Reply to Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]For those that think she’s guilty, how do you explain his injuries and where his body was found? The commonwealth hasn’t figured it out yet and it’s a virtually insurmountable problem in their case.[/quote]

The defense proved it for the prosecution with their reconstruction video they stupidly insisted in having admitted. They had to admit it themselves because it was discoverable.

Karen's words from the Netflix show will convict her. Not sure they had the impact for people not in the courtroom that they had when played for the jury at key times during the trial.

Her words + the crash test dummy reconstruction + the timeline from the car and his phone = guilty.

If the jury comes back hung or NG, they were likely already biases from he conspiracy theory in the prior trial and media.

[/quote]

The reconstructionist’s video showed that a vehicle that strikes an arm can break a taillight, but the inextricable flip side to that (as also testified to) is it would completely mess up your arm (fractures, severe bruising). Instead his arm is covered in scrapes consistent with a dog attack. The commonwealth’s case would be great if the conditions of the body supported their theory. Maybe it’s a crazy fluke or something, but the jury can’t just ignore the actual injuries in the victim.[/quote]

And even with the forces that would shatter an arm, only the first layer of taillight shattered. Karen Read’s diffusers were busted which didn’t happen in the test cases [/quote]

The test cases weren't done in freezing temperature conditions, which Karen's car had been sitting in for hours before she struck John. Freezing cold temperatures substantially alter the performance of plastics, period.[/quote]

They literally froze the taillights. They stuck them in freezers before the test and verified the temperatures before conducting the test. [/quote]

And you think the time spent putting them back into the vehicle and conducting the test during which the temperature of the plastic is constantly rising had zero effect on the shatter point of the plastic?

Silly.

Just like the notion that you MUST know exactly how the vehicle hit John to account for his injury or lack thereof, as though there aren't infinite possibilities in any accident for how injury does or does not occur.

The ability of the FKR people to entirely subvert and manipulate the standard of evidence is mind boggling. People get convicted in this country for murder with no body and no cause or manner of death. Are you suggesting that all those murderers should be walking among us because YOU didn't SEE exactly how their victims died? Absurd.[/quote]

In this case, the CW failed to prove their theory of the case. The evidence doesn’t line up. I have no idea if she was a factor in JOK’s death or not — I only just started watching this case this year, but saw incredible reasonable doubt here. You are selectively ignoring evidence because you’re starting at a standard of Karen Read is guilty. That’s not the standard in the US. She is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics