Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen and Johns phone records place them out front, the black box in Karens car coupled with
cell phone records, DNA and glass shards on the bumper tell the entire story. She backed up at 25 MPH, for 60 FEET (INSANE) ran into him. His phone never moved again once hers left the scene. Cellbrite testimony was incredible.

Insane indeed! If she backed up into him for 60 feet then he could not have landed where he did. It’s common sense. She could not have been parked where she did (where eyewitnesses place her) and backed up 60 feet into him and him been in the front lawn. He’s be in front of a different house. Not to mention the noise it all would have made, a way bigger impact on her car, and the debris would not have conveniently ended up right near him with that amount of force. It’s a stupid theory.

I can't with the stupid on here...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't know as much about this case as some posters on here, but I'm not sure where the "reasonable" doubt is yet. Some far-fetched doubt in the realm of an unlikely possibility? Maybe. But it seems likely that this was at least done unintentionally while under the influence.

It’s also possible that this was a complete accident. John could have fallen and hit his head while walking across the lawn to the front door. There was a light dusting of snow on the ground, so could be slippery, and John had also been drinking. Slippery ground plus a little unsteady on one’s feet could result in a fall with his head hitting a rock. This theory fits with the expert testimony that the injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle.

This is one of the many sad aspects of this case. The precipitating injury could have been a complete accident, and everybody is blaming everyone else. But there are too many possibilities, and so many things that don’t add up, that it would be very difficult as a juror to be able to vote guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Yet instead of the defense going with the theory that it was an accident, they are focusing on an alleged coverup/conspiracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen and Johns phone records place them out front, the black box in Karens car coupled with
cell phone records, DNA and glass shards on the bumper tell the entire story. She backed up at 25 MPH, for 60 FEET (INSANE) ran into him. His phone never moved again once hers left the scene. Cellbrite testimony was incredible.

Insane indeed! If she backed up into him for 60 feet then he could not have landed where he did. It’s common sense. She could not have been parked where she did (where eyewitnesses place her) and backed up 60 feet into him and him been in the front lawn. He’s be in front of a different house. Not to mention the noise it all would have made, a way bigger impact on her car, and the debris would not have conveniently ended up right near him with that amount of force. It’s a stupid theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't know as much about this case as some posters on here, but I'm not sure where the "reasonable" doubt is yet. Some far-fetched doubt in the realm of an unlikely possibility? Maybe. But it seems likely that this was at least done unintentionally while under the influence.

It’s also possible that this was a complete accident. John could have fallen and hit his head while walking across the lawn to the front door. There was a light dusting of snow on the ground, so could be slippery, and John had also been drinking. Slippery ground plus a little unsteady on one’s feet could result in a fall with his head hitting a rock. This theory fits with the expert testimony that the injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle.

This is one of the many sad aspects of this case. The precipitating injury could have been a complete accident, and everybody is blaming everyone else. But there are too many possibilities, and so many things that don’t add up, that it would be very difficult as a juror to be able to vote guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Yet instead of the defense going with the theory that it was an accident, they are focusing on an alleged coverup/conspiracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't know as much about this case as some posters on here, but I'm not sure where the "reasonable" doubt is yet. Some far-fetched doubt in the realm of an unlikely possibility? Maybe. But it seems likely that this was at least done unintentionally while under the influence.

It’s also possible that this was a complete accident. John could have fallen and hit his head while walking across the lawn to the front door. There was a light dusting of snow on the ground, so could be slippery, and John had also been drinking. Slippery ground plus a little unsteady on one’s feet could result in a fall with his head hitting a rock. This theory fits with the expert testimony that the injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle.

This is one of the many sad aspects of this case. The precipitating injury could have been a complete accident, and everybody is blaming everyone else. But there are too many possibilities, and so many things that don’t add up, that it would be very difficult as a juror to be able to vote guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is reasonable doubt.

No there's not.

There was already one hung jury. Reasonable doubt.

Fair or not, that is not how the US justice system works, or she wouldn't be re-tried right now. The state gets another bite at the apple. Circumstantial evidence counts, and doubt has to be "reasonable." Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond no doubt whatsoever. We'll see what happens

I agree it’s not predictable. But there are enough people who think she didn’t do it that the likelihood one of them is on the jury is pretty good. I’m not sure how they even found a pool of people with no prior opinion on the matter.

I certainly don't know as much about this case as some posters on here, but I'm not sure where the "reasonable" doubt is yet. Some far-fetched doubt in the realm of an unlikely possibility? Maybe. But it seems likely that this was at least done unintentionally while under the influence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are swayed in their judgement of her because frankly she’s pretty unlikable. She must have borderline personality disorder or something like it.

They are all unlikeable though, weird reckless and cold bunch of entitled drunks. So it does not sway me. I think she could have done it, but it cannot be proven any more than any other theory given how little info makes sense and all the lies they are all telling.

