Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous]

How drunk do you think this lot is getting tonight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How drunk do you think this lot is getting tonight?

+1

[Anonymous]

I’m just waiting for the crash daddies to testify. The eye witnesses to KR’s behavior that night are meaningless if JOK wasn’t hit by a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

One hung jury already says I am right and you are not.

I think Karen Read is a drunk (and I notice that there has been no mention in any of this voluminous coverage of her sobering up, which is terrible judgment on her part) and she is definitely guilty of DUI. Everything else is reasonably dubious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

Whatever else, I certainly hope this time around that if it comes out there are FKR cult on the jury who lied to get on the panel the Commonwealth needs to PROSECUTE them for jury tampering and send them to an MCI facility for two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't know as much about this case as some posters on here, but I'm not sure where the "reasonable" doubt is yet. Some far-fetched doubt in the realm of an unlikely possibility? Maybe. But it seems likely that this was at least done unintentionally while under the influence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't know as much about this case as some posters on here, but I'm not sure where the "reasonable" doubt is yet. Some far-fetched doubt in the realm of an unlikely possibility? Maybe. But it seems likely that this was at least done unintentionally while under the influence.

I could be wrong, though, and it's ultimately up to the jury. For her sake, it matters what they think, not what we think.

[Anonymous]

The commonwealth can show that KR was acting erratic and was concerned she might have drunkenly caused JOK’s death by hitting him with her car. The defense experts can show that it’s very unlikely if not impossible that JOK’s injuries were caused by a collision. KR’s team is trying to paint the picture of everyone else at 34 Fairview conspiring to cover up what really happened (a fight? A dog attack), and it’s a hard sell. The best argument I’ve seen in support of that theory (aside from the fact that cell phones were destroyed, dogs re-homed, tons of butt dials the night-of etc.) is the fact that all of the group chats between these people in the hours and days that followed were very brief and sterile - if your friend’s girlfriend had drunkenly murdered him, you can’t tell me you wouldn’t be sending messages just going off on her. Yet this hard-partying crew was talking like unemotional robots. It’s hardly evidence, but when I’m trying to sort through the noise, this fact strikes me as significant.

[Anonymous]

That’s a good point pp. if none of the supposed witnesses to her “confession” in the yard was texting to friends about that that is incredibly sus.

[Anonymous]

I think people are swayed in their judgement of her because frankly she’s pretty unlikable. She must have borderline personality disorder or something like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The commonwealth can show that KR was acting erratic and was concerned she might have drunkenly caused JOK’s death by hitting him with her car. The defense experts can show that it’s very unlikely if not impossible that JOK’s injuries were caused by a collision. KR’s team is trying to paint the picture of everyone else at 34 Fairview conspiring to cover up what really happened (a fight? A dog attack), and it’s a hard sell. The best argument I’ve seen in support of that theory (aside from the fact that cell phones were destroyed, dogs re-homed, tons of butt dials the night-of etc.) is the fact that all of the group chats between these people in the hours and days that followed were very brief and sterile - if your friend’s girlfriend had drunkenly murdered him, you can’t tell me you wouldn’t be sending messages just going off on her. Yet this hard-partying crew was talking like unemotional robots. It’s hardly evidence, but when I’m trying to sort through the noise, this fact strikes me as significant.

Can't the state also show a bunch of evidence on the car, too, though?