Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[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.

Just watched the HBO doc and this was my take too. I don’t think there was framing or a cover-up. I think he was drunk, it was slippery and he fell and hit the back of his head. If she hit him, it was an accident. She was drunk driving and guilty of it. The cops' collective behavior was strange (selling the house, rehoming the dog, nasty text messages, "butt dialing") so it was a good move to bring it all up. At the very least it took away the assumption that cops are demi-gods and therefore they are all and always heroes. They seemed as fallible and unlikeable as Karen herself. No one had a clear picture of what happened and the defense made it impossible to convict her based on the cops good/accusers bad narrative.

[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.

It amazes me what the people who think Karen Read is guilty think is evidence of guilt. Talk about mental gymnastics, twisting information around, and ignoring any facts that don’t fit in with their theory. They also regularly call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “dumb” or “stupid”- they appear to believe that only they are the “smart” and “sane” ones.

It’s clear that they can’t stand the Karen Read as a person. They’ve invested a lot of time in imagining how much they would like to see her go to prison and now that’s not panning out. Our justice system has prevailed.

[Anonymous]

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

This is such a bizarre non sequitor it makes me question your reasoning abilities.

Each case brings its own particular nuances and details. And each is independent of the other. People who weirdly throw out other names - Casey Anthony, OJ, Adnan - are just clearly trying ot muddy the water. Evaluate this case on its merits and particulars - setting, victim, investigation, charges. None of those particulars have anything to do with other highly publicized cases, except perhaps that people have trouble with ambiguity, the rule of law, reasonable doubt, prosecutorial overreach and misconduct, and the way justice can be applied unequally and how much $$ plays a role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It amazes me what the people who think Karen Read is guilty think is evidence of guilt. Talk about mental gymnastics, twisting information around, and ignoring any facts that don’t fit in with their theory. They also regularly call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “dumb” or “stupid”- they appear to believe that only they are the “smart” and “sane” ones.

It’s clear that they can’t stand the Karen Read as a person. They’ve invested a lot of time in imagining how much they would like to see her go to prison and now that’s not panning out. Our justice system has prevailed.

Perhaps rather than brushing all 'Karen is guilty' people with broad strokes, take a look at your own mental gymnastics, twisting information, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is such a bizarre non sequitor it makes me question your reasoning abilities.

Each case brings its own particular nuances and details. And each is independent of the other. People who weirdly throw out other names - Casey Anthony, OJ, Adnan - are just clearly trying ot muddy the water. Evaluate this case on its merits and particulars - setting, victim, investigation, charges. None of those particulars have anything to do with other highly publicized cases, except perhaps that people have trouble with ambiguity, the rule of law, reasonable doubt, prosecutorial overreach and misconduct, and the way justice can be applied unequally and how much $$ plays a role.

The OJ analogy is understandable. He was acquitted due to poor police work, headlines about other parties, and a general feeling of disdain towards the LAPD on the part of the LA Community/jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It amazes me what the people who think Karen Read is guilty think is evidence of guilt. Talk about mental gymnastics, twisting information around, and ignoring any facts that don’t fit in with their theory. They also regularly call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “dumb” or “stupid”- they appear to believe that only they are the “smart” and “sane” ones.

It’s clear that they can’t stand the Karen Read as a person. They’ve invested a lot of time in imagining how much they would like to see her go to prison and now that’s not panning out. Our justice system has prevailed.

+1
I get that she’s unlikeable. They all are. But the evidence isn’t there.

[Anonymous]

If my boyfriend didn't come home the night after a fight with me my assumption would be that he passed out one someone's couch and he would show up eventually. I don't think I would be flipping out and calling people I didn't know that well at 4:30 AM and make them drive around in a snowstorm with me and worry out of nowhere that he had been hit by snowplow or even myself. And I certainly wouldn't be pulling up to the house "with anticipation of seeing him" like she said she did:

"Karen: I described this to everyone, so you've probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie. It was just a lawn and a heap that...wasn't a bush or a hydrant or a dog." It was...it was a...a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road. I was expecting I'd find him. And the fear of what I was going to see is the worst feeling I've ever experienced. The anticipation of what...what is awaiting me...was as extreme a feeling...I wouldn't say it was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realizing what happened to him."

That's just me though.

[Anonymous]

Here are some of her own words: https://youtu.be/zxYtv8m_UU8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It amazes me what the people who think Karen Read is guilty think is evidence of guilt. Talk about mental gymnastics, twisting information around, and ignoring any facts that don’t fit in with their theory. They also regularly call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “dumb” or “stupid”- they appear to believe that only they are the “smart” and “sane” ones.

It’s clear that they can’t stand the Karen Read as a person. They’ve invested a lot of time in imagining how much they would like to see her go to prison and now that’s not panning out. Our justice system has prevailed.

Perhaps rather than brushing all 'Karen is guilty' people with broad strokes, take a look at your own mental gymnastics, twisting information, etc.

Sorry, you’re right, I should have been more specific. I’m talking more narrowly about some of the people who think she’s not guilty who post here and on a particular site on Reddit. There are a lot of nasty posts describing Karen Read and those who think she is not guilty (including the jurors) with all kinds of derogatory terms- directed at them in a personal way, not in terms of mere disagreement with their ideas. As though the only reasons they might disagree are because they are stupid, insane, uneducated, or just generally bad people.

[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.

Just watched the HBO doc and this was my take too. I don’t think there was framing or a cover-up. I think he was drunk, it was slippery and he fell and hit the back of his head. If she hit him, it was an accident. She was drunk driving and guilty of it. The cops' collective behavior was strange (selling the house, rehoming the dog, nasty text messages, "butt dialing") so it was a good move to bring it all up. At the very least it took away the assumption that cops are demi-gods and therefore they are all and always heroes. They seemed as fallible and unlikeable as Karen herself. No one had a clear picture of what happened and the defense made it impossible to convict her based on the cops good/accusers bad narrative.

PP Yeah, while I don't buy the cover-up theory, the collective behavior was strange. How do you think that could be explained? I understand why the cops destroyed their cell phones, because even if they weren't guilty, they probably texted a lot of terrible things, but I'm curious about the house selling and dog rehoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It amazes me what the people who think Karen Read is guilty think is evidence of guilt. Talk about mental gymnastics, twisting information around, and ignoring any facts that don’t fit in with their theory. They also regularly call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “dumb” or “stupid”- they appear to believe that only they are the “smart” and “sane” ones.

It’s clear that they can’t stand the Karen Read as a person. They’ve invested a lot of time in imagining how much they would like to see her go to prison and now that’s not panning out. Our justice system has prevailed.

Perhaps rather than brushing all 'Karen is guilty' people with broad strokes, take a look at your own mental gymnastics, twisting information, etc.

Sorry, you’re right, I should have been more specific. I’m talking more narrowly about some of the people who think she’s not guilty who post here and on a particular site on Reddit. There are a lot of nasty posts describing Karen Read and those who think she is not guilty (including the jurors) with all kinds of derogatory terms- directed at them in a personal way, not in terms of mere disagreement with their ideas. As though the only reasons they might disagree are because they are stupid, insane, uneducated, or just generally bad people.

That’s just the internet. On every subject matter. Some people are bored and angry. Others are bots and trolls. Try not to let online comments affect your real life perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It amazes me what the people who think Karen Read is guilty think is evidence of guilt. Talk about mental gymnastics, twisting information around, and ignoring any facts that don’t fit in with their theory. They also regularly call anyone who doesn’t agree with them “dumb” or “stupid”- they appear to believe that only they are the “smart” and “sane” ones.

It’s clear that they can’t stand the Karen Read as a person. They’ve invested a lot of time in imagining how much they would like to see her go to prison and now that’s not panning out. Our justice system has prevailed.

Perhaps rather than brushing all 'Karen is guilty' people with broad strokes, take a look at your own mental gymnastics, twisting information, etc.

Sorry, you’re right, I should have been more specific. I’m talking more narrowly about some of the people who think she’s not guilty who post here and on a particular site on Reddit. There are a lot of nasty posts describing Karen Read and those who think she is not guilty (including the jurors) with all kinds of derogatory terms- directed at them in a personal way, not in terms of mere disagreement with their ideas. As though the only reasons they might disagree are because they are stupid, insane, uneducated, or just generally bad people.

That’s just the internet. On every subject matter. Some people are bored and angry. Others are bots and trolls. Try not to let online comments affect your real life perspective.

Hmm, so you think people saying horrible things are not at all reflective of how some individuals think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my boyfriend didn't come home the night after a fight with me my assumption would be that he passed out one someone's couch and he would show up eventually. I don't think I would be flipping out and calling people I didn't know that well at 4:30 AM and make them drive around in a snowstorm with me and worry out of nowhere that he had been hit by snowplow or even myself. And I certainly wouldn't be pulling up to the house "with anticipation of seeing him" like she said she did:

"Karen: I described this to everyone, so you've probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie. It was just a lawn and a heap that...wasn't a bush or a hydrant or a dog." It was...it was a...a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road. I was expecting I'd find him. And the fear of what I was going to see is the worst feeling I've ever experienced. The anticipation of what...what is awaiting me...was as extreme a feeling...I wouldn't say it was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realizing what happened to him."

That's just me though.

If my boyfriend who always came home for the kids didn’t show up, I’d be absolutely panicked, and if you wouldn’t be panicked, that says something about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my boyfriend didn't come home the night after a fight with me my assumption would be that he passed out one someone's couch and he would show up eventually. I don't think I would be flipping out and calling people I didn't know that well at 4:30 AM and make them drive around in a snowstorm with me and worry out of nowhere that he had been hit by snowplow or even myself. And I certainly wouldn't be pulling up to the house "with anticipation of seeing him" like she said she did:

"Karen: I described this to everyone, so you've probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie. It was just a lawn and a heap that...wasn't a bush or a hydrant or a dog." It was...it was a...a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road. I was expecting I'd find him. And the fear of what I was going to see is the worst feeling I've ever experienced. The anticipation of what...what is awaiting me...was as extreme a feeling...I wouldn't say it was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realizing what happened to him."

That's just me though.

If my boyfriend who always came home for the kids didn’t show up, I’d be absolutely panicked, and if you wouldn’t be panicked, that says something about you.

Also, if she did do it, why is she hailing random people around in a snowstorm and leading them to the scene of the crime? Sleep in and let the snowstorm do its thing and erase the evidence. Why bring unknown variables (strangers who are friends with the victim) into the fold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is such a bizarre non sequitor it makes me question your reasoning abilities.

Each case brings its own particular nuances and details. And each is independent of the other. People who weirdly throw out other names - Casey Anthony, OJ, Adnan - are just clearly trying ot muddy the water. Evaluate this case on its merits and particulars - setting, victim, investigation, charges. None of those particulars have anything to do with other highly publicized cases, except perhaps that people have trouble with ambiguity, the rule of law, reasonable doubt, prosecutorial overreach and misconduct, and the way justice can be applied unequally and how much $$ plays a role.

1) Notice how I never said which side I'm on. You listed a bunch of suspects others think are guilty, as if I think Karen is guilty.
2) I don't think Adnan's case is similar. I just think if someone thinks he's innocent, they're a bad judge of character. That's all.