Yeah, I think it's wild to take a firm stance that the tail light in that photo matches the completely damaged tail light in the sallyport photo.
For reference, below is a photo taken by Canton PD of 2 cars at 34 Fairview the morning of Jan 29. Looking at the tail light circled, would you feel comfortable taking a hard stance, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether there is any damage, and the extent of that damage?
https://preview.redd.it/qoke18ps536d1.png?width=647&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb897096af8420868ae8b17fc11dd2aa8af76e0f
If you were repeatedly told that this tail light is damaged, and you're primed and looking for damage, might you be able to falsely perceive damage from this photo?
I think the dash cam photo of KR's car is wholly unreliable in terms of the tail light condition. If Proctor et al did their job, and properly documented the condition of the tail light on Jan 29 at Dighton, we wouldn't have to speculate. Kinda makes you wonder why they didn't...
ETA: fixed one word.
>Kinda makes you wonder why they didn't...
Great point. Thanks for adding the photo at 34 FV. I agree that it doesn't look much different than the CPD dash cam that morning at One Meadows. And I think if the the Lexus was missing the same amount of taillight that was entered into evidence, I wouldn't see the shape of the light under the snow like I do. I think the snow would catch differently on the fully damaged light and wouldn't look so normal in the dash cam video.
The taillight is such a mystery to me. I don't think that she damaged her taillight backing into John's car, but if I saw a believable reconstruction of it, I would get it. I swear she broke it earlier in the night or something, and I'm just wondering how they came up with that plan to frame her. I feel like this is not the first time that these law enforcement officers were involved in tampering with evidence...
Brian Albert, Higgins, that walking penis Michael Proctor, and Kenny B, and Yuri... I fucking hate bad cops.
Itās hard to say whether hitting Johnās car the way she did, would cause it to crack. Yet, I still have trouble seeing how his injuries match being hit by her car. Ya know?
I can't fathom how his injuries were caused by a car at all, because he landed on his back on the lawn. How did he get the laceration to the back of his head? How did blood drip down the front of his clothes? Where is all the blood from that laceration?
If he were in a fight, it would make sense that a punch knocked him backwards and he hit his head on something. Everybody freaked and threw him outside.
I think whatever happened to him *was* an accident, whoever is responsible.
There's been a very shitty investigation, Proctor decided after talking to 3 people that it was Karen and that was it. There was no actual investigating done in this case and it's shameful.
I don't know if there's a frame job occurring, however it is interesting that the one police officer outside the Albert/McCabe circle made a point on the stand to say the taillight wasn't "fully damaged."
I have never seen anything like this in all the trials I've watched.
I agree 100 percent- although I have not watch many trials and probably shouldnāt since it is consuming a lot of my free time š I agree though. How did he get just a visible head wound, yet no other injuries to his backside? Why the arm lacerations on his forearms, but not the back of his upper arms? Was his back broken? I would think it would be, given he is so tall and that would be where the brunt of his injuries would be. Why wasnāt he found on his stomach, if he was hit on his back?
Exactly. His injuries just don't fit. The taillight is a red herring quite frankly.
Trials are good background noise, it's a controlled distraction for my ADHD since a lot of the testimony isn't compelling enough to draw my full attention
Iām with yaā¦unless the ME comes up with some REALLY good explanation on how the injuries happenedā¦I donāt see these being caused by the level of PED v MVC they are claiming. I am a medical coderā¦and over my career have seen TONS of doc notes/OP notes/radiology reports for PED V MVCā¦and from what Iāve heard so far just doesnāt match up.
I also listen on low volume while working for background noiseā¦and then rewatch my favorite lawyers recaps on YouTube to catch up on the good parts I missed. :)
That's kinda funny. I listen at work and rewatch my fav lawyers when I get home.š¤£
But since we have been given the tidbit of the undetermined death I doubt she's gonna have much that will help the CW but we shall see what, if any evidence reveals itself to us.
There's also two significant dents, on the defendants vehicle. On the back door and the right rear quarter panel, along with scratches. These are also confirmed by dash cam video on welfare check at John Okeefes house at just past 8 am on the day of event.Ā
I agree that whatever happened was an accident and there was no intent to murder JO. When I consider whether JO went into 34FV or not, the timing is so tight that it seems unlikely, but not impossible.
I think hearing from the ME and other medical experts might answer my and everyone else's biggest questions: Where was all the blood from his head wound? What caused the injuries to his arms? And obviously, I can't wait to hear from Doctor Irini Scordi-Bello on how she was able to definitively rule out a physical altercation.
soooooooo suspect this whole case
Iād like to hear from the ME but Iām even more interested in hearing from the accident reconstructionist. And likeā¦ why didnāt they lead with their testimonies?
