- 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 4/3/25 at 10:46 pm to Rebel
Posted on 4/3/25 at 10:46 pm to Rebel
quote:
I found her to be repulsive
So she is possibly guilty because she is “repulsive” and if Proctor didn’t send some text messages you might find her guilty?
1
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:09 pm to civiltiger07
How did you arrive at the conclusion she is guilty because she is repulsive.
The state didn’t come close to meeting their burden.
That’s all I’m saying.
Lots of repulsive people walking around that aren’t guilty of murder.
The state didn’t come close to meeting their burden.
That’s all I’m saying.
Lots of repulsive people walking around that aren’t guilty of murder.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:15 pm to Rebel
I think you might have misunderstood one of my previous post. I was trying to see why you can’t get to innocent?
Is it because you haven’t put much thought into innocence because the state didn’t failed to get past reasonable doubt? Or is it because there is something about the case that makes you think maybe she did hit him with her car I just have reasonable doubt that she didn’t hit him?
Is it because you haven’t put much thought into innocence because the state didn’t failed to get past reasonable doubt? Or is it because there is something about the case that makes you think maybe she did hit him with her car I just have reasonable doubt that she didn’t hit him?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:32 pm to civiltiger07
I just didn’t see anything in the documentary that proved she was innocent. But she doesn’t have to prove innocence.
My view is irrelevant. State failed miserably to prove their case imo.
My view is irrelevant. State failed miserably to prove their case imo.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:37 pm to Rebel
quote:
I just didn’t see anything in the documentary that proved she was innocent
What was the coverage of the ARCCA experts like in the documentary? How much where they covered and how?
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:39 pm to civiltiger07
You lost me with that one. If they covered it, I missed it.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:48 pm to Rebel
quote:
You lost me with that one. If they covered it, I missed it.
Well that would pretty insightful to the purpose of this series if they didn’t cover the ARCCA experts.
ARCCA is an engineering firm that does work for the NHL, US military and others. They are experts in how injuries occur and how to prevent injuries. They were hired by the U.S. attorney office to determine if the injuries to OJO and damage to the Lexus were consistent with a pedestrian strike.
Their finding was that based on the injuries to OJO and damage to the Lexus and pedestrian strike did not happen.
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 11:50 pm
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:50 pm to civiltiger07
Oh yea. They said there was no way she backed into him, knocked him out of shoes, and he flew 30 feet.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:52 pm to Rebel
quote:
They said there was no way she backed into him, knocked him out of shoes, and he flew 30 feet.
Essentially. That didn’t go to proving she didn’t back into OJO?
Or did was that part of what lead you to reasonable doubt?
This post was edited on 4/3/25 at 11:55 pm
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:57 pm to civiltiger07
It proves she didn’t back into him the way the state claims.
The dead police officer deserved better friends and a better girlfriend.
Sorry I can’t speak more to her innocence. She may very well be. From what I saw, she should have been acquitted. No way it should have been a hung jury.
The dead police officer deserved better friends and a better girlfriend.
Sorry I can’t speak more to her innocence. She may very well be. From what I saw, she should have been acquitted. No way it should have been a hung jury.
Posted on 4/3/25 at 11:59 pm to Rebel
quote:
It proves she didn’t back into him the way the state claims
So if she didn’t back into him at 24mph how did the taillight material end up on the yard all around him?
Posted on 4/4/25 at 12:09 am to civiltiger07
quote:
So if she didn’t back into him at 24mph how did the taillight material end up on the yard all around him?
Maybe the cop on video dicking around the area of her car tail light.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:32 am to civiltiger07
quote:
I have not watched the HBO series and probably won’t as it seems it is a hit piece.
I'm curious as to why you say this if you haven't watch the doc.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:03 am to LSBoosie
quote:
I'm curious as to why you say this if you haven't watch the doc.
Because everyone it seems a large percentage of people that say they only watched the documentary say some form of KR is not a good person, she probably did it, but it can’t be proven.
If you are doing a real unbiased documentary on this case the ARCCA testimony should be at the center of the entire thing. That testimony is completely exculpatory and proves that the pedestrian strike did not happen.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:16 am to civiltiger07
quote:
Because everyone it seems a large percentage of people that say they only watched the documentary say some form of KR is not a good person, she probably did it, but it can’t be proven.
I think that's because she hasn't said a word in court, etc.. and this was an opportunity to see and hear her. She's not winning any miss congeniality contests for sure.. But I watched the doc and came away thinking she was a douche, but innocent.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 10:01 am to JDPndahizzy
I'm also 100% certain that she is being framed. If I put myself in her shoes and was being framed for a murder I didn't commit I probably wouldn't be the nicest person in interviews.
That is also why they probably shouldn't have let her do these interviews for the documentary. Seems like they didn't consider that 1st trial could come back hung and they would be starting a new trail right when the documentary was airing.
That is also why they probably shouldn't have let her do these interviews for the documentary. Seems like they didn't consider that 1st trial could come back hung and they would be starting a new trail right when the documentary was airing.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 10:02 am to civiltiger07
quote:
Because everyone it seems a large percentage of people that say they only watched the documentary say some form of KR is not a good person
She comes off as an extremely unlikable person at times. I think she's probably a little crazy. And that's coming from someone who thinks she is innocent.
quote:
she probably did it, but it can’t be proven.
I've seen a few people say this, but I've also seen people not say this.
I also believe that, if anything, it's probably a little biased towards Karen Read. I do not believe at all that Karen Read and her team didn't have a heavy say in what all is shown in the docuseries.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 10:17 am to Rebel
quote:
I just didn’t see anything in the documentary that proved she was innocent.
Documentaries and even news will have their own takes. Totally different if you actually watched the entire trial. I watched every minute of the first trial. I’ve never followed a case full of so much reasonable doubt. Key cycle 1162 Karen’s car preparing to be loaded on tow truck. Both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins destroy their phones the day before they are ordered to preserve them. Autopsy photos. Karen’s phone connecting to home WiFi prior to time protests her hitting John occurred. The retired cop across the street that said “I reviewed my security system footage and there was nothing to see.” I guarantee you, if Karen actually rsteuck John with her car, he would have turned that footage over to the police. Tow truck driver and Dighton cop both say there was only a crack on Karen’s right taillight which probably occurred when she did the 3 point turn in John’s driveway to go look for him. You can see her right back end hit John’s vehicle because you could see it move in the ring camera video. The first Canton officer on the scene wasn’t even in his academy grad photo because he was caught cheating on the exam. Lots of integrity there!
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 10:20 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:23 am to civiltiger07
quote:
real unbiased documentary on this case
I think the HBO doc does a good job at being unbiased. As a previous poster has said repeatedly, the doc shows that the state did not put on a strong case and there is a ton of reasonable doubt, which is all you need to be found not guilty. It also shows that while most likely, not guilty, she isn’t a good person.
As it’s been repeated on here multiple times, she is a bitch, but that doesn’t make her a murderer.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 11:27 am to civiltiger07
quote:
If I put myself in her shoes and was being framed for a murder I didn't commit I probably wouldn't be the nicest person in interviews.
I probably wouldn't either. But it probably doesn't help that there are voicemails from before she was framed in which she comes across as a total bitch as well.
quote:
Seems like they didn't consider that 1st trial could come back hung and they would be starting a new trail right when the documentary was airing.
This seems incredibly dumb, if true. I choose not to believe that her team was foolish enough to believe that there was absolutely no way in which the first trial could have ended in a hung jury.
Page 32 of 159
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News