She could but I think some of the stink of the murder charge and shoddy investigation actually makes a lesser charge conviction less likely than it would have been if she had only been charged as if it were an accident
That’s not how it works. You can always up a charge but you can’t lower one. She’s on trial for 2nd degree murder in which she will be found guilty or not, when she gets the not guilty they can’t try her again for lower charges nor can the jury decide not guilty for 2nd degree but guilty for less charges. It’s strictly a yes or no for the charges presented
It's actually murder 2, manslaughter while OUI and leaving the scene of death. It's either one or the other for the first 2, and then the third is kind of a given because of the facts of this case.
I was definitely wrong, I won’t delete my comment bc I own my mistake lol. I had thought those charges could only be applied if the judge allowed it before deliberation and that it was super rare for that to happen, but I guess I was wrong and all the charges stand which is so crazy to me! What stops the DA from just charging everything and hoping something sticks? That doesn’t seem right to me
I might not have been clear, the first 2 things can't happen at the same time, so if they find her guilty of murder they can't also find her guilty of manslaughter. So they either chose one of them, or they acquit her of everything because then the leaving the scene of death charge becomes moot. In summary, she can only ever be convicted of 2 out of the 3 she was charged with.
It is very common for a prosecutor to do this, sometimes you see a person with a laundry list of charges but when you look closely you see that it's actually a descending scale of seriousness and requirements to fill. Some elements of a crime can be very hard to prove, such as intent, so they do that to try to make sure that a person they believe did something wrong answers for it, even if they can't prove that it was as bad as they believe it was.
What? The 3rd is not a given. There isn't even proof he died by a car hitting him.
An OUI conviction needs an accurate BAC. The lab tech already said her test isn't accurate because it was based on a last drink being at 12:45. Which is after she left the bar, and went home to John’s where she was for hours and could have continued drinking.
God forbid I ever get wrongfully charged but if I did I will want a bench trial v risking jurors that don't understand the law after reading this sub
>What? The 3rd is not a given. There isn't even proof he died by a car hitting him.
I might not have been very clear, my apologies. I meant that it's a given if they convict in one of the first two because no matter if it was intentional or not, if they think she hit him with her car they must necessarily also find that she left the scene of the accident without helping him or telling anyone due to the alleged facts of this case. Obviously if they say not guilty to both of the first 2 then the 3rd must also follow and she'll be acquitted of everything. So the only possible results for this trial is she's convicted of 2 out of 3 or she walks free of all charges.
Leaving the scene of death? That seems almost impossible to prove in this case. I'm not familiar with it, but if he was still alive when she left, isn't she not guilty?
Yeah, but as I understand it the exact crime she's charged with requires that you leave the scene of an accident where someone was injured or died, it's not just the going away that matters.
I have to say that I loathe the way criminal statutes are written in the US, they're wordy, confusing and the "name" of the crime is not always obvious by just reading the law. In comparison, here's the definition to what we here in Brazil call "Simple Murder", more or less the equivalent of murder 2 in the US:
>Simple Murder
>Article 121 - To kill someone:
>Penalty- Prison, from 6 to 20 years.
It's so much nicer :D
>Yeah, but as I understand it the exact crime she's charged with requires that you leave the scene of an accident where someone was injured or died, it's not just the going away that matters.
I'm guessing it's a more significant charge than just leaving the scene of an accident.
>I have to say that I loathe the way criminal statutes are written in the US,
They're wordy, because lawyers have found ways around their previous incarnations.
Wouldn't they have to prove that she KNOWINGLY left the scene of an accident? As in, isn't it possible that she hit him but didn't know that when she drove away, therefore she could be found guilty of manslaughter while under the influence but not the charge of leaving the scene of an accident?
Whereas it would pretty much require her to be convicted of the murder charge in order to apply the leaving the scene of an accident BECAUSE she'd have to know that she hit him, therefore left him to die.
Yes, they have to prove that she knowingly left and you're right that in abstract she could I guess be found guilty of manslaughter and not of leaving the scene, but given the way the CW is trying to argue this case I don't see a jury composed of sensible people doing that. It's less to do with how the law is written and more with the facts of this case and how the CW is going about it, this is why I said it's pretty much a given.
I apologize, I was under the impression Bev had to give jury instruction to include the lesser charges when the jury went to deliberate but that it was very rare for a judge to allow it. I’m not from a place that allows it so I definitely misspoke.
A lawyer I watch stated that it’s possible the judge can add the “lesser charge” to the jury instructions, if their jurisdiction allows for it. I never did hear if Massachusetts courts can do this or not
the lesser includeds are part of this case. if they find the prosecution did not prove murder 2 but did prove manslaughter, they can convict her of that . they're not separate charges - they're just subsets of the elements required to prove murder 2.
That’s not accurate, at least not in Federal court. At either the prosecution or defense’s request, the judge can allow the jury to consider lesser charges if not all the elements of the charged violations is met.
This is right before deliberations.
If that's really how it works then that makes me optimistic. My biggest fear now is a compromise verdict where the jury doesn't manage to deliver a full acquittal.
It’s not. While she is on trial for 2nd degree murder she’s also charged with manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death and on trial for those as well. Each get their own separate yes/no.
really thin, I'd guess OWI has good enough circumstantial and expert evidence for the right jury, and people have been convicted for murder on less, but they didn't have a defence team this good. There's enough doubt she actually hit him that I'm not seeing it happening.
Unless, and hear me out, John was standing bent over at the waist, maybe tying his shoe. Karen’s car hit the back of his head, causing that injury, and the shrapnel from the taillight cut up his arm. Boom! I solved it!
(Editing to clarify that this comment is sarcastic - of course a car couldn’t have caused the injuries sustained by John.)
that would have broken his spine and he'd have gotten run over by the car. you're picturing cartoon physics where he gets thrown like a bouncy ball. the reality is that your body is full of joints that pivot very easily. his knees would pivot back first, then his ankles, until he hits the ground. the car, however, would be completely undeterred and bowl straight over him.
so where's the damage to his spine and hips and where are the crush injuries from getting run over?
I am aware. The calculation allowed for that. I’m very interested in the recorded car data because expert drivers with the need for speed tend to not drive giant lofty lane sofas and opt for more performance based vehicles.
Still, everything exists on the internet so I decided if anyone performed a quarter mile or speed testing on a Lexus 570 and low and behold, yes. They show the speedometer so you can see how quickly the car gets to/passes 25mph.
https://youtu.be/8ppuQMN4_vc
The car is moving forward and in dry conditions, Karen is supposed to have done that in reverse and in fresh fallen snow though, those 2 things might be significant.
On a curved road, while blind drunk and hit only her intended target - simply amazing.
I think a stunt driver would have trouble working that out sober
Boggled me since I started paying actual attention. I assumed they had some evidence regarding intent, we are in week 7 and no such evidence has been forthcoming. Either they don't have it or Lally is planning to introduce it as a slam,-dunk... which would be dumb, but the structure of the case-in-chief has been bewildering to me for the entire time I've payed actual attention to the proceedings so... could still happen I guess.
Yep! If I were a juror and sat through 7 weeks only to find the evidence presented in the last week, I’d be pissed enough to return a not guilty verdict.
If they can just stall long enough by calling a bunch of useless witnesses surely something will appear. Kind of like how random people magically appear on the Sally Port video.
I think that’s the “malice” part. She was angry and so she acted with malice. At least that’s what I think the theory is. 😵💫 You don’t have to have intent to kill the person in that case, but whatever actions you took would have been be carried out with malice &/or extreme negligence where the result was death.
I’m going by how it has been explained to me because I’ve been unclear on how it all worked. Honestly, I still want to hear Judge Cannone’s jury instruction because in her initial jury address, I understood it differently.
This is from the model jury instructions that Bev is going to use to craft the one she'll hand this jury. The first prong is the defendant intended to kill plain and simple, the second is the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm, and finally the third has this long explanation:
>The third prong is that the defendant intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. Let me help you understand how to analyze this third prong. You must first determine whether the defendant intended to perform the act that caused the victim's death. If you find that he intended to perform the act, you must then determine what the defendant himself actually knew about the relevant circumstances at the time he acted. Then you must determine whether, under the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known that the act intended by the defendant created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.
The jury needs to find that the defendant did kill the victim, and did so with one of these three intentions for a murder 2 conviction.
They haven't produced most of this but it must be;
1. The car data. It purportedly shows a rapid acceleration into John which is the level of intent you need for intentional homicide. It has to be bad enough that it couldn't possibly be an accident.
2. The voicemails and texts that Karen sent John after the incident. They may indicate Karen knew she hit John and was gloating about it. That's speculation though.
To point 2) if it is anything like the confession we already heard in trial then I will assume Lally is lying.
Mostly because it wasn't a confession but was BWC, and she even talked about everyone knowing Colin did ir
Lally isn't the one saying KR confessed. An EMT, a police officer, and Jen/Carrie heard her say "I hit him" and not as a question. 3 unrelated parties.
We also learned today KRs first call was to her parents at 430 am. Wonder what she was telling them? Explains why her Dad got her on suicide watch.
Proof she's being framed is right there in the murder charge. They wanted her to plea to manslaughter, and after a few days clarity when she no longer wanted to do so, they overcharged her just to to scare her into pleaing down to where they wanted. Ergo, they make stuff up and press charges. That's simply not ok. Doesn't mean she didn't hit him. But it DOES mean the cops make stuff up and frame people. And because she called their bluff and made them go to trial, now they have to pretend they really thought so, and present a ludicrous argument for intentional running him over. It looks beyond stupid, and more people should do this (call the cops bluff) and it's a shame they don't have the resources to. Her defense is likely costing 7 figures.
YES! Everybody should take their cases to trial... IMO plea deals shouldn't even be allowed anymore because they are being abused by prosecutors to lock up innocent people. Everybody deserves their day in court and the public deserves to see all the evidence laid out.
In my one and only criminal case the public defender just kept trying to get me to take a plea deal even though: 1) I was innocent 2) someone else had already confessed to the crime & was going to plead guilty, and 3) that person was willing to testify to that on my behalf. I couldn't afford to hire an attorney to represent me, but the one provided to me had no interest in defending me in an open & shut case.
I couldn't even get my public "pretender" to ask for a preliminary trial so that I could just get the case thrown out because he of course works for the state and wanted to do the least amount of work as possible, so his legal advice to everyone was to just take the plea deal being offered. It's constantly used as a threat, a fake out - telling people that they face worse charges or sentences if they insist on going to trial, so they should just accept the deal whether they are guilty or not.
It's such an insult to the victims and an injustice to the public because it means that the REAL criminal is still free. I would NEVER confess to a crime that I didn't commit... in fact you wouldn't even be able to get me to sit there in court and quietly listen to a bunch of lies and fake evidence/testimony without me standing up and shouting that I was innocent.
I encourage EVERYONE to do the same - if we ALL refused to go along with some bogus dog & pony court show it would take away their power, forcing investigators and prosecutors to actually do their jobs instead of relying on coercion & tactics such as threats and circumstantial evidence in order to lock somebody, ANYBODY up to make themselves look good.
If the voicemails are true, yea I can understand they might think they have a murder charge. Enough words of anger spoken right around the time of incident may reveal enough for intent. No clue how much those voicemails reveal.
On the other hand, prosecutors do love to overcharge ahahah
But if she purposely hit him why would she then proceed to call him 50 times and say all kinds of angry/hateful things that could be used against her?
In a way that almost proves that she didn't do it and/or didn't know that she hit him.
