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]

I watched this for another attorneys pov. In this video, she is reviewing the Judge's denial of motion to dismiss the indictment. The specific points of importance are witness statement inaccuracies, timeline created by witnesses before grand jury & state discovery material not being turned over. Also, reciprocal discovery does not have to be turned over until the state turns theirs over. The state argues this on a hair sample that they've had 2 years to prioritize. The lead investigator, Proctor, being under investigation & the FBI reconstruction are the key points I would focus on during the trial.

Based on this video alone I noticed this lawyer is focusing on one document only and not any other evidence that has been argued in prior motions. However, she came to the same legal conclusions Melanie Little has.

Yeah, I didn't say she wasn't both ways on it and looks at both, it is what she does, I fell asleep before finishing. I am so wiped these days.

She tends to do shows on one thing or part or what is new in an onging fashion. Melanie Little tends to do a full blown show each time on all or so it seems. Been awhile now since I watched her.

I can tell you that I'm not sold on anything nor do I even fully disagree with what you or emu thinks. I went into this one knowing little and the first thing I watched was STS and I linked it here. I think it was the first anyhow other than reading a link or two of maybe something emu posted. Therefore, I went in without any real knowledge or bias. STS had on a panel that argued both sides and it was quite the show. Far from dull. Emu watched it but of course I am going to guess agreed with the guests who espoused her innocence. There are really good points as to the guilt.

Not too long ago I also watched one where key points were made about what defense is doing with the public now versus what will be shown at trial and what prosecution has and what more they likely have. Don't get me wrong, I don't jump to that side in this one, it isn't a case either that was a pet case of mine and it still isn't, or one in which I took a strong stance for a reason, it isn't.

I do believe there are dirty people in power here that abuse their position but taking that to believing they killed him and framed her is a tougher sell for me. And the conspiracy it would take and number of people.

All that said, I'm not sure if I could find her guilty of what they charged her with but we haven't seen all or the case tried. If and when I saw such, I'd know if I could or not at the conclusion. Is it going to be live streamed?

I'm not also like passionately convinced she is guilty or anything as you are with the fact she is innocent. I just think she likely is. And I'm open on it.

I think I've said when you have dirty people in power, they need to stop and realize that this can taint justice and entire cases which is what imo is happening here. I don't think it means she is innocent but it's hard to believe or trust people like that that's being used to great effect here.

Perhaps she is innocent, I don't know. And I'm not a juror.

Another thing that sticks with me that I think is the case is she was cooperative and admitting in the beginning until she realized they were going to charge her harshly in her opinion and not cut her a break of any kind and even charge her harsher than expected.

There's also just a few too many things they have to explain here and that's always a sign to me. One or two is one thing, several is another story.

I respect your opinion and know you know more as it is a pet case for you and if you are convinced, then I hope she is found innocent. I don't really have a horse in the race. I do care about justice and I do think dirty and corrupt should be sanctioned and eliminated here and everywhere, not that that's likely but one can hope.

It's also a real stretch for me to believe the number of people and things done to pull something like this off and maintain such a conspiracy and I fail to see the reasons anyone would have killed him and set out to frame her. On the reverse side, their relationship was far from good, she thought him cheating, she was not going to attend with him, she dropped him off, they'd been drinking and more. While this sure isn't evidence of guilt, of who would have real emotion and anger towards him is far more likely her than someone at the party who I guess got into a brawl in a nice home and killed him in what the living room with all present and then they all staged and covered it up and framed her for what reason I dont' know.

I also don't have the highest opinion of any of them and that includes her and the victim. I don't like saying that about a victim but again each and every one of them were doing things they'd have arrested others for. Well she and he were anyhow. I guess the homewners if they never left home weren't drinking and driving with open container and so on. Maybe that's legal there, it used to be in Florida I know.

Weren't they raising his niece and nephew or something? What of his family? What do they believe or say?

Anyhow, don't take me as sold as I'm not either way. Nor to be arguing, I'm not. I simply think one thing to be a heck of a lot more likely than the other and what it would take and we haven't heard the entire case or all the evidence yet either.

I'll also say this. If she's found innocent then I'm okay with that. I don't like justice unserved but a jury serves it imo and I overall trust juries. I hope that never changes. Not that there can never be a rogue or bad one but most take that job very seriously and most find correctly imo. I'll take the jury's verdict and accept it and if no shenanigans believe they based it on what is proven in court to them or not proven.

I saw a lot of it but like I said I didn't end up seeing all of Lee's show but I did see the part about the testing and the hair, etc. and yes, they'ave had a lot of time and I think it was lame and a poor excuse most likely BUT I couldn't help but think of LISK where there is only recently and like one lab with new advanced DNA testing on hair and only just and they had to wait a long time for the results. Not saying that is the deal here but it is fairly recent and I'd say unknown to many LE and us still.

Both sides in all cases need to do their job and get their discovery to the other side in a timely manner NOT that outside testing, experts and more and schedules can't cause some things but some of it is simply the parties doing such or buying time and delaying. It's b.s.

I don't know that I agree with the law here that defense has to give prosecution nothing until prosecution has given all. Not sure I've ever heard of that. Actually I am sure I've never known of such or if it is common I've sure never heard it. And I don't think I agree with it.

I was falling asleep but I think Lee also said and I think as well, there's a good chance this trial is not going to go off on time.

Again I don't have a horse in the race and you may well have it right and I certainly don't know it inside and out although I've watched plenty. Even now it hasn't "taken" me to where I am more than interested and invested or anything. I ended up watching that or starting to last night simply because I couldn't find anything else new on or anything else to watch quite honestly. And because a couple here do have passion about it and a belief (you for instance) I clicked in.

I have tried and do watch, I just am not overly swayed in one direction or the other or convinced. In some cases I am decided. In this one, I would need the trial I think. There are things on both sides that bring questions, I guess if anything that does show at this point, it hasn't been strongly proven beyond a reasonable doubt but it also hasn't been tried yet.

I do have a question. If the search for how long to die from exposure or whatever it was was done at a time that will blow the case out of the water then why would that not have been used by now to do so and get it dismissed? Surely that's known by the parties? Maybe not by the public but it is by them. And imo that would definitely be something that would be used if that was the case.

