Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Reply to "Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote] Can't the state also show a bunch of evidence on the car, too, though? [/quote] 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.[/quote] I thought his blood, hair, DNA, etc , were also on the back of the car?[/quote] 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. [/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