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?

 

[Regina]

The testimony about Karen's demeanor on the phone is strictly on the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. McCabe.

That's not true. Kathryn Camerano testified as to the same thing re demeanor. She worked nights and Read had called her at work that morn screaming Where's Mike, Where's Mike.
(John and Michael Camerano had gone together to the first bar to celebrate the girls- John's neice and Michael's daughter- acceptance into an exclusive high school.)
What about Kerry's testimony? And her husband's?
I don't know where your info comes from but I know it isn't from the trial.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Since I've been watching the trial, I haven't watched any videos including TikTok and stopped reading articles or tweets. (I don't think I've ever seen so much bias surrounding a case.)
Anyway, I started to watch that video but stopped after losing track of all of the inaccuracies.

I did not even look at it. I'd like a timeline and considered it but sounded like it was more about all the relationships and such.

That IS the thing here. Delphi is similar. Everything out there and a lot has been purposely flooded out there are defense campaigns and info or misinfo or misleading. There are some GOOD ones to watch that do not fall into such but I take nothing at face value in either case. Plus I've never yet done Tik Tok, Instagram, Snapchat and many others. I'm way behind the times I guess lol. And they are probably old by now.

So you know the case, actually TOOK a look and found inaccuracies right off the bat?

Then I don't want to see it. Imagine though how many looking to get an idea of the case look at it and think they have an accurate overview of it to date.

I can't say either way if accurate or not, did not look, don't plan to buy most out there is DEFINITELY the defense flood of a campaign for quite some time now.

Such resources expended and still being done all over a case like this and the people on both sides far from perfect and doing such. If this case isn't political and being used at this point (maybe not initially but because it is now an attention grabbed one) I don't know what is and that's just another total turn off for me. I think a large part of the only reason I am here on occasion at all is because it is all so wrong. And I'm sorry but to point out that even with deleted messages, and the bunch talking about it amonst each, what do you think? I mean she acted kind of funny. And you know they had that big fight that time... That kind of sh*t. Or even the case. Being talked of. It certainly doesn't mean they or someone they know killed him, framed her and covered it up. It is so ridiculous. IMHO.

And/or covering their own butts. Things like "make sure you remember to say you know I got a ride and was not driving" Etc.

Lots of reasons for such and only the defense has used all to make up a story and use such things to do so. Big mistake on their part don't get me wrong (the McCabes etc.) but it still doesn't mean Karen did not kill John. Intentionally or accidentally. Also doesn't mean if he wasn't drunk and had his faculties that he'd have not gotten out of the way.

I don't disagree however in watching the misinformation campaign out there which is what it's all pretty much been even since emu discovered it on some show they first got it on, I forget which, has been going on ever since and yes a ton of the public (or so it SEEMS) have fallen for it.

If prosecution can't or shouldn't shared info or investigation facts and evidence then defense should not be allowed to do such either OR something needs to change in that balance.

It absolutely sickens me that basically a PR campaign goes on when it is about justice. And politics. And worse.

You grab his feet. Someone help, open the door, no, that direction place him there while a bunch of drunks take him out into the yard and say yeah now they will know it was Karen or think she hit him.

Give me a break. I am SORRY to those that buy it but I don't. HEY JEN go google how long to die? WAs he not dead yet? Uhm... I have a few thoughts I'm no sharing and maybe be off on as to that and the answers may not be there or come but I think make more sense.

One thing is sure, former "friends turned on each other here...

 

[Regina]

So the public doesn't know the full extent of what is in their phone records yet and never been shared?

I know you meant they hadn't jumped to conclusions, I just didn't comment on that part as I agree, it certainly seems that way.

Well, surely, it's to their credit that they didn't jump to conclusions about anything- what happened to John nor about anyone, including Read.

Jen's texts to John have been shown- she began texting John when she saw Read's vehicle out front- but the defense says she also made repeated calls to John (during the same time frame as the texts) that show on John's phone record and since they don't show on hers, she must have deleted them.
John's phone record hasn't been shown but the defense handed Jen some sort of a report that a layman shouldn't be expected to be able to interpret.