Anyhow sorry for the lengthy post. If you believe her innocent, I hope she's found innocent. In this one, I'm not going to claim to know. I don't see it but I do see where enough doubt can maybe be raised. Depending on the evidence though and the experts and so on and I also will say what is being sold to the public is only from one side just as goes on in Delphi.

I (groan) am back to work today and haven't gotten over the last week. I hope you have a wonderful day and thanks for the chatting and discussion!

 

[GrandmaBear]

I still believe it's a frame job. Taking so long to test the hair is just another hinky thing to me. The relationship between the lead investigator and the house owner is hinky too. The FBI case against the lead investigator is SUPER hinky.

O/T Her comments about Grand Juries and the way the prosecution handles their findings makes the burial of the Grand Juries findings in the Ramsey case even more hinky.

You are far more invested in this one than I and so I take that into consideration. However, you see frame jobs everywhere, no offense. Because @kdg411 sees such, I give it some weight again no offense, but it is a common mantra with you. Because you think it in some that I do know well and don't see the same, unfortunately I don't automatically fall in line with you. Well not unfortunaely lol, I woudn't anyhow, I think for myself but am open to NEW info in cases, not talking about this one necessarily.

I will say look at the hair thing in LISK though and that's a thought. If not some reason like that, then yes they should have had this done by now.

I don't know what she was talking about when I dropped off but I didn't finish Lee's. I was in quite a ways but was so tired I was falling asleep on and off. I don't recall the grand jury thing but have heard her talk of such before in cases.

Even so I can say with regard to O/T Ramsey, yes it was hokey or hinky, the DA buried the decision and didn't share it and decided to ignore it as if held all the power in one position to do so. Disgusting.

Lee is good and she's fair. I knew of course you'd both like Melanie Little as she espouses all the beliefs here that you who think Karen innocent do and why. I have heard it, I have shared her many a time.

I'm still not convinced but I am also not convinced the prosecution can prove its case but we have yet to see that.

As I've said before it is the problem with dirty or those who abuse their positions, it can be used if known to cast doubt on what may well be real evidence and so on. This would be a pretty big conspiracy that would take a lot and just to frame a woman they knew instead of someone else. It's a lot to swallow/buy.

And again I'm not as invested as you both are but in a way that may also give me a clearer lens. In cases I am invested in of course that differs and you are invested. I don't not care but I also don't care like I get invested in some. That in no way means I don't care about railroading, framing, corruption etc. That's not what I mean.

I don't have a like for all these people but that also includes Read and sadly the victim. I don't mean I hate them either, I just think they all feel or did (including her) special and above and protected. She found out it did not extend that far.

Maybe that's part of my thing with it. But then I really don't have a thing with it. It isn't a case of true innocents or of true innocence. Too bad her and John didn't just go home. Or she attend with him and at least see him inside, greet and take her leave. If only. Right?

Again I don't know. I'm interested sort of but not invested to any point I feel I have a strong bias. I am so not invested that yeah, I could just go with you and it won't kill me but I just haven't seen any reason to lean hard one way. Have they brought it to the middle and created some reasonable doubt, sure. Has either side convinced me? No. And it is still far more likely that she struck him. Of course that's not the same as being a juror and being convinced enough to convict but we haven't seen all yet either. For me, the jury is still out on this one. I'm not sold. I do have things I look at like what such a conspiracy would take, what is more likely and makes more sense, their relationship, their drinking and the fact she didn't attend with him and very likely was angry he wanted to go. All of that makes more sense to me. Sorry.

Doesn't mean I could convict. In this one, I'd have to be a real juror and fairly hear the facts to decide. In some, as you know, I am pretty convinced prior. Have a good day. I get to work.

 

[kdg411]

Yeah, I didn't say she wasn't both ways on it and looks at both, it is what she does, I fell asleep before finishing. I am so wiped these days.

She tends to do shows on one thing or part or what is new in an onging fashion. Melanie Little tends to do a full blown show each time on all or so it seems. Been awhile now since I watched her.

I can tell you that I'm not sold on anything nor do I even fully disagree with what you or emu thinks. I went into this one knowing little and the first thing I watched was STS and I linked it here. I think it was the first anyhow other than reading a link or two of maybe something emu posted. Therefore, I went in without any real knowledge or bias. STS had on a panel that argued both sides and it was quite the show. Far from dull. Emu watched it but of course I am going to guess agreed with the guests who espoused her innocence. There are really good points as to the guilt.

Not too long ago I also watched one where key points were made about what defense is doing with the public now versus what will be shown at trial and what prosecution has and what more they likely have. Don't get me wrong, I don't jump to that side in this one, it isn't a case either that was a pet case of mine and it still isn't, or one in which I took a strong stance for a reason, it isn't.

I do believe there are dirty people in power here that abuse their position but taking that to believing they killed him and framed her is a tougher sell for me. And the conspiracy it would take and number of people.

All that said, I'm not sure if I could find her guilty of what they charged her with but we haven't seen all or the case tried. If and when I saw such, I'd know if I could or not at the conclusion. Is it going to be live streamed?

I'm not also like passionately convinced she is guilty or anything as you are with the fact she is innocent. I just think she likely is. And I'm open on it.

I think I've said when you have dirty people in power, they need to stop and realize that this can taint justice and entire cases which is what imo is happening here. I don't think it means she is innocent but it's hard to believe or trust people like that that's being used to great effect here.

Perhaps she is innocent, I don't know. And I'm not a juror.

Another thing that sticks with me that I think is the case is she was cooperative and admitting in the beginning until she realized they were going to charge her harshly in her opinion and not cut her a break of any kind and even charge her harsher than expected.

There's also just a few too many things they have to explain here and that's always a sign to me. One or two is one thing, several is another story.

I respect your opinion and know you know more as it is a pet case for you and if you are convinced, then I hope she is found innocent. I don't really have a horse in the race. I do care about justice and I do think dirty and corrupt should be sanctioned and eliminated here and everywhere, not that that's likely but one can hope.

It's also a real stretch for me to believe the number of people and things done to pull something like this off and maintain such a conspiracy and I fail to see the reasons anyone would have killed him and set out to frame her. On the reverse side, their relationship was far from good, she thought him cheating, she was not going to attend with him, she dropped him off, they'd been drinking and more. While this sure isn't evidence of guilt, of who would have real emotion and anger towards him is far more likely her than someone at the party who I guess got into a brawl in a nice home and killed him in what the living room with all present and then they all staged and covered it up and framed her for what reason I dont' know.

