Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see this thread flooded with anti Karen Read comments given how badly the investigation was botched. It almost feels like a negative PR push against her. Even if she did hit him (note: the commonwealth has yet to convince me JOK was even hit by a car), she was gifted a lifetime’s worth of reasonable doubt when they put Proctor in charge of the investigation.
Cool. The “make a mockery of the court procedures” strategy gets another selfish, immoral, hazardous alcoholic murderer off the hook.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see this thread flooded with anti Karen Read comments given how badly the investigation was botched. It almost feels like a negative PR push against her. Even if she did hit him (note: the commonwealth has yet to convince me JOK was even hit by a car), she was gifted a lifetime’s worth of reasonable doubt when they put Proctor in charge of the investigation.
Agree. Unlike some of the posters, I’m not invested in the outcome of this case. But I understand reasonable doubt, and this case is a textbook example of it. Saying someone is “not guilty” in a court of law does not mean they are innocent.
Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see this thread flooded with anti Karen Read comments given how badly the investigation was botched. It almost feels like a negative PR push against her. Even if she did hit him (note: the commonwealth has yet to convince me JOK was even hit by a car), she was gifted a lifetime’s worth of reasonable doubt when they put Proctor in charge of the investigation.
Anonymous wrote:Interesting to see this thread flooded with anti Karen Read comments given how badly the investigation was botched. It almost feels like a negative PR push against her. Even if she did hit him (note: the commonwealth has yet to convince me JOK was even hit by a car), she was gifted a lifetime’s worth of reasonable doubt when they put Proctor in charge of the investigation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think she was blackout drunk and honestly has no idea whether she hit him or not.
The problem is so was he and everyone else at that party. We will never know what actually happened.
Read that she was .09 and limit is .08. That’s not blackout.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ian whiffin from cellebrite is testifying about the cell phone data and when the internet search actually happened. Spoiler alert it wasn't at 2:30 am!!!!! Boom!!!!
So the only Google search that auto deleted itself is the “hos long” search at 2:28? Out of her thousands of Google searches?
Why did JOK’s phone record steps while driving up and down the hills of Canton but Karen’s didn’t?
Ian whiffin from cellebrite testified that no searches were deleted. NONE. Save your sanity PP WATCH THE LIVE COURT PROCEEDINGS or DVR it. Answer your own stupid questions with the live testimony. No one should have to do YOUR research for YOU.
Anonymous wrote:Who is Karen Read?
Anonymous wrote:Who is Karen Read?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ian whiffin from cellebrite is testifying about the cell phone data and when the internet search actually happened. Spoiler alert it wasn't at 2:30 am!!!!! Boom!!!!
I don’t understand the ambiguity around this and why there isn’t someone from Apple testifying about how the program works?
For me there is a single piece of crucial info: He was alive at 12:32 per Ian W's testimony about the watch activity. And we know from the previous trial that his bluetooth disconnected from KR's car at 12:30. So that means he was checking his watch, alive, on the lawn two minutes after she left. Presumably if gravely injured he's not opening his watch to check on his messages casually and then walking around a little and locking his watch without trying to get some help. Karen's phone connects to his house wifi at 12:36 so the timeline (left before 12:30) checks out in terms of her having left before that phone check by John.
That's not what he said today.