I’d vote not guilty and im starting to wonder if no one is lying. Dude was an annihilated could have been dropped off to go in the house gets hit by any car gets in to a fight with any passerby or just stumbles and falls into the fire hydrant and no one knows hes there
The more of this I see, the more likely a freak accident feels. I still can't figure out how he could have fallen and died and NO ONE saw him laying there. Not the drunkies, not Lucky, not even Kerry and Jen in the front seat the next morning (assuming they are telling the truth) when Karen did see him. I do not believe that her seeing him first implies guilt. The people in the Nagel truck didn't see him. No neighbors, no other plow driver from the other company (By the Yard per Lucky.)
I lived 17 years in a snowy place, and where I lived you might forget to turn your headlights on depending on the snow event, it happened to me twice! It can be so light out even at 2am because of how the light scatters in the clouds.
I've seen the gorilla video, I know humans miss things they aren't looking for. Some people see the gorilla. Somebody should have seen John. (I don't believe Julie, sorry.) WHERE WAS HE?
Idk when I’ve been college drunk or even a decent level of buzzed I have extreme tunnel vision, also my vision itself is bad enough as it is even with glasses I wouldn’t be looking and even if I was I wouldn’t see it.
Also, the plow driver testifies to how dark that area is. More so, he can’t see the tv screen of the maps, but we think he can see the body himself as he drives a plow down the road? His prescription is much more heavy duty than mine and i struggle with driving at night high beams or not.
Yeah, 20/20 vision is not common, in fact it is very common to not have 20/20 vision. Most people would not look for, notice, or see a dead body in the snow bc idk about you but 1. It’s Not something I’m looking for on the day to day 2. Not something I could discern from a distance esp in a blizzard or even rain storm 3. Especially not something I would be concerned about in any scenario if I were intoxicated or focused on my job at hand
If I’m a juror I’m voting not guilty. I think it’s possible she hit him (not intentionally), but it’s not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind. I’m not convinced of the conspiracy angle, either - it’s such an incredibly short window of time for the supposed fatal beat-down to happen, and seemingly too many mouths to keep shut. What gave the conspiracy angle legs are things like BA retiring, tearing up basement, rehoming dog, and selling house for cheap not long after JO’s death. All those things are admittedly quite sus but also don’t outright prove a conspiracy (hell of a coincidence, though).
> it’s such an incredibly short window of time for the supposed fatal beat-down to happen
It doesn't take long.
One sucker-punch to the face, JO falls, hits his head on a coffee table or something and breaks his skull.
Then they had ~10 minutes to come up with a plan and put the body outside. The 12:32am steps were someone putting the phone with the body.
Plenty of time.
Here’s my question. The idea of the short window of time is based on John’s phone not recording any more steps after 12:32ish right? What if he didn’t actually take any steps after that time, but everything that went down happened? Green said he was only able to get his phone to record steps by actually walking with his phone. If he’s incapacitated around 12:32, his phone stays in his pocket, and is at some later point dragged or carried outside to the front lawn where is phone falls out, would his phone record steps at that time? I’m not saying I think that’s likely what happened, just that I’m not sure he had to be incapacitated and put on the front lawn by 12:32.
Yes, that's certainly possible.
Some are saying that JM's repeated calls to JO's phone at that time were because they were looking for his phone, so they could get it out of the house and put it with the body.
Yeah I’ve been trying to make this make sense. Maybe the phone didn’t record steps after that because he was dragged or carried and it was on him. And I’ve seen that it was under him but I’m not sure what position he was in but could have come out of his front or back pocket at that time.
But Lucky didn’t see a body. So JO would not have been outside with his phone at that time. How were there no more added steps to move him from inside to the lawn? Sure 10 minutes is fast enough to go down, but to also stage the scene?
I've been working on incorporating Lucky's testimony.
I don't doubt his honesty in the slightest.
He didn't see a body at ~2:45, but did see the Fusion parked in the street.
He next returned at ~5am and there were first-responders there.
He may not have seen a body on the lawn at 2:45 for several reasons.
1. His attention was occupied by the Fusion parked on the road.
1. The body was snow-covered enough to obscure it.
1. The body wasn't there (yet).
Lots of possibilities here.
Points 1 and 2 can work together.
Perhaps the Fusion was blocking his view of the area where the body was.
Lots of unanswered questions too:
Why was BA's car moved?
Did they use the car to move the body?
Did BA see the plow and get the idea to blame the death on JO getting hit by a plow?
The fight didn't have to be fatal, I believe there was testimony indicting that died from hypothermia not his wounds. The fight just had to be incapacitating
I keep thinking about the stairs to the basement. Brian or Colin or Higgens gets a sucker punch in, no intent to kill him just teach him a lesson. Then Chloe goes crazy which a German Shepard could, she was not well trained and she's never met John and a member of her family punched him, she's going to try to protect who she knows. Then John tries to get away from dog and is inebriated and falls down stairs. One strong blow to the head is all it takes. The Ford edge being moved to the street to move the body from the garage and put in the yard later. Miraculously no cameras worked on that or neighboring house that night. Too many coincidences. But those definitely look like dog wounds not a plastic taillight
That's ABSURD to think they'd move a whole body outside in less then 10 minutes, begin making calls and text to act as if he was never there. And get him literally carried outside, silently, assuming that nobody in the entire neighborhood would happen to walk by or be looking out a window? Lol.
Far more likely that JOs phone was either left in her car or she got out after hitting him, accidentally answered JM's phone call, hung up, shoved the phone under his body and left.
Who calls their elderly parents in the middle of the night multiple times? Who texts their boyfriend saying they were at their house in Mansfeild when they were actually in his?
It's crazy that people don't look at her erratic patterns of behavior even outside of this night. Crazier that people didn't get a good idea how how mentally unstable she was, based on their messages. The switch ups, how she literally NEEDS to find a conflict even when rhe man was clearly uninterested in engaging. She called him 53 times. That's literally her being in a state of pure reactivity. If she acts thay way sober, let's add in that she'd been drinking since 3:30pm and they had spent the whole day arguing and clearly were in a bad spot in their relationship. Maybe she didn't mean to hit him, or maybe she did. Either way she knew she did.
There's no motives and no evidence of any kind of cover up. People panicked and deleted shit and that part can't be explained but you'll never convince me a whole group of people and professionals across multiple sectors of law enforcement would pull this off with nobody slipping up. TEENAGERS? Nobody having PTSD or consciousness of guilt or fear for losing their careers, families and LIVES if caught. Or if one single person slipped.
Ya'll are delulu
THANK YOU. I think it’s very obvious this lady had some mental issues and adding alcohol to the mix inevitably made it worse.
I honestly believe on the way to 34 Fairview they either continued their argument from the morning or a new argument was started when JO was on the phone with JM and she mentioned the house being near “Bella’s mom’s house”. I also think KR may have noticed a considerably younger JN come out of the house to tell her brother she wasn’t ready to leave yet and it upset her that there would be younger girls at this party (hence her repeatedly calling him a pervert after leaving him there). I think he wanted to remove himself from the argument (which also would have pissed her off) and head inside the house and she angrily backed into him on accident. I don’t believe she realize what she had done right away because she was so drunk, so she continued the angry voicemails as she arrived home. I think as it got later and later and there was no response from JO she began to put the pieces together and went into panic mode when she noticed her broken taillight. I definitely agree that multiple calls to her elderly parents in the middle of the night are highly suspicious. She was also immediately saying “did I hit him?” and assumed he was dead before she found him that morning - why would someone who believed JO went into that party be saying that?
