Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was pig DNA.

So you think a pig bit him?

No, but the testimony at the first trial was there was no dog DNA, but pig.

Anonymous wrote:How did he get vomit inside his pants on the top of his underwear and where and when did this happen?

It's hard to belive grown adults especially those in law enforcement live like this in the their 40s and 50's.

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.

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.

That's odd. If she wasn't guilty of leaving the accident scene how could she be guilty of manslaughter?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was pig DNA.

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:She did it. If the people in the house killed him, which they did not, then they got pretty damn lucky that she broke her tail light and was the one to find him the next morning. Because without that they would have had no way to pin this on her.

But did she intend to do it? Did she know she hit him?

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:

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?

They all drove drunk, habitually so. But it’s up to the prosecution to prove she hit him. We don’t get to put people in jail without proof bc we dislike them and their behavior. Poorly collecting and presenting evidence does mean some killers go free.

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.

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…

If it is such an open and shut case, your should direct your anger at the cops who royally jammed up the investigation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did it. If the people in the house killed him, which they did not, then they got pretty damn lucky that she broke her tail light and was the one to find him the next morning. Because without that they would have had no way to pin this on her.

But did she intend to do it? Did she know she hit him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

"there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car."

THAT'S A LIE! PROOF From the first trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEIvS5yPxY0

Nice try though!

There is no “nice try” involved. The 1st jury found her not guilty of two out of three charges. Whether you think she hit him or not does not matter when it comes to that.

We're not talking about that we're talking about this lie YOU said. "there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car." That is a lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

"there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car."

THAT'S A LIE! PROOF From the first trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEIvS5yPxY0

Nice try though!

There is no “nice try” involved. The 1st jury found her not guilty of two out of three charges. Whether you think she hit him or not does not matter when it comes to that.

We're not talking about that we're talking about this lie YOU said. "there were experts who testified that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car." That is a lie.

Anonymous wrote:She did it. If the people in the house killed him, which they did not, then they got pretty damn lucky that she broke her tail light and was the one to find him the next morning. Because without that they would have had no way to pin this on her.

Anonymous wrote:She did it. If the people in the house killed him, which they did not, then they got pretty damn lucky that she broke her tail light and was the one to find him the next morning. Because without that they would have had no way to pin this on her.