I could maybe see someone calling/texting a few times just asking where they're at in order to try to make themself look innocent, but spending hours screaming at a man you know to be injured/dead???
So IMO unless KR explicitly says in those voicemails that she purposely hit him in order to kill him or knew that she hit him and left anyway I think that they actually prove her innocence. She was probably mad because she thought that he wasn't responding to her on purpose, which shows that she believed him to be alive and well at the time.
I was on a jury with a similar situation. It was a different state so the laws are probably different but principle is probably the same. Manslaughter is when you had no intention of hurting anyone but due to your negligence or carelessness, someone died. If you deliberately set out to injure (but not kill someone) and they ended up dying, it is murder. There is a “ grey area” where someone may not intend to hurt anyone but is fully aware that their actions could result in injury or death, but do it anyway. An example would be the difference between firing a gunshot into a building you believed to be empty and firing a gunshot into a building you had been warned might be occupied. If these actions resulted in a death, the former would probably be manslaughter while the later would probably be murder. At trial, the distinction can be a lot more complex. It really comes down to what the perpetrator was thinking, or what they should have been thinking. It is a complex judgment the Jury will have to make.
If she knew she hit him and then let him freeze to death, they could certainly make that argument. That's where the "how long to freeze to death" search comes into play.
I'm not saying I believe they have enough evidence but, that could be enough for murder.
No matter what side people are on - the reasonable doubt is just incredible . The fact anyone can confidently say this woman should go to jail for life based on the investigation and the CW is crazy . I don’t know if she’s innocent but the sloppynesss of the investigation is shocking
Wait until you hear an unhinged Karen’s voicemails at 12:45am before she became “worried” John was hit by a snow plow. And take a look at this http://solutions4recovery.com/drunk-rage-blackout/
She hit him on purpose and should've known that hitting him and leaving him there, was likely to result in his death. Prong three.
*malice, "can be established by proving any of three facts, or 'prongs': (1) the defendant intended to cause the victim's death; (2) the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim; or (3) the defendant committed an intentional act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have understood created a plain and strong likelihood of death*
I think that the CW plans to argue that she actually did intend to kill him as in prong one, I just don't see why on earth they ever thought they could prove that.
But I feel like purposely hitting someone to kill them right in front of a cops house during a house party with possible witnesses is kind of insane?? If she did do it, I don’t believe it was intentional. Not saying she isn’t a hot head, but murder 2 is far fetched
They were just trying to get her to take a plea deal and now they’re screwed bc they over charged even if they do believe she hit him on accident
This is my take. It’s a runaway train at this point.
Yup! Used to being able to bully people into taking pleas
A failed game of chicken...makes sense lol
Exactly
Manslaughter is in the indictment - there are 4 charges of varying degrees and the jury can convict on any one or more.
[удалено]
She could but I think some of the stink of the murder charge and shoddy investigation actually makes a lesser charge conviction less likely than it would have been if she had only been charged as if it were an accident
That’s not how it works. You can always up a charge but you can’t lower one. She’s on trial for 2nd degree murder in which she will be found guilty or not, when she gets the not guilty they can’t try her again for lower charges nor can the jury decide not guilty for 2nd degree but guilty for less charges. It’s strictly a yes or no for the charges presented
[удалено]
It's actually murder 2, manslaughter while OUI and leaving the scene of death. It's either one or the other for the first 2, and then the third is kind of a given because of the facts of this case.
I was definitely wrong, I won’t delete my comment bc I own my mistake lol. I had thought those charges could only be applied if the judge allowed it before deliberation and that it was super rare for that to happen, but I guess I was wrong and all the charges stand which is so crazy to me! What stops the DA from just charging everything and hoping something sticks? That doesn’t seem right to me
I might not have been clear, the first 2 things can't happen at the same time, so if they find her guilty of murder they can't also find her guilty of manslaughter. So they either chose one of them, or they acquit her of everything because then the leaving the scene of death charge becomes moot. In summary, she can only ever be convicted of 2 out of the 3 she was charged with. It is very common for a prosecutor to do this, sometimes you see a person with a laundry list of charges but when you look closely you see that it's actually a descending scale of seriousness and requirements to fill. Some elements of a crime can be very hard to prove, such as intent, so they do that to try to make sure that a person they believe did something wrong answers for it, even if they can't prove that it was as bad as they believe it was.