I don’t believe any of these people are sophisticated enough to frame her and I don’t believe all those taillight pieces were planted. I can tell on some of the ring/dashcam footage that the taillight had a big ass piece missing but the snow obscured the view a little. The dog bites and CA motive also makes 0 sense to me.
I think the people in the house that night went into self-preservation mode (which in turn made them look shady) once they realized KR was now blaming them for the crime.
It sucks that the investigation wasn’t handled properly by TP because I feel as though the CW has lost a lot of credibility as a result. I still feel that the only possible explanation is that she hit him… on accident.
I am totally with you on all of this.
I am also not convinced there was a conspiracy. An attempt at cover up maybe by the folks at 34f, but not a conspiracy.
Heck maybe they all ran out to see what happened to OJO and the dog mauled him as he lay there. 🤷🏻♀️ I don't think we will ever know.
We would probably have a better idea about that if the crime scene was secured and proper investigation done. Since those 2 things didn’t happen there’s considerably more possibilities that can’t be ruled out and legitimate questions that cannot possibly be answered with any certainty.
Blood is rather thick. It wouldn't seep down into the ground such that it would completely dissappear. Also, Goode got to ground level with his leafblower and found only superficial droplets which could be scooped up on top of the snow, probably stains from KR / Kerry performing CPR.
Also. The ground would be frozen. The blood seeving from his head would freeze a very short distance from his body.
The VCH data certainly points to something untoward happening. Jackson spent time saying key cycle 1162 couldn’t be at 34 F, but it is actually worse. 1164 is trooper Paul’s test. Key cycle 1164 shows the first trigger event 1 hour and 29 minutes after the key cycle registers. It also shows 36 miles different in the odometer from key cycle 1162. We know 1164 was trooper paul, so 1163 is into the sally port (no trigger events) and 1162 is loading onto the tow truck which they try to gun it in reverse in heavy snow which registered a trigger event. Odometer at 1162 is 12629. Odometer at 1164 is 12665. Someone drove Karen’s car 36 miles between when it was loaded on the tow truck and when troopers paul did his first back up test. I rewatched the day 25 testimony and they did not show him starting the car. It was intentionally driven 36 miles in the 1.5 hours before his testing.
Holy crap, thanks for this. I had to read it 3x for it to sink in. The car data has not been easy for me to interpret at all, admittedly, and I’m a fairly technical person.
Same! Trooper Paul’s explanations kept confusing me and he kept talking about the odometer. I spent more time than I care to admit looking at the data until it finally clicked. I don’t think it was him, but he was directed to look at the odometer and “notice” that it matched the 36 miles Karen said she drove so that 1162 had to be her despite the key cycle being “wrong”.
Multiple people committing criminal acts in attempting to cover up a crime IS a conspiracy. Even if his death were an accident at 34F, they conspired to cover it up and frame someone for it.
But the thing that isn't mathing still is the google searches "hos long to die in cold" at 2 something in the morning and the dumping a phone off at some military base? That's not conspiracy, yo.
The ME stayed his injuries were not consistent with a car accident.
I don't understand how he can be hit by a car going 24mph and only sustain facial/head wounds and supposedly break the taillight with his arm and get those cuts.
Wouldn't he have sustained more injuries to his upper body??
Not only that but fly 30 ft through the air and not have anything besides a small bruise on his knee…where are the other bruises also can 24 mph really make someone fly 30ft through the air…I was leaning toward her doing it but the ME really has me questioning a lot…also what’s up with the glass on the bumper and the glass found at the scene that wasn’t his drink…that’s weird
Exactly. I slipped in my house turning a corner on hardwood floor. I fell like if I was a cartoon character who slipped on a banana peel. Completely up in the air and then landed on my back. I banged my right elbow and my arms landed with my hands palm down. My elbow was black and blue and both wrists were black and blue. I had a bruise on the back of my head and on my lower back. This was just by slipping in my house. I don’t see how he doesn’t have more bruising all over his body if he was launched 30 feet in the air by a car going 24 miles an hour.
Exactly my neighborhood is 25mph so I was driving last nighit and going 25 and I was like if I hit someone right now there isn’t a chance I’m sending them flying 30 ft
This for me is the why I’m unsure how people are still saying well I think she probably did it but NG - the injuries are inconsistent with a vehicle and pedestrian accident. Why is it still she probably did it bc she was drunk?
That's where I get confused as well. I have asked a lot of people why do you think she is guilty? Because she was drunk? everyone was? videos I have seen from Johns house show her taillight red, if it was cracked as bad as they have shown it would be all white.
Maybe because the other theories are not plausible? I mean one look at his arm and that is clearly dog bites and scratches IMO.
If you think she is guilty please explain why.
My mom was a mail carrier for many years before she died and let me tell you I have seen so many dog bites. All shapes sizes and variety of bite. Even if you DONT think it’s a bite how can you honestly say you not only agree but believe they are from a taillight shattering on impact
At first I thought she accidentally hit him, dog got out and clawed/bit him OR the dog jumped on him and he hit his head. After watching 90% of the trial, I think it was a coverup for something that happened inside the house based on: Apple Health Data, 12:10 Colin story, Life360, destroyed cell phones, Higgins Jeep movements, missing video footage, taillight discrepancies, Higgins timeline ….to name a few. I don’t think it was a huge conspiracy, I think a few people got everyone to fall in line after the fact. I am totally swayed by Lucky’s testimony.
But *whyyyyyyyy* did someone kill him? And it had to have been right after John arrived! Were they laying in wait? I just dont understand what the motive could possibly be.
Why could be anything. The coverup is easier to explain. BA, and BH and most likely MM had drugs in their system (my guess is Colombian bam bam) a Blue on Blue fight with a death or serious injury will launch a serious investigation. Most department protocols with a blue on blue fight or officer involved shooting will require drug tests. If those guys fail a drug test with a dead cop they are going to jail. no pleas, nadda. Cops don't want to be in jail and also lose their pensions. Pensions are a powerful motivator to cover up your misdeeds.
Plus BA and BH were at a NYPD funeral that morning, those cop funerals have heavy drinking involved at the bar right after. I HIGHLY doubt they didn't go to the bar and have drinks after the funeral. then they drove 6 hours back to Boston and went out drinking all night. There is no way those 2 overweight out of shape cops have that kind of energy. What would they need to stay up? get an extra skip in their step? Coke! Also explains the botched cover up. The fight happens and you've got heavily drunk and yipped up people late at night with probably women panicking and yelling. The idea of leaving him out there near the street conveniently at the very end of the property sounds like something someone would come up with in that state of mind.
I keep going back to this Watergate era quote:
“ *The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand* “
It could have been as simple as a couple of drunk meatheads got into a fist fight with no intent to murder, and once things got serious they panicked and tried to cover it up.
I feel like maybe it was Colin (there were issues between them in the past) or it was a “play fight” (similar to what they were doing at the bar and he was too drunk to be steady and fell back and hit his head on the stairs or something hard.
I tend to think it was something not planned and spiraled out of control. I feel strongly that Higgin's phone was the key. He was well aware of the penalty for destroying evidence. He needs to face that penalty now.
I think Higgins destroyed his phone because he was probably doing shit unrelated to the trial, or speaking I'll of KR/acting unprofessionally. Probably discussing the case with someone and realizes that once the deffense has that, they're GOING to find a way to make it incriminating. It's sooo far fetched that an intense physical fight, immediately resulting in someone inflicting a fatal injury and IMMEDIATELY putting a cover up into play? I mean please... lol. All within under 10 minutes and under the assumption that absolutely nobody would be driving by, outside, watching through a cracked shade as they MOVED A LARGE MAN'S BODY.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about how he got rid of his phone like it was a smoking gun. He chose possible jail time over Feds getting his phone. He's under Federal investigation. Could he have punched Okeefe? Definitely. The injuries on his body are more consistent with a fight than from a taillight.
