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...
CBS report. Supreme court denies Read's appeal so she will face a retrial on all three charges.

If she has got any sense she should try and get a plea deal now.


www.cbsnews.com

Karen Read's appeal denied by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied Karen Read's appeal to get some charges dismissed.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com


BOSTON - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has denied Karen Read's appeal to get some of the charges against her thrown out before her second criminal trial.

Her defense argued before the highest court in the state last November that charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death should be dismissed.

The appeal was argued on double jeopardy grounds: Read's attorneys believe she shouldn't be retried on those charges because they say jurors in her first trial, which ended in a mistrial, privately voted to acquit her on those counts.

Karen Read appeal denied​

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Judge Beverly Cannone was right to deny the defense's motion to dismiss the charges.

"In sum, we conclude that the trial judge acted within her discretion in declaring a mistrial without first inquiring about a partial verdict or offering defense counsel an additional opportunity to be heard," the court said in its 35-page ruling. "Considering the length of jury deliberations, the judge's prior efforts to encourage consensus, and the increasingly emphatic tone of the jury notes indicating deadlock, it was clear the jury had reached an impasse."

Read's first murder trial ended in a mistrial last summer with a hung jury that said they were "starkly divided." But days later, the defense said some jurors came forward to say that they had unanimously decided she was not guilty on two of the three charges, but weren't sure how to communicate that to the judge.

"Nothing suggested that the deadlock was limited to a specific charge; on the contrary, the notes contained no inkling of agreement, and the third note implied the jury were deadlocked on all charges," the high court said.
 
BBM
 
Last edited:
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
Why in the world would she agree to that?
Jury wanted not guilty on two of the three. And the prosecution apparently only convinced 2/3 of the jury on even manslaughter.
I'd take my chances too.
Click to expand...
So she can maybe get a suspended sentence if she pleads down rather than a jail sentence. She knows she was drunk and she hit him. She may not be so lucky with a hung jury this time. Plus it would be cheaper as no lawyer fees.

I added a link to my post that explains they were deadlocked on all three charges.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
So she can maybe get a suspended sentence if she pleads down rather than a jail sentence. She knows she was drunk and she hit him. She may not be so lucky with a hung jury this time. Plus it would be cheaper as no lawyer fees.
Click to expand...
I saw the higher court's decision I think last week. Right decision too imo. Her attys failed her on that one as well or they might have stood a chance had they polled the jury, etc.

I read somewhere that the P is really prepared for this trial or something on that order.

As to a deal, both sides have to be willing to make one. And when one side wants nothing to a bare slap on the wrist and the other wants a sentence that matters and has some weight due to a man's death by another, they are unlikely to reach agreement. Imo anyhow.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I saw the higher court's decision I think last week. Right decision too imo. Her attys failed her on that one as well or they might have stood a chance had they polled the jury, etc.

I read somewhere that the P is really prepared for this trial or something on that order.

As to a deal, both sides have to be willing to make one. And when one side wants nothing to a bare slap on the wrist and the other wants a sentence that matters and has some weight due to a man's death by another, they are unlikely to reach agreement. Imo anyhow.
Click to expand...
I was thinking if she tried for a plea on the two minor charges.

The D have requested all the paperwork in the Birchmore case. What's that all about? Do you know how the cases are connected? I thought that case was about two twin brothers who abused and murdered her.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
I was thinking if she tried for a plea on the two minor charges.

The D have requested all the paperwork in the Birchmore case. What's that all about? Do you know how the cases are connected? I thought that case was about two twin brothers who abused and murdered her.
Click to expand...
The D in this case her you mean have requested Birchmore?

It was about a cop abusing his position and who was molesting her which later turned into an inappropriate relationship as she grew older and yes, then he murdered her and is charged now. Both brothers molested her but the one is charged with the murder.
 
I'm impressed with this prosecutor.

Oh and the D apparently failed to counsel Ms. Smirky to control the smirks. It's still not a good look. Never has been and isn't now.
 
@Tresir The very shaky voiced female atty on the D team is addressing Birchmore now. It's because a lot of the same names in the investigations for LE, etc. and allegedly similarities in the fact when an LE officer is involved how they don't handle things above board. I am paraphrasing. I think it's total BS because in this case the idea that anyone in the home killed the victim is all D fantasy and made up. Sandra Birchmore WAS killed by an officer. And there's more blah, blah, blah. This is a long hearing so far and a lot of D b.s. imo. I like the new prosecutor.

They really need to work on her shaking nervous voice. She's not too polished either, she falls back on certain big words she repeats lol.

The P talked of "ambush by trial" and harassment of witnesses and more and spoke of there not being a repeat of such.

There were some interesting things (still on, still watching) and I'm just going to say this trial is not going to be the same as the last one. Imo.
 
Touching on some pretty inappropriate communications between the D and one of their experts that was not disclosed to the Commonwealth. An expert saying if you "don't want me to say this" (meaning on the stand), just for instance...

Commonwealth talking of how the playing field needs to be even and it hasn't been.

Yeah, this is going to be far different this time imo.

I don't even want to watch this long thing but am doing so. Some interesting points and it continues. I'm interested to see if the press covers it fairly because if they do, I'd say the P is making really good points. We'll see but I'd bet they don't.

Oh Court TV did a poll on IF Birchmore relates here or should be able to be used. People in chat were to give a 1 if yes and a 2 if no. It was almost all 2s.