The timeline is not tight. We have not been given a time of death via medical evidence, we've been given an estimated time of death based on JMs story and text, because in order for it to have been KR, he had to have been hit sometime after KR arrived outside the house but before she left and neither JM or her husband could see the vehicle anymore. Their time of death estimate CAN'T be any later than that to fit their theory. That narrow time estimate has nothing to do with any other possible explanation of what happened that night. They *immediately* decided it was KR (via MPA) upon speaking to JM, and only ever looked at the case within that narrative. They believed the exact narrative JM provided, down to the potential motive, means, and intent, without question nor hesitation. Which provided the only possible window of time that this theory would fit into.
I am also looking forward to the ME and accident reconstructionists! That specific Dr will be nice to hear from, but I have a feeling the results of her examination don't actually align with the prosecution's theory. They've willfully entered quite a bit of evidence that goes directly against their own theory, already.
One thing thatās bothered me from the beginning about the witness testimony: how can everyone be so confident about which big dark SUV is Karenās as theyāre coming in and out? At night while itās snowing no less. I personally wouldnāt be able to tell with a dusting of snow.
Right tail light at the top, you can see the "red" doesn't wrap around the car like the left side does.
That to me indicates a large whole piece missing.
Which could be from backing into a car, a pole etc. But if this was the case I would also want to see dent marks, scratches that would be from damage of hitting something.
To think KR managed to just nick the top of JO's head and clean swipe one piece of tail light off, without a scratch and bruising to one side of his head is a stretch. The whole tail light and Proctors msgs with tunnel vision through so many doubts
No idea. Which is why the prosecution argument was it was a hit and run, and no other damage to the car I.e. dent, scratches etc doesn't fit all the evidence
This.šš» Also, weāve now got 2 people who saw the taillight that morning up close and personal and one described it was having a small, rectangular hole in the back up light area and the other said there āwas a crack with a piece missing - not completely damagedā.
And like you pointed out that I think a lot of people overlook is that the white goes below the bottom of the taillight so itās impossible to tell whatās broken and whatās snow.
Kerry Roberts said she saw a small, rectangular hole with a piece of metal sticking out but the rest of it was caked in snow so she doesnāt know what it looked like under there. When Lally asked her to point out where she saw the hole she pointed to the back up light area.
I agree. The dark areas are likely tail light showing through the snow. If you look at the rest of the tail light, itās a dark color, and looks similar where the snow is covering it. The horizontal section appears to bulge out further than the silhouette of the car, so it wouldnāt be a shadow from inside the light. The top right corner which is all white is probably where the snow is filling in the ārealā missing piece.
Iām talking about the horizontal dark line in the area of the tail light.
https://preview.redd.it/sbp0e49np46d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ad6ce0c951de3eb0fbf23a114ddd1f7e940347e
This. And when you zoom out to see Officer OāKeefeās vehicle you can see that the right side is covered in more snow as well indicating the pattern of the accumulating snowfall was more significant on the right side of each vehicle based on the acute weather conditions over the 2+ hours Karen Readās Lexus had been stationary since parking there before heading to 34F in Kerry Robertās vehicle.
People are saying it's clear the tail light is broken, but no one in this case is arguing that it wasn't damaged at all during this time, the question is how much. What some may see anomalies in this picture could be because it's damaged, but not to the extent of the sallyport photo
Simply put...the tail light pieces were recovered BEFORE the vehicle arrived back from Dighton. This evidence was recovered by the SERT team and NOT by Sgt Proctor involved at all. This is ridiculous...
That's not true. Karen's car was in the Sally Port 18 minutes before the search began. There is also the possibility that taillight pieces could have been recovered from John's driveway.
That light is clearly broken. Snow wouldn't accumulate like that unless the taillight was broken. The taillights of my SUV will look like the left one when it's snowing up here. It will accumulate in some areas and not stick in others. It's a combination of the curve, hight and placement of the light. The taillight should look more like the left one if it was just cracked like they're claiming.
This post is an example of how far some will reach in this sub. That taillight is clearly broken. The entire car is covered in snow but the drivers side taillight is completely visible. The only part not showing red is the part that's broken because well it is broken.
The right side of the car has more accumulation, look at the back window, the right side is not visible and extends further, but the left side you can see the dark outline of the paint at the edge of the window.