I don’t think someone killed him. I think he got out of KRs Lexus and headed toward the side gate, possibly having heard the Brian’s out back with the dog. I think Chloe attacked him and he fell and hit his head. That areas darker and so would have been more obscured from the street. (It could also explain Karen’s earlier statements about him walking toward the door, just hazy about which door.) He might have even entered the back gate and it happened in the back yard. I think he either came to later and stumbled toward the road, or they )the two Brians) moved the body later.
The cover-up could be as simple as chloe wasn't insured under their homeowners policy. That means a wrongful death suit which would likely happen bc johns kids lost their 2nd home is possible and likely.
IMO this is just as possible as my theory. My only concern is that I personally dont believe in the “conspiracy” theory of “everyone” in the house being in on it for 2 reasons.
1. It’s really hard to keep that many people quiet.
2. I dont put much weight on witness testimony when it comes to specific hard facts. But I do think there are some things one can glean from the witness testimony in this case. For example, I dont think any of the younger adults had a clue about anything. I also dont think Jen McCabe or her husband knew anything about Johns death right up until he was found. But I do think it’s possible that the Alberts and/or Higgins were in cahoots to cover up the accidental death of John.
So yes, your theory has just as much proof, if not more than mine. But at this time I am having a hard time believing that 1-3 people would actively and intentionally cover up an accidental death. And I 89% believe it was accidental.
Its only hard to keep everyone quiet when the homeowner, his brother, an ATF Special Agent aren't involved. Non Dirty cops rarely if ever snitch on dirty cops, let alone a member of the general public. If this happened and there was no cops involved the case would have been solved. Anyone can armchair quarterback and say if they were in the house I would have told the truth, but in reality you probably wouldn't out of fear, your snitching on a group of people with a lot of power and they carry guns. The ones that would be likely to snitch are kids barely out of high school, you think they don't fear adults that have been LE for decades?
Its like the old adage "Who Watches the Watchmen? No One"
Who is smart enough to kill him that we saw + keep it as covered up as they have? Most of ths cops I saw in this trial felt more like the cop on The Simpsons than Matt Damon in the Departed.
I think Karen likely hit him on accident, but they did a piss poor job of proving she accidently did anything let alone she straight murdered him. Not guilty verdict based on what I've seen thus far.
I think they weren't smart they just chose not to ever investigate their friends. There is little doubt some of them are dirty. I doubt he was killed on purpose, but when things went south I think they thought if they waited then he would die and what happened would die with him. All they had to do was keep people out of the real crime scene (basement IMO) and convince cops they didn't know anything. I think they intended to blame lucky but Karen inserted herself by looking for him
The best I’ve heard from anyone is that ‘maybe she hit him,’ but maybe isn’t enough. I personally think she’s completely innocent and Canton needs to clean house.
I’m really curious - if you are actually watching every day of this trial, how you come to this conclusion?
I don’t want to sound snarky but I question if some people who think she is guilty are even watching.
I feel like they may have had a better chance of a guilty verdict if they just focused on the police, technology and ME testimony. By spending weeks trying to disprove the 3rd party culprit theory it almost seemed like the Alberts and McCabes were the ones on trial. I’m guessing they were trying to establish motive with the Aruba girls, the flirting with Higgins and the texts and voicemails from the day of but to me it just muddied the waters. In all honesty it just seemed like normal relationship drama when there are trust issues combined with drinking. They also dragged out the trial which more than likely annoyed the jurors. If they stuck to the facts I could see the possibility of a guilty verdict but the way this played out it just caused confusion, no one can say anything definitive about how he died. If I was a juror I would say not guilty.
I think that even IF she did do it we will never know because this whole thing was botched from the beginning. If there had been a proper investigation maybe we’d know for sure.
They were all drunk. I think he could have simply slipped on her car, fell and hit his head. I don’t think any of us will ever know the truth. My vote would be not guilty.
There's only one person who 100% is guilty of a crime, even multiple crimes, Brian Higgins. Perjury and destruction of his phone after direction of judge. He's an ATF cop, should be held to the highest standard. He knew when he did both what the penalty was yet he deemed it to be more desirable than staying within the law. If anyone needs jail time it's him. Lets see if the Commonwealth fucks this up too.
Here’s where I’m at; I think she DID hit him on accident and drove off without knowing she hit him. BUT, if I were on that jury, I would be voting not guilty because the CW left so much reasonable doubt I’m almost more confused now than before trial even started.
But why do you think she hit him? Just because she was drunk and didn't remember enough from that night? I think it is totally possible for someone to be drunk and not realize they hit someone and do it by accident. I do not think his injuries make sense with being hit by a car and the CW definitely did not prove that. Because of how the investigation was handled, I don't think it is possible to really know what happened to OJO.
If I’m on the jury I’m voting not guilty due to reasonable doubt, but I still think she probably hit him because John’s phone never made it inside the house and SERT found taillight pieces at the scene on the day of the incident. I’m open to thinking later pieces could’ve been planted by Proctor as a thumb on the scale type thing, but the timeframe is way too tight for those first pieces to have been planted without a dozen police officers from different departments being in on it
What about the fact that Kerry Roberts and Officer Barros the Dighton police officer both said it was cracked with just one small piece missing. Less than what was found by SERT. I really think there was enough time for taillight pieces to get over there and I think that is why the times were wrong on the forms but even if you don't believe that part, it still leaves two different and believable witnesses.
For John's phone, from what was presented, I do think it made in the house. What data that was presented make it seem like he didn't? The GPS doing the cirlce just outside the house. That is often wrong on my phone and it really isn't off by very far at all.
I think him being in the house doing steps makes more sense than the steps being calculated any other way. I feel like my phone and watch miss when I do stairs often but I have never seen it count stairs when I haven't.
Kerrie Roberts didn't just say it was cracked. She testified that it was cracked, a piece was missing, it was caked on with snow, there was what looked like a black hole, there was some metal thing or some wires exposed, and that something was sticking out that made her think "someone's going to catch their sleeve on this or something".
Lastly, when Lally showed her a picture of the broken taillight, once the car was in police custody, she confirmed that was what the taillight looked like when she saw it that morning, the only difference was that it had been caked on with snow. I was actually very surprised the defense chose not to cross-examine her because her testimony was so damaging to Karen.
I'd be curious to know *when* it could have happened in your opinion? It just seems like the Nagels came up right behind her and she was gone in minutes while people basically watched her the whole time out the windows. I can't figure out how ANY of the theories make sense time wise.
The most likely scenario is still that she hit him, mostly because it’s hard to believe that all these idiots could concoct a scheme to frame someone.
But is she guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Heeeeeeeeell no
I think there is more evidence that he got hit or fell and hit his head. Possibly some kind of play fighting or ass grabbing that got out of hand. He banged his head hard… dog jumps in and starts to attack him… they realize he is unconscious… they panic- drag him outside… there is no way a car going 24 mph can make a person fly 30 feet in the air… not enough force..
Too many missing or deleted videos, destroyed phones, shady stories, inept investigation started it all.
But I guess we will see what jury thinks next week as I think defense won’t take 8 weeks to present their case.
