Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

[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.

You have a sick mind, and a foolish one at that.

There would be no probable cause - just as there wasn't a few hours later in the morning - for police to enter the house at Fairview, so no incentive for the homeowners to fail to call 911.

It's hard not to think when I see posts like this from people like you that I hope when your time of need is upon you the cops and EMS get held up in bad traffic - maybe a protest by cop haters or something of that nature will get in their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

My conclusion is that she probably hit him with her car, but I’m not persuaded BARD that that’s what happened. I’d acquit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The key is that his phone moved for the last time less than 10 seconds after he left her car and 5-6 seconds after she floored that car into reverse towards where he had exited it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The key is that his phone moved for the last time less than 10 seconds after he left her car and 5-6 seconds after she floored that car into reverse towards where he had exited it.

Yes, and also key is that the phone temp steadily drops then remains consistent for a few hours until John's body is moved and the temperature begins to drop again but then rises after Kerri Roberts picks up the phone and puts it in her pocket.

The point being, there is no plausible argument that the phone was at the flagpole while John somehow got into the house, beaten to death and/or dog attacked and/or fell in the garage onto the floor, and then somehow carried back out and placed on top of his phone as found later that morning.

The conspiracy has been ABSURD from day one, and it is shocking how many morons buy into it - including most of the folks posting here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The key is that his phone moved for the last time less than 10 seconds after he left her car and 5-6 seconds after she floored that car into reverse towards where he had exited it.

I'm the PP who asked. Exactly. Not enough time for him to have gone inside the house, gotten into a fight or beaten, and be dragged and dumped outside. There's no movement indicating any of that.

[Anonymous]

All of this is circumstantial and ignores other key evidence like the laceration on his eye and the dog bites on his arm. Nothing was proven = reasonable doubt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this is circumstantial and ignores other key evidence like the laceration on his eye and the dog bites on his arm. Nothing was proven = reasonable doubt

There was 0 dog dna found anywhere on John. No way that he was bitten by a dog.
There was a shattered car taillight and shattered drink glass on and near his person, both of which could have caused the lacerations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have a sick mind, and a foolish one at that.

There would be no probable cause - just as there wasn't a few hours later in the morning - for police to enter the house at Fairview, so no incentive for the homeowners to fail to call 911.

It's hard not to think when I see posts like this from people like you that I hope when your time of need is upon you the cops and EMS get held up in bad traffic - maybe a protest by cop haters or something of that nature will get in their way.

PP- What??? I'm not saying what any of the individuals did that night was correct. I have called EMS for individuals in distress outside of my house./ on my block MANY times, including once at 3am when someone collapsed on my stoop in a snowstorm and I had no idea if they'd been attacked, or were drunk, or having a seizure or what- and opened my door and brought them in and called 911, even knowing someone might be outside with a weapon. So, respectfully, go F yourself.

[Anonymous]

I can't wait for the guilty verdicts! Shes walked free too darn long. She hit him her car black box was proof and his cellphone stopped at that time and the temperature began dropping. The glass he was holding cut his arm and the head injury was falling backwards after being hit by karens car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

My conclusion is that she probably hit him with her car, but I’m not persuaded BARD that that’s what happened. I’d acquit.

No way i would acquit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this is circumstantial and ignores other key evidence like the laceration on his eye and the dog bites on his arm. Nothing was proven = reasonable doubt

There was 0 dog dna found anywhere on John. No way that he was bitten by a dog.
There was a shattered car taillight and shattered drink glass on and near his person, both of which could have caused the lacerations.

The only thing they tested for dna was his hoodie. Not his arm. His hoodie that was soaking wet and which wasn’t actually turned over to the chain of custody for weeks. They did fine pork DNA like you’d find in dog treats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The key is that his phone moved for the last time less than 10 seconds after he left her car and 5-6 seconds after she floored that car into reverse towards where he had exited it.

Yes, and also key is that the phone temp steadily drops then remains consistent for a few hours until John's body is moved and the temperature begins to drop again but then rises after Kerri Roberts picks up the phone and puts it in her pocket.

The point being, there is no plausible argument that the phone was at the flagpole while John somehow got into the house, beaten to death and/or dog attacked and/or fell in the garage onto the floor, and then somehow carried back out and placed on top of his phone as found later that morning.

The conspiracy has been ABSURD from day one, and it is shocking how many morons buy into it - including most of the folks posting here.

To be clear, I am not of the belief that there is a conspiracy. But I do think the prosecution has not proven that her car hit him.

That being the case, everything you are saying about the phone temp could be perfectly accurate and consistent with him having slipped and fallen, sustaining the head injury that killed him, at the same time we are all discussing.