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]

They are there because their client broke the law several times. Driving while intoxicated, killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. I don't know why he is flummoxed.

Yep, apparently he doesn't get that and missed those facts.

I don't know if he is flummoxed often in daily life or if it is rare. Someone should ask him.

Yes she was drunk on her arse, was a jealous shrew and was playing her own flirting games with others, and killed her cop bf. Got charged.

THAT is why you are THERE MISTER....

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I am sorry you do not want to listen to anyone with a different viewpoint to yourself.

Ummm..... I don't? Don't you think that applies more to the people who refuse to watch things that challenge their opinions? @Guess Who and I have answered the same questions over and over and over and over.... Yet when we offer proof, it's ignored and then asked for again later.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

He never went in the house.

People have to believe like 20 different things to buy into ALL of the defense side, at minimum. It is ludicrous. Same in Delphi for another example.

It is what defense does or has to do, not only do they have to try to get things thrown out, dismantle the case, they have to come up with an alternative theory as to what happened on top of it all, explain away the evidence and more... For me, anyone who buys into that many various things does not use any logic at all. Imo.

Higgins said he saw a man enter the house, but didn't get a good enough look at him.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

They are there because their client broke the law several times. Driving while intoxicated, killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. I don't know why he is flummoxed.

Driving while intoxicated, I'll give you. That doesn't seem to be a problem for police officers associated in that district. That doesn't excuse it, but cops there do it frequently.

If you're wondering how I know the police officers in that district drive drunk a lot, I'll refer you to court testimony you can find yourself.

I know you won't believe this, but if you listen to court testimony by sworn in witness' then it's true, one cop texted another cop, I think Albert was part of this, that he was so trashed on the way home with the other who was equally trashed that he lost his gun and badge. He was disciplined for losing his gun, nothing else. I think he found his badge.

 

[Tresir]

Ummm..... I don't? Don't you think that applies more to the people who refuse to watch things that challenge their opinions? @Guess Who and I have answered the same questions over and over and over and over.... Yet when we offer proof, it's ignored and then asked for again later.

I was commenting on your response to another poster. I don't think watching testimony from a mistrial is going to enlighten us at all because they never came to an official verdict. You just have to accept there are posters with different opinions on the case to you. It's not rocket science.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I was commenting on your response to another poster. I don't think watching testimony from a mistrial is going to enlighten us at all because they never came to an official verdict. You just have to accept there are posters with different opinions on the case to you. It's not rocket science.

If you're basing your reason for not watching testimony based on it being a mistrial, I'd think you'd like to see what the jury saw that caused a mistrial. You need to realize the facts go against your theories (The theories of the prosecution.)

 

[GrandmaBear]

Ummm..... I don't? Don't you think that applies more to the people who refuse to watch things that challenge their opinions? @Guess Who and I have answered the same questions over and over and over and over.... Yet when we offer proof, it's ignored and then asked for again later.

I am going to try to very nicely say that is not my experience with you in cases at all. In fact you seek out imo people who match your views. If I put up a YTer for instance that is a defense attorney and tell people of so and so, you run right to them if they side with the D. If I put one up that is pro prosecution and anti defendant and believes the D is guilty, you ignore them.

That's been my opinion anyhow.

As far as proof?

Watching all witnesses in any case and trial I'd say is number one for facts. Not saying things do not get ruled out or not allowed in but one gets to listen to and see the witnesses and direct and cross and decide for self.

It is what I TRY to do, I don't always have the time and of course they aren't always televised, etc.

I found during Delpi, news coverage was horrible. It seemed "okay" until one watched someone who when they finally got time to do a show after sleeping outside and more unlike news that had way more notes, far more and superior coverage..

You can't assume anything watching a "Vinnie" who it sounds like you counted on in this case...

I watched him recently on Delphi and hit end and about retched. Hey I know the case, we all do, and he was picking and choosing and it was all b.s. but of course it got views...

