There is absolutely no documentation that she ever said that from any witness statements taken AT THE TIME of the incident. There is absolutely no documentation of these statements until the grand jury proceedings. Send like a huge thing to not mention at the time if it really happened, doesn't it? Like really huge. Why was this not documented???
Just like them saying that she said she hit him that was never mentioned in any witness statement.
www.insideedition.com
Better question is why would it not be in ANY witness statement that should have been done immediately afterwards? There is absolutely no excuse for it to be omitted if it really happened.His niece remembers her saying it apparently, which is important as she said it before leaving the home to go look for him.
Including the niece, that's four people who testified she said it. Why would they all be lying under oath?
Karen Read Confessed Say Witnesses, But Cops Texts Could Cast Doubt
The Karen Read trial concluded on Tuesday followiong two months of testimony, 74 witnesses, and two very different arguments. So did Read hit and kill boyfriend John O'Keefe or is she being framed?
Maybe the witnesses were more concerned with getting to the hospital than being interviewed.
That's not how investigations work. Especially not investigations to the presumed murder of a fellow officer.
And that's 100% not how they would investigate the presumed murder of another cop. It just doesn't happen like that if they are actually investigating anything they want to solve.
Discovery should be fun.
There's no evidence he was murdered. If anything it was misadventure due to the amount of alcohol they both drank that night. I cannot believe the people coming out to support a drunk driver who ran over her partner.
I don't believe he was murdered. The cop's "loved one" was distraught because she did it and told people she believed she did it too? The most simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's Razor is it?
What evidence supports this theory? Remember there was absolutely no tissue or blood on ANY of the taillight pieces at all. There's no way for there to be none with those wounds. There are also absolutely no injuries regard to being hit with a car on any of his body at all.
Vehicular homicide is unintentional murder. Any cop getting killed, especially at another cops house, would be investigated as murder until it was proven to not be actual murder. They did not investigate this at all and logic aka Occams Razor, would dictate that they knew homicide did not happen.
Not convincing to me. Why would she think she did it and also go straight to where his body was under the snow?
It is manslaughter if it was accidental. I dont believe it was intentional, but she should not have drank and driven. She should just go for a manslaughter plea deal, if they are willing, but i think they want her to be convicted of murder. I don't think that will fly with a jury, as was seen in the mistrial.
Perhaps he fell down the steps and had other injuries too. It was blunt force trauma right?
She admitted it. I think the taillight, which was already cracked, fell out when the car hit him. The taillight may not have impacted him at all. I do also think there is a possibility more than one car may have hit/run over him too, with all the comings and goings.