Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

Anonymous
There's still a civil trial, and there's whstever the group of Alberts have cooking up. This is far from over.

Look, I've got no dog in this fight, but this was shady as hell. Police need to be professional.

As for the Idaho guy and Alex Murdagh, both of them are guilty as sin. You can't paint everyone with a broad brush - people look at evidence, testimony, actions of police and witnesses and draw reasonable conclusions from the whole. There was a lot of reasonable doubt in the Read trial, and the police and investigators and prosecutors are responsible for most of it.
Anonymous
My assumption is that the Canton PD is really no different than most PDs around the country. But their issues are really only brought to light when defendants have the money for 'good' defense. Or get a blogger/podcaster to take hold of the case and taint the jury pool with distortions and lies. It helps that she is pretty and liked to talk. That said, had it not been for Proctor's disgusting and explosive texts she she would be behind bars - because she is most definitely guilty of a hit and run.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.


Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.


Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The jury got it right. The evidence supported the OUI charge. There was credible expert testimony that no collision occurred. That’s reasonable doubt and requires a not guilt on all offenses involving an accident.


Agree.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.


Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.


Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?


It goes to a pattern of mishandling and incompetence. Clearly. Herr derp, should we investigate the homeowners when a body is found dead in their yard?
Anonymous
Told ya.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And the verdict in CW v Read is shameful - I despair for the future of our justice system if crowdsourced innocence fraud campaigns are going to rule the day.

Ah well, I guess it will only be the wealthy whites who get a pass on killing cops and other people, no worries.


I knew nothing about this case until this year. The CW did not prove their case, period.


Yes they did. Alec Murdaugh was convicted on the same sort of evidence.

The issue was the noise and distractions caused by the behavior of the Alberts et. al, and Proctor.


Alec Murdaugh was convicted on audiotape of him present at the crime scene at a time when he had claimed to be elsewhere and seconds before the shooting. He produced no alternative explanation--not just no credible explanation but no explanation whatsoever--of why he was there, why he had lied about being there, or who else could have shot his wife and son.

One of these things is not like the other.


The electronic data is what sealed the deal for Murdaugh.

Also, Karen read is on tape saying multiple incriminating statements.


No, the actual sound of Murdaugh’s voice in a place and at a time where he had claimed not to be is what sealed the deal on Murdaugh.

Watch the trial footage and you can see it on every face in the room; no interpretation or explanation was required.

Anyway, he’s guilty and she is not.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.


Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.


Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?


Yes that's their nutty position. Their feelings were hurt so she gets off.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.


Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.


Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?


Yes that's their nutty position. Their feelings were hurt so she gets off.


Sorry you think police are above the law and due process and no matter what, they should always have things go the way they want. Welp, this time their incompetence, arrogance, and disregard for process bit them in the ass. Stay mad, though!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.


Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.


Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?


When he in the same breath says he’s not going to investigate the homeowner because he’s a cop, then maybe yeah.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.


Case in point: you!

Who apparently thinks obvious dog bites are from an exploding tail light that hit him hard enough to shatter the light but not hard enough to break any bones or bruise him.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the house ever part of the investigation????? If someone was found dead on my front yard, I assume the police would like to rule out that it happened in my house.


Actually, no. If there is not probable cause there will not be a warrant issued to search your house. Especially in this case as JOK was found in the snow with taillights around him and one of the women claiming she hit him.


You keep repeating this nonsense. Did anyone actually TRY to get a warrant??


Please speak to any attorney that is willing to discuss this with you. Or better yet reread the constitution and reflect on our basic rights to not be subject to government searches without probable cause. There was zero basis to get a warrant to search the house.


I’m an attorney. You’re clearly a POS who doesn’t care about people’s rights. You’re a thug


???? Isn’t caring about rights being scrupulous about not overreaching with warrants??Caselaw to support a warrant in this situation???


News flash. They could have gotten a warrant. There was cause.

News flash. Defendants have rights too. Not just cops.

Stop cosplaying someone who knows or cares about rights. You just wanted to see her burn because you think cops should be entitled to do whatever they want.

Like drunk driving around and acting like morons and thugs



You must be a terrible attorney if you think there was probable cause to seek a warrant for that house - there most definitely absolutely WAS NOT, and that is a fact pretty much universally acknowledged by every Commonwealth attorney who has commented on the case.

That said, law enforcement was welcomed into the home by the homeowners minutes after John's body was 'found' (Karen knew exactly where he was, because she hit him and left him there) and LEOs were in the house repeatedly that day. There was zero evidence that anything untoward happened in that house, this is just another red herring of the innocence fraud campaign.

Again, you're a terrible lawyer. I sincerely hope you are not practicing criminal law.


This. When police get a warrant, they have to identify what they're looking for and provide evidence that establishes PC that the thing they're looking for will be found in the location to be searched. They can't just say "These people look suspicious, so we are going to poke around their house and see if we find anything linking them to a murder." They have to say we are looking for a gun or a bloody shirt or a cell phone or a distinctive jacket or whatever.


So - a shoe?
Anonymous
Apparently 20/20 has an interview with Proctor airing tonight
Anonymous
The FBI investigation is going to be out of control. I can’t wait to see who goes down.

Karen read on the other hand we’ll see the department and be a millionaire.
Anonymous
If the Alberts had any sense, they’d lay low but I think it’s pretty clear they won’t.
post reply Forum Index » Off-Topic
Message Quick Reply
Go to: