Is anyone following the Karen Read trial?

[GAN]

To believe the conspiracy I have to believe the taillights fragments were planted.

To believe she intentionally hit him,I have to believe she was "acting" on the voice mails.

Both are too high hurdles for me.

And I also think when she said "I hit him",she had just then realized that was probably what happened the night before.

It wasn't an admission of premeditation.

For me… a person who loses their significant other(likely at their own hands) and then prances around her subsequent trials with smiles as if she’s a star, is a HIGH hurdle for me! The defense is writing a fiction with the perfect cast of characters. Granted, some of the details do a great job with building doubt. Second degree… probably not, but no one is telling me she didn’t recklessly back into him and ultimately kill him.

 

[WEDWDW]

For me… a person who loses their significant other(likely at their own hands) and then prances around her subsequent trials with smiles as if she’s a star, is a HIGH hurdle for me! The defense is writing a fiction with the perfect cast of characters. Granted, some of the details do a great job with building doubt. Second degree… probably not, but no one is telling me she didn’t recklessly back into him and ultimately kill him.

Fair point.

It could be either way,I just lean to Involuntary Homicide.

Without the calls and VMs,she would definitely be toast.

They should have charged her with DUI with Vehicular Homicide only,tried her and called it a day.

She may have premeditated, just no way 12 will go with that.

 

[Lucys dad]

Ha, and no Zapruder film either. Wait until the Defense calls Proctor...he's our "Mark Fuhrman" in this whole drama. A dirty cop.

Yeah that guy was ridiculous. You wonder how these people ever get these jobs in the first place. A total liability

 

[Lucys dad]

I’ve come up with a new theory.

They were all a bunch of drunken swingers. Unanimous your honour

 

[pezgirlroy]

I’ve come up with a new theory.

They were all a bunch of drunken swingers. Unanimous your honour

I think that is a very valid theory.

 

[dvcgirl67]

I’ve come up with a new theory.

They were all a bunch of drunken swingers. Unanimous your honour

Oh, no question. If anyone has listened to the painful testimony today.....ugh. Karen Read and Brian Higgins flirt-texting with each other for seemingly weeks on end, lots of drinking/drunk references. So painful. Made me happy that I'm married. The dating pool pretty shallow by the time you hit your mid-40s.

 

[HeatherC]

Anyone think the prosecution blew up their own case yesterday with the shoe evidence bag? Bag had an hole it and was not sealed and wrong shoe! The prosecution isn’t really “trying” Karen Read. They are actually “defending” the Commonwealth’s disaster of a case.

 

[GAN]

I’ve come up with a new theory.

They were all a bunch of drunken swingers. Unanimous your honour

Sounds like a lot of the cops I know

 

[GAN]

Anyone think the prosecution blew up their own case yesterday with the shoe evidence bag? Bag had an hole it and was not sealed and wrong shoe! The prosecution isn’t really “trying” Karen Read. They are actually “defending” the Commonwealth’s disaster of a case.

I don’t think so …still doesn’t change the facts. All it does is take your eye off the ball -which the only thing the defense has from what I’ve seen. If we seek perfection in anything we’ve ended up in the wrong universe!

 

[GAN]

Oh, no question. If anyone has listened to the painful testimony today.....ugh. Karen Read and Brian Higgins flirt-texting with each other for seemingly weeks on end, lots of drinking/drunk references. So painful. Made me happy that I'm married. The dating pool pretty shallow by the time you hit your mid-40s.

Worse than high school kids… sad. But she’s Brockton so no surprise to me. No offense to the good folks in that armpit. She’s boinking her housemate/boyfriend’s friend less than a month prior and now the boyfriend is “mysteriously” dead. There is ZERO question she is involved one way or the other

 

[HeatherC]

I don’t think so …still doesn’t change the facts. All it does is take your eye off the ball -which the only thing the defense has from what I’ve seen. If we seek perfection in anything we’ve ended up in the wrong universe!

The facts are pretty clear. The police botched this investigation from day one. There is soooo much reasonable doubt it is mindboggling.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I have not seen the series on Max, but live close enough to have heard random reports on the news. (I haven't kept up or seen everything, though.) I do suspect there is a lot more to the story than a simple hit and run, and that many things were hidden or mishandled.