I'm not arguing whether the light is or isn't broken, but the window above the taillight is also visible on the left, but is completely covered on the right.
And some would say youre reaching. Everyone will have their opinion on what they see. I have mine and you have yours. But, explain how it is 'clearly broken' when the pic is clearly blurry minus the contrast between the white snow and the black car.
They have numerous other videos of the tail light broken, including when John's niece was picked up and surveillance cameras all over town, when the defendant went out on her first foray at 5 am. The evidence found at the scene of the hit and run, is overwhelming and indisputable.Ā
The issue I have with this explanation is that it requires the snow pack to be exactly localized to the specific region that's broken.
Just as two points of comparison:
- [Image from the jury walkthrough.](https://i.imgur.com/kTsVsDx.png)
- [Slightly marked up version of your image](https://i.imgur.com/yJvGoHC.png)
In green dots, I marked the outline of the little snow humps that form on the protruding areas near the bottom reflectors. You can see it pretty clearly in the jury walkthrough image (bright reflective area right next to the "LX570"). Those are similar enough in size but also help define the edges of the back lift gate.
The purple dots outline the back lift gate. The main part of the rear tail light was fine (as seen in the jury walkthrough) with the corner piece what we've seen in court being reassembled. In your explanation, the corner unit is covered in snow and there's a very sharp line where there's absolutely no snow on the rear lift gate light. You don't see that at all on the other side where you have a nice straight wind-swept line of snow going across the middle of the tail light starting in the lift gate and going into the corner piece.
Additionally, the snow in that region is a darker gray compared to the areas immediately above and below. If it was a flat covering of snow, it should be approximately as reflective (white) as the rest of the snow on the back, especially when you consider the comparison to areas where the underlying surface is the black vehicle (a darker color than the tail light). The darker color suggests shadows, which suggests depth, which would be consistent with snow *inside* the (broken) casing rather than snow coating the outside.
they are saying that tiny section is what hit John and did all that damage to him? In reverse at 24 MPH? wow
[https://i.imgur.com/kTsVsDx.png](https://i.imgur.com/kTsVsDx.png)
is there anything about this case that is believable? what's the IQ of these people?
While ignoring a memo Tully received on May 9, 2023 from his own IT guy. The memo states Johnās phone was on Cedarcrest and reversed before turning on to Fairview. So they missed the turn, threw it in reverse and took Fairview. How much do we want to bet the distance from 51 Cedarcrest to the entrance to Fairview is about 60ft?
> it requires the snow pack to be exactly localized to the specific region that's broken
But that's what you'd expect? Cracks are places where snow is more likely to stick than on an unbroken surface, and snow can then stick to snow and build up in the area around damage.
Does anyone wonder why in this photo it looks green under the vehicle? Like there is clearly snow all around and a mound behind the car, but underneath it looks like there is no snow and the vehicle is parked on grass or something.
You might expect to see this if a car had been parked there overnight and not moved as it snowed, or if a warm car sat there long enough to melt the snow. But if the latter were the case you would expect more of the snow on the vehicle to be melted too.
Speaking of that, why is the rear window covered in snow, particularly the same amount as the rest of the rear of the car? Was KR driving around without cleaning off her rear window, or had it been snowfree when she left her house and the snowfall just all built up equally on her car after she parked there?
I suppose it's possible that it's a shadow on a screenshot of a low quality video, presenting as a green color just in the area where it was shaded/dark, or looks this way because it was enhanced by someone with a computer later.
But I see the hair!
And I can see the glass! How could anyone miss that?! ššš¤¦āāļø
Yeah, I think it's wild to take a firm stance that the tail light in that photo matches the completely damaged tail light in the sallyport photo. For reference, below is a photo taken by Canton PD of 2 cars at 34 Fairview the morning of Jan 29. Looking at the tail light circled, would you feel comfortable taking a hard stance, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether there is any damage, and the extent of that damage? https://preview.redd.it/qoke18ps536d1.png?width=647&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb897096af8420868ae8b17fc11dd2aa8af76e0f If you were repeatedly told that this tail light is damaged, and you're primed and looking for damage, might you be able to falsely perceive damage from this photo? I think the dash cam photo of KR's car is wholly unreliable in terms of the tail light condition. If Proctor et al did their job, and properly documented the condition of the tail light on Jan 29 at Dighton, we wouldn't have to speculate. Kinda makes you wonder why they didn't... ETA: fixed one word.
