"Get the F*** off my lawn"
Wife calls KR a murderer.
No way there can be a retrial now.
Why did he not have ANY injuries associated with being hit by a car?Simply put and understated, the verdict is disappointing but unfortunately, not surprising.
For me, Read's guilt was (still is) obvious and the only question for me was whether she remembered what happened (although I'm now convinced she does).
I don't think he didn't.Why did he not have ANY injuries associated with being hit by a car?
NoHmmmm, if this goes to trial again, will it be with a different judge?
How's that though? He had absolutely no lower body injuries. If you think those scratches on his arm were caused by plastic, why was there absolutely no tissue or blood found on any of the taillight pieces?I don't think he didn't.
She set a hearing on her docket to hear from the CW. Unless she recuses herself then she will oversee the next case.Are you sure?
Prejudicial comments. Read will probably sue her. She has just effectively got off the charge. They won't be able to charge her now. She wasn't even accused or charged with murder anyway, but no fault manslaughter, which the jury could not even agree she was guilty of that lower charge.Why do you think that changes so much.
I think I saw there was a report that stated he had no injuries below his head except for those arm scratches IIRC. It did describe the head injuries, which could have come from a vehicle if he was passed out on the ground though, I guess.How's that though? He had absolutely no lower body injuries. If you think those scratches on his arm were caused by plastic, why was there absolutely no tissue or blood found on any of the taillight pieces?
Where are his injuries caused by being hit and then presumably thrown 30 ft away? There would at least be some kind of major bruising on the impact area. The only bruising was in his head and we know her car didn't levitate over 6 ft in the air.
Then how did that crack her taillight if he was in the ground? And is he was in the ground, his did they come up with him getting thrown 30 ft?I think I saw there was a report that stated he had no injuries below his head except for those arm scratches IIRC. It did describe the head injuries, which could have come from a vehicle if he was passed out on the ground though, I guess.
You mean "on" the ground I presume not "in" right? I had not heard the 30ft thing was fact. Wasn't that just based on the alleged 24mph? He had no injuries at all below his neck except for the arm scratches. Being thrown 30 feet would come up with broken bones and he didn't have any. Perhaps his head was run over though.Then how did that crack her taillight if he was in the ground? And is he was in the ground, his did they come up with him getting thrown 30 ft?
It came up on testimony from the prosecution expert. He 100% did not fly 30 ft after being hit at 24 mph and not sustain at last a bruise.You mean on the ground I presume not in fight? I had not heard the 30ft thing was fact. Wasn't that just based on the alleged 24mph? He had no injuries at all below his neck except for the arm scratches. Being thrown 30 feet would come up with broken bones and he didn't have any. Perhaps his head was run over though.
AFAIK the taillght crack was from her reversing and hitting O'Keefe's vehicle when she returned to scene later.
22nd July is when the court will meet to discuss next steps. They could drop the murder part and just leave the manslaughter in any new charges or try for a plea deal.
Massachusetts prosecutors plan to re-try Karen Read case after mistrial
The Commonwealth plans to re-try the Karen Read murder case after a mistrial was declared.www.cbsnews.com
Did anyone ask him that during the trial?And why would a high ranking officer across the street delete his ring video without handing it over for any reason, let alone an investigation if the possible murder of a fellow officer? That makes absolutely no sense. They would be glad to hand that over whether they thought it held evidence or not on that scenario, not delete it within hours.
It may have come up but it was supposition IIRC and not factual.It came up on testimony from the prosecution expert. He 100% did not fly 30 ft after being hit at 24 mph and not sustain at last a bruise.
Because he wasn't hit by a car, possibly? Maybe his head was run over by one of the many guests' cars as he lay unnoticed on the ground.Why did he not have ANY injuries associated with being hit by a car?
Because he wasn't hit by a car, possibly? Maybe his head was run over by one of the many guests' cars as he lay unnoticed on the ground.