Karen Read Case

[SocksMagoo]

That still involves everyone lying, and somehow managing to firstly, concoct a plan of cover up in that short space of time, including outsiders to help with planting pieces of taillight etc.

It's not really a cover up though, as long as everyone at 34 Fairview agrees John didn't come in the house and Karen hit him. All Higgins would need to do is to tell Proctor they know Karen hit him with her car but there's not enough evidence to prove it and he agrees to manipulate evidence. Hell, maybe they didn't even ask Proctor to do anything and he decided he needed more evidence to make a conviction against Karen stick.

I don't have an explanation for the glass in John's face though, am I right in thinking a cocktail glass was found but it didn't come from any of the bars they had been to? Was the glass smashed?

 

[juniperroad]

We wouldn't have all these questions if the police had just done their job.

The prosecution had a dress rehearsal with the first trial and should be banging this one out of the water.

I would love to know what this is costing the taxpayers. Did they really buy a used Lexus to perform these tests since they messed up the one in her car? The mind boggles at all these missteps.

 

[avabella]

It's not really a cover up though, as long as everyone at 34 Fairview agrees John didn't come in the house and Karen hit him. All Higgins would need to do is to tell Proctor they know Karen hit him with her car but there's not enough evidence to prove it and he agrees to manipulate evidence. Hell, maybe they didn't even ask Proctor to do anything and he decided he needed more evidence to make a conviction against Karen stick.

I don't have an explanation for the glass in John's face though, am I right in thinking a cocktail glass was found but it didn't come from any of the bars they had been to? Was the glass smashed?

That’s exactly a cover up

What I’m meaning is there is 0 evidence that any of this was able to take place in the timings available. No one has narrowed it down to x time and x time, this person was contacted, this person did this etc. It’s already been proven that Proctor couldn’t have planted the tail light pieces, so who else could it have been? And why would they do that?
There was also glass found in Karen’s taillight housing, so they’d also have needed evidence to have left the scene and travelled back to the car, again implicating someone else.

No one has come up with an actual realistic alternative timeline because there’s so many variables that when you try to put it together you’d realise it doesn’t fit. Individually, things may pass, but altogether? It’s not possible.

 

[avabella]

This is a good, well balanced statement.

 

[LondonCalling272]

We wouldn't have all these questions if the police had just done their job.

The prosecution had a dress rehearsal with the first trial and should be banging this one out of the water.

I would love to know what this is costing the taxpayers. Did they really buy a used Lexus to perform these tests since they messed up the one in her car? The mind boggles at all these missteps.

Brennan was initially supposed to be $75,000, he’s been upped to $225,000 now. Aperture bought the Lexus there’s been no payments to them from the Commonwealth yet though

 

[Alittlebitofme]

What do you think is the reason the defence went for Alessi? He’s not a criminal attorney.

It doesn’t matter that he’s not a criminal attorney. He has been an amazing addition to the defence team with his tech and pharmaceutical knowledge. He’s not arguing against the police and witnesses he’s going up against the “experts”.

 

[avabella]

It doesn’t matter that he’s not a criminal attorney. He has been an amazing addition to the defence team with his tech and pharmaceutical knowledge. He’s not arguing against the police and witnesses he’s going up against the “experts”.

Of course it matters, but if that’s the case then it’s almost much the same as it not mattering if someone has a bachelors degree or not, if they have the data knowledge. So horses for courses.

Edited to add: interesting you make the distinction that he’s not arguing against the police or witnesses, but against the experts - that’s the crux of a defence isn’t it, when you can’t argue with cold hard facts, attack the evidence.

 

[juniperroad]

After going through some of the CV's from other employees at aperture I can understand his need to lie about his education. Very educated folks at that company. His still reads

 

[Alittlebitofme]

Of course it matters, but if that’s the case then it’s almost much the same as it not mattering if someone has a bachelors degree or not, if they have the data knowledge. So horses for courses.

