Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *NOT GUILTY* (Guilty of OUI) (49 Viewers)

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?

 

[Tresir]

2 sets of 12 ALL said she was not guilty.

Where you getting that from?

 

[Tresir]

The defense's expert couldn't make the backlight break in the same way.

Maybe not but did they crack the taillight first as was suspected with KR's vehicle? Also ARCCA showed it and the dummy did too.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well the potential of a lynch mob outside cannot have helped deliberations, but possibly affected the outcome who knows? I care because JO's family did not get justice IMO.

It's funny that the first two jurors said completely different things as to the mob. He said it added a lot of stress seeing, them, hearing them, etc. She played it down as if never noticed, couldn't hear didn't see and so on. That's already enough to me to tell me something.

I feel for his family too. They need to tell themselves she is not a happy person anyhow and she's not imo. And they can sue her civilly and it's a much lower standard. She has already lost everything but it will add on to her never recovering.

 

[GrandmaBear]

She was. She was charged with manslaughter while OUI but they just found her guilty of OUI so thread title should be changed to reflect that verdict. Its blatantly wrong for it to say NOT GUILTY. She on probation.

I agree with you. She faced several charges and was found guilty of one. The thread title is not accurate whatsoever.

 

[GrandmaBear]

She was pissed as a fart and couldn't even remember where she dropped him. She thought she had left him at the Waterfall. I think she's an alcoholic TBH.

That one I'm not so sure of. I believe she was trashed but she told one woman she left him at the Waterfall and the next woman something else.. I think she may have at first lied to try to cover her butt which is what she is all about.

I do agree she is likely a chronic alcoholic and I doubt that's changed. One bit.

Both jurors said they didn't necessarily believe the conspiracy theory but that they just didn't think they could say what happened or that a collision did. Yet the Brazilian then goes on to say she may have swiped him. Well that really makes sense, not.

It isn't about so far them buying a thing from the defense. And honestly, the investigation wasn't perfect. I've never said it was. There are things that were and things that were not.

I really hope LE everywhere learns from that. I honestly don't know why still in many areas they just also are not trained and sometimes those who are hired are still like the buddy system, or it was for a long time, I will say that. It should be one of the most serious, well trained, prepared jobs there is. And they don't always have the resources either and that's another thing.

The detective I talked to was GREAT. He never knew with weekly calls over months what question I was going to hit him with and man could he think fast. And that's in a very small area. He was GOOD. I was pleasantly surprised. I only knew a few of the cops, etc.

And I agree she was a drunken, irate shrew. Said so many a time.

You know when I watched her dad, i was open, unbiased and he seemed upstanding, moral, in support of his daughter but very quickly I went what? He isn't being asked any of the hard questions and he is not talking of her drunkenness, the relationship, Higgins and so on and her games. He tried to make her almost an icon. I stuck it out but I was disgusted. Was only 15 minutes and seemed like an hour.

I probably should stop but I don't know what is wrong with some nowadays where they make people like this idols. The healthcare shooter would be another. And more.

Just think, if they had used a cab as they should have, there'd be NO question she had nothing to do with hitting him. The start of it all.

I agree too she was angry and it was intentional. I wasn't sure they had enough to convince on that but I'll always think so. I kind of hope she moves to the west coast/Cali but it's mean to wish her on them either.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Maybe not but did they crack the taillight first as was suspected with KR's vehicle? Also ARCCA showed it and the dummy did too.

No offense to him but he did not watch any of the trial, announced himself he wasn't going to, so pretty sure.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Your pet case and you said flat out on here you were not watching any of the trial so I'd say if you didn't you then you are the one who missed a lot. No?

On that Dateline, they give a summary of the prosecutions and defenses cases in this trial. That's where I saw it. The first trial, I watched a lot of "Closing Arguments" and got a rundown for the day on that. I would do deeper research on things like the Sallyport video.

I missed more of the second trial, I was dialed in on the first. ALL of the people here didn't go into a room with eleven other people and look at the videos slowly, paused or any other way. Nor did they closely see all of the evidence brought into court. Did you get to see all the evidence that well?

