Karen Read Case

[avabella]

In a town in Scotland, a black man was arrested in the street and unfortunately died in police custody.

During his inquest, a LOT of attention was made of the fact that several police officers and eyewitnesses described him as ‘the boy’. They alleged this to be a sign of racist intent harking back to olden days and a symbolism of slavery.

What they absolutely failed to take into account was that in that town (and indeed that coast of the area) everyone describes men as ‘boys’. So they took a signal word and blew it all out of proportion to try and make it look like the man was killed in police custody on purpose.

 

[avabella]

That’s honestly all you need to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt? Respectfully, that’s a bit scary!

There may be doubt, but is is reasonable? That’s what I always come back to. Sure, the defence may be able to take a few circumstances and try to amplify them into a doubt, but is it reasonable, when putting together the bigger picture? For me it absolutely isn’t. Even without the phone and car data, I’d be steadfast that Karen is guilty.

 

[Tatvam]

The medical examiner finding no evidence of a motor vehicle strike is pretty reasonable to me

 

[avabella]

The medical examiner finding no evidence of a motor vehicle strike is pretty reasonable to me

They clarified it wasn’t consistent from a front ended vehicular strike. She did say he could have been clipped or sideswiped.

 

[avabella]

Did they have the car data for opening statements or is this a weird coincidence not once has Karen *ever* mentioned getting out of the car. I wonder if those extra gb of data shows her opening her car door.

My bad, I can’t add the video - I’ll try figure it out!

 

[Tatvam]

They clarified it wasn’t consistent from a front ended vehicular strike. She did say he could have been clipped or sideswiped.

And you think thats enough? You don't think the states own medical examiner should be sure how John died?

 

[avabella]

And you think thats enough? You don't think the states own medical examiner should be sure how John died?

She was sure of how he died - blunt impact trauma to the head and hypothermia. She doesn’t have to specify mode of death if she’s not 100%, it’s not clear cut like a gunshot or stabbing. That’s what the law enforcement is for.

edited to add: her results are designed to be looked at in context of the rest of the information available - not in isolation. John’s phone also dropped in temperature relatively quickly after it stopped recording data, so are we now summising that whoever supposedly attacked and left him for dead on the lawn also had the foresight to chuck his phone outside in case they ever checked the temperature? There’s just far too many variables to make it anything other than the most obvious conclusion. Occams Razor.

 

[Tatvam]

Ok. We're probably going to go round in circles with this one! I respect that you've made your mind up of her guilt..
I just genuinely don't know what the prosecution have actually proved so far.. and we're like four weeks in!

 

[avabella]

Ok. We're probably going to go round in circles with this one! I respect that you've made your mind up of her guilt..
I just genuinely don't know what the prosecution have actually proved so far.. and we're like six weeks in!

Ok that’s fair enough if that’s your belief. I find it wild that people can twist and change things to suit some sort of drama fantasy. Perhaps it’s a result of the obsession with true crime in modern times, plus social media.

 

[Tatvam]

Again, finding it difficult to believe that the prosecution can prove this case does not mean that you believe in "some sort of drama fantasy". It means you believe in the law

 

[avabella]

Again, finding it difficult to believe that the prosecution can prove this case does not mean that you believe in "some sort of drama fantasy". It means you believe in the law

I believe in common sense.

 

[Alfie1234]

Again, finding it difficult to believe that the prosecution can prove this case does not mean that you believe in "some sort of drama fantasy". It means you believe in the law

Yeah, I’m with you, I don’t know what this supposed drama fantasy is, but from everything I’ve watched there is more than reasonable doubt and the majority of the prosecution witnesses have been shady and duplicitous in their answers, unable to answer a simple question. If we’re damning Karen for the things she’s said then shouldn’t we be doing that to all the prosecution witnesses who have hidden evidence, lied under oath and dragged out proceedings unnecessarily because they’re trying to protect each other instead of tell the truth. Yuri was more bothered about protecting Proctor than he ever was in upholding his oath and telling the truth.

 

[Tatvam]

I believe in common sense.

But thats subjective isn't it. I hope if i'm ever facing trial my life isn't in the hands of twelve strangers "common sense"

 

[avabella]

Yeah, I’m with you, I don’t know what this supposed drama fantasy is, but from everything I’ve watched there is more than reasonable doubt and the majority of the prosecution witnesses have been shady and duplicitous in their answers, unable to answer a simple question. If we’re damning Karen for the things she’s said then shouldn’t we be doing that to all the prosecution witnesses who have hidden evidence, lied under oath and dragged out proceedings unnecessarily because they’re trying to protect each other instead of tell the truth. Yuri was more bothered about protecting Proctor than he ever was in upholding his oath and telling the truth.

The main difference here is that only Karen is on trial. There was no evidence found to assume a 3rd party was involved - none at all. Just one and the same as no 3rd party found in OJ Simpsons case, but he also had a high profile and an expensive legal team to try and cause confusion.

 

[avabella]

But thats subjective isn't it. I hope if i'm ever facing trial my life isn't in the hands of twelve strangers "common sense"

No, it’s really not subjective. It’s looking at the context as a whole and concluding what is the most likely outcome, coupled with evidence presented to you. And lm sure you won’t be, unless you’re planning on running someone over like Karen

 

[LondonCalling272]

If it were straightforward, yes. However, it's not when you've got suspicious things happening in the police department - Guarino managing to miss 32,000 messages for a start. There are other judges, lawyers and cops calling out what's going on in Canton. Occam's razor the simplest answer is the most likely answer but there's always an exception to the rule.

 

[avabella]

Weird choice of words. Karen has never said she got out of the car. Her story has changed, but never to include this. This is not an oversight by AJ.

My best bet is the defence have the car data that shows Karen’s door open at that time. Leading to her pulling the glass out of Johns face and not thinking he looked ‘mortally wounded’.

 

[avabella]

Independent company audited the Canton Police Department.


What did Canton Police Department audit find?
Auditors did find inadequacies in Canton's investigation into O'Keefe's death. But Matt Germanowski, senior director of 5 Stones Intelligence, said there was no evidence to support conspiracies that police attempted to frame Read, as her defense team has alleged.

"There's a lot of reasons that don't involve corruption or gross negligence. Weather, training, equipment, time, experience," Germanowski said. "So what people should take away is that the current police administration embraced the audit, they welcomed the recommendations and they implemented them."

The goal of the meeting was to help Canton Police build trust with the community.

Some of the recommendations that 5 Stones Intelligence made in their 200-page report included increased training and equipping all patrol officers with crime scene kits. Officials from the company told WBZ-TV the department has already started implementing these suggestions.

 

[LondonCalling272]

They did raise concerns about the collection of evidence, police not having correct equipment to collect evidence, officer’s personal phones being used, no photos taken of John at the crime scene, interviews not being done at the police station or recorded and the integrity of the scene wasn’t preserved as the crime scene wasn’t guarded.

The process of getting the audit was a mess there’s videos of the meetings. 5 stones was pushed by the chair of the meetings despite police audits not being their core business and then there’s this;

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-serious-fraud-office-weaponised-us-fixer-unaoil-case-court-told-2021-10-20/

Access Restricted

Dave Tinsley named as the fixer is the ceo of 5stones

 

[avabella]

They must be in on it too