Edited to add: interesting you make the distinction that he’s not arguing against the police or witnesses, but against the experts - that’s the crux of a defence isn’t it, when you can’t argue with cold hard facts, attack the evidence.

how can you even compare the two, Alessi is an attorney who hasn’t lied on his CV. Burgess is an expert who lied about his degree and expertise.

I am not attacking the evidencethere has been no evidence. Why can’t the commonwealth find someone who can definitively show that John was hit by a car and left to die in the cold. Any expert that has tried to prove this has been torn apart by Alessi.

 

[avabella]

how can you even compare the two, Alessi is an attorney who hasn’t lied on his CV. Burgess is an expert who lied about his degree and expertise.

I am not attacking the evidencethere has been no evidence. Why can’t the commonwealth find someone who can definitively show that John was hit by a car and left to die in the cold. Any expert that has tried to prove this has been torn apart by Alessi.

He didn’t lie. I’m not sure how that’s not computing. He did not say on the stand he has that qualification. He did not write it on a cv, that was submitted to the court.

If it really comes down to it that you need complete solid irrefutable ‘proof’ then you must be disappointed in a lot of trials, because for a lot of crimes, there isn’t one specific definitive proof. It’s a culmination of multiple events, evidence, eyewitnesses, circumstance etc - and when considered as a whole, is more reasonable than not.

The twists and turns you’d have to pull to try and get any sort of alternative narrative to fit proves this.

 

[LondonCalling272]

how can you even compare the two, Alessi is an attorney who hasn’t lied on his CV. Burgess is an expert who lied about his degree and expertise.

I am not attacking the evidencethere has been no evidence. Why can’t the commonwealth find someone who can definitively show that John was hit by a car and left to die in the cold. Any expert that has tried to prove this has been torn apart by Alessi.

It’s funny because Hank went off on one accusing ARCCA of colluding with the defence when they could have chosen to use them too. But now Hank’s been found to be lying “oh I didn’t know about this report” when the witnesses are supposed to be sequestered and Alessi is bad for bringing that and Burgess claiming to have a degree that doesn’t even exist to light.

If you can’t trust someone not to lie about the simplest of things how can you trust them not to lie about crucial data - which they’ve already got wrong and caused a significant change to.
Burgess’s testimony has been a clown show so far.

 

[SocksMagoo]

Of course it matters, but if that’s the case then it’s almost much the same as it not mattering if someone has a bachelors degree or not, if they have the data knowledge. So horses for courses.

Edited to add: interesting you make the distinction that he’s not arguing against the police or witnesses, but against the experts - that’s the crux of a defence isn’t it, when you can’t argue with cold hard facts, attack the evidence.

I don't think Alessi not being a criminal defence lawyer is the same as someone not having a bachelors degree and lying about it.

Lucy Letby's lawyer isn't a criminal defence lawyer, but are you suggesting she didn't have a good defense?

That’s exactly a cover up

What I mean is it might not be a Grand Conspiracy To Frame That witch Karen Read.

At the end of the day, expecting people on the internet to come up with an airtight alternative timeline which could hold up against the prosecution's case isn't going to happen. Unless they have much more time on their hands than I do!

 

[Alittlebitofme]

Seen the below post online:

Just to review - for more than 2.5 years the Commonwealth had Karen Read's black box data for her car, but it didn't tell them the exact moment Karen Read gunned it in reverse, so they had to use key cycles and events, which didn't have times. Then they found a guy from Alabama, pretending to be a college graduate, and he found what no one else before him could find using the same evidence the Commonwealth had this entire time.

 

[LondonCalling272]

Seen the below post online:

Just to review - for more than 2.5 years the Commonwealth had Karen Read's black box data for her car, but it didn't tell them the exact moment Karen Read gunned it in reverse, so they had to use key cycles and events, which didn't have times. Then they found a guy from Alabama, pretending to be a college graduate, and he found what no one else before him could find using the same evidence the Commonwealth had this entire time.