 

[GrandmaBear]

That's not true. Kathryn Camerano testified as to the same thing re demeanor. She worked nights and Read had called her at work that morn screaming Where's Mike, Where's Mike.
(John and Michael Camerano had gone together to the first bar to celebrate the girls- John's neice and Michael's daughter- acceptance into an exclusive high school.)
What about Kerry's testimony? And her husband's?
I don't know where your info comes from but I know it isn't from the trial.

Yeah I can't even retain all and don't follow all but thought I'd read right here in recent weeks in a post or link that SEVERAL said this about Karen's hysteria.

What say you emu?

You pick and color and ignore other. Imo.

I suspect now it will be said all in cahoots, all connected but fact remains you said it ONLY came from one source.

It worries me about the falling for a total one sided campaign. Of course those that do via internet and such and forget they have been blitzed by only one side are not the people in the courtroom or the jurors. Thank God. I often say too I would not say or decide same if a juror versus talking here and opinion and the limited things and evidence we actually know of in any case which is never all and a lot speculation.

All that said, I don't know how strong the prosecution case is (I actually suspect there is plenty but look isn't good with other things used and played on0 and do not think It was a perfect investigation. I think this entire thing was to get them to lay down by blasting at all of them so Read doesn't have to do a day of time or break a naWhen she found she was not going to be treated all special like. But that did not happen. In fact, just the opposite did. Now it is even beyond that and outside forces are using it imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well, surely, it's to their credit that they didn't jump to conclusions about anything- what happened to John nor about anyone, including Read.

Jen's texts to John have been shown- she began texting John when she saw Read's vehicle out front- but the defense says she also made repeated calls to John (during the same time frame as the texts) that show on John's phone record and since they don't show on hers, she must have deleted them.
John's phone record hasn't been shown but the defense handed Jen some sort of a report that a layman shouldn't be expected to be able to interpret.

Clearly you know the case and watch the case and don't seem to have the same blinders on. Although you and I do disagree in some cases or not always see eye to eye or understand each other. And to me in all threads and cases, that shows we are all just doing our own take honestly and don't always see it he same.

I am not watching it and so appreciate the info.

It is pretty clear to me no conclusions were jumped to, no immediate arrest, interrogation, anything. Agree.

Well if true then when John's phone record comes in that record will show repeated calls from Jen.

Are these things not being published? Like the defense's some type of report? And they haven't show or submitted John's phone record then as to incoming calls, etc.?

So in summary and in other words, we don't have any of these things yet? Prosecution has not published them either? I mean they are up first. And more so that would make more sense, they haven't published Karen's? The defendant they are accusing and trying? Or are not up to the right witness yet? And timing of the plan to do so..?

 

[Regina]

That IS the thing here. Delphi is similar. Everything out there and a lot has been purposely flooded out there are defense campaigns and info or misinfo or misleading. There are some GOOD ones to watch that do not fall into such but I take nothing at face value in either case. Plus I've never yet done Tik Tok, Instagram, Snapchat and many others. I'm way behind the times I guess lol. And they are probably old by now.

I hope you'll one day have the time to watch the trial from the beginning. It's truly the one and only way to go about it.

So you know the case, actually TOOK a look and found inaccuracies right off the bat?

Then I don't want to see it. Imagine though how many looking to get an idea of the case look at it and think they have an accurate overview of it to date.

Yeah, I think the first I noticed was that Kerry Roberts was at the house that night but nooo, she wasn't.
Another is that Nicole Albert said that everyone had left her house by 1am and that's not what Nicole said; she said her daughter was the last to leave and that was near or by 2am.

And I'm sorry but to point out that even with deleted messages, and the bunch talking about it amonst each, what do you think?

