Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

Yeah, it’s wild. Their poor logic and critical thinking is frightening.

It's YOU folks who don't understand the legal standard for reasonable doubt. Last trial with a much less effective CW presentation 9 of 12 jurors were prepared to convict. This time around I suspect a conviction is highly likely There are people in prisons all over this country convicted on less evidence than in this case.

You folks either don't grasp the legal standard for reasonable doubt or you are drinking FKR propaganda and have not paid attention to the actual, admissible evidence that makes up the record in this case which the jurors will deliberate on.

Tick tock, Karen.

Meh. I wouldn't convict. This case is too much of a mess.

-Lawyer

Well I would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defenses 24 mph experiment proved karen hit him.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

Yeah, it’s wild. Their poor logic and critical thinking is frightening.

Can you listen to yourself??? A cop with no motive killing another cop and then not only covering up the murder but framing Karen for the murder seems way more sane than her backing up at 25 MPH (let me know when you have reversed that fast ever in your life) and hitting John seems "nuts." Listen to yourselves you are not well. Occam's razor 1B%.

You don’t seem to understand what “reasonable doubt” is or the role it plays in criminal trials.

[Anonymous]

Karen the only one to spot a snow covered body on a lawn in the dark at 6am.
Karen who said to no less than 8 people "i hit him"
Karen who pulled glass out of johns nose.
Karen how called him over 60 times that night.
Karen who drove 70 feet driving backwards at 25 mph and has a smashed taillight.
Karen who called her parents 3 times in the middle of the night that night but no other night.
John would be alive if he was never with karen that night. There is no doubt here at all. Shes a murderer. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defenses 24 mph experiment proved karen hit him.

Haven't been following the 2nd trial. 24 mph seems to be really fast while driving in reverse. I'm skeptical how anyone could calculate with any precision how fast you would need to be traveling to break a tail light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defenses 24 mph experiment proved karen hit him.

Haven't been following the 2nd trial. 24 mph seems to be really fast while driving in reverse. I'm skeptical how anyone could calculate with any precision how fast you would need to be traveling to break a tail light.

Are you also skeptical of physics? Engineering?

Both the CW and the defense presented experts in both fields who proved the speed required to break the tail light. Sadly for the defense, their expert proved the CW's theory of the case.

You should spend some of your reading budget on science writing. It's really quite interesting the things that can be proven by applied science.

And yes, 24 mph is really fast driving in reverse. Karen's Lexus recorded her going that speed, in reverse. Any of the criminal lawyers on the board with any experience defending or prosecuting DUI/OUI cases have seen outrageous driving behavior engaged in by drunk drivers. Karen consumed 9 shots of alcohol in the space of 3 hours before she backed her Lexus into John. She weighs ~100lbs soaking wet. Doesn't take science - although science can be applied to the variables - to figure out she was drunk when she did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

NP and I agree. The fact that there are two other possible scenarios with evidence for each would make me feel unsure as a juror.

The sad thing is, if she is guilty, and the Boston police officers were totally innocent of any wrongdoing or tampering whatsoever? Sorry Boston PD, you’ve already proven yourself to be unreliable too many times, too corrupt in too many cases, for there not to be reasonable doubt now. Cop murder and cover-up? In Boston? Yeah, that’s a plausible theory.

Yeah a cop murder and cover up is way more likely and sane as to what happened that snowy night. That's just so incredibly stupid. Really, really dumb. Occam's razor--that's critical thinking.

💯
Keep it real folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defenses 24 mph experiment proved karen hit him.

Haven't been following the 2nd trial. 24 mph seems to be really fast while driving in reverse. I'm skeptical how anyone could calculate with any precision how fast you would need to be traveling to break a tail light.

Try driving backwards like that you'll get to about 5-6 MPH then get too scared to go faster. She was angry and he took the hit for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defenses 24 mph experiment proved karen hit him.

Haven't been following the 2nd trial. 24 mph seems to be really fast while driving in reverse. I'm skeptical how anyone could calculate with any precision how fast you would need to be traveling to break a tail light.

Are you also skeptical of physics? Engineering?

Both the CW and the defense presented experts in both fields who proved the speed required to break the tail light. Sadly for the defense, their expert proved the CW's theory of the case.

You should spend some of your reading budget on science writing. It's really quite interesting the things that can be proven by applied science.

And yes, 24 mph is really fast driving in reverse. Karen's Lexus recorded her going that speed, in reverse. Any of the criminal lawyers on the board with any experience defending or prosecuting DUI/OUI cases have seen outrageous driving behavior engaged in by drunk drivers. Karen consumed 9 shots of alcohol in the space of 3 hours before she backed her Lexus into John. She weighs ~100lbs soaking wet. Doesn't take science - although science can be applied to the variables - to figure out she was drunk when she did it.

