Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

I read an interesting theory that he threw the glass at her tail light, slipped and hit his head. Then he'd have stumbled trying to get to the door and passed out.

[Anonymous]

I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how she can even get manslaughter with all of this reasonable doubt.

[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?

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.

OUI Manslaughter:
The defendant was intentionally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a); or
The defendant was intentionally operating a vessel (e.g., boat or other watercraft) while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90B, § 8A; and
While intentionally operating the vehicle or vessel, the defendant acted wantonly and recklessly, and caused the death of another person.

[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?

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.

OUI Manslaughter:
The defendant was intentionally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a); or
The defendant was intentionally operating a vessel (e.g., boat or other watercraft) while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90B, § 8A; and
While intentionally operating the vehicle or vessel, the defendant acted wantonly and recklessly, and caused the death of another person.

Okay, we know she was drunk. But we just don’t know if she hit him and the elephant in the room is that honestly SHE doesn’t know if she hit him. Literally, nobody knows if she hit him. And an inference that she did isn’t super logical. So I wouldn’t convict. We will see what this jury does. I think he fell, hit his head - but what about those crazy scratches?!

[Anonymous]

Why didn’t he have so much as a bruise where this “giant car” supposedly rammed into him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

You are either very late to the game, or you've not paid attention, or you are being disingenuous.

They were fighting ALL DAY LONG on the day before the early morning hours when she killed him. The moments briefly caught on video in the bars are John O'Keefe being polite and not trying to stir things up while they are out with friends. He had been trying to break it off with her for weeks, he had specifically asked her to leave his home and SHE HAD REFUSED TO LEAVE AND REFUSED TO BE BROKEN UP WITH. Surely you have enough life experience to grasp that such behavior from a 40-something woman is evidence of disordered thinking/personality?

It took them 12 minutes to walk across the road from one bar to the other - more fighting.

They sat in front of the house at 34 Fairview for several minutes after arrival, and the vehicle moved three times away from its first position close to the front door - MORE FIGHTING.

She started to pull away from the address in attempt to essentially kidnap him away from this afterparty and he demanded she let him out and he started walking back toward the address and that is when she backed into him and caused the injuries that ultimately caused his death. SHE INTENDED TO BACK INTO HIM. The data on her Lexus is clear that the reversing was an intended act of the driver of the vehicle.

He was breaking up with her, and she killed him for it. If the genders were swapped in this incident, nobody would defend the domestic abuser boyfriend Kurt Read for running down and killing his girlfriend Josie O'Keefe. He'd have been sitting in an MCI facility for the last couple of years already.

[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?

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.

OUI Manslaughter:
The defendant was intentionally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a); or
The defendant was intentionally operating a vessel (e.g., boat or other watercraft) while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90B, § 8A; and
While intentionally operating the vehicle or vessel, the defendant acted wantonly and recklessly, and caused the death of another person.

These seem very similar. They both require intent in terms of the act and recklessness. How exactly are they different? Is it just the intoxication element that’s different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

Yep. This is the scenario that makes the most sense. There is no evidence that Mr. O’Keefe was hit by a car since his injuries didn’t comport with being struck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

You are either very late to the game, or you've not paid attention, or you are being disingenuous.

They were fighting ALL DAY LONG on the day before the early morning hours when she killed him. The moments briefly caught on video in the bars are John O'Keefe being polite and not trying to stir things up while they are out with friends. He had been trying to break it off with her for weeks, he had specifically asked her to leave his home and SHE HAD REFUSED TO LEAVE AND REFUSED TO BE BROKEN UP WITH. Surely you have enough life experience to grasp that such behavior from a 40-something woman is evidence of disordered thinking/personality?

It took them 12 minutes to walk across the road from one bar to the other - more fighting.

They sat in front of the house at 34 Fairview for several minutes after arrival, and the vehicle moved three times away from its first position close to the front door - MORE FIGHTING.

She started to pull away from the address in attempt to essentially kidnap him away from this afterparty and he demanded she let him out and he started walking back toward the address and that is when she backed into him and caused the injuries that ultimately caused his death. SHE INTENDED TO BACK INTO HIM. The data on her Lexus is clear that the reversing was an intended act of the driver of the vehicle.

He was breaking up with her, and she killed him for it. If the genders were swapped in this incident, nobody would defend the domestic abuser boyfriend Kurt Read for running down and killing his girlfriend Josie O'Keefe. He'd have been sitting in an MCI facility for the last couple of years already.

No. I followed the last trial, the documentary read the VF article. Your take requires a lot of assuming and ignoring. They argued that day. Not weeks before. She was helping him take care of the kids and he asked her to come that night. They look happy that night. Nobody reported fighting. Nobody reported any of what you’re stating at the actual trial. Where’d you even make this up from??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

OUI Manslaughter:
The defendant was intentionally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a); or
The defendant was intentionally operating a vessel (e.g., boat or other watercraft) while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90B, § 8A; and
While intentionally operating the vehicle or vessel, the defendant acted wantonly and recklessly, and caused the death of another person.

These seem very similar. They both require intent in terms of the act and recklessness. How exactly are they different? Is it just the intoxication element that’s different?

The wildcard element for both here is CAUSED his death. We only have total maybe we think maybe for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

OUI Manslaughter:
The defendant was intentionally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a); or
The defendant was intentionally operating a vessel (e.g., boat or other watercraft) while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90B, § 8A; and
While intentionally operating the vehicle or vessel, the defendant acted wantonly and recklessly, and caused the death of another person.

These seem very similar. They both require intent in terms of the act and recklessness. How exactly are they different? Is it just the intoxication element that’s different?

