Simon Barrett of BNNBNN’s latest spin is called in the trade of Spin Doctoring changing the subject. They are trying to change the subject from BNN accusing one journalist and one good Samaritan of financing an alleged drug and alcoholic binge of Lisa; to where is the police report? They are pretending that they never metaphorically kicked Lisa Croslin while she was down on her luck, all for the sake of hits to BNN.

In Haleigh Cummings Update – Lisa Croslin Crashes And Burns Simon Barrett wrote:

“Where did Lisa Croslin get the money from to buy the drugs? And where did the money for the booze come from?

Lisa herself mentioned two names last night. … One I feel was just trying to be another good (if misguided) Samaritan, the other conjures up more sinister journalistic ambitions.
…
Lisa Croslin was at a local emergency facility, drunk, and higher than a kite on Xanax. She was released at some point overnight.
…
While none of this story is likely to come as any big surprise to readers that have been following the Haleigh Cummings case, there are questions that still need to be answered.”

There is nothing to speculate about, here. It is all in black and white. Simon Barrett has, yet, to apologize nor has he officially retracted his statements. There is absolutely no proof for the defamatory assertions of the BNN boys other than the word of a snitch. I was always of the opinion that the person making the assertion has the obligation to supply the proof. But apparently in the dreamworld of the BNN boys, all of above facts do not exist. Nor, did the actions of the BNN boys ever take place.

In her written statement, Kim Picazio, allegedly said it best.

“In my opinion, a person who recently befriends Lisa Croslin at Church, persuades Lisa to confide in her, allows Lisa to believe she is there to help and guide her, then snitches all of Lisa’s personal information to Simon Barrett, is no ‘Good Samaritan’ – that is deceitful, and immoral, in my opinion. This person who Simon calls a ‘Good Samaritan’ was calling him and Jan in the middle of the night from the hallways of the hospital, telling them private information about her ‘friend’? And what is even worse, is Simon either intentionally reported this fabricated headliner of Lisa being drunk and high at the medical center, or he was irresponsible enough not to check the validity of the information. In either instance, he should be ashamed of himself. This story was written in glee by the likes of Simon Barrett, who saw it as a chance to pit his readers against Art, and me, and to take advantage of Lisa Croslin. Whether you like her, or hate her, to lie about her recovery, her personal life, and her medical status, then publicize the same on the internet, is just unconscionable. And Jan can just quit the ‘we wouldn’t stoop so low as to give an addict money’ act – No, Jan, you’d just make sure your snitch called in and reported on Lisa’s every move. Even better – you’d demand ‘answers to questions from Lisa’ (actually, the Good Samaritan – Lisa has never spoken to you or Simon Barrett), in exchange for a call to your readers for assistance for Lisa? The ole’ quid pro quo! Wow – BNN’s just in it ‘for Haleigh’ alright.”

Isn’t anybody else besides Kim “abhorred that any person holding themselves out to be giving its readers factual, investigative information on this case, would use another human being’s misfortunes to score a few points against an enemy. To toss aside a struggling individual’s good faith attempt at becoming clean and sober for the sole purpose of airing a scandalous, detailed account of a relapse into drugs and alcohol, is the height of yellow-journalism. The loyal readers at BNN were misled. They were handed a bag of goods. This fabricated story was obviously written to incite outrage at Simon’s arch nemesis, Art Harris, who was coyly mentioned in the customary cliffhanger punch line at the tail end of the piece. Aren’t we all just exhausted with these snide innuendos that never lead to anything or anyone? Unfortunately, it keeps the loyal BNN reader hitting that website, … It’s like preying on good people’s thirst for honest information – and keeping their pallet just wet enough to keep them coming back for more. More of what, is the question.”

About these ads