Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Where did those weird marks on his arm? Come from though? That’s not consistent with a car accident in the snow.

[Anonymous]

She can say whatever she wants in these interviews and call everyone else a liar, and it's not subject to cross examination. Maybe that's where the doubt in the eyes of the public comes in. But the jurors should not have seen any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are all unlikeable though, weird reckless and cold bunch of entitled drunks. So it does not sway me. I think she could have done it, but it cannot be proven any more than any other theory given how little info makes sense and all the lies they are all telling.

For example it’s plausible to me Jen didn’t think straight so did not ask her BIL to come do CPR, but it’s clearly a lie when she tells KR’s attorney she now cannot tell him if anyone on the street knew CPR. She knows her BIL at least, plus likely the guy across the street who is a retired cop. She was trying not to look bad but proved she lies on the stand. So what else did she lie about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are all unlikeable though, weird reckless and cold bunch of entitled drunks. So it does not sway me. I think she could have done it, but it cannot be proven any more than any other theory given how little info makes sense and all the lies they are all telling.

For example it’s plausible to me Jen didn’t think straight so did not ask her BIL to come do CPR, but it’s clearly a lie when she tells KR’s attorney she now cannot tell him if anyone on the street knew CPR. She knows her BIL at least, plus likely the guy across the street who is a retired cop. She was trying not to look bad but proved she lies on the stand. So what else did she lie about?

Did she say that? I was listening and didn’t hear that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are all unlikeable though, weird reckless and cold bunch of entitled drunks. So it does not sway me. I think she could have done it, but it cannot be proven any more than any other theory given how little info makes sense and all the lies they are all telling.

For example it’s plausible to me Jen didn’t think straight so did not ask her BIL to come do CPR, but it’s clearly a lie when she tells KR’s attorney she now cannot tell him if anyone on the street knew CPR. She knows her BIL at least, plus likely the guy across the street who is a retired cop. She was trying not to look bad but proved she lies on the stand. So what else did she lie about?

While I agree that They all have that offputtingMassachusetts personality, sort ofcold and terse, that’s not exactly what I mean with her. If you watch her Netflix “documentary“, she comes off almost as amused while she tells the story. She smiles at inappropriate times when talking about the death of her boyfriend. Even when talking about the children, she doesn’t really seem to be remorseful for what they’re going through. It’s just like a story She’s blurting out and is gossiping about. You can see her eyes light up when she talks about it. Very strange.

I don’t think she did any of this on purpose. But there’s something very off with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They have evidence of a broken tail light and ignition data to support a fast reversing of the vehicle. But none of that matters if he wasn’t hit by a car. Personally I think the commonwealth messed up by theorizing that she intentionally hit him by reversing the car at 24 mph. Much more plausible, in my mind, is that he somehow loses his balance as she leaves and in a freak accident he slams his head while falling. Then the question is whether she knew he had fallen and failed to stick around or get help. Their evidence doesn’t match their theory of the case and that’s how you end up with reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are all unlikeable though, weird reckless and cold bunch of entitled drunks. So it does not sway me. I think she could have done it, but it cannot be proven any more than any other theory given how little info makes sense and all the lies they are all telling.

For example it’s plausible to me Jen didn’t think straight so did not ask her BIL to come do CPR, but it’s clearly a lie when she tells KR’s attorney she now cannot tell him if anyone on the street knew CPR. She knows her BIL at least, plus likely the guy across the street who is a retired cop. She was trying not to look bad but proved she lies on the stand. So what else did she lie about?

Did she say that? I was listening and didn’t hear that.

She said that yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are all unlikeable though, weird reckless and cold bunch of entitled drunks. So it does not sway me. I think she could have done it, but it cannot be proven any more than any other theory given how little info makes sense and all the lies they are all telling.

For example it’s plausible to me Jen didn’t think straight so did not ask her BIL to come do CPR, but it’s clearly a lie when she tells KR’s attorney she now cannot tell him if anyone on the street knew CPR. She knows her BIL at least, plus likely the guy across the street who is a retired cop. She was trying not to look bad but proved she lies on the stand. So what else did she lie about?

