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?

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Also if she struck a vehicle at the bar and broke it then why is it no one noticed a broken tail light. One can't have that both ways First it is said no one saw one and so it wasn't broken, then we are shown she struck a vehicle on leaving the bar. Which is it?

She was drunk, can't even remember going there but clearly was there, hits a vehicle on leaving, was driving, and more and more.

I believe that video is actually taken from the parking lot of John's apartment building. The defense says she broke it when leaving to find John.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Okay but this has nothing to do with those that saw the vehicle Read was driving earlier that night parked in the driveway right? Somehow these two things seemed to get put into same post/s.

She was not parked in the driveway. She was parked on the side of the road.

 

[Guess Who]

I didn't know who you were referring to but yes, per testimony thus far, the only person to describe the taillight as "cracked" is Read.

No. McCabe has testified that she told two friends that, plus himself that morning.

 

[Regina]

Also if she struck a vehicle at the bar and broke it then why is it no one noticed a broken tail light. One can't have that both ways First it is said no one saw one and so it wasn't broken, then we are shown she struck a vehicle on leaving the bar. Which is it?

She was drunk, can't even remember going there but clearly was there, hits a vehicle on leaving, was driving, and more and more.

I'm not aware of her having struck a vehicle at the bar but my info is comes from what's been presented in court up to this point.
I would like to point out, though, that even though a person has no more to drink, depending on how much and how fast they've consumed, they become more intoxicated as their BAC continues to rise.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

That's the defense attorney asking that, it is not fact. He could ask if she saw a million pieces. He asked her if she saw 45 and she said she did NOt. He then asked her if she saw ONE.

IS IT FACT? And from where if so?

Defense attorney questions are MEANT to insert things and hope they get taken as fact that aren't. A game I can't stand and should not be allowed in our system.

if it is fact, fine, but I sure have never heard any such thing and I've seen no one else here saying it is. Is it?

Clearly we are not agreeing on this case lol.

Why didn't the prosecution object if it wasn't true?

 

[Guess Who]

Also if she struck a vehicle at the bar and broke it then why is it no one noticed a broken tail light. One can't have that both ways First it is said no one saw one and so it wasn't broken, then we are shown she struck a vehicle on leaving the bar. Which is it?

She was drunk, can't even remember going there but clearly was there, hits a vehicle on leaving, was driving, and more and more.

Why did nobody see a broken taillight when she was parked? Why is there no video gathered from any of the businesses/doorbell cams on her fairly lengthy trip home that surely at least one of those places would have footage? See, it goes both ways here.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm not aware of her having struck a vehicle at the bar but my info is comes from what's been presented in court up to this point.
I would like to point out, though, that even though a person has no more to drink, depending on how much and how fast they've consumed, they become more intoxicated as their BAC continues to rise.

Again, it has been shown in court from video the prosecution presented themselves. I've linked to it

 

[Regina]

Maybe. Maybe not.

You know if defendants had to take the stand imagine how much perjury there would be. We just accept and always have that the don't have to and such is long been the established rule and just accepted by us all as it is how it always has been. You know what though, I am not sure that I agree with it. I think they should have to answer just like everyone else has to.

For my part, I haven't seen anything I'd consider as perjury.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

It was brought up in trial. If it wasn't true, why didn't the prosecution object to that info being bri6ght up?

Why didn't the prosecution object if it wasn't true?

Wow! We thought alike for once.

 

[Guess Who]

Wow! We thought alike for once.

And you 20 minutes later

 

[Regina]

Okay but this has nothing to do with those that saw the vehicle Read was driving earlier that night parked in the driveway right? Somehow these two things seemed to get put into same post/s.

I know what you mean and all I can say is that the responding officers at the scene would have seen Robert's vehicle, not Read's and that those with knowledge of the status of Read's taillight were the people Read called that morn (and their husbands who could over-hear Read's screaming over the phone.)
(There was the dashcam video showing the taillight damage but the video wasn't known of until sometime later and the officer hadn't noticed it.)
Anyway, the trial is on-going and slowly but surely, evidence is being presented and I will speak only to what's been presented in court and not to what's reported or YouTubed or what ever.

 

[Guess Who]

I know what you mean and all I can say is that the responding officers at the scene would have seen Robert's vehicle, not Read's and that those with knowledge of the status of Read's taillight were the people Read called that morn (and their husbands who could over-hear Read's screaming over the phone.)
(There was the dashcam video showing the taillight damage but the video wasn't known of until sometime later and the officer hadn't noticed it.)
Anyway, the trial is on-going and slowly but surely, evidence is being presented and I will speak only to what's been presented in court and not to what's reported or YouTubed.

Then you have to take into consideration ALL that has been presented in court that I have linked for you. Just because it happens to be a YouTube video and stuff that has been reported that is directly quoted from trial that shows exactly what the prosection presented, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Then you have to take into consideration ALL that has been presented in court that I have linked for you. Just because it happens to be a YouTube video and stuff that has been reported that is directly quoted from trial that shows exactly what the prosection presented, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it.

The taillight stuff is really hinky. It appears the McCabes were making sure they had their stories straight as well.

 

[Guess Who]

The taillight stuff is really hinky. It appears the McCabes were making sure they had their stories straight as well.

The lack of any kind of real investigation, especially the death and possible murder of one of your fellow officers, is far too hinky for me. They would be pulling out all the stops.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

The lack of any kind of real investigation, especially the death and possible murder of one of your fellow officers, is far too hinky for me. They would be pulling out all the stops.

Unless they were protecting the guilty person.

 

[Regina]

But SHE had told multiple people already that she noticed her taillight was cracked while talking about not being able to find him and showed it to them. Are you now seeing that there was absolutely no investigation here?

Perhaps it's that I'm watching the trial that I'm not as critical.

 

[Regina]

Well what is the case here. You can have a "cracked" tail light with not a piece missing and in the next breath it isnt' said to be cracked, it is talking 45 pieces or shards. Whih is it? Personally I think the 45 pieces sounds like total bullsheet. What is it, seriously? Cracked, broken, smashed, missing pieces or not? I feel like semantics are going ton here and different versions of such. Not into such but leaving shortly anyhow lol so all have fun and a good day.

From what I recall, three photos have been presented in court- two showing the same piece and one showing multiple pieces- but there wasn't testimony as to how many pieces were in the one photo.

Thank you and I hope you have a good workday!

 

[Guess Who]

Unless they were protecting the guilty person.

Exactly. That or total incompetence and or laziness. There really aren't any other choices I can come up with.

 

[Guess Who]

Unless they were protecting the guilty person.

Real question.. If actually watching it, how did you miss the video the prosecution entered of her leaving the bar and tapping the vehicle as she backed out and the defense asking about the 45 pieces without an objection by the defense and McCabe testifying about her telling him that morning and testifying that she told two more about her cracked taillight... All things that were entered into evidence by the prosecution themselves. You claim those things haven't been covered in trial when they all were.

 

[Regina]

Then you have to take into consideration ALL that has been presented in court that I have linked for you. Just because it happens to be a YouTube video and stuff that has been reported that is directly quoted from trial that shows exactly what the prosection presented, doesn't mean you get to dismiss it.

I just meant that I'm watching the trial, not YouTube videos reviewing it.