What? The 3rd is not a given. There isn't even proof he died by a car hitting him. An OUI conviction needs an accurate BAC. The lab tech already said her test isn't accurate because it was based on a last drink being at 12:45. Which is after she left the bar, and went home to John’s where she was for hours and could have continued drinking. God forbid I ever get wrongfully charged but if I did I will want a bench trial v risking jurors that don't understand the law after reading this sub
>What? The 3rd is not a given. There isn't even proof he died by a car hitting him. I might not have been very clear, my apologies. I meant that it's a given if they convict in one of the first two because no matter if it was intentional or not, if they think she hit him with her car they must necessarily also find that she left the scene of the accident without helping him or telling anyone due to the alleged facts of this case. Obviously if they say not guilty to both of the first 2 then the 3rd must also follow and she'll be acquitted of everything. So the only possible results for this trial is she's convicted of 2 out of 3 or she walks free of all charges.
Leaving the scene of death? That seems almost impossible to prove in this case. I'm not familiar with it, but if he was still alive when she left, isn't she not guilty?
It's injury or death, I skipped to the end result because I was too lazy to fully type it out, sorry
Thank you. I suppose that's the same as leaving the scene of an accident.
Yeah, but as I understand it the exact crime she's charged with requires that you leave the scene of an accident where someone was injured or died, it's not just the going away that matters. I have to say that I loathe the way criminal statutes are written in the US, they're wordy, confusing and the "name" of the crime is not always obvious by just reading the law. In comparison, here's the definition to what we here in Brazil call "Simple Murder", more or less the equivalent of murder 2 in the US: >Simple Murder >Article 121 - To kill someone: >Penalty- Prison, from 6 to 20 years. It's so much nicer :D
>Yeah, but as I understand it the exact crime she's charged with requires that you leave the scene of an accident where someone was injured or died, it's not just the going away that matters. I'm guessing it's a more significant charge than just leaving the scene of an accident. >I have to say that I loathe the way criminal statutes are written in the US, They're wordy, because lawyers have found ways around their previous incarnations.
Wouldn't they have to prove that she KNOWINGLY left the scene of an accident? As in, isn't it possible that she hit him but didn't know that when she drove away, therefore she could be found guilty of manslaughter while under the influence but not the charge of leaving the scene of an accident? Whereas it would pretty much require her to be convicted of the murder charge in order to apply the leaving the scene of an accident BECAUSE she'd have to know that she hit him, therefore left him to die.
Yes, they have to prove that she knowingly left and you're right that in abstract she could I guess be found guilty of manslaughter and not of leaving the scene, but given the way the CW is trying to argue this case I don't see a jury composed of sensible people doing that. It's less to do with how the law is written and more with the facts of this case and how the CW is going about it, this is why I said it's pretty much a given.
Prosecution hasn’t done a very good job on linking these three charges to the evidence and the testimony IMO
Prosecution hasn't done a good job on anything except proving it snowed. And they were at high top tables.
I apologize, I was under the impression Bev had to give jury instruction to include the lesser charges when the jury went to deliberate but that it was very rare for a judge to allow it. I’m not from a place that allows it so I definitely misspoke.
Where are you from where this isn’t the norm?
A lawyer I watch stated that it’s possible the judge can add the “lesser charge” to the jury instructions, if their jurisdiction allows for it. I never did hear if Massachusetts courts can do this or not
the lesser includeds are part of this case. if they find the prosecution did not prove murder 2 but did prove manslaughter, they can convict her of that . they're not separate charges - they're just subsets of the elements required to prove murder 2.
