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

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?

 

[GrandmaBear]

I thought the judge ruled the jury can't be told about that. Hope some dumbassed prosecutor will open the door to getting it allowed.

You know there's a lot of questions I have about them doing all they allegedly did and being involved.

I can't help but say if people think there are no politics going on here or such being "used" for one side in a big known case, I'd suspect otherwise.

 

[kdg411]

Well I'm assuming she was at the hospital due to being arrested? Not really said. Just want to be clear on that? And no BAC was taken? I though don't know enough about what was taken to comment. Nor why those things were taken but not a BAC? Anyone?

No, she was at the hospital because she was arrested.

Unsealed Karen Read documents detail harrowing hours after Boston police Officer John O’Keefe’s body found - The Boston Globe

The new details come from 135 pages of documents that Judge Beverly Cannone ordered made public at the Globe’s request.

www.bostonglobe.com

Lank, a sergeant, wrote that that Read was “hysterical.” The only statement she was able to make to officers on scene, he wrote, “was that she did not remember ever being at 34 Fairview Rd” the night before.

Lank and Mullaney both wrote that Read talked to her parents about killing herself. The police filed paperwork to commit her to a hospital, they wrote, and EMS took her to Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton.

*(this conversation never happened with her parents)

No BAC was taken because she was not being accused of vehicular homicide or driving under the influence.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yes the prosecution wants this in.

LE definitely was not cutting her a break. IMO

CBC
Red blood cells, which carry oxygen
White blood cells, which fight infection
Hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells
Hematocrit, the amount of red blood cells in the blood
Platelets, which help blood to clot

BMP
A basic metabolic panel measures the following substances in your blood:
Glucose: This is a type of sugar that provides energy for your body and brain. Glucose is also known as blood sugar. Elevated blood glucose is often a sign of diabetes.
Calcium: Calcium is one of the most important and common minerals in your body. While most of your calcium is stored in your bones, you need calcium in your blood as well. Blood calcium is essential for proper functioning of your nerves, muscles and heart. It also helps with blood clotting when you’re injured.
BUN (blood urea nitrogen): This is a measurement of urea, which is a waste product that your kidneys help remove from your blood.
Creatinine: This is a byproduct of muscle activity. It’s a waste product that your kidneys filter and remove from your blood.

A BMP also measures the following four electrolytes. Electrolytes are minerals that carry an electric charge when they are dissolved in a liquid. These electrolytes in your blood control nerve and muscle function and maintain the acid-base balance (pH balance) of your blood and your water balance.
Sodium: Most of your sodium comes from the food you eat, and your kidneys help regulate your body’s sodium levels.
Potassium: Potassium comes from the food you eat and is present in all tissues of your body.
Bicarbonate: Bicarbonate indicates the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in your blood.
Chloride: Chloride functions along with sodium, potassium and bicarbonate to control many processes in your body.

The issue with the extrapolation was the 'expert' that completed the test was not qualified to do so.

Okay. Well the info they used still remains right so that someone who is an expert could do the same? For EITHER side?

I'm more interested in why one was not taken. And why she was there? Because of arrest and taken to hospital? Did she refuse one? And WHY were the other tests you describe here taken? For what purpose? All these things I would ask as an uninformed juror? So they sent her for SOME tests but not a BAC? The purpose of those tests?

I think we are getting half stories at best. Jmo.

 

[Guess Who]

I thought the judge ruled the jury can't be told about that. Hope some dumbassed prosecutor will open the door to getting it allowed.

Yes, but they brought it up for that very ruling. They don't want the jury to know that.

 

[kdg411]

Okay. Well the info they used still remains right so that someone who is an expert could do the same? For EITHER side?

I'm more interested in why one was not taken. And why she was there? Because of arrest and taken to hospital? Did she refuse one? And WHY were the other tests you describe here taken? For what purpose? All these things I would ask as an uninformed juror? So they sent her for SOME tests but not a BAC? The purpose of those tests?

I think we are getting half stories at best. Jmo.

The BAC the prosecution wants admitted is a guess by a non qualified person. It should be inadmissible. She never refused a BAC because one was never ordered by the DA.

 

[Guess Who]

Yeah I have to wonder about the leaf blower thing. I'm going to guess the truth about it fall somewhere in the middle than what is implied.

My brother traveled with one ALL of the time. And a weed eater. And a limb lopper. And more. He was Mr. Prepared.

There isn't enough context for me on that or a few other things from this Olivia. The weedeater sure sounds like WTH? But let's get it in context with all the facts.

But does he use them at a crime scene he's supposed to be investigating? No comparison difference.

 

[GrandmaBear]

No, she was at the hospital because she was arrested.

Unsealed Karen Read documents detail harrowing hours after Boston police Officer John O’Keefe’s body found - The Boston Globe

The new details come from 135 pages of documents that Judge Beverly Cannone ordered made public at the Globe’s request.

www.bostonglobe.com

Lank, a sergeant, wrote that that Read was “hysterical.” The only statement she was able to make to officers on scene, he wrote, “was that she did not remember ever being at 34 Fairview Rd” the night before.

Lank and Mullaney both wrote that Read talked to her parents about killing herself. The police filed paperwork to commit her to a hospital, they wrote, and EMS took her to Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton.

*(this conversation never happened with her parents)

No BAC was taken because she was not being accused of vehicular homicide or driving under the influence.

So she WAS at hospital because arrested?

She was hysterical and taken and now can't remember ever dropping him off?

How is it you know the conversation with her parents never happened? Because they say it didn't? That wouldn't be good enough for me.

I'm looking at this with a colder or more outside eye.

She was under arrest you say in the first sentence but in the last her BAC was not taken because of the type of charge? What was the charge then?

I can tell you honestly if a juror all the things I am asking here is what I would need answers to. and the questions would continue and I'd need answers for all things as much as can be provided.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The BAC the prosecution wants admitted is a guess by a non qualified person. It should be inadmissible. She never refused a BAC because one was never ordered by the DA.

And why not do you figure?

And again, why could they not have an expert unlike the non qualified person take the same info and extrapolate and use them instead?

 

[GrandmaBear]

But does he use them at a crime scene he's supposed to be investigating? No comparison difference.

I read the link and I found it very vague as to what was done with it or what it was used for in particular if at all even.

This is all defense stuff.

Not saying not the case, but I am asking?

ALL I got from it was he had a leak blower with him and they insinuated it did something but never really said what he had it for, what he was using it for or much detail at all. I sense a bunch of smoke. I COULD be wrong but it's very vague and it comes from some Olivia who had something else in her tweets that I thought questionable although I forget what.

 

[Guess Who]

And why not do you figure?

And again, why could they not have an expert unlike the non qualified person take the same info and extrapolate and use them instead?

Maybe because they knew she wasn't legally drunk at the time?

 

[Guess Who]

Maybe because they knew she wasn't legally drunk at the time?

The entire difference is qualified vs unqualified. Why couldn't they get a qualified person to do that if it was so important to their case?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Maybe because they knew she wasn't legally drunk at the time?

And they'd know that exactly HOW?

 

[GrandmaBear]

The entire difference is qualified vs unqualified. Why couldn't they get a qualified person to do that if it was so important to their case?

Maybe they have. Do we know? If not, then yes, that I would wonder as to why.

 

[Guess Who]

And they'd know that exactly HOW?

They saw her when she left the party? These are the same people that were at the party.

 

[GrandmaBear]

They saw her when she left the party?

You totally lost me there. She didn't go into the party. And are you saying they knew whether drunk or not at that point (how?) and so figured next day she wouldn't be either?

I don't think there's a ton of doubt about alcohol with either of the two on this night but we will see I guess.

Personally I think they had to do a basic arrest and they were doing what they would do for any fellow office or friend and intentionally did not take her BAC to save her from that charge perhaps. That's far more likely.

But then more was found/evident and they had to go further and a GJ indicted, etc. And then it mattered...

I don't think for one moment she wouldn't have still had a BAC the next morning. However, IF SHE KNEW what she did, she may have went all out to sober up but again how would they know that?

 

[Guess Who]

Maybe they have. Do we know? If not, then yes, that I would wonder as to why.

