Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Brennan making comments is bizarre. Is it not??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brennan making comments is bizarre. Is it not??

Seems like it to me! Or at least unprofessional. I think she might have done it but that there was reasonable doubt but after losing at trial it seems the way to go is to take it on the chin (publicly) and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to the discourse about Karen Read after hearing she was acquitted, and just watched the HBO documentary.

With the way people online were talking about it, it sounded like Karen obviously didn't do it, and the people in that house were obviously responsible for it. But after watching that documentary, I actually find it very ambiguous? I don't quite buy the framing theory, something about it just seemed like a big reach. I get that cops in general can be corrupt and they deserve the reputation they've built for themselves, but I don't see enough to think there was a massive-cover up (although I guess therein lies the issue: they were never investigated thoroughly).

At the same time, I don't think Karen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if she did it, it was an accident, so I agree with the verdict. People also say that if there were that many people involved in a cover-up, one of them would have slipped by now, but didn't her legal team say they got an anonymous tip to check out the house? Could've been one of them.

Re: planting - can’t remember, but does the documentary mention the relationship between Proctor and the people in the house? I can’t remember. Anyway, Colin Albert was a ringbearer in a Proctor wedding.

I think the general theory is that Higgins worked out the planting with Chief Berkowitz. They were BFFs and one of the witnesses in the second trial told the FBI she saw them by the Lexus for a “wildly long time.” Later, Higgins would joke that if you needed someone to help you hide a body, Berkowitz was your man. (Berkowitz died of cancer.)

Anyway, there’s just a lot more lore to this than you get from the documentary lol

Steve Scanlon was the source of the anonymous tip.

[Anonymous]

I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

I said I think it’s possible she may have done something (but miles from beyond a reasonable doubt) but I meant may have messily and drunkenly cobtributed to his death, not that she hit him w a car as described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ID channel is replaying a body in the snow tonight.

Is this pro or anti karen? Or neutral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

I met someone who I think is fairly smart today, and she seemed certain karen ran him over (separate from the verdict). Said karen was black out drunk and it’s obvious she hit him. It surprised me. Are we just hoodwinked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to the discourse about Karen Read after hearing she was acquitted, and just watched the HBO documentary.

With the way people online were talking about it, it sounded like Karen obviously didn't do it, and the people in that house were obviously responsible for it. But after watching that documentary, I actually find it very ambiguous? I don't quite buy the framing theory, something about it just seemed like a big reach. I get that cops in general can be corrupt and they deserve the reputation they've built for themselves, but I don't see enough to think there was a massive-cover up (although I guess therein lies the issue: they were never investigated thoroughly).

At the same time, I don't think Karen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if she did it, it was an accident, so I agree with the verdict. People also say that if there were that many people involved in a cover-up, one of them would have slipped by now, but didn't her legal team say they got an anonymous tip to check out the house? Could've been one of them.

The shady, improper disposal of their phones, the ring camera missing footage, the butt dials, the sleeping through an investigation happening in your lawn, the mirrored body shop video, the remodeling, and the dog being re-homed all comes together to feel like “a reach”?

Yep. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

I met someone who I think is fairly smart today, and she seemed certain karen ran him over (separate from the verdict). Said karen was black out drunk and it’s obvious she hit him. It surprised me. Are we just hoodwinked?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Here's a good litmus test: Do you think Adnan Syed is innocent? If you do, you're a bad judge of character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

NP, I'm still getting caught up and don't have my own theory. But fwiw, I have been hit by a car hard enough to black out for about 10 minutes, and other than the concussion I had only skin and soft tissue injuries. No broken bones; bruises a week later. Bodies are weird, especially if drunk and floppy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

I met someone who I think is fairly smart today, and she seemed certain karen ran him over (separate from the verdict). Said karen was black out drunk and it’s obvious she hit him. It surprised me. Are we just hoodwinked?

Yes. It’s ok. I was once too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

NP, I'm still getting caught up and don't have my own theory. But fwiw, I have been hit by a car hard enough to black out for about 10 minutes, and other than the concussion I had only skin and soft tissue injuries. No broken bones; bruises a week later. Bodies are weird, especially if drunk and floppy.

Yeah. And guy in India walked away from a plane crash that killed everyone else 2 weeks ago. Sometimes these things are just not replicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

I met someone who I think is fairly smart today, and she seemed certain karen ran him over (separate from the verdict). Said karen was black out drunk and it’s obvious she hit him. It surprised me. Are we just hoodwinked?

I was actually interning with a prosecutor when the Casey Anthony case was going on and the consensus from the attorneys I talked to is that the case was shoddily handled and they didn't have sufficient evidence for their theory of the case. There's a difference between being smart and understanding legal standards.

When we're looking at a conviction what you believe happened isn't relevant, it's what can be proved to the reasonable doubt standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get people saying stuff like “I think she might have done it” - look at his injuries. They make zero sense. Those are obviously dog bites on his arm. His scalp is split open from falling on a ridged surface like a step. He has a laceration over the eye that the prosecution didn’t even try to explain because it’s obviously from a punch.

He would not have a scratched up arm, a laceration on the back of his head, a laceration above his eye, and no bruises or broken bones if he got hit by a car. It is not possible.

I met someone who I think is fairly smart today, and she seemed certain karen ran him over (separate from the verdict). Said karen was black out drunk and it’s obvious she hit him. It surprised me. Are we just hoodwinked?

I was actually interning with a prosecutor when the Casey Anthony case was going on and the consensus from the attorneys I talked to is that the case was shoddily handled and they didn't have sufficient evidence for their theory of the case. There's a difference between being smart and understanding legal standards.

When we're looking at a conviction what you believe happened isn't relevant, it's what can be proved to the reasonable doubt standard.

Yes. We are aware.