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:

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?

The argument is that while some pieces of the taillight were found at the scene when his body was found, someone went back and put more pieces there over the next couple of weeks? Is that because they thought more taillight pieces would make her look more guilty? That’s illogical.

If they wanted to frame her, his blood on her vehicle would be a much better way to accomplish that. Hell, his blood on a chunk of taillight would be even better.

Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that most of the tail light pieces got buried under a snow plow berm of multiple feet of snow from one of the biggest one day snow storm totals in modern Massachusetts history, and that those pieces revealed themselves over a period of days/weeks as the weather warmed and the snow melted away.

Naw, nothing that common sensical could possibly have occurred. Must have been corrupt law enforcement!

If they truly thought she had hit him, you’d think they’d go back sooner for evidence collection not just wait for the snow to melt. The scene wasn’t secured, so again the PD didn’t do their job correctly. This can’t be the first incident in snow ever in Massachusetts history.

They did. With snowblowers.

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of the OJ trial. He was acquitted due to some shoddy police work/personalities, money for a defense, and the general feeling of wanting to stick it to the LAPD (who definitely had issues) even though it was obvious he killed them. I guess it remains to be seen if the jury thinks the same way as the people on the internet and those pink shirts.

[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:

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?

The argument is that while some pieces of the taillight were found at the scene when his body was found, someone went back and put more pieces there over the next couple of weeks? Is that because they thought more taillight pieces would make her look more guilty? That’s illogical.

If they wanted to frame her, his blood on her vehicle would be a much better way to accomplish that. Hell, his blood on a chunk of taillight would be even better.

Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that most of the tail light pieces got buried under a snow plow berm of multiple feet of snow from one of the biggest one day snow storm totals in modern Massachusetts history, and that those pieces revealed themselves over a period of days/weeks as the weather warmed and the snow melted away.

Naw, nothing that common sensical could possibly have occurred. Must have been corrupt law enforcement!

If they truly thought she had hit him, you’d think they’d go back sooner for evidence collection not just wait for the snow to melt. The scene wasn’t secured, so again the PD didn’t do their job correctly. This can’t be the first incident in snow ever in Massachusetts history.

They did. With snowblowers.

Which shows they are ignorant or destroying evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the OJ trial. He was acquitted due to some shoddy police work/personalities, money for a defense, and the general feeling of wanting to stick it to the LAPD (who definitely had issues) even though it was obvious he killed them. I guess it remains to be seen if the jury thinks the same way as the people on the internet and those pink shirts.

Reminds me of Walter McMillan.

[Anonymous]

In the first trial the manslaughter vote was 9-3 guilty and that was with a poorer cases by the CW.

I expect today we will get a hung jury on a manslaughter charge and a guilty on DUI. This is not an acquittal btw.

[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:

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?

The argument is that while some pieces of the taillight were found at the scene when his body was found, someone went back and put more pieces there over the next couple of weeks? Is that because they thought more taillight pieces would make her look more guilty? That’s illogical.

If they wanted to frame her, his blood on her vehicle would be a much better way to accomplish that. Hell, his blood on a chunk of taillight would be even better.

Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that most of the tail light pieces got buried under a snow plow berm of multiple feet of snow from one of the biggest one day snow storm totals in modern Massachusetts history, and that those pieces revealed themselves over a period of days/weeks as the weather warmed and the snow melted away.

Naw, nothing that common sensical could possibly have occurred. Must have been corrupt law enforcement!

How can all these people, women, drive in that weather drunk, how much of a drinker do you have to be, damn. I'm not comfortable driving in the snow sober, especially at night. Can't imagine what kind of drinkers these people are too stay out late drinking on a night like that and feel fine to drive. So disgusting.

DP. I know. They are all so trashy. And they’re cops who surely arrests others for dui.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The fake information KR followers listen to doesn't tell them this truth.

Is it fake news that they were involved though? And knew Proctor well? Fact is they acted like unprofessional buffoons at least. What a disgrace.

[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:

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?

The argument is that while some pieces of the taillight were found at the scene when his body was found, someone went back and put more pieces there over the next couple of weeks? Is that because they thought more taillight pieces would make her look more guilty? That’s illogical.

If they wanted to frame her, his blood on her vehicle would be a much better way to accomplish that. Hell, his blood on a chunk of taillight would be even better.

Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that most of the tail light pieces got buried under a snow plow berm of multiple feet of snow from one of the biggest one day snow storm totals in modern Massachusetts history, and that those pieces revealed themselves over a period of days/weeks as the weather warmed and the snow melted away.

Naw, nothing that common sensical could possibly have occurred. Must have been corrupt law enforcement!

How can all these people, women, drive in that weather drunk, how much of a drinker do you have to be, damn. I'm not comfortable driving in the snow sober, especially at night. Can't imagine what kind of drinkers these people are too stay out late drinking on a night like that and feel fine to drive. So disgusting.

This incident occurred the night/very early morning before the blizzard conditions set in - there was just the beginnings of spitting snow coming down in the 12am hour when everyone drove home from The Waterfall to 34 Fairview Road. The vast majority of the snow fell throughout the daylight hours and into the evening of the day, with conditions being very bad and getting worse in the 5-6am hour when John's body was 'found' by Karen and his friends who came out to help her.

Karen Read is the only person who caused an accident/death that night and who was 2-3x the legal limit for driving after consumption of alcohol, and still over the legal limit 9 hours later when tested at the hospital on psycho hold.

As a former prosecutor I won't for a minute argue that we don't still have a huge problem with intoxicated drivers in this country - we absolutely do. But there are plenty of folks who go out for a few drinks and get home safely and have a plan for somebody who stays under the limit to drive. It is unfair to paint all the parties out that night as equally drunk as Karen Read was - there is no evidence to suggest that was the case.

You’re a former prosecutor? Got it. And I’m Abe Lincoln.

Were breathalyzers done on all the other partiers that night?? I suspect no, but you tell me.

[Anonymous]

I’m really confused why people say Karen Read is innocent just because the other people are also aholes. That is not a good legal standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused why people say Karen Read is innocent just because the other people are also aholes. That is not a good legal standard.

I have no clue if she is innocent but I think she should not be found guilty. Part of why is because that shady group lied and lied about so much that night, behaved in abnormal ways. Did they do it to cover up killing John, to frame Karen, bc they are hiding something else? We will never know but it’s enough for me to think one of them did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really confused why people say Karen Read is innocent just because the other people are also aholes. That is not a good legal standard.

Are you familiar with “reasonable doubt”? That’s the standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that this was a fellow police officer and they Keystone copped it makes you wonder whether they are incompetent or corrupt. There’s no way around that. If they aren’t corrupt and this is truly representative of the effort and tactics by the PD, I shudder to think how they handle the death investigation of a civilian.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And cops never protect their own. Ok.

[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:

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-pedestrians-risk-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?

Apparently, the guy looked like he had been mauled by a dog, but didn't have any bruises from like a dog bite? The dog took special care to not bite too hard? Is that the alternative explanation?

The dog bites left significant abrasions. If you watched the trial, you would know what they look like. It’s like Freddy Krueger got involved. It’s a different injury mechanism and it left significant scraping injuries but not massive subcutaneous blood vessel damage. Serious marks, but not technically bruises.

But there...there were not dog bites.

We are venturing into Q'Anon territory here.

In the first trial, a doctor who specialized in dog bites said they appeared to be dog bites and she’d like to match the teeth with the dog. But the dog was coincidentally rehomed.

You think a medical expert is the same as Q Anon? Weird.

[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:

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?

The argument is that while some pieces of the taillight were found at the scene when his body was found, someone went back and put more pieces there over the next couple of weeks? Is that because they thought more taillight pieces would make her look more guilty? That’s illogical.

If they wanted to frame her, his blood on her vehicle would be a much better way to accomplish that. Hell, his blood on a chunk of taillight would be even better.

Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that most of the tail light pieces got buried under a snow plow berm of multiple feet of snow from one of the biggest one day snow storm totals in modern Massachusetts history, and that those pieces revealed themselves over a period of days/weeks as the weather warmed and the snow melted away.

Naw, nothing that common sensical could possibly have occurred. Must have been corrupt law enforcement!

If they truly thought she had hit him, you’d think they’d go back sooner for evidence collection not just wait for the snow to melt. The scene wasn’t secured, so again the PD didn’t do their job correctly. This can’t be the first incident in snow ever in Massachusetts history.

They did. With snowblowers.

No, they used leafblowers which is something that HAS been done before by LEOs attempting to preserve evidence in a snowy crime scene and is not something for which they should be ridiculed but go on as you will.