Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When she hit him, or before the accident?

After the accident, around 5 am.

That makes no sense that the light is on the victim's clothing unless she was framed. Even if she hit him initially, they would have to have planted evidence.

[Anonymous]

Jens on the stand!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The tail light was found in his clothing after they had been bagged together. The clothing was not bagged and entered into evidence for a few weeks post-incident. No chain of custody was recording for the clothing. The clothing was laying in Proctor’s office drying out for a few weeks.

Just like her cop affair partner wanted….

Contaminated evidence to throw out…

Wait so now Higgins is contaminating evidence for Karen? While he was in rehab?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When she hit him, or before the accident?

After the accident, around 5 am.

That makes no sense that the light is on the victim's clothing unless she was framed. Even if she hit him initially, they would have to have planted evidence.

The evidence was not stored and collected properly before being tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jens on the stand!!!

She had a glow up, tan, lighter hair color.

[Anonymous]

Karen told her dad she hit something she was screaming that morning "i hit him, i hit him, i hit him" why are we all here ffs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jens on the stand!!!

She had a glow up, tan, lighter hair color.

She looks pretty!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jens on the stand!!!

She had a glow up, tan, lighter hair color.

Teeth still jacked

[Anonymous]

I can't imagine being such a loser that I'd need to go bar hopping during a snow storm and then have to go to an after party at someone's house to drink more.

[Anonymous]

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.

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)

PATENTLY FALSE ASSERTION.

The first jury RETURNED ZERO VERDICTS.

They DID NOT FIND HER NOT GUILTY of any of the charges. Her ridiculous appeals on this issue, which was created by her $5 million dollar defense team's failure to request a poll or inquiry of a jury that came back three times to say they were deadlocked ON THE CHARGES, is a waste of time which was verified by every Massachusetts state court of appeals, by two federal courts of appeals, and by SCOTUS denying her petition for cert.

I'm shocked by the level of stupidity being exhibited in some comments here.

Many people go to prison for decades on circumstantial evidence less strong than the evidence in this case. We will never see a video of her SUV hitting John and it is likely she's not even clear on the mechanism of the strike because she was 2-4x the legal limit when she plowed into him. We DO have vehicle data which establishes an INTENTIONAL reversal of the vehicle for 60+ feet at 24mph and the very clear moment of the vehicle striking a stationary object of much lighter weight and the 'hiccup' in speed that results from the transfer of kinetic energy from vehicle to object struck.

We have her telling her dad the morning of that she backed up and struck something.

We have her telling at least a half dozen people repeatedly that she HIT HIM she HIT HIM she HIT HIM on the morning she 'discovered' his body where she last left it earlier that morning.

We have her leaving screaming banshee messages on his voicemail for an hour before she passed out drunk, and we have her waking up from her passed out state and immediately calling people to tell them John was dead and probably hit by a plow. She even woke his poor teenaged niece with such still drunken declarations in the very wee hours of the morning.

Have you people really never had any experience with how extreme intoxication translates into bizarre human behavior?

And finally, she did not need to have intended his death - she is charged with second degree DEPRAVED HEART murder, which requires only that she intended an act that exhibited extreme recklessness and disregard for human life. An act like backing at your boyfriend in a drunken rage after he's left your vehicle and started walking toward a house party that you don't want to attend and that you don't want him to attend because you want him to go home with you and kiss your narcissistic ass all night long and tell you how special and wonderful you are.

That's what happened. Karen murdered John. I cannot wait to watch the court officers put John's handcuffs on her scrawny wrists and walk her out of the Dedham courthouse for the ride to MCI Framingham where she can gorge herself on carbs and toilet hooch for the next few decades while she feels sorry for herself BECAUSE NOTHING IS EVER HER FAULT. She's an odious human being and deserves to suffer the rest of her life. It's disgusting that she is a celebrity among morons and that some of you have such a pathetic grasp of our criminal justice system.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, court tv lady-I think there’s reasonable doubt. No one I know in mass thinks the case is strong enough and most are shocked and annoyed they retried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, court tv lady-I think there’s reasonable doubt. No one I know in mass thinks the case is strong enough and most are shocked and annoyed they retried.

I'm not "court tv lady," I'm a GULC JD with decades of experience in our criminal justice system and several hundred DUIs under my belt as both a defender and a prosecutor.

