Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

I am not understanding the 2.27 am search still. I know Ms Hyde was trying to be helpful with the analogy but it still makes no sense to me. They needed someone from Google bc we all have seen our own search history and how it timestamps accurately. They surely have that data which is so much simpler to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the 2.27 am search still. I know Ms Hyde was trying to be helpful with the analogy but it still makes no sense to me. They needed someone from Google bc we all have seen our own search history and how it timestamps accurately. They surely have that data which is so much simpler to understand.

"They surely have that data which is so much simpler to understand."
bot how would you know that?

[Anonymous]

I can't say for certain she did not hit him but I would not be able to convict her for any of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t get over the fact that no one who heard her say “I hit him” thought to write it down or, detain her or even bring her in for immediate questioning. That does not seem like SOP for any of the first responders.

They very likely would have brought her to the cop shop for questioning, but her daddy called 911 and asked that she be taken in by paramedics on a psych hold because she was allegedly expressing suicidal ideation on the phone with mommy and daddy. So she was taken to the same hospital as her victim and kept from law enforcement for hours while she was assessed by medical personnel, then upon release she and daddy high-tailed it over to the murder victim's house to collect the murder weapon and remove it from the scene and to more than likely delete incriminating Ring video from the victim's Ring camera database.

Yes, LEOs should have detained her from the moment she walked out of the room at Good Samaritan where she was on psych hold. They caught up with her instead a couple of hours later at her mommy and daddy's house. She was a suspect from the moment she started screaming confessions to anybody who would listen at the scene of John's death/body.

The way you speak about people is disgusting.

Really?

Maybe if you'd seen as many raped children and murdered women and men and other horrors such as I have seen over decades working in and around the criminal justice system, you might be less naive and more jaded in your view of the capacities of our fellow humans.

Karen Read is a murdering scum and her mommy, daddy and brother are her primary enablers in the disgusting reign of villainy she has engaged in since the murder - which wasn't enough to feed her bottomless pit of psychological neediness. I hope she rots in prison until her cootch dries up entirely.

Lady, this isn’t healthy. You are unhinged. You need to get a more positive hobby.

Public service isn't a hobby, it's a calling.

My mental health is fine - I'm not the one on here cheering and defending a malignant narcissistic murderer who has attempted to destroy dozens of lives in the desperate attempt to save her scrawny ass from prison after running her abused boyfriend down in the road like he was a stray dog and leaving him to die. YOU need to check your moral compass, poster.

+1 Karen's string of text messages to him suggest she is off the rails crazy.

+1000000 she is so crazy and so drunk she doesn't even realize she ran him over and killed him. They said if they got him to the hospital within 2 hours he would still be alive. She's a murder. They need to throw the book at her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the 2.27 am search still. I know Ms Hyde was trying to be helpful with the analogy but it still makes no sense to me. They needed someone from Google bc we all have seen our own search history and how it timestamps accurately. They surely have that data which is so much simpler to understand.

"They surely have that data which is so much simpler to understand."
bot how would you know that?

Because Google has done so in the past if issued a subpoena or warrant. They will give search history to police to use as evidence. Timestamp would be part of that.

[Anonymous]

If I were a juror I would be forced to acquit because it clearly is nothing more than a tragic accident. And this man was clearly just as drunk as this woman and he was a cop and he wanted her to come out that night because he wanted her to drive, and he knew that was trashed. Trashed. Yet he had her drive him around because his car was broken. He was so drunk he threw up on himself. Just a total mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were a juror I would be forced to acquit because it clearly is nothing more than a tragic accident. And this man was clearly just as drunk as this woman and he was a cop and he wanted her to come out that night because he wanted her to drive, and he knew that was trashed. Trashed. Yet he had her drive him around because his car was broken. He was so drunk he threw up on himself. Just a total mess.

I am starting to lean that way as well. No theory fully makes sense: why would she hit him and then leave him angry messages right away that would make her look awful and look for him franctically? Why would all the house middle aged people conspire, but the young people in the same rooms at the same party testify very sincerely, good and bad, about what they saw, from not seeing John to minute party details?

