Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A question for those who support a not guilty verdict: how do you explain the fact that his phone never moved again 10 seconds after he exited her car?

The timeline is established through the commonwealth’s analysis of the data, an analysis and timeline that have changed over time. The idea that they’ve presented an accurate timeline is a false premise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

Am I taking crazy pills???! Yes, when there is divergent testimony regarding something like the extent of taillight damage, that must be taken into account. One must carefully consider the source and substance of the testimony and assess whether, and why, some might deserve greater weight.

None of that remotely supports the claim that the taillight was ever intact on the morning that John’s body was found.

Sgt. Barros admitted under cross examination that he never testified at the last trial the way he had just asserted to this jury he had. He lied - of course because he was only mistaken, it had nothing to do with his two hour + drive to Boston and back to meet up with Alan Jackson and the team to receive his subpoena, something he could have accomplished by fax or mail. Of course it had nothing to do with any conversation that took place in the Seaport Omni conference room.

On further cross exam, Sgt. Barros admitted that the tail light looked to him as it appears in the photos at Dighton of the vehicle going on the tow truck, and of the vehicle sitting parked at 1 Meadows Drive at the 8am welfare check when the passenger side corner tail light is clearly missing with packed snow in its place. A photo that is 100% consistent with the appearance of the tail light at the start of the timelapse video from the sally port which shows the tail light from the moment of arrival until the snow all melts off and it looks as it does, almost entirely smashed out at the corner where the Lexus hit John O'Keefe.

Sgt. Barros was caught in trying to lie on the stand, caught trying to be an advocate for Karen Read - Sgt. Barros who has been photographed in selfies with local FKR who call him a hero for justice, blah blah blah. Sgt. Barros's testimony has zero credibility as to the issue of the broken tail light, and only a foolish person can't see that.

Sgt Barros was asked a series of questions with various wordings by Mr. Brennan, became confused and gave an answer to an earlier question. He did not lie. Watched the testimony again and listen carefully to the interchange. You’ll see that Barros was confused by the Brennan’s barrage of questions, each slightly different from the one before.

Seasoned trial attorney here, but even a lay person could see what happened in that cross examination. Sgt. Barros was fully impeached by his own prior testimony and by his about-face on the stand when presented with his asserted falsehoods and his actual prior testimony. Sgt. Barros was eviscerated as a witness for the defense.

[Anonymous]

The jury saw a different trial than what the internet commenters did and the jury has a narrower scope of admitted evidence to consider. From their perspective the defense's case probably made little sense as the defense was playing to the conspiracy people on twitter or whatever.

There will be guilty verdict(s) or a hung jury.

I say this as someone who was skeptical of her guilt based on all of the noise around the case until I actually went down the rabbit hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

Am I taking crazy pills???! Yes, when there is divergent testimony regarding something like the extent of taillight damage, that must be taken into account. One must carefully consider the source and substance of the testimony and assess whether, and why, some might deserve greater weight.

None of that remotely supports the claim that the taillight was ever intact on the morning that John’s body was found.

Sgt. Barros admitted under cross examination that he never testified at the last trial the way he had just asserted to this jury he had. He lied - of course because he was only mistaken, it had nothing to do with his two hour + drive to Boston and back to meet up with Alan Jackson and the team to receive his subpoena, something he could have accomplished by fax or mail. Of course it had nothing to do with any conversation that took place in the Seaport Omni conference room.

On further cross exam, Sgt. Barros admitted that the tail light looked to him as it appears in the photos at Dighton of the vehicle going on the tow truck, and of the vehicle sitting parked at 1 Meadows Drive at the 8am welfare check when the passenger side corner tail light is clearly missing with packed snow in its place. A photo that is 100% consistent with the appearance of the tail light at the start of the timelapse video from the sally port which shows the tail light from the moment of arrival until the snow all melts off and it looks as it does, almost entirely smashed out at the corner where the Lexus hit John O'Keefe.

Sgt. Barros was caught in trying to lie on the stand, caught trying to be an advocate for Karen Read - Sgt. Barros who has been photographed in selfies with local FKR who call him a hero for justice, blah blah blah. Sgt. Barros's testimony has zero credibility as to the issue of the broken tail light, and only a foolish person can't see that.

Sgt Barros was asked a series of questions with various wordings by Mr. Brennan, became confused and gave an answer to an earlier question. He did not lie. Watched the testimony again and listen carefully to the interchange. You’ll see that Barros was confused by the Brennan’s barrage of questions, each slightly different from the one before.

Seasoned trial attorney here, but even a lay person could see what happened in that cross examination. Sgt. Barros was fully impeached by his own prior testimony and by his about-face on the stand when presented with his asserted falsehoods and his actual prior testimony. Sgt. Barros was eviscerated as a witness for the defense.

LOL - it was this “gotcha” approach to impeachment that emboldened Brennan to pull the sweatshirt stunt. Such an ethically bankrupt team of prosecutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jury saw a different trial than what the internet commenters did and the jury has a narrower scope of admitted evidence to consider. From their perspective the defense's case probably made little sense as the defense was playing to the conspiracy people on twitter or whatever.

