Anyone following the Karen Read trial part 2?

[hmt5000]

Nuts of the story... she is accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston cop, with her car, late at night after stopping at a small house party with other cops and their families. He was found the next morning dead from freezing to death, in the yard of the house party. First trial fell apart when text with the lead investigator came to light and it really started to look like him framed Read.

I can't believe they are even re-trying this case after all the stuff with Trooper came to light. Evidence appeared in places it wasn't found after 2 searches, video went missing, text disappeared.... How the hell to they try this again?



Short video of cross of the lead Detective from the State Police. Dude just melts under cross. He's a horrible liar. Even if she hit him it looks like something else happened and they didn't want anyone looking at the people at the party and just at her.



DUI guy breaking down the opening defense. DUI guy is a Louisville atty... been watching him a bunch from when I used to go to bars.... LoL

 

[catsfanbgky]

Yes I am. Crazy story. The texting to his other cop buddies about her tits, and how crazy she was, wasn't a real good look for him piled on top of the very SHODDY police investigation he did. No chance in hell she gets convicted, nor should she. The heavy set guy (captain ?) destroying his cell phone, driving to an army base to dispose of it, reeks of guilt. But, hey, pin it on the girlfriend. The google searches about "how long it takes to freeze outside in snow" was debunked as a search history from the next day but she left the web browser open to appear like she did it before it happened. When that was debunked, any chance of a guilty verdict went out the window. Craziest story I have read in a while, the whole case is fabricated, tainted, and the crime scene / evidence pretty much destroyed by the lead investigator. Tunnel vision with intent to frame, wouldn't shock me if the lead investigator is brought up on charges. He should be for sharing evidence at the least, major criminal charges brought and likely.

 

[WildcatofNati2]

You can look at her and know she's obviously innocent.

 

[hmt5000]

Yes I am. Crazy story. The texting to his other cop buddies about her tits, and how crazy she was, wasn't a real good look for him piled on top of the very SHODDY police investigation he did. No chance in hell she gets convicted, nor should she. The heavy set guy (captain ?) destroying his cell phone, driving to an army base to dispose of it, reeks of guilt. But, hey, pin it on the girlfriend. The google searches about "how long it takes to freeze outside in snow" was debunked as a search history from the next day but she left the web browser open to appear like she did it before it happened. When that was debunked, any chance of a guilty verdict went out the window. Craziest story I have read in a while, the whole case is fabricated, tainted, and the crime scene / evidence pretty much destroyed by the lead investigator. Tunnel vision with intent to frame, wouldn't shock me if the lead investigator is brought up on charges. He should be for sharing evidence at the least, major criminal charges brought and likely.

Yea. It's nuts. I saw an atty breakdown the Troopers cross but didn't realize how much of the other stuff looks shady as hell. Chick might... might have bumped him with the car but none of the injuries look like they came from a cars taillight or that his arm got cut but the hoodie he was wearing was pristine... seems like he was killed inside the house and moved outside.

They did say one of the cops was hitting on her and she ghosted him. I'd love to see his phone.

 

[Blue Bleeding Marine]

Wood

 

[the nail at the foul line]

Cops get way too much trust from society and the courts. Psychopaths are common in the field. Many believe they are above the law.

Looks like a cop killed someone and tried to pin it on the victims girlfriend. And several cops are involved.

 

[LowerLevelSeatA]

I am. Also watched first trial. Crazy part also is it came out after first trial that jury had actually agreed to not guilty on highest charge of murder but misunderstood how to communicate that/fill out forms. Jury mistakenly thought they had to agree on all 3 charges so didn’t fill out paperwork for murder charge. If they would had filled out paperwork, Karen Read could not have been tried again for murder. Instead now she is facing a second trial to include murder charge. Her team appealed and tried to get it fixed once it came out but courts said it was too late, and court would not even talk to jurors to investigate.

