Karen Read Case

[Kitty kat 20]

I'm obsessed with the Karen read case and Lori daybell case she is something else. But yea I still think Karen did it unintentionally maybe

 

[LondonCalling272]

She said she clipped him: They'd been drinking remember, maybe the contact was mild enough just to make him lose balance, and it was falling backwards and hitting his head that did the damage, that and the hypothermia. Who knows that John was standing up anyway, he could have been tying a shoelace (or bending down getting a stone out of his trainer, hence having that trainer off), picking up something he'd dropped, lord only knows.

She obviously knows she was instrumental in his death because why else would she say she clipped him (those words came out of her own mouth, hers and hers alone), why, when this attractive man she'd been arguing with didn't come home, did she immediately assume he was dead (a massive assumption) and not either still out drinking or in bed with a woman? How come she went straight to the flagpole and said that that was where she'd expected to find him?

If a partner fails to come home, most of us would simmer with fury and wait to have it out in the morning or whenever they turned up, not be ringing round in a panic in the middle of the night, assuming our partner was dead. That's one hellova stretch. It's bizarre behaviour and reeks of guilt.

I thought it was “Did I hit him?” Or “Did I clip him”?
Katie McLaughlin said she said it three times but then said Timothy Nuttall was in the ambulance with the door closed so he couldn’t have heard it. If she had really said that in front of law enforcement etc she’d have been arrested at the time surely.

You dont know how you’d act until you’re in the situation. But for me it doesn’t make sense that she would leave those sorts of voicemails if she was covering for herself. Compare it to the messages Brian Walshe left for / about his wife.

So far there’s been nothing to show John was actually hit by a car. If his arm had broken the tail light like that it would have been broken.
At the moment the case still hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That may change if Aperture’s testimony comes in (that raises other questions since their testimony is dependent on Whiffin’s and the timeline being changed).

During Daubert Dr Marie Russell testified that the holes in the hoodie sleeve were caused by something puncturing it and coming out of the hole, not going into it the way glass would have.

 

[avabella]

I'm obsessed with the Karen read case and Lori daybell case she is something else. But yea I still think Karen did it unintentionally maybe

I listened to a podcast on Lori Daybell but I just cannot get my head around it - *how* does someone sink so deeply into that kind of mindset? It blows my mind. And the thought of what has happened to those children made me stay away from that case altogether.

 

[LondonCalling272]

Lori Daybell is horrible. Did anyone see she’s trying to get a new trial because of a juror interview? He said he was not guilty until the night before then changed his mind.

Also the balls on that woman for trying to say the judge has been unfair to her, he’s helped her out a lot of times with being pro se when he didn’t have to.

 

[Kitty kat 20]

Lori daybell needs her own thread tbh. It's utterly shocking how she became so warped with that zombie stuff that she killed her own children. Sick really

 

[avabella]

Lori daybell needs her own thread tbh. It's utterly shocking how she became so warped with that zombie stuff that she killed her own children. Sick really

I think you can start a thread, you're right she should have one as that case is wild!

 

[karma4klattie]

I thought it was “Did I hit him?” Or “Did I clip him”?
Katie McLaughlin said she said it three times but then said Timothy Nuttall was in the ambulance with the door closed so he couldn’t have heard it. If she had really said that in front of law enforcement etc she’d have been arrested at the time surely.

You dont know how you’d act until you’re in the situation. But for me it doesn’t make sense that she would leave those sorts of voicemails if she was covering for herself. Compare it to the messages Brian Walshe left for / about his wife.

So far there’s been nothing to show John was actually hit by a car. If his arm had broken the tail light like that it would have been broken.
At the moment the case still hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That may change if Aperture’s testimony comes in (that raises other questions since their testimony is dependent on Whiffin’s and the timeline being changed).

During Daubert Dr Marie Russell testified that the holes in the hoodie sleeve were caused by something puncturing it and coming out of the hole, not going into it the way glass would have.

• KR drunk, driving erratically, backs into that other car (other car’s wheel moves a little) earlier in the evening, which cracks and loosens the tail light
• Later on she argues with John, drops him off at the after-party, backs up fast to hurl a final comment, he’s stooping down seeing to his trainer, a projecting bit of the cracked taillight scratches him above the eye as the car knocks him off balance and he falls backwards. As the car ‘clips’ John the taillight falls apart and the bits drop to the ground. John possibly too drunk to get up at once, or maybe stunned, unconscious or dead.
• KR drives home unaware of what has happened to John. If he was stooped down maybe she didn’t even see him in her rear-view mirrors and thinks he’s gone into the house. Possibly she was aware the car had bumped something and only later realised it was John. Numerous escalating hysterical phone calls to John followed by a dawning fear and phone calls to other people.
• Returns direct to the flagpole where John is laying and says it’s exactly where she expected to find him.