Let me get down to brass tacks, you don't think Karen killed her bf either accidentally or intentionally? Or is it that you think they have not proved it?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Higgins said he saw a man enter the house, but didn't get a good enough look at him.

Gee I am just flummoxed. Give me a moment. Lol. All in fun. I mean that's HUGE. Not.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Driving while intoxicated, I'll give you. That doesn't seem to be a problem for police officers associated in that district. That doesn't excuse it, but cops there do it frequently.

If you're wondering how I know the police officers in that district drive drunk a lot, I'll refer you to court testimony you can find yourself.

I know you won't believe this, but if you listen to court testimony by sworn in witness' then it's true, one cop texted another cop, I think Albert was part of this, that he was so trashed on the way home with the other who was equally trashed that he lost his gun and badge. He was disciplined for losing his gun, nothing else. I think he found his badge.

Yes there was a lot of drinking and driving that night by people who arrest others for doing the same.

I have no argument with that one. And she was one of them. And thought herself immune... Didn't turn out that way did it...?

 

[GrandmaBear]

I was commenting on your response to another poster. I don't think watching testimony from a mistrial is going to enlighten us at all because they never came to an official verdict. You just have to accept there are posters with different opinions on the case to you. It's not rocket science.

There are several of us who do not agree. It's the same out there in the big wide world. The mouthy ones are Read fans but tons think her guilty. Some think because of the noise on her behalf it is all going to go their way and her way... It just noise, it isn't the jury. Look at Delphi. Unanimous verdict. Tons of noise and leaks, same kind of attempts... Media and SM doing similar things in both cases.

Some fall for it, suck right up to it...

I always say CLEAR the sn*w, the blizzard, clean your windshield and look at the facts... Ds want you to have blizzards and they create them and they want you flummoxed TOO....

Lol. Imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

If you're basing your reason for not watching testimony based on it being a mistrial, I'd think you'd like to see what the jury saw that caused a mistrial. You need to realize the facts go against your theories (The theories of the prosecution.)

When I get time I need to look back here as I don't recall you watching the trial at all, and for sure not all witnesses.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Yes there was a lot of drinking and driving that night by people who arrest others for doing the same.

I have no argument with that one. And she was one of them. And thought herself immune... Didn't turn out that way did it...?

It didn't turn out that way because they were trying to protect another officer and possibly his son, IMO. Being charged doesn't mean you're guilty.

There are several of us who do not agree. It's the same out there in the big wide world. The mouthy ones are Read fans but tons think her guilty. Some think because of the noise on her behalf it is all going to go their way and her way... It just noise, it isn't the jury. Look at Delphi. Unanimous verdict. Tons of noise and leaks, same kind of attempts... Media and SM doing similar things in both cases.

Some fall for it, suck right up to it...

I always say CLEAR the sn*w, the blizzard, clean your windshield and look at the facts... Ds want you to have blizzards and they create them and they want you flummoxed TOO....

Lol. Imo.

Just to be clear, I am not a Read fan. I'm a justice fan.

 

[GrandmaBear]

It didn't turn out that way because they were trying to protect another officer and possibly his son, IMO. Being charged doesn't mean you're guilty.



Just to be clear, I am not a Read fan. I'm a justice fan.

I think all of us are. A justice fan. I don't think any of us are bad people and we all want the same thing. Unfortunately we do not always agree on what that is or see things the same way. Nothing wrong with that right? I think EVERY SINGLE ONE of us cares. However we are not always on the same page. Just how it is, and that's life.

When any of us take a position it is hard for anyone to change them or even new news or evidence at times to change such, we tend to get cemented. Would you disagree?

I don't tend to take a position that is solid until I have enough and enough reasons to form a sold opinion with a high percentage and so no one is likely to change my mind if I have done that as I waited and took in everything first generally before forming such.

You know I am likely never going to agree with you here. I don't like to speak for other but I think it is a safe bet that Tresir and Regina are not going to either.