Juror: All 12 of Us Agreed Karen Read Was Not Guilty of Murder

Ronald Estanislao told Vinnie Politan that jurors at Karen Read's first trial agreed Read was not guilty of John O'Keefe's murder.

www.courttv.com

 

[hmt5000]

I am. Also watched first trial. Crazy part also is it came out after first trial that jury had actually agreed to not guilty on highest charge of murder but misunderstood how to communicate that/fill out forms. Jury mistakenly thought they had to agree on all 3 charges so didn’t fill out paperwork for murder charge. If they would had filled out paperwork, Karen Read could not have been tried again for murder. Instead now she is facing a second trial to include murder charge. Her team appealed and tried to get it fixed once it came out but courts said it was too late, and court would not even talk to jurors to investigate.

Juror: All 12 of Us Agreed Karen Read Was Not Guilty of Murder

Ronald Estanislao told Vinnie Politan that jurors at Karen Read's first trial agreed Read was not guilty of John O'Keefe's murder.

www.courttv.com

It really does seem like the "government" is out to get her. The sham investigation aside... the judge seems to constantly rule for the prosecution against the defense. Just weird after the first trial that the new judge is acting like the defense needs to be checked.

 

[LowerLevelSeatA]

It really does seem like the "government" is out to get her. The sham investigation aside... the judge seems to constantly rule for the prosecution against the defense. Just weird after the first trial that the new judge is acting like the defense needs to be checked.

It’s the same judge in both trials. And in both trials the judge does seem to have negativity towards the defense team of lawyers. Seems to rule against them a lot, get short with them, and seem exacerbated by them in general.

 

[catsfanbgky]

It’s the same judge in both trials. And in both trials the judge does seem to have negativity towards the defense team of lawyers. Seems to rule against them a lot, get short with them, and seem exacerbated by them in general.

because he is on the same side as the police. The state v/s defendant. He is suppose to be fair and partial, we all know that is not going to happen 90% of the time.

 

[hmt5000]

These are the injuries police say were caused by her tail light. I don't know how they think hitting someone with a Lexus causes that with one hit. Also... if he were wearing the hoodie how does he get those without the hoodie getting ripped to shreds?

 

[UKWILDCAT2004]

Yes! It's definitely interesting. I think it's plausible she did back into him HOWEVER theres reasonable doubt for me so I couldn't convict. Between whatever happened in the house, the corrupt cop, and the people selling/deleting phones. Just to many questions for me to say she did it without a reasonable doubt.

 

[LowerLevelSeatA]

New theory I have after listening to cell phone expert today…..defense and prosecution theories are both wrong. He slipped and fell/hit his head. People who live at house found him but didn’t want to report it because they freaked out they may get blamed. Testimony today has prosecution saying she it hit at 12:25…but his phone shows some activity after that. Then all the weird cover up type activity starts happening by law enforcement people who were at house (phones deleted, phones destroyed and thrown in garbage miles away, house sold, dog sold, etc.).

 

[UKWILDCAT2004]

New theory I have after listening to cell phone expert today…..defense and prosecution theories are both wrong. He slipped and fell/hit his head. People who live at house found him but didn’t want to report it because they freaked out they may get blamed. Testimony today has prosecution saying she it hit at 12:25…but his phone shows some activity after that. Then all the weird cover up type activity starts happening by law enforcement people who were at house (phones deleted, phones destroyed and thrown in garbage miles away, house sold, dog sold, etc.).

That sounds like a good theory but in your theory does she have anything to do with it? Or did those people just disliked her so much they tried to pin it on her?

 

[catsfanbgky]

New theory I have after listening to cell phone expert today…..defense and prosecution theories are both wrong. He slipped and fell/hit his head. People who live at house found him but didn’t want to report it because they freaked out they may get blamed. Testimony today has prosecution saying she it hit at 12:25…but his phone shows some activity after that. Then all the weird cover up type activity starts happening by law enforcement people who were at house (phones deleted, phones destroyed and thrown in garbage miles away, house sold, dog sold, etc.).

WTF gets ride of your dog after having it so many years ????? The dog wasn't sick, not dying, etc. Combine that with him destroying his cell phone then driving miles to dispose of it has not reasonable excuse. Why night trade the phone in and get a credit ? Give it to a family member ? Give it to someone in need ? Donate it ? The giving the dog away and destroying and disposing of it (it was fairly new) are MAJOR red flags he is involved or knows who is. At best he helped cover up a murder, at worst, he is involved in it. All the defense has to do is show reasonable doubt or someone else could have done it. A 12 year old, non lawball could do that. Big waste of tax payer money retrying the case, 0% chance any judge or jury with half a brain would convict the accused. If will be interesting after she is acquitted if there is a investigation or charges drawn on other people who was there. If not, it will be obvious everyone is involved in a major cover up.