I also don't have the highest opinion of any of them and that includes her and the victim. I don't like saying that about a victim but again each and every one of them were doing things they'd have arrested others for. Well she and he were anyhow. I guess the homewners if they never left home weren't drinking and driving with open container and so on. Maybe that's legal there, it used to be in Florida I know.

Weren't they raising his niece and nephew or something? What of his family? What do they believe or say?

Anyhow, don't take me as sold as I'm not either way. Nor to be arguing, I'm not. I simply think one thing to be a heck of a lot more likely than the other and what it would take and we haven't heard the entire case or all the evidence yet either.

I'll also say this. If she's found innocent then I'm okay with that. I don't like justice unserved but a jury serves it imo and I overall trust juries. I hope that never changes. Not that there can never be a rogue or bad one but most take that job very seriously and most find correctly imo. I'll take the jury's verdict and accept it and if no shenanigans believe they based it on what is proven in court to them or not proven.

I saw a lot of it but like I said I didn't end up seeing all of Lee's show but I did see the part about the testing and the hair, etc. and yes, they'ave had a lot of time and I think it was lame and a poor excuse most likely BUT I couldn't help but think of LISK where there is only recently and like one lab with new advanced DNA testing on hair and only just and they had to wait a long time for the results. Not saying that is the deal here but it is fairly recent and I'd say unknown to many LE and us still.

Both sides in all cases need to do their job and get their discovery to the other side in a timely manner NOT that outside testing, experts and more and schedules can't cause some things but some of it is simply the parties doing such or buying time and delaying. It's b.s.

I don't know that I agree with the law here that defense has to give prosecution nothing until prosecution has given all. Not sure I've ever heard of that. Actually I am sure I've never known of such or if it is common I've sure never heard it. And I don't think I agree with it.

I was falling asleep but I think Lee also said and I think as well, there's a good chance this trial is not going to go off on time.

Again I don't have a horse in the race and you may well have it right and I certainly don't know it inside and out although I've watched plenty. Even now it hasn't "taken" me to where I am more than interested and invested or anything. I ended up watching that or starting to last night simply because I couldn't find anything else new on or anything else to watch quite honestly. And because a couple here do have passion about it and a belief (you for instance) I clicked in.

I have tried and do watch, I just am not overly swayed in one direction or the other or convinced. In some cases I am decided. In this one, I would need the trial I think. There are things on both sides that bring questions, I guess if anything that does show at this point, it hasn't been strongly proven beyond a reasonable doubt but it also hasn't been tried yet.

I do have a question. If the search for how long to die from exposure or whatever it was was done at a time that will blow the case out of the water then why would that not have been used by now to do so and get it dismissed? Surely that's known by the parties? Maybe not by the public but it is by them. And imo that would definitely be something that would be used if that was the case.

Anyhow sorry for the lengthy post. If you believe her innocent, I hope she's found innocent. In this one, I'm not going to claim to know. I don't see it but I do see where enough doubt can maybe be raised. Depending on the evidence though and the experts and so on and I also will say what is being sold to the public is only from one side just as goes on in Delphi.

I (groan) am back to work today and haven't gotten over the last week. I hope you have a wonderful day and thanks for the chatting and discussion!

I heard about the STS video but didn't watch it. Most of my information came from the Podcast Conspiracy in Canton by Brandi Churchwell. She provided facts based on public documents. A legal perspective is always good to have as well.

From a military & law enforcement family this case raised red flags from the beginning with the lead investigator. From there the 'facts' unravel due to his bias and relationship with the homeowners and the party participants. It doesn't pass the feel right test imo.

I'll be watching this trial instead of Daybell because of the weight this case could present in the future.

As for your question about the kids, John adopted his niece & nephew and was raising them alone. Karen was the girlfriend who helped.

The time that google search isn't enough to have a grand jury indictment dismissed however it will be used during witness testimony.

If Lally can't get the test results by trial then the Judge can exclude that evidence and proceed with the trial.

John's parents haven't made public statements that I'm aware of however I believe they want justice to be served.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

You are far more invested in this one than I and so I take that into consideration. However, you see frame jobs everywhere, no offense. Because @kdg411 sees such, I give it some weight again no offense, but it is a common mantra with you. Because you think it in some that I do know well and don't see the same, unfortunately I don't automatically fall in line with you. Well not unfortunaely lol, I woudn't anyhow, I think for myself but am open to NEW info in cases, not talking about this one necessarily.

I will say look at the hair thing in LISK though and that's a thought. If not some reason like that, then yes they should have had this done by now.

I don't know what she was talking about when I dropped off but I didn't finish Lee's. I was in quite a ways but was so tired I was falling asleep on and off. I don't recall the grand jury thing but have heard her talk of such before in cases.

Even so I can say with regard to O/T Ramsey, yes it was hokey or hinky, the DA buried the decision and didn't share it and decided to ignore it as if held all the power in one position to do so. Disgusting.

Lee is good and she's fair. I knew of course you'd both like Melanie Little as she espouses all the beliefs here that you who think Karen innocent do and why. I have heard it, I have shared her many a time.

I'm still not convinced but I am also not convinced the prosecution can prove its case but we have yet to see that.

As I've said before it is the problem with dirty or those who abuse their positions, it can be used if known to cast doubt on what may well be real evidence and so on. This would be a pretty big conspiracy that would take a lot and just to frame a woman they knew instead of someone else. It's a lot to swallow/buy.

And again I'm not as invested as you both are but in a way that may also give me a clearer lens. In cases I am invested in of course that differs and you are invested. I don't not care but I also don't care like I get invested in some. That in no way means I don't care about railroading, framing, corruption etc. That's not what I mean.

I don't have a like for all these people but that also includes Read and sadly the victim. I don't mean I hate them either, I just think they all feel or did (including her) special and above and protected. She found out it did not extend that far.

Maybe that's part of my thing with it. But then I really don't have a thing with it. It isn't a case of true innocents or of true innocence. Too bad her and John didn't just go home. Or she attend with him and at least see him inside, greet and take her leave. If only. Right?

