Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *MISTRIAL*

1691951367971.png

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

By John Moroney • Published April 19, 2024 • Updated on April 19, 2024 at 6:29 pm​


While Friday marked a pause in jury selection for the Karen Read murder trial, jurors are still top of mind.

Or, more specifically, the jury box, which is the latest focus of defense attorneys who say the seating for jurors in the courtroom at the Norfolk Superior Court violates their client’s constitutional right to confront witnesses face-to-face because of poor sight lines.

“The defendant’s right of confrontation is affected, because that’s why we have juries is to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and what the facts are, and if they are not able to do that fully, there is a legitimate argument that that affects her confrontation clause under the sixth amendment,” explained NBC10 Boston legal analyst Michael Coyne.

<snip>

Read’s lawyers have a motion - asking to change the seating so jurors will look directly at witnesses during testimony. They say jurors must be able to see them so they can access their credibility. They’ve even submitted images of defense attorney David Yannetti on the stand, claiming at least six jurors will only see the back of a witness’ head.

"Never have I seen a courtroom in which the jury box is positioned in such a way that a segment of the jury can only see the back of a witness's head while testifying," Yannetti wrote in the motion, comparing the setup to his experiences in numerous other courtrooms in the state.

The defense says it has offered an alternative seating arrangement.

Coyne agreed with the concerns of Read’s lawyers, saying seeing witnesses is important for the jury and lawyers.

“The way that courtroom is set up the lawyers can’t see all the jurors and what you want be able to do as the lawyers is see what’s resonating with jury, what’s their reacting to, what they’re ignoring, ‘cause that helps you shape the balance of your trial.”

The courthouse in Dedham is an older building and seating is already tight. It remains to be seen if the judge will make changes.

Four more jurors are needed before opening statements can get underway. All parties will return to court next week to finish jury selection.
 
The first few sentences I thought how dumb but in reading all, if it is true a juror cannot see a witness testifying then I agree that is not right. Info act everyone in the courtroom and public watching if aired should be able to imo. I think they mean assess credibility, not access lol but these days I am not one to take of or judge typos lol.

I am a full on believer of everyone seeing all and trials being entirely open and aired but at minimum those in the courtroom should be able to see every witness on the stand. Isn't that also why the stand and judge's bench are higher as well than the rest of the courtroom? So all can view?

If it is old and tight and has been this way for all cases, then it sure isn't done to do it to her but yes, I'd say it is not ideal. Every single juror for sure should be able to watch every witness's face, etc.
 
Wow! Not wanting every juror to see a witness' face is just mind blowing! This too stinks of some kind of attempted messing with this case for the prosecution. It seems they don't want jurors to assess if certain witness' are lying. I can't think of a single case that didn't have the jury able to see all the witness' full faces.
 
Wow! Not wanting every juror to see a witness' face is just mind blowing! This too stinks of some kind of attempted messing with this case for the prosecution. It seems they don't want jurors to assess if certain witness' are lying. I can't think of a single case that didn't have the jury able to see all the witness' full faces.
It sounds to me like this is always the case in this courtroom and if so, it wasn't done to do it to her in her case or to her side. My county has a newer justice center, probably 20 or so years old now and yet the courtrooms are small and not all is ideal. Jurors can see the witnesses though but you know what attendees can never see the perp's face and I dont' agree with that either.

Anyhow I don't disagree in this one, jurors should be able to watch every witness, the defendant, and all. But again it does no sound as if they created this set up just for Read. So I'd just say be sure of that before you assume that.
 
Wow! Not wanting every juror to see a witness' face is just mind blowing! This too stinks of some kind of attempted messing with this case for the prosecution. It seems they don't want jurors to assess if certain witness' are lying. I can't think of a single case that didn't have the jury able to see all the witness' full faces.
I would say it happens in every case in that county since that is the way their court room is designed. Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
 
It sounds to me like this is always the case in this courtroom and if so, it wasn't done to do it to her in her case or to her side. My county has a newer justice center, probably 20 or so years old now and yet the courtrooms are small and not all is ideal. Jurors can see the witnesses though but you know what attendees can never see the perp's face and I dont' agree with that either.

Anyhow I don't disagree in this one, jurors should be able to watch every witness, the defendant, and all. But again it does no sound as if they created this set up just for Read. So I'd just say be sure of that before you assume that.

Not seeing the defendant's face is something I’ve seen in every courtroom, meaning from the gallery. In the trial I was a juror for the entire jury could see the defendant's faces.

If this isn't intentional, it never should have passed inspection.
 
I would say it happens in every case in that county since that is the way their court room is designed. Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

If that's true we need to fix that. Jurors need to be able to see witnesses faces. I didn't take my eyes off one of the defense witnesses for his entire testimony.
 