I had to Google why they could even try her for murder twice, and I'm not completely sure they should have.

If this were a fictional mystery story, I think it would have a wacky ending where a bunch of people each did something that could have killed the victim, and the reader never knows for sure what really did. Ultimately, I think she will be acquitted.

 

[GAN]

The facts are pretty clear. The police botched this investigation from day one. There is soooo much reasonable doubt it is mindboggling.

The cops aren’t on trial, she is. The only thing a jury needs to be concerned with are the facts regarding her. But your opinion, and that of many others, is proof that if you spend enough money on a lawyer you can walk away from anything….

 

[dvcgirl67]

The facts are pretty clear. The police botched this investigation from day one. There is soooo much reasonable doubt it is mindboggling.

There's a lot of reasonable doubt for sure. But there's a part of me who wonders if it'll come down to the taillight.....and whether you believe that it was cracked/shattered in hitting John O'Keefe...or, if it was cracked and damaged when she backed out and hit his car at 5:07am on the 29th.

Each side is highlighting the parts of the video they want seen. The prosecution showed her backing out and kept the video rolling....and you do see that portion of the taillight is missing. And you can see back where his car is, and there's snow on the ground. I'd think that if she damaged it by hitting his car, that you'd see some of those red pieces on the ground there.

The defense only highlighted the portion of the video where she hits the car. They don't show her pulling forward from that point. They did get Bukhenik to admit that she did in fact hit his vehicle, which he didn't do in the last trial.

Could O'Keefe possibly thrown the glass at the back of the car as she pulled away...breaking the taillight? And then gone back into the house? Sure. And did the police possible create more damage to the taillight and plant more pieces as the days went on....definitely. We haven't gotten to the worst of the evidence yet when it comes to that stuff.

The investigation itself though....is really bad, and Bukhenik comes off as defensive and battling every single question while on the stand.

 

[HeatherC]

There's a lot of reasonable doubt for sure. But there's a part of me who wonders if it'll come down to the taillight.....and whether you believe that it was cracked/shattered in hitting John O'Keefe...or, if it was cracked and damaged when she backed out and hit his car at 5:07am on the 29th.

Each side is highlighting the parts of the video they want seen. The prosecution showed her backing out and kept the video rolling....and you do see that portion of the taillight is missing. And you can see back where his car is, and there's snow on the ground. I'd think that if she damaged it by hitting his car, that you'd see some of those red pieces on the ground there.

The defense only highlighted the portion of the video where she hits the car. They don't show her pulling forward from that point. They did get Bukhenik to admit that she did in fact hit his vehicle, which he didn't do in the last trial.

Could O'Keefe possibly thrown the glass at the back of the car as she pulled away...breaking the taillight? And then gone back into the house? Sure. And did the police possible create more damage to the taillight and plant more pieces as the days went on....definitely. We haven't gotten to the worst of the evidence yet when it comes to that stuff.

The investigation itself though....is really bad, and Bukhenik comes off as defensive and battling every single question while on the stand.

I think, for me, the fact they literally didn’t “find” all these taillight pieces for days after is really suspicious. Even though there was snow, there wasn’t “that much “ snow for this area. If someone died, they absolutely should have cleared that area. It wasn’t like there was 4 feet of snow on the ground. Sad all around.

 

[dvcgirl67]

I think, for me, the fact they literally didn’t “find” all these taillight pieces for days after is really suspicious. Even though there was snow, there wasn’t “that much “ snow for this area. If someone died, they absolutely should have cleared that area. It wasn’t like there was 4 feet of snow on the ground. Sad all around.

Yes, also, that they really didn't mark where his body was found. They didn't mark where all of the taillight pieces were found. And how about reports being written up to 500 days after the event. Just very sloppy. There's a lot of reasonable doubt here for sure.

They kind of just drove by day after day waiting for the snow to melt? They didn't tape off the yard, etc.

 

[GAN]

Yes, also, that they really didn't mark where his body was found. They didn't mark where all of the taillight pieces were found. And how about reports being written up to 500 days after the event. Just very sloppy. There's a lot of reasonable doubt here for sure.

