Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in the house “butt dialing” at 1-4 a.m., and they can’t recall 22-second phone calls? Brian Higgins drive to a military base get rid of the SIM card and the phone he destroyed, the same one that he used that night?

In what universe is there not at least reasonable doubt? She is innocent.

I don’t think that was part of the testimony in this trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in the house “butt dialing” at 1-4 a.m., and they can’t recall 22-second phone calls? Brian Higgins drive to a military base get rid of the SIM card and the phone he destroyed, the same one that he used that night?

In what universe is there not at least reasonable doubt? She is innocent.

I don’t think that was part of the testimony in this trial.

It wasn't, but I bet some of the jurors know about it. They took people who knew about the case onto the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in the house “butt dialing” at 1-4 a.m., and they can’t recall 22-second phone calls? Brian Higgins drive to a military base get rid of the SIM card and the phone he destroyed, the same one that he used that night?

In what universe is there not at least reasonable doubt? She is innocent.

I don’t think that was part of the testimony in this trial.

It wasn't, but I bet some of the jurors know about it. They took people who knew about the case onto the jury.

They very much are not supposed to bring outside knowledge to this case. Though I have to wonder how many of them really have been able to completely isolate themselves from it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in the house “butt dialing” at 1-4 a.m., and they can’t recall 22-second phone calls? Brian Higgins drive to a military base get rid of the SIM card and the phone he destroyed, the same one that he used that night?

In what universe is there not at least reasonable doubt? She is innocent.

I don’t think that was part of the testimony in this trial.

It wasn't, but I bet some of the jurors know about it. They took people who knew about the case onto the jury.

Wow really and yet they go to ridiculous efforts to say the prior proceeding so the jury won't know there was a previous trial.

[Anonymous]

I have read all over and listened to podcasts from all angles. Here are my thoughts.

I think the evidence (her words, the timing, etc.) can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. I think it is likely they got in a fight and he threw the glass at the car and she backed up and hit him. In her drunk haze she knew it too but was still very confused and probably remains so.

That said, it is the weird actions of the people in the house that could cause me to think twice. What is up with the lies about butt dials, the going to the PD in the middle of the night in a snowstorm, the disposing of phones, etc? Were they hiding something else that made it look like they were hiding his murder or accidental death? Very strange.

I think it is possible this is a guilty verdict because the jury was not presented with some of the weird/unexplainable actions by the people in the house that are common knowledge if you follow the case.

[Anonymous]

If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.

Does anyone know if there were given any instructions on what is permissible as an inference? For instance if it is undisputed (I know you can poke holes in expert testimony, just assume for the purposes of this question it's true) that Karen backed her car up around the same time that John's phone stopped working, even if there is no actual evidence of collision, can the jury infer that a collision occurred?

I would throw out the taillight stuff as corroborating evidence in support of the inference, because of the photo and video evidence presented, plus Dever's bizarre testimony. I think you'll probably have a couple jurors who would refuse to accept that as evidence.

That may leave jurors looking at the evidence and possibly not even disagreeing about it (Karen backed up; John's phone stopped), with some of them inferring a collision (assuming that's permissible) but others not (similarly assuming such inference is not mandatory).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.

Does anyone know if there were given any instructions on what is permissible as an inference? For instance if it is undisputed (I know you can poke holes in expert testimony, just assume for the purposes of this question it's true) that Karen backed her car up around the same time that John's phone stopped working, even if there is no actual evidence of collision, can the jury infer that a collision occurred?

I would throw out the taillight stuff as corroborating evidence in support of the inference, because of the photo and video evidence presented, plus Dever's bizarre testimony. I think you'll probably have a couple jurors who would refuse to accept that as evidence.

That may leave jurors looking at the evidence and possibly not even disagreeing about it (Karen backed up; John's phone stopped), with some of them inferring a collision (assuming that's permissible) but others not (similarly assuming such inference is not mandatory).

Standard jury instructions in a criminal case say something to the effect of "you can draw any reasonable conclusion from the evidence that you believe is justified by common sense and your experiences." The instructions will never provide a more granular explanation than that.

There's also no such thing as a mandatory inference in a criminal case. There are permissible inferences (for example, if a defendant is found in recent possession of stolen property, the jury can infer he stole it), but mandatory inferences violate the right to trial by jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.

Does anyone know if there were given any instructions on what is permissible as an inference? For instance if it is undisputed (I know you can poke holes in expert testimony, just assume for the purposes of this question it's true) that Karen backed her car up around the same time that John's phone stopped working, even if there is no actual evidence of collision, can the jury infer that a collision occurred?

I would throw out the taillight stuff as corroborating evidence in support of the inference, because of the photo and video evidence presented, plus Dever's bizarre testimony. I think you'll probably have a couple jurors who would refuse to accept that as evidence.

That may leave jurors looking at the evidence and possibly not even disagreeing about it (Karen backed up; John's phone stopped), with some of them inferring a collision (assuming that's permissible) but others not (similarly assuming such inference is not mandatory).

Standard jury instructions in a criminal case say something to the effect of "you can draw any reasonable conclusion from the evidence that you believe is justified by common sense and your experiences." The instructions will never provide a more granular explanation than that.

There's also no such thing as a mandatory inference in a criminal case. There are permissible inferences (for example, if a defendant is found in recent possession of stolen property, the jury can infer he stole it), but mandatory inferences violate the right to trial by jury.

That's helpful thanks. I am curious, putting everything else aside, based on the 2 above pieces of evidence, what people here think:
1. The only reasonable inference is that Karen's car hit John
2. While you understand that someone could reasonably infer that Karen's car hit John, you yourself do not draw that conclusion from the evidence; or
3. It would be unreasonable to infer that Karen's car hit John

[Anonymous]

I bet she did it, and the cops in the house saw, and let him die in the cold because they were in the middle of shady things and couldn’t bring emergency services to the house right then without getting in trouble for their own illegal stuff.

[Anonymous]

There are many many many things that can only or best be explained by her hitting him with her car. The Lexus data and her behavior and statements post the event support a verdict of guilty on the second degree charges.

A timeline narrative from a post in the subreddit r/KarenReadSanity.

The Timeline Test

Did Karen consume 7–9 drinks between 8:51 p.m. and 10:54 p.m.?
[✓] Confirmed by timestamps from CF McCarthy’s and the Waterfall. Vodka + Fireball included.

At 12:12 a.m., did Karen and John leave the Waterfall together in the Lexus?
[✓] Vehicle ignition, GPS, and phone data all say yes.

At 12:18 a.m., did Karen miss the Cedarcrest turn while John was on the phone with Jen?
[✓] Verified by Lexus GPS, Waze log, and call metadata.

At 12:21 a.m., did they turn onto Oakdale from Maplecroft?
[✓] GPS confirms this route.

At 12:22 a.m., was John’s phone logging stair activity while located nowhere near the house?
[✓] Yes. It logged 3 flights of stairs, but GPS showed him on Oakdale—half a mile away from Fairview.

At 12:23 a.m., did Karen miss the Fairview turn again?
[✓] Supported by GPS track.

At 12:24 a.m., did she perform a 3-point turn?
[✓] Captured by both Lexus Techstream (Trigger Event #1) and iPhone movement logs.

At 12:25 a.m., did she encounter the F150—and was John still in the Lexus?
[✓] Witnesses say yes. John’s phone still in pocket state.

At 12:25 a.m., did Karen pull up to the flagpole?
[✓] Confirmed by Ryan Nagel’s testimony and GPS data.

Did the F150 group leave without seeing anyone exit the Lexus—or any taillight damage?
[✓] Yes. No exit, no damage. Julie stayed. Karen never left the car.

At 12:31:47 a.m., did Jen text John “Pull behind me”?
[✓] Message received.

At 12:32:04 a.m., did Karen slam the Lexus into reverse and floor it?
[✓] Yes. Trigger Event #2. The Lexus traveled 87 feet in reverse, hitting 24.2 mph. The gas pedal was pressed to 74%—no brake was applied. Steering angle was 4.5 degrees. Techstream flagged it as an aggressive maneuver—one of only two such events that evening/early morning.

At 12:32:06 a.m., did John read Jen’s message?
[✓] Face ID unlock + message app in focus confirm it.

At 12:32:09 a.m., did John manually lock his phone?
[✓] Last physical interaction ever recorded.

At 12:32:14 a.m., did his phone return to pocket state?
[✓] Likely moment of impact—sensors go still.

At 12:32:16 a.m., did John’s phone stop moving forever?
[✓] Yes. No movement, no GPS change, and steadily dropping temperature until recovered beneath him at 6:14 a.m.

++++++++++++++

Some folks still cling to the “but his arm wasn’t broken!” defense. As if injuries are one-size-fits-all. People walk away from horrific crashes with barely a scratch, and others die from seemingly minor falls. Injury patterns don’t erase digital facts. It’s a distraction tactic—meant to confuse, not clarify.

