Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see this thread flooded with anti Karen Read comments given how badly the investigation was botched. It almost feels like a negative PR push against her. Even if she did hit him (note: the commonwealth has yet to convince me JOK was even hit by a car), she was gifted a lifetime’s worth of reasonable doubt when they put Proctor in charge of the investigation.

Agree. Unlike some of the posters, I’m not invested in the outcome of this case. But I understand reasonable doubt, and this case is a textbook example of it. Saying someone is “not guilty” in a court of law does not mean they are innocent.

Yes we know.

Thus any of your loved ones could be deliberately hit by a track tonight from their pissed off romantic partner and not haven’t consequences.

Well is that him with the hoodie or mask or not?! Could be anyone!?

Was that her drunk driving at him or not? Oh my, don’t know!

Are his bruises from the truck or the bridge or falling on ricks? Oh my! Don’t know.

Is that his diary notebook and note or was it not logged in correctly so who cares!? Not the victims kids or family…

If it is such an open and shut case, your should direct your anger at the cops who royally jammed up the investigation.

DP it IS an open and shut case. Theres microscopic taillight fragments on his clothes.its very cut and dry, she rammed him.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

And the dog bites?

It was pig DNA.

So you think a pig bit him?

pig = cop, PP was trying to be funny

No, there was literally pig DNA on him, probably from food.

Nibble nibble until the dead body found

[Anonymous]

For all of you following this case Please credit or discredit this possibility:

Karen drops john off. John starts to walk to the back gate to the basement stairs (by the flag pole) falls and cracks the back of his head on a rock and lays there dying. No one is responsible for this death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

No, the jury DID reach consensus on two out of the three charges: they found her not guilty of murder and leaving the scene of an accident. They could not agree on involuntary manslaughter.

"there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car."

THAT'S A LIE! PROOF From the first trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEIvS5yPxY0

Nice try though!

There is no “nice try” involved. The 1st jury found her not guilty of two out of three charges. Whether you think she hit him or not does not matter when it comes to that.

The charges are related.

1- she murdered on purpose. (NG)
2- she left the hit & run scene on purpose (NG)
3 - she killed him on accident, vehicular manslaughter, and wrecklessly/ drunk (mistrial)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

And the dog bites?

There wasn't any dog bites those were cuts from the glass he was holding.

All you karen supports are nuts. No one else had the motive to kill him and no one else was fighting with him non-stop that entire day. He was trying to break up with her. Did any of you read the all the text messages? She called him like 75-100X that day and he didn't pick up. He was at the end of his rope with her.

+1. Doesn’t prove nuffin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

And the dog bites?

It was pig DNA.

So you think a pig bit him?

pig = cop, PP was trying to be funny

No, there was literally pig DNA on him, probably from food.

Her attorneys say it’s from a dog treat like a pig ear.

Plus he made ham bone split pea soups earlier.

So many options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did he get vomit inside his pants on the top of his underwear and where and when did this happen?

It's hard to belive grown adults especially those in law enforcement live like this in the their 40s and 50's.

He deserved it

WTF? What at terrible thing to say. To speak to his character he became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after his sister dies of cancer and her husband dies soon after of a heart attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did it. If the people in the house killed him, which they did not, then they got pretty damn lucky that she broke her tail light and was the one to find him the next morning. Because without that they would have had no way to pin this on her.

But did she intend to do it? Did she know she hit him?

I am not sure whether she intended to hit him, but I do believe she knew she hit him.

I don't believe she intended to kill him.

Yes she killed him, was angry and raging and ran him down. Then left.

No matter, she’ll get off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you following this case Please credit or discredit this possibility:

Karen drops john off. John starts to walk to the back gate to the basement stairs (by the flag pole) falls and cracks the back of his head on a rock and lays there dying. No one is responsible for this death.

Fall from standing up and no seizure? Another totally viable scenario!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you following this case Please credit or discredit this possibility:

Karen drops john off. John starts to walk to the back gate to the basement stairs (by the flag pole) falls and cracks the back of his head on a rock and lays there dying. No one is responsible for this death.

Then why was her tail light broken and why was the first thing she assumed when she woke up that he was dead and maybe she hit him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of you following this case Please credit or discredit this possibility:

Karen drops john off. John starts to walk to the back gate to the basement stairs (by the flag pole) falls and cracks the back of his head on a rock and lays there dying. No one is responsible for this death.

Way too easy. The broken lights from karens car was on his clothes and one piece os his hair was stuck in whats left of her tail light.cell phone data shows his body laid to rest the entire time by the flag pole not moving all night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you following this case Please credit or discredit this possibility:

Karen drops john off. John starts to walk to the back gate to the basement stairs (by the flag pole) falls and cracks the back of his head on a rock and lays there dying. No one is responsible for this death.

Fall from standing up and no seizure? Another totally viable scenario!!

Snow and ice it was a blizzard duh.

[Anonymous]

But the Google search at 2:00 am and subsequent deletion of that? Rehoming your dog? Selling your home at a loss but still renovating the basement? Going to such extreme measures to get rid of phone evidence? The butt dials? Way too many coincidences. They know more about this then they are willing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you following this case Please credit or discredit this possibility:

Karen drops john off. John starts to walk to the back gate to the basement stairs (by the flag pole) falls and cracks the back of his head on a rock and lays there dying. No one is responsible for this death.

Then why was her tail light broken and why was the first thing she assumed when she woke up that he was dead and maybe she hit him?

There is a video of her breaking her taillight while backing out at John's house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the Google search at 2:00 am and subsequent deletion of that? Rehoming your dog? Selling your home at a loss but still renovating the basement? Going to such extreme measures to get rid of phone evidence? The butt dials? Way too many coincidences. They know more about this then they are willing to say.

Who?

Sorry I'm slow.