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...
Guess Who said:
If that was really the case, why did the Commonwealth include a blatantly altered video into evidence, wait until the trial started to produce that video, then have somebody that is in that room on nearly a daily basis testify that is was a true representation of the room and that absolutely nobody was near that tail light?

That video pretty much nails it for me. I was pretty "meh" about her guilt or not and might have chalked it up to dudes too drunk and/or lazy to investigate any cringe 5 until that.

Explain one good reason for them to alter and lie about that video to me.
Click to expand...
They didn't IMO. They removed the whole of the broken light housing to take it for checking the missing pieces fitted and to test the whole thing for DNA, hair, fibres etc. ( After the heated sally port allowed the snow and ice to thaw.) They took the vehicle elsewhere too for the same reasons.

From the testimony upthread -

"He said Proctor executed a search warrant on the SUV on Feb. 1. The next day, the SUV was taken to the Milton police station. Bukhenik said Canton police had “recused themselves” from conducting interviews by then, and once the SUV had been processed the department needed the spot in their sally port. The vehicle was moved to Milton for safekeeping, he said. On Feb. 2, he said, “I noted the taillight [had been] removed and the evidence collected."

I also don't think they spoke to her till the interview with her parents present because she had been taken to hospital due to threats of suicide.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
They didn't IMO. They removed the whole of the broken light housing to take it for checking the missing pieces fitted and to test the whole thing for DNA, hair, fibres etc. ( After the heated sally port allowed the snow and ice to thaw.) They took the vehicle elsewhere too for the same reasons.

From the testimony upthread -

"He said Proctor executed a search warrant on the SUV on Feb. 1. The next day, the SUV was taken to the Milton police station. Bukhenik said Canton police had “recused themselves” from conducting interviews by then, and once the SUV had been processed the department needed the spot in their sally port. The vehicle was moved to Milton for safekeeping, he said. On Feb. 2, he said, “I noted the taillight [had been] removed and the evidence collected."

I also don't think they spoke to her till the interview with her parents present because she had been taken to hospital due to threats of suicide.
Click to expand...
They didn't what, exactly?
 
Tresir said:
They didn't IMO include a blatantly altered video into testimony.
At trial it was explained why the Sally Port video was a reversed image. If you go and watch the testimony then you can see and here where that is explained.
Click to expand...
They most certainly did! We watched then play it and we're discussing it as it happened. It's in the actual testimony. There's entire discussion about it.

Sometimes you have to actually look at both sides of the testimony or look at links that some of us have already sent you but were always met with the refusal to look at what actually happened in the trial and stating that you refuse to look at it.
 
Guess Who said:
They most certainly did! It's in the actual testimony. There's entire discussion about it.

Sometimes you have to actually look at both sides of the testimony or look at links that some of us have already sent you but were always met with the refusal to look at what actually happened in the trial and stating that you refuse to look at it.
Click to expand...
Well i disagree and know which side i believe and it's not the D. Sometimes you have to let people disagree with your version. I think Read is guilty and knows it. That's why she didnt testify.

I have seen what you have said regarding clothes being wadded up and left for days and a couple of other things that were incorrect too so i will make my own mind up about stuff.
 
More than a few here never watched the trial or testimony as I recall it. I asked some questions more than once no one could answer or preferred not to as the answers did not fit their biased narrative.

No one in particular do I mean and there was more than one.

I asked about what certain witnesses thought or had to say, never a response. I finally went and watched most of those witnesses myself and I had my answer and reason why I got no response.

It's a pick and choose case for some. Ignore what one doesn't like or want to hear, and embrace what they do want.

IMHO.
 
Tresir said:
Well i disagree and know which side i believe and it's not the D. Sometimes you have to let people disagree with your version. I think Read is guilty and knows it. That's why she didnt testify.