My theory is this: We know because it's in her interview with Proctor that Juliana Nagel saw "a black blob" by the flagpole when she left with Jen McCabe at 1:30 am, but nobody really paid attention to her saying this as they were drunk and tired. I think Jen McCabe, in her drunken state back home in bed, started questioning whether Juliana maybe saw John passed out, but not seriously, more like a nagging feeling as she had wondered where he was earlier. So she did google "hos long to die in the cold" because of it. Same way hungover Karen Read had a nagging feeling she may have hit him when she didn't hear from him and that's why she said "I hit him I hit him I hit him." Meanwhile John either hit his head and stumbled or KR accidentally hit him (less likely because of timeline and Ryan Nagel's testimony.

[Anonymous]

I can see finding her liable in civil court but not guilty in criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a juror I would be forced to acquit because it clearly is nothing more than a tragic accident. And this man was clearly just as drunk as this woman and he was a cop and he wanted her to come out that night because he wanted her to drive, and he knew that was trashed. Trashed. Yet he had her drive him around because his car was broken. He was so drunk he threw up on himself. Just a total mess.

I am starting to lean that way as well. No theory fully makes sense: why would she hit him and then leave him angry messages right away that would make her look awful and look for him franctically? Why would all the house middle aged people conspire, but the young people in the same rooms at the same party testify very sincerely, good and bad, about what they saw, from not seeing John to minute party details?

My theory is this: We know because it's in her interview with Proctor that Juliana Nagel saw "a black blob" by the flagpole when she left with Jen McCabe at 1:30 am, but nobody really paid attention to her saying this as they were drunk and tired. I think Jen McCabe, in her drunken state back home in bed, started questioning whether Juliana maybe saw John passed out, but not seriously, more like a nagging feeling as she had wondered where he was earlier. So she did google "hos long to die in the cold" because of it. Same way hungover Karen Read had a nagging feeling she may have hit him when she didn't hear from him and that's why she said "I hit him I hit him I hit him." Meanwhile John either hit his head and stumbled or KR accidentally hit him (less likely because of timeline and Ryan Nagel's testimony.

Where I get stuck is the blood and vomit patterns on his clothes. They indicate he was sitting up at one point. But also, it’s been testified to that the blow to his head incapacitated him immediately. So how did the vomit get into his underwear and blood pattern look like he was sitting up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a juror I would be forced to acquit because it clearly is nothing more than a tragic accident. And this man was clearly just as drunk as this woman and he was a cop and he wanted her to come out that night because he wanted her to drive, and he knew that was trashed. Trashed. Yet he had her drive him around because his car was broken. He was so drunk he threw up on himself. Just a total mess.

I am starting to lean that way as well. No theory fully makes sense: why would she hit him and then leave him angry messages right away that would make her look awful and look for him franctically? Why would all the house middle aged people conspire, but the young people in the same rooms at the same party testify very sincerely, good and bad, about what they saw, from not seeing John to minute party details?

My theory is this: We know because it's in her interview with Proctor that Juliana Nagel saw "a black blob" by the flagpole when she left with Jen McCabe at 1:30 am, but nobody really paid attention to her saying this as they were drunk and tired. I think Jen McCabe, in her drunken state back home in bed, started questioning whether Juliana maybe saw John passed out, but not seriously, more like a nagging feeling as she had wondered where he was earlier. So she did google "hos long to die in the cold" because of it. Same way hungover Karen Read had a nagging feeling she may have hit him when she didn't hear from him and that's why she said "I hit him I hit him I hit him." Meanwhile John either hit his head and stumbled or KR accidentally hit him (less likely because of timeline and Ryan Nagel's testimony.

Where I get stuck is the blood and vomit patterns on his clothes. They indicate he was sitting up at one point. But also, it’s been testified to that the blow to his head incapacitated him immediately. So how did the vomit get into his underwear and blood pattern look like he was sitting up?

Could it be he bent over in the car to puke and that's why Nagle didn't see him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think she’s innocent - hope the jury finds her not guilty.

