Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have to acquit on the 47 pieces of tail light alone. There’s no way that she shattered her tail light into 47 pieces hitting human flesh. And that’s before the butt dials, rehomed dogs, renovated basements, cop never coming out of the house to help, destroyed phones, missing ring camera footage, late night police station visits, inverted sallyport video. I’m surprised the prosecution had the audacity to bring this case a second time.

Same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have to acquit on the 47 pieces of tail light alone. There’s no way that she shattered her tail light into 47 pieces hitting human flesh. And that’s before the butt dials, rehomed dogs, renovated basements, cop never coming out of the house to help, destroyed phones, missing ring camera footage, late night police station visits, inverted sallyport video. I’m surprised the prosecution had the audacity to bring this case a second time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Yeah, that poster is dumb.

“Exculpatory" means tending to clear someone of blame or guilt. It's the opposite of inculpatory, which refers to something that tends to incriminate. In a legal context, exculpatory evidence is evidence that supports a defendant's innocence.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

Yea… the but with what damage to the arm. When the medical person from arca testifies next week it will be a TKO. No way someone walks away with not even a bruise to the arm from that type of hit…

Are you familiar with the effect that very cold temperatures have on bruise formation? Go do some research. It’s common sense that bruising takes hours to days to fully establish - but John lay in the cold and snow on frozen ground and was dead 5.5 hours later.

How does your theory account for an intact taillight lens until after the car was taken into police custody?

She killed him, AND ALSO—with absolutely no idea what evidence already existed—the cops decided they had to take the extra risk of breaking her taillight and distributing the pieces back at the scene of the death?

Put simply: what is your explanation for how taillight from Karen’s car was both intact after the crash and later distributed at the scene of the crash?

No answer. Really?

[Anonymous]

DP. I find it completely believable that she hit him, and also the cops later broke it and distributed it to ensure a conviction, and in so doing, actually created reasonable doubt which may get her off. That's certainly more plausible than the cops killing him and dumping him in their own front lawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. I find it completely believable that she hit him, and also the cops later broke it and distributed it to ensure a conviction, and in so doing, actually created reasonable doubt which may get her off. That's certainly more plausible than the cops killing him and dumping him in their own front lawn.

I can see why you might go this third way, but please go back and look at the actual evidence admitted into the record at this trial.

There was not enough time to plant tail light evidence, even IF you believe that the police broke her tail light in the sally port and don't trust your own eyes to see the tail light is already missing at the 5am Ring camera recorded departure from John's driveway and the 8am welfare check dashcam of the responding Canton PD. It is exactly as much missing as it is later in the sally port, minus all the packed in snow that was in the dashcam video.

The time that the vehicle arrived at the sally port and the time that the SERT team began searching 34 Fairview doesn't allow for the planting of tail light especially not as it was mostly recovered over the following weeks as the more than foot of snow finally melted away from the scene.

The accident reconstructionist and biomedical engineer with 30 years' experience showed that the tail light can be broken by hitting a person as low as 8mph according to his calculations. The defendant's much less experienced reconstructionist proved the tail light could be shattered at 17 and 24mph, both of which are consistent with CW's theory of case. Welcher testified that we can never know the exact physics of the collision so we can never get the maths exact - but the CW's theory of the case falls within the reasonable parameters calculated from what we CAN and DO know.

There is PLENTY of room for a reasonable jury to get back reasonable doubt with the body of evidence admitted thus far - and the CW still has a rebuttal case to put on.

I hope Karen is enjoying this cloudy/rainy weekend in the greater Boston area. Likely to be one of her last in a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. I find it completely believable that she hit him, and also the cops later broke it and distributed it to ensure a conviction, and in so doing, actually created reasonable doubt which may get her off. That's certainly more plausible than the cops killing him and dumping him in their own front lawn.

Possible. Also possible that this poor man stumbled and fell backward when a large dog jumped up at him. The neurologist testified that it is not at all uncommon for intoxicated people to fall backward and incur head injuries exactly like that found on Mr. O’Keefe.

The irony here is that most likely no one was to blame and this sad event was a very unfortunate accident. Massachusetts has spent a lot of taxpayer money trying to pin the blame on someone when actually no one is to blame. Very sad all around.

I wonder if more people in that neighborhood have put up cameras after this event. I live in a similar suburb and lots of people in my neighborhood have cameras up, even back in 2022. I think it’s unusual that no one on that street had cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder if more people in that neighborhood have put up cameras after this event. I live in a similar suburb and lots of people in my neighborhood have cameras up, even back in 2022. I think it’s unusual that no one on that street had cameras.

We have a Ring doorbell but not a subscription that tapes. I don't see any utility in taping. The cops' job is not my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder if more people in that neighborhood have put up cameras after this event. I live in a similar suburb and lots of people in my neighborhood have cameras up, even back in 2022. I think it’s unusual that no one on that street had cameras.

We have a Ring doorbell but not a subscription that tapes. I don't see any utility in taping. The cops' job is not my job.