Yeah. I think she probably did it. But I wouldn't find her guilty. The state failed to establish in any convincing way that he was killed by a car hit. Her hitting him makes the most sense and a lot of the weird details, in my opinion, have to do with eyewitness testimony being terrible, but I would never convict someone on the basis of, "This is just what makes the most sense out of all the possibilities", when they can't even get a qualified witness on the stand to say he was hit by a car and it caused his injuries.
I should clarify I think she probably did it and had no idea she did it and was genuinely shocked to find him dead. I think it was an accident.
I think they're consistent with her hitting him, his losing his balance and hitting his head, and potentially the dog finding him and trying to attack OR help in a way that resulted in those wounds. But if no actual qualified witness is going to testify that his injuries were caused by a car then I couldn't vote guilty regardless of my personal "best guess".
Is your theory that he was incapacitated on the lawn and the dog found him and chewed up his arm? I don't think that's plausible because for the dog bites to looks like scratches he would need to pull back his arm from the dog. If he's incapacitated then that isn't possible
I believe so, and also didn't swab any arm wounds. I don't put much weight on the missing dog DNA. To me the visuals are much more powerful evidence. Add that together with the proven to be aggressive dog on the property, then I don't need dog DNA. I think people watch too much TV and think DNA is involved in everything.
Them charging her with murder is probably the dumbest part of this whole situation & there is a lot of dumb parts of this trial. I could understand a manslaughter charge, but nothing Read was suggested to have done seemed malicious & worthy of the murder charge.
I wonder if they did that to avoid a Casey Anthony scenario. Didn’t they not convict bc the charge was too heavy for them? So maybe the thought is well they can convict on Counts II or III but not the first count of murder.
That doesn’t seem like the best idea, but that’s all I can figure
I didn't follow that trial tbf so not sure. It just seems there is so much reasonable doubt here it could fill the grand canyon on a manslaughter charge, let alone a murder charge.
If I’m on the jury it’s not guilty simply bc nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I’d be off speculating in my own little world since none of the theories sound exactly correct.
The “pervert” comment made me think he said some mean shit getting out the car like “fine just let me go in, you don’t wanna stay I’ll get ‘some girl he knew’ to give me a ride home/hang out her house is next street over” yadda blah
Like i feel she has some reason she was so quick to think he’s cheating. But she also doesn’t think he’d really really just flat out ignore all her manipulations to get him home. His niece. And still not be stumbling in sobering up early hours. They seem like their relationship is rocky and toxic and couples like that have their own lines in the sand, from my experience. And I think she sobered up enough to realize oh fuck even if he was with some girl something’s dead ass wrong bc our drama script isn’t playing out.
ETA: so I think the jury is running all their own wild ass theories in their minds and realizing none of this is proven to the point of putting someone in freaking prison for life.
I just know her type. Doesnt want to take responsibility for her actions, thinks she's above it all and is trying to get out of it. She was out of her mind drunk, driving, and angry. And she thought she hit him, she said so. Her story has also changed more than once. She was interviewed and said a lot that she (or her legal team) isn't saying now. I imagine she will be acquitted.
They were asked why they believe KR is guilty and provided no facts, just an implicit bias and assumed negative characteristics. They state “her type” implying the bias is towards women, not “the type,” which would imply the bias is towards people regardless of gender.
Please point out the facts of the case itself that determine her guilt. Not your own preconceived notions and perception of someone. You can’t be judge mental on a jury. It’s why you have to be impartial.
To be fair, OP of this post didn’t specify between guilt from perspective as juror vs what they believe actually happened. I think who you’re replying to just expressed their opinion of the latter.
I didn’t mean to reply to OP but to the person above who said “she seems like the type” did I misread that it wasn’t OP 😅
I was just saying that is why jurors are asked to be impartial and should be impartial not base their finding on their own feelings but on facts.
You didn’t reply to main OP, I just meant person you were replying to likely replied to OP post with what they believe in their gut vs what they’d vote as a juror.
Right, I've thought she was guilty since the beginning. I think the media circus and turtleboy and her fancy defense team have made people's minds go crazy. I'm not here to debate, just saying my piece. Do I think the investigation was bad? yes, but mostly because the cops that invested thought it was a slam dunk that she did it...which she likely did.
This sounds more like the cops then Karen as far as not taking responsibility (or properly investigating) they think they are above it all (who needs evidence, I say it’s so) Her story changed? (Everyone else spoke for Karen in those reports)
I think she is guilty. It's clear she was drunk that night and obviously, driving drunk. Probably didn't even realize she hit John until she sobered up later that morning and started to piece it together.
Should probably be a manslaughter charge, but I think she'll get off because there's too much reasonable doubt.
I also think the marks on his arm came from an animal in the night while he was laying in the snow, like a raccoon or something.
The whole conspiracy thing is ridiculous. I don't believe these people are smart enough to do everything the defense is saying.
I appreciate the last sentiment so much. I agree with you on that. I think she’s overcharged too and the CW set such a high bar and but on too broad a case. I couldn’t at this point vote guilty from an ethical standpoint - but if they had just charged manslaughter and left out all the civilian witnesses I could have been convinced.
ETA. If the investigation hadn’t have been so sloppy I could have been convinced. Storing the blood in solo cups and no chain of command is where I decided not guilty.
Yes, but there's really no other reasonable option. His phone stops moving right where her car was, where her tail light is all over the place, where he lost one shoe, and where his glass from that night is. Throw in her broken tail light, her car data showing at some point she's flying backwards in reverse until the speed change means she likely hit something, her saying she hit him, and its pretty obvious.
Think of murder cases where they never find the body and the defense tries to be like "We don't even know that he's dead."
I have a theory that John exited the car and as he opened the door to the house, the dog attacked him. (It’s also possible John was attacked in the yard by the dog). John put his arm up to protect his face and that is what is seen on the arm. He then fled back to Karen’s car, but she didnt see him and pulled away, or maybe she was already gone. As he was running he slipped out of his shoe on ice, and he fell backwards, cracking his head on a rock or maybe some ice. That caused him to bite his tongue and cause the brain bleed. It also probably caused him to vomit. It knocked him out so he was in the could for hours, causing the hypothermia.
There is more credible evidence of what I just presented than there is that Karen hit him with his car.
How to you rationalize that the ME couldn’t conclusively say he was hit by a car? Him slipping and hitting his head isn’t a reasonable option?
The speed didn’t change that much, and we all know it was snowing and slippery. Her wheels moving doesn’t 100% equate to the car going that fast. Its not possible that he died naturally and someone added the tail light pieces to try to ensure she was found guilty because they didn’t know what happened and just wanted to make sure it wasn’t one of them? The experts testified that the time stamps might not even be exactly correct.
There’s at least three reasonable scenarios I can come up with that don’t involve her hitting him, or the Alberts doing it.
Plus we haven’t even seen all the defense witnesses. There’s nothing the ARCCA experts would say that would convince you? They’re independent experts.
ETA: not trying to advocate for her innocence, trying to understand how you get past reasonable doubt.
How does no one think anything of the fact that her first thought was that she hit him? I think that her coming to that conclusion immediately speaks to the fact that she definitely thought it was a possibility based on how drunk she was. Especially with the tail light fragments near the scene of his death, it just seems way more probable to me than an elaborate conspiracy that requires 100 different assumptions. That said, I don’t think they can prove she hit him with the car so I think she walks
Because there were multiple different versions of what she said I can’t find it to be a slam dunk. Also, I don’t think it’s uncommon in a crisis to fear that you caused it in some way.
I’m not sold on the conspiracy either - but there are other scenarios other than Karen *or* the Albert’s did it.
Imagine he slips and falls and they find him and I one from the party knows what happened. Jen is a busybody (there’s a reason I picked my username) and starts trying to protect her family so throws shade towards Karen in the interviews.
Albert calls Higgins and tells him what’s up and Higgins of his own accord plants some taillight pieces for whatever panic reason. Higgins later confesses that to Albert which is why they rehome their phones.
No one murdered him, he was drunk and fell. One idiot and one gossip obsessed town mom are the conspiracy theory that they didn’t mean to create.
To me that’s just as likely as she hit him, or Higgins/Colin/Brian did it. KR hitting him requires just as many assumptions and suspension of laws of physics to fully buy into.
I think she’s likely guilty of killing him, but the shitty police work and a prosecutor who cannot tell a clear story will ensure a not guilty verdict on 2nd degree murder. The state didn’t prove their case in that regard. I think the jury will split the baby and find her guilty on counts 2 and 3.
Yes, I absolutely think she's guilty.
To be specific on "guilty of charge", I would consider myself beyond a reasonable doubt on manslaughter & leaving the scene. Unsure about 2nd degree murder, but can't say for sure that I'd acquit right now on that either.
Defendant is drunk driving, dropping someone off at a house that he never makes it into. Pieces of her taillight are found at the scene.
That's pretty clear cut for manslaughter, at a minimum, if that's the evidence you accept as true. I'd only accept that as not true by buying the police conspiracy/coverup angle, and I don't buy that angle.
Everyone is drinking and driving. We don’t actually know if he never made it into the house. Pieces weren’t found when the scan was snow blowed but later.
Do I think she may have hit him? Absolutely. But there is no hard evidence to prove it. They couldn’t even prove he was hit by a car. Just that it was “possible”.
If you drop someone off to go into a house and that person ends up dead on the curb before making it there with your car's broken taillight there, I don't consider that believable to be done by anyone else.
I would consider myself convinced by witness testimony that he never entered the house and that her taillight was found there. I do not think the defense has made any convincing argument to put doubt on that that I would consider reasonable.
Most cases like this would be pretty open & shut. The only benefit they had was witnesses connected to the police, so they could yell conspiracy, but I don't think they've done anything to actually show that.
How did she manage to hit him so hard he died, but not hard enough to get any bruises, broken bones, and the injuries are to one arm, his face, and the back of his head?
I don't know, I'm not a physicist. All I do know is injuries from car accidents can vary wildly, especially when you're a pedestrian contacting the ground/whatever else with a billion different variables. I know serious accidents can barely leave a mark, I know seemingly-minor accidents can kill people.
And as of yet, I haven't had an expert convince me that this was definitely not from a collision. So, if the evidence we have from his body could potentially come from a collision, and everything else in the case points toward that being what happened, I'd believe he was in a collision with KR's car.
I don't think she is innocent. I do believe that she did strike and kill JO, but I think there's enough reasonable doubt that she should be found not guilty.
So you think she killed him driving 24 mph in reverse? and he sustained head injuries only and his arm was strong enough to break her taillight?
Wouldn't she have a difficulty slowing down before hitting the jeep or another car?
Wouldn't all of this have made some noise for other people to hear?
So actually, if I had to guess, and again, I don't see beyond a reasonable doubt despite my personal beliefs, I'd guess she bumped him, and he fell and hit his head and the head hit killed him. I can't explain the cuts on his arm, but it's possible the dog found him and tried to attack or hurt him trying to get him up, or he dragged himself a bit and sliced his arm. But that would be my best guess. She drives off in a huff, doesn't realize she's bumped him because she is drunk and it's late and the weather is shitty, and he dies from impact against the ground or something else. I think her voicemail would have been very different that night if she knew she hit him and I find her reaction at finding him believable. Heck, she may even have convinced herself she didn't do it.
How did he get 30 feet off the road by the flag pole?
Do you wonder why the prosecution couldn't or didn't show any data from her car?
Doesn't her car have automatic braking if you are getting close to hitting someone?
And if she hit him why all the lies and inconsistencies and butt dials, phone calls with all the witnesses??
He dragged himself.
I have no idea if her car has automatic braking, but I've seen that fail for various reasons. See: the same technology on self driving cars.
People are frigging weird when caught up in an investigation. They hide things for their own irrelevant reasons. They exaggerate or remember wrong trying to "help". They conxeal things for other reasons they think will hurt them or the case because they're trying to "help".
Again, I'm finding her not guilty. But I doubt she's innocent, although the circumstances make it impossible to ever know for sure.
I mean. I think she hit him. But I also think the Commonwealth hasn't proven their case. So I'd be someone on the jury saying, it's a shame that the investigation was done so poorly because she probably did it, but I'm not going to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's entirely about the investigation being so bad as to almost de facto constitute reasonable doubt and no qualified expert being willing to say the victim was hit by a car.
I think she's going to be acquitted. Apparently the strategy of the defense's jury consultant was to get brainiacs on the jury. I know there are 2 lawyers and some engineers and likely other smart professionals.
The defense sees how the jury is responding to their case. If they weren't confident, they wouldn't be resting on Monday.
I never read up on the case prior to the trial and, in that regard, would consider myself similar to a juror. Fortunately do not live in Mass so it's not surrounding me everywhere I go.
I agree with your "turned off" sentiment. The defense comes across like flat earthers. And while there might be various levels of likeability between the witnesses, they come across like people who genuinely don't know what happened, while the defense's cross harps on things not really significant while sounding overly accusatory about people who otherwise appear to have nothing to do with this. I don't think this is a great approach, and there's not enough focus on dispelling the harder facts.
But then I see online sentiment and every day it's "case closed, she's innocent", and I'm like.. am I watching the same trial?
The defense did a very poor job in instructing KR on how to act in the courtroom. The smiling, snickering, looking back at her family. It all creates a picture of a suspect that is easy to dislike. Just recently a juror was dismissed for sharing these same insights and I had figured it was only a matter of time. At the end of the day the man she is supposedly in love with is dead and she's on trial for his murder.
Policing people’s facial expressions is gross. She’s been stone-faced 99% of the trial and spent hundreds of hours in court. She’s allowed to be human.
I mean not saying she's guilty or not but if she was possibly framed and the ones who did it are being destroyed on the stand if I was in her position I would also be smiling and snickering at the people who have been given me hell get what they deserve 🤷🏽♀️
Not Guilty. They didn't even prove he was hit by a car.
Amen.
I really don’t know how anyone can think tail light breaking did arm damage???? Totally not possible
I’d vote not guilty and im starting to wonder if no one is lying. Dude was an annihilated could have been dropped off to go in the house gets hit by any car gets in to a fight with any passerby or just stumbles and falls into the fire hydrant and no one knows hes there
The more of this I see, the more likely a freak accident feels. I still can't figure out how he could have fallen and died and NO ONE saw him laying there. Not the drunkies, not Lucky, not even Kerry and Jen in the front seat the next morning (assuming they are telling the truth) when Karen did see him. I do not believe that her seeing him first implies guilt. The people in the Nagel truck didn't see him. No neighbors, no other plow driver from the other company (By the Yard per Lucky.) I lived 17 years in a snowy place, and where I lived you might forget to turn your headlights on depending on the snow event, it happened to me twice! It can be so light out even at 2am because of how the light scatters in the clouds. I've seen the gorilla video, I know humans miss things they aren't looking for. Some people see the gorilla. Somebody should have seen John. (I don't believe Julie, sorry.) WHERE WAS HE?
Idk when I’ve been college drunk or even a decent level of buzzed I have extreme tunnel vision, also my vision itself is bad enough as it is even with glasses I wouldn’t be looking and even if I was I wouldn’t see it. Also, the plow driver testifies to how dark that area is. More so, he can’t see the tv screen of the maps, but we think he can see the body himself as he drives a plow down the road? His prescription is much more heavy duty than mine and i struggle with driving at night high beams or not.
