Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why the FBI hired ARCCA and was investigating at all, and why this isn't allowed to be mentioned?

Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“That house did not have Ring camera. The house across the street had a different brand of door camera, battery operated, which was positioned so it only captured the front doorstep and a very small part of the lawn in front of *that* house - not the road and not the lawn of the house across the street.”

There is no proof that this is true, because the homeowner never turned over the footage from the hours in which this event occurred. The court had no idea how the homeowner’s camera was focused because the footage was never viewed by law enforcement. The only information the court has is Yuri Buchenick testifying that he was familiar with that camera as he knew the homeowner so he didn’t bother asking for the footage because he knew it wouldn’t have anything of value.

Does anyone know if the investigators knocked on doors up and down the street to ask if anyone had camera footage they could share? It could have been very useful just to see when various vehicles drove in and out of the neighborhood and could have helped greatly to narrow down the timeline.

Anyone have any info about neighbors being asked for camera footage? It seems odd that there is so little neighborhood camera footage available in this case, as opposed to other cases I’ve read about.

Tom Keleher (acting Canton PD deputy at the time) did not turn anything over as he claimed it just showed his front steps. No one can verify that is accurate because the video was never entered into evidence. The Arlo (the brand of ring cam Keleher had) footage should've been turned over as it would've recorded Tully coming to his front door and asking for evidence collection containers including solo cups, the stop and shop bags, etc.

Also, Higgins was parked in Keleher's driveway that night...

I am not sure if other neighbors were approached and had "nothing", or just weren't asked. The original lie the media was parroting was that they had her hitting him on Ring cam so I can't imagine other neighbors even thought to keep their Ring cam footage.

You're telling me that Brian Albert didn't keep his front door locked, and Keleher had an ring cam that "just" showed his front steps? Canton is a perfectly safe town but that is just not believable to me.

All the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. They’ve more than done that and haven’t finished yet:

(1) a non-canton cop saw the tail-light in tact. Videos seem to show an in tact tail light as well
(2) sgt proctor clearly was biased and there was a lot messed up with the investigation. Seemed like he pinned this on Karen without any investigation
(3) though now recanted, a junior canton officer reported seeing proctor with the tail light for an unusual amount of time
(4) there is clear uncertainty about the meaning of the data from the car. The car shows no collision
(5) anything found on the clothes is untrustworthy given chain of custody issues
(6) there was no way JOK got holes in only his right arm of his sweatshirt (no where else) and linear scratches from the tail light. Those ar consistent with a dog attack

There is too much doubt to find her guilty. This is from someone who started watching this trial and is only taking what was presented in this trial.

Do we know what happened? Nope. But there’s too much doubt here to find her guilty

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

Yea… the but with what damage to the arm. When the medical person from arca testifies next week it will be a TKO. No way someone walks away with not even a bruise to the arm from that type of hit…

Are you familiar with the effect that very cold temperatures have on bruise formation? Go do some research. It’s common sense that bruising takes hours to days to fully establish - but John lay in the cold and snow on frozen ground and was dead 5.5 hours later.

How does your theory account for an intact taillight lens until after the car was taken into police custody?

She killed him, AND ALSO—with absolutely no idea what evidence already existed—the cops decided they had to take the extra risk of breaking her taillight and distributing the pieces back at the scene of the death?

Put simply: what is your explanation for how taillight from Karen’s car was both intact after the crash and later distributed at the scene of the crash?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

Yea… the but with what damage to the arm. When the medical person from arca testifies next week it will be a TKO. No way someone walks away with not even a bruise to the arm from that type of hit…

Are you familiar with the effect that very cold temperatures have on bruise formation? Go do some research. It’s common sense that bruising takes hours to days to fully establish - but John lay in the cold and snow on frozen ground and was dead 5.5 hours later.

Good luck with that. So much sketchy behavior and negligent investigating, that’s not going to make a dent in all the doubt. No pun intended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

Yea… the but with what damage to the arm. When the medical person from arca testifies next week it will be a TKO. No way someone walks away with not even a bruise to the arm from that type of hit…

Are you familiar with the effect that very cold temperatures have on bruise formation? Go do some research. It’s common sense that bruising takes hours to days to fully establish - but John lay in the cold and snow on frozen ground and was dead 5.5 hours later.

Anonymous wrote:Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

Yea… the but with what damage to the arm. When the medical person from arca testifies next week it will be a TKO. No way someone walks away with not even a bruise to the arm from that type of hit…

Anonymous wrote:Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

The tail light was not broken until the car had been in the cops’ sally port.

Tick tock.

Can someone explain why the FBI hired ARCCA and was investigating at all, and why this isn't allowed to be mentioned?

Anonymous wrote:“That house did not have Ring camera. The house across the street had a different brand of door camera, battery operated, which was positioned so it only captured the front doorstep and a very small part of the lawn in front of *that* house - not the road and not the lawn of the house across the street.”

There is no proof that this is true, because the homeowner never turned over the footage from the hours in which this event occurred. The court had no idea how the homeowner’s camera was focused because the footage was never viewed by law enforcement. The only information the court has is Yuri Buchenick testifying that he was familiar with that camera as he knew the homeowner so he didn’t bother asking for the footage because he knew it wouldn’t have anything of value.

Does anyone know if the investigators knocked on doors up and down the street to ask if anyone had camera footage they could share? It could have been very useful just to see when various vehicles drove in and out of the neighborhood and could have helped greatly to narrow down the timeline.

Anyone have any info about neighbors being asked for camera footage? It seems odd that there is so little neighborhood camera footage available in this case, as opposed to other cases I’ve read about.

Karen's crash reconstructionist just proved the Commonwealth's theory of the case today, inclusive of a video of a crash dummy's elbow breaking the tail light and the dummy being projected off the car. The jury will be sitting with that, and the excellent cross examination by Hank Brennan, all weekend.

Tick tock, Karen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the cop’s Ring camera was erased and he got rid of his dog and phone is all I need to have reasonable doubt. And that just scratches the surface of the sketchy story. The mirrored video was jaw dropping.

Yeah. The ring being erased. Incredible. And then the mirrored video from where the car was impounded. I just can’t even with these cops. Clearly trying to frame her. But why?? Bc they did it? Or bc they just hated her and thought it was her fault in some way, even if not intentional?

Rumor is Proctor saw her text to Yaneti that she hit him which can't be entered as evidence. They probably went over the top trying to nail her which ironically will get her off.

What did the text allegedly say? Did I hit him?

No, it said ‘I didn’t think I hit him that hard’

And she’s already had the Freudian slip on national television where she told Dateline, ‘he didn’t look mortally wounded, as far as I could see’

She hit him, whether intentionally or not, because she engaged in the extreme reckless act of backing her 6000lb vehicle at high speed toward the last known position of her allegedly beloved BF.

It requires magical thinking and participation in collective delusion to think otherwise.

He didn’t have a bruise that would be explained by a car. How could she have hit him so hard it broke her tail light but not hard enough to leave a bruise?

Why did the investigators not go into the house after a dead person was found on the lawn?

It didn't break her tail light, as shown on video today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the cop’s Ring camera was erased and he got rid of his dog and phone is all I need to have reasonable doubt. And that just scratches the surface of the sketchy story. The mirrored video was jaw dropping.

Yeah. The ring being erased. Incredible. And then the mirrored video from where the car was impounded. I just can’t even with these cops. Clearly trying to frame her. But why?? Bc they did it? Or bc they just hated her and thought it was her fault in some way, even if not intentional?

Rumor is Proctor saw her text to Yaneti that she hit him which can't be entered as evidence. They probably went over the top trying to nail her which ironically will get her off.

Even if there were such a text, it is not necessarily reliable or believable. A grieving person in a state of shock can say all kinds of things that are not true. In addition, how do we know when someone has a real memory versus a false memory? Can we believe anything anyone says?

Are you delusional? When someone says they killed someone, we tend to believe them.

It is not at all uncommon for someone who has suddenly lost a loved one to have feelings of guilt and thoughts that they may be at fault somehow. Grief shows up in many different ways and people can experience it in ways that others may think are odd or extreme.

The “false memory” is an allusion to Kelly Dever who testified to the FBI about an entire scene she said she saw and then went back and said, “Whoops, that was a “false memory.” I never could have seen what I said I saw.” Apparently people can just say things, even under oath, but can later say the opposite, no harm, no foul, because it’s a “false memory.”

Okay fool

The sky is falling.

Is the “fool” here the person who has empathy for a person in shock and grieving for a loved one who has died suddenly? Or is it the young person who trained to make detailed observations who suddenly realizes that a “memory” they had relayed to the FBI was completely made up out of whole cloth and false?

Don’t drive after drinking Karen’s koolaid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the cop’s Ring camera was erased and he got rid of his dog and phone is all I need to have reasonable doubt. And that just scratches the surface of the sketchy story. The mirrored video was jaw dropping.

Yeah. The ring being erased. Incredible. And then the mirrored video from where the car was impounded. I just can’t even with these cops. Clearly trying to frame her. But why?? Bc they did it? Or bc they just hated her and thought it was her fault in some way, even if not intentional?

Rumor is Proctor saw her text to Yaneti that she hit him which can't be entered as evidence. They probably went over the top trying to nail her which ironically will get her off.

Even if there were such a text, it is not necessarily reliable or believable. A grieving person in a state of shock can say all kinds of things that are not true. In addition, how do we know when someone has a real memory versus a false memory? Can we believe anything anyone says?

Are you delusional? When someone says they killed someone, we tend to believe them.

It is not at all uncommon for someone who has suddenly lost a loved one to have feelings of guilt and thoughts that they may be at fault somehow. Grief shows up in many different ways and people can experience it in ways that others may think are odd or extreme.

The “false memory” is an allusion to Kelly Dever who testified to the FBI about an entire scene she said she saw and then went back and said, “Whoops, that was a “false memory.” I never could have seen what I said I saw.” Apparently people can just say things, even under oath, but can later say the opposite, no harm, no foul, because it’s a “false memory.”

Okay fool

The sky is falling.

Is the “fool” here the person who has empathy for a person in shock and grieving for a loved one who has died suddenly? Or is it the young person who trained to make detailed observations who suddenly realizes that a “memory” they had relayed to the FBI was completely made up out of whole cloth and false?

The plow driver didn’t see John but he saw a car arrive and park in the middle of the night.

How can the jury find anything but reasonable doubt here?