Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *TRIAL IN PROGRESS* (9 Viewers)

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:
You can be a bi*** and innocent at the same time. I don't think anyone is accusing her of being a nice and lovely person. 🤷‍♀️
I don't see any signs of her behaviour being that of an innocent person. Ranting and raving and ringing people to pick her up. Claiming she had hit him. If she was so sober why didn't she drive back over there herself to find and meet him? She knew she had hit him and he was dead, that's why.
 
and remember guys i have ridden that i don't think she did it train but my opinion is still on that fence....
My total reasonable doubt lies upon an the ways the CW screwed this up. When any other case of an investigation of a possible homicide of a cop, they pull out all the stops and call in all the troops and 100% call their official CSI and make sure absolutely everything is properly documented. The we add the altered video they lied about and I'm set on so much reasonable doubt. I have no idea if she actually did it or not and that is 100% on them and they're lack of an official investigation.
 
I don't see any signs of her behaviour being that of an innocent person. Ranting and raving and ringing people to pick her up. Claiming she had hit him. If she was so sober why didn't she drive back over there herself to find and meet him? She knew she had hit him and he was dead, that's why.
She's also a flat out b**ch, smirky thing to his family.
 
My total reasonable doubt lies upon an the ways the CW screwed this up. When any other case of an investigation of a possible homicide of a cop, they pull out all the stops and call in all the troops and 100% call their official CSI and make sure absolutely everything is properly documented. The we add the altered video they lied about and I'm set on so much reasonable doubt. I have no idea if she actually did it or not and that is 100% on them and they're lack of an official investigation.
NO they don't. You talk a lot about the good ol' boys club or that type of thing. They do no such thing when ALL have been drinking, have been drinking, don't know what happened, are worried about image and their own arse. We have all seen it many a time. What did Murdaugh do when his son had something happen? And so on?

It does not mean she is innocent.
 
I don't see any signs of her behaviour being that of an innocent person. Ranting and raving and ringing people to pick her up. Claiming she had hit him. If she was so sober why didn't she drive back over there herself to find and meet him? She knew she had hit him and he was dead, that's why.
Exactly and more.
 
My total reasonable doubt lies upon an the ways the CW screwed this up. When any other case of an investigation of a possible homicide of a cop, they pull out all the stops and call in all the troops and 100% call their official CSI and make sure absolutely everything is properly documented. The we add the altered video they lied about and I'm set on so much reasonable doubt. I have no idea if she actually did it or not and that is 100% on them and they're lack of an official investigation.
They had a perp admitting it. They seized the vehicle on the Sunday, I believe, and also found the bloody snow, the shoe, the broken taillight pieces the same day and there does not seem to be any chain of custody doubts that i have seen so far. Her vicious texts have been highlighted, even while he lay dying, evidenced by the dropping temperature of his phone under his body. They retrieved that evidence too. I think they have done a pretty good job so far. She could have saved him if she had gone back to the scene. Instead she berated him with foul texts. She is the only person responsible for this crime.

Not only that but she had not given him a minutes peace with his niece and nephew with her ranting and nagging texts throughout the day. She is just a selfish, wicked bitch shrew of a woman. I would love to know what their testimony was today.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect anyone who thinks she's guilty to actually read this. But it provides many reasons why the CW case is not consistent or logical.
Biggest points TO ME:

▪︎ CPD searched the scene in daylight & found NO pieces of red tail light. 10 hrs later, after dark, after Karen's car was in MSP custody for 1.5 hrs & the 2nd search was postponed for several hours, the search was allowed to begin & tail light pieces were discovered at the scene.
▪︎ Bukhenik testified the sallyport video was a true & accurate depiction, when it was actually inverted. His lie impacted the jury's perception of key evidence & mislead them by concealing that Proctor was knelt down behind the passenger tail light outside the view of the camera - after he said he never went near that tail light!
▪︎ Plow driver didn't see a body in Brian A's yard @ 2:30am. He had a clear view of the yard from a high vantage point. He saw a Ford Edge at 3:30am exactly where John was found shortly after. The Edge was blocking the view of the camera across the street. Brian & Colin Albert both drove Edges.
▪︎ 8 witnesses passed the Alberts' yard after Karen dropped John off & all said they didn't see a body in the yard.
▪︎ Cell records prove Jen M. googled, "Hos long to die in cold" at 2:27am (& deleted it). Vanity Fair hired an independent expert to review testimony from the CW & defense experts. He agreed w/ the defense, that the 2:27am search occurred at 2:27am. Defense's expert was hired by DOJ & never spoke w/ them. They simply tested the CW's theory. Aside from making an incriminating Google search, Jen also deleted repeated calls to John's phone made in an effort to locate it around 12:40am.