@Guess Who is right, that it's most likely 24 people who voted to acquit of the most serious charges. Conservatively, it was 21 at least.

I don't understand how anyone here can say the jury got it wrong, when they had the best seats in the house for the trials.

All you need to do is see the messed with Sallyport video. If that doesn't peg your hinky meter, you're just stubborn.

 

[Regina]

She was pissed as a fart and couldn't even remember where she dropped him. She thought she had left him at the Waterfall. I think she's an alcoholic TBH.

You know, I not only think she knew she hit him, I think she meant to.
Anyway, yeah, alcohol is one of her many serious issues. I know you know that earlier that day, she showed her stalking behavior by repeatedly calling John; she wouldn't wouldn't leave him alone.
But this isn't a drunk driving type of crime, it's domestic violence.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

You know, I not only think she knew she hit him, I think she meant to.
Anyway, yeah, alcohol is one of her many serious issues. I know you know that earlier that day, she showed her stalking behavior by repeatedly calling John; she wouldn't wouldn't leave him alone.
But this isn't a drunk driving type of crime, it's domestic violence.

It's a nothing burger.

 

[Tresir]

On that Dateline, they give a summary of the prosecutions and defenses cases in this trial. That's where I saw it. The first trial, I watched a lot of "Closing Arguments" and got a rundown for the day on that. I would do deeper research on things like the Sallyport video.

I missed more of the second trial, I was dialed in on the first. ALL of the people here didn't go into a room with eleven other people and look at the videos slowly, paused or any other way. Nor did they closely see all of the evidence brought into court. Did you get to see all the evidence that well?

@Guess Who is right, that it's most likely 24 people who voted to acquit of the most serious charges. Conservatively, it was 21 at least.

I don't understand how anyone here can say the jury got it wrong, when they had the best seats in the house for the trials.

All you need to do is see the messed with Sallyport video. If that doesn't peg your hinky meter, you're just stubborn.

The sallyport video has been proved there was none missing. It records a mirrorred view and is motion activated which makes it appears sections are missing but nothing happens in those missing sections. They also have a second video from the other side which is not a mirror image. So the videos were not messed with. Thats just wrong.

The jury got the OUI right but they could not see guilt on the other charges. That's ok. They considered the evidence as they should and I am not blaming them.

However, if she continues with her norm of drinking "very weak vodka sodas" and driving all the time, it will happen again at some point. Her next victim could be a child.

 

[Tresir]

You know, I not only think she knew she hit him, I think she meant to.
Anyway, yeah, alcohol is one of her many serious issues. I know you know that earlier that day, she showed her stalking behavior by repeatedly calling John; she wouldn't wouldn't leave him alone.
But this isn't a drunk driving type of crime, it's domestic violence.

I agree with you. The dangerous drunk drivers are those like her who don't believe they have a problem. I really hope she gets caught again, but without anyone dying, and has her probation revoked.

 

[GrandmaBear]

On that Dateline, they give a summary of the prosecutions and defenses cases in this trial. That's where I saw it. The first trial, I watched a lot of "Closing Arguments" and got a rundown for the day on that. I would do deeper research on things like the Sallyport video.

I missed more of the second trial, I was dialed in on the first. ALL of the people here didn't go into a room with eleven other people and look at the videos slowly, paused or any other way. Nor did they closely see all of the evidence brought into court. Did you get to see all the evidence that well?

@Guess Who is right, that it's most likely 24 people who voted to acquit of the most serious charges. Conservatively, it was 21 at least.

I don't understand how anyone here can say the jury got it wrong, when they had the best seats in the house for the trials.

All you need to do is see the messed with Sallyport video. If that doesn't peg your hinky meter, you're just stubborn.

I watch recaps so I get it. Sometimes we have to but any time I have time I watch the trials. It is FAR different than media recaps. I even after work would watch a replay of the day. I'm not saying you could or should have but nothing they put on shows like that nearly cover it. Most media recaps also pick their twists. It's interesting to me because the did a pretty lousy job this time compared to the P. Did you hear that anywhere?

Dateline and all those things are being on, to a point, sensation. It gets the views.

