 08:00PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I agree with you that it was proper gutter stuff to even print the image. Grossly unfair to everyone involved and not in the interests of justice. You won’t get me arguing with that.

But I disagree that people were left with the lasting impression that it was Lewis’ blood. This is untrue and an exaggeration. It seems the matter was clarified as soon as Lewis took to Instagram with the clarification.

Clarified it? The seed of doubt is still growing. Even you're asking whose blood it is. Those first reports planted a seed that not even the following reports or instagram posts from both parties could dispell.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 08:08PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Clarified it? The seed of doubt is still growing. Even you're asking whose blood it is. Those first reports planted a seed that not even the following reports or instagram posts from both parties could dispell.

The first reports didn’t know whose blood it was, so couldn’t possibly state whether it was or wasn’t Lewis’ or Caroline’s. They reported it as blood, which is what it was. Once clarified by Lewis, reports immediately addressed this and stated as much in their headlines. But yes, above all else the image shouldn’t have been published in the first place. But it will always remain in doubt whose blood it actually is unless tests results are revealed.

I guess it’s something we’re not going to agree on so let’s save everyone the hassle of reading us repeating ourselves and move on.

Harleen Quinzel · 19-02-2020 08:09PM

It’s not connecting the dots if it’s written in the article.

As I said earlier, first it wasn’t reported, then there was too high a word count before it was mentioned.

I’m leaving it at that, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

19-02-2020 08:18PM

Hammer89 wrote: »

I should probably say why it's significant because nobody gets it. But if you read that Caroline Flack struck her boyfriend with a lamp, and then see pictures of the crime scene, what are you going to do? Obviously you're going naturally assume that the blood loss happened as a result of what she did, but if you read about how she also shed blood in perhaps the next paragraph, then automatically you're given access to form a much more balanced view.

But if that information is hidden from you for literally over the half the article in this case then there's a very good chance you'll come away believing that he lost a lot of blood when she hit him. And that's a problem because a lot of people who haven't been following this as closely as us will still think that. And it's wrong and very sad.

Who cares how much blood was just when she hit her sleeping boyfriend across the head with a lamp?
I don't care how much blood there was.
& I don't see how it would make anyone think anything different?

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 08:31PM

retro:electro wrote: »

The first reports didn’t know whose blood it was, so couldn’t possibly state whether it was or wasn’t Lewis’ or Caroline’s. They reported it as blood, which is what it was. Once clarified by Lewis, reports immediately addressed this and stated as much in their headlines. But yes, above all else the image shouldn’t have been published in the first place. But it will always remain in doubt whose blood it actually is unless tests results are revealed.

I guess it’s something we’re not going to agree on so let’s save everyone the hassle of reading us repeating ourselves and move on.

It shouldnt have even been a discussion point for anyone. No, it shouldn't have been posted and thats been my point. Thats the example of the hounding she was getting. You say they clarified it as if theyd made a mistake. They only 'clarified ' it after Lewis made his post.

You can shut down conversations as much as you like, but thehounding she got was appalling and wasnt a simple reporting of events. Thats how tabloids work.

Galwayguy35 · 19-02-2020 08:32PM

Any blow to the head can be very serious, people trivializing it because they don't see rivers of blood comng out of him need to have a word with themselves.

DelaneyIn · 19-02-2020 08:34PM

Apparently the biggest reason she wanted the court case to be stopped was that the footage from the Police's bodycam when they arrived at the scene was going to be shown at the trial and it showed her in a very bad light.

This attempt by her management team and celebrity friends to try and white wash her attack is terrible.

She commited an act of violence against her boyfriend. She smashed him with a lamp whilst he slept. The Police arrived and arrested her. The CPS had viewed the evidence including the Bodycam footage and have deemed it serious enough for her to go to trial.

The message they are trying to put that vulnerable people shouldn't face prosecution is a very dangerous one. Domestic Violence is a massive problem in the UK.

By trying to excuse what she did is only going to make the situation worse.

retro:electro · 19-02-2020 08:37PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It shouldnt have even been a discussion point for anyone. No, it shouldn't have been posted and thats been my point. Thats the example of the hounding she was getting. You say they clarified it as if theyd made a mistake. They only 'clarified ' it after Lewis made his post.

You can shut down conversations as much as you like, but thehounding she got was appalling and wasnt a simple reporting of events. Thats how tabloids work.

I agree it shouldn’t have been up for discussion, I’ve literally made this point at least four times now. I disagree people were left to fill in the blanks and the public were manipulated. I’ve known for some time now that Lewis was claiming this was not his blood and I don’t remember feeling duped by this revelation.

And I’m not shutting down discussion, I’m saying we are going back and forth and around in circles and saying absolutely nothing new in the process. So this is pointless and futile. You may continue with someone else if you wish.

Hannibal_Smith · 19-02-2020 08:37PM

retro:electro wrote: »

They didn’t let us connect the dots. I remember it being widely reported that it was Caroline’s blood.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=caroline+flack+blood+bedroom&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ie&client=safari

These results are all from 2nd of January. They mostly all clarify in the headline that the blood is hers.

And even so, you’re just as bad as people who believe the tabloids version of events- you’re just believing the opposite. We actually have no idea whose blood it is, and wouldn’t have known until it was brought to trial. Lewis is denying it was his but he also denied he was ever hit. So there’s that.

retro:electro wrote: »

Wrong how? The image circulated on the 1st and headlines clarified on the 2nd. Hardly leaving people to “fill in the blanks” and “manipulative”.

Your post above claims that you remembered it was widely reported as being Caroline's blood. You are wrong. It was only after Lewis spoke out the media mentioned it could be her blood. You did a quick google and tried to rewrite history with it.

borderlinemeath · 19-02-2020 08:37PM

Hammer89 wrote: »

I should probably say why it's significant because nobody gets it. But if you read that Caroline Flack struck her boyfriend with a lamp, and then see pictures of the crime scene, what are you going to do? Obviously you're going naturally assume that the blood loss happened as a result of what she did, but if you read about how she also shed blood in perhaps the next paragraph, then automatically you're given access to form a much more balanced view.

But if that information is hidden from you for literally over the half the article in this case then there's a very good chance you'll come away believing that he lost a lot of blood when she hit him. And that's a problem because a lot of people who haven't been following this as closely as us will still think that. And it's wrong and very sad.

Another thing to point out about this - If you happen to be reading a hard copy of whatever trash tabloid is running it - be it the sun/mirror/star etc. It's exceptionally common to print a massive headline, 3 lines of sensationalism and say "continues on page 9" etc. Even with articles that aren't front page news, continuing an article many pages down the paper is par for the course. Sometimes you might put the paper down before you get there, other times you might miss the end of the article by skimming through headlines*

*I have never in my life, ever purchased a copy of a tabloid newspaper. I have however read them in communal work canteens and coffee shops.

Caroline Flack found dead

Comments