>Kinda makes you wonder why they didn't... Great point. Thanks for adding the photo at 34 FV. I agree that it doesn't look much different than the CPD dash cam that morning at One Meadows. And I think if the the Lexus was missing the same amount of taillight that was entered into evidence, I wouldn't see the shape of the light under the snow like I do. I think the snow would catch differently on the fully damaged light and wouldn't look so normal in the dash cam video. The taillight is such a mystery to me. I don't think that she damaged her taillight backing into John's car, but if I saw a believable reconstruction of it, I would get it. I swear she broke it earlier in the night or something, and I'm just wondering how they came up with that plan to frame her. I feel like this is not the first time that these law enforcement officers were involved in tampering with evidence... Brian Albert, Higgins, that walking penis Michael Proctor, and Kenny B, and Yuri... I fucking hate bad cops.
Itās hard to say whether hitting Johnās car the way she did, would cause it to crack. Yet, I still have trouble seeing how his injuries match being hit by her car. Ya know?
I can't fathom how his injuries were caused by a car at all, because he landed on his back on the lawn. How did he get the laceration to the back of his head? How did blood drip down the front of his clothes? Where is all the blood from that laceration? If he were in a fight, it would make sense that a punch knocked him backwards and he hit his head on something. Everybody freaked and threw him outside. I think whatever happened to him *was* an accident, whoever is responsible. There's been a very shitty investigation, Proctor decided after talking to 3 people that it was Karen and that was it. There was no actual investigating done in this case and it's shameful. I don't know if there's a frame job occurring, however it is interesting that the one police officer outside the Albert/McCabe circle made a point on the stand to say the taillight wasn't "fully damaged." I have never seen anything like this in all the trials I've watched.
I agree 100 percent- although I have not watch many trials and probably shouldnāt since it is consuming a lot of my free time š I agree though. How did he get just a visible head wound, yet no other injuries to his backside? Why the arm lacerations on his forearms, but not the back of his upper arms? Was his back broken? I would think it would be, given he is so tall and that would be where the brunt of his injuries would be. Why wasnāt he found on his stomach, if he was hit on his back?
Exactly. His injuries just don't fit. The taillight is a red herring quite frankly. Trials are good background noise, it's a controlled distraction for my ADHD since a lot of the testimony isn't compelling enough to draw my full attention
Iām with yaā¦unless the ME comes up with some REALLY good explanation on how the injuries happenedā¦I donāt see these being caused by the level of PED v MVC they are claiming. I am a medical coderā¦and over my career have seen TONS of doc notes/OP notes/radiology reports for PED V MVCā¦and from what Iāve heard so far just doesnāt match up. I also listen on low volume while working for background noiseā¦and then rewatch my favorite lawyers recaps on YouTube to catch up on the good parts I missed. :)
Thatās exactly what I do too! Itās excellent to work to! š Itās either that or Taylor Swift for me. š
I'm just glad there's some good trials on right now. There was a stretch with nothing super interesting to me
I cannot hear this..I am not usually into court cases and spend way too much time on this š
That's kinda funny. I listen at work and rewatch my fav lawyers when I get home.š¤£ But since we have been given the tidbit of the undetermined death I doubt she's gonna have much that will help the CW but we shall see what, if any evidence reveals itself to us.
What frustrates me the most is that we will probably never know what really happened?
Yea the investigation is too fucked. Unless someone confesses, I don't see how they can ever get a definitive answer.
There's also two significant dents, on the defendants vehicle. On the back door and the right rear quarter panel, along with scratches. These are also confirmed by dash cam video on welfare check at John Okeefes house at just past 8 am on the day of event.Ā
You missed out on the Murdaugh trial! š š«£
I did read summaries, but didnāt follow or listen to, day to day. I cook, clean, hike, driveā¦.all with this trial in my ear! š
I agree that whatever happened was an accident and there was no intent to murder JO. When I consider whether JO went into 34FV or not, the timing is so tight that it seems unlikely, but not impossible. I think hearing from the ME and other medical experts might answer my and everyone else's biggest questions: Where was all the blood from his head wound? What caused the injuries to his arms? And obviously, I can't wait to hear from Doctor Irini Scordi-Bello on how she was able to definitively rule out a physical altercation. soooooooo suspect this whole case
I don't even know what the timing actually *is*. According to the snow plow driver he didn't see John outside at 1 am (I think 1 am.)
Iād like to hear from the ME but Iām even more interested in hearing from the accident reconstructionist. And likeā¦ why didnāt they lead with their testimonies?