I have seen what you have said regarding clothes being wadded up and left for days and a couple of other things that were incorrect too so i will make my own mind up about stuff.
Click to expand...
Yet you have decided to say they didn't include the blatantly altered video into court, when if you even glance at the other side, you will see that is false. It's just that simple of how she have flat out refused to even try
 
Tresir said:
Well i disagree and know which side i believe and it's not the D. Sometimes you have to let people disagree with your version. I think Read is guilty and knows it. That's why she didnt testify.

I have seen what you have said regarding clothes being wadded up and left for days and a couple of other things that were incorrect too so i will make my own mind up about stuff.
Click to expand...
There is a lot here over months on end that is incorrect.

Read has always known she did it and she pretty much said as much and showed it. That gets ignored a lot. Only LATER she tried to undo the damage.
 
Guess Who said:
Yet you have decided to say they didn't include the blatantly altered video into court, when if you even glance at the other side, you will see that is false. It's just that simple of how she have flat out refused to even try
Click to expand...
i don't believe it was "blatantly altered" that's why. They parked it in there to melt off the snow then it was taken elsewhere. End of story.
 
GrandmaBear said:
There is a lot here over months on end that is incorrect.

Read has always known she did it and she pretty much said as much and showed it. That gets ignored a lot. Only LATER she tried to undo the damage.
Click to expand...
When did she actually say it and why, if she said it, was it not documented at all in the investigation to the possible murder of a fellow officer? How does that make any sense at all? Send it would be very important to their "investigation", wouldn't you?
 
GrandmaBear said:
There is a lot here over months on end that is incorrect.

Read has always known she did it and she pretty much said as much and showed it. That gets ignored a lot. Only LATER she tried to undo the damage.
Click to expand...
I agree and i hope a new jury will see that but maybe they won't.
 
Karen Read drunkenly, intentionally, in a blind and jealous rage killed her bf.

At best she drunkenly accidentally killed her bf.

She knows very well she did, that's always been pretty obvious.

However, the woman has a fan club and groupies and strangers yelling on her behalf online.

It's a pretty sick world imo.

Is someone like Proctor a gem? NO. Does that mean lil Karen didn't do this? NO. One thing does not cancel out the other and people need to look at such separately, and the facts.

JMO.
 
Tresir said:
Well i disagree and know which side i believe and it's not the D. Sometimes you have to let people disagree with your version. I think Read is guilty and knows it. That's why she didnt testify.

I have seen what you have said regarding clothes being wadded up and left for days and a couple of other things that were incorrect too so i will make my own mind up about stuff.
Click to expand...

You can disagree, but facts are facts.
 
Guess Who said:
When did she actually say it and why, if she said it, was it not documented at all in the investigation to the possible murder of a fellow officer? How does that make any sense at all? Send it would be very important to their "investigation", wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Look back up the thread and you will find it. Search for "I hit him, I hit him!"
 
Tresir said:
I agree and i hope a new jury will see that but maybe they won't.
Click to expand...
Hard to say. Personally I think both sides should have given a bit and reached a deal. I do think she was overcharged, well not that she was overcharged necessarily but others would have gotten this pled down if they were in the same boat, part of me does believe they are making an example of her. She knows she did it and should have faced it, admitted to it, shown remorse and made a deal.

I've never seen anything so ridiculous. His poor parents, family, niece and nephew. This is the Karen Read show, PERIOD, it is like there was no victim nor any victim's family members. That is so disgusting and it's one thing to thinks she is innocent but to STILL show no sympathy for him or his loved ones is SICK. Yet that's what goes on. She should not have even been DRIVING NOR DRUNK.

Yet she's this sympathetic character. :vomit:
 
Guess Who said:
If I had ONLY looked at what the prosecution did, I would believe she was guilty, too, but you just can't go by one side. That's exactly why we have trials. This prosecution is under FBI investigation for falsifying evidence and shoddy work, too.
Click to expand...

The defense should have asked for a mistrial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,045
Messages
247,628
Members
992
Latest member
lifeofthespider
Back
Top Bottom