There will be guilty verdict(s) or a hung jury.

I say this as someone who was skeptical of her guilt based on all of the noise around the case until I actually went down the rabbit hole.

^ and this doesn't preclude that the initial investigation was technically sloppy and that Proctor was grossly unprofessional. Both can be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jury saw a different trial than what the internet commenters did and the jury has a narrower scope of admitted evidence to consider. From their perspective the defense's case probably made little sense as the defense was playing to the conspiracy people on twitter or whatever.

There will be guilty verdict(s) or a hung jury.

I say this as someone who was skeptical of her guilt based on all of the noise around the case until I actually went down the rabbit hole.

That’s what happened in trial 1. They didn’t make that mistake this time. Very little time spent on bad actors other than police corruption, which is a theme that the defense presented very coherently to the jury, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

I think he fell in the snow because she hit him or because he slipped. It's also possible he just dropped his cell phone, but that's less likely because he was eventually found near it. That said, I'm pretty sure the folks in the house found him early on in the evening -- perhaps their dog did when they were taking it outside to pee -- and they decided to just leave him there because they were drunk/engaged in illegal activity. My guess is that they didn't know whether he was alive or not when they discovered him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the owner of the house get rid of the dog, destroy a SIM card, and get rid of the phone *on a military base*? And what was going on with the “butt dials”? And why did the snow plow driver—sitting high up with bright lights—not see the body?

Too much reasonable doubt.

Snow plow drivers are some of the best evidence we have for dead bodies in yards. In fact, that's what they are primarily doing out there, looking for dead bodies in the snow.

It’s a drop in a bucket. In above to the other questions, why was the sally port footage reversed before it was shown as evidence by the prosecution, only for that to be pointed out by the defense? How did a hair stay on the car that was towed an hour round trip? And on and on.

[Anonymous]

Who here watched the Body in the Snow documentary? She pretty much convicted herself. They played her own words from that against her in court.

- She said she 'anticipated' seeing his body when they pulled up to the Alberts in the morning (why would she even think that in the first place?)
- She said she pulled glass out of the side of his nose when she found him
- Rather that thinking he maybe passed out somewhere she told his daughter that a snow plow hit him when she woke her up at 4:30 am because that is a totally normal thing to think

She was drunk and her memory was hazy but she knew deep down she hit him and she tells on herself.

Guilty.

And yes, the Alberts and co. acted weird that night (and later) and we probably will never know why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who here watched the Body in the Snow documentary? She pretty much convicted herself. They played her own words from that against her in court.

- She said she 'anticipated' seeing his body when they pulled up to the Alberts in the morning (why would she even think that in the first place?)
- She said she pulled glass out of the side of his nose when she found him
- Rather that thinking he maybe passed out somewhere she told his daughter that a snow plow hit him when she woke her up at 4:30 am because that is a totally normal thing to think

She was drunk and her memory was hazy but she knew deep down she hit him and she tells on herself.

Guilty.

And yes, the Alberts and co. acted weird that night (and later) and we probably will never know why.

If we are going to convict people on how they acted (or didn’t) during a stressful event, then why don’t you also consider that she called him over and over looking for him, and was hysterical at the scene, as recorded by body cam? Would a guilty person do that? Meanwhile Jen M was extremely calm, searched about dying in the cold on her phone, and the owner of the house didn’t even come out to his own front lawn when a cop was out there, dead. And then of course the butt dials that somehow didn’t go to voicemail and the destroyed phones. Most people I know would SAVE their SIM card when they upgraded phones. But this guy, the owner of the house when JOK died, destroyed his on a military base.

Yeah, ok. But let’s convict Karen of murder because when her BF didn’t come home, she said he may have been hit by a snow plow. Got it.

The Alberts could tell people why they acted weird. But they have chosen not to.

[Anonymous]

The Alberts would never talk - they'd drop the nickel all the way. I bet the Feds plea them to roll on the others when this is all done.

[Anonymous]

Twitter is buzzing that KR was seen smiling after a sidebar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who here watched the Body in the Snow documentary? She pretty much convicted herself. They played her own words from that against her in court.

- She said she 'anticipated' seeing his body when they pulled up to the Alberts in the morning (why would she even think that in the first place?)
- She said she pulled glass out of the side of his nose when she found him
- Rather that thinking he maybe passed out somewhere she told his daughter that a snow plow hit him when she woke her up at 4:30 am because that is a totally normal thing to think

She was drunk and her memory was hazy but she knew deep down she hit him and she tells on herself.

Guilty.

And yes, the Alberts and co. acted weird that night (and later) and we probably will never know why.

If we are going to convict people on how they acted (or didn’t) during a stressful event, then why don’t you also consider that she called him over and over looking for him, and was hysterical at the scene, as recorded by body cam? Would a guilty person do that?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Jury asking questions about the DUI charge - is it for the night before or the morning when they found his body, and are the videos of KR evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jury asking questions about the DUI charge - is it for the night before or the morning when they found his body, and are the videos of KR evidence?

The DUI question seems positive for her but the videos of her does not seem positive for her.