This data is unassailable. It proves Karen Read was with John O’Keefe from the Waterfall Bar & Grill to the very spot where his body was found right where she left him and expected to "find" him—on the side of the road by the flagpole at 34 Fairview Road. There was no blowout fight with Colin, Brian Albert, or Brian Higgins in the basement or garage. No phantom dog attack by Chloe without a single puncture wound or bite mark. No Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick.

It was Karen Read on Fairview Road with the Lexus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many many many things that can only or best be explained by her hitting him with her car. The Lexus data and her behavior and statements post the event support a verdict of guilty on the second degree charges.

A timeline narrative from a post in the subreddit r/KarenReadSanity.

The Timeline Test

Did Karen consume 7–9 drinks between 8:51 p.m. and 10:54 p.m.?
[✓] Confirmed by timestamps from CF McCarthy’s and the Waterfall. Vodka + Fireball included.

At 12:12 a.m., did Karen and John leave the Waterfall together in the Lexus?
[✓] Vehicle ignition, GPS, and phone data all say yes.

At 12:18 a.m., did Karen miss the Cedarcrest turn while John was on the phone with Jen?
[✓] Verified by Lexus GPS, Waze log, and call metadata.

At 12:21 a.m., did they turn onto Oakdale from Maplecroft?
[✓] GPS confirms this route.

At 12:22 a.m., was John’s phone logging stair activity while located nowhere near the house?
[✓] Yes. It logged 3 flights of stairs, but GPS showed him on Oakdale—half a mile away from Fairview.

At 12:23 a.m., did Karen miss the Fairview turn again?
[✓] Supported by GPS track.

At 12:24 a.m., did she perform a 3-point turn?
[✓] Captured by both Lexus Techstream (Trigger Event #1) and iPhone movement logs.

At 12:25 a.m., did she encounter the F150—and was John still in the Lexus?
[✓] Witnesses say yes. John’s phone still in pocket state.

At 12:25 a.m., did Karen pull up to the flagpole?
[✓] Confirmed by Ryan Nagel’s testimony and GPS data.

Did the F150 group leave without seeing anyone exit the Lexus—or any taillight damage?
[✓] Yes. No exit, no damage. Julie stayed. Karen never left the car.

At 12:31:47 a.m., did Jen text John “Pull behind me”?
[✓] Message received.

At 12:32:04 a.m., did Karen slam the Lexus into reverse and floor it?
[✓] Yes. Trigger Event #2. The Lexus traveled 87 feet in reverse, hitting 24.2 mph. The gas pedal was pressed to 74%—no brake was applied. Steering angle was 4.5 degrees. Techstream flagged it as an aggressive maneuver—one of only two such events that evening/early morning.

At 12:32:06 a.m., did John read Jen’s message?
[✓] Face ID unlock + message app in focus confirm it.

At 12:32:09 a.m., did John manually lock his phone?
[✓] Last physical interaction ever recorded.

At 12:32:14 a.m., did his phone return to pocket state?
[✓] Likely moment of impact—sensors go still.

At 12:32:16 a.m., did John’s phone stop moving forever?
[✓] Yes. No movement, no GPS change, and steadily dropping temperature until recovered beneath him at 6:14 a.m.

++++++++++++++

Some folks still cling to the “but his arm wasn’t broken!” defense. As if injuries are one-size-fits-all. People walk away from horrific crashes with barely a scratch, and others die from seemingly minor falls. Injury patterns don’t erase digital facts. It’s a distraction tactic—meant to confuse, not clarify.

This data is unassailable. It proves Karen Read was with John O’Keefe from the Waterfall Bar & Grill to the very spot where his body was found right where she left him and expected to "find" him—on the side of the road by the flagpole at 34 Fairview Road. There was no blowout fight with Colin, Brian Albert, or Brian Higgins in the basement or garage. No phantom dog attack by Chloe without a single puncture wound or bite mark. No Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick.

It was Karen Read on Fairview Road with the Lexus.

I can get on board with this BUT I also think the Alberts and Jen McCabe and Brian Higgins did really weird things that night and after.

[Anonymous]

How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet she did it, and the cops in the house saw, and let him die in the cold because they were in the middle of shady things and couldn’t bring emergency services to the house right then without getting in trouble for their own illegal stuff.

I think she did it too. So obvious.