I think she did not do it. It's a true whodoneit for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a juror I would be forced to acquit because it clearly is nothing more than a tragic accident. And this man was clearly just as drunk as this woman and he was a cop and he wanted her to come out that night because he wanted her to drive, and he knew that was trashed. Trashed. Yet he had her drive him around because his car was broken. He was so drunk he threw up on himself. Just a total mess.

I am starting to lean that way as well. No theory fully makes sense: why would she hit him and then leave him angry messages right away that would make her look awful and look for him franctically? Why would all the house middle aged people conspire, but the young people in the same rooms at the same party testify very sincerely, good and bad, about what they saw, from not seeing John to minute party details?

My theory is this: We know because it's in her interview with Proctor that Juliana Nagel saw "a black blob" by the flagpole when she left with Jen McCabe at 1:30 am, but nobody really paid attention to her saying this as they were drunk and tired. I think Jen McCabe, in her drunken state back home in bed, started questioning whether Juliana maybe saw John passed out, but not seriously, more like a nagging feeling as she had wondered where he was earlier. So she did google "hos long to die in the cold" because of it. Same way hungover Karen Read had a nagging feeling she may have hit him when she didn't hear from him and that's why she said "I hit him I hit him I hit him." Meanwhile John either hit his head and stumbled or KR accidentally hit him (less likely because of timeline and Ryan Nagel's testimony.

Where I get stuck is the blood and vomit patterns on his clothes. They indicate he was sitting up at one point. But also, it’s been testified to that the blow to his head incapacitated him immediately. So how did the vomit get into his underwear and blood pattern look like he was sitting up?

He could have been standing and puking and blood dripping down, stumbled a bit and then fell over. Whole process would have taken a few seconds. Wonder if they swabbed the fire hydrant and especially the tall red pole sticking out of it because the shape at the top matches his head wound and that was maybe 10-15 feet from where his body was found.

[Anonymous]

This whole case is a mess. There’s no way I could find Karen guilty here. And I’m brand new to this case and haven’t even heard the defense’s case

[Anonymous]

NP here. It’s believable to me she may have hit him unknowingly or hit him and didn’t realize the extent of his injuries because he was already staggering from being drunk.

It’s also highly suspicious that everyone buttdialed each other back and forth repeatedly, and the suspicious manner in which Chris Albert discarded his phone. Not to mention Jen McCabe’s Google searches and testimony.

There’s too much reasonable doubt and it is the fault of the cops (both investigators and friends).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Ridiculous.

Defendant's own ARCCA witness testified his injuries were consistent with being knocked down by a vehicle and sustaining fatal head injury.

Medical examiner testified his injuries were both inconsistent AND CONSISTENT with a pedestrian strike by motor vehicle - i.e., some such incidents result in anomalies re: injury pattern. She also testified, as did the treating ER physician, that he exhibited no signs of being in an altercation i.e. FIGHT.

His DNA on her tail light HOUSING. His hair frozen to the lift gate of the SUV. Tiny pieces of her tail light in his clothing.


OPEN YOUR EYES!

YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON

I think that poster is very serious about their extremely strong feelings about this trial, and they feel especially strongly that they know who did it and how it happened. And they very much want to see a particular outcome to this trial. They appear to have very intense and personal feelings about this trial.

I’m a 54 year old attorney who has been both a defender and a prosecutor.

I’m outraged and sickened by what has been done in this case by media manipulation both by the defense team and by numerous monetizers on social media and how they have all victimized the victims family and friends and the innocent witnesses whose only ‘crime’ was inviting a friend to a party, or offering to help a friend find a missing friend, or being a first responder or investigator at the scene. Also the prosecutors office and judge have been vilified and falsely accused of corruption.

This case is a canary in the coal mine for what social media true crime obsessives can do to disrupt our justice system.

Also after decades of experience with disordered personalities in professional and personal settings, I can see very clearly what a malignant narcissist the defendant is and would absolutely like to see her held accountable for her crimes by a jury of her fellow citizens.

Just because she might have a personality disorder doesn't mean she killed her boyfriend.

Agreed. Pp’s comments are ridiculous. I also don’t believe the credentials that they are flashing. Utter bs.