Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird, Katie McLaughlin points out on video where KR allegedly says, "I hit him" and neither her nor Officer Saraf do anything of note. As an EMT - if you think the patient has been hit by a car - you put that in the notes so he can be treated properly!

Yet another first responder NOT DOING THEIR JOB, terrifying!

Paramedics come to shitshow situations and have to assess quickly. Here's this guy who has clearly been there for hours, and this woman who (in their eyes) just drove there and is saying she hit him. It does not make sense, the two facts are not compatible. I definitely think Jen McCabe and the Alberts are hiding things. With this paramedics what I see is a woman who is exasperated as being questioned like she is lying and did something wrong. Who cares if she knows the Albert dd? I can relate to having been at lots of small and large events with some people yet not calling them friends. It's a stupid thing to keep talking about.

It is a stupid thing in a silo, I agree. From my vantage point, if she is willing to lie about her relationship with Caitlin Albert, then what else is she willing to lie about (and why)? A first responder is trained to cut through the noise of a scene and listen and act on what they are seeing/hearing when they arrive, is she not doing her job appropriately which is... scary? Or is she lying? Hope she doesn't show up to your accident!

I don't think she lied about the relationship at all.

+100 she didn't. Very credible witness. Likable too. Now jackson...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird, Katie McLaughlin points out on video where KR allegedly says, "I hit him" and neither her nor Officer Saraf do anything of note. As an EMT - if you think the patient has been hit by a car - you put that in the notes so he can be treated properly!

Yet another first responder NOT DOING THEIR JOB, terrifying!

Paramedics come to shitshow situations and have to assess quickly. Here's this guy who has clearly been there for hours, and this woman who (in their eyes) just drove there and is saying she hit him. It does not make sense, the two facts are not compatible. I definitely think Jen McCabe and the Alberts are hiding things. With this paramedics what I see is a woman who is exasperated as being questioned like she is lying and did something wrong. Who cares if she knows the Albert dd? I can relate to having been at lots of small and large events with some people yet not calling them friends. It's a stupid thing to keep talking about.

It is a stupid thing in a silo, I agree. From my vantage point, if she is willing to lie about her relationship with Caitlin Albert, then what else is she willing to lie about (and why)? A first responder is trained to cut through the noise of a scene and listen and act on what they are seeing/hearing when they arrive, is she not doing her job appropriately which is... scary? Or is she lying? Hope she doesn't show up to your accident!

I don't think she lied about the relationship at all.

+100 she didn't. Very credible witness. Likable too. Now jackson...

You are a liar if you say you wouldn't want Jackson as your defense attorney.

Katie McLaughlin has no life behind her eyes. Why is she so evasive and argumentative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another witness: "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him."

How many people now? 6?

And yet no one wrote it down at the time or, you know, arrested her?

That's what makes this case interesting, there really are all these weird little things that make no sense. Like why didn't this paramedic ask any follow up questions about when and how he was hit (in order to relay his injuries to the hospital) and notify the officer on the scene for further investigative followup. And yet, no part of me believes the paramedic is engaging in a conspiracy with Jen McCabe just because she went to HS and was FB friends with some member of the Albert family.

Why is Katie McLaughlin hiding the fact that she friends iwth Caitlin Albert if there is nothing sketchy going on?

It's also not THAT small of a town.

Yes it's a small town. Not 15 people or less but its considered a very small town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird, Katie McLaughlin points out on video where KR allegedly says, "I hit him" and neither her nor Officer Saraf do anything of note. As an EMT - if you think the patient has been hit by a car - you put that in the notes so he can be treated properly!

Yet another first responder NOT DOING THEIR JOB, terrifying!

Paramedics come to shitshow situations and have to assess quickly. Here's this guy who has clearly been there for hours, and this woman who (in their eyes) just drove there and is saying she hit him. It does not make sense, the two facts are not compatible. I definitely think Jen McCabe and the Alberts are hiding things. With this paramedics what I see is a woman who is exasperated as being questioned like she is lying and did something wrong. Who cares if she knows the Albert dd? I can relate to having been at lots of small and large events with some people yet not calling them friends. It's a stupid thing to keep talking about.

It is a stupid thing in a silo, I agree. From my vantage point, if she is willing to lie about her relationship with Caitlin Albert, then what else is she willing to lie about (and why)? A first responder is trained to cut through the noise of a scene and listen and act on what they are seeing/hearing when they arrive, is she not doing her job appropriately which is... scary? Or is she lying? Hope she doesn't show up to your accident!

I don't think she lied about the relationship at all.

+100 she didn't. Very credible witness. Likable too. Now jackson...

You are a liar if you say you wouldn't want Jackson as your defense attorney.

Katie McLaughlin has no life behind her eyes. Why is she so evasive and argumentative?

The gaslighting bots are a live and well today!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another witness: "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him."

How many people now? 6?

And yet no one wrote it down at the time or, you know, arrested her?

