Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t the house ever part of the investigation????? If someone was found dead on my front yard, I assume the police would like to rule out that it happened in my house.

Actually, no. If there is not probable cause there will not be a warrant issued to search your house. Especially in this case as JOK was found in the snow with taillights around him and one of the women claiming she hit him.

You keep repeating this nonsense. Did anyone actually TRY to get a warrant??

Please speak to any attorney that is willing to discuss this with you. Or better yet reread the constitution and reflect on our basic rights to not be subject to government searches without probable cause. There was zero basis to get a warrant to search the house.

I’m an attorney. You’re clearly a POS who doesn’t care about people’s rights. You’re a thug

???? Isn’t caring about rights being scrupulous about not overreaching with warrants??Caselaw to support a warrant in this situation???

News flash. They could have gotten a warrant. There was cause.

News flash. Defendants have rights too. Not just cops.

Stop cosplaying someone who knows or cares about rights. You just wanted to see her burn because you think cops should be entitled to do whatever they want.

Like drunk driving around and acting like morons and thugs

You must be a terrible attorney if you think there was probable cause to seek a warrant for that house - there most definitely absolutely WAS NOT, and that is a fact pretty much universally acknowledged by every Commonwealth attorney who has commented on the case.

That said, law enforcement was welcomed into the home by the homeowners minutes after John's body was 'found' (Karen knew exactly where he was, because she hit him and left him there) and LEOs were in the house repeatedly that day. There was zero evidence that anything untoward happened in that house, this is just another red herring of the innocence fraud campaign.

Again, you're a terrible lawyer. I sincerely hope you are not practicing criminal law.

This. When police get a warrant, they have to identify what they're looking for and provide evidence that establishes PC that the thing they're looking for will be found in the location to be searched. They can't just say "These people look suspicious, so we are going to poke around their house and see if we find anything linking them to a murder." They have to say we are looking for a gun or a bloody shirt or a cell phone or a distinctive jacket or whatever.

Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.

Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.

Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.

Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.

Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?

Yes that's their nutty position. Their feelings were hurt so she gets off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.

Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.

Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the verdict in CW v Read is shameful - I despair for the future of our justice system if crowdsourced innocence fraud campaigns are going to rule the day.

Ah well, I guess it will only be the wealthy whites who get a pass on killing cops and other people, no worries.

I knew nothing about this case until this year. The CW did not prove their case, period.

Yes they did. Alec Murdaugh was convicted on the same sort of evidence.

The issue was the noise and distractions caused by the behavior of the Alberts et. al, and Proctor.

Alec Murdaugh was convicted on audiotape of him present at the crime scene at a time when he had claimed to be elsewhere and seconds before the shooting. He produced no alternative explanation--not just no credible explanation but no explanation whatsoever--of why he was there, why he had lied about being there, or who else could have shot his wife and son.

One of these things is not like the other.

The electronic data is what sealed the deal for Murdaugh.

Also, Karen read is on tape saying multiple incriminating statements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.

Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.

Let me understand this, if a cop calls you a name, you have to be found not guilty because that cop might have framed you?

Anonymous wrote:The jury got it right. The evidence supported the OUI charge. There was credible expert testimony that no collision occurred. That’s reasonable doubt and requires a not guilt on all offenses involving an accident.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all doomed. People are just not smart anymore. That's what it boils down to.

Yeah, imagine cops being so stupid that they collect evidence in Solo cups, present mirror-image sally port car footage to a jury and then have to admit it’s backward when called out be the defense, having a cop text his buddies talking about the defendant’s body and calling her a c-word, and literally texting that she should kill herself. You are right. People are just not smart anymore.