Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you know that the dog isn't a time traveler? That's reasonable doubt! /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any news on who the feds are indicting after the verdict? Assume it's the Canton cops who planted the plastic and smashed the tail light at the station. Not sure why the jury is taking more than a few hours to acquit here.

Because they're not acquitting.

[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?

They don't have an answer. She clearly hit 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.

lol lol NO they're not, that's total bs. They clear the roads that's their job.

[Anonymous]

Kinda like the movie Juror #2 just saw it on the plane.