Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

GUSL?

Moron.

Bless your heart!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

To clarify: the majority of the last jury. A few of the jurors were stealth FKR who lied to get on the panel and had zero intention of deliberating in good faith or convicting on any charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

Doesn’t matter! I know that really burns you up, hon-thoughts and prayers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

Doesn’t matter! I know that really burns you up, hon-thoughts and prayers!

Yeah, I'm put off by miserable idiots like you casting aspersions on the justice system in defense of a psycho drunken rage killer. You have a nonfunctioning moral compass, poster. I hope somebody you love gets horrifically murdered and you spend years being vilified and harassed by a mob of idiots like yourself, see how you like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I’m late to this case. What is the main reason for doubting that Karen Read ran over him with her car? Seems like she may not have done it intentionally, but why is it not a plausible explanation?

Phone records show that John O’Keefe was walking around with his phone, turning it on by facial recognition, and turning it off with the lock button for roughly two full minutes after Karen Read had driven away. So, after she left, he was still standing and using his phone for two minutes.

You didn't listen very carefully. He was moving and using his phone for 20 SECONDS, not 2 minutes. Go back and listen to the timestamps again, poster.

That is, 20 seconds after exiting the Lexus - not after Karen had driven away.

He exited the vehicle which she had pulled away from the house because she was trying to kidnap him away from the after party that she didn't want him to attend.

He insisted she stop, he got out, he grabbed her cocktail from the console and probably said something like, 'don't be pissy, come into the party with me' - and then he closed the door and started walking back toward the house. He probably heard the vehicle backing toward him and thought she was going to park back at the flagpole area where they'd been sitting and fighting so she could join him in going into the party - but instead, she gunned the vehicle into his body and sent him flying into the ground and thus caused his fatal head injury. Then she drove off and left him there to die.

She was gone by 00:30, he was still walking around and using his phone at 00:32. So, for about two minutes after she had driven away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

Doesn’t matter! I know that really burns you up, hon-thoughts and prayers!

Yeah, I'm put off by miserable idiots like you casting aspersions on the justice system in defense of a psycho drunken rage killer. You have a nonfunctioning moral compass, poster. I hope somebody you love gets horrifically murdered and you spend years being vilified and harassed by a mob of idiots like yourself, see how you like it.

Have a normal one, I see. And nice moral compass you have there too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I’m late to this case. What is the main reason for doubting that Karen Read ran over him with her car? Seems like she may not have done it intentionally, but why is it not a plausible explanation?

Phone records show that John O’Keefe was walking around with his phone, turning it on by facial recognition, and turning it off with the lock button for roughly two full minutes after Karen Read had driven away. So, after she left, he was still standing and using his phone for two minutes.

You didn't listen very carefully. He was moving and using his phone for 20 SECONDS, not 2 minutes. Go back and listen to the timestamps again, poster.

That is, 20 seconds after exiting the Lexus - not after Karen had driven away.

He exited the vehicle which she had pulled away from the house because she was trying to kidnap him away from the after party that she didn't want him to attend.

He insisted she stop, he got out, he grabbed her cocktail from the console and probably said something like, 'don't be pissy, come into the party with me' - and then he closed the door and started walking back toward the house. He probably heard the vehicle backing toward him and thought she was going to park back at the flagpole area where they'd been sitting and fighting so she could join him in going into the party - but instead, she gunned the vehicle into his body and sent him flying into the ground and thus caused his fatal head injury. Then she drove off and left him there to die.

She was gone by 00:30, he was still walking around and using his phone at 00:32. So, for about two minutes after she had driven away.

WRONG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

Doesn’t matter! I know that really burns you up, hon-thoughts and prayers!

Yeah, I'm put off by miserable idiots like you casting aspersions on the justice system in defense of a psycho drunken rage killer. You have a nonfunctioning moral compass, poster. I hope somebody you love gets horrifically murdered and you spend years being vilified and harassed by a mob of idiots like yourself, see how you like it.

Have a normal one, I see. And nice moral compass you have there too!

My moral compass leaves me sickened when people like you celebrate the abhorrent mess surrounding this case and the disgusting amoral killer at the heart of it - KAREN READ. You probably fantasize about a) her blowing you, or b) going clothes shopping with her. Psycho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I’m late to this case. What is the main reason for doubting that Karen Read ran over him with her car? Seems like she may not have done it intentionally, but why is it not a plausible explanation?

Phone records show that John O’Keefe was walking around with his phone, turning it on by facial recognition, and turning it off with the lock button for roughly two full minutes after Karen Read had driven away. So, after she left, he was still standing and using his phone for two minutes.

You didn't listen very carefully. He was moving and using his phone for 20 SECONDS, not 2 minutes. Go back and listen to the timestamps again, poster.

That is, 20 seconds after exiting the Lexus - not after Karen had driven away.

He exited the vehicle which she had pulled away from the house because she was trying to kidnap him away from the after party that she didn't want him to attend.