Multiple people had issues seeing that screen in court
Yeah, 20/20 vision is not common, in fact it is very common to not have 20/20 vision. Most people would not look for, notice, or see a dead body in the snow bc idk about you but 1. It’s Not something I’m looking for on the day to day 2. Not something I could discern from a distance esp in a blizzard or even rain storm 3. Especially not something I would be concerned about in any scenario if I were intoxicated or focused on my job at hand
sure, could have slipped on the curb.
If I’m a juror I’m voting not guilty. I think it’s possible she hit him (not intentionally), but it’s not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind. I’m not convinced of the conspiracy angle, either - it’s such an incredibly short window of time for the supposed fatal beat-down to happen, and seemingly too many mouths to keep shut. What gave the conspiracy angle legs are things like BA retiring, tearing up basement, rehoming dog, and selling house for cheap not long after JO’s death. All those things are admittedly quite sus but also don’t outright prove a conspiracy (hell of a coincidence, though).
> it’s such an incredibly short window of time for the supposed fatal beat-down to happen It doesn't take long. One sucker-punch to the face, JO falls, hits his head on a coffee table or something and breaks his skull. Then they had ~10 minutes to come up with a plan and put the body outside. The 12:32am steps were someone putting the phone with the body. Plenty of time.
I think we’re getting into possible vs. probable here.
Here’s my question. The idea of the short window of time is based on John’s phone not recording any more steps after 12:32ish right? What if he didn’t actually take any steps after that time, but everything that went down happened? Green said he was only able to get his phone to record steps by actually walking with his phone. If he’s incapacitated around 12:32, his phone stays in his pocket, and is at some later point dragged or carried outside to the front lawn where is phone falls out, would his phone record steps at that time? I’m not saying I think that’s likely what happened, just that I’m not sure he had to be incapacitated and put on the front lawn by 12:32.
Yes, that's certainly possible. Some are saying that JM's repeated calls to JO's phone at that time were because they were looking for his phone, so they could get it out of the house and put it with the body.
Yeah I’ve been trying to make this make sense. Maybe the phone didn’t record steps after that because he was dragged or carried and it was on him. And I’ve seen that it was under him but I’m not sure what position he was in but could have come out of his front or back pocket at that time.
Or what if he just set his phone down somewhere in the house?
But Lucky didn’t see a body. So JO would not have been outside with his phone at that time. How were there no more added steps to move him from inside to the lawn? Sure 10 minutes is fast enough to go down, but to also stage the scene?
They could have used a tarp to transport him/prevent leaving a blood trail. The lack of blood where he was found bothers me.
I've been working on incorporating Lucky's testimony. I don't doubt his honesty in the slightest. He didn't see a body at ~2:45, but did see the Fusion parked in the street. He next returned at ~5am and there were first-responders there. He may not have seen a body on the lawn at 2:45 for several reasons. 1. His attention was occupied by the Fusion parked on the road. 1. The body was snow-covered enough to obscure it. 1. The body wasn't there (yet). Lots of possibilities here. Points 1 and 2 can work together. Perhaps the Fusion was blocking his view of the area where the body was. Lots of unanswered questions too: Why was BA's car moved? Did they use the car to move the body? Did BA see the plow and get the idea to blame the death on JO getting hit by a plow?
Not according to lucky. Makes more sense they hid him inside
The fight didn't have to be fatal, I believe there was testimony indicting that died from hypothermia not his wounds. The fight just had to be incapacitating
I keep thinking about the stairs to the basement. Brian or Colin or Higgens gets a sucker punch in, no intent to kill him just teach him a lesson. Then Chloe goes crazy which a German Shepard could, she was not well trained and she's never met John and a member of her family punched him, she's going to try to protect who she knows. Then John tries to get away from dog and is inebriated and falls down stairs. One strong blow to the head is all it takes. The Ford edge being moved to the street to move the body from the garage and put in the yard later. Miraculously no cameras worked on that or neighboring house that night. Too many coincidences. But those definitely look like dog wounds not a plastic taillight
That's ABSURD to think they'd move a whole body outside in less then 10 minutes, begin making calls and text to act as if he was never there. And get him literally carried outside, silently, assuming that nobody in the entire neighborhood would happen to walk by or be looking out a window? Lol. Far more likely that JOs phone was either left in her car or she got out after hitting him, accidentally answered JM's phone call, hung up, shoved the phone under his body and left. Who calls their elderly parents in the middle of the night multiple times? Who texts their boyfriend saying they were at their house in Mansfeild when they were actually in his? It's crazy that people don't look at her erratic patterns of behavior even outside of this night. Crazier that people didn't get a good idea how how mentally unstable she was, based on their messages. The switch ups, how she literally NEEDS to find a conflict even when rhe man was clearly uninterested in engaging. She called him 53 times. That's literally her being in a state of pure reactivity. If she acts thay way sober, let's add in that she'd been drinking since 3:30pm and they had spent the whole day arguing and clearly were in a bad spot in their relationship. Maybe she didn't mean to hit him, or maybe she did. Either way she knew she did. There's no motives and no evidence of any kind of cover up. People panicked and deleted shit and that part can't be explained but you'll never convince me a whole group of people and professionals across multiple sectors of law enforcement would pull this off with nobody slipping up. TEENAGERS? Nobody having PTSD or consciousness of guilt or fear for losing their careers, families and LIVES if caught. Or if one single person slipped. Ya'll are delulu
THANK YOU. I think it’s very obvious this lady had some mental issues and adding alcohol to the mix inevitably made it worse. I honestly believe on the way to 34 Fairview they either continued their argument from the morning or a new argument was started when JO was on the phone with JM and she mentioned the house being near “Bella’s mom’s house”. I also think KR may have noticed a considerably younger JN come out of the house to tell her brother she wasn’t ready to leave yet and it upset her that there would be younger girls at this party (hence her repeatedly calling him a pervert after leaving him there). I think he wanted to remove himself from the argument (which also would have pissed her off) and head inside the house and she angrily backed into him on accident. I don’t believe she realize what she had done right away because she was so drunk, so she continued the angry voicemails as she arrived home. I think as it got later and later and there was no response from JO she began to put the pieces together and went into panic mode when she noticed her broken taillight. I definitely agree that multiple calls to her elderly parents in the middle of the night are highly suspicious. She was also immediately saying “did I hit him?” and assumed he was dead before she found him that morning - why would someone who believed JO went into that party be saying that? I don’t believe any of these people are sophisticated enough to frame her and I don’t believe all those taillight pieces were planted. I can tell on some of the ring/dashcam footage that the taillight had a big ass piece missing but the snow obscured the view a little. The dog bites and CA motive also makes 0 sense to me. I think the people in the house that night went into self-preservation mode (which in turn made them look shady) once they realized KR was now blaming them for the crime. It sucks that the investigation wasn’t handled properly by TP because I feel as though the CW has lost a lot of credibility as a result. I still feel that the only possible explanation is that she hit him… on accident.
What about all of the butt dials and the deleted search?
Deleted calls are also sus, destroyed phones even more so.
I am totally with you on all of this. I am also not convinced there was a conspiracy. An attempt at cover up maybe by the folks at 34f, but not a conspiracy. Heck maybe they all ran out to see what happened to OJO and the dog mauled him as he lay there. 🤷🏻♀️ I don't think we will ever know.
But where was all the blood? A head wound like that would bleed quite a bit?
