Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't McCabe hand over her phone voluntarily? Why would she do that if she's so guilty?

Well because she was there that night so presumably could have spoken to people in person. And there are records of her calling her sister early that AM which obviously isn’t recorded. So maybe she didn’t have much to hide.

Also to state the obvious, she did search ‘hos long to die in the cold’ 3 times, obe of which was deleted

FOR THE 100TH time PARROT IT WAS NOT DELETED CELLBRITE TESTIFIED TO THAT.

‘100th time’? That was the first time I posted that. If you’re the one claiming to be a feminist lawyer who went to a top15 law school (like anyone asked or cares), you are doing a terrible job of cosplaying. You come off as unhinged and low class and vindictive. You really can’t expect people to be swayed by you, can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't McCabe hand over her phone voluntarily? Why would she do that if she's so guilty?

Well because she was there that night so presumably could have spoken to people in person. And there are records of her calling her sister early that AM which obviously isn’t recorded. So maybe she didn’t have much to hide.

Also to state the obvious, she did search ‘hos long to die in the cold’ 3 times, obe of which was deleted

FOR THE 100TH time PARROT IT WAS NOT DELETED CELLBRITE TESTIFIED TO THAT.

‘100th time’? That was the first time I posted that. If you’re the one claiming to be a feminist lawyer who went to a top15 law school (like anyone asked or cares), you are doing a terrible job of cosplaying. You come off as unhinged and low class and vindictive. You really can’t expect people to be swayed by you, can you?

LOL at T15. Just say you went to UT. It’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

Yeah, but the D doesn’t have to prove it was a conspiracy… that’s how it works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’ve ever been hit by a car, you understand how significant the lack of bruising / fractures is. This isn’t some hired gun medical experts spinning the significance of the injuries. Getting hit by a car messes you up in very predictable and gnarly ways.

The CW is not saying he was hit directly. Their theory is he was clipped and fell from the force. The injuries were only fatal because nobody got to him soon enough.

But they are saying he was hit at a high rate of speed, otherwise they can’t explain how he ends up over on the lawn. Clipped or direct, the impact will leave significant distinct bruising.

The defense's expert ME testified he died in 15-30 minutes; at most he was alive a couple of hours after being hit.

Bruising takes hours to days to develop; in criminal investigation it is standard to revisit an assault victim days after the initial report in order to photographically document the full extent of bruising injuries.

I am repeatedly flabbergasted by the lack of basic science understanding of people who comment on this case.

When I got hit by a car, the bruise materialized within minutes. It may have been worse 2 hours later, but it was already insane within minutes while The EMTs were attending to me.

Yes, he was probably clipped in some way that caused him to spin around and fall and hit his head. Not a direct impact.

An indirect hit powerful enough to propel him onto the lawn would necessarily leave a significant bruise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

I would believe that with no reasonable doubt but for…the rehoming of the dog, the “butt dials,” the destroying of a SIM card and phone at a military base, the fact that the homeowners “slept through” all the police activity in their yard, the Solo cup-level evidence gathering, the mirror-image sally port video footage, the fact that everyone was apparently blotto, the cop who had horrible texts about Karen Read on his phone, etc., etc., etc., etc. What a bungled case by the police and the prosecution.

[Anonymous]

I think the defense lawyers did an excellent job of making what appeared at first blush to be a straightforward case into a fighting chance for Karen.

As to the CW, I think most of their problems stem from the investigation. That's the hard part of being a prosecutor you get cases with shoddy police work and play the cards you are dealt. Most of the time it doesn't matter, here it does. Could the CW lawyer have done a better job making this more clear? I almost wonder if they had too many witnesses or too much information.

BTW I change my mind on a daily basis whether I think I could vote G or not. I'm really hung up on the burden of proof part. So it's hard to imagine that 12 random people would all get to G.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

I would believe that with no reasonable doubt but for…the rehoming of the dog, the “butt dials,” the destroying of a SIM card and phone at a military base, the fact that the homeowners “slept through” all the police activity in their yard, the Solo cup-level evidence gathering, the mirror-image sally port video footage, the fact that everyone was apparently blotto, the cop who had horrible texts about Karen Read on his phone, etc., etc., etc., etc. What a bungled case by the police and the prosecution.

Yes, there’s definitely a lot of noise around the investigation and poor police work. She still did it. And this jury didn’t really hear half of the above. So they really shouldn’t be considering it. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

I would believe that with no reasonable doubt but for…the rehoming of the dog, the “butt dials,” the destroying of a SIM card and phone at a military base, the fact that the homeowners “slept through” all the police activity in their yard, the Solo cup-level evidence gathering, the mirror-image sally port video footage, the fact that everyone was apparently blotto, the cop who had horrible texts about Karen Read on his phone, etc., etc., etc., etc. What a bungled case by the police and the prosecution.

Dp. Agree and I’m confused why the anti KR posters on here are so angry at people like us who think the investigation was terrible and left tons of RD. Shouldn’t they be addressing their all cap curse filled rants at the local police and investigators??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’ve ever been hit by a car, you understand how significant the lack of bruising / fractures is. This isn’t some hired gun medical experts spinning the significance of the injuries. Getting hit by a car messes you up in very predictable and gnarly ways.

