Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *MISTRIAL*

1691951367971.png

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is normal to ask when the last drink was consumed when taking a blood sample for testing purposes otherwise it would be pointless to take the sample. These are standard procedures re driving under the influence.

Nothing standard is done here.
 
It is normal to ask when the last drink was consumed when taking a blood sample for testing purposes otherwise it would be pointless to take the sample. These are standard procedures re driving under the influence.
It's also normal to not edit videos and it's also normal for them to be trained on proper procedure for evidence collection but they obviously didn't do anything "normal" in this case so we can't assume that they did ask her. We just can't because of their other actions and inactions.
 
We also have everybody that testified saying she did not appear drunk at all. If her BA content was actually that high, wouldn't you assume at least one of those cops would have noticed...as they are trained to do?

She should have appeared sh!t faced.
 
That in no way works if she drank later though. It's very possible (but not very likely) she wasn't drunk at all at midnight. She very well could have drank at 5am for all we know.
Her last drink was at 12.45 according to the post by kdg. There is no point taking a BAC level without asking the suspect when they last had an alcoholic drink. That is standard police procedure. She wasnt seen by LE till 9am.
 
Her last drink was at 12.45 according to the post by kdg. There is no point taking a BAC level without asking the suspect when they last had an alcoholic drink. That is standard police procedure. She wasnt seen by LE till 9am.
STANDARD is the key word here. They did absolutely nothing standard and that is why I can't possibly assume that they did.
Isn't it standard procedure to properly log evidence? Isn't it standard procedure to call in CSI and not a search and rescue team to look for evidence in a death? Isn't it standard procedure to not purposely alter a video? Isn't it standard procedure to check neighborhood video to see if what happened was recorded?

Need I go on?
 
All they need to do is work backwards to work out what her BAC was at the time she dropped him off. Did they do that? The body gets rid of approx one drink per hour so her BAC would have been at least 8 drinks higher at 1 am, for example.


ETA I see Kdg alteady posted this.

Based on a police report that suggested her last drink was at 12:45 a.m., her peak blood alcohol level would have been between .135% and .292%, he said.

Þ
Screenshot_20240629-001747_Samsung Internet.jpg

This indicates that her BAC of between .135 and .292 could mean at least 5 drinks or more 4 hours prior. If she was tested at 9 am then 8.5 hours earlier would be less.

So they had the data and technology to determine her sobriety. What they don't appear to have is the evidence that she ran him over at all.
 
Last edited:
It's also normal to not edit videos and it's also normal for them to be trained on proper procedure for evidence collection but they obviously didn't do anything "normal" in this case so we can't assume that they did ask her. We just can't because of their other actions and inactions.
We can't assume they didnt ask her either. If they took her BAC at 9a.m. it would be pointless without the other factor for the calculation. Without it they couldn't have arrested or even charged her. Her lawyers would have challenged that straight away.
 
STANDARD is the key word here. They did absolutely nothing standard and that is why I can't possibly assume that they did.
Isn't it standard procedure to properly log evidence? Isn't it standard procedure to call in CSI and not a search and rescue team to look for evidence in a death? Isn't it standard procedure to not purposely alter a video? Isn't it standard procedure to check neighborhood video to see if what happened was recorded?

Need I go on?
If none of this was done, why didn't her lawyers challenge it and get it thrown out then?
 
If none of this was done, why didn't her lawyers challenge it and get it thrown out then?
Did you not see anything that happened in the trial? It is documented that they did none of that. They even admitted to most of it was not done when defense asked them point blank on the stand and there is so much more. That was just what was in my mind at the time.
 
If none of this was done, why didn't her lawyers challenge it and get it thrown out then?
I've seen at least once where he did try to get it dismissed. How do you know there weren't more times? If a prosecutor wants a case tried, he's going to try it no matter what the defense squawks about.

The FBI is involved for a reason here.
 
Did you not see anything that happened in the trial? It is documented that they did none of that. They even admitted to most of it was not done when defense asked them point blank on the stand and there is so much more. That was just what was in my mind at the time.
Her lawyers didn't challenge any of the evidence? Is that what you are saying? No I haven't seen anything in the trial. I thought she had s**t hot private lawyers, it was said.

So you are saying she had ineffective counsel?

And that is the reason for the FBI involvement ?
 
Last edited:
Her lawyers didn't challenge any of the evidence? Is that what you are saying? No I haven't seen anything in the trial.
That is exactly what they did on cross and when it was their turn to present their case. They challenged nearly every single thing the prosecution presented and brought in experts that refuted nearly everything the prosecution presented. It's documented throughout this entire thread. Summer did an excellent job of keeping us updated what was going on each day on here.
 
Last edited:
The prosecutions entire case was that she hit him with her car but he shows absolutely no evidence that he was hit by a car on his body. He has absolutely no lower body injuries at all. That by itself should give anybody reasonable doubt to their story. Then we get to add all of the things they didn't do properly or not at all that in any other case of a fallen officer would have had entire teams doing, especially if they thought he was murdered. Their case makes absolutely no sense at all and evidently the FBI agrees and they are under investigation.
 
Also, the "I hit him" phrase was never notated on any record of anything that night by any officer at the scene it also was never mentioned by JMc or anybody at the grand jury proceedings, if I remember correctly. It was testified to that it was never entered in any report at all. Seems like a pretty important thing to right on the official report, doens't it?
 
We can't assume they didnt ask her either. If they took her BAC at 9a.m. it would be pointless without the other factor for the calculation. Without it they couldn't have arrested or even charged her. Her lawyers would have challenged that straight away.
The hospital, upon intake, drew her blood. In the series of tests ethanol is also tested. The hospital did not perform a BAC. Only a state laboratory can do this testing and they use whole blood for accurate results. A hospital only uses serum testing because they are trying to assess and treat quickly.

The Lack of Forensic Reliability of a Hospital BAC Result

While EIA testing achieves clinical and diagnostic objectives, it is not forensically reliable for a DWI or criminal prosecution where a blood alcohol level needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasons for its forensic unreliability can be organized into four categories.
 
Also, the "I hit him" phrase was never notated on any record of anything that night by any officer at the scene it also was never mentioned by JMc or anybody at the grand jury proceedings, if I remember correctly. It was testified to that it was never entered in any report at all. Seems like a pretty important thing to right on the official report, doens't it?
Correct, neither Canton nor MSP memorialized this is any reports.
 
I think I would need to go right back to see the probable cause for her arrest in the first place then but it sounds like it is way too late now.
 
The hospital, upon intake, drew her blood. In the series of tests ethanol is also tested. The hospital did not perform a BAC. Only a state laboratory can do this testing and they use whole blood for accurate results. A hospital only uses serum testing because they are trying to assess and treat quickly.

The Lack of Forensic Reliability of a Hospital BAC Result

While EIA testing achieves clinical and diagnostic objectives, it is not forensically reliable for a DWI or criminal prosecution where a blood alcohol level needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasons for its forensic unreliability can be organized into four categories.
Where did the BAC report quoted come from then?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,057
Members
969
Latest member
SamiraMill
Back
Top Bottom