Again I don't know. I'm interested sort of but not invested to any point I feel I have a strong bias. I am so not invested that yeah, I could just go with you and it won't kill me but I just haven't seen any reason to lean hard one way. Have they brought it to the middle and created some reasonable doubt, sure. Has either side convinced me? No. And it is still far more likely that she struck him. Of course that's not the same as being a juror and being convinced enough to convict but we haven't seen all yet either. For me, the jury is still out on this one. I'm not sold. I do have things I look at like what such a conspiracy would take, what is more likely and makes more sense, their relationship, their drinking and the fact she didn't attend with him and very likely was angry he wanted to go. All of that makes more sense to me. Sorry.

Doesn't mean I could convict. In this one, I'd have to be a real juror and fairly hear the facts to decide. In some, as you know, I am pretty convinced prior. Have a good day. I get to work.

Casey Anthony
Lori and Chad Daybell
The Montgomery case
Mark Redwine
The child shot on the freeway trial...

I could go on, but I don't find frame jobs everywhere. I do where there is evidence that things don't make sense.

Delphi
This case
I don't know them all, but all of the cases where the Boston technician fabricated evidence, or could have fabricated evidence. (100s of them or more.)
The case of the woman who videotaped an arrest here in Rochester.
The cases in the Crimes by the Justice System thread.
WM3
I could go on, but you should get the point.



No offense, but you buy whatever the state says as absolute truth.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I heard about the STS video but didn't watch it. Most of my information came from the Podcast Conspiracy in Canton by Brandi Churchwell. She provided facts based on public documents. A legal perspective is always good to have as well.

From a military & law enforcement family this case raised red flags from the beginning with the lead investigator. From there the 'facts' unravel due to his bias and relationship with the homeowners and the party participants. It doesn't pass the feel right test imo.

I'll be watching this trial instead of Daybell because of the weight this case could present in the future.

As for your question about the kids, John adopted his niece & nephew and was raising them alone. Karen was the girlfriend who helped.

The time that google search isn't enough to have a grand jury indictment dismissed however it will be used during witness testimony.

If Lally can't get the test results by trial then the Judge can exclude that evidence and proceed with the trial.

John's parents haven't made public statements that I'm aware of however I believe they want justice to be served.

It was a fiery video and one woman on it was very irritating, interrupting, etc. but it was far from dull. Generally I dont go for sensational but if you see their shows you'd know it wasn't meant to be.

I respect the red flags, the instinct and the fact there was a relationship between some of these people and I DO SEE that. And I DO think the "house" needs to be cleaned of these people. That part I don't dispute, believe me. And get how believing that and seeing that can raise doubt with anything that comes from such people.

That isn't where it fails for me and there's ample reason to think such power abusing people could frame or pull anything but it doesn't mean they did here. It's one thing to help your friends, abuse your position for your own wants and so forth but an entirely different thing to see a fellow cop of many killed, cover it up and blame and frame his gf. That's the sticking point for me. Why? Why did anyone kill him at a party with people? Why did they frame her rather than someone else? Apparently they all had it I for both of them.

I DO see all the red flags and I DO see the dirty types. Such exists sadly in more places than we think and anywhere power is involved by some. However, it is a big leap for me from that to murdering someone they knew and framing someone they knew.

Is the time of the Google search known? Last I saw emu was saying IF we find it was a such and such a time they are toast so to speak. So I thought it unknown to us. What time was it in relation to all else?

It is difficult for me to put into words but I AM on board with more or less all you see. I am not sold she didnt' hit him though and that all evidence was manufactured, she framed, he murdered at the party and so on.

As far as I'm concerned the victim and Karen were part of the same bunch, maybe not to the level higher ups were but a cop and a gf that can drink to excess and drive, have an open container, fight, go to party on and so forth expecting no repercussion as they were part of the immune. That I have to say bothers me to no end.

Perhaps she didn't kill him but it's hard to ignore she drank to excess, dropped him off, did not go with him, never went in with him and he was found dead outside. They knew this and took advantage of it? I just can't quite make so much that has to be explained fit.

WHY? Why did they? Were they all trying to take both John and his gf down? I don't know if I am putting things right but this is where it all falls down for me.

But do know I do see the dirty and the red flags. I fail to see though why that would involve doing this or killing a cop you knew and framing his gf who you also knew.

ALL in good discussion of course.

And again I'm not overly heated with this one so no worries. If she's innocent I hope she's found not guilty. IF she's not and it is clear she isn't then I hope the jury does its job that way as well.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Casey Anthony
Lori and Chad Daybell
The Montgomery case
Mark Redwine
The child shot on the freeway trial...

I could go on, but I don't find frame jobs everywhere. I do where there is evidence that things don't make sense.

Delphi
This case
I don't know them all, but all of the cases where the Boston technician fabricated evidence, or could have fabricated evidence. (100s of them or more.)
The case of the woman who videotaped an arrest here in Rochester.
The cases in the Crimes by the Justice System thread.
WM3
I could go on, but you should get the point.



No offense, but you buy whatever the state says as absolute truth.

No I absolutely don't with the state. I do feel there is enough to charge and bring a case almost always or they would not bring it to begin with like the DA continues to refuse to in Michael Vaughan's case where the cops want him to and feel they have enough or so it appears. It is far more common cases are NOT charged until ample evidence or even more than it should take.

I've seen plenty of corrupt and crooked in my life in local office. I've also seen the very same do the right thing with cases even while living a corrupt power abusing life for their gain, etc.

And not so far back you weren't seeing frame jobs everywhere.

Don't miss Jodi Arias, OJ and Scott Peterson. Or do you think any of those three framed or innocent?

There's a balance. Do I lean towards the prosecution side? Of course. Because for the most part those who actually have charges brought there is already a ton of evidence for. Do I lean for the victims? Of course and I don't understand a soul who doesn't. And towards justice? You bet.

If I had any time, I'd spelll out what I see right now but let's just do this one. She just happened to not go to a party that apparently both were invited to and welcome at. and dropped him off. How many people were there at this point and never see him? But defense claims he made it in and for some reason someone gets in a fight with him and murders him. Then they all collude to frame Karen, again how many? I could give a much more point by point with time and brain but have to start getting ready for work. Over time it also extends UP to more corruption and collusion.

Karen believed and wasn't sure she didn't hit him whatsoever from what I recall first learning in this one. Unfortunate so drunk and/or angry that she apparently believed she did.

I'll say this--arguments can be made in either direction and well made imo.