And you must not know many people in Mass who have actual brains in their heads, or the ones you know are all cult susceptible non-critical thinkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, court tv lady-I think there’s reasonable doubt. No one I know in mass thinks the case is strong enough and most are shocked and annoyed they retried.

I'm not "court tv lady," I'm a GULC JD with decades of experience in our criminal justice system and several hundred DUIs under my belt as both a defender and a prosecutor.

And you must not know many people in Mass who have actual brains in their heads, or the ones you know are all cult susceptible non-critical thinkers.

Yes, and former prosecutors are of course famously representative of the average juror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, court tv lady-I think there’s reasonable doubt. No one I know in mass thinks the case is strong enough and most are shocked and annoyed they retried.

I'm not "court tv lady," I'm a GULC JD with decades of experience in our criminal justice system and several hundred DUIs under my belt as both a defender and a prosecutor.

And you must not know many people in Mass who have actual brains in their heads, or the ones you know are all cult susceptible non-critical thinkers.

Yes, and former prosecutors are of course famously representative of the average juror!

Did you miss the DEFENDER part of my post?

I was in the criminal justice clinic at Georgetown, one of the best such programs in the country. I also clerked at the PDS in DC, one of the best public defender organizations in the country. I have a much stronger predilection toward the defense position which is what made me an excellent prosecutor. I know what reasonable doubt is and I know what magical thinking, UNreasonable doubt and shadows of doubt look like. I'd be the first to criticize if I saw any evidence whatsoever of nefarious activity on the part of the po-po in this case; it's not there. Calling a disgusting murdered a c*** on your private phone in text messages to friends/family doesn't make you a dirty cop.

An audit of the Canton PD was done by 5 Stones intelligence, an outfit that has multi-million contracts with the USA government across multiple agencies. No wrongdoing, no corruption. Some of their practices need to be updated to best practices, but nothing was done in this investigation to undermine the evidence that was collected. There was ZERO probable cause to investigate the home or the guests therein.

An audit of sorts was done by the FBI/DOJ of the Massachusetts State Police and all parties involved in this case and there was ZERO evidence found of a third party culprit or a police coverup. If you think differently, you don't know the relationships between local and federal law enforcement in Massachusetts. If there had been anything nefarious found, heads would be rolling.

Karen Read is an odious human being who is guilty of manslaughtering and murdering John O'Keefe. What she's done since she killed him is the proof of what a disgusting c*** she is at her core, she has a disordered personality and no moral compass whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, court tv lady-I think there’s reasonable doubt. No one I know in mass thinks the case is strong enough and most are shocked and annoyed they retried.

I'm not "court tv lady," I'm a GULC JD with decades of experience in our criminal justice system and several hundred DUIs under my belt as both a defender and a prosecutor.

And you must not know many people in Mass who have actual brains in their heads, or the ones you know are all cult susceptible non-critical thinkers.

Yes, and former prosecutors are of course famously representative of the average juror!

Did you miss the DEFENDER part of my post?

I was in the criminal justice clinic at Georgetown, one of the best such programs in the country. I also clerked at the PDS in DC, one of the best public defender organizations in the country. I have a much stronger predilection toward the defense position which is what made me an excellent prosecutor. I know what reasonable doubt is and I know what magical thinking, UNreasonable doubt and shadows of doubt look like. I'd be the first to criticize if I saw any evidence whatsoever of nefarious activity on the part of the po-po in this case; it's not there. Calling a disgusting murdered a c*** on your private phone in text messages to friends/family doesn't make you a dirty cop.

An audit of the Canton PD was done by 5 Stones intelligence, an outfit that has multi-million contracts with the USA government across multiple agencies. No wrongdoing, no corruption. Some of their practices need to be updated to best practices, but nothing was done in this investigation to undermine the evidence that was collected. There was ZERO probable cause to investigate the home or the guests therein.

An audit of sorts was done by the FBI/DOJ of the Massachusetts State Police and all parties involved in this case and there was ZERO evidence found of a third party culprit or a police coverup. If you think differently, you don't know the relationships between local and federal law enforcement in Massachusetts. If there had been anything nefarious found, heads would be rolling.

Karen Read is an odious human being who is guilty of manslaughtering and murdering John O'Keefe. What she's done since she killed him is the proof of what a disgusting c*** she is at her core, she has a disordered personality and no moral compass whatsoever.

You are way too invested in a random case, are you always this crazy?