He insisted she stop, he got out, he grabbed her cocktail from the console and probably said something like, 'don't be pissy, come into the party with me' - and then he closed the door and started walking back toward the house. He probably heard the vehicle backing toward him and thought she was going to park back at the flagpole area where they'd been sitting and fighting so she could join him in going into the party - but instead, she gunned the vehicle into his body and sent him flying into the ground and thus caused his fatal head injury. Then she drove off and left him there to die.

She was gone by 00:30, he was still walking around and using his phone at 00:32. So, for about two minutes after she had driven away.

WRONG

These are the times that are known by investigators. So, not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I’m late to this case. What is the main reason for doubting that Karen Read ran over him with her car? Seems like she may not have done it intentionally, but why is it not a plausible explanation?

Phone records show that John O’Keefe was walking around with his phone, turning it on by facial recognition, and turning it off with the lock button for roughly two full minutes after Karen Read had driven away. So, after she left, he was still standing and using his phone for two minutes.

You didn't listen very carefully. He was moving and using his phone for 20 SECONDS, not 2 minutes. Go back and listen to the timestamps again, poster.

That is, 20 seconds after exiting the Lexus - not after Karen had driven away.

He exited the vehicle which she had pulled away from the house because she was trying to kidnap him away from the after party that she didn't want him to attend.

He insisted she stop, he got out, he grabbed her cocktail from the console and probably said something like, 'don't be pissy, come into the party with me' - and then he closed the door and started walking back toward the house. He probably heard the vehicle backing toward him and thought she was going to park back at the flagpole area where they'd been sitting and fighting so she could join him in going into the party - but instead, she gunned the vehicle into his body and sent him flying into the ground and thus caused his fatal head injury. Then she drove off and left him there to die.

Dumb. If she didn’t want him to go to the party, she could have just….not driven to the party. Maybe he just fell over drunk and hit his own damn head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

Doesn’t matter! I know that really burns you up, hon-thoughts and prayers!

Yeah, I'm put off by miserable idiots like you casting aspersions on the justice system in defense of a psycho drunken rage killer. You have a nonfunctioning moral compass, poster. I hope somebody you love gets horrifically murdered and you spend years being vilified and harassed by a mob of idiots like yourself, see how you like it.

Have a normal one, I see. And nice moral compass you have there too!

My moral compass leaves me sickened when people like you celebrate the abhorrent mess surrounding this case and the disgusting amoral killer at the heart of it - KAREN READ. You probably fantasize about a) her blowing you, or b) going clothes shopping with her. Psycho.

Why do you think it's celebrating her to think there might be reasonable doubt?

[Anonymous]

Lol at defense using "colloquy" instead of "conversation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I’m late to this case. What is the main reason for doubting that Karen Read ran over him with her car? Seems like she may not have done it intentionally, but why is it not a plausible explanation?

It is the ONLY plausible explanation.

The Free Karen Read followers have been duped and led down a garden path by Karen and her tool Aiden Kearney aka Turtleboy, an online blogger who disseminated her third party culprit conspiracy theory that John went into the house, was immediately set upon by the residents therein, beaten to death, attacked by a DNA-less dog, and thrown out on the lawn to die.

The house was full of young adults celebrating the homeowner's son's 21st birthday as well as the close friends and some a coworkers of John's from the Boston PD who he knew but not well.

The defense theory is that all of those people are covering up a murder, and also the Canton PD, and also the MSP, and also the ME, and also the other ME who specializes in brain injury, and also the ER doctor who warmed John up and then declared him dead (because you're not dead until you're warm and dead), and also John's family is in on it, and also the EMTs, paramedics, firefighters, and the prosecutor's office AND the judge.

Mostly this is all true because the MSP trooper heading the investigation called Karen a 'whack job c*nt' in private text messages to his family and friends while he was investigating the case. Never mind that her behavior from the early morning hours when she killed John to this very moment have revealed that the trooper was a very discerning judge of character re: Karen Read.

It's all INSANE. She is a guilty as sin binge drunk driver who plowed over her boyfriend in a rage. ALL of the actual, admissible physical, testimonial, circumstantial evidence points squarely at Karen Read. There is no actual admissible evidence whatsoever that backs the defense's sick theories, which are ever changing because they are pure fabrications.

Beyond the disgustingness of Karen's defense team's sleazy tactics, there is a whole INDUSTRY of YouTube and other social media content creators who are monetizing the obsession with the case that FKR have, and who have stoked actual physical and verbal harassment of witnesses, court personnel, prosecutors, police, victim's friends and family, etc. from among the FKR followers.

Unfreakingbelievable.

Hi there,

The defense does not have to offer admissible evidence in support of any theory. The defense MAY introduce reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's evidence of guilt (either through affirmative evidence, or cross-examination, or credibility). But, they don't even have to do that, and jurors may still have reasonable doubt even when the only proffered evidence is from the prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The butt dials are what clinches it for me-it’s reasonable doubt to many no matter how much it enrages you, former prosecutor/defender/GUSL grad/Mayflower descendant lady!

It's only reasonable doubt to a moron.

The last jury did not believe even a tiny, wee little bit in the defense's third party culprit theory of the case.

It only takes one.

[Anonymous]

Jen's expression just now when the judge accidentally called her Ms. Read!!!