 
I don't expect anyone who thinks she's guilty to actually read this. But it provides many reasons why the CW case is not consistent or logical.
Biggest points TO ME:

▪︎ CPD searched the scene in daylight & found NO pieces of red tail light. 10 hrs later, after dark, after Karen's car was in MSP custody for 1.5 hrs & the 2nd search was postponed for several hours, the search was allowed to begin & tail light pieces were discovered at the scene.
▪︎ Bukhenik testified the sallyport video was a true & accurate depiction, when it was actually inverted. His lie impacted the jury's perception of key evidence & mislead them by concealing that Proctor was knelt down behind the passenger tail light outside the view of the camera - after he said he never went near that tail light!
▪︎ Plow driver didn't see a body in Brian A's yard @ 2:30am. He had a clear view of the yard from a high vantage point. He saw a Ford Edge at 3:30am exactly where John was found shortly after. The Edge was blocking the view of the camera across the street. Brian & Colin Albert both drove Edges.
▪︎ 8 witnesses passed the Alberts' yard after Karen dropped John off & all said they didn't see a body in the yard.
▪︎ Cell records prove Jen M. googled, "Hos long to die in cold" at 2:27am (& deleted it). Vanity Fair hired an independent expert to review testimony from the CW & defense experts. He agreed w/ the defense, that the 2:27am search occurred at 2:27am. Defense's expert was hired by DOJ & never spoke w/ them. They simply tested the CW's theory. Aside from making an incriminating Google search, Jen also deleted repeated calls to John's phone made in an effort to locate it around 12:40am.


The lying about the video does it for me. First, they didn't even produce it until after the trial started. Then they were asked if it was a true representation and they said yes, when they knew that Sally port because they were in it nearly daily. Then they lied about proctor never being near the taillight, but when you correct the orientation of the video, he's right there at it for quite a while. They also went through the effort to dub the time stamps in the correct orientation on the incorrectly orientated video. I can't believe there has been no consequences for that. That is blatant evidence tampering.
 
They had a perp admitting it. They seized the vehicle on the Sunday, I believe, and also found the bloody snow, the shoe, the broken taillight pieces the same day and there does not seem to be any chain of custody doubts that i have seen so far. Her vicious texts have been highlighted, even while he lay dying, evidenced by the dropping temperature of his phone under his body. They retrieved that evidence too. I think they have done a pretty good job so far. She could have saved him if she had gone back to the scene. Instead she berated him with foul texts. She is the only person responsible for this crime.

Not only that but she had not given him a minutes peace with his niece and nephew with her ranting and nagging texts throughout the day. She is just a selfish, wicked bitch shrew of a woman. I would love to know what their testimony was today.
You know what is interesting in the last two days of testimony (and others) but the last two for sure, and it gets a hit old listening, even though I stick it out as it is necessary, is the sheer number of people involved in this investigation who quit simply are not Canton PD, a buddy of Proctor's or anything like that. They are looking at the body and other things, doing their job. Don't bother with people out their who jumped on her bandwagon and can't see the other side of it seriously. I do watch somewhere that most don't try to force their opinion on one. One has to wonder why some feel the need? I think she is guilty pure and simple but I feel no need to convince anyone else where anyone supporting her seems to feel that need, well most do. Or are some just bent on being right, no idea.

She is guilty WITH facts of manslaughter and DUI. Personally I don't think they can prove intentional (although I think it was darned right intentional). I think they charged high and expected her to plead but instead she went and decided to put on this entire overblown show.

I am calling this one the sidebar trial as there are so many. And every single time she marches up there with what four or five lawyers making it look so overblown, I have to almost laugh.

It's just a typical D b.s. game. I wouldn't even bother with anyone out there though who thinks she is innocent who falls for such hook, line and sinker. Jmo.
 