It was similar in Delphi, you are not going to change our minds, we don't make them up stupidly, no one on this website is stupid imo, at all. That I ever see. We come to our opinions for REAL reasons. And ware are not juvenile idiots.

We happen to disagree on this one, more than a few do. It happens.

Karen killed him imo. However no one is likely ever to prove something like intentional homicide (which I happen to belive--she was enraged and angry, but proving that is something else). I would like both sides to face what they have and deal and use legal and court resources for other cases

There is a dead man. Will he ever get justice? I don't know. But settle the case and each side move a bit. Seriously.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I think all of us are. A justice fan. I don't think any of us are bad people and we all want the same thing. Unfortunately we do not always agree on what that is or see things the same way. Nothing wrong with that right? I think EVERY SINGLE ONE of us cares. However we are not always on the same page. Just how it is, and that's life.

When any of us take a position it is hard for anyone to change them or even new news or evidence at times to change such, we tend to get cemented. Would you disagree?

I don't tend to take a position that is solid until I have enough and enough reasons to form a sold opinion with a high percentage and so no one is likely to change my mind if I have done that as I waited and took in everything first generally before forming such.

You know I am likely never going to agree with you here. I don't like to speak for other but I think it is a safe bet that Tresir and Regina are not going to either.

It was similar in Delphi, you are not going to change our minds, we don't make them up stupidly, no one on this website is stupid imo, at all. That I ever see. We come to our opinions for REAL reasons. And ware are not juvenile idiots.

We happen to disagree on this one, more than a few do. It happens.

Karen killed him imo. However no one is likely ever to prove something like intentional homicide (which I happen to belive--she was enraged and angry, but proving that is something else). I would like both sides to face what they have and deal and use legal and court resources for other cases

There is a dead man. Will he ever get justice? I don't know. But settle the case and each side move a bit. Seriously.

You can have a differing opinion, but when some people refuse to look at the videos that explain @Guess Who opinions, they are ignored and a couple of weeks later are asked for again. Watch the videos and I'll discuss each one with you. You don't want to see why most of the jurors found her innocent. You want to cling to your belief that her alleged confessions is enough for you.

I will entertain your differing opinion after you watch the stuff, but most likely won't. Why did it end in a mistrial? I'll ask you. Why did this trial end in a mistrial?

 

[GrandmaBear]

You can have a differing opinion, but when some people refuse to look at the videos that explain @Guess Who opinions, they are ignored and a couple of weeks later are asked for again. Watch the videos and I'll discuss each one with you. You don't want to see why most of the jurors found her innocent. You want to cling to your belief that her alleged confessions is enough for you.

I will entertain your differing opinion after you watch the stuff, but most likely won't. Why did it end in a mistrial? I'll ask you. Why did this trial end in a mistrial?

KNOCK it off. I watch this case ELSEWHERE so don't act as if you know. I don't bother in here as it is one view and about two people and I think a few others would agree on that.

You aren't talking about me are you? I don't refuse to look at videos nor do I ask for them, when have I ever? I am never even in the thread for months on end, would you disagree?

So if you are going to go on about anything, make sure what you are saying to me fits me or is what I have done as it does not.

Some people who shall remain nameless try to stuff their opinions down the throats of others, whter they be political, crime or other, no?

We have differing opinions, so what, it happens. Did I not just say that tonight at some point...?

@Tresir is right in that some claim this and that and never provide links. It was going on all of the time in Delphi too. Then when one does finally provide a link it is some old thing we all saw like 12 months ago and has already been discussed...

I stay out of here because there is no discussiion. There is a one sided running of it. And so I just leave, stay out, and keep up elsewhere. Not a problem. I came back in as I do at times months apart because it should be able to be discussed but nope, same old...

Do not worry about me as I have no problem avoiding this thread, I've shown that countless times. Want me gone? You've got it.