The google reviews for Aperture now have a 5/5 star rating from Alan Jackson

 

[Alittlebitofme]

The google reviews for Aperture now have a 5/5 star rating from Alan Jackson

I seen that so funny

 

[Alittlebitofme]

He didn’t lie. I’m not sure how that’s not computing. He did not say on the stand he has that qualification. He did not write it on a cv, that was submitted to the court.

If it really comes down to it that you need complete solid irrefutable ‘proof’ then you must be disappointed in a lot of trials, because for a lot of crimes, there isn’t one specific definitive proof. It’s a culmination of multiple events, evidence, eyewitnesses, circumstance etc - and when considered as a whole, is more reasonable than not.

The twists and turns you’d have to pull to try and get any sort of alternative narrative to fit proves this.

What twists and turns am I trying to pull ? I have been honest about the fact that I don’t believe Karen killed John. And so far there has been no evidence from the commonwealth to even remotely change my mind.

 

[LondonCalling272]

What I mean is it might not be a Grand Conspiracy To Frame That witch Karen Read.

At the end of the day, expecting people on the internet to come up with an airtight alternative timeline which could hold up against the prosecution's case isn't going to happen. Unless they have much more time on their hands than I do!

That’s it, I don’t even think it was chosen to be Karen I think it was just convenient - there’s a theory that the call from Jen McCabe to Nicole Albert around 5am was to put John outside.

There’s a multitude of things that could have happened, the way the wagons have circled around Colin Albert I still think it was some sort of fight that went wrong and if it hadn’t been Karen it would have been Lucky Loughran.

But like you say we are just people on the internet and we don’t have time to get that deep into it.

Personally I think at first glance then yes you’d believe Karen did it but when you get into the shady things with the police investigation, FBI being involved & all of the lying going on, there’s more to it than that.

 

[avabella]

I don't think Alessi not being a criminal defence lawyer is the same as someone not having a bachelors degree and lying about it.

Lucy Letby's lawyer isn't a criminal defence lawyer, but are you suggesting she didn't have a good defense?




What I mean is it might not be a Grand Conspiracy To Frame That witch Karen Read.

At the end of the day, expecting people on the internet to come up with an airtight alternative timeline which could hold up against the prosecution's case isn't going to happen. Unless they have much more time on their hands than I do!

She actually didn’t have a great defence they called a plumber as an expert witness for god sake.

 

[avabella]

That’s it, I don’t even think it was chosen to be Karen I think it was just convenient - there’s a theory that the call from Jen McCabe to Nicole Albert around 5am was to put John outside.

There’s a multitude of things that could have happened, the way the wagons have circled around Colin Albert I still think it was some sort of fight that went wrong and if it hadn’t been Karen it would have been Lucky Loughran.

But like you say we are just people on the internet and we don’t have time to get that deep into it.

Personally I think at first glance then yes you’d believe Karen did it but when you get into the shady things with the police investigation, FBI being involved & all of the lying going on, there’s more to it than that.

Can you list these multitude of things that could have happened so I can get a better understanding of how you see that night played out?

 

[Alittlebitofme]

That’s it, I don’t even think it was chosen to be Karen I think it was just convenient - there’s a theory that the call from Jen McCabe to Nicole Albert around 5am was to put John outside.

There’s a multitude of things that could have happened, the way the wagons have circled around Colin Albert I still think it was some sort of fight that went wrong and if it hadn’t been Karen it would have been Lucky Loughran.

But like you say we are just people on the internet and we don’t have time to get that deep into it.

Personally I think at first glance then yes you’d believe Karen did it but when you get into the shady things with the police investigation, FBI being involved & all of the lying going on, there’s more to it than that.

100%. And then the fact that Hank hasn’t even called most of the people who were in the house that night to the stand. I think the 2 Brian’s and Colin are at the centre of this.