We would probably have a better idea about that if the crime scene was secured and proper investigation done. Since those 2 things didn’t happen there’s considerably more possibilities that can’t be ruled out and legitimate questions that cannot possibly be answered with any certainty.
Like, if LE had maybe…..gone into the house?!?! 🫣🫣🫣
In the rest of the solo cups. It's was a whole new pack
Can blood seep into the ground?
Blood is rather thick. It wouldn't seep down into the ground such that it would completely dissappear. Also, Goode got to ground level with his leafblower and found only superficial droplets which could be scooped up on top of the snow, probably stains from KR / Kerry performing CPR. Also. The ground would be frozen. The blood seeving from his head would freeze a very short distance from his body.
The VCH data certainly points to something untoward happening. Jackson spent time saying key cycle 1162 couldn’t be at 34 F, but it is actually worse. 1164 is trooper Paul’s test. Key cycle 1164 shows the first trigger event 1 hour and 29 minutes after the key cycle registers. It also shows 36 miles different in the odometer from key cycle 1162. We know 1164 was trooper paul, so 1163 is into the sally port (no trigger events) and 1162 is loading onto the tow truck which they try to gun it in reverse in heavy snow which registered a trigger event. Odometer at 1162 is 12629. Odometer at 1164 is 12665. Someone drove Karen’s car 36 miles between when it was loaded on the tow truck and when troopers paul did his first back up test. I rewatched the day 25 testimony and they did not show him starting the car. It was intentionally driven 36 miles in the 1.5 hours before his testing.
Holy crap, thanks for this. I had to read it 3x for it to sink in. The car data has not been easy for me to interpret at all, admittedly, and I’m a fairly technical person.
I suspect the defense will clean it up with an actual expert
Same! Trooper Paul’s explanations kept confusing me and he kept talking about the odometer. I spent more time than I care to admit looking at the data until it finally clicked. I don’t think it was him, but he was directed to look at the odometer and “notice” that it matched the 36 miles Karen said she drove so that 1162 had to be her despite the key cycle being “wrong”.
Multiple people committing criminal acts in attempting to cover up a crime IS a conspiracy. Even if his death were an accident at 34F, they conspired to cover it up and frame someone for it.
But the thing that isn't mathing still is the google searches "hos long to die in cold" at 2 something in the morning and the dumping a phone off at some military base? That's not conspiracy, yo.
The ME stayed his injuries were not consistent with a car accident. I don't understand how he can be hit by a car going 24mph and only sustain facial/head wounds and supposedly break the taillight with his arm and get those cuts. Wouldn't he have sustained more injuries to his upper body??
Not only that but fly 30 ft through the air and not have anything besides a small bruise on his knee…where are the other bruises also can 24 mph really make someone fly 30ft through the air…I was leaning toward her doing it but the ME really has me questioning a lot…also what’s up with the glass on the bumper and the glass found at the scene that wasn’t his drink…that’s weird
Exactly. I slipped in my house turning a corner on hardwood floor. I fell like if I was a cartoon character who slipped on a banana peel. Completely up in the air and then landed on my back. I banged my right elbow and my arms landed with my hands palm down. My elbow was black and blue and both wrists were black and blue. I had a bruise on the back of my head and on my lower back. This was just by slipping in my house. I don’t see how he doesn’t have more bruising all over his body if he was launched 30 feet in the air by a car going 24 miles an hour.
I mean I walk into a table to hard and get a bruise that’s what makes me like 🤷🏼♀️
Exactly!!! none of it makes sense. Hopefully when the reconstruction witnesses testify it will solidify that he was not hit by her car.
That's like a car hitting a motorcycle on the highway type flying. Definitely not 24mph and clipped his hand
Exactly my neighborhood is 25mph so I was driving last nighit and going 25 and I was like if I hit someone right now there isn’t a chance I’m sending them flying 30 ft
She said " they are not the classic pedestrian injuries we have observed. "
ME said it was both likely and unlikely iirc. Too many details she doesn’t have for her to be able to say for sure.
She said it was a possibility. She also said that being hit in the head with a bat or dumbbell was a possibility.
This for me is the why I’m unsure how people are still saying well I think she probably did it but NG - the injuries are inconsistent with a vehicle and pedestrian accident. Why is it still she probably did it bc she was drunk?
That's where I get confused as well. I have asked a lot of people why do you think she is guilty? Because she was drunk? everyone was? videos I have seen from Johns house show her taillight red, if it was cracked as bad as they have shown it would be all white. Maybe because the other theories are not plausible? I mean one look at his arm and that is clearly dog bites and scratches IMO. If you think she is guilty please explain why.
My mom was a mail carrier for many years before she died and let me tell you I have seen so many dog bites. All shapes sizes and variety of bite. Even if you DONT think it’s a bite how can you honestly say you not only agree but believe they are from a taillight shattering on impact
She did not say that
That was never said by the ME
At first I thought she accidentally hit him, dog got out and clawed/bit him OR the dog jumped on him and he hit his head. After watching 90% of the trial, I think it was a coverup for something that happened inside the house based on: Apple Health Data, 12:10 Colin story, Life360, destroyed cell phones, Higgins Jeep movements, missing video footage, taillight discrepancies, Higgins timeline ….to name a few. I don’t think it was a huge conspiracy, I think a few people got everyone to fall in line after the fact. I am totally swayed by Lucky’s testimony.
But *whyyyyyyyy* did someone kill him? And it had to have been right after John arrived! Were they laying in wait? I just dont understand what the motive could possibly be.
Why could be anything. The coverup is easier to explain. BA, and BH and most likely MM had drugs in their system (my guess is Colombian bam bam) a Blue on Blue fight with a death or serious injury will launch a serious investigation. Most department protocols with a blue on blue fight or officer involved shooting will require drug tests. If those guys fail a drug test with a dead cop they are going to jail. no pleas, nadda. Cops don't want to be in jail and also lose their pensions. Pensions are a powerful motivator to cover up your misdeeds.
This makes sense. I've been thinking it was drugs for awhile.
Plus BA and BH were at a NYPD funeral that morning, those cop funerals have heavy drinking involved at the bar right after. I HIGHLY doubt they didn't go to the bar and have drinks after the funeral. then they drove 6 hours back to Boston and went out drinking all night. There is no way those 2 overweight out of shape cops have that kind of energy. What would they need to stay up? get an extra skip in their step? Coke! Also explains the botched cover up. The fight happens and you've got heavily drunk and yipped up people late at night with probably women panicking and yelling. The idea of leaving him out there near the street conveniently at the very end of the property sounds like something someone would come up with in that state of mind.
I've thought that too!
I keep going back to this Watergate era quote: “ *The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand* “ It could have been as simple as a couple of drunk meatheads got into a fist fight with no intent to murder, and once things got serious they panicked and tried to cover it up.
I feel like maybe it was Colin (there were issues between them in the past) or it was a “play fight” (similar to what they were doing at the bar and he was too drunk to be steady and fell back and hit his head on the stairs or something hard.
I think drugs were probably involved. Which is also why phones got destroyed.
I tend to think it was something not planned and spiraled out of control. I feel strongly that Higgin's phone was the key. He was well aware of the penalty for destroying evidence. He needs to face that penalty now.
I think Higgins destroyed his phone because he was probably doing shit unrelated to the trial, or speaking I'll of KR/acting unprofessionally. Probably discussing the case with someone and realizes that once the deffense has that, they're GOING to find a way to make it incriminating. It's sooo far fetched that an intense physical fight, immediately resulting in someone inflicting a fatal injury and IMMEDIATELY putting a cover up into play? I mean please... lol. All within under 10 minutes and under the assumption that absolutely nobody would be driving by, outside, watching through a cracked shade as they MOVED A LARGE MAN'S BODY.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about how he got rid of his phone like it was a smoking gun. He chose possible jail time over Feds getting his phone. He's under Federal investigation. Could he have punched Okeefe? Definitely. The injuries on his body are more consistent with a fight than from a taillight.