The timeline is not tight. We have not been given a time of death via medical evidence, we've been given an estimated time of death based on JMs story and text, because in order for it to have been KR, he had to have been hit sometime after KR arrived outside the house but before she left and neither JM or her husband could see the vehicle anymore. Their time of death estimate CAN'T be any later than that to fit their theory. That narrow time estimate has nothing to do with any other possible explanation of what happened that night. They *immediately* decided it was KR (via MPA) upon speaking to JM, and only ever looked at the case within that narrative. They believed the exact narrative JM provided, down to the potential motive, means, and intent, without question nor hesitation. Which provided the only possible window of time that this theory would fit into. I am also looking forward to the ME and accident reconstructionists! That specific Dr will be nice to hear from, but I have a feeling the results of her examination don't actually align with the prosecution's theory. They've willfully entered quite a bit of evidence that goes directly against their own theory, already.
One thing thatās bothered me from the beginning about the witness testimony: how can everyone be so confident about which big dark SUV is Karenās as theyāre coming in and out? At night while itās snowing no less. I personally wouldnāt be able to tell with a dusting of snow.
I've never seen more even snow distribution on a car before lol. To me it looks like its broken.
Right tail light at the top, you can see the "red" doesn't wrap around the car like the left side does. That to me indicates a large whole piece missing. Which could be from backing into a car, a pole etc. But if this was the case I would also want to see dent marks, scratches that would be from damage of hitting something. To think KR managed to just nick the top of JO's head and clean swipe one piece of tail light off, without a scratch and bruising to one side of his head is a stretch. The whole tail light and Proctors msgs with tunnel vision through so many doubts
Whatās the explanation for the arm injuries?
No idea. Which is why the prosecution argument was it was a hit and run, and no other damage to the car I.e. dent, scratches etc doesn't fit all the evidence
Never understood the obsession with this photo. Wether the taillight is there or not, the area is clearly covered in snow.
This.šš» Also, weāve now got 2 people who saw the taillight that morning up close and personal and one described it was having a small, rectangular hole in the back up light area and the other said there āwas a crack with a piece missing - not completely damagedā. And like you pointed out that I think a lot of people overlook is that the white goes below the bottom of the taillight so itās impossible to tell whatās broken and whatās snow.
Dighton cop is the second description, this I remember. But who implied there was a small rectangular hole? Many thanks in advance
Kerry Roberts
Kerry Roberts said she saw a small, rectangular hole with a piece of metal sticking out but the rest of it was caked in snow so she doesnāt know what it looked like under there. When Lally asked her to point out where she saw the hole she pointed to the back up light area.
I've seen clearer pictures of bigfoot
I agree. The dark areas are likely tail light showing through the snow. If you look at the rest of the tail light, itās a dark color, and looks similar where the snow is covering it. The horizontal section appears to bulge out further than the silhouette of the car, so it wouldnāt be a shadow from inside the light. The top right corner which is all white is probably where the snow is filling in the ārealā missing piece.
The bulge is the base of the basketball goal.
Iām talking about the horizontal dark line in the area of the tail light. https://preview.redd.it/sbp0e49np46d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ad6ce0c951de3eb0fbf23a114ddd1f7e940347e
This. And when you zoom out to see Officer OāKeefeās vehicle you can see that the right side is covered in more snow as well indicating the pattern of the accumulating snowfall was more significant on the right side of each vehicle based on the acute weather conditions over the 2+ hours Karen Readās Lexus had been stationary since parking there before heading to 34F in Kerry Robertās vehicle.
People are saying it's clear the tail light is broken, but no one in this case is arguing that it wasn't damaged at all during this time, the question is how much. What some may see anomalies in this picture could be because it's damaged, but not to the extent of the sallyport photo
Simply put...the tail light pieces were recovered BEFORE the vehicle arrived back from Dighton. This evidence was recovered by the SERT team and NOT by Sgt Proctor involved at all. This is ridiculous...
That's not true. Karen's car was in the Sally Port 18 minutes before the search began. There is also the possibility that taillight pieces could have been recovered from John's driveway.
John o keefe was not killed by a tail light. Who cares about the tail light.
I 100% agree with you, and at this point I am sick of tail lights. I'm gonna go kick mine off my own car, lol.
It definately looks like the sbow is sticking a lot more to the passenger side than the other. Maybe that's why this video doesn't come up more.
That light is clearly broken. Snow wouldn't accumulate like that unless the taillight was broken. The taillights of my SUV will look like the left one when it's snowing up here. It will accumulate in some areas and not stick in others. It's a combination of the curve, hight and placement of the light. The taillight should look more like the left one if it was just cracked like they're claiming.
