Anonymous wrote:If you are following this case at all, I don't understand how you can possibly say there is no reasonable doubt. The state has the burden here, they need to prove her guilt, she doesn't need to prove her innocence.

Nobody has ever asserted that she has to - please stop dealing in non sequitors.

AGAIN, the amount of evidence in this case, admitted into the record, taken as a whole, is plentiful to overcome reasonable doubt in a reasonable juror.

Whether it will or not remains to be seen, but those of you belaboring this point based on speculation and fabrication not admitted into evidence but part of the FKR propaganda are just being silly and revealing your ignorance of the criminal law in this country.

People are sitting in prison as we speak convicted to a life sentence for murder of a victim whose body was never found, whose cause of death was never established, etc.

Jurors are not supposed to toss a case based on doubt about a single piece of evidence - they are supposed to look at the evidence in its totality, the pieces of a puzzle that put together bring a case into focus and get them beyond reasonable doubt. You people are arguing unreasonable doubts and while I will certainly agree that some jurors likewise mess up the standard just as you are doing, that doesn't make it right.

Anonymous wrote:If you are following this case at all, I don't understand how you can possibly say there is no reasonable doubt. The state has the burden here, they need to prove her guilt, she doesn't need to prove her innocence.

And they have. She's guilty and will be found guilty.

If you are following this case at all, I don't understand how you can possibly say there is no reasonable doubt. The state has the burden here, they need to prove her guilt, she doesn't need to prove her innocence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

Yeah, it’s wild. Their poor logic and critical thinking is frightening.

Can you listen to yourself??? A cop with no motive killing another cop and then not only covering up the murder but framing Karen for the murder seems way more sane than her backing up at 25 MPH (let me know when you have reversed that fast ever in your life) and hitting John seems "nuts." Listen to yourselves you are not well. Occam's razor 1B%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

NP and I agree. The fact that there are two other possible scenarios with evidence for each would make me feel unsure as a juror.

The sad thing is, if she is guilty, and the Boston police officers were totally innocent of any wrongdoing or tampering whatsoever? Sorry Boston PD, you’ve already proven yourself to be unreliable too many times, too corrupt in too many cases, for there not to be reasonable doubt now. Cop murder and cover-up? In Boston? Yeah, that’s a plausible theory.

Yeah a cop murder and cover up is way more likely and sane as to what happened that snowy night. That's just so incredibly stupid. Really, really dumb. Occam's razor--that's critical thinking.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

Yeah, it’s wild. Their poor logic and critical thinking is frightening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

NP and I agree. The fact that there are two other possible scenarios with evidence for each would make me feel unsure as a juror.

The sad thing is, if she is guilty, and the Boston police officers were totally innocent of any wrongdoing or tampering whatsoever? Sorry Boston PD, you’ve already proven yourself to be unreliable too many times, too corrupt in too many cases, for there not to be reasonable doubt now. Cop murder and cover-up? In Boston? Yeah, that’s a plausible theory.

This is on the Mass State Police and Canton PD. Boston PD got involved with Dever but they’ve been removed from the case otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

NP and I agree. The fact that there are two other possible scenarios with evidence for each would make me feel unsure as a juror.

The sad thing is, if she is guilty, and the Boston police officers were totally innocent of any wrongdoing or tampering whatsoever? Sorry Boston PD, you’ve already proven yourself to be unreliable too many times, too corrupt in too many cases, for there not to be reasonable doubt now. Cop murder and cover-up? In Boston? Yeah, that’s a plausible theory.

I can’t with the folks who thinks there is no reasonable doubt here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't the prosecution call karens reads dad to the stand? Its like he's trying to lose this case. She told her dad she hit him he gave interviews saying this. They're not trying too hard.

Good question. Does anyone know?

The Commonwealth has proved its case by presentation of mostly physical evidence most of which, honestly assessed, is indisputable - the GPS, the iPhone data, the Lexus data, the injuries to and cause of death of John. Along the way they played many self-incriminatory statements made by Karen in her quest to be a media darling, statements which reveal the games she has played in crafting her story about that night.

What purpose would it serve to bring Bill Read, the lying liar who taught his daughter how to be a lying liar, so he can spin that comment by talking about how distraught Karen was in the hospital that morning and how her statement was about an innocent act having nothing to do with John's death? Mothers and fathers, sadly, far too often lie for their children - sometimes just because they are deep in denial. Anybody with any sense of the criminal law knows this.

It's the defense's job to humanize Karen and curry sympathy from the jury for her plight. It would have been foolhardy for the CW to give her daddy the opportunity to do that on cross-exam by the defense.

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't the prosecution call karens reads dad to the stand? Its like he's trying to lose this case. She told her dad she hit him he gave interviews saying this. They're not trying too hard.

Good question. Does anyone know?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 mistrial requests in one week reeks of desperation from the defense. They still have no defense. You can't say karen broke her tail light in a driveway then have the defenses one witness saying the tail light had to be broken at 35-40 mph. They literally contradict themselves. She's so guilty it hurts.

+200000000 exactly!!! They're own witnesses are contradicting their defense. Creating "confusion" for the jury is not a viable defense. I hope jury had 12 brains and finds her guilty. They're grasping at straws now. Its embarrassing!

I couldn't agree more. They've had nothing but animation and fake anger. That's not s defense. Karen needs to be behind bars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 mistrial requests in one week reeks of desperation from the defense. They still have no defense. You can't say karen broke her tail light in a driveway then have the defenses one witness saying the tail light had to be broken at 35-40 mph. They literally contradict themselves. She's so guilty it hurts.

Brennan straight up lying to the jury in open court about the sweatshirt is grounds for a mistrial with prejudice. Full stop.

Except that's not what happened. Full stop 🛑

Were you watching today?

How likely is it that an experienced criminal defense lawyer made a “mistake” involving evidence and chain of custody? How could he not recognize that holes with straight edges made with scissors are likely to be the samples taken for testing? He knew the fabric had been tested- he had to have known how that’s done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 mistrial requests in one week reeks of desperation from the defense. They still have no defense. You can't say karen broke her tail light in a driveway then have the defenses one witness saying the tail light had to be broken at 35-40 mph. They literally contradict themselves. She's so guilty it hurts.

Brennan straight up lying to the jury in open court about the sweatshirt is grounds for a mistrial with prejudice. Full stop.

Except that's not what happened. Full stop 🛑

Boomer, did you just learn how emojis work? So cute for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have to acquit on the 47 pieces of tail light alone. There’s no way that she shattered her tail light into 47 pieces hitting human flesh. And that’s before the butt dials, rehomed dogs, renovated basements, cop never coming out of the house to help, destroyed phones, missing ring camera footage, late night police station visits, inverted sallyport video. I’m surprised the prosecution had the audacity to bring this case a second time.

Same.

+2