I'm actually a big fan of engineering. But just because someone is an engineer, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be skeptical, especially when they're testifying in a high profile court case. And oftentimes experts have differing opinions, so it's not as simple as just believing in science or whatever. There may also be disagreement regarding the angle or body part that struck the vehicle, so not sure how exacting your calculation can be if you get that part wrong. Did the other expert give a speed estimate that the nut job was driving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are following this case at all, I don't understand how you can possibly say there is no reasonable doubt. The state has the burden here, they need to prove her guilt, she doesn't need to prove her innocence.

Nobody has ever asserted that she has to - please stop dealing in non sequitors.

AGAIN, the amount of evidence in this case, admitted into the record, taken as a whole, is plentiful to overcome reasonable doubt in a reasonable juror.

Whether it will or not remains to be seen, but those of you belaboring this point based on speculation and fabrication not admitted into evidence but part of the FKR propaganda are just being silly and revealing your ignorance of the criminal law in this country.

People are sitting in prison as we speak convicted to a life sentence for murder of a victim whose body was never found, whose cause of death was never established, etc.

Jurors are not supposed to toss a case based on doubt about a single piece of evidence - they are supposed to look at the evidence in its totality, the pieces of a puzzle that put together bring a case into focus and get them beyond reasonable doubt. You people are arguing unreasonable doubts and while I will certainly agree that some jurors likewise mess up the standard just as you are doing, that doesn't make it right.

The CW has presented a garbage case (twice) and has yet to provide proof he was hit by a car and died due to car impact injuries.

The totality of the case is Proctor and company doing an incredibly terrible investigation and the CW bringing up career grifters who can’t even earn a bachelors degree to argue the case.

Sorry, honey. Go lick some more boots.

[Anonymous]

Passive aggressive lawyer nerds are really loving this thread.

I'm getting Stephen Miller type vibes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The defenses 24 mph experiment proved karen hit him.

Haven't been following the 2nd trial. 24 mph seems to be really fast while driving in reverse. I'm skeptical how anyone could calculate with any precision how fast you would need to be traveling to break a tail light.

Are you also skeptical of physics? Engineering?

Both the CW and the defense presented experts in both fields who proved the speed required to break the tail light. Sadly for the defense, their expert proved the CW's theory of the case.

You should spend some of your reading budget on science writing. It's really quite interesting the things that can be proven by applied science.

And yes, 24 mph is really fast driving in reverse. Karen's Lexus recorded her going that speed, in reverse. Any of the criminal lawyers on the board with any experience defending or prosecuting DUI/OUI cases have seen outrageous driving behavior engaged in by drunk drivers. Karen consumed 9 shots of alcohol in the space of 3 hours before she backed her Lexus into John. She weighs ~100lbs soaking wet. Doesn't take science - although science can be applied to the variables - to figure out she was drunk when she did it.

I'm actually a big fan of engineering. But just because someone is an engineer, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be skeptical, especially when they're testifying in a high profile court case. And oftentimes experts have differing opinions, so it's not as simple as just believing in science or whatever. There may also be disagreement regarding the angle or body part that struck the vehicle, so not sure how exacting your calculation can be if you get that part wrong. Did the other expert give a speed estimate that the nut job was driving?

A speed estimate isn’t necessary with the vehicle’s EDR having recorded the speed. The tail light issue was tested at a range of speeds because we cannot know the exact speed at moment of impact. The guy with three decades of experience in accident reconstruction and biomedical engineering asserted that the light could break at 8mph, the guy with a dozen years experience posited 17mph - the reenactment they filmed with a crash dummy broke the tail light at that speed and that’s well within the speed range recorded by the vehicle’s EDR during the event so her experts basically proved the Commonwealth’s theory of the case.

Accident reconstruction is fascinating stuff and utilized in court rooms across America every day in both civil litigation and criminal prosecution.

[Anonymous]

I do not find her likable but she didn’t kill him.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't be able to convict in good conscience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

Yeah, it’s wild. Their poor logic and critical thinking is frightening.

It's YOU folks who don't understand the legal standard for reasonable doubt. Last trial with a much less effective CW presentation 9 of 12 jurors were prepared to convict. This time around I suspect a conviction is highly likely There are people in prisons all over this country convicted on less evidence than in this case.

You folks either don't grasp the legal standard for reasonable doubt or you are drinking FKR propaganda and have not paid attention to the actual, admissible evidence that makes up the record in this case which the jurors will deliberate on.

Tick tock, Karen.

Meh. I wouldn't convict. This case is too much of a mess.

-Lawyer

Well I would.

well, you would be wrong then. there is way too much reasonable doubt.