They are very similar.

Yes, second degree murder depraved heart is when you get really angry and drive your SUV at your paramour without intent to kill necessarily but in a heat of passion and when you should have known that you were placing your paramour at risk of serious bodily injury or death. You don't have to be intoxicated to do it.

I believe this defendant is guilty of both OUI manslaughter and depraved heart 2nd degree murder - she didn't veer off the road in a drunken haze while operating under the influence and recklessly. She was sitting in a stopped vehicle, her boyfriend exited the vehicle and began walking away from the vehicle to the rear, and she INTENTIONALLY put the vehicle in reverse and gunned it (75% acceleration, 24mph in reverse for 60+ feet) in the direction of his intoxicated, defenseless body.


There was a semi-famous case of a woman who drove over her cheating husband in a parking lot and she was convicted of depraved heart murder.

Another semi-famous case in more recent history involved a dentist who provided fatal amounts of drugs to his addict girlfriend and he was convicted of depraved heart murder.

Extreme recklessness and disregard for human life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

You are either very late to the game, or you've not paid attention, or you are being disingenuous.

They were fighting ALL DAY LONG on the day before the early morning hours when she killed him. The moments briefly caught on video in the bars are John O'Keefe being polite and not trying to stir things up while they are out with friends. He had been trying to break it off with her for weeks, he had specifically asked her to leave his home and SHE HAD REFUSED TO LEAVE AND REFUSED TO BE BROKEN UP WITH. Surely you have enough life experience to grasp that such behavior from a 40-something woman is evidence of disordered thinking/personality?

It took them 12 minutes to walk across the road from one bar to the other - more fighting.

They sat in front of the house at 34 Fairview for several minutes after arrival, and the vehicle moved three times away from its first position close to the front door - MORE FIGHTING.

She started to pull away from the address in attempt to essentially kidnap him away from this afterparty and he demanded she let him out and he started walking back toward the address and that is when she backed into him and caused the injuries that ultimately caused his death. SHE INTENDED TO BACK INTO HIM. The data on her Lexus is clear that the reversing was an intended act of the driver of the vehicle.

He was breaking up with her, and she killed him for it. If the genders were swapped in this incident, nobody would defend the domestic abuser boyfriend Kurt Read for running down and killing his girlfriend Josie O'Keefe. He'd have been sitting in an MCI facility for the last couple of years already.

No. I followed the last trial, the documentary read the VF article. Your take requires a lot of assuming and ignoring. They argued that day. Not weeks before. She was helping him take care of the kids and he asked her to come that night. They look happy that night. Nobody reported fighting. Nobody reported any of what you’re stating at the actual trial. Where’d you even make this up from??

Numerous witnesses testified at the last trial about weeks of fighting between them, including a huge embarrassing public incident of Karen losing her mind on a trip to Aruba with numerous friends - this time around the court has ruled that incident, a month efore she killed him, as too distant in time to be relevant to the charges. Of course anybody who knows anything about domestic violence and coercive control knows that it was a build up happening.

Both of his kids who lived with him and essentially lived with her as well testified that they were constantly fighting and that THEY HAD HEARD JOHN ASK HER TO LEAVE AND TELL HER THE RELATIONSHIP HAD RUN ITS COURSE.

His brother testified to issues in the relationship. Jen McCabe testified that Karen said they fought all the time, usually about the kids. Karen texted with Higgins that she wasn't happy, didn't want kids, was sick of the dynamic with John's kids (she texted same to John) and that John was over his head being a dad etc. Nasty nasty nasty, not a loving girlfriend not a happy healthy relationship.

ALL OF THIS IS TESTIMONY FROM THE LAST TRIAL.

You must be FKR deluded or just enjoy lying online.

[Anonymous]

I just can’t see her calling cursing an insulting a man she thought she may have just hit with a car (and definitely not that she knew she just hit.) she either wouldn’t have called or would have said “hey baby hope you have a good time!” All the nutty calls make zero sense if she thought she had done anything he couldn potentially bring charges over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

OUI Manslaughter:
The defendant was intentionally operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a); or
The defendant was intentionally operating a vessel (e.g., boat or other watercraft) while under the influence of an unlawful amount of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substance, in violation of G.L. c. 90B, § 8A; and
While intentionally operating the vehicle or vessel, the defendant acted wantonly and recklessly, and caused the death of another person.

These seem very similar. They both require intent in terms of the act and recklessness. How exactly are they different? Is it just the intoxication element that’s different?

They are very similar.

Yes, second degree murder depraved heart is when you get really angry and drive your SUV at your paramour without intent to kill necessarily but in a heat of passion and when you should have known that you were placing your paramour at risk of serious bodily injury or death. You don't have to be intoxicated to do it.

I believe this defendant is guilty of both OUI manslaughter and depraved heart 2nd degree murder - she didn't veer off the road in a drunken haze while operating under the influence and recklessly. She was sitting in a stopped vehicle, her boyfriend exited the vehicle and began walking away from the vehicle to the rear, and she INTENTIONALLY put the vehicle in reverse and gunned it (75% acceleration, 24mph in reverse for 60+ feet) in the direction of his intoxicated, defenseless body.


There was a semi-famous case of a woman who drove over her cheating husband in a parking lot and she was convicted of depraved heart murder.

Another semi-famous case in more recent history involved a dentist who provided fatal amounts of drugs to his addict girlfriend and he was convicted of depraved heart murder.

Extreme recklessness and disregard for human life.

Where are his injuries? His only trauma was to the head - totally inconsistent with being hit by a car. She might have reversed the car like that, but she didn’t hit him. His body would have evidence of that.