Not arguing that part. Just mentioning that it hasn't been brought up yet there even though it's been designed that way and not just that way for this trial that hasn't even started yet.

I don't know it's only for this trial. How do you know it isn't?

O/T but while I was watching the witness, all of the others were watching the lawyer.
 
I don't know it's only for this trial. How do you know it isn't?

O/T but while I was watching the witness, all of the others were watching the lawyer.
Because the trial hasn't started yet and they are already complaining about the current layout. I'm sure this is not the only trial getting ready to happen in that county right now or since the issue was mentioned. Otherwise how would they even know?
 
Because the trial hasn't started yet and they are already complaining about the current layout. I'm sure this is not the only trial getting ready to happen in that county right now or since the issue was mentioned. Otherwise how would they even know?

Yes, they're "complaining" that the jurors can't see all of the witness' faces. That's a pretty important part of any trial. If they can't arrange it so all the jurors can see the faces of the witness', the room is too small, and they need to move it.
 
I would say it happens in every case in that county since that is the way their court room is designed. Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Did you read the link and look at the pics? Looks pretty old and like permanent builds/structures/jury seats, etc. to me. I don' always look at all links but I did at this one. I don't think they just for goodness sakes rearranged all this for Karen Read. I can't even imagine the reasoning on that one.

You know I can see some things in this case but I think with this one you are really reaching.

I was against our new justice center and jail and they wanted to go all out which was a lot of the reason not to mention the tax increases we were going to face. Most were against. For that and other reasons. They finally got it through as they do with schools or anything by just keeping at it until not enough people turn out to vote it down, etc. Ours is which is surprising me probably 20, 30 years old by now? Maybe a bit less. Not sure.

And the "new" place itself is its own story and the contractors and problems BUT for purposes of this, I'll avoid that sidetrack. We had an old historic I'd say courthouse like any of small towns and way back, not big but I think two story, basement, maybe three, think it was two. On a hill with steps but right in a small city to most in other states would be a town. Anyhow I think on it right now and yes it was sold, it was tight, never though so back at the time but it was. Jail was part of this small thing and tight. I love old buildings though.

But to revamp that one if I am honest looking back? Oh boy.

This one here is similar I'm sure. You can't reconfigure a room where maybe the wiring or electrical needs to be near the court reporter and judge and there's already likely a back way in for the jury, one needs seats for the public and near the door, etc. You can only do so much and even if you blew all out with a new footprint well you have to have funding and even then, lack of space to fit all back in and new wiring and so much more.

This simply looks like a very old historic courthouse and there's probably some that want it never torn down and some that think new and modern is the way to go.

I remember the Frazee trial and hearing and such and I think it was Teller County CO. My God. WAsn't televised still ticks me off. BUt no air hotter than heck, if they opened a few windows then the jury was hearing police sirens and just all sorts of problems. Wanst' televised but many a tweeting news or YT etc. was there. The acoustics they said were worthless, thek sight lines too just like here.

This courtroom is not about Karen Read. They are calling it out and hopefully a solution will be found. She does have a right for the jury to see her, for her to face her accusers and so on. I'm in full agreement on that. However, before you say they are doing it to do it to her maybe go find some other trials with some pics or info about this courthouse, courtroom, etc. Just saying.

Maybe all is big and newer anywhere you have been but it sure isn't the case everywhere to this day.
 
Not arguing that part. Just mentioning that it hasn't been brought up yet there even though it's been designed that way and not just that way for this trial that hasn't even started yet.
Me either. And pretty much said and just said again the same.
 
I don't know it's only for this trial. How do you know it isn't?

O/T but while I was watching the witness, all of the others were watching the lawyer.
So think about this. They moved it all and did it just for this trial because as you say how does anyone know it isn't? But then let them see, know, her attorney to get pictures because they were stupid enough to set up the courtroom this way just for Ms. Karen and then let it be known and seen so her side could photo and file about it? This is I will BET you HOW this courtroom is, has been, etc. And who knows, I have no idea maybe this used to be a state or still is that had or often has a six person jury? Isn't Florida one of those if I recall? Some states have that. So now if need 12 it was set up for six to see back in the day.

I recall, it was DULOS. Six person jury wasn't it?
 
Because the trial hasn't started yet and they are already complaining about the current layout. I'm sure this is not the only trial getting ready to happen in that county right now or since the issue was mentioned. Otherwise how would they even know?
Lol I should read ahead first. yeah they go to screw her in the layout and setup but then they just find out, enter, take pics etc. This is how it is and any atry, judge, etc. who has ever been in it already knew that. I am trying really hard to be fair in this one but stuff like this is over the top anyone thinking this is some intentional set up for them/her.

Not like no time to gripe about it right. Although I dare say they likely knew this too before this more last minute filing by defense about it. However, courtroom layout probably wasn't on top of list when doing an innocence campaing and still hoped all would be delayed, etc. And wasn't. Thus far.

They clearly do need a new courthouse, revamp but revamp won't do it with size these days likely with crime in such cities and areas, so recap and an extra one lol. Get ready taxpayers.. However aren't we in or around the historic Boston MA? I'm sure history matters to a lot of them. I'm ticked the tea party that should have ruled ever after somehow now has us all being taxed to death.

Dumb I know but attempt at some lightness.
 
Because the trial hasn't started yet and they are already complaining about the current layout. I'm sure this is not the only trial getting ready to happen in that county right now or since the issue was mentioned. Otherwise how would they even know?
Well they are in jury selection aren't they and it is due to start. This is really a bit late to now do this but HE77 get some buses, some security and they can all go to the school gym. Or the conference room at the Marriott. I suppose at this point doing that for a trial and all it would entail for everyone ain't going to happen and now I am actually thinking has she and her attorney/s never been in this courtroom throughout? Ahhhh... Getting a different opinion here with some time to think and talk on it...

I was going to now say this is very eleventh hour and just realized and then I realized no it is more like very 13th hour and like they never knew this nor her either.

I think she has every right to have this remedied but now I realize they have always known this but saved it. They want a delay and to cause problems. Like any defense would don't get me wrong...Intentionally last minute...

Curious on your thoughts with my realization of that? I am not saying it is not a very fair expectation but where was is it prior to this. They've been here before.

And where you said trial hasn't started well depends if you mean opening statements, the process sure is underway with jury selection... Yeah this is ridiculously last minute.
 
Yes, they're "complaining" that the jurors can't see all of the witness' faces. That's a pretty important part of any trial. If they can't arrange it so all the jurors can see the faces of the witness', the room is too small, and they need to move it.
New thought now that I have had a few minutes. Let's not forget tech, are you sure they can't see them on a monitor either at their chair or screens in the courtroom...? I am starting to wonder what is being left out here... Hey that would be a way to remedy it and fast if they don't have such and now another thought, make it even more of a close up on the monitor or screen than even the ones with a viewing line can see.

What say you? Would that not fix the problem? Or do they even already have that or have that figured out? I after Delphi just have to say the wheels are starting to turn here that we are probably getting half the story. IF that. Tech can solve it. Quickly.
 
It is, but your question was how did I know it's that way now.
Yeah I seriously do not want to hurt his feelings but it is like where the DNA thing started in Delphi and then suddenly he was off his own point and topic with it. I worry about him on one hand and at other moments think it is all intentional to drive a a person to act like an out of control freaking out bird or have to say it emu.

And it just dawned on me they knew about this and this is at a very late date.

Not long ago talking heads predicted a delayed trial from the flood of motions and filings. Not. Kicked through and starting.

I truly am not as I am in some others here and not convinced of anything but I am not either on where I jump on the Karen Read ship. I agree with some of the corrupton, not one argument there but don't' necessarily agree it means they killed their guy and framed her.

Even saying that, I think I could be fair in this one and am waiting for the trial and the evidence. Whether I get to see any or not is another story. And there is Daybell on, Delphi coming up in short weeks as well, like three and no time for those either but those two I have followed throughout, this one I haven't.
 
Lol I should read ahead first. yeah they go to screw her in the layout and setup but then they just find out, enter, take pics etc. This is how it is and any atry, judge, etc. who has ever been in it already knew that. I am trying really hard to be fair in this one but stuff like this is over the top anyone thinking this is some intentional set up for them/her.

Not like no time to gripe about it right. Although I dare say they likely knew this too before this more last minute filing by defense about it. However, courtroom layout probably wasn't on top of list when doing an innocence campaing and still hoped all would be delayed, etc. And wasn't. Thus far.

They clearly do need a new courthouse, revamp but revamp won't do it with size these days likely with crime in such cities and areas, so recap and an extra one lol. Get ready taxpayers.. However aren't we in or around the historic Boston MA? I'm sure history matters to a lot of them. I'm ticked the tea party that should have ruled ever after somehow now has us all being taxed to death.

Dumb I know but attempt at some lightness.
The Karen Read trial is being held in Norfolk County Superior Court, 650 High St, Dedham, MA 02026.

If I understand your question, the historical Boston courthouse is John Adams located at 1 Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,092
Members
970
Latest member
NickGoGetta
Back
Top Bottom