And dirty people (and there are some) don't make for a case people are going to trust their word on. I DO GET THAT.

Even getting all that I still think she likely hit him. The fact they are dirty, there are connections and other things gives her and the defense a ripe playing field to use that. It still doesn't mean she did't hit him.

And I'm going to be brutally honest and probably won't be well received by some--but I don't entirely sympathize with the likes of her or of him. I DO but what I mean is their own choices that night certainly played a part. All make mistakes but just think if they'd only gone home and to bed. Or not gone out as drinking and driving cops and their honies. Yes, that's judgmental. Yes I'm sorry he's dead. Yes, if she is innocent I hope she is not wrongfully convicted. I've simply not decided that she is. There's plenty of reason here to believe either direction. There certainly are questions and reasons for doubt, I don't deny that. And I'm not convicting as a juror. I'm simply not sold on the fact she is innocent and that's really all. That being said I'm also not a juror convinced by all the evidence that she's guilty either. Trial would probably make me go one way or the other if I got to see it. And it's why I think this one needs to be tried.

I'm probably at a 60/40 or 55/45 split. Maybe a tad higher.

In no way am I set solid. You're more that way at least in this one. In some you are all over the place depending on what you see that day. NO offense. I never go 100 until case over, tried, convicted, all facts and evidence allowed seen and known. I am lol 99.9 on Daybells. So yeah there's some.

And I'm not always happy with the State. By a long shot. Or judges. By a long shot. Or screw ups. By a long shot.

I'm extremely unhappy with the loss of things in Delphi. I am extremely unhappy a probably emotionally affected by murders of multiple children cop got Doerman's confession thrown out.

I've seen prosecutors I don't like and judges as well. I don't like Judge Boyce. And it can't be said it's because he leans towards defense because he doesn't. I ddin't like the state or prosecutors in Crumbley mom. I haven't watched any of dad's.

Anyhow, I've really got to get moving. Too much time on this.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

No I absolutely don't with the state. I do feel there is enough to charge and bring a case almost always or they would not bring it to begin with like the DA continues to refuse to in Michael Vaughan's case where the cops want him to and feel they have enough or so it appears. It is far more common cases are NOT charged until ample evidence or even more than it should take.

I've seen plenty of corrupt and crooked in my life in local office. I've also seen the very same do the right thing with cases even while living a corrupt power abusing life for their gain, etc.

And not so far back you weren't seeing frame jobs everywhere.

Don't miss Jodi Arias, OJ and Scott Peterson. Or do you think any of those three framed or innocent?

There's a balance. Do I lean towards the prosecution side? Of course. Because for the most part those who actually have charges brought there is already a ton of evidence for. Do I lean for the victims? Of course and I don't understand a soul who doesn't. And towards justice? You bet.

If I had any time, I'd spelll out what I see right now but let's just do this one. She just happened to not go to a party that apparently both were invited to and welcome at. and dropped him off. How many people were there at this point and never see him? But defense claims he made it in and for some reason someone gets in a fight with him and murders him. Then they all collude to frame Karen, again how many? I could give a much more point by point with time and brain but have to start getting ready for work. Over time it also extends UP to more corruption and collusion.

Karen believed and wasn't sure she didn't hit him whatsoever from what I recall first learning in this one. Unfortunate so drunk and/or angry that she apparently believed she did.

I'll say this--arguments can be made in either direction and well made imo.

And dirty people (and there are some) don't make for a case people are going to trust their word on. I DO GET THAT.

Even getting all that I still think she likely hit him. The fact they are dirty, there are connections and other things gives her and the defense a ripe playing field to use that. It still doesn't mean she did't hit him.

And I'm going to be brutally honest and probably won't be well received by some--but I don't entirely sympathize with the likes of her or of him. I DO but what I mean is their own choices that night certainly played a part. All make mistakes but just think if they'd only gone home and to bed. Or not gone out as drinking and driving cops and their honies. Yes, that's judgmental. Yes I'm sorry he's dead. Yes, if she is innocent I hope she is not wrongfully convicted. I've simply not decided that she is. There's plenty of reason here to believe either direction. There certainly are questions and reasons for doubt, I don't deny that. And I'm not convicting as a juror. I'm simply not sold on the fact she is innocent and that's really all. That being said I'm also not a juror convinced by all the evidence that she's guilty either. Trial would probably make me go one way or the other if I got to see it. And it's why I think this one needs to be tried.

I'm probably at a 60/40 or 55/45 split. Maybe a tad higher.

In no way am I set solid. You're more that way at least in this one. In some you are all over the place depending on what you see that day. NO offense. I never go 100 until case over, tried, convicted, all facts and evidence allowed seen and known. I am lol 99.9 on Daybells. So yeah there's some.

And I'm not always happy with the State. By a long shot. Or judges. By a long shot. Or screw ups. By a long shot.

I'm extremely unhappy with the loss of things in Delphi. I am extremely unhappy a probably emotionally affected by murders of multiple children cop got Doerman's confession thrown out.

I've seen prosecutors I don't like and judges as well. I don't like Judge Boyce. And it can't be said it's because he leans towards defense because he doesn't. I ddin't like the state or prosecutors in Crumbley mom. I haven't watched any of dad's.

Anyhow, I've really got to get moving. Too much time on this.

I guess we just disagree. If you look at the innocence project a lot of the time cops just want A guy or gal arrested whether they're the guilty party or not. It happens a lot more than you think.

In extreme cases they'll manufacture evidence and/or manipulate evidence. The guilty party in WM3 case could probably be tried and convicted, but then the state would have to admit they were responsible for railroading the three guys. So the real murderer is out there and he'll get away with that crime until he dies and he'll be forgotten to the sands of time.

I want THE person responsible tried and convicted.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I guess we just disagree. If you look at the innocence project a lot of the time cops just want A guy or gal arrested whether they're the guilty party or not. It happens a lot more than you think.

In extreme cases they'll manufacture evidence and/or manipulate evidence. The guilty party in WM3 case could probably be tried and convicted, but then the state would have to admit they were responsible for railroading the three guys. So the real murderer is out there and he'll get away with that crime until he dies and he'll be forgotten to the sands of time.

I want THE person responsible tried and convicted.

Yeah and I take TV for what it is worth which is little as your own VInnie said about how he could skew such a show the same way very easily. What is also what defense does in cases and is doing now here and in Delphi.