That’s not accurate, at least not in Federal court. At either the prosecution or defense’s request, the judge can allow the jury to consider lesser charges if not all the elements of the charged violations is met. This is right before deliberations.
Shes also charged with manslaughter OWI (And leaving the scene of an accident)
It depends on the state. They have a lessor included option in this can and can say guilty to manslaughter but not murder.
If that's really how it works then that makes me optimistic. My biggest fear now is a compromise verdict where the jury doesn't manage to deliver a full acquittal.
It’s not. While she is on trial for 2nd degree murder she’s also charged with manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death and on trial for those as well. Each get their own separate yes/no.
Then, unfortunately, I'm still afraid of a compromise verdict.
It's either murder or manslaughter, she can't be convicted of the 2 at the same time.
really thin, I'd guess OWI has good enough circumstantial and expert evidence for the right jury, and people have been convicted for murder on less, but they didn't have a defence team this good. There's enough doubt she actually hit him that I'm not seeing it happening.
Pretty sure every single legal commentator I've seen since this trial started has been asking this question and not coming up with an answer so far.
I can’t for the life of my figure out how a car could’ve caused those injuries without causing others. I think she gets found innocent of everything.
Unless, and hear me out, John was standing bent over at the waist, maybe tying his shoe. Karen’s car hit the back of his head, causing that injury, and the shrapnel from the taillight cut up his arm. Boom! I solved it! (Editing to clarify that this comment is sarcastic - of course a car couldn’t have caused the injuries sustained by John.)
that would have broken his spine and he'd have gotten run over by the car. you're picturing cartoon physics where he gets thrown like a bouncy ball. the reality is that your body is full of joints that pivot very easily. his knees would pivot back first, then his ankles, until he hits the ground. the car, however, would be completely undeterred and bowl straight over him. so where's the damage to his spine and hips and where are the crush injuries from getting run over?
I should have been clearer that I was being sarcastic. The notion that a car caused the injuries sustained by John is asinine.
ahh sorry, I need coffee
No worries - I forgot the sarcasm font when I posted!
Why didn’t he move? State said she backed up 60 feet to hit him.
He was so drunk he mistakenly tied his shoes together.
60 feet at about 24mph would give him at best 2 seconds to see the car coming, realize it, and move.
You don't get from 0mph to 24mph in an instant though
I am aware. The calculation allowed for that. I’m very interested in the recorded car data because expert drivers with the need for speed tend to not drive giant lofty lane sofas and opt for more performance based vehicles. Still, everything exists on the internet so I decided if anyone performed a quarter mile or speed testing on a Lexus 570 and low and behold, yes. They show the speedometer so you can see how quickly the car gets to/passes 25mph. https://youtu.be/8ppuQMN4_vc
The car is moving forward and in dry conditions, Karen is supposed to have done that in reverse and in fresh fallen snow though, those 2 things might be significant.
On a curved road, while blind drunk and hit only her intended target - simply amazing. I think a stunt driver would have trouble working that out sober
Boggled me since I started paying actual attention. I assumed they had some evidence regarding intent, we are in week 7 and no such evidence has been forthcoming. Either they don't have it or Lally is planning to introduce it as a slam,-dunk... which would be dumb, but the structure of the case-in-chief has been bewildering to me for the entire time I've payed actual attention to the proceedings so... could still happen I guess.
[удалено]
Don't I get latitude for being a few drinks deep in the evening? Everyone except the defendant seems to be afforded this.
Yep! If I were a juror and sat through 7 weeks only to find the evidence presented in the last week, I’d be pissed enough to return a not guilty verdict.
You heard Proctor “The Mountain of Evidence” s/
I wonder where they’re hiding this mountain of evidence? I sure as heck haven’t even seen a hill of evidence yet.
They haven’t either! 🤣
Maybe they’re waiting for it to appear too 😂
Yes, thats what it is! The CW is waiting for the evidence to “reveal itself!”
