se The amount of corruption and the actual pieces of corruption, see Sallyport video, make me sure she's innocent.
It seems the people who are locals who are glad that someone has the guts to stand up against the corruption.a
Perhaps
@Takeitfromme can help us with that.
If it was as clear cut as you are saying, she would have been acquitted. What does the Sally port video have to even do with when she hit him and when she said she did. It was later yes.
Not ONCE have I ever stood for the corruption or at least Proctor. EVER. Not sure I've ever seen pure corruption with anyone else, I'd have to look back or think back. I also always allow for politics in many cases these days which is disgusting but they often play in. Shouldn't, but they do.
LE and officials need to keep their noses CLEAN always and do their jobs as perfectly as they can. I am not going to argue about that.
Like Delphi, if you don't think I was not upset about lost videos or interviews and such things, and a lost tip for years, you are mistaken! THANKFULLY there was plenty and enough for a conviction despite such and I was always able to see that even before the jury found him guilty. However, losing such things certainly did not help them and had me worried.
This case imo is similar. There definitely are issues. But for me, so far, I see plenty that tells me she did it despite ALL of that. I mean kudos to her defense I guess for going after every week area, although I actually am disgusted by them, but hey it is like I said, LE needs to be ON THEIR GAME and ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW, ABOVE BOARD. Kind of sickening we can't demand the defenses ever be that way but whatever...
I was not coming back but all I had found was a grocery haul, a bit boring, she bought crab cakes for one, I mean yuck...
I am not okay with railroading. I am not okay with corruption. I say as much quite often I believe. You on the other hand, imo, the minute you see a hint of a not perfect thing in an investigation, or hint of a screw up, you name it, automatically think that makes the defendant not guilty. See that is where we differ imo. It means no such thing.
All of these things were called out were they not in the first trial by the D? And they did not get a full acquittal. So you can go on about whatever, but you can't say they didn't get to show all of this or say all of this and have their day. Not a secret now is it? WAsn't from the jury was it? She was not acquitted and they are going to trial again so what is it that isn't fair now? It's all been put out there, no? Now we will have a new jury, it all put out again, prosecution may actually be better this time, they have had time to to bone up for it.
I said it earlier. I think she deserves time and she definitely did it but I honestly almost don't give a sh*t. If she gets off, she gets off, just stay away from anyone I love, out of my states, off my roads, you drunken bit*h. I don't like her, I'm sorry. She is smirky and full of it. There were kids here, he had parents and if I recall, at least one sibling if not a few.
Any victim or family as is often the case has been forgotten here and it all becomes about the defendant in most cases, so sickening, but in some like this one, they cease to even EXIST. This is the Karen Read show. Let's say she gets acquitted. She is going to owe all her courthouse groupies and I hope she has to deal with the weirdoes and have them over for dinner.
I'd also think we can all agree at minimum she is guilty of an OWI/DUI.
She is no railroaded princess.
And neither Karen Read nor Richard Allen can be removed from the scene.
FACT.
