Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

What a bunch of low class alcoholics. Had everyone simply stayed home during a massive snowstorm, instead of going out on a bender; or even just ubered home, none of this would have happened. BOK could have also made smarter choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alan Jackson to witness: isn’t it true that you’re connected to a police department in another town?

Witness: no

Jackson: is it true that your cousin‘s husband‘s best friend walks her dog with the the best friend of a wife of a police officer?

Witness: yes

Jackson: so you are connected!

Exactly!!! Alan Jackson has NOTHING. The judge is a push over allowing him to do that to Jen for that long. She's unprofessional as can be. She needs to stand up to jackson she's making a total fool of herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alan Jackson to witness: isn’t it true that you’re connected to a police department in another town?

Witness: no

Jackson: is it true that your cousin‘s husband‘s best friend walks her dog with the the best friend of a wife of a police officer?

Witness: yes

Jackson: so you are connected!

Exactly!!! Alan Jackson has NOTHING. The judge is a push over allowing him to do that to Jen for that long. She's unprofessional as can be. She needs to stand up to jackson she's making a total fool of herself.

If the defense has “nothing” why is there a second trial? Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alan Jackson to witness: isn’t it true that you’re connected to a police department in another town?

Witness: no

Jackson: is it true that your cousin‘s husband‘s best friend walks her dog with the the best friend of a wife of a police officer?

Witness: yes

Jackson: so you are connected!

Exactly!!! Alan Jackson has NOTHING. The judge is a push over allowing him to do that to Jen for that long. She's unprofessional as can be. She needs to stand up to jackson she's making a total fool of herself.

Not in relation to this case, but in general, do you think that family and friend connections are meaningless when it comes to the reliability of a witness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alan Jackson to witness: isn’t it true that you’re connected to a police department in another town?

Witness: no

Jackson: is it true that your cousin‘s husband‘s best friend walks her dog with the the best friend of a wife of a police officer?

Witness: yes

Jackson: so you are connected!

Exactly!!! Alan Jackson has NOTHING. The judge is a push over allowing him to do that to Jen for that long. She's unprofessional as can be. She needs to stand up to jackson she's making a total fool of herself.

Not in relation to this case, but in general, do you think that family and friend connections are meaningless when it comes to the reliability of a witness?

I’m not sure where you live but think of it in DC terms. I would venture a guess that a bunch of people living in this area know somebody who knows somebody who is connected to someone. That doesn’t mean you’re unreliable.

My brother‘s best friend‘s wife worked in the White House for Biden. Does that mean I’m connected to Biden? No.

My friend’s brother works for the FBI. I’ve seen the brother at parties. Does that mean I’m connected to the FBI? No.

[Anonymous]

Jenn McCabe's sister was the owner/resident of 34 Fairview (along with her husband) when the death occurred. That seems like connection enough!

[Anonymous]

I think the witnesses/police are unreliable due to their connections to each other. This was clearly a tight-knit group of people. KR was on the periphery of that group, the outsider girlfriend. It's very much like one of those Agatha Christie Mysteries, with various motivations, lies, even the way he was killed is in doubt.

[Anonymous]

I honestly don't have a dog in the fight - I just enjoy a good mystery. When one side has me believing their version, the other side will throw out something that contradicts. Regardless of the verdict, I'm not sure we will ever truly know what happened in full.

[Anonymous]

All I need to know to have reasonable doubt is they ripped up the carpet and destroyed all their phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I need to know to have reasonable doubt is they ripped up the carpet and destroyed all their phones.

Additionally, they never came outside the entire time first responders were there, even to find out what was going on! And their cop friend across the street unilaterally decided his ring footage was "of no value" and deleted it before the investigators could look at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I need to know to have reasonable doubt is they ripped up the carpet and destroyed all their phones.

Additionally, they never came outside the entire time first responders were there, even to find out what was going on! And their cop friend across the street unilaterally decided his ring footage was "of no value" and deleted it before the investigators could look at it.

Again, that's a total lie. He did not delete it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I need to know to have reasonable doubt is they ripped up the carpet and destroyed all their phones.

Additionally, they never came outside the entire time first responders were there, even to find out what was going on! And their cop friend across the street unilaterally decided his ring footage was "of no value" and deleted it before the investigators could look at it.

Again, that's a total lie. He did not delete it.

So where is the video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I need to know to have reasonable doubt is they ripped up the carpet and destroyed all their phones.

Additionally, they never came outside the entire time first responders were there, even to find out what was going on! And their cop friend across the street unilaterally decided his ring footage was "of no value" and deleted it before the investigators could look at it.

Again, that's a total lie. He did not delete it.

Was it collected by the investigators?

[Anonymous]

Also, at no point that morning or any time after did an investigator enter the residence. Not even a cursory glance. A few months later, basement flooring was replaced and the home was sold.

[Anonymous]

This second trial is organized differently! The prosecution is first putting on a bunch of witnesses to testify that Karen admitted guilt repeatedly when she found the body. I assume the prosecution is trying to drill this into the jury’s brains in anticipation of the evidence that will show the investigation was a hot mess. If the jury is convinced she confessed, they may not care that Proctor did such a bad job that he got fired. I’m having trouble guessing how this ends simply because the evidence strongly suggests the victim wasn’t hit by a car. Will that be enough to counter the “I hit him” testimony? It should be, but who knows!