I'm not an all or nothing or do I believe MOST cases and charges are wrongful ones. YES sometimes they just want to clear their case and it has happened but there are tons more never solved when they could manufacture evidence against someone. The world also gets far more hard to do it in with everyone watching and calling such out with internet and all.

We do just disagree and that's fine. I've also said in this one I'm not convinced either way nor set in stone.

I've seen you cite the WM3 a million times. I guess because it is the key one you can cite. I think it's the LA Innocence Project that took on Scott Peterson. I'm curious do you think him innocent?

Delphi had no reason for out of the blue framing RA in this one. They'd been years with no solving nor answers and it came when no new pressure was on and right after all the KK stuff. And tell me this, so many think them inept as well, do you honestly think this Delphi bunch is capable of framing Allen? Did they make himself put himself there? You know I could go on. We both could.

I look or try to at each case on its own. They are all different. The area is different, the cops are different, the crimes are different. The evidence is different. And I'll repeat one more time that in cases that have no been tried or little shared by prosecutors we most definitely don't know all that some think we do when it only comes from defense spin. It's a lot these same here. We haven't seen this tried. BUT I will say I'd suspect such in this one LONG before I would in Delphi but even then I dont' have enough to go there or go fully either way.

I'll also say this, what we do and say here I'd never be like as a juror. I'd need all the evidence we think we know of confirmed and enough of it to convict someone and affect their life forever.

There's enough in Delphi imo though and that's just what we know. There's also enough here from what I've heard but of course they're trying to call into quesiton all of it being manufactured by dirty cops etc.

The fact his parents haven't spoken would hint to me they believe Karen did this and they are prosecution sided. That holds a bit of weight with me. Victims dont' want the wrong person accused, they want to know THE PERSON is facing justice. And it's prosecution that suggests quiet to victims' families. Lived it. And it's the toughest darned thing.

I've asked before but I guess no one has the answer. John was part of this department. If some other cop had been killed by another person in this group and he was there and alive, would he participate in framing thath cop's gf too and manufacturing evidence? Because that's pretty much what is being said here was done. This isn't some unknown victim to them this is a coworker, a part of the same system, known to them, I assume a friend and a brother in blue. It isn't quite these same as the WM3 or say framing someone for just anyone's murder you want to clear. This was one of theirs.

I have to go. And fly to get ready.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

The WM3 case is the one I'm most familiar with because three theater released documentaries have been made about the case, and I've seen them. It's also the blueprint for what lazy cops do. There was a guy reportedly covered in mud and blood (No, really this happened in the WM3 case.) who went into a BoJangles(?) restaurant bathroom. It was reported to police, but they never followed up on it.

A lot of the time it's not framing, it's laziness. In this case I honestly believe it's framing and the FBI should let us know if it is or isn't eventually.

In the WM3 case it was laziness combined with altering facts of the case to make them fit:




I couldn't find the second part.




Misskelly's confession required some officers to change the times listed in their reports of when and where they were during the search for the kids. So it's a little of both.

Misskelly has a 72 IQ. Police often take advantage of low IQ suspects to pull false confessions out of them.


As to why the parents of the killed officer haven't spoken out, there are a lot of reasons why they haven't. If they believe she's guilty that would be the least reason to not speak out, JMO

 

[GrandmaBear]

The WM3 case is the one I'm most familiar with because three theater released documentaries have been made about the case, and I've seen them. It's also the blueprint for what lazy cops do. There was a guy reportedly covered in mud and blood (No, really this happened in the WM3 case.) who went into a BoJangles(?) restaurant bathroom. It was reported to police, but they never followed up on it.

A lot of the time it's not framing, it's laziness. In this case I honestly believe it's framing and the FBI should let us know if it is or isn't eventually.

In the WM3 case it was laziness combined with altering facts of the case to make them fit:




I couldn't find the second part.




Misskelly's confession required some officers to change the times listed in their reports of when and where they were during the search for the kids. So it's a little of both.

Misskelly has a 72 IQ. Police often take advantage of low IQ suspects to pull false confessions out of them.


As to why the parents of the killed officer haven't spoken out, there are a lot of reasons why they haven't. If they believe she's guilty that would be the least reason to not speak out, JMO

It looks interesting and it isn't that I don't care but it's not my thing and I don't have time. And watching it isn't going to have me start thinking it in every case or that it goes on constantly..

CIting the one case all the time imo makes it appear they haven't overturned too many. Maybe not the case, but sure makes it appear that way.

I assure you if they think they have the right suspect, then that IS the reason they'd be quiet so as not to risk the investigation, conviction and at LE's not demand but urging and most families don't ignore that becuase they fear doing something that would affect justice for their loved one. We LIVED it and it was awful to go on and stay silent for months while the suspect and his side ran PR and lies. And that's exactly what his parents have to deal with here, listen to all the defense stuff and major media and news on such while staying mum. They aren't going to consider Karen the victim's family, it would be his parents as she is the suspect and they'll share judiciously with them. I'd say there's a very high percentage of likelihood they believe she did this based on their silence. Do you notice with all the b.s. in Delphi, you don't hear the Pattys nor Abby's mom commenting either these days once there was an arrest or not much since then anyhow. Same thing and reasons I'd bet on it.

You didn't respond about whether you think Scott Peterson guilty. That's an innocence project case. I guess I could go look back at the thread but not a priority right now.

I'm not saying it never happens but there's nothing that's convinced me in either Delphi or this one. I await trial to see all. You say I am all state and what it is more so is it is ONLY one side that all of this is coming from, it isn't both, it's the defense's show and intentional circus always, that's the problem. The only time both are going to be seen and all facts is at trial.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

It looks interesting and it isn't that I don't care but it's not my thing and I don't have time. And watching it isn't going to have me start thinking it in every case or that it goes on constantly..

CIting the one case all the time imo makes it appear they haven't overturned too many. Maybe not the case, but sure makes it appear that way.

I assure you if they think they have the right suspect, then that IS the reason they'd be quiet so as not to risk the investigation, conviction and at LE's not demand but urging and most families don't ignore that becuase they fear doing something that would affect justice for their loved one. We LIVED it and it was awful to go on and stay silent for months while the suspect and his side ran PR and lies. And that's exactly what his parents have to deal with here, listen to all the defense stuff and major media and news on such while staying mum. They aren't going to consider Karen the victim's family, it would be his parents as she is the suspect and they'll share judiciously with them. I'd say there's a very high percentage of likelihood they believe she did this based on their silence. Do you notice with all the b.s. in Delphi, you don't hear the Pattys nor Abby's mom commenting either these days once there was an arrest or not much since then anyhow. Same thing and reasons I'd bet on it.