I don't expect anyone who thinks she's guilty to actually read this. But it provides many reasons why the CW case is not consistent or logical.
Biggest points TO ME:

▪︎ CPD searched the scene in daylight & found NO pieces of red tail light. 10 hrs later, after dark, after Karen's car was in MSP custody for 1.5 hrs & the 2nd search was postponed for several hours, the search was allowed to begin & tail light pieces were discovered at the scene.
▪︎ Bukhenik testified the sallyport video was a true & accurate depiction, when it was actually inverted. His lie impacted the jury's perception of key evidence & mislead them by concealing that Proctor was knelt down behind the passenger tail light outside the view of the camera - after he said he never went near that tail light!
▪︎ Plow driver didn't see a body in Brian A's yard @ 2:30am. He had a clear view of the yard from a high vantage point. He saw a Ford Edge at 3:30am exactly where John was found shortly after. The Edge was blocking the view of the camera across the street. Brian & Colin Albert both drove Edges.
▪︎ 8 witnesses passed the Alberts' yard after Karen dropped John off & all said they didn't see a body in the yard.
▪︎ Cell records prove Jen M. googled, "Hos long to die in cold" at 2:27am (& deleted it). Vanity Fair hired an independent expert to review testimony from the CW & defense experts. He agreed w/ the defense, that the 2:27am search occurred at 2:27am. Defense's expert was hired by DOJ & never spoke w/ them. They simply tested the CW's theory. Aside from making an incriminating Google search, Jen also deleted repeated calls to John's phone made in an effort to locate it around 12:40am.


I thought one person saw something and commented but then ran and got in the car? If they said they didn't see anything, that doesn't mean he wasn't there. The lawn is actually slightly down hill and they were probably near the driveway and nowhere near the flagpole area. Also, they had all been drinking. KR supposedly didn't realise she had even hit him till later when he did not come home.

When you say they searched in daylight and then 10 hours later are you talking the same day eg. 9 a.m and 7 p.m. for example? How did JO's trainer get to the crime scene? You think they planted that too under several inches of snow?

What do you mean "Vanity Fair" hired an expert? Who are they and why would D need to talk to them?

That google search by Jen was proved to be later. The phone had an app still open that made it appear the search was done at that time, but LE checked and it wasn't.
 
The lying about the video does it for me. First, they didn't even produce it until after the trial started. Then they were asked if it was a true representation and they said yes, when they knew that Sally port because they were in it nearly daily. Then they lied about proctor never being near the taillight, but when you correct the orientation of the video, he's right there at it for quite a while. They also went through the effort to dub the time stamps in the correct orientation on the incorrectly orientated video. I can't believe there has been no consequences for that. That is blatant evidence tampering.
Then we also have the taillight pieces AND glass pieces that supposedly remained on the bumper from the car that was first lifted up onto a flatbed. That, by itself, would have dislodged pieces and some would have been lost, yet we have extra pieces of taillight in the end. Then they want us to believe that those same pieces remained on the bumper for a 30+ minute drive, uncovered, during a blizzard. Let me remind you that the conditions to have a blizzard called is over 35mph sustained winds for over 3 hours. Yeah, right.
 
The lying about the video does it for me. First, they didn't even produce it until after the trial started. Then they were asked if it was a true representation and they said yes, when they knew that Sally port because they were in it nearly daily. Then they lied about proctor never being near the taillight, but when you correct the orientation of the video, he's right there at it for quite a while. They also went through the effort to dub the time stamps in the correct orientation on the incorrectly orientated video. I can't believe there has been no consequences for that. That is blatant evidence tampering.
That video records it as a mirror image and is motion activated. The time stamps are accurate and the correct orientation, therefore. The sallyport video from the other side is not a mirror image. I don't believe he was tampering but removing the unit for evidence testing - blood, DNA etc.
 
Then we also have the taillight pieces AND glass pieces that supposedly remained on the bumper from the car that was first lifted up onto a flatbed. That, by itself, would have dislodged pieces and some would have been lost, yet we have extra pieces of taillight in the end. Then they want us to believe that those same pieces remained on the bumper for a 30+ minute drive, uncovered, during a blizzard. Let me remind you that the conditions to have a blizzard called is over 35mph sustained winds for over 3 hours. Yeah, right.
Do you have a link for this info about pieces staying on the vehìcle during the recovery? Was it loaded front first or rear first? It wasnt recovered in the blizzard but on Sunday p.m. IIRC. By that time, KR had driven it home to JO's house and then to her parents house so any loose pieces would have been long gone, before the recovery.
 
