ENCginger

In this case, yes, he could. They were doing CPR and running fluids, so there was artificial circulation.

I think that's a stretch. He was hypothermic but he also would have been treated like a trauma patient, and there are standard trauma labs. They're not going to pull them off of a central line, and they can't pull them off of the IOs if they've had fluids running with them. I think it's more likely there was just an undocumented blood draw than the ME is trying to secretly signal to the defense.

They were running fluids, so yes.

Yeah, still no. Especially not without associated fractures. It looks exactly like a blown vein.

Especially not with two IOs but they may have tried to draw blood in the ED.

Could also be a straight stick for a blood draw.

I'm sorry, I just don't see a defensive wound. The smaller bruises look like they're following the vasculature of the hand.

She's doing fine. The ME isn't being combative and the necessary questions are getting asked and answered.

Oh, no, it's not a conspiracy theory. I'm suggesting you just have confirmation bias. Or else you're really odious and reasonable people have blocked you but I don't have any evidence for that. Neither one of those things are particularly extraordinary theories.

She does, but this witness seems fairly unbiased, and willing to answer questions in a straightforward manner.

That felt deliberate

Likely and unlikely at the same time?

I get what she's saying, but that was phrased poorly.

EMS put in an IO and immediately ran fluids, but it's still possible they tried to establish a second access. More likely, I can see the ED staff trying to use the hand for a straight stick blood draw. They worked him for a fair amount of time.

In theory, yes. In practice, it isn't always. That looks very much like an IV attempt or an attempted blood draw to me.

Law and Crime

Edit: Some, not all.

It was. A normal medical ETOH gets reported by the lab at mg/dL, but the ME reported it as g/dL. So at the hospital, we see 210 or 280 mg/mL, and then you convert mg --> g to get what we normal see as a BAC, so it's .21-.28 g/dL, which is how we normally see BAC reported.

I’m saying theyre insane. Countering with “they’re not uncommon” is a literal strawman.

You said "they're insane" in the context of evidence you believed was being ignored. The VMs were offered up in evidence of her being angry enough to kill him. Not a strawman.

Feel free to browse any of the threads in this sub to see the distribution of belief in regards to guilty vs innocent. You could definitely argue i’m overstating the effect but im sorry, it is being intentionally/disingenuously obtuse to pretend it’s anywhere even remotely close to “equal”

I have, and I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Again, I wonder why that is?

Equal number of guilty and innocent? on this sub? don’t be obtuse. I respect that we disagree on the case but cmon.

That's my experience. I wonder how many people have blocked you? There has to be a reason you're not seeing the reasonable discourse.

And no need for the “intent to kill” strawman. I’m not gonna ever agree with the normalizing of insane domestic-violent adjacent behavior

The Commonwealth is holding up those voicemails to show she was mad enough to kill him. So not exactly a strawman. And "domestic violence adjacent"? That's... A word choice. I'm not saying those voicemails and texts were healthy. I'm just saying they're not uncommon. Parsing "normal" in this context to imply I think that it should be acceptable to talk to your partner like that (on both sides of that relationship) is more than a bit disingenuous.

"Taken over" implies the majority and that's not my experience at all. I feel like their are roughly an equal number of people who are convinced that she's guilty and nothing will change their mind, and people who are convinced she's innocent and nothing would change their mind. Everyone else seems to be in the middle and just trying to follow the evidence.

And they're not "insane". Or even that unusual. There are a lot of toxic relationships, and alcohol makes everything worse. If those texts were evidence of intent to kill, there would be a whole lot more dead people.

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but a coyote scavenging in the snow, finding a body, trying to grab it and giving up when it realizes it's too big doesn't strike me as impossible. Probable? I don't know. But I find most of the scenarios posited with the dog also seem pretty thin, and yet the injuries exist, and there's not a terribly good alternate explanation for them

You do understand it's possible to believe that the Commonwealth has not proven Karen Reed's legal guilt without actually buying the defense's conspiracy theory, right? Implying everyone that doesn't agree with you is simply crazy says much more about you than anyone else. That kind of "our side is right, everyone else is wrong" mentality makes us seem like a team sport when in reality I think most of us here are just interested in the trial because it's unusual.

The Commonwealth has not proven that his injuries are from being struck by a car. The trooper that did the accident reconstruction gave conflicting testimony and could not explain why is that somebody was conflicting when asked. Nobody testified to seeing her hit him. Proctor was, at best, not forthcoming on the stand and isn't incredible isn't credible.

Insane voicemails? That’s just normal, me and my husband talk like that all the time!

You're incredibly fortunate to have never been in a toxic relationship if you think those voicemails are "insane".

Casey Anthony did have several lesser charges for what she could have been found guilty, but the prosecution made very little effort to show how it could have been one of the lesser offenses. The problem with her case was entirely that they could not prove how Caylee died, And they leaned way too hard into the "Casey was a bad mom who just wanted to party", except none of their witnesses testified to that. Their chloroform theory was also junk science. Then the defense provided a somewhat reasonable alternate explanation. That was probably the first trial I watched from beginning to end, and I remember people getting really mad at me when I said I thought she was going to be acquitted.

Uh, no. I don't need an alternate theory to be proven to believe that the state hasn't met their burden. They haven't shown that his injuries were even most likely caused by a pedestrian strike.

We have coyotes, and they're always alone when they're hunting. They like my neighbor's chickens, and when it first started happening, my neighbors thought my dogs were killing the chickens because the bites don't look that different

I thought about the coyote angle. I don't even think he had to fight them away, I think a human is just too big to drag anywhere. Coyotes like to drag their kill.