Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[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.

[Anonymous]

You can’t read anything into jury questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t read anything into jury questions.

They might have already decided she's guilty on murder 2 and leaving the scene, and they're just hung up on the OUI.

Yes, you can't read anything into the questions.

[Anonymous]

I can't watch right now -- what was the judge's response to the questions?

[Anonymous]

Why would someone think the videos are not evidence? Strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would someone think the videos are not evidence? Strange.

Because they've had the presumption of innocence and the defendant's right not to testify drilled into their heads their whole lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See I kinda think that someone refusing to come outside when another cop is dead on their front lawn, and then destroying their phone, rehoming their dog that has been accused of being involved in some way, and moving out of the house that was a potential crime scene, among other suspect behaviors, says a lot more about guilt than a gf calling her bf, asking where he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See I kinda think that someone refusing to come outside when another cop is dead on their front lawn, and then destroying their phone, rehoming their dog that has been accused of being involved in some way, and moving out of the house that was a potential crime scene, among other suspect behaviors, says a lot more about guilt than a gf calling her bf, asking where he is.

Yeah the Albert's behavior was weird too, for sure.

But has nothing to do with Karen waking up his kid telling her her dad was hit by a snowplow rather than, say, just missing.

[Anonymous]

My guess is they will convict of DUI and hang on the other charges.

[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.

They didn't play the whole thing and they should have.

She always was the only one to spot his snow covered body in a blizzard in the dark. The other two women where like "what are you talking about." And saw nothing. Hmmmm. She knew *exactly* where he was because she left him there they night before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See I kinda think that someone refusing to come outside when another cop is dead on their front lawn, and then destroying their phone, rehoming their dog that has been accused of being involved in some way, and moving out of the house that was a potential crime scene, among other suspect behaviors, says a lot more about guilt than a gf calling her bf, asking where he is.

You're entirely out of touch with the timeline of this case, clearly.

Chloe was rehomed many months before she was ever accused in this CONspiracy innocence fraud campaign. Chloe was rehomed because she bit a neighbor during a dog fight which the neighbor attempted to break up.

The home was sold many months before the CONspiracy innocence fraud campaign arose - the owners had first spoken to a realtor about selling it months BEFORE John O'Keefe was struck by Karen Read and left to die on their front lawn. The record on that is uncontroverted.

Brian Albert didn't destroy his phone, he upgraded it at the phone store and the data all transferred - total red herring. Brian Higgins threw his phone away at the Cape Cod military base where he throws ALL his garbage away because there is no garbage collection at his Cape Cod home and he has access to the base as a federal officer. He got rid of his phone because he was an undercover DEA agent and didn't want to burn his CIs whose contact information was in his phone.

Congratulations, you've swallowed the innocence fraud campaign propaganda hook, line and sinker - like the gullible guppy you are.