Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Or possibly aliens. That was never ruled out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The explanation is that it was a dog that was rehomed months prior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Karen Read was charged with hitting him with her car. He obviously fell and hit the back of his head and the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion that a vehicle contributed to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Their partying/being alcoholic weirdos doesn't really have anything to do with the poor policework by Proctor etc, so not sure what your point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Karen Read was charged with hitting him with her car. He obviously fell and hit the back of his head and the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion that a vehicle contributed to that.

Other than the broken taillight and taillight on the clothes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Karen Read was charged with hitting him with her car. He obviously fell and hit the back of his head and the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion that a vehicle contributed to that.

So maybe he stumbled getting out of the car and she was oblivious to that and drove off?

Because the timeline drawn from the electronic evidence does support that conclusion. (As do Karen's words and actions in the hours and days following, as do the tail light pieces on the ground nearby, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The conspiracy is that it was planted there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The conspiracy is that it was planted there.

Right, a conspiracy theory is the only explanation I’ve heard, and it’s a stupid conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The conspiracy is that it was planted there.

Right, a conspiracy theory is the only explanation I’ve heard, and it’s a stupid conspiracy theory.

I actually think there's a good chance KR is guilty. I also think there is a good chance that Proctor planted and/or manufactured evidence against her and/or destroyed contrary evidence. I don't think you have to get to deep into conspiracy theory to believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The conspiracy is that it was planted there.

And the evidence that this is a conspiracy is that the evidence that was found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The conspiracy is that it was planted there.

Right, a conspiracy theory is the only explanation I’ve heard, and it’s a stupid conspiracy theory.

The chain of custody of the evidence. You can review the testimony from both trials. It always comes back to Proctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

The conspiracy is that it was planted there.

Right, a conspiracy theory is the only explanation I’ve heard, and it’s a stupid conspiracy theory.

The chain of custody of the evidence. You can review the testimony from both trials. It always comes back to Proctor.

Review the testimony to find what’s not written in two very long trials? I don’t care that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Their partying/being alcoholic weirdos doesn't really have anything to do with the poor policework by Proctor etc, so not sure what your point is.

Well it does speak to their overall values and morals. As cops, they were clearly willing to break various laws and ethical standards of professional conduct. So is it such a leap that they could go further and try to frame someone?

And their being drunks has just as much if not more to do with this case than whether karen got her job because of her dad. Yet I’ve seen that brought up here as evidence that Karen is a ‘bad’ person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Their partying/being alcoholic weirdos doesn't really have anything to do with the poor policework by Proctor etc, so not sure what your point is.

Well it does speak to their overall values and morals. As cops, they were clearly willing to break various laws and ethical standards of professional conduct. So is it such a leap that they could go further and try to frame someone?

And their being drunks has just as much if not more to do with this case than whether karen got her job because of her dad. Yet I’ve seen that brought up here as evidence that Karen is a ‘bad’ person

The Alberts and Brian Higgins did not investigate this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Karen Read was charged with hitting him with her car. He obviously fell and hit the back of his head and the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion that a vehicle contributed to that.

Other than the broken taillight and taillight on the clothes.

The taillight pieces found weeks after the scene was investigated? Only by the investigator who has since been fired for his conduct? And who left the victim's clothes in a bag in his car for over a month v checking them into evidence properly?
Are you just slow witted?