This wouldn't be an issue if they did so I'm not understanding your question on this. Would you be happy if your life depended on a test that was done by some unqualified person? Guilty or not, a person being prosecuted and the prosecution is relying on that test, writing it be imperative that the testing was fine by somebody that was actually qualified to do that testing, rather than possibly just recreating something they saw on YouTube or read on the Internet?

 

[GrandmaBear]

This wouldn't be an issue if they did so I'm not understanding your question on this. Would you be happy if your life depended on a test that was done by some unqualified person? Guilty or not, a person being prosecuted and the prosecution is relying on that test, writing it be imperative that the testing was fine by somebody that was actually qualified to do that testing, rather than possibly just recreating something they saw on YouTube or read on the Internet?

No, I am saying the opposite. That they should take the same info and have someone qualified determine it. And if they didn't, I'd have to wonder why. So that they can put up a QUALIFED tester.

So no, you are reading me in that one the opposite of what I mean. I did not say they should count on the non qualified person at all, unless of course that is a false claim as to qualifications. I wouldn't know.

I'm saying so they should have went and got another one that WAS qualified and if they did not (the P) then I'd have to wonder why and would have an issue with that unless there is an argument over qualification. If truly unqualified then YES they should have got another and I find it fishy if they have not or are trying to hang on only to this one.

So believe it or not, I think I am somwhat agreeing but you are reading me the opposite on this one.

 

[Guess Who]

No, I am saying the opposite. That they should take the same info and have someone qualified determine it. And if they didn't, I'd have to wonder why. So that they can put up a QUALIFED tester.

So no, you are reading me in that one the opposite of what I mean. I did not say they should count on the non qualified person at all, unless of course that is a false claim as to qualifications. I wouldn't know.

I'm saying so they should have went and got another one that WAS qualified and if they did not (the P) then I'd have to wonder why and would have an issue with that unless there is an argument over qualification. If truly unqualified then YES they should have got another and I find it fishy if they have not or are trying to hang on only to this one.

So believe it or not, I think I am somwhat agreeing but you are reading me the opposite on this one.

I think the answer is in that they didn't do that. There is no reason why they did that in the beginning and think they could use it as "proof". Pretty sure they are not doing even still for a reason and I agree that the info should be thrown out, especially since they haven't given any reasoning that I have seen as to why they still haven't, if it could even possibly be done now...or ever.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I think the answer is in that they didn't do that. There is no reason why they did that in the beginning and think they could use it as "proof". Pretty sure they are not doing even still for a reason and I agree that the info should be thrown out, especially since they haven't given any reasoning that I have seen as to why they still haven't, if it could even possibly be done now...or ever.

Well I'd assume it still could be done because the non qualified took data I assume from the hospital other tests and so could another QUALIFED tech do the same.

I need to know more. I'm not going to take just one side of things and the only side running a PR campagin imo. Similarly in Delphi.

I'm open though, like I said, if the other one was truly nonqualfied, then I failt to see why they didn't follow up with a qualified tech.

Another suspicion of mine for no BAC is because so many of them had been drinking and irresponsible as LE officers and higher ups, etc. and one of their own who was also drinking was dead. Initially anyhow until more came. But I don't know, just guessing. I hope someone for reporting covers this trial failry and fully. I want to know a lot of things and I'm not going to listen to just a onesided coverage of it all with news giving the Fan Club and defense side. I want facts.

 

[Guess Who]

Well I'd assume it still could be done because the non qualified took data I assume from the hospital other tests and so could another QUALIFED tech do the same.

I need to know more. I'm not going to take just one side of things and the only side running a PR campagin imo. Similarly in Delphi.

I'm open though, like I said, if the other one was truly nonqualfied, then I failt to see why they didn't follow up with a qualified tech.

Another suspicion of mine for no BAC is because so many of them had been drinking and irresponsible as LE officers and higher ups, etc. and one of their own who was also drinking was dead. Initially anyhow until more came. But I don't know, just guessing. I hope someone for reporting covers this trial failry and fully. I want to know a lot of things and I'm not going to listen to just a onesided coverage of it all with news giving the Fan Club and defense side. I want facts.

That's my point is that IF it can be done, why haven't they? There is no logical reason why they haven't if they can, unless they just don't want a qualified person to run those tests that a person's life depends on.