 

[UKWILDCAT2004]

WTF gets ride of your dog after having it so many years ????? The dog wasn't sick, not dying, etc. Combine that with him destroying his cell phone then driving miles to dispose of it has not reasonable excuse. Why night trade the phone in and get a credit ? Give it to a family member ? Give it to someone in need ? Donate it ? The giving the dog away and destroying and disposing of it (it was fairly new) are MAJOR red flags he is involved or knows who is. At best he helped cover up a murder, at worst, he is involved in it. All the defense has to do is show reasonable doubt or someone else could have done it. A 12 year old, non lawball could do that. Big waste of tax payer money retrying the case, 0% chance any judge or jury with half a brain would convict the accused. If will be interesting after she is acquitted if there is a investigation or charges drawn on other people who was there. If not, it will be obvious everyone is involved in a major cover up.

Don't forget even the house was sold that had been in the family for years! Could she have had something to do with it? Absolutely BUT unless something turns up we don't know about there's absolutely enough for reasonable doubt and you can't convict her.

 

[LowerLevelSeatA]

That sounds like a good theory but in your theory does she have anything to do with it? Or did those people just disliked her so much they tried to pin it on her?

In my theory, he slipped on snow/ ice and hit head head.

 

[LowerLevelSeatA]

WTF gets ride of your dog after having it so many years ????? The dog wasn't sick, not dying, etc. Combine that with him destroying his cell phone then driving miles to dispose of it has not reasonable excuse. Why night trade the phone in and get a credit ? Give it to a family member ? Give it to someone in need ? Donate it ? The giving the dog away and destroying and disposing of it (it was fairly new) are MAJOR red flags he is involved or knows who is. At best he helped cover up a murder, at worst, he is involved in it. All the defense has to do is show reasonable doubt or someone else could have done it. A 12 year old, non lawball could do that. Big waste of tax payer money retrying the case, 0% chance any judge or jury with half a brain would convict the accused. If will be interesting after she is acquitted if there is an investigation or charges drawn on other people who was there. If not, it will be obvious everyone is involved in a major cover up.

Do you know about the lead investigator on the case? Tons of dirt on him in this case and others. He was recently fired. His name is Michael Proctor.

 

[UKWILDCAT2004]

In my theory, he slipped on snow/ ice and hit head head.

Well yeah. But I guess I was curious do you think the group came up with the plan to frame her or the police (proctor) came up with it? Maybe I'm being confusing sorry.

 

[catsfanbgky]

In my theory, he slipped on snow/ ice and hit head head.

How does that explain all of the scratches ? The German Shepherd in some peoples opinion caused the scratches. Which is why the guy got rid of the dog. It all is very questionable and strange.

 

[LowerLevelSeatA]

How does that explain all of the scratches ? The German Shepherd in some peoples opinion caused the scratches. Which is why the guy got rid of the dog. It all is very questionable and strange.

Hummm…the dog got out the front door with all the people coming and going, found the guy in the snow and attacked him. Or there was a tussle in the front yard between the victim and Brian Higgins (the law official who destroyed his phone and threw it in garbage miles away, and they had known beef as he had texted Karen read some in past flirting). Dog saw tussle and attacked victim. In first trial there was evidence that dog was known to be aggressive.

 

[catsfanbgky]

He is the one (Brian Higgins) whom I think was the killer. Too much shady shit surrounding him and too many lies.

 

[hmt5000]

That sounds like a good theory but in your theory does she have anything to do with it? Or did those people just disliked her so much they tried to pin it on her?

Sounds like she was just the easiest target to get eyes off people in the house. Nobody liked her so that's who they picked.

 

[hmt5000]

Do you know about the lead investigator on the case? Tons of dirt on him in this case and others. He was recently fired. His name is Michael Proctor.

Not just fired... he is under investigation and probably facing charges himself.

 

[UKWILDCAT2004]

Sounds like she was just the easiest target to get eyes off people in the house. Nobody liked her so that's who they picked.

This! They definitely didn't seem to like her.