That's what makes this case interesting, there really are all these weird little things that make no sense. Like why didn't this paramedic ask any follow up questions about when and how he was hit (in order to relay his injuries to the hospital) and notify the officer on the scene for further investigative followup. And yet, no part of me believes the paramedic is engaging in a conspiracy with Jen McCabe just because she went to HS and was FB friends with some member of the Albert family.

Why is Katie McLaughlin hiding the fact that she friends iwth Caitlin Albert if there is nothing sketchy going on?

It's also not THAT small of a town.

Yes it's a small town. Not 15 people or less but its considered a very small town.

In what world is 24k people a very small town? It's less than 20 miles from downtown Boston and is a normal suburban town. Reebok was HQ'd there forever and Dunkin Donuts is still HQ'd there. It's not Mayberry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

I’m pretty sure that IS what she said at the first trial. It’s not what she’s saying now, but she’s being impeached with her prior testimony. That’s why Jackson has a folder full of pictures. I completely understand the concept of friends in common and for whatever reason she chose to hide what was otherwise a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

I’m pretty sure that IS what she said at the first trial. It’s not what she’s saying now, but she’s being impeached with her prior testimony. That’s why Jackson has a folder full of pictures. I completely understand the concept of friends in common and for whatever reason she chose to hide what was otherwise a nothingburger.

At the first trial she started by saying she knew her from high school then she said they were "acquaintances, more than friends. We have mutual friends and might see each other because of mutual friends, but we don't have a one-on-one friendship or hang out regularly". I just rewatched it. Very similar to what she said today. She also said she has never been in her house, and does not know her family, so that tells me they were definitely NOT friends because if you've known someone this long and have not met family or been to their house you are distant despite being in the same circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

I’m pretty sure that IS what she said at the first trial. It’s not what she’s saying now, but she’s being impeached with her prior testimony. That’s why Jackson has a folder full of pictures. I completely understand the concept of friends in common and for whatever reason she chose to hide what was otherwise a nothingburger.

At the first trial she started by saying she knew her from high school then she said they were "acquaintances, more than friends. We have mutual friends and might see each other because of mutual friends, but we don't have a one-on-one friendship or hang out regularly". I just rewatched it. Very similar to what she said today. She also said she has never been in her house, and does not know her family, so that tells me they were definitely NOT friends because if you've known someone this long and have not met family or been to their house you are distant despite being in the same circle.

So why be so evasive about it? Say "yeah, we ran track together, we have similar friends and run in similar circles, we go to Maine and Aunt Bev's beach house all the time together".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

I’m pretty sure that IS what she said at the first trial. It’s not what she’s saying now, but she’s being impeached with her prior testimony. That’s why Jackson has a folder full of pictures. I completely understand the concept of friends in common and for whatever reason she chose to hide what was otherwise a nothingburger.

At the first trial she started by saying she knew her from high school then she said they were "acquaintances, more than friends. We have mutual friends and might see each other because of mutual friends, but we don't have a one-on-one friendship or hang out regularly". I just rewatched it. Very similar to what she said today. She also said she has never been in her house, and does not know her family, so that tells me they were definitely NOT friends because if you've known someone this long and have not met family or been to their house you are distant despite being in the same circle.

So why be so evasive about it? Say "yeah, we ran track together, we have similar friends and run in similar circles, we go to Maine and Aunt Bev's beach house all the time together".

She did. She elaborated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

I’m pretty sure that IS what she said at the first trial. It’s not what she’s saying now, but she’s being impeached with her prior testimony. That’s why Jackson has a folder full of pictures. I completely understand the concept of friends in common and for whatever reason she chose to hide what was otherwise a nothingburger.

At the first trial she started by saying she knew her from high school then she said they were "acquaintances, more than friends. We have mutual friends and might see each other because of mutual friends, but we don't have a one-on-one friendship or hang out regularly". I just rewatched it. Very similar to what she said today. She also said she has never been in her house, and does not know her family, so that tells me they were definitely NOT friends because if you've known someone this long and have not met family or been to their house you are distant despite being in the same circle.

So why be so evasive about it? Say "yeah, we ran track together, we have similar friends and run in similar circles, we go to Maine and Aunt Bev's beach house all the time together".

She was not evasive at all. She answered every question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your best friend’s roommate and a person you’ve known your whole life isn’t just someone whose name you’ve heard. She misrepresented the relationship. The truth isn’t damning do why not just be honest?

She didn't say she had just heard the name. She's not friends with her. It sounds like she just has friends in common so they are frequently at the same events due to these friends. I'm very surprised people have not experienced these relationships, but I have many many pictures with women I would never hang out with yet we are smiling right next to each other over and over again at a common friend's house, events, bday parties, even on trips. Without the common friend? I would probably just say hi and stop at that if I saw them somewhere.

I’m pretty sure that IS what she said at the first trial. It’s not what she’s saying now, but she’s being impeached with her prior testimony. That’s why Jackson has a folder full of pictures. I completely understand the concept of friends in common and for whatever reason she chose to hide what was otherwise a nothingburger.