The CW is not saying he was hit directly. Their theory is he was clipped and fell from the force. The injuries were only fatal because nobody got to him soon enough.

But they are saying he was hit at a high rate of speed, otherwise they can’t explain how he ends up over on the lawn. Clipped or direct, the impact will leave significant distinct bruising.

The defense's expert ME testified he died in 15-30 minutes; at most he was alive a couple of hours after being hit.

Bruising takes hours to days to develop; in criminal investigation it is standard to revisit an assault victim days after the initial report in order to photographically document the full extent of bruising injuries.

I am repeatedly flabbergasted by the lack of basic science understanding of people who comment on this case.

When I got hit by a car, the bruise materialized within minutes. It may have been worse 2 hours later, but it was already insane within minutes while The EMTs were attending to me.

Yes, he was probably clipped in some way that caused him to spin around and fall and hit his head. Not a direct impact.

An indirect hit powerful enough to propel him onto the lawn would necessarily leave a significant bruise.

So he died because of the dog? Or because he got beat up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

Yeah, but the D doesn’t have to prove it was a conspiracy… that’s how it works

Oh for sure. I’m just talking about in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

I would believe that with no reasonable doubt but for…the rehoming of the dog, the “butt dials,” the destroying of a SIM card and phone at a military base, the fact that the homeowners “slept through” all the police activity in their yard, the Solo cup-level evidence gathering, the mirror-image sally port video footage, the fact that everyone was apparently blotto, the cop who had horrible texts about Karen Read on his phone, etc., etc., etc., etc. What a bungled case by the police and the prosecution.

Dp. Agree and I’m confused why the anti KR posters on here are so angry at people like us who think the investigation was terrible and left tons of RD. Shouldn’t they be addressing their all cap curse filled rants at the local police and investigators??

I’m not anti-Karen Read and not angry. I do think she’s guilty though. Proctor was terrible. The other parts of the investigation had issues too but many cases do. I think it’s Proctor’s words that really instigated all of the doubt because he sounded unhinged. That said, she caused his death.

[Anonymous]

I’m not reading all 90 pages, but has anyone explained how he got taillight embedded in his sleeve if he wasn’t hit by the car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And on a larger note, to believe it was some sort of conspiracy would involve suspending more belief and believing more outlandish things than it would to believe this drunk lady clipped her drunk boyfriend in anger and drove off.

I would believe that with no reasonable doubt but for…the rehoming of the dog, the “butt dials,” the destroying of a SIM card and phone at a military base, the fact that the homeowners “slept through” all the police activity in their yard, the Solo cup-level evidence gathering, the mirror-image sally port video footage, the fact that everyone was apparently blotto, the cop who had horrible texts about Karen Read on his phone, etc., etc., etc., etc. What a bungled case by the police and the prosecution.

Dp. Agree and I’m confused why the anti KR posters on here are so angry at people like us who think the investigation was terrible and left tons of RD. Shouldn’t they be addressing their all cap curse filled rants at the local police and investigators??

I’m not anti-Karen Read and not angry. I do think she’s guilty though. Proctor was terrible. The other parts of the investigation had issues too but many cases do. I think it’s Proctor’s words that really instigated all of the doubt because he sounded unhinged. That said, she caused his death.

Come on, it www much more than proctor. It was all those people. Btw, who parties like an 18 yo, driving around drunk with their friends to an after bar party during a snow storm?? My teens don’t even act like that

[Anonymous]

^ was

[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: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.

She could have hit him and still not be guilty of murder.

Wrong. If she hit him, it's clearly murder 2 - does NOT require intent to hit him, does NOT require intent to kill him. Only requires the intent to do the reckless act - backing at 24mph 75% throttle in the dark under the influence at the last known position of a human being whose life was thus endangered.

Not quite. 2d degree murder in Massachusetts under that theory requires that the jury find that the defendant intended to do an act that a reasonable person would know creates a “plain and strong likelihood that death would result.” A jury could find that the manner in which she backed up does not meet this standard.

What are you smoking? What reasonable person on this planet would think it was safe and normal to back a vehicle in the dark at 24mph 75% throttle at an exposed human body??? Please, the grasping at straws makes you look like an idiot. Better you just keep quiet and preserve some illusion of intelligence.

I’m literally a prosecutor. There’s a huge delta between “unsafe” and “strong likelihood that death would result.” I’m interesting in having a thoughtful discussion of this case. Can you please not insult me?

I'm a former prosecutor and I find your lack of intelligent comment on this issue stunning. Go get in your car and back down your driveway 24mph in the dark at your children and get back to us with the results, m'kay?

Do you understand that “unsafe” is not the same as conduct creating a strong likelihood of death?

Hitting someone at 25mph has a very good chance of killing them. About 1 in 4.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedest...severe-injury-death/

Oops, misread the comma, 1 in 10. That's still not a risk most would accept.

And how many of those times leaves a person with nary a bruise?

So you're ignoring his bruised leg and knee? Got it!