Karen Read Case

[SirHiss]

Defense attorneys can question witnesses without being condescending jerks. Even if Bukenik is being one, AJ shouldn’t lower himself to do it back.
AJ is trying to make people on the stand perjure other witnesses. I actually don’t know why the Judge is allowing it.

Did you feel the same way with how Brennen treated Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Russell?
A defense attorney is fighting for their client. If they know a witness is being untruthful or intentionally evasive it is their job to push them to answer. Jackson can be a lot sometimes, but trooper B was obviously avoiding answering some questions honestly.

 

[avabella]

Wolfe is a

Did you feel the same way with how Brennen treated Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Russell?
A defense attorney is fighting for their client. If they know a witness is being untruthful or intentionally evasive it is their job to push them to answer. Jackson can be a lot sometimes, but trooper B was obviously avoiding answering some questions honestly.

Wolfe is a paid witness for the defence and was using shady tactics so a

Did you feel the same way with how Brennen treated Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Russell?
A defense attorney is fighting for their client. If they know a witness is being untruthful or intentionally evasive it is their job to push them to answer. Jackson can be a lot sometimes, but trooper B was obviously avoiding answering some questions honestly.

Wolfe is a paid witness for the defence representing a company who have used significantly shady tactics and deliberately kept communications from the prosecution.
Regardless, it’s all a circus because she’s guilty clear as day, so the defence are hanging on with their lives trying to tie everyone up in knots to create distraction and confusion.

 

[SirHiss]

Wolfe is a

Wolfe is a paid witness for the defence and was using shady tactics so a

Wolfe is a paid witness for the defence representing a company who have used significantly shady tactics and deliberately kept communications from the prosecution.
Regardless, it’s all a circus because she’s guilty clear as day, so the defence are hanging on with their lives trying to tie everyone up in knots to create distraction and confusion.

If she was "guilty clear as day" we would not be in the middle of a second trial.

 

[Alfie1234]

Wolfe is a

Wolfe is a paid witness for the defence and was using shady tactics so a

Wolfe is a paid witness for the defence representing a company who have used significantly shady tactics and deliberately kept communications from the prosecution.
Regardless, it’s all a circus because she’s guilty clear as day, so the defence are hanging on with their lives trying to tie everyone up in knots to create distraction and confusion.

I love reading other opinions but not makes me wonder if I’m watching the same trial? That’s not to say you’re wrong and I’m right but it’s amazing how differently we can perceive things and if we are then surely the jury are too?

 

[Alfie1234]

Defense attorneys can question witnesses without being condescending jerks. Even if Bukenik is being one, AJ shouldn’t lower himself to do it back.
AJ is trying to make people on the stand perjure other witnesses. I actually don’t know why the Judge is allowing it.

The judge is one of the most biased and unprofessional I’ve ever seen and it’s all in favour of the prosecution. Compare her behavior to that of the judge in Lori Daybells trial a few weeks ago and they are like day and night. What he had to deal with was way more difficult yet he remained calm, professional and treated both sides equally well. Bev is just handing Karen Read a second mistrial with her actions.

 

[avabella]

I love reading other opinions but not makes me wonder if I’m watching the same trial? That’s not to say you’re wrong and I’m right but it’s amazing how differently we can perceive things and if we are then surely the jury are too?

Well for one tiny example;

why is it ok for Wolfe to have had communications with the defence via signal - an anonymous app which can’t be recovered - and also destroy his phone and get a new one…

but Brian Higgins (whose phone wasn’t required by the police at the time), got rid of his phone and purchased a new one, and somehow it’s evidence of a cover up.

It’s the double standards that are unnecessary.

I’m absolutely steadfast in my opinion that she’s guilty. It’s a small town and people are acting like the Alberts are the Sopranos, with everyone in their pocket covering up the murder - who was one of their friends (a fact a lot of people are forgetting).

Anyway peace out

 

[LondonCalling272]

The judge is one of the most biased and unprofessional I’ve ever seen and it’s all in favour of the prosecution. Compare her behavior to that of the judge in Lori Daybells trial a few weeks ago and they are like day and night. What he had to deal with was way more difficult yet he remained calm, professional and treated both sides equally well. Bev is just handing Karen Read a second mistrial with her actions.

Even just compare her to Judge Sisitsky who heard the motion about the communications it was night and day. Judge Cannone seems to be heavily biased towards the CW and has an obvious disdain for Alan Jackson. She used to be nice to Bob Alessi but she’s started snarking at him too now.

