Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Even if there were such a text, it is not necessarily reliable or believable. A grieving person in a state of shock can say all kinds of things that are not true. In addition, how do we know when someone has a real memory versus a false memory? Can we believe anything anyone says? |
Anonymous
| Can’t wait for y'all to resurface for the Luigi trials! |
Anonymous
He didn’t have a bruise that would be explained by a car. How could she have hit him so hard it broke her tail light but not hard enough to leave a bruise? Why did the investigators not go into the house after a dead person was found on the lawn? |
Anonymous
Are you delusional? When someone says they killed someone, we tend to believe them. |
Anonymous
Free Luigi - we should make him the coordinator of the guillotines when we rise up to overpower the ultra wealthy, as Johann Rupert says is imminent: “How is society going to cope with structural unemployment and the envy, hatred and the social warfare?” he said. “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us. It’s unfair. So that’s what keeps me awake at night.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/cartier-boss-with-7-5bn-fortune-says-prospect-poor-rising-up-keeps-him-awake-at-night-10307485.html |
Anonymous
Would you care to do some research on the effects of very cold temperatures on the formation of bruises and get back to us with an opinion about why hypothermic 80 degree John O’Keefe didn’t exhibit the bruises one might typically see from a glancing clip to the elbow, knee and forehead by a motor vehicle? Thanks in advance. |
Anonymous
He had a bruises on his head and his arms. But not his body. Not even a scratch where they supposedly found shards of tail light. |
Anonymous
Nah the CW should’ve pointed that out if they thought it germane to the case. |
Anonymous
It is not at all uncommon for someone who has suddenly lost a loved one to have feelings of guilt and thoughts that they may be at fault somehow. Grief shows up in many different ways and people can experience it in ways that others may think are odd or extreme. The “false memory” is an allusion to Kelly Dever who testified to the FBI about an entire scene she said she saw and then went back and said, “Whoops, that was a “false memory.” I never could have seen what I said I saw.” Apparently people can just say things, even under oath, but can later say the opposite, no harm, no foul, because it’s a “false memory.” |
Anonymous
But why erase the Ring camera and get rid of the dog then? It's not just that they fabricated evidence to nail her... That I could believe was over zealous police work to nail the person who they "knew" was guilty. It's that they eliminated other evidence. Deleting the Ring video almost certainly means that the narrative of she hit him, he fell down and died and no one saw him until morning is false. It could be that she did it... but they found him earlier and left his body there. It could be that a dog was somehow involved in knocking him down or attacking him once he was down. I don't know. But I don't know how the deletion of the Ring video and getting rid of a family pet couldn't leave you with reasonable doubt about the official narrative. |
Anonymous
Okay fool The sky is falling. |
Anonymous
Yeah. And he had dog teeth marks on his arm. It’s also not at all normal for someone to destroy their cell phones in a military base dumpster instead of removing the sim card and trading them in. I can’t tell what happened that night other than lots of adults being irresponsible, but those homeowner cops are hiding whatever happened. |
Anonymous
The only Ring camera video that was erased was from John's house, and the only person who could have done it was Karen, because John was dying on the front lawn of 34 Fairview where she left him after she hit him. That house did not have Ring camera. The house across the street had a different brand of door camera, battery operated, which was positioned so it only captured the front doorstep and a very small part of the lawn in front of *that* house - not the road and not the lawn of the house across the street. The idea that camera footage which might have captured the collision between Karen's vehicle and John's body was erased is pure FKR nonsense - and of course, the magically think it was footage of John being dragged onto the lawn by his dear friends who had just murdered him. STUPID. The dog was rehomed months after John's death, shortly after the dog got into a fight with another dog and bit the neighbor who tried to break the dog fight up. The dog's rehoming has ZERO to do with John's death. John's injuries did not come from a dog, there was no dog DNA on his clothing nor any dog hair. Another magical thinking FKR cult fabrication. Karen Read got wasted and in her rage she backed into her boyfriend who had been trying to break up with her for weeks. This was a domestic violence murder. The sickest thing about the majority of posts in this thread is that you'd be raging if Kurt Read had mowed down Julie O'Keefe and left her to die in the cold and the snow. |
Anonymous
This doesn’t align with what the first trial discovered. Why are you ignoring the cell phone disposal? And the home renovations? And the mirrored video? A doctor and dog bite expert testified that those were dog teeth marks. If you don’t think it’s suspicious that their dog was rehomed for biting just months after a guy died in their lawn with dog bite marks, you have an agenda that no one can talk you out of. Karen may have done what you said, but the cops and homeowners have behaved suspiciously enough and there are enough experts weighing in that there’s no way around reasonable doubt. If she did it and got away with it, it’s because they all bungled it terribly. The house was never even inspected as part of the investigation. It would have really helped their case if the cops had knocked on the door that night and looked inside as one would expect when a dead body is found in your yard. |
Anonymous
|
“That house did not have Ring camera. The house across the street had a different brand of door camera, battery operated, which was positioned so it only captured the front doorstep and a very small part of the lawn in front of *that* house - not the road and not the lawn of the house across the street.”
There is no proof that this is true, because the homeowner never turned over the footage from the hours in which this event occurred. The court had no idea how the homeowner’s camera was focused because the footage was never viewed by law enforcement. The only information the court has is Yuri Buchenick testifying that he was familiar with that camera as he knew the homeowner so he didn’t bother asking for the footage because he knew it wouldn’t have anything of value. Does anyone know if the investigators knocked on doors up and down the street to ask if anyone had camera footage they could share? It could have been very useful just to see when various vehicles drove in and out of the neighborhood and could have helped greatly to narrow down the timeline. |