Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

ALL of them voted not guilty of murder and leaving the scene. We don't know how many were in disagreement on the manslaughter charge, just that they could not agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

No, the jury DID reach consensus on two out of the three charges: they found her not guilty of murder and leaving the scene of an accident. They could not agree on involuntary manslaughter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

And the dog bites?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

how much jury members voted not guilty and how many guilty the first trial?

He hit the back of his head when he was hit by the car which caused the head injury and the eye that looked like a "raccoon."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

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!!!!

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.

Wow get a life, loser.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes we know.

Thus any of your loved ones could be deliberately hit by a track tonight from their pissed off romantic partner and not haven’t consequences.

Well is that him with the hoodie or mask or not?! Could be anyone!?

Was that her drunk driving at him or not? Oh my, don’t know!

Are his bruises from the truck or the bridge or falling on ricks? Oh my! Don’t know.

Is that his diary notebook and note or was it not logged in correctly so who cares!? Not the victims kids or family…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

They didn't. It ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach consensus.

Part of the issue is that the police investigation was totally mishandled. Also the medical examiner could not even say for sure what his cause of death was and there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car. Even if she did hit his arm with the corner edge of her taillight, that's generally not enough to kill a person. A lot of things don't add up.

Anonymous wrote:Why’d they find her Not Guilty? What happened exactly? What did the decision hinge on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, Karen Read is a selfish alcoholic, as are all the people in the crowd present that night. But the court made a mockery of itself with the help of law enforcement, and is a waste of time and resources given a jury already found her innocent of two out of three charges.

So she accidentally drove off drunk and hit & run her spouse?

And then what? No one can “prove” it or all the evidence is mucked up in trial spin?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, Karen Read is a selfish alcoholic, as are all the people in the crowd present that night. But the court made a mockery of itself with the help of law enforcement, and is a waste of time and resources given a jury already found her innocent of two out of three charges.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes we know.

Thus any of your loved ones could be deliberately hit by a track tonight from their pissed off romantic partner and not haven’t consequences.

Well is that him with the hoodie or mask or not?! Could be anyone!?

Was that her drunk driving at him or not? Oh my, don’t know!

Are his bruises from the truck or the bridge or falling on ricks? Oh my! Don’t know.

Is that his diary notebook and note or was it not logged in correctly so who cares!? Not the victims kids or family…