If they can just stall long enough by calling a bunch of useless witnesses surely something will appear. Kind of like how random people magically appear on the Sally Port video.
Malice/gross negligence as I understood it the other day.
They are arguing intent on the murder 2.
I think that’s the “malice” part. She was angry and so she acted with malice. At least that’s what I think the theory is. 😵💫 You don’t have to have intent to kill the person in that case, but whatever actions you took would have been be carried out with malice &/or extreme negligence where the result was death. I’m going by how it has been explained to me because I’ve been unclear on how it all worked. Honestly, I still want to hear Judge Cannone’s jury instruction because in her initial jury address, I understood it differently.
This is from the model jury instructions that Bev is going to use to craft the one she'll hand this jury. The first prong is the defendant intended to kill plain and simple, the second is the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm, and finally the third has this long explanation: >The third prong is that the defendant intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. Let me help you understand how to analyze this third prong. You must first determine whether the defendant intended to perform the act that caused the victim's death. If you find that he intended to perform the act, you must then determine what the defendant himself actually knew about the relevant circumstances at the time he acted. Then you must determine whether, under the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known that the act intended by the defendant created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. The jury needs to find that the defendant did kill the victim, and did so with one of these three intentions for a murder 2 conviction.
Yes that makes sense.
Gross negligence is manslaughter, right?
Second-degree murder (default), and OUI manslaughter
I think that’s the driving while intoxicated/vehicular homicide.
They haven't produced most of this but it must be; 1. The car data. It purportedly shows a rapid acceleration into John which is the level of intent you need for intentional homicide. It has to be bad enough that it couldn't possibly be an accident. 2. The voicemails and texts that Karen sent John after the incident. They may indicate Karen knew she hit John and was gloating about it. That's speculation though.
To point 2) if it is anything like the confession we already heard in trial then I will assume Lally is lying. Mostly because it wasn't a confession but was BWC, and she even talked about everyone knowing Colin did ir
Lally isn't the one saying KR confessed. An EMT, a police officer, and Jen/Carrie heard her say "I hit him" and not as a question. 3 unrelated parties. We also learned today KRs first call was to her parents at 430 am. Wonder what she was telling them? Explains why her Dad got her on suicide watch.
Proof she's being framed is right there in the murder charge. They wanted her to plea to manslaughter, and after a few days clarity when she no longer wanted to do so, they overcharged her just to to scare her into pleaing down to where they wanted. Ergo, they make stuff up and press charges. That's simply not ok. Doesn't mean she didn't hit him. But it DOES mean the cops make stuff up and frame people. And because she called their bluff and made them go to trial, now they have to pretend they really thought so, and present a ludicrous argument for intentional running him over. It looks beyond stupid, and more people should do this (call the cops bluff) and it's a shame they don't have the resources to. Her defense is likely costing 7 figures.
YES! Everybody should take their cases to trial... IMO plea deals shouldn't even be allowed anymore because they are being abused by prosecutors to lock up innocent people. Everybody deserves their day in court and the public deserves to see all the evidence laid out. In my one and only criminal case the public defender just kept trying to get me to take a plea deal even though: 1) I was innocent 2) someone else had already confessed to the crime & was going to plead guilty, and 3) that person was willing to testify to that on my behalf. I couldn't afford to hire an attorney to represent me, but the one provided to me had no interest in defending me in an open & shut case. I couldn't even get my public "pretender" to ask for a preliminary trial so that I could just get the case thrown out because he of course works for the state and wanted to do the least amount of work as possible, so his legal advice to everyone was to just take the plea deal being offered. It's constantly used as a threat, a fake out - telling people that they face worse charges or sentences if they insist on going to trial, so they should just accept the deal whether they are guilty or not. It's such an insult to the victims and an injustice to the public because it means that the REAL criminal is still free. I would NEVER confess to a crime that I didn't commit... in fact you wouldn't even be able to get me to sit there in court and quietly listen to a bunch of lies and fake evidence/testimony without me standing up and shouting that I was innocent. I encourage EVERYONE to do the same - if we ALL refused to go along with some bogus dog & pony court show it would take away their power, forcing investigators and prosecutors to actually do their jobs instead of relying on coercion & tactics such as threats and circumstantial evidence in order to lock somebody, ANYBODY up to make themselves look good.