While I agree that They all have that offputtingMassachusetts personality, sort ofcold and terse, that’s not exactly what I mean with her. If you watch her Netflix “documentary“, she comes off almost as amused while she tells the story. She smiles at inappropriate times when talking about the death of her boyfriend. Even when talking about the children, she doesn’t really seem to be remorseful for what they’re going through. It’s just like a story She’s blurting out and is gossiping about. You can see her eyes light up when she talks about it. Very strange.

I don’t think she did any of this on purpose. But there’s something very off with her.

I think it has become a story and a bit abstract after recounting it 1000 times. She clearly was very upset the day of. And why should she feel remorseful if she did not do it?

[Anonymous]

I listened to all of Jen McCabe’s testimony having known nothing of this case from the last one other than hearing people were obsessing over it. Never dug in before. Here’s my reaction:

Jen is lying. I have no idea why but her texts are weird. No one butt dials like what she’s claiming. And she’s clearly hiding something. That gives me incredible reason to be skeptical of her and he repeating the flimsy evidence tying Karen to the case at the end of her testimony swung me over to, nope, Jen is covering something up. More than enough for reasonable doubt in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I listened to all of Jen McCabe’s testimony having known nothing of this case from the last one other than hearing people were obsessing over it. Never dug in before. Here’s my reaction:

Jen is lying. I have no idea why but her texts are weird. No one butt dials like what she’s claiming. And she’s clearly hiding something. That gives me incredible reason to be skeptical of her and he repeating the flimsy evidence tying Karen to the case at the end of her testimony swung me over to, nope, Jen is covering something up. More than enough for reasonable doubt in my mind.

Also who sits down with their friend and sister to create an agreed upon written timeline of what happened? That is just weird if you weren’t involved…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They have evidence of a broken tail light and ignition data to support a fast reversing of the vehicle. But none of that matters if he wasn’t hit by a car. Personally I think the commonwealth messed up by theorizing that she intentionally hit him by reversing the car at 24 mph. Much more plausible, in my mind, is that he somehow loses his balance as she leaves and in a freak accident he slams his head while falling. Then the question is whether she knew he had fallen and failed to stick around or get help. Their evidence doesn’t match their theory of the case and that’s how you end up with reasonable doubt.

I thought his blood, hair, DNA, etc , were also on the back of the car?

[Anonymous]

Every criminal defendant who goes to trial tries to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. This one is more visible because she's slso given several interviews speaking out on it. I wonder what her attorneys have told her about giving interviews and prior inconsistent statements (though not made under oath).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She can say whatever she wants in these interviews and call everyone else a liar, and it's not subject to cross examination. Maybe that's where the doubt in the eyes of the public comes in. But the jurors should not have seen any of that.

It's crazy she runs her mouth like that on a documentary and leaving the court house calling everyone else a liar. But she won't step foot on that witness stand. That says a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They have evidence of a broken tail light and ignition data to support a fast reversing of the vehicle. But none of that matters if he wasn’t hit by a car. Personally I think the commonwealth messed up by theorizing that she intentionally hit him by reversing the car at 24 mph. Much more plausible, in my mind, is that he somehow loses his balance as she leaves and in a freak accident he slams his head while falling. Then the question is whether she knew he had fallen and failed to stick around or get help. Their evidence doesn’t match their theory of the case and that’s how you end up with reasonable doubt.

I thought his blood, hair, DNA, etc , were also on the back of the car?

Once the credibility of all the state witnesses is in serious doubt and the primary police investigator is actually fired - which is impossible to do with police unions - all the evidence loses its luster. They could’ve planted it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can say whatever she wants in these interviews and call everyone else a liar, and it's not subject to cross examination. Maybe that's where the doubt in the eyes of the public comes in. But the jurors should not have seen any of that.

It's crazy she runs her mouth like that on a documentary and leaving the court house calling everyone else a liar. But she won't step foot on that witness stand. That says a lot.

No, it doesn’t. And boy I hope you never serve on a jury. Attorneys very much dissuade any defendant from taking the stand. Much like what you saw with Jen this week, it comes down to how likeable or believable you seem. There is no good form going on the stand at that point — the jury has already made up their mind at that point.