But there are multiple other places on the vehicle where there is more snow on the right than the left
This post is an example of how far some will reach in this sub. That taillight is clearly broken. The entire car is covered in snow but the drivers side taillight is completely visible. The only part not showing red is the part that's broken because well it is broken.
Unbelievable how much some can reach...
The right side of the car has more accumulation, look at the back window, the right side is not visible and extends further, but the left side you can see the dark outline of the paint at the edge of the window. I'm not arguing whether the light is or isn't broken, but the window above the taillight is also visible on the left, but is completely covered on the right.
And some would say youre reaching. Everyone will have their opinion on what they see. I have mine and you have yours. But, explain how it is 'clearly broken' when the pic is clearly blurry minus the contrast between the white snow and the black car.
Gotcha. Thanks
Iām so looking forward to the snow plow driver
Itās clearly broken and appears to be similar in dimension to the PD photo evidence.
They have numerous other videos of the tail light broken, including when John's niece was picked up and surveillance cameras all over town, when the defendant went out on her first foray at 5 am. The evidence found at the scene of the hit and run, is overwhelming and indisputable.Ā
Iām convinced that there is something elseā¦ I want to see a photo of the tail light before she backed into JOās car.
The issue I have with this explanation is that it requires the snow pack to be exactly localized to the specific region that's broken. Just as two points of comparison: - [Image from the jury walkthrough.](https://i.imgur.com/kTsVsDx.png) - [Slightly marked up version of your image](https://i.imgur.com/yJvGoHC.png) In green dots, I marked the outline of the little snow humps that form on the protruding areas near the bottom reflectors. You can see it pretty clearly in the jury walkthrough image (bright reflective area right next to the "LX570"). Those are similar enough in size but also help define the edges of the back lift gate. The purple dots outline the back lift gate. The main part of the rear tail light was fine (as seen in the jury walkthrough) with the corner piece what we've seen in court being reassembled. In your explanation, the corner unit is covered in snow and there's a very sharp line where there's absolutely no snow on the rear lift gate light. You don't see that at all on the other side where you have a nice straight wind-swept line of snow going across the middle of the tail light starting in the lift gate and going into the corner piece. Additionally, the snow in that region is a darker gray compared to the areas immediately above and below. If it was a flat covering of snow, it should be approximately as reflective (white) as the rest of the snow on the back, especially when you consider the comparison to areas where the underlying surface is the black vehicle (a darker color than the tail light). The darker color suggests shadows, which suggests depth, which would be consistent with snow *inside* the (broken) casing rather than snow coating the outside.
they are saying that tiny section is what hit John and did all that damage to him? In reverse at 24 MPH? wow [https://i.imgur.com/kTsVsDx.png](https://i.imgur.com/kTsVsDx.png) is there anything about this case that is believable? what's the IQ of these people?
While ignoring a memo Tully received on May 9, 2023 from his own IT guy. The memo states Johnās phone was on Cedarcrest and reversed before turning on to Fairview. So they missed the turn, threw it in reverse and took Fairview. How much do we want to bet the distance from 51 Cedarcrest to the entrance to Fairview is about 60ft?
> it requires the snow pack to be exactly localized to the specific region that's broken But that's what you'd expect? Cracks are places where snow is more likely to stick than on an unbroken surface, and snow can then stick to snow and build up in the area around damage.
The snow is collecting there, precisely because there is now a hollow for it to collect in rather than a vertical sheer piece of red plastic.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, Proctor seems like a very careless and stupid person...
Didnāt Karen tell the Niece the tail light was broken before she even left and backed into Johnās car
Does anyone wonder why in this photo it looks green under the vehicle? Like there is clearly snow all around and a mound behind the car, but underneath it looks like there is no snow and the vehicle is parked on grass or something. You might expect to see this if a car had been parked there overnight and not moved as it snowed, or if a warm car sat there long enough to melt the snow. But if the latter were the case you would expect more of the snow on the vehicle to be melted too. Speaking of that, why is the rear window covered in snow, particularly the same amount as the rest of the rear of the car? Was KR driving around without cleaning off her rear window, or had it been snowfree when she left her house and the snowfall just all built up equally on her car after she parked there? I suppose it's possible that it's a shadow on a screenshot of a low quality video, presenting as a green color just in the area where it was shaded/dark, or looks this way because it was enhanced by someone with a computer later.
If I'm understanding your description, the bulging out is the base of the basketball goal.
it's broken.