Talk about reaching to try to now make a new big mess bringing in an entirely unrelated case.

Lots of motions, not sure when decisions will come, if some today and some later or all later. What is it, about 6 weeks to trial now? A bit less I guess.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Touching on some pretty inappropriate communications between the D and one of their experts that was not disclosed to the Commonwealth. An expert saying if you "don't want me to say this" (meaning on the stand), just for instance...

Commonwealth talking of how the playing field needs to be even and it hasn't been.

Yeah, this is going to be far different this time imo.

I don't even want to watch this long thing but am doing so. Some interesting points and it continues. I'm interested to see if the press covers it fairly because if they do, I'd say the P is making really good points. We'll see but I'd bet they don't.

Oh Court TV did a poll on IF Birchmore relates here or should be able to be used. People in chat were to give a 1 if yes and a 2 if no. It was almost all 2s.

Talk about reaching to try to now make a new big mess bringing in an entirely unrelated case.

Lots of motions, not sure when decisions will come, if some today and some later or all later. What is it, about 6 weeks to trial now? A bit less I guess.
Click to expand...
Did the judge rule whether the Birchmore stuff is relevant at all? Trial starts April fools' day, i think, so 41 days/6 weeks time, yes.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
Did the judge rule whether the Birchmore stuff is relevant at all? Trial starts April fools' day, i think, so 41 days/6 weeks time, yes.
Click to expand...
I actually quit it to go back to later. I had watched through probably 8 or more motions and couldn't spend all day on it and had spent an hour plus as it was. I don't know if she ruled today or will rule later on all the motions.

People in chat were saying it does not relate or relate enough anyhow to be brought in. I agree. If you took any case in our county here, every single case would have many of the same names. So what? Same D.A. Same homicide investigator. Etc. The facts in her case have nothing to do with this one.

The D is trying to say both cases involve when it comes to investigating one of their "own". Well in Sandra's the perp was one of their own. In this one, that is nothing but a ridiculous D theory, no different than the ridiculous O theory spun by the D in Delphi. It isn't "fact" nor is there anything supporting it in either case. There is NO parallel to Birchmore in my opinion other than their sheer created theory made up and molded to try to fit (the D).

It's interesting but it's long. I need to go back and see how long it ended up being, assuming it is even over yet. I watched quite a bit. I doubt news will cover it well, watching what I did was worth it and I well may watch the rest.
 
Oh boy. Starts at about 1:48 in on Scott's. I guess the hearing was cut short and he is using the words egregious and ethics (meaning no ethics) and says something came to the judge's attention today that may have the D in hot water. I haven't listened to all yet and then he is going to have more at 6 as well. The parts of the hearing I watched I found interesting. The P was calling things out without being disrespectfully or outright calling them out, but things were said that are true, like level playing field. Trial by ambush. All calmly mentioned. I'll be back when I know more.

@Tresir
 
I said the new special prosecutor impressed me and now Scott is saying he is GOOD. I thought so myself. I should have finished watching I guess.

Still listening to Scott.

 
Oh YES I heard part of this but didn't realize it was going to continue. It's about ARCA and how the expert and the D were emailing back and forth on what to ask and what to answer. I heard a fringe part of that when I was watching, I didn't realize more came. And yes that is a BIG NO NO. Totally unethical.

The P when I was listening also touched on compensation, relationship between the expert and D, etc.

I for one am glad. The BS that has been pulled in this case, just like in Delphi needs boundaries big time.

Nothing all that bad had happened, just touching on some things, when I stopped watching earlier today (I still have it up, figured on finishing later) but the P was good and was putting things out there as they SHOULD, and I thought the D was paying more than usual attn to the other side and not 100 percent happy, same with KR. Hard to say with her as her normal looks are just smirking or pursed lips.

This prosecutor is not someone to ignore. He knows his stuff and as he said, he wasn't even at that trial but he's sure reviewed it all. Very well prepared.

Jmo, I know all won't share it.
 
They paid the expert $23K and this was not what was stated in court.

Also again some of this was being touched on when I stopped watching, another thing is the D, NOT JUST the P has requirements of things they need to turn over too and we rarely hear about that, people just always go on about the P, but that plays in here too of what they did not do per the rules.
 
Oh boy and didn't disclose the witness.

I knew the P had emails between the D and the expert but didn't realize there were so many of wrongdoing.

Scott comes on at 6 and it's 6 so I am going to go give a listen to more.
 
They did not disclose these were paid experts. A huge no no again.

They are apt to lose 1 for sure, 2 possibly and all experts (not sure how many there were) six weeks before trial and not only that, they should be in some very hot water ethically.

This is big time stuff.

I can already imagine the "spin" that will be tried. For anyone who falls for it remember this is allegedly a top notch big time attorney. He definitely knows the rules, even if from CA. And EVERYONE knows you don't coach or plan answers with experts ANYWHERE, or tell them what you want said or NOT said. Major, major, major.

No one is picking on anyone and the judge did nothing wrong to stop this hearing over finding these things out.

Scott also touches on some other things, he covers all sides. I guess KR gave an interview to a local affiliate over Superbowl weekend. I wont' rush to see that but I'm putting that in here in case others are interested.

There's also some other fed thing that he thinks will be denied as well they filed and that awaits an answer. So he covered some other things to update on the case as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,050
Messages
248,303
Members
992
Latest member
lifeofthespider
Back
Top Bottom