I will say though that each time and each case that such happens in or bans or anything else have me that much closer to leaving for good. If you want that, great job.

I don't agree with @Regina on most cases but we don't get our panties in a wad, it is an adult debate and we have respect for each other. @Tresir I'd argue probably brings the most research, links and things from both sides to the threads and puts the time in. If you want all such people gone you go for it.

I for one LOVE a great discussion and debate. You are my age and I'd think you'd be the same and were raised that way but apparently not. You want to force your opinion on everyone else. IMHO.

I don't have a bit of a problem walking. I spend more time by far on YT anyhow. Some weeks there is NOTHING on here. I'm not knocking the site, I LOVE everyone here including you, but let's be honest, that is often the case.

We get a bit of talk back and forth in here right now but can it be civil talk?
Heading for YT now and my sister just texted I think. See you later Dodo. OR maybe I won't. If not, enjoy your mushroom soup and add a bit of salt would ya? Been nice knowing ya. Most of the time...

 

[Tresir]

If you're basing your reason for not watching testimony based on it being a mistrial, I'd think you'd like to see what the jury saw that caused a mistrial. You need to realize the facts go against your theories (The theories of the prosecution.)

In your opinion, which i disagree with and i will make my mind up on what i watch. You yourself said you haven't watched the trial, only a 2 hour recap on court TV each day. I read these threads instead of watching hours of trial. So quit telling me to do something you haven't even done yourself.

 

[Tresir]

You can have a differing opinion, but when some people refuse to look at the videos that explain @Guess Who opinions, they are ignored and a couple of weeks later are asked for again. Watch the videos and I'll discuss each one with you. You don't want to see why most of the jurors found her innocent. You want to cling to your belief that her alleged confessions is enough for you.

I will entertain your differing opinion after you watch the stuff, but most likely won't. Why did it end in a mistrial? I'll ask you. Why did this trial end in a mistrial?

Because two idiots thought she was innocent. It happens.

You will entertain my opinion blah blah - don't be condescending. Maybe two jury members thought lìke you, yet ten agreed with me. So i will tell you what, you should go watch the trial maybe.

 

[Tresir]

Driving while intoxicated, I'll give you. That doesn't seem to be a problem for police officers associated in that district. That doesn't excuse it, but cops there do it frequently.

If you're wondering how I know the police officers in that district drive drunk a lot, I'll refer you to court testimony you can find yourself.

I know you won't believe this, but if you listen to court testimony by sworn in witness' then it's true, one cop texted another cop, I think Albert was part of this, that he was so trashed on the way home with the other who was equally trashed that he lost his gun and badge. He was disciplined for losing his gun, nothing else. I think he found his badge.

Listen, i personally know about police officers drunk driving so no need to lecture me. It happens everywhere. Two wrongs don't make a right though. In this case somebody was killed so they stood trial and the jury could not get their agreement required by law. Now they get to try the case again. That is the trial that matters.

 

[Tresir]

If you're basing your reason for not watching testimony based on it being a mistrial, I'd think you'd like to see what the jury saw that caused a mistrial. You need to realize the facts go against your theories (The theories of the prosecution.)

What's your reason for not watching the trial then?

Higgins said he saw a man enter the house, but didn't get a good enough look at him.

Well he is a great detective isnt he LOL.

 

[Tresir]

He never went in the house.

People have to believe like 20 different things to buy into ALL of the defense side, at minimum. It is ludicrous. Same in Delphi for another example.

It is what defense does or has to do, not only do they have to try to get things thrown out, dismantle the case, they have to come up with an alternative theory as to what happened on top of it all, explain away the evidence and more... For me, anyone who buys into that many various things does not use any logic at all. Imo.

TBH he actually died of hypothermia so maybe D should push that avenue. My belief is still she ran into him and knocked him against a hard surface anyway. Why would she be so worried and hysterical he had not come home otherwise? Did D even push the snow plough theory at all?