They kind of just drove by day after day waiting for the snow to melt? They didn't tape off the yard, etc.

Could it be some cop conspiracy? Possible. I agree that the police were lax on the details to a certain degree, but it’s possible some of that came from the fact they truly believed this was a motor vehicle incident and not a homocide. So, if I’m a juror, do I care if they didn’t mark every piece of taillight to the square inch? Anyone in the northeast understands how these storms are, so discovering evidence days later in what was snow is not shocking -maybe to flashy LA Attorney it is . Just smoke and mirrors by the defense -a pretty weak attempt at that. Should they have searched the home…. Definitely, in hindsight. But again, why search a home for a traffic death? Everything initially pointed that way and I don’t blame them for going in that direction.

 

[HeatherC]

Could it be some cop conspiracy? Possible. I agree that the police were lax on the details to a certain degree, but it’s possible some of that came from the fact they truly believed this was a motor vehicle incident and not a homocide. So, if I’m a juror, do I care if they didn’t mark every piece of taillight to the square inch? Anyone in the northeast understands how these storms are, so discovering evidence days later in what was snow is not shocking -maybe to flashy LA Attorney it is . Just smoke and mirrors by the defense -a pretty weak attempt at that. Should they have searched the home…. Definitely, in hindsight. But again, why search a home for a traffic death? Everything initially pointed that way and I don’t blame them for going in that direction.

Not only did they not “mark” the pieces, they didn’t even “find” them until days later.

So you obviously believe she is guilty…which is fine. But if you were on the jury would you convict her with all the reasonable doubt? She is, after all, according to our justice system “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecution has certainly failed to do that in more ways than we can count.

 

[dvcgirl67]

Not only did they not “mark” the pieces, they didn’t even “find” them until days later.

So you obviously believe she is guilty…which is fine. But if you were on the jury would you convict her with all the reasonable doubt? She is, after all, according to our justice system “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecution has certainly failed to do that in more ways than we can count.

Right, and we haven't gotten to the personal text messages from Proctor yes where he tells his buddies that no way Brian Albert would go down, because he's a Boston cop. There's just a lot of reasonable doubt. That also doesn't mean that I would walk away thinking that she was an angel, or likable, or that she may very well have done it. But that's not the standard. There's a lot of reasonable doubt here.

In this trial they seem to be going harder at the "sloppy investigation" theory vs. the "another culprit" deal. And as far as I understand, if there's a "death by auto" kind of situation, evidence has to be preserved, documented....in the same way that any criminal investigation needs to be filmed....etc.

 

[GAN]

Not only did they not “mark” the pieces, they didn’t even “find” them until days later.

So you obviously believe she is guilty…which is fine. But if you were on the jury would you convict her with all the reasonable doubt? She is, after all, according to our justice system “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecution has certainly failed to do that in more ways than we can count.

I don’t know everything about the case, but I’ve been watching a good part of this trial and have seen some info on the previous trial…. And I realize I’m in the minority on this one, but I would lean guilty of a lesser charge than M2 -she’ll never be charged for that and not sure why the state would have ever pursued that but they do it for a living not me. I look at it this way, much of the reasonable doubt fantasy being built by the defense isn’t fact based …I mean, if you’re(general) a person that believes all police are crooked than you’ve got all you need. Do you live in a cold climate? It’s very reasonable to understand that after a blizzard, shards of glass from an accident will be discovered after snow melts. They got rid of the dog…. yes, they got rid of the dog 3-months later because it attacked a neighbors dog and had no choice but rehome it. She broke the taillight backing into John’s car… that’s pretty far fetched if you ask me. First of all the bump was at such low impact that her bumper would would have hit his car -NOT the taillight, but then you have to believe that the cops went and picked up the pieces and transported them to the scene of the hit and run. The likelihood of that scenario is less than that of her just actually ramming the guy and leaving him in the snow to die. Her attorney is obviously building a great case of avoiding the reality that sits right in front of us. OJ didn’t kill Nicole either…..this defense is in the same league!