Re Brian Albert, my impression is that he inadvertently made a call to Higgins and that Higgins returned the call but didn't remember, perhaps mainly because it wasn't answered. He did remember having not spoke to Brian after he'd left Brian's house.
Re Jen calling John repeatedly and then deleting those calls, it doesn't make sense to me that she'd repeatedly call John in the first place and so that's where I'm at with that.

 

[kdg411]

Well, the defense didn't point it out (lol!) but it was on the record that they presented on cross on day 16.

It's at about the first hour of testimony and being that the attorney continually moves the paper around, I think there's only one brief opportunity to see it. Lol!

I rewatched the day and time mentioned however I did not see anything referencing 10:33am.

Here is the actual document that was entered into evidence though.

 

[Regina]

I rewatched the day and time mentioned however I did not see anything referencing 10:33am.

Here is the actual document that was entered into evidence though.

I don' think there's a moment in which the entire page is shown but there are two more timestamps following that 4th one, one at 6:24:24 (how long ti die in cikd) and the last one at 10:33:35 (hos long to die in cold).

 

[Regina]

So what is it you were able to see? That there was a search at that time and it was a search for the same or what? Curious.

If so, then what are you saying, this was the time of the actual search or there was more than one for the same thing?

The same search shows at 2:27am that also shows at 10:33am. Now, surely, that can't be right.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that those searches didn't occur at those times.
Also, Jen testified that sometime after she got home, she got onto her phone, a time that coincides with the 2:27am timestamp.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

The same search shows at 2:27am that also shows at 10:33am. Now, surely, that can't be right.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that those searches didn't occur at those times.
Also, Jen testified that sometime after she got home, she got onto her phone, a time that coincides with the 2:27am timestamp.

We'll see what the phone expert says.

 

[kdg411]

I don' think there's a moment in which the entire page is shown but there are two more timestamps following that 4th one, one at 6:24:24 (how long ti die in cikd) and the last one at 10:33:35 (hos long to die in cold).

OK, I see the 10:33 search listed starting at the 46:06 timestamp in the link below. Per your previous question, yes she did make that search again when she reopened the browser tab in 'incognito'. The search at 2:27 was not in 'incognito' mode so it was saved to a db-wal file.

 

[Guess Who]

The same search shows at 2:27am that also shows at 10:33am. Now, surely, that can't be right.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that those searches didn't occur at those times.
Also, Jen testified that sometime after she got home, she got onto her phone, a time that coincides with the 2:27am timestamp.

People often re-search things they did previously.

 

[Guess Who]

OK, I see the 10:33 search listed starting at the 46:06 timestamp in the link below. Per your previous question, yes she did make that search again when she reopened the browser tab in 'incognito'. The search at 2:27 was not in 'incognito' mode so it was saved to a db-wal file.

View attachment 22107

So purposely switched to incognito and reran the same search she did previously.

 

[Regina]

We'll see what the phone expert says.

Indeed.
To me, just the notion, alone, that Jen would have made such a search is utterly ludicrous!

(Off topic, but did you hear the news that the court in decided to allow DNA testing re the WM3 case? I just recently came across that info but I think it was in news in April.)

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Indeed.
To me, just the notion, alone, that Jen would have made such a search is utterly ludicrous!

(Off topic, but did you hear the news that the court in decided to allow DNA testing re the WM3 case? I just recently came across that info but I think it was in news in April.)

They already have DNA from a friend of one of the kids former stepfather.

There is evidence that shows the stepfather needs to be looked at seriously. Watch Paradise LOST part three. His former wife believes it was him.

ALL of the murderd kids parents believe the three are innocent. IIRC, they were all there to welcome Damien when he got out of prison.

I am completely gobsmacked that they might actually be looking for who actually did this.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

OK, I see the 10:33 search listed starting at the 46:06 timestamp in the link below. Per your previous question, yes she did make that search again when she reopened the browser tab in 'incognito'. The search at 2:27 was not in 'incognito' mode so it was saved to a db-wal file.

View attachment 22107

It is so cool to have a computer expert on this board!!

 

[Cousin Dupree]

That's not true. Kathryn Camerano testified as to the same thing re demeanor. She worked nights and Read had called her at work that morn screaming Where's Mike, Where's Mike.
(John and Michael Camerano had gone together to the first bar to celebrate the girls- John's neice and Michael's daughter- acceptance into an exclusive high school.)
What about Kerry's testimony? And her husband's?
I don't know where your info comes from but I know it isn't from the trial.

What is Camerano's relationship in all of this?

 

[kdg411]

Karen called Kathryn Camerano between 4-5am on Saturday, January 29th, 2022 and was screaming where's Mike, where's Mike.

Clip starts at her testimony.


IMOO Karen was calling people that may know where John would be.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I hope you'll one day have the time to watch the trial from the beginning. It's truly the one and only way to go about it.


Yeah, I think the first I noticed was that Kerry Roberts was at the house that night but nooo, she wasn't.
Another is that Nicole Albert said that everyone had left her house by 1am and that's not what Nicole said; she said her daughter was the last to leave and that was near or by 2am.


Re Brian Albert, my impression is that he inadvertently made a call to Higgins and that Higgins returned the call but didn't remember, perhaps mainly because it wasn't answered. He did remember having not spoke to Brian after he'd left Brian's house.
Re Jen calling John repeatedly and then deleting those calls, it doesn't make sense to me that she'd repeatedly call John in the first place and so that's where I'm at with that.

I hope so too. Some years back I did not work, needed distraction, very little was going on of interest in any newer cases or here, think I was here, and a long winter and I went and watched SEVERAL I had never followed nor seen that were recorded, every bit of them. One was Jodi ARias, hadn't followed but years after watched ALL of it. Then I actually ran into a LIVE WI one I don't think anyone here even knew about and was never on here nor anywhere else out there too much to speak of and I found it so SIMILAR to Arias, I'd recommend all go watch it. WI does do a lot of allowing media cameras through big trials (not always but a fair amount) and yet the case was hardly known. It wasn't identical but I think most would find the experts and the defendants quite similar in a lot of ways...

This one maybe I would if all of a sudden I won the lottery, did not have to work and had time but it really isn't of as much interest to me as some. It did pique my interest when I heard J McCabe was a strong witness and she and D attorney went at it pretty good. I wouldn't mind seeing that and sounded like she held her own and MORE than and got some points in over him.

But ya know when bored and more time than know what to do with, I likely would watch if I couldn't find much else on some day to go back and watch or whatever, etc. but that will likely never happen for me again in life (time or down time).

It just isn't the kind of case I'd normally gravitate towards first. I'll go to any almost if time and I can find any and that's how I end up in some and so on.

I'm curious, you're only in a handful, enough but not all, and I don't think I had a clue earlier that you were into this one or had followed it. What interests you or grabbed you with this one?

 

[GrandmaBear]

I hope you'll one day have the time to watch the trial from the beginning. It's truly the one and only way to go about it.


Yeah, I think the first I noticed was that Kerry Roberts was at the house that night but nooo, she wasn't.
Another is that Nicole Albert said that everyone had left her house by 1am and that's not what Nicole said; she said her daughter was the last to leave and that was near or by 2am.


Re Brian Albert, my impression is that he inadvertently made a call to Higgins and that Higgins returned the call but didn't remember, perhaps mainly because it wasn't answered. He did remember having not spoke to Brian after he'd left Brian's house.
Re Jen calling John repeatedly and then deleting those calls, it doesn't make sense to me that she'd repeatedly call John in the first place and so that's where I'm at with that.

So where does the info come from that she allegedly called John repeatedly? From his phone records per the defense would be my guess? Or their claims?

I wouldn't count on that she did not if they made such bold claims (IF that is where it comes from) but if so, that will certainly come out.

Even if she did however, not sure that I'd take it to mean much.