You didn't respond about whether you think Scott Peterson guilty. That's an innocence project case. I guess I could go look back at the thread but not a priority right now.

I'm not saying it never happens but there's nothing that's convinced me in either Delphi or this one. I await trial to see all. You say I am all state and what it is more so is it is ONLY one side that all of this is coming from, it isn't both, it's the defense's show and intentional circus always, that's the problem. The only time both are going to be seen and all facts is at trial.

I do believe Peterson is guilty. Somebody from Jonestown visited the Peterson's home soon after Scott's arrest. She took a picture that was used in the trial to help convict him. She didn't even know she'd done that. I forget how the prosecution found out about it and was able to use it. IIRC, it was a picture of bags of cement near the house. @Kimster probably knows more. @SheWhoMustNotBeNamed may know as well.

I didn't answer the question because I went to look for an article on Peterson's appeal. I found it: (Then I got drawn down a rabbit hole in the Delphi case that I've posted about and forgot to come back here.)

Los Angeles Innocence Project takes Scott Peterson case up 21 years after wife’s murder

Non-profit says it is investigating 51-year-old’s ‘claim of actual innocence’ over high-profile killing of pregnant wife

www.theguardian.com

You're right the L.A. Innocence project is taking a look at it because it appears the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. It just says they're looking into it. Every case they look into isn't overturned. A lot have been.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I do believe Peterson is guilty. Somebody from Jonestown visited the Peterson's home soon after Scott's arrest. She took a picture that was used in the trial to help convict him. She didn't even know she'd done that. I forget how the prosecution found out about it and was able to use it. IIRC, it was a picture of bags of cement near the house. @Kimster probably knows more. @SheWhoMustNotBeNamed may know as well.

I didn't answer the question because I went to look for an article on Peterson's appeal. I found it: (Then I got drawn down a rabbit hole in the Delphi case that I've posted about and forgot to come back here.)

Los Angeles Innocence Project takes Scott Peterson case up 21 years after wife’s murder

Non-profit says it is investigating 51-year-old’s ‘claim of actual innocence’ over high-profile killing of pregnant wife

www.theguardian.com

You're right the L.A. Innocence project is taking a look at it because it appears the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. It just says they're looking into it. Every case they look into isn't overturned. A lot have been.

He's guilty in my book. Your wife and son float up where you just happened to say you were fishing and at a time who would go fishing to begin with.

And a whole lot else. Much of course or all is more circumstantial but there was plenty.

You know, part of what goes on today is what they deem exculpatory. And like in Daybelll Prior yelled about something forEVER and finally got it. Much of it is so unlikely stuff that LE naturally excluded that nowadays you have to tell them if someone sneezed two blocks away. And it has not gotten easier for LE and prosecutors, it has gotten harder. And cops hands are tired in many cases as to many a thing that is beyond. Now that's good when one is dirty but it's going beyond. There has to be a balance and not go to one side of the pendulum to the other as to rights, ability to do job and fairness. And to investigate and try.

I think the O thing in Delphi is ludicrous for instance. Yes they have some not high IQ I think is what is said guy who said what if he spit on Abby or some such but that's it. They can't place them there or remove Allen and there are more than likely alibis that exclude such. Yet they accused them and named them outright as responsible. And ensured the public saw it first almost. There is NOTHING about that that is okay. All the gone too far needs to be dialed back and this is not a movie, it's OUR justice system. I think I said somewhere in the last week and I've said it before, I want a fair trial. In all cases. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of someone railroaded, wrongly accused and so on. NEVER nor would I want anyone I know to be. BUT there is so much missed with what is defense bluster and trying the case with the public and press and selective info and even lies and they KNOW the prosecution is not going to come back with the facts they HAVE to refute because they keep the case buttoned up. Defense uses that and knows that. They talk out of one side of their mouth screaming of a tainted jury pool and publicity and change of venue but then THEY go and taint it. Look what Prior just did and Boyce had to issue a gag order.

All I'm saying is in Delphi and in this case, it is ALL coming from the defense. And no one imo should just automatically buy everything they state or say.

In this one yeah some dirty has been shown but it still doesn't mean all involved are or she wasn't charged for very real reasons. I also have said I'm never 100 percent, it will take trial for me in this one. And in Delphi. And yes, BECAUSE prosecutors NEED enough to charge (they are elected after all) and to meet a burden of probable cause, in MOST cases that's already a step towards probably having the right defendant. Of course there are examples of sheer corruption or laziness or combo as you say. What year by the way was the WM3 charged?

 

[Cousin Dupree]

He's guilty in my book. Your wife and son float up where you just happened to say you were fishing and at a time who would go fishing to begin with.

And a whole lot else. Much of course or all is more circumstantial but there was plenty.

You know, part of what goes on today is what they deem exculpatory. And like in Daybelll Prior yelled about something forEVER and finally got it. Much of it is so unlikely stuff that LE naturally excluded that nowadays you have to tell them if someone sneezed two blocks away. And it has not gotten easier for LE and prosecutors, it has gotten harder. And cops hands are tired in many cases as to many a thing that is beyond. Now that's good when one is dirty but it's going beyond. There has to be a balance and not go to one side of the pendulum to the other as to rights, ability to do job and fairness. And to investigate and try.

I think the O thing in Delphi is ludicrous for instance. Yes they have some not high IQ I think is what is said guy who said what if he spit on Abby or some such but that's it. They can't place them there or remove Allen and there are more than likely alibis that exclude such. Yet they accused them and named them outright as responsible. And ensured the public saw it first almost. There is NOTHING about that that is okay. All the gone too far needs to be dialed back and this is not a movie, it's OUR justice system. I think I said somewhere in the last week and I've said it before, I want a fair trial. In all cases. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of someone railroaded, wrongly accused and so on. NEVER nor would I want anyone I know to be. BUT there is so much missed with what is defense bluster and trying the case with the public and press and selective info and even lies and they KNOW the prosecution is not going to come back with the facts they HAVE to refute because they keep the case buttoned up. Defense uses that and knows that. They talk out of one side of their mouth screaming of a tainted jury pool and publicity and change of venue but then THEY go and taint it. Look what Prior just did and Boyce had to issue a gag order.

All I'm saying is in Delphi and in this case, it is ALL coming from the defense. And no one imo should just automatically buy everything they state or say.

In this one yeah some dirty has been shown but it still doesn't mean all involved are or she wasn't charged for very real reasons. I also have said I'm never 100 percent, it will take trial for me in this one. And in Delphi. And yes, BECAUSE prosecutors NEED enough to charge (they are elected after all) and to meet a burden of probable cause, in MOST cases that's already a step towards probably having the right defendant. Of course there are examples of sheer corruption or laziness or combo as you say. What year by the way was the WM3 charged?

Not to mention the weather when he chose to go "fishing" .

 

[GrandmaBear]

Not to mention the weather when he chose to go "fishing" .

We can agree on that one. Can't on much else lately but that one yep.

A Christmas fishing trip a pregnant wife cement an so much more. A gf. Tons more. Scott was in Paris, not having a wife and then at some point she died. Not saying an affair alone is enough but when you wrap all in that case togethe, there is plenty. Tons. More than enough.

I cannot imagine how sick Laceys' family is right now with the b.s going on. There are other sides to things just saying.

And while yeah anything done wrong in the process that the Innocence Project would take up Peterson, imagine if they took up Arias, I have to look at it and balance it.

Peterson had GERAGOS. He did not lack an attorney.

This sh*t has to be weighed and looked at and it may sound dumb but simplified

There is a whole shift due to the crap that all are wrongfully convicted or charged for some and this or that was violated but at the same time there is release of multiple offenders or murderers even and hands tied for GOOD cops and prosecutors.

I am upset as HE77 in Doerman his confession got thrown out but we all saw he approach the house with reports of killing his three boys and him sitting there calmly. Can I understand the emotion and finding babies slaughtered? You bet. Went to work in a nothing exciting area only to have that happen?

I don't know if I have a point, said it in another thread, I am so wiped. But things have gone too far in all directions. And we all I guess have our instincts and perhaps biases. So you think Scott guilty but not RA? Scott wasn't framed but you think RA may have been. There's more solid evidence against RA than Scott. The gun matched, he places self there. Scott in time placed himself at the bay but there were not the witnesss and video as there is in Delphi.

I'd say you pick and choose. And we all have some biases but I think almost all of us here mostly judge in what we see in each case and try not to use blinders. Well MOST DO. Not sure about all.

And we don't have to agree. It would be boring as HE77 if that's how it had to be. I for one wouldn't stay if I had to be some wallflower milk toast type with no opinion.

 

[Kimster]

I do believe Peterson is guilty. Somebody from Jonestown visited the Peterson's home soon after Scott's arrest. She took a picture that was used in the trial to help convict him. She didn't even know she'd done that. I forget how the prosecution found out about it and was able to use it. IIRC, it was a picture of bags of cement near the house. @Kimster probably knows more. @SheWhoMustNotBeNamed may know as well.

I didn't answer the question because I went to look for an article on Peterson's appeal. I found it: (Then I got drawn down a rabbit hole in the Delphi case that I've posted about and forgot to come back here.)

Los Angeles Innocence Project takes Scott Peterson case up 21 years after wife’s murder

Non-profit says it is investigating 51-year-old’s ‘claim of actual innocence’ over high-profile killing of pregnant wife

www.theguardian.com

You're right the L.A. Innocence project is taking a look at it because it appears the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. It just says they're looking into it. Every case they look into isn't overturned. A lot have been.

I wasn’t following the Peterson trial online. Before my Internet presence time.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I wasn’t following the Peterson trial online. Before my Internet presence time.

Lol. I never saw it on the internet either. I watched it on that archaic thing called television/on cable.

Had internet been prevalent I am pretty sure Scott would have been using it for bad purposes. Porn, dating sites and more. Imo it's pretty easy to see who and what Scott is. Probably where to ide a body and so on--however, he is also so full of himself and thinks himself charismatic and smart that perhaps that one he wouldn't have looked up. He is one that from the get go, I took an instant dislike to and an unusual instant strong conviction that he was guilty. Even before Laci's own family came to realize or show at least the same and had turned on him. He's JUST obvious. Fair or unfair that's how I felt.

Watching him at trial wasn't much different and was disgusting. Juror flirting, little concern, convinced of his shallow surface abilityi to charm and impress. That man would be beome or made quite a serial killer.

I'm sure he swept Amber off her feet and probably did the same for Laci as well. i'm also sure it was HE77 at home for Laci IF she'd come to realizing any of his true nature. I almost hope she hadn't.

His parents, I'm sorry, especially mom, totally enabling. I felt sorry for both sets of parents and that's a fact but I also mean what I just said here.

O/T I know but just adding to the parts about him or innocence and wrongful convictions. I had and have a very strong opinion on him and he is one I think most do. I'm sure he fails to understand who so many can see through him he is or was SOOOO convinced of his "talents". I don't like buzz words or labels but he is a true psychopath or sociopath and all else or whatever the popular new term is now.

Also O/T. Happy Easter everyone!

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I wasn’t following the Peterson trial online. Before my Internet presence time.

I don't think anyone could back then. I thought you might know who it was that took the picture used in trial. She told me about it, but I don't remember who it was.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don't think anyone could back then. I thought you might know who it was that took the picture used in trial. She told me about it, but I don't remember who it was.

Every case and trial back then I watched on TV, not on internet. Peterson, OJ etc.

 

[kdg411]

Does anyone wonder why witness statements/interviews in this case were not recorded? Also, doesn't it raise red flags when witness statements change several times throughout the investigation?

 

[Guess Who]

Does anyone wonder why witness statements/interviews in this case were not recorded? Also, doesn't it raise red flags when witness statements change several times throughout the investigation?

Some changes in statements "might" be caused from thinking about things that you hadn't thought was important it remembered something else that you hadn't when initially interviewed. Time can make a difference to memories, too. Others telling you their stories might make you either remember other aspects or cloud your own memory. I would have to ask the person why their version changed and take into account of how long between they were interviewed. It would definitely make me question the changes.

A recording should be a requirement with no exceptions.