Now I will take a recap from Nate Eaton anytime on a Vallow case.

 

[GrandmaBear]

You know, I not only think she knew she hit him, I think she meant to.
Anyway, yeah, alcohol is one of her many serious issues. I know you know that earlier that day, she showed her stalking behavior by repeatedly calling John; she wouldn't wouldn't leave him alone.
But this isn't a drunk driving type of crime, it's domestic violence.

It's both imo. I agree it was intentional. Again she is a shrew, had her nails dug into him and would not let go or just let the relationship go.

That woman needs some serious shrink help.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I watch recaps so I get it. Sometimes we have to but any time I have time I watch the trials. It is FAR different than media recaps. I even after work would watch a replay of the day. I'm not saying you could or should have but nothing they put on shows like that nearly cover it. Most media recaps also pick their twists. It's interesting to me because the did a pretty lousy job this time compared to the P. Did you hear that anywhere?

Dateline and all those things are being on, to a point, sensation. It gets the views.

Now I will take a recap from Nate Eaton anytime on a Vallow case.

All you have to do is read about the original Sallyport video to nail down that she was being railroaded.

No, I won't provide links, because I already have. Look through this thread.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The sallyport video has been proved there was none missing. It records a mirrorred view and is motion activated which makes it appears sections are missing but nothing happens in those missing sections. They also have a second video from the other side which is not a mirror image. So the videos were not messed with. Thats just wrong.

The jury got the OUI right but they could not see guilt on the other charges. That's ok. They considered the evidence as they should and I am not blaming them.

However, if she continues with her norm of drinking "very weak vodka sodas" and driving all the time, it will happen again at some point. Her next victim could be a child.

Such a liar when most of that is on video, the drinks and such. Juror even said it. Part of me hopes she gets in trouble on probation BUT I don't want another victim either.

To me so far it sounds as if they could see enough to be sure what happened, it sure wasn't the crazy arse defense theory. And that's due to the investigation.

 

[GrandmaBear]

All you have to do is read about the original Sallyport video to nail down that she was being railroaded.

No, I won't provide links, because I already have. Look through this thread.

It was proven months ago here that that is not true but certain people chose to ignore it. Again watch the trial or parts of it at least.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I agree with you. The dangerous drunk drivers are those like her who don't believe they have a problem. I really hope she gets caught again, but without anyone dying, and has her probation revoked.

Lol just said the same. Pretty much.

 

[Regina]

The sallyport video has been proved there was none missing. It records a mirrorred view and is motion activated which makes it appears sections are missing but nothing happens in those missing sections. They also have a second video from the other side which is not a mirror image. So the videos were not messed with. Thats just wrong.

The jury got the OUI right but they could not see guilt on the other charges. That's ok. They considered the evidence as they should and I am not blaming them.

However, if she continues with her norm of drinking "very weak vodka sodas" and driving all the time, it will happen again at some point. Her next victim could be a child

You may have forgot that dashcam video from a police vehicle at John's that morning (to see about the kids) shows the state of Read's broken taillight.
Also- you may not know that she spoke about her, herself, having picked out broken pieces of taillight from near the lightbulb.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The sallyport video has been proved there was none missing. It records a mirrorred view and is motion activated which makes it appears sections are missing but nothing happens in those missing sections. They also have a second video from the other side which is not a mirror image. So the videos were not messed with. Thats just wrong.

The jury got the OUI right but they could not see guilt on the other charges. That's ok. They considered the evidence as they should and I am not blaming them.

However, if she continues with her norm of drinking "very weak vodka sodas" and driving all the time, it will happen again at some point. Her next victim could be a child.

And yes, sallyport was proven otherwise. Some refuse to acknowledge that though.

Some of us will never agree, just the way it is. I'm tired of the case.

 

[Guess Who]

You may have forgot that dashcam video from a police vehicle at John's that morning (to see about the kids) shows the state of Read's broken taillight.
Also- you may not know that she spoke about her, herself, having picked out broken pieces of taillight from near the lightbulb.

Yes. It shows a small hole in it. Not shattered into oblivion as 40+ pieces would make. That's easy enough to see.