At the first trial she started by saying she knew her from high school then she said they were "acquaintances, more than friends. We have mutual friends and might see each other because of mutual friends, but we don't have a one-on-one friendship or hang out regularly". I just rewatched it. Very similar to what she said today. She also said she has never been in her house, and does not know her family, so that tells me they were definitely NOT friends because if you've known someone this long and have not met family or been to their house you are distant despite being in the same circle.

So why be so evasive about it? Say "yeah, we ran track together, we have similar friends and run in similar circles, we go to Maine and Aunt Bev's beach house all the time together".

She did. She elaborated.

+100 she was in no way evasive or argumentative like the PP said. That's a lie. She was a likable and honest witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another witness: "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him."

How many people now? 6?

But she obviously didn’t realize she hit him until just then. Otherwise she wouldn’t have left all those messages and wondered where he was. It’s manslaughter, not murder. Not even 2nd degree.

Wrong.

Third prong second degree murder in the Commonwealth requires only the intent to do an ACT that is extremely reckless and exhibits disregard for human life - like backing your 6000lb SUV in the direction of your boyfriend's body for whatever reason, whether to scare him or knock him on his arse or whatever.

She DID NOT HAVE TO INTEND HIS DEATH. She only had to intend the act that caused his death, an act that any reasonable person would know could cause serious bodily injury or death. And voluntary intoxication as we all know is NO DEFENSE to criminal behavior.

I agree she probably didn't realize immediately the extent of his injuries - she's told on herself by saying 'he didn't look mortally wounded, that I could see.' However it is clear from the way texts and voicemails and missed calls to mommy and daddy and then the early morning calls announcing he was probably dead, hit by a plow are all very strong evidence that she began to realize she'd probably incapacitated him and he was more than likely dead and even at that time, she didn't call 911 or ask for a welfare check on John from the residents at 34 Fairview - she instead orchestrated the whole 'finding the body' dramatic performance by roping his close friends into the faux search for him in the early AM hours.

I'm truly baffled by the folks who cannot see what is plain as the nose on their face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another witness: "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him."

How many people now? 6?

But she obviously didn’t realize she hit him until just then. Otherwise she wouldn’t have left all those messages and wondered where he was. It’s manslaughter, not murder. Not even 2nd degree.

Wrong.

Third prong second degree murder in the Commonwealth requires only the intent to do an ACT that is extremely reckless and exhibits disregard for human life - like backing your 6000lb SUV in the direction of your boyfriend's body for whatever reason, whether to scare him or knock him on his arse or whatever.

She DID NOT HAVE TO INTEND HIS DEATH. She only had to intend the act that caused his death, an act that any reasonable person would know could cause serious bodily injury or death. And voluntary intoxication as we all know is NO DEFENSE to criminal behavior.

I agree she probably didn't realize immediately the extent of his injuries - she's told on herself by saying 'he didn't look mortally wounded, that I could see.' However it is clear from the way texts and voicemails and missed calls to mommy and daddy and then the early morning calls announcing he was probably dead, hit by a plow are all very strong evidence that she began to realize she'd probably incapacitated him and he was more than likely dead and even at that time, she didn't call 911 or ask for a welfare check on John from the residents at 34 Fairview - she instead orchestrated the whole 'finding the body' dramatic performance by roping his close friends into the faux search for him in the early AM hours.

I'm truly baffled by the folks who cannot see what is plain as the nose on their face.

Could you explain the difference in the elements necessary for this charge as opposed to the manslaughter charge in Massachusetts? Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another witness: "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him."

How many people now? 6?

But she obviously didn’t realize she hit him until just then. Otherwise she wouldn’t have left all those messages and wondered where he was. It’s manslaughter, not murder. Not even 2nd degree.

Wrong.

Third prong second degree murder in the Commonwealth requires only the intent to do an ACT that is extremely reckless and exhibits disregard for human life - like backing your 6000lb SUV in the direction of your boyfriend's body for whatever reason, whether to scare him or knock him on his arse or whatever.

She DID NOT HAVE TO INTEND HIS DEATH. She only had to intend the act that caused his death, an act that any reasonable person would know could cause serious bodily injury or death. And voluntary intoxication as we all know is NO DEFENSE to criminal behavior.

I agree she probably didn't realize immediately the extent of his injuries - she's told on herself by saying 'he didn't look mortally wounded, that I could see.' However it is clear from the way texts and voicemails and missed calls to mommy and daddy and then the early morning calls announcing he was probably dead, hit by a plow are all very strong evidence that she began to realize she'd probably incapacitated him and he was more than likely dead and even at that time, she didn't call 911 or ask for a welfare check on John from the residents at 34 Fairview - she instead orchestrated the whole 'finding the body' dramatic performance by roping his close friends into the faux search for him in the early AM hours.

I'm truly baffled by the folks who cannot see what is plain as the nose on their face.

Would you be disappointed if she's found guilty of manslaughter and not depraved heart murder or whatever they call it there?