Lots of people do have the cameras tape though. When we were looking at cameras and we talked to neighbors for advice, most of them said that they had a subscription. They’re not terribly expensive and a lot of people like the idea of there being a record, should something happen.

[Anonymous]

Crazy lady poster who hates KR and is obsessed with her getting convicted - how have you made peace with the fact that JOK was a real piece of work? A cop who routinely drove drunk, as did his buddies, because they knew they’d never get caught. A cop who asked his wasted girlfriend to drive him around town because he knew he would get in trouble. What a total POS. Do they not have uber in this tragic town? Seriously. He was a corrupt, bad person who was wasted. I can’t imagine why you’re so invested in this.

[Anonymous]

Karens a nut job. I hope she's found guilty soon since clearly she's the one who did it. She should never get out of prison. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crazy lady poster who hates KR and is obsessed with her getting convicted - how have you made peace with the fact that JOK was a real piece of work? A cop who routinely drove drunk, as did his buddies, because they knew they’d never get caught. A cop who asked his wasted girlfriend to drive him around town because he knew he would get in trouble. What a total POS. Do they not have uber in this tragic town? Seriously. He was a corrupt, bad person who was wasted. I can’t imagine why you’re so invested in this.

They definitely have Uber in Norfolk County FWIW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would have to acquit on the 47 pieces of tail light alone. There’s no way that she shattered her tail light into 47 pieces hitting human flesh. And that’s before the butt dials, rehomed dogs, renovated basements, cop never coming out of the house to help, destroyed phones, missing ring camera footage, late night police station visits, inverted sallyport video. I’m surprised the prosecution had the audacity to bring this case a second time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I find it completely believable that she hit him, and also the cops later broke it and distributed it to ensure a conviction, and in so doing, actually created reasonable doubt which may get her off. That's certainly more plausible than the cops killing him and dumping him in their own front lawn.

I can see why you might go this third way, but please go back and look at the actual evidence admitted into the record at this trial.

There was not enough time to plant tail light evidence, even IF you believe that the police broke her tail light in the sally port and don't trust your own eyes to see the tail light is already missing at the 5am Ring camera recorded departure from John's driveway and the 8am welfare check dashcam of the responding Canton PD. It is exactly as much missing as it is later in the sally port, minus all the packed in snow that was in the dashcam video.

The time that the vehicle arrived at the sally port and the time that the SERT team began searching 34 Fairview doesn't allow for the planting of tail light especially not as it was mostly recovered over the following weeks as the more than foot of snow finally melted away from the scene.

The accident reconstructionist and biomedical engineer with 30 years' experience showed that the tail light can be broken by hitting a person as low as 8mph according to his calculations. The defendant's much less experienced reconstructionist proved the tail light could be shattered at 17 and 24mph, both of which are consistent with CW's theory of case. Welcher testified that we can never know the exact physics of the collision so we can never get the maths exact - but the CW's theory of the case falls within the reasonable parameters calculated from what we CAN and DO know.

There is PLENTY of room for a reasonable jury to get back reasonable doubt with the body of evidence admitted thus far - and the CW still has a rebuttal case to put on.

I hope Karen is enjoying this cloudy/rainy weekend in the greater Boston area. Likely to be one of her last in a long time.

Wasn’t it recently shown that the police had the car longer than originally thought?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I find it completely believable that she hit him, and also the cops later broke it and distributed it to ensure a conviction, and in so doing, actually created reasonable doubt which may get her off. That's certainly more plausible than the cops killing him and dumping him in their own front lawn.

I can see why you might go this third way, but please go back and look at the actual evidence admitted into the record at this trial.

There was not enough time to plant tail light evidence, even IF you believe that the police broke her tail light in the sally port and don't trust your own eyes to see the tail light is already missing at the 5am Ring camera recorded departure from John's driveway and the 8am welfare check dashcam of the responding Canton PD. It is exactly as much missing as it is later in the sally port, minus all the packed in snow that was in the dashcam video.

The time that the vehicle arrived at the sally port and the time that the SERT team began searching 34 Fairview doesn't allow for the planting of tail light especially not as it was mostly recovered over the following weeks as the more than foot of snow finally melted away from the scene.

The accident reconstructionist and biomedical engineer with 30 years' experience showed that the tail light can be broken by hitting a person as low as 8mph according to his calculations. The defendant's much less experienced reconstructionist proved the tail light could be shattered at 17 and 24mph, both of which are consistent with CW's theory of case. Welcher testified that we can never know the exact physics of the collision so we can never get the maths exact - but the CW's theory of the case falls within the reasonable parameters calculated from what we CAN and DO know.

There is PLENTY of room for a reasonable jury to get back reasonable doubt with the body of evidence admitted thus far - and the CW still has a rebuttal case to put on.

I hope Karen is enjoying this cloudy/rainy weekend in the greater Boston area. Likely to be one of her last in a long time.

Wasn’t it recently shown that the police had the car longer than originally thought?

Yes. Proctor lied about when the car was picked up. The whole investigation was shoddy as hell. There’s no way to convict on that alone.