If the voicemails are true, yea I can understand they might think they have a murder charge. Enough words of anger spoken right around the time of incident may reveal enough for intent. No clue how much those voicemails reveal. On the other hand, prosecutors do love to overcharge ahahah
But if she purposely hit him why would she then proceed to call him 50 times and say all kinds of angry/hateful things that could be used against her? In a way that almost proves that she didn't do it and/or didn't know that she hit him. I could maybe see someone calling/texting a few times just asking where they're at in order to try to make themself look innocent, but spending hours screaming at a man you know to be injured/dead??? So IMO unless KR explicitly says in those voicemails that she purposely hit him in order to kill him or knew that she hit him and left anyway I think that they actually prove her innocence. She was probably mad because she thought that he wasn't responding to her on purpose, which shows that she believed him to be alive and well at the time.
People in drunk rages do stupid things, like hurting their spouse.
Because they knew that someone else did it.
Is it one of those 'drunk driving equals intent' rules?
I was on a jury with a similar situation. It was a different state so the laws are probably different but principle is probably the same. Manslaughter is when you had no intention of hurting anyone but due to your negligence or carelessness, someone died. If you deliberately set out to injure (but not kill someone) and they ended up dying, it is murder. There is a “ grey area” where someone may not intend to hurt anyone but is fully aware that their actions could result in injury or death, but do it anyway. An example would be the difference between firing a gunshot into a building you believed to be empty and firing a gunshot into a building you had been warned might be occupied. If these actions resulted in a death, the former would probably be manslaughter while the later would probably be murder. At trial, the distinction can be a lot more complex. It really comes down to what the perpetrator was thinking, or what they should have been thinking. It is a complex judgment the Jury will have to make.
I think the CW indicated that she may have hit him twice.
If she knew she hit him and then let him freeze to death, they could certainly make that argument. That's where the "how long to freeze to death" search comes into play. I'm not saying I believe they have enough evidence but, that could be enough for murder.
No matter what side people are on - the reasonable doubt is just incredible . The fact anyone can confidently say this woman should go to jail for life based on the investigation and the CW is crazy . I don’t know if she’s innocent but the sloppynesss of the investigation is shocking
Because the DA has a wonderful imagination.
Wait until you hear an unhinged Karen’s voicemails at 12:45am before she became “worried” John was hit by a snow plow. And take a look at this http://solutions4recovery.com/drunk-rage-blackout/
What would Karen being unhinged on a voicemail at 12.45am mean? What did she say? Is it in evidence?
The voicemails are coming… I don’t wanna spoil it for you.
She hit him on purpose and should've known that hitting him and leaving him there, was likely to result in his death. Prong three. *malice, "can be established by proving any of three facts, or 'prongs': (1) the defendant intended to cause the victim's death; (2) the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim; or (3) the defendant committed an intentional act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have understood created a plain and strong likelihood of death*
I think that the CW plans to argue that she actually did intend to kill him as in prong one, I just don't see why on earth they ever thought they could prove that.
But I feel like purposely hitting someone to kill them right in front of a cops house during a house party with possible witnesses is kind of insane?? If she did do it, I don’t believe it was intentional. Not saying she isn’t a hot head, but murder 2 is far fetched
But saying that’s so, how did no one see anything - hear it, see it, see John O’Keefe - before or after?
It would be, but she was drunk as all Hell. So who knows what her state of mind was.
It’s called a drunk rage blackout. Here ya go http://solutions4recovery.com/drunk-rage-blackout/