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?

 

[Guess Who]

It's not the same one, I mean, the one presented in court was the one he had on- the right one.
That one in the photo is the left one as it was found at the scene.

But the one "on scene" has a black sole and the one presented in court has a white sole. Pretty sure the pair he was actually wearing had matching soles,l, which leads to yet another layer of questions about the validity of the one "found" at the curb

 

[Regina]

But the one "on scene" has a black sole and the one presented in court has a white sole.

I have no reason to think that it isn't the mate to the one shown in court.

 

[Guess Who]

I have no reason to think that it isn't the mate to the one shown in court.

So you believe he wore shoes with soles that didn't match?

 

[Regina]

So you believe he wore shoes with soles that didn't match?

If the sole is black, then yeah, I'd believe that, lol!

 

[Ranch]

But the one "on scene" has a black sole and the one presented in court has a white sole. Pretty sure the pair he was actually wearing had matching soles,l, which leads to yet another layer of questions about the validity of the one "found" at the curb

So LE planted a mismatched shoe? That's strange. For what purpose?

 

[kdg411]

It's not the same one, I mean, the one presented in court was the one he had on- the right one.
That one in the photo is the left one as it was found at the scene.

Correct, they are not a matching pair. The one at the scene does not match the one they 'found' later which was presented in court.

 

[Regina]

Correct, they are not a matching pair. The one at the scene does not match the one they 'found' later which was presented in court.

The person you quoted asked if it was the same shoe and my response to that is, no, it isn't the same shoe.

 

[Guess Who]

So LE planted a mismatched shoe? That's strange. For what purpose?

To change the narrative of what actually happened that night. This stuff is happening with nearly every single piece of evidence that has been presented in court so far in this case. At the very least, they are showing gross incompetence of their investigation. So much so that if I had a client that was ever found guilty with those people in charge, if be filing for a hearing for my client.

 

[Guess Who]

Looks like a place where the Innocence Project should start looking.

 

[Ranch]

To change the narrative of what actually happened that night. This stuff is happening with nearly every single piece of evidence that has been presented in court so far in this case. At the very least, they are showing gross incompetence of their investigation. So much so that if I had a client that was ever found guilty with those people in charge, if be filing for a hearing for my client.

Has the defense been able to prove LE planted evidence or has it been showing the jury that the investigation was incompetent or sloppy?

Two entirely different things IMO.

 

[Guess Who]

Has the defense been able to prove LE planted evidence or has it been showing the jury that the investigation was incompetent or sloppy?

Two entirely different things IMO.

They have gotten a lot of admissions in cross so far of very, very sloppy investigation. Defense hasn't had their turn yet. Pros still up but nearly everything they have presented so far has been proven shady, at best.

 

[kdg411]

Has the defense been able to prove LE planted evidence or has it been showing the jury that the investigation was incompetent or sloppy?

Two entirely different things IMO.

The defense is poking holes at the investigation and it's sloppiness. From my perspective I don't know if she hit him however the investigation is questionable.

 

[Guess Who]

Has the defense been able to prove LE planted evidence or has it been showing the jury that the investigation was incompetent or sloppy?

Two entirely different things IMO.

Their premise of him being hit by a vehicle does not fit his actual injuries whatsoever.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I haven't followed this case closely so I'm unsure of what exactly this means. Does inverting the video hide something from the jury?

The whole case is about a broken rear taillight. So by inverting the picture and video, which taillight is being seen in, makes the driver's side to be flipped. It's a total lie.

The officer's lack of telling the jury that what they were looking was reversed, makes it look like they are intentionally falsifying evidence. The jury now has to question the evidence of all of the officers testifying.

 

[Guess Who]

Has the defense been able to prove LE planted evidence or has it been showing the jury that the investigation was incompetent or sloppy?

Two entirely different things IMO.

The prosecution has basically done nothing but to raise reasonable doubt all by themselves.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Saw this today while driving:

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Their premise of him being hit by a vehicle does not fit his actual injuries whatsoever.

Hence, the prosecution objecting to the expert on dog bites.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Has the defense been able to prove LE planted evidence or has it been showing the jury that the investigation was incompetent or sloppy?

Two entirely different things IMO.

Nobody with the prosecution has admitted to planting evidence, but who would? The defense is showing enough hinky stuff with the evidence to make the jury reach a not guilty verdict.

It's the first SODDI defense that appears to be right on.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Nobody with the prosecution has admitted to planting evidence, but who would? The defense is showing enough hinky stuff with the evidence to make the jury reach a not guilty verdict.

It's the first SODDI defense that appears to be right on.

Trooper Yuri Bukhenik sort of perjured himself if you believe in lies of omission. However, when directly asked about the evidence of the inverted photos and video, he admitted they were inverted. So he can't be accused of perjury. However, I don't think lies of omission qualify as perjury. So there's no proof because they can always just say "Oooops!"

 

[Ranch]

Nobody with the prosecution has admitted to planting evidence, but who would? The defense is showing enough hinky stuff with the evidence to make the jury reach a not guilty verdict.

It's the first SODDI defense that appears to be right on.

I can see how a sloppy police investigation could give the jury reasonable doubt.

What I'd like to see is if there's evidence that they planted evidence which would lead to the arrest and conviction of all those involved.