For example it’s plausible to me Jen didn’t think straight so did not ask her BIL to come do CPR, but it’s clearly a lie when she tells KR’s attorney she now cannot tell him if anyone on the street knew CPR. She knows her BIL at least, plus likely the guy across the street who is a retired cop. She was trying not to look bad but proved she lies on the stand. So what else did she lie about?

While I agree that They all have that offputtingMassachusetts personality, sort ofcold and terse, that’s not exactly what I mean with her. If you watch her Netflix “documentary“, she comes off almost as amused while she tells the story. She smiles at inappropriate times when talking about the death of her boyfriend. Even when talking about the children, she doesn’t really seem to be remorseful for what they’re going through. It’s just like a story She’s blurting out and is gossiping about. You can see her eyes light up when she talks about it. Very strange.

I don’t think she did any of this on purpose. But there’s something very off with her.

I think it has become a story and a bit abstract after recounting it 1000 times. She clearly was very upset the day of. And why should she feel remorseful if she did not do it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen and Johns phone records place them out front, the black box in Karens car coupled with
cell phone records, DNA and glass shards on the bumper tell the entire story. She backed up at 25 MPH, for 60 FEET (INSANE) ran into him. His phone never moved again once hers left the scene. Cellbrite testimony was incredible.

Insane indeed! If she backed up into him for 60 feet then he could not have landed where he did. It’s common sense. She could not have been parked where she did (where eyewitnesses place her) and backed up 60 feet into him and him been in the front lawn. He’s be in front of a different house. Not to mention the noise it all would have made, a way bigger impact on her car, and the debris would not have conveniently ended up right near him with that amount of force. It’s a stupid theory.

Not if she hit him, he fell to the side, and she kept on going. What did the medical examiner say? I didn't watch the first trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can say whatever she wants in these interviews and call everyone else a liar, and it's not subject to cross examination. Maybe that's where the doubt in the eyes of the public comes in. But the jurors should not have seen any of that.

It's crazy she runs her mouth like that on a documentary and leaving the court house calling everyone else a liar. But she won't step foot on that witness stand. That says a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karen and Johns phone records place them out front, the black box in Karens car coupled with
cell phone records, DNA and glass shards on the bumper tell the entire story. She backed up at 25 MPH, for 60 FEET (INSANE) ran into him. His phone never moved again once hers left the scene. Cellbrite testimony was incredible.

Insane indeed! If she backed up into him for 60 feet then he could not have landed where he did. It’s common sense. She could not have been parked where she did (where eyewitnesses place her) and backed up 60 feet into him and him been in the front lawn. He’s be in front of a different house. Not to mention the noise it all would have made, a way bigger impact on her car, and the debris would not have conveniently ended up right near him with that amount of force. It’s a stupid theory.

Anonymous wrote:Karen and Johns phone records place them out front, the black box in Karens car coupled with
cell phone records, DNA and glass shards on the bumper tell the entire story. She backed up at 25 MPH, for 60 FEET (INSANE) ran into him. His phone never moved again once hers left the scene. Cellbrite testimony was incredible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can say whatever she wants in these interviews and call everyone else a liar, and it's not subject to cross examination. Maybe that's where the doubt in the eyes of the public comes in. But the jurors should not have seen any of that.

It's crazy she runs her mouth like that on a documentary and leaving the court house calling everyone else a liar. But she won't step foot on that witness stand. That says a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The commonwealth can show that KR was acting erratic and was concerned she might have drunkenly caused JOK’s death by hitting him with her car. The defense experts can show that it’s very unlikely if not impossible that JOK’s injuries were caused by a collision. KR’s team is trying to paint the picture of everyone else at 34 Fairview conspiring to cover up what really happened (a fight? A dog attack), and it’s a hard sell. The best argument I’ve seen in support of that theory (aside from the fact that cell phones were destroyed, dogs re-homed, tons of butt dials the night-of etc.) is the fact that all of the group chats between these people in the hours and days that followed were very brief and sterile - if your friend’s girlfriend had drunkenly murdered him, you can’t tell me you wouldn’t be sending messages just going off on her. Yet this hard-partying crew was talking like unemotional robots. It’s hardly evidence, but when I’m trying to sort through the noise, this fact strikes me as significant.

Can't the state also show a bunch of evidence on the car, too, though?

They have evidence of a broken tail light and ignition data to support a fast reversing of the vehicle. But none of that matters if he wasn’t hit by a car. Personally I think the commonwealth messed up by theorizing that she intentionally hit him by reversing the car at 24 mph. Much more plausible, in my mind, is that he somehow loses his balance as she leaves and in a freak accident he slams his head while falling. Then the question is whether she knew he had fallen and failed to stick around or get help. Their evidence doesn’t match their theory of the case and that’s how you end up with reasonable doubt.

I thought his blood, hair, DNA, etc , were also on the back of the car?