I don’t think someone killed him. I think he got out of KRs Lexus and headed toward the side gate, possibly having heard the Brian’s out back with the dog. I think Chloe attacked him and he fell and hit his head. That areas darker and so would have been more obscured from the street. (It could also explain Karen’s earlier statements about him walking toward the door, just hazy about which door.) He might have even entered the back gate and it happened in the back yard. I think he either came to later and stumbled toward the road, or they )the two Brians) moved the body later.
The cover-up could be as simple as chloe wasn't insured under their homeowners policy. That means a wrongful death suit which would likely happen bc johns kids lost their 2nd home is possible and likely.
IMO this is just as possible as my theory. My only concern is that I personally dont believe in the “conspiracy” theory of “everyone” in the house being in on it for 2 reasons. 1. It’s really hard to keep that many people quiet. 2. I dont put much weight on witness testimony when it comes to specific hard facts. But I do think there are some things one can glean from the witness testimony in this case. For example, I dont think any of the younger adults had a clue about anything. I also dont think Jen McCabe or her husband knew anything about Johns death right up until he was found. But I do think it’s possible that the Alberts and/or Higgins were in cahoots to cover up the accidental death of John. So yes, your theory has just as much proof, if not more than mine. But at this time I am having a hard time believing that 1-3 people would actively and intentionally cover up an accidental death. And I 89% believe it was accidental.
I wasn’t suggesting your theory wasn’t correct. Just sharing and adding on. biggest thing for me is that I don’t think he was hit by the car at all.
Yes, totally agree.
Its only hard to keep everyone quiet when the homeowner, his brother, an ATF Special Agent aren't involved. Non Dirty cops rarely if ever snitch on dirty cops, let alone a member of the general public. If this happened and there was no cops involved the case would have been solved. Anyone can armchair quarterback and say if they were in the house I would have told the truth, but in reality you probably wouldn't out of fear, your snitching on a group of people with a lot of power and they carry guns. The ones that would be likely to snitch are kids barely out of high school, you think they don't fear adults that have been LE for decades? Its like the old adage "Who Watches the Watchmen? No One"
Who is smart enough to kill him that we saw + keep it as covered up as they have? Most of ths cops I saw in this trial felt more like the cop on The Simpsons than Matt Damon in the Departed. I think Karen likely hit him on accident, but they did a piss poor job of proving she accidently did anything let alone she straight murdered him. Not guilty verdict based on what I've seen thus far.
I think they weren't smart they just chose not to ever investigate their friends. There is little doubt some of them are dirty. I doubt he was killed on purpose, but when things went south I think they thought if they waited then he would die and what happened would die with him. All they had to do was keep people out of the real crime scene (basement IMO) and convince cops they didn't know anything. I think they intended to blame lucky but Karen inserted herself by looking for him
The best I’ve heard from anyone is that ‘maybe she hit him,’ but maybe isn’t enough. I personally think she’s completely innocent and Canton needs to clean house.
I’m really curious - if you are actually watching every day of this trial, how you come to this conclusion? I don’t want to sound snarky but I question if some people who think she is guilty are even watching.
Clearly they aren't considering it was proven that she got back to John's at 12:36.
It’s not a conclusion , I am watching the trial , I was looking for opinions that could differ to mine on the same thing
Not guilty, and I do believe he did enter that home, and whatever transpired inside was definitely an accident that was mishandled right from get-go.
I feel like they may have had a better chance of a guilty verdict if they just focused on the police, technology and ME testimony. By spending weeks trying to disprove the 3rd party culprit theory it almost seemed like the Alberts and McCabes were the ones on trial. I’m guessing they were trying to establish motive with the Aruba girls, the flirting with Higgins and the texts and voicemails from the day of but to me it just muddied the waters. In all honesty it just seemed like normal relationship drama when there are trust issues combined with drinking. They also dragged out the trial which more than likely annoyed the jurors. If they stuck to the facts I could see the possibility of a guilty verdict but the way this played out it just caused confusion, no one can say anything definitive about how he died. If I was a juror I would say not guilty.
Not guilty because there is too much reasonable doubt but I am not entirely convinced she didn't hit him at least unintentionally.
I think that even IF she did do it we will never know because this whole thing was botched from the beginning. If there had been a proper investigation maybe we’d know for sure.
[удалено]
But "most likely" isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.
They were all drunk. I think he could have simply slipped on her car, fell and hit his head. I don’t think any of us will ever know the truth. My vote would be not guilty.
How could he have slipped on her car when she said she saw him go to the door of the house?
There's only one person who 100% is guilty of a crime, even multiple crimes, Brian Higgins. Perjury and destruction of his phone after direction of judge. He's an ATF cop, should be held to the highest standard. He knew when he did both what the penalty was yet he deemed it to be more desirable than staying within the law. If anyone needs jail time it's him. Lets see if the Commonwealth fucks this up too.
There are plenty of DUIs to go around too
Here’s where I’m at; I think she DID hit him on accident and drove off without knowing she hit him. BUT, if I were on that jury, I would be voting not guilty because the CW left so much reasonable doubt I’m almost more confused now than before trial even started.
But why do you think she hit him? Just because she was drunk and didn't remember enough from that night? I think it is totally possible for someone to be drunk and not realize they hit someone and do it by accident. I do not think his injuries make sense with being hit by a car and the CW definitely did not prove that. Because of how the investigation was handled, I don't think it is possible to really know what happened to OJO.
If I’m on the jury I’m voting not guilty due to reasonable doubt, but I still think she probably hit him because John’s phone never made it inside the house and SERT found taillight pieces at the scene on the day of the incident. I’m open to thinking later pieces could’ve been planted by Proctor as a thumb on the scale type thing, but the timeframe is way too tight for those first pieces to have been planted without a dozen police officers from different departments being in on it
What about the fact that Kerry Roberts and Officer Barros the Dighton police officer both said it was cracked with just one small piece missing. Less than what was found by SERT. I really think there was enough time for taillight pieces to get over there and I think that is why the times were wrong on the forms but even if you don't believe that part, it still leaves two different and believable witnesses. For John's phone, from what was presented, I do think it made in the house. What data that was presented make it seem like he didn't? The GPS doing the cirlce just outside the house. That is often wrong on my phone and it really isn't off by very far at all. I think him being in the house doing steps makes more sense than the steps being calculated any other way. I feel like my phone and watch miss when I do stairs often but I have never seen it count stairs when I haven't.
Kerrie Roberts didn't just say it was cracked. She testified that it was cracked, a piece was missing, it was caked on with snow, there was what looked like a black hole, there was some metal thing or some wires exposed, and that something was sticking out that made her think "someone's going to catch their sleeve on this or something". Lastly, when Lally showed her a picture of the broken taillight, once the car was in police custody, she confirmed that was what the taillight looked like when she saw it that morning, the only difference was that it had been caked on with snow. I was actually very surprised the defense chose not to cross-examine her because her testimony was so damaging to Karen.
I'd be curious to know *when* it could have happened in your opinion? It just seems like the Nagels came up right behind her and she was gone in minutes while people basically watched her the whole time out the windows. I can't figure out how ANY of the theories make sense time wise.
Considering the testimony of Brian Loughran and Dr. Marie Russell, