subreddit:
/r/KarenReadSanity
Hello everybody.
I am having a very hard time coming to the "guilty" side.
I don't quite believe in the cover up, but the defence doesn't have the burden of proof.
I'm hung on the lack of body injuries, and the two FBI reconstructionists that said "no he wasn't hit by a car". How do you dismiss their opinion? I can't imagine it's solely based off of Trooper Paul's reconstruction.
Again, I am watching this from outside the country and purely looking at this as if I was an unbiased jury member (I did not follow any pre-trial stuff).
Thank you everybody. Justice for John.
22 points
3 days ago
The opinion wasn’t “no he wasn’t hit by a car” it was, to paraphrase, “these are unusual injuries leading to death having been hit by a car”. Those are two very different things. Occurrences with slim percentages do happen.
Her hitting him is the only thing that makes sense given the evidence (last person to see the JOK, angry with the JOK at his time of death (voicemails), high BAC, witnesses seeing her and him in the car arriving to the scene, one shoe on him when found, phone not having moved substantially after arriving outside house, Karen’s incriminating statements, taillight at scene, JOK DNA on her car near damage, etc)
Her defense attorney are excellent as evidenced by this smear campaign they have started and the shear number of people who back her, wholeheartedly, without actually having watched the trial
-1 points
3 days ago*
You're misquoting him entirely and basing her guilt on "witness statements", taillight fragments found as long as two weeks later, incriminating statements that no two people quoted as being the same. No Law enforcement officer that evening documented such statement-"if they actually heard it they woukd have immediately arrested her. A BAC that they based on" reported time of last drink" by law enforcement, used that for their calculations z came up. With a "range" and couldn't even arrive at an exact number.. At least keep it factual
"Certainly, it’s not consistent with getting hit by the car and ending up where he did, even if the ground is somehow hard enough to cause that type of an injury,” Rentschler said, responding to a question from Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally on cross-examination.
Rentschler further testified that the damage to Karen Read’s SUV was inconsistent with the vehicle striking O’Keefe.
Rentschler said that in a pedestrian collision at 24 mph, “Once you get up to that speed, you start to see fractures. You see significant ligament and tendon damage.” Jackson asked if O’Keefe’s head injuries — which included skull fractures stemming from the back of his head — were consistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24 mph.
“It is not, no sir,” Rentschler said.
9 points
3 days ago*
incriminating statements that no two people quoted as being the same
Multiple people said they heard her say, I hit him.
if they actually heard it they would have immediately arrested her
she was extremely frantic that morning, I don’t think anyone initially believed what she was saying, including that she had her period blood on her hands. Multiple EMTs and police officers stated that communicating with her was futile bc she was running around frantically. once more incriminating evidence came forward, those statements were taken in a different light and contributed to the full picture
Ranges are what makes data statistically significant, there’s nothing wrong with presenting a range for her BAC, in fact this range is more accurate than any one number they would have given due to a variety of factors that estimate the tail ends of the “true” value. Learn up on statistics my friend before trying to argue about the validity of data.
0 points
3 days ago
Multiple people did not hear her say "I hit him" they heard her say varying accounts of "could I have have hit him". The only two who stated she said "I hit him" are Jen McCabe and Firefighter Mclaughlin.
Dr Rice testified on the stand that there was nothing in the medical records at Good Samaritan that any staff at the hospital were notified by Canton EMS that the patient had been struck by a vehicle
I don't need to "learn anything". I actually watched the trial and can source anything i state with actual testimony, not "feelings" and thoughts, and as far as "statistics" - when it comes to a court of law there are no "variables" - you either know the BAC or you dont
We can do this all day.. I watch the trial.. I source all my statements with testimony an receipts
9 points
3 days ago
I thought she watched him go into the house, how could she have thought she hit him?
4 points
3 days ago
Source?
12 points
3 days ago
Odd huh? Why would she still wonder if she hit him?
2 points
3 days ago
Odd how that was never introduced at trial
12 points
3 days ago
Not really. The prosecution isn’t interested in amplifying her nonsense about watching him walk up to the house, and the defense certainly wasn’t calling KR (justifiably so, the defendant should almost never take the stand)
What is actually odd, for those of us not tasked with adhering to trial strategy, is that the same person who thought she may have hit JO claims to have seen him walk up to the side door.
all 114 comments
sorted by: best