- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Karen Read murder trial - Not guilty on main - guilty of OUI(DUI) only
Posted on 3/27/25 at 12:36 pm to Big Block Stingray
Posted on 3/27/25 at 12:36 pm to Big Block Stingray
quote:
I think he died in the house from an altercation and then told to gett he hell out...stubbled out then died in yard.
The lack of any empathy over his death after spending 2yrs in that relationship shows her narcissism.
I concur with both statements above.
0
Posted on 3/27/25 at 12:42 pm to JDPndahizzy
quote:
That's a lot of damn witnesses.. !!
Brother, this trial is going to last a million years
Posted on 3/27/25 at 12:57 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Brother, this trial is going to last a million years
Can't wait!!
Posted on 3/27/25 at 2:38 pm to JDPndahizzy
quote:
I found it hilarious that when they went to arrest her on the murder charge she was worried about what clothes she was wearing.
My wife said the same. I get asking to put on normal clothes instead of the pj's. But she clearly said she was too worried about how she would look on TV. She knew immediately she was getting attention from this.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 2:41 pm to JDPndahizzy
quote:
I found it hilarious that when they went to arrest her on the murder charge she was worried about what clothes she was wearing.
Wasn’t she in slippers and pajamas?
Posted on 3/28/25 at 6:55 am to Havoc
quote:
Wasn’t she in slippers and pajamas?
And sans panties. For this, I don't blame her for asking for normal clothes.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 7:33 am to LSBoosie
quote:
You should watch the doc. Karen Read and her team controlled what they said and what access the production crew was given. I'm sure they had a lot of say in what was put out in the doc. She said some things that made you feel really bad for her but she also said some things that were extremely off-putting.
I was reading an article about the doc (which sounds weird now that I’m typing it
) the other day. Supposedly Read did not have editorial control/final cut. The woman who filmed the documentary said that they intentionally shifted to a more balanced viewpoint after the mistrial was declared. Apparently the “opposing” interviews with John’s friends weren’t done until after the mistrial for example. One thing that the Read camp didn’t like is that the guy identified as a “criminal defense attorney” is actually Brian Albert’s lawyer, but the doc doesn’t point that out. Just as an example.
So I don’t think we should assume the doc paints Read in the best possible light. I think they tried to paint a fairly objective picture knowing it would come out right before the 2nd trial.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 8:18 am to lostinbr
quote:
Supposedly Read did not have editorial control/final cut.
I guess it's possible, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Karen Read and her defense let an production crew have behind the scenes access to the entire trial and didn't have them sign and NDA and/or include a clause that says they can veto something from the final cut if they want. That just seems like an incredibly dumb thing to do imo. Like I can't imagine letting them film all of that and then letting them use it however they want, especially when they know about the strong possibility of this going to a 2nd trial.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 8:35 am to LSBoosie
quote:
That just seems like an incredibly dumb thing to do imo. Like I can't imagine letting them film all of that and then letting them use it however they want, especially when they know about the strong possibility of this going to a 2nd trial.
I mean, I kind of agree.
They already almost got burned over Read waiving privilege, right? That’s the part that I don’t really understand.. how attorney-client privilege works for something like this. It wouldn’t shock me if there were some mechanism to review the footage of her interactions with her attorneys, while all of her interview footage was fair game.
A couple of excerpts from the Vanity Fair article I referenced:
quote:
But Read’s legal team probably assumed that Meurer would be capturing Read’s journey toward freedom—not a temporary reprieve on the way to a second trial. “I 100% believe that they thought there was going to be an acquittal in this case,” Meurer says. “So when they took this on, that’s what they were thinking. And it would be a different film if that had happened. Everyone was surprised that it was a hung jury.”
When a mistrial was declared on July 1, 2024, Meurer said, “We needed to make sure we were 100% as balanced as we could be, because we knew there was going to be another trial.”
quote:
Post-verdict, Meurer’s focus shifted from Read to O’Keefe. “My personal opinion is he’s gotten lost in all the noise around this case. So we reached out to his friends,” she tells VF. “During the first trial, they told me that they just wanted to maintain a low profile. They didn’t do a lot of interviews, weren’t super vocal. But when the mistrial was declared, they realized that they probably should start to speak up, and they have.”
quote:
This meant losing footage of Read and her legal team, who Meurer has said didn’t get to approve the series before it aired, and are only now able to see it. But Meurer, whom Read entrusted to bring her plight to the screen, doesn’t appear to be in contact with the accused anymore.
Also I was mistaken in my last post - the “criminal defense attorney” had represented Collin Albert, not Brian Albert.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 9:07 am to idlewatcher
quote:
And sans panties. For this, I don't blame her for asking for normal clothes.
She didnt just do that though. Her very first statement was that she was going to be on TV and didnt want to look like that.
I agree asking for normal clothes makes sense. But she only has ever cared about her image. No different than when she asked her lawyer how to portray emotions in court because she was worried about how it would come off and everyone was confused.
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 9:08 am
Posted on 3/28/25 at 9:41 am to More beer please
I don’t think it’s a stretch to call her a narcissist. But I don’t know that her narcissism is an indication of her guilt or innocence.
She definitely comes off as batshit crazy as well in the voicemails that she left for John that night. Those voicemails struck me as genuine, which makes the whole thing even more confusing. Like.. am I supposed to believe that she was so drunk that she didn’t even know she hit him? OK cool, but why are they charging her with 2nd degree murder then?
Or am I supposed to believe she knew she hit him, and in her completely wasted state came up with this mastermind plan to cover it up by calling him 50 times and leaving him drunken voicemails?
Or am I supposed to believe it was all an act? In that case, why did they go to such lengths to illustrate her drunkenness?
She definitely comes off as batshit crazy as well in the voicemails that she left for John that night. Those voicemails struck me as genuine, which makes the whole thing even more confusing. Like.. am I supposed to believe that she was so drunk that she didn’t even know she hit him? OK cool, but why are they charging her with 2nd degree murder then?
Or am I supposed to believe she knew she hit him, and in her completely wasted state came up with this mastermind plan to cover it up by calling him 50 times and leaving him drunken voicemails?
Or am I supposed to believe it was all an act? In that case, why did they go to such lengths to illustrate her drunkenness?
Posted on 3/28/25 at 10:03 am to lostinbr
quote:
I don’t think it’s a stretch to call her a narcissist. But I don’t know that her narcissism is an indication of her guilt or innocence.
There are a million reasons why she is a POS, but you're right - it doesn't make her guilty.
quote:
OK cool, but why are they charging her with 2nd degree murder then?
Higher the charge, the less attention it takes off the police IMO. Way too much frickery going on for it to be a coincidence. Proctor didn't go inside the house considering there was a freaking murder on their front lawn. He was buddies with homeowner Brian. Just so happened to give their dog away 2 months later long after KR was already charged. The shenanigans at the sally port with KR's car. Then getting busted in a lie that they weren't there.
Regardless if the cops were involved, they botched the investigation.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 12:10 pm to idlewatcher
The destroying of cell phones, to add to the list of frickery.. Albert and Higgins definitely had some stuff on their phones they just couldn't let out.
Posted on 3/31/25 at 10:28 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:The way Higgins did was just wild.
The destroying of cell phones
So, one of the tiktok gals covering this claims the phone data makes it impossible for Karen to have done it. Something about the time John's phone was last locked vs the time Karen logged onto John's wifi. This happened in 4 minutes and she claims 6 minutes is as good as one can do from the scene to his house.
Posted on 3/31/25 at 10:40 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:
The destroying of cell phones, to add to the list of frickery.. Albert and Higgins definitely had some stuff on their phones they just couldn't let out.
Is it also possible they had shite on their phones from unrelated issues/cases and that was why they destroyed them?
Posted on 3/31/25 at 10:49 am to More beer please
quote:
Is it also possible they had shite on their phones from unrelated issues/cases and that was why they destroyed them?
While a possibility, highly doubt it's their job to dispose of those phones. There would be a protocol and chain of custody for those phones (which apparently is never followed in today's world. See Mueller investigation).
Posted on 4/1/25 at 8:06 am to idlewatcher
Morning all,
Posted on 4/1/25 at 8:28 am to idlewatcher
What time does it start?
Posted on 4/1/25 at 8:29 am to More beer please
Posted on 4/1/25 at 9:40 am to OweO
Thanks bruh. Was trying to find a solid link but they were all offline this morning.
What did the judge rule regarding the juror who is now the defense side now?
What did the judge rule regarding the juror who is now the defense side now?
Page 30 of 159
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News