I don’t think the phone calls were a cover-up, they were scorned-woman fury followed by horrible realisation. Manslaughter at most, certainly not murder, but I’m sure she did it. Somehow!

n.b. I wish I had an explanation for the arm wounds! Anyone?

 

[avabella]

• KR drunk, driving erratically, backs into that other car (other car’s wheel moves a little) earlier in the evening, which cracks and loosens the tail light
• Later on she argues with John, drops him off at the after-party, backs up fast to hurl a final comment, he’s stooping down seeing to his trainer, a projecting bit of the cracked taillight scratches him above the eye as the car knocks him off balance and he falls backwards. As the car ‘clips’ John the taillight falls apart and the bits drop to the ground. John possibly too drunk to get up at once, or maybe stunned, unconscious or dead.
• KR drives home unaware of what has happened to John. If he was stooped down maybe she didn’t even see him in her rear-view mirrors and thinks he’s gone into the house. Possibly she was aware the car had bumped something and only later realised it was John. Numerous escalating hysterical phone calls to John followed by a dawning fear and phone calls to other people.
• Returns direct to the flagpole where John is laying and says it’s exactly where she expected to find him.

I don’t think the phone calls were a cover-up, they were scorned-woman fury followed by horrible realisation. Manslaughter at most, certainly not murder, but I’m sure she did it. Somehow!

n.b. I wish I had an explanation for the arm wounds! Anyone?

I largely agree with all of your points, except Karen hit Johns car when she was on her way out to 'look' for him - the tail light was already broken by that point, and there was no glass or plastic found on John's driveway.

The prosecution claim that it was this 'collision' that smashed Karen's tail light.

 

[evoway13]

If this had happened here in the UK, it would probably have been classified as an accident......and she would've got a slap on the wrist

The O'Keefe family are depending on Karen being found guilty ....as they are suing her in the civil courts

 

[LondonCalling272]

• KR drunk, driving erratically, backs into that other car (other car’s wheel moves a little) earlier in the evening, which cracks and loosens the tail light
• Later on she argues with John, drops him off at the after-party, backs up fast to hurl a final comment, he’s stooping down seeing to his trainer, a projecting bit of the cracked taillight scratches him above the eye as the car knocks him off balance and he falls backwards. As the car ‘clips’ John the taillight falls apart and the bits drop to the ground. John possibly too drunk to get up at once, or maybe stunned, unconscious or dead.
• KR drives home unaware of what has happened to John. If he was stooped down maybe she didn’t even see him in her rear-view mirrors and thinks he’s gone into the house. Possibly she was aware the car had bumped something and only later realised it was John. Numerous escalating hysterical phone calls to John followed by a dawning fear and phone calls to other people.
• Returns direct to the flagpole where John is laying and says it’s exactly where she expected to find him.

I don’t think the phone calls were a cover-up, they were scorned-woman fury followed by horrible realisation. Manslaughter at most, certainly not murder, but I’m sure she did it. Somehow!

n.b. I wish I had an explanation for the arm wounds! Anyone?

Karen reversed into John’s car after she’s alleged to have hit John so the tail light wasn’t already loose before he was hit.
It also didn’t make sense the way the pieces were just nonchalantly picked up by cops driving past on their way home as per Berkowitz - he can’t answer for that now though as he has passed away.

The investigation was an absolute tit show, I just don’t see how they can get past reasonable doubt unless this new data from Aperture blows everything out of the water

 

[evoway13]

I largely agree with all of your points, except Karen hit Johns car when she was on her way out to 'look' for him - the tail light was already broken by that point, and there was no glass or plastic found on John's driveway.

The prosecution claim that it was this 'collision' that smashed Karen's tail light.

Watching Trooper Bukhenik trying to state that JOK's car didn't move or 'collide' with Karen's car ....was astounding. She hit it with some force to make it move.

