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:
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.
Click to expand...
Well me too. That's the one where you said you didn't understand my question. I was saying exactly that. IF they did not have a qualified person follow up and IF this was truly an unqualified person, then that would not be something that would sit lightly with me, and I'd have to wonder why not just as you say now.

Do they dispute whether qualified or not? I mean I haven't seen fact one way or another of whether the person is. Just people saying it is the case which is fine but not fact. It is disputed?
 
GrandmaBear said:
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.
Click to expand...
She was hysterical at the crime scene and officer body cam state they were going to section her, which means to put a 72 hour hold; involuntary admit. LE took her to the ER who then drew her blood as a standard protocol. She was not under arrest at this time. She was not held and was released from the ER.

Her initial arrest was February 2, 2022.

I apologize for the confusion. :hugs:
 
GrandmaBear said:
Well me too. That's the one where you said you didn't understand my question. I was saying exactly that. IF they did not have a qualified person follow up and IF this was truly an unqualified person, then that would not be something that would sit lightly with me, and I'd have to wonder why not just as you say now.

Do they dispute whether qualified or not? I mean I haven't seen fact one way or another of whether the person is. Just people saying it is the case which is fine but not fact. It is disputed?
Click to expand...
The defense has been disputing the credibility of the report due to the technician not being qualified to make an opinion.
 
kdg411 said:
She was hysterical at the crime scene and officer body cam state they were going to section her, which means to put a 72 hour hold; involuntary admit. LE took her to the ER who then drew her blood as a standard protocol. She was not under arrest at this time. She was not held and was released from the ER.

Her initial arrest was February 2, 2022.

I apologize for the confusion. :hugs:
Click to expand...
So initially they weren't "after her" weren't ordering a BAC ever basically and so on?

I forget already what was said about the parents other than some converstion that you said never happened. And I don't get how anyone can know that for a fact.

I looked back and you did say she was at the hospital because she was arrested. And more. Yeah color me confused. Still.

But always :hugs: and forever.
 
GrandmaBear said:
So initially they weren't "after her" weren't ordering a BAC ever basically and so on?

I forget already what was said about the parents other than some converstion that you said never happened. And I don't get how anyone can know that for a fact.

I looked back and you did say she was at the hospital because she was arrested. And more. Yeah color me confused. Still.

But always :hugs: and forever.
Click to expand...
The parents would be a good source to verify if the conversation happened, wouldn't they?
 
kdg411 said:
The defense has been disputing the credibility of the report due to the technician not being qualified to make an opinion.
Click to expand...
So there's no consensus whether credible, qualified or not? Defense says so, what does prosecution say? I've pretty much I feel been told here the tech is not qualified as if fact but it is starting to seem as if only the defense claims that which doesn't make it fact or decided for me. And I don't think would for any juror either. Is the prosecution trying to qualify the tech as an expert? That makes a difference too imo.

As always, :hugs:
 
Guess Who said:
The parents would be a good source to verify if the conversation happened, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
No, why would anyone think that? Sounds to me like they said one thing and then tried to take it back. Of course I guess two officers could be lying right from the get go before now I am told any arrest and when they just took her for help to hospital and a hold due to being hysterical and no BAC or anything. Why would that make that up at that point? Doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing later parents claimed she never said it but I don't know and admit that. Even without knowing though it all makes no sense to pull such then.
 
GrandmaBear said:
So there's no consensus whether credible, qualified or not? Defense says so, what does prosecution say? I've pretty much I feel been told here the tech is not qualified as if fact but it is starting to seem as if only the defense claims that which doesn't make it fact or decided for me. And I don't think would for any juror either. Is the prosecution trying to qualify the tech as an expert? That makes a difference too imo.

As always, :hugs:
Click to expand...
IF the prosecution is covering for the cops in this one, why would they be saying that? It seems easy enough for them to show credentials and prove qualifications and be done with this. It is not asking too much and is a very important piece for the actual claim of the prosecution and the burden of on the prosecution to prove their case. It's a very valid question.
 
Guess Who said:
IF the prosecution is covering for the cops in this one, why would they be saying that? It seems easy enough for them to show credentials and prove qualifications and be done with this. It is not asking too much and is a very important piece for the actual claim of the prosecution and the burden of on the prosecution to prove their case. It's a very valid question.
Click to expand...
I'd have to be up more on this particular bit of it than I am but a lot of witnesses can do a report or give testimony that aren't the bona fide experts both sides bring in. LE, a doctor, a lab tech, a teacher, depending on the subject matter, etc. Just saying I don't know the entire context of his or what the argument is by the other side? I've watched so much defense b.s. in the last year that I am not up for a one sided thing where many out there assume that is some tried or even argued motion in any case Maybe you know this and I don't. But I don't know it. Even though I've watched a ton on this, most of it is people taking up the defense blitz. Are you up on all of it?

I even SAID and asked if this one is not qualified why prosecution didn't take the same info this one used to have a qualified one do a report then? Just as you pretty much get at.