I thought one person saw something and commented but then ran and got in the car? If they said they didn't see anything, that doesn't mean he wasn't there. The lawn is actually slightly down hill and they were probably near the driveway and nowhere near the flagpole area. Also, they had all been drinking. KR supposedly didn't realise she had even hit him till later when he did not come home.

When you say they searched in daylight and then 10 hours later are you talking the same day eg. 9 a.m and 7 p.m. for example? How did JO's trainer get to the crime scene? You think they planted that too under several inches of snow?

What do you mean "Vanity Fair" hired an expert? Who are they and why would D need to talk to them?

That google search by Jen was proved to be later. The phone had an app still open that made it appear the search was done at that time, but LE checked and it wasn't.
You think they couldn't have found those same pieces when there was only an inch or so on the ground when they were taking their leaf blowers to the crime scene? We also have no proof that they were ever found under several inches of snow because they weren't documented. The one large piece that was documented was definitely not buried. It was on top of the snow and a few days later..

The google search was proven to be at the 2am by multiple experts. The only ones that said it wasn't was the CW "expert". LE checked...:rofl:
 
I thought one person saw something and commented but then ran and got in the car? If they said they didn't see anything, that doesn't mean he wasn't there. The lawn is actually slightly down hill and they were probably near the driveway and nowhere near the flagpole area. Also, they had all been drinking. KR supposedly didn't realise she had even hit him till later when he did not come home.

When you say they searched in daylight and then 10 hours later are you talking the same day eg. 9 a.m and 7 p.m. for example? How did JO's trainer get to the crime scene? You think they planted that too under several inches of snow?

What do you mean "Vanity Fair" hired an expert? Who are they and why would D need to talk to them?

That google search by Jen was proved to be later. The phone had an app still open that made it appear the search was done at that time, but LE checked and it wasn't.
I didn't write the Reddit post so it's not ME saying anything.

The Google search was NOT PROVEN to be later. It is a point of contention. An "expert" for the prosecution is the ONLY one who says it was later.

Vanity Fair is a magazine with journalists who have covered the case. It means exactly what it says. They hired an expert to review the search information.


The prosecution’s expert said the 2:27 a.m. time stamp “is not indicative of the time of the search,” claiming that McCabe could have searched in a window opened at 2:27 a.m. Vanity Fair asked Umit Karabiyik, a PhD at Purdue’s Department of Computer and Information Technology who specializes in iPhone artifacts and the limitations of digital forensics, to evaluate the prosecution’s expert testimony as well as an affidavit from Read’s expert. “Based on my research and expertise, I concur with what I see in the Affidavit from Richard Green,” Karabiyik emailed VF, referring to Read’s expert. Though the browser tab was opened earlier than the searches, Karabiyik said, “The time stamp for the search items is recorded for searches [and] stored in the database, not the time of the tab opening.” He noted that Green additionally verified the search times with associated WAL files that are occasionally overlooked.
 
Then we also have the taillight pieces AND glass pieces that supposedly remained on the bumper from the car that was first lifted up onto a flatbed. That, by itself, would have dislodged pieces and some would have been lost, yet we have extra pieces of taillight in the end. Then they want us to believe that those same pieces remained on the bumper for a 30+ minute drive, uncovered, during a blizzard. Let me remind you that the conditions to have a blizzard called is over 35mph sustained winds for over 3 hours. Yeah, right.
A blizzard is a winter storm with sustained winds of at least 35 mph, blowing or falling snow, and visibility reduced to a quarter mile or less for at least three hours. Blizzards can trap drivers in their vehicles and cause hypothermia due to cold temperatures and wind chills.



  • Winds: Sustained winds or frequent gusts of 35 mph or higher
  • Snow: Large amounts of falling or blowing snow

  • Visibility: Reduced to less than a quarter mile for at least three hours
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Forum statistics

    Threads
    3,084
    Messages
    258,157
    Members
    1,020
    Latest member
    Lucia
    Back
    Top Bottom