Anonymous wrote:Why did the owner of the house get rid of the dog, destroy a SIM card, and get rid of the phone *on a military base*? And what was going on with the “butt dials”? And why did the snow plow driver—sitting high up with bright lights—not see the body?

Too much reasonable doubt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

Am I taking crazy pills???! Yes, when there is divergent testimony regarding something like the extent of taillight damage, that must be taken into account. One must carefully consider the source and substance of the testimony and assess whether, and why, some might deserve greater weight.

None of that remotely supports the claim that the taillight was ever intact on the morning that John’s body was found.

Sgt. Barros admitted under cross examination that he never testified at the last trial the way he had just asserted to this jury he had. He lied - of course because he was only mistaken, it had nothing to do with his two hour + drive to Boston and back to meet up with Alan Jackson and the team to receive his subpoena, something he could have accomplished by fax or mail. Of course it had nothing to do with any conversation that took place in the Seaport Omni conference room.

On further cross exam, Sgt. Barros admitted that the tail light looked to him as it appears in the photos at Dighton of the vehicle going on the tow truck, and of the vehicle sitting parked at 1 Meadows Drive at the 8am welfare check when the passenger side corner tail light is clearly missing with packed snow in its place. A photo that is 100% consistent with the appearance of the tail light at the start of the timelapse video from the sally port which shows the tail light from the moment of arrival until the snow all melts off and it looks as it does, almost entirely smashed out at the corner where the Lexus hit John O'Keefe.

Sgt. Barros was caught in trying to lie on the stand, caught trying to be an advocate for Karen Read - Sgt. Barros who has been photographed in selfies with local FKR who call him a hero for justice, blah blah blah. Sgt. Barros's testimony has zero credibility as to the issue of the broken tail light, and only a foolish person can't see that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

Am I taking crazy pills???! Yes, when there is divergent testimony regarding something like the extent of taillight damage, that must be taken into account. One must carefully consider the source and substance of the testimony and assess whether, and why, some might deserve greater weight.

None of that remotely supports the claim that the taillight was ever intact on the morning that John’s body was found.

Sgt. Barros admitted under cross examination that he never testified at the last trial the way he had just asserted to this jury he had. He lied - of course because he was only mistaken, it had nothing to do with his two hour + drive to Boston and back to meet up with Alan Jackson and the team to receive his subpoena, something he could have accomplished by fax or mail. Of course it had nothing to do with any conversation that took place in the Seaport Omni conference room.

On further cross exam, Sgt. Barros admitted that the tail light looked to him as it appears in the photos at Dighton of the vehicle going on the tow truck, and of the vehicle sitting parked at 1 Meadows Drive at the 8am welfare check when the passenger side corner tail light is clearly missing with packed snow in its place. A photo that is 100% consistent with the appearance of the tail light at the start of the timelapse video from the sally port which shows the tail light from the moment of arrival until the snow all melts off and it looks as it does, almost entirely smashed out at the corner where the Lexus hit John O'Keefe.

Sgt. Barros was caught in trying to lie on the stand, caught trying to be an advocate for Karen Read - Sgt. Barros who has been photographed in selfies with local FKR who call him a hero for justice, blah blah blah. Sgt. Barros's testimony has zero credibility as to the issue of the broken tail light, and only a foolish person can't see that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

Am I taking crazy pills???! Yes, when there is divergent testimony regarding something like the extent of taillight damage, that must be taken into account. One must carefully consider the source and substance of the testimony and assess whether, and why, some might deserve greater weight.

None of that remotely supports the claim that the taillight was ever intact on the morning that John’s body was found.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this is circumstantial and ignores other key evidence like the laceration on his eye and the dog bites on his arm. Nothing was proven = reasonable doubt

There was 0 dog dna found anywhere on John. No way that he was bitten by a dog.
There was a shattered car taillight and shattered drink glass on and near his person, both of which could have caused the lacerations.

They found pig DNA on him though. Odd. Dog food?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.