 

[avabella]

If this had happened here in the UK, it would probably have been classified as an accident......and she would've got a slap on the wrist

The O'Keefe family are depending on Karen being found guilty ....as they are suing her in the civil courts

Do you think? A person was still killed and the alleged left the scene of the accident. I would have said here in the UK would have been a higher chance of a conviction due to majority verdicts and manslaughter etc.

 

[avabella]

Karen reversed into John’s car after she’s alleged to have hit John so the tail light wasn’t already loose before he was hit.
It also didn’t make sense the way the pieces were just nonchalantly picked up by cops driving past on their way home as per Berkowitz - he can’t answer for that now though as he has passed away.

The investigation was an absolute tit show, I just don’t see how they can get past reasonable doubt unless this new data from Aperture blows everything out of the water

I don’t think I’d class it as a total shitshow, but regardless, even if a 5 year old carried it out, it doesn’t absolve from basic common sense and whether someone is innocent or not.

I find in some of the Facebook groups the general feeling is ‘tit investigation = innocent’ which just blows my mind.

 

[LondonCalling272]

I don’t think I’d class it as a total shitshow, but regardless, even if a 5 year old carried it out, it doesn’t absolve from basic common sense and whether someone is innocent or not.

I find in some of the Facebook groups the general feeling is ‘tit investigation = innocent’ which just blows my mind.

I don’t think she’s innocent just because the investigation was bad and personally I’d class a year to write a report as a tit show. Then proctor’s questionable conduct, trying to press the ME to declare it a homicide, driving around with evidence in his car for weeks. All the info that names him as lead investigator and now they’re doing a dance around it to avoid admitting it.
It’s a shame the judge hasn’t allowed Michael Easter to testify as to what is and isn’t standard procedure.

 

[avabella]

I don’t think she’s innocent just because the investigation was bad and personally I’d class a year to write a report as a tit show. Then proctor’s questionable conduct, trying to press the ME to declare it a homicide, driving around with evidence in his car for weeks. All the info that names him as lead investigator and now they’re doing a dance around it to avoid admitting it.
It’s a shame the judge hasn’t allowed Michael Easter to testify as to what is and isn’t standard procedure.

No I get that, but it’s definitely a feeling amongst a lot of Americans.
I can see that the prosecution don’t want this to become the Michael Proctor trial, which is where the defence is trying to lead it. I think it comes back to - tit investigation doesn’t equate to innocence. But that is the whole defence strategy.

 

[evoway13]

Didn't JOK last lock his phone at 00.32hrs and Karen was logged on to JOK's wifi two or three minutes later? JOK's house is a 7 minute drive from Fairview in good weather conditions. If he wasn't set upon by the McAlbert's/Higgins, then I think he's tripped or fallen, hitting his head on the fire hydrant. I've seen a few people state Karen is guilty due to her having an abrasive personality

 

[evoway13]

No I get that, but it’s definitely a feeling amongst a lot of Americans.
I can see that the prosecution don’t want this to become the Michael Proctor trial, which is where the defence is trying to lead it. I think it comes back to - tit investigation doesn’t equate to innocence. But that is the whole defence strategy.

The timeline is the defence strategy...

 

[avabella]

Didn't JOK last lock his phone at 00.32hrs and Karen was logged on to JOK's wifi two or three minutes later? JOK's house is a 7 minute drive from Fairview in good weather conditions. If he wasn't set upon by the McAlbert's/Higgins, then I think he's tripped or fallen, hitting his head on the fire hydrant. I've seen a few people state Karen is guilty due to her having an abrasive personality

12.32 was the last time his phone was touched. She connected at 12.36 and entered the house via the garage at 12.42 (I’d need to double check this exact time).
There are videos on YouTube with people doing the drive in much shorter times.

 

[Tatvam]

I don’t think I’d class it as a total shitshow, but regardless, even if a 5 year old carried it out, it doesn’t absolve from basic common sense and whether someone is innocent or not.

I find in some of the Facebook groups the general feeling is ‘tit investigation = innocent’ which just blows my mind.

tit investigation= reasonable doubt= innocent

I've said before that I reckon she could have done it but thankfully the law isn't based around gut feeling, it has to be proven. Which in this case I just don't think they can

 

[avabella]

tit investigation= reasonable doubt= innocent

I've said before that I reckon she could have done it but thankfully the law isn't based around gut feeling, it has to be proven. Which in this case I just don't think they can

The lawful way to explain that is ‘tit investigation = reasonable doubt = not guilty’

Innocence and not guilty are not one and the same.