There is so much SN*W that goes on in stuff like this I'm not falling for anything without some of these answers. IF I was a juror i'd need answers to all I'm saying anywhere in here. I'm not looking at this one with my usual way as many are with strong opinions before it has even been tried. Normally that's me as well but it isn't in this one. I know enough but am not overly tainted in either direction other than I find the alternative story hard to buy.

I get the same way in almost every case but I'm not in this one. And we never know all. We see only what we are shown and often the stuff ut there is only from the defense.

Back to your point, yes show credentials and qualifications, do we know that hasn't been done or isn't being fought? I don't. Do we know the person is even offered as the only or as any bona fide expert? I don't. Maybe others do and I just don't know that.

I'm more wondering if there is was a blood draw when she went to hosp which it said there was for other things, why they did not later use that blood draw for a BAC? Rules? Law? Because it wasn't taken when under arrest? But they don't follow the law per many so that hmm?

And I love, love, love her but @kdg411 did say in a post she was under arrest when taken to hospital just not an arrest for DUI yet or some such. And what is being blown out there does make for further confusion which of course the defense wants I'd count on it.

And confused me even more so here.

I think sh*t will be heard at trial not before heard. From the prosecution. And evidence. And I'm not siding that way at all, I just know one narrative is going on and only one.

We agree in some, don't disagree or are sold on anything in others, and disagree on some lol. It keeps it interesting that's for sure. Cases I mean. :hugs:
 
kdg411 said:
I apologize for misstating facts in evidence. Karen Read was not under arrest when she was taken to the hospital. She was later released and went to her parents home.
Click to expand...
So just to get it clear she was on some type of psychiatric hold but not under arrest? And as far as facts not in evidence, does that mean something--i.e, she felt she was under arrest? Just trying to get clear on it as I don't know.
 
GrandmaBear said:
So just to get it clear she was on some type of psychiatric hold but not under arrest? And as far as facts not in evidence, does that mean something--i.e, she felt she was under arrest? Just trying to get clear on it as I don't know.
Click to expand...
The body cam footage offered the statement of one officer that said he was going to put her on a hold however that did not occur. She was not under arrest at this time. The warrant for her first arrest was signed off on and executed on February 2nd.
 
kdg411 said:
The body cam footage offered the statement of one officer that said he was going to put her on a hold however that did not occur. She was not under arrest at this time. The warrant for her first arrest was signed off on and executed on February 2nd.
Click to expand...
So she was neither on a psych hold nor under any arrest? Did she agree to go to hospital then when hysterical? I thought she was on a 72 hour hold or some such. And the tests you said they did run was she agreeable to? The ones that weren't BAC but were others you named?

I'm not sure that this matters but I thought I had it straight and not it seems to not have been the case. Just wanting to get it straight and certainly not to argue.

Well you're on go with this one tomorrow aren't you all? I know I wont' get to see much more likely than not. Barely keeping up with Daybell which I followed throughout the years and so have to stay up on that one, but am interested on this one. I know this one is more your pet, that one is more one I was into.
 
GrandmaBear said:
So she was neither on a psych hold nor under any arrest? Did she agree to go to hospital then when hysterical? I thought she was on a 72 hour hold or some such. And the tests you said they did run was she agreeable to? The ones that weren't BAC but were others you named?
Click to expand...
Correct. She not on a psych hold nor under arrest. The labs are part of the SOP for an ER intake and she agreed to those.

It will be an interesting case.
 
kdg411 said:
Correct. She not on a psych hold nor under arrest. The labs are part of the SOP for an ER intake and she agreed to those.

It will be an interesting case.
Click to expand...
Okay so I have that straight, it seems. Lol, hard to be sure at times.

I know this is a top one you follow and cuz, etc. And today is the big day right with the start of jury selection? I probably won't be able to keep up and hope to at least here in the posts and not even sure of that . How long do they predict for this one for time, I forget? Trial I mean?

One thing I would note with this cleared up hospital stay, if she was not on a psych hold, nor under arrest, and agreed to these labs, why is it any surprise no BAC was ordered? Under what power at that point could one have been ordered then? Or not even refused? Did she refuse one?
 
GrandmaBear said:
Okay so I have that straight, it seems. Lol, hard to be sure at times.

I know this is a top one you follow and cuz, etc. And today is the big day right with the start of jury selection? I probably won't be able to keep up and hope to at least here in the posts and not even sure of that . How long do they predict for this one for time, I forget? Trial I mean?

One thing I would note with this cleared up hospital stay, if she was not on a psych hold, nor under arrest, and agreed to these labs, why is it any surprise no BAC was ordered? Under what power at that point could one have been ordered then? Or not even refused? Did she refuse one?
Click to expand...
7-8 weeks
 
I just started reading up on this case last night and I haven't read the thread and so I don't know much about it at this point but right away, it appears to me that alcohol is a significant factor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,092
Members
970
Latest member
NickGoGetta
Back
Top Bottom