 

[LondonCalling272]

Well for one tiny example;

why is it ok for Wolfe to have had communications with the defence via signal - an anonymous app which can’t be recovered - and also destroy his phone and get a new one…

but Brian Higgins (whose phone wasn’t required by the police at the time), got rid of his phone and purchased a new one, and somehow it’s evidence of a cover up.

It’s the double standards that are unnecessary.

I’m absolutely steadfast in my opinion that she’s guilty. It’s a small town and people are acting like the Alberts are the Sopranos, with everyone in their pocket covering up the murder - who was one of their friends (a fact a lot of people are forgetting).

Anyway peace out

ARCCA weren't hired by the defence for the first trial, the deleted messages were deleted after the first trial.

Brian Higgins and Brian Albert destroyed their phones the day before the preservation order took effect - Brian Higgins extracted his own messages and turned it over. The implication behind it is that they were hiding something.

John O'Keefe was their friend but they didn't go to his funeral and referred to him as "the guy"

None of this changes there being no scientific evidence that John was hit by Karen's car. The Commonwealth still have a long way to go to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially after Yuri Bukhenik's day on the stand yesterday.

 

[Libertine1975]

Well for one tiny example;

why is it ok for Wolfe to have had communications with the defence via signal - an anonymous app which can’t be recovered - and also destroy his phone and get a new one…

but Brian Higgins (whose phone wasn’t required by the police at the time), got rid of his phone and purchased a new one, and somehow it’s evidence of a cover up.

It’s the double standards that are unnecessary.

I’m absolutely steadfast in my opinion that she’s guilty. It’s a small town and people are acting like the Alberts are the Sopranos, with everyone in their pocket covering up the murder - who was one of their friends (a fact a lot of people are forgetting).

Anyway peace out

I think she is guilty but it was an accident and not intentional. I do think she probably initially hadn't realised.

I don't think the judge is bias against the defence she rips them a new one from time to time but they ultimately get their way.

I just don't see a large group of people could keep silent for so long. Some of the people there were friends of one of the Albert kids and just don't see that they would keep quiet for an adult they didn't know.

Michael Proctor is a piece of tit and the investigation was totally botched but that is partially because it was never treated like a crime initially.

ARCCA might not have been hired by the defence but their dealings with the defence have been shady.

Also even if i didn't have anything to hide I'd probably destroy my phone if the lawyers defending someone by trying to blame me wanted it.

 

[avabella]

ARCCA weren't hired by the defence for the first trial, the deleted messages were deleted after the first trial.

Brian Higgins and Brian Albert destroyed their phones the day before the preservation order took effect - Brian Higgins extracted his own messages and turned it over. The implication behind it is that they were hiding something.

John O'Keefe was their friend but they didn't go to his funeral and referred to him as "the guy"

None of this changes there being no scientific evidence that John was hit by Karen's car. The Commonwealth still have a long way to go to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially after Yuri Bukhenik's day on the stand yesterday.

Or - they didn’t want their private messages to be dragged through a court the way they had seen Michael Procters personal phone be ransacked?

I think she is guilty but it was an accident and not intentional. I do think she probably initially hadn't realised.

I don't think the judge is bias against the defence she rips them a new one from time to time but they ultimately get their way.

I just don't see a large group of people could keep silent for so long. Some of the people there were friends of one of the Albert kids and just don't see that they would keep quiet for an adult they didn't know.

Michael Proctor is a piece of tit and the investigation was totally botched but that is partially because it was never treated like a crime initially.

ARCCA might not have been hired by the defence but their dealings with the defence have been shady.

Also even if i didn't have anything to hide I'd probably destroy my phone if the lawyers defending someone by trying to blame me wanted it.

Everything you’ve said is spot on.

I have no time for cover up theories or trying to stretch the narrative beyond all comprehension just to try and prove some petite white woman is innocent.

It’s the easiest cluedo puzzle in the world to solve and the very fact that the answer is staring everyone in the face is probably the reason some are thinking it’s ’too easy’. I wonder if they thought Lucy Letby was innocent too.

 

[Alfie1234]

Or - they didn’t want their private messages to be dragged through a court the way they had seen Michael Procters personal phone be ransacked?

Everything you’ve said is spot on.

I have no time for cover up theories or trying to stretch the narrative beyond all comprehension just to try and prove some petite white woman is innocent.

It’s the easiest cluedo puzzle in the world to solve and the very fact that the answer is staring everyone in the face is probably the reason some are thinking it’s ’too easy’. I wonder if they thought Lucy Letby was innocent too.

“petite white woman”, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[LondonCalling272]

Or - they didn’t want their private messages to be dragged through a court the way they had seen Michael Procters personal phone be ransacked?

The trial was over, I don't think it's that heinous to get rid of comms related to something you're not working on anymore. Proctor's personal phone was only "ransacked" because he used it for work and his texts came into scope from communication with others during the FBI investigation into NC DA's Office.

 

[avabella]

“petite white woman”, what does that have to do with anything?

Annnndddd just like the defence, cherry pick one tiny statement and try to twist it into something. It has everything to do with everything. She has gained instant support due to her white privilege.

If John had been run over by a black undocumented Uber driver, with pieces of his broken taillight found where his dead body lay, there would be ZERO cover up allegations.

 

[avabella]

The trial was over, I don't think it's that heinous to get rid of comms related to something you're not working on anymore. Proctor's personal phone was only "ransacked" because he used it for work and his texts came into scope from communication with others during the FBI investigation into NC DA's Office.

That’s not the point - they were using an app that is unrecoverable / anonymous. Shady practice.

 

[Alfie1234]

Annnndddd just like the defence, cherry pick one tiny statement and try to twist it into something. It has everything to do with everything. She has gained instant support due to her white privilege.

If John had been run over by a black undocumented Uber driver, with pieces of his broken taillight found where his dead body lay, there would be ZERO cover up allegations.

Best go and let Lori, Sarah, Lucy and all the other recently convicted small white women out then .

I Have no clue whether she’s guilty or not and I have no bias against or for, whereas you seem to have made up your mind. I’m just enjoying watching the trial and chatting about it, not interested in being preached at thanks.

 

[Alfie1234]

The trial was over, I don't think it's that heinous to get rid of comms related to something you're not working on anymore. Proctor's personal phone was only "ransacked" because he used it for work and his texts came into scope from communication with others during the FBI investigation into NC DA's Office.

I thought he came across very reasonably and all his explanations made sense, whereas the prosecution sounded utterly unhinged the way he was going at him. I liked how calm he stayed and that he stuck to his point.

 

[Alfie1234]

ARCCA weren't hired by the defence for the first trial, the deleted messages were deleted after the first trial.

Brian Higgins and Brian Albert destroyed their phones the day before the preservation order took effect - Brian Higgins extracted his own messages and turned it over. The implication behind it is that they were hiding something.

John O'Keefe was their friend but they didn't go to his funeral and referred to him as "the guy"

None of this changes there being no scientific evidence that John was hit by Karen's car. The Commonwealth still have a long way to go to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, especially after Yuri Bukhenik's day on the stand yesterday.

This is the part I’m stuck on, even if she hit him by accident why doesn’t he have injuries to prove it? I think she’ll get off, not because she’s innocent but because the police did such a piss poor job of doing a thorough investigation that they won’t be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I also think it’s entirely possible that he did go in that house and something happened there, he could have come out of there injured, she hits him with the car, enough to knock him over, but not enough to kill him, but the cold finishes him off.

 

[Libertine1975]

Best go and let Lori, Sarah, Lucy and all the other recently convicted small white women out then .

I Have no clue whether she’s guilty or not and I have no bias against or for, whereas you seem to have made up your mind. I’m just enjoying watching the trial and chatting about it, not interested in being preached at thanks.

Well the trial is wild. The investigation was totally botched but IMO the only reasonable explanation is that she hit him.

 

[avabella]

Best go and let Lori, Sarah, Lucy and all the other recently convicted small white women out then .

I Have no clue whether she’s guilty or not and I have no bias against or for, whereas you seem to have made up your mind. I’m just enjoying watching the trial and chatting about it, not interested in being preached at thanks.

Yeh, I’ve made up my mind based on the completely obvious picture that is shown right in front of everyone’s eyes.

I can’t say I’m particularly enjoying a trial of a murdered man, but it’s an interesting insight into a system that I thank god I will never ever play a part in

 

[avabella]

Best go and let Lori, Sarah, Lucy and all the other recently convicted small white women out then .

Conviction nothing to do with it, I’m talking about support. Lucy Letby had similar although not to this crazy American scale - if the nurse accused of killing all those babies had been a male, or even shock horror, a different nationality or race male, there would have been 0 conspiracy or cover up theories.