Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP Why do you think those who think she's guilty also think she covered it up? Some of us think she *might* be guilty and that she also genuinely did question if she hit him and freaked out. She's said as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

She was drunk and the hanxiety was already setting in. She was not thinking that deeply. She probably had already driven by 34 Fairview before going to pick up the other 2 and had already seen him and knew he was there.

Why would a group of people put a dead body on their front lawn if they were trying to hide that they killed him? And if they did kill him they sure were taking a chance that Karen or anyone else (lots of people coming and going night) wouldn't show up as they were doing the beating up/killing/moving the body? Also super convenient for them that Karen was already worried about him having been hit apropros of nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure it is that weird to sell a house after that sort of traumatic incident in the yard, especially if I was already thinking of selling. Also covering up a murder in the house would probably compel people to keep the house, not let others in to see it and inspect it and live there. They rehomed the dog after she got in a fight with another dog a few months later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure it is that weird to sell a house after that sort of traumatic incident in the yard, especially if I was already thinking of selling. Also covering up a murder in the house would probably compel people to keep the house, not let others in to see it and inspect it and live there. They rehomed the dog after she got in a fight with another dog a few months later.

Didn’t Chloe also bite a woman who was trying to intervene between Chloe and the dog being attacked? Is there a “one bite” law in Massachusetts?

[Anonymous]

They remodeled the house twice before the investigation was complete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

She was drunk and the hanxiety was already setting in. She was not thinking that deeply. She probably had already driven by 34 Fairview before going to pick up the other 2 and had already seen him and knew he was there.

Why would a group of people put a dead body on their front lawn if they were trying to hide that they killed him? And if they did kill him they sure were taking a chance that Karen or anyone else (lots of people coming and going night) wouldn't show up as they were doing the beating up/killing/moving the body? Also super convenient for them that Karen was already worried about him having been hit apropros of nothing.

I can tell who the men are on this thread. Men never seem to wonder if something was their fault until - maybe- someone says it is.

Women are often quick to blame themselves with various unproven scenarios their anxiety creates in their head.

And certainly she was still drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

She was drunk and the hanxiety was already setting in. She was not thinking that deeply. She probably had already driven by 34 Fairview before going to pick up the other 2 and had already seen him and knew he was there.

Why would a group of people put a dead body on their front lawn if they were trying to hide that they killed him? And if they did kill him they sure were taking a chance that Karen or anyone else (lots of people coming and going night) wouldn't show up as they were doing the beating up/killing/moving the body? Also super convenient for them that Karen was already worried about him having been hit apropros of nothing.

I can tell who the men are on this thread. Men never seem to wonder if something was their fault until - maybe- someone says it is.

Women are often quick to blame themselves with various unproven scenarios their anxiety creates in their head.

And certainly she was still drunk.

Well, I guess you’re not really good at telling who the men are because I am 100% a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They remodeled the house twice before the investigation was complete.

This makes zero sense and is also nonsense/twisted from Turtle Boy’s propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They remodeled the house twice before the investigation was complete.

This makes zero sense and is also nonsense/twisted from Turtle Boy’s propaganda.

How does this “not make sense”? Do you think the investigation ended when they found the body?????

[Anonymous]

It seems likely that the next chapter of this saga will be the Birchmore case.

[Anonymous]

I'm from the Canton area. Canton is part of what we call the South Shore.

I'm finding this thread late and KR has been acquitted of all but OUI in her retrial. I wonder if any of you who posted here last year closely watched all of the retrial, especially the defense's medical experts and biomechanical engineers who explained why it's obvious OJO was not struck by a vehicle. I think that's undeniable at this point. I'm so glad she was acquitted. It would've been a travesty of justice to convict her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here, I think they were worried about being held liable in some way as suspects for law suits because it happened on their property. Being cops, they knew they could become suspects and I think their behavior was a bit paranoid because.of that. I think the dog was probably problematic for a long time so this was an incentive to ger rie of it, and they probably didn't want to live in the house anymore because of public and media attention and bad memories.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]I'm from the Canton area. Canton is part of what we call the South Shore.

I'm finding this thread late and KR has been acquitted of all but OUI in her retrial. I wonder if any of you who posted here last year closely watched all of the retrial, especially the defense's medical experts and biomechanical engineers who explained why it's obvious OJO was not struck by a vehicle. I think that's undeniable at this point. I'm so glad she was acquitted. It would've been a travesty of justice to convict her.[/quote]

Agree with everything you said, but Canton's not South Shore! Maybe culturally (Mary Lou's, Bar Pizza) but it's sort of like Lynnfield. Not technically the shore, but what it is, no one knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They remodeled the house twice before the investigation was complete.

Lol

[Anonymous]

[quote]Agree with everything you said, but Canton's not South Shore! Maybe culturally (Mary Lou's, Bar Pizza) but it's sort of like Lynnfield. Not technically the shore, but what it is, no one knows.[/quote][/quote]

I just looked to see what different sites define as the South Shore. I see several that say Canton borders South Shore towns but isn't part of it and a couple that include it the South Shore towns. I never knew that! I just grew up calling that area the South Shore. :) I'm glad to hear that you're happy too about her acquittal.