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:
Click to expand...
Tresir said:
Yes I understand, but were they sequestered or go home every night? Easier for them to blab to someone if not sequestered.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it. They were not sequestered and it seems somebody might have possibly blabbed when they were supposed to not blab to anyone what was going on.
 
Tresir said:
I read the whole thing and screenshot it. I agree with the last two paragraphs which are readable below.


View attachment 22479
Click to expand...

Oh, please, the kids will lose their health insurance. BOO - FREAKING - HOO!! I hate it when criminals whine about the consequences of their actions. Go to the governments' health care site and sign up for a plan.

Had it not been for Proctor's actions, he would not have lost his insurance.
 
Also, I highly doubt the local PD will skewer their own case. "Ok, we fired Proctor. Everybody relax. We took care of the problem within our ranks. Proctor was the only bad apple,"

I'm waiting for the FBI report.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
Oh, please, the kids will lose their health insurance. BOO - FREAKING - HOO!! I hate it when criminals whine about the consequences of their actions. Go to the governments' health care site and sign up for a plan.

Had it not been for Proctor's actions, he would not have lost his insurance.
Click to expand...
He sure wasn't thinking about their insurance when he didn't investigate this case.
 
Guess Who said:
How will this work for the prosecution if they insist going on with a retrial, especially if these rumors are true about the jury found her not guilty? They will have to put Proctor on the stand and what a field day for the defense that will be. The defense has also had enough time to research and combat some of the things the prosecution testified to. Will they really be so intense on prosecuting her to go for it with just the Proctor termination alone?
Click to expand...
The KR legal team hired an appellate attorney because the judge (given her ruling history) will likely deny the motion. The judge should allow for an evidentiary hearing to allow the attorneys to be heard regarding the new information.

www.nbcboston.com

After mistrial, Karen Read moves to dismiss 2 charges, including murder

Karen Read is moving to dismiss two of the three charges against her, including murder, with her attorneys saying they’ve heard the jury had unanimously concluded she was not guilty of either charge. Read filed the motion to dismiss in Norfolk Superior Court on Monday, a week after a mistrial...
www.nbcboston.com www.nbcboston.com
The document was filed by two lawyers Read used throughout the trial, Alan Jackson and David Yannetti, as well as a new lawyer, Martin Weinberg, who was added to her team Monday as a limited appearance counsel.

In separate documents filed Monday, Jackson and Yannetti detail how they were informed about the jury's discussion. Jackson said one juror reached out to him directly on Tuesday after "seeing inaccurate reports about the 'split' among the jurors related to the mistrial," while Yannetti said he heard from two intermediaries who'd heard from jurors.

A representative for the Norfolk District Attorney's Office said Monday they were reviewing the motion, anticipated filing a response and looked forward to picking a new trial date — a hearing has already been scheduled for July 22 to set the date.

Boston White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer

Free Consultation - Call 617-227-3700 - Martin G. Weinberg aggressively represents the accused against charges in Federal Criminal Defense and White Collar Crime cases.
www.martinweinberglaw.com www.martinweinberglaw.com
 
I can't wait until the investigation finds who was responsible for the inverted video that they decided to lie about in what ACTUALLY happened in the Sally Port.
 
Guess Who said:
That's exactly it. They were not sequestered and it seems somebody might have possibly blabbed when they were supposed to not blab to anyone what was going on.
Click to expand...
Well that's the fault of the court. Did the court instruct them correctly? Also, if it is not known where the info came from (ie which juror or possibly even the clerk of the court remembering the blabbermouth in the Murdaugh trial.) I don't think anything can be done. As they took 5 days there was clearly something up. I predicted a hung jury.
 
Last edited:
Guess Who said:
I can't wait until the investigation finds who was responsible for the inverted video that they decided to lie about in what ACTUALLY happened in the Sally Port.
Click to expand...
Does it really matter now as she got off all the charges so far. It would matter more if she had been convicted and was going to appeal.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
Oh, please, the kids will lose their health insurance. BOO - FREAKING - HOO!! I hate it when criminals whine about the consequences of their actions. Go to the governments' health care site and sign up for a plan.

Had it not been for Proctor's actions, he would not have lost his insurance.
Click to expand...
It's not him whining about it but the President of the Massachusets State police organisation complaining about it on him and his family's behalf ie doing his/her job for their officers.
 
Tresir said:
Well that's the fault of the court. Did the court instruct them correctly? Also, if it is not known where the info came from (ie which juror or possibly even the clerk of the court remembering the blabbermouth in the Murdaugh trial.) I don't think anything can be done. As they took 5 days there was clearly something up. I predicted a hung jury.
Click to expand...
No. It's the direct fault of the person that possibly blabbed. The jury was probably instructed.
 
Not reading, just dropping. I thought when I heard this it was odd "a" or more than one juror sought out the defense.

Here he comes down on all, the defense, the prosecution and the judge and calls it a publicity "stunt". Yeah, I don't have any argument with that.

And he is a DEFENSE lawyer. About ten minutes in...

I kind of think some sh*t has been pretty obvious here... Nothing going on. Uhm nope. Nary an agenda.

Anyhow, it isn't against or pro, it's just about the fact that no one called it out including the defense...



And again, lol, I am not "read"ing here, just dropping... It's short, just a minute or so. Maybe three. Didn't track it.



So what's up with that do ya think.....? Not a word said... No one asked...
 
Guess Who said:
Yes because it is a chargeable offense to provide false evidence.
Click to expand...
Who are you saying provided false evidence. I thought we were discussing the jurors blabbing?
Guess Who said:
Yes because it is a chargeable offense to provide false evidence.
Click to expand...
That would only matter if there was a conviction though. If she is going to be recharged they will have to go over all the evidence again anyway.
 
Tresir said:
Who are you saying provided false evidence. I thought we were discussing the jurors blabbing?

That would only matter if there was a conviction though. If she is going to be recharged they will have to go over all the evidence again anyway.
Click to expand...
You asked about the video.

It still matters. It's still a crime, whether she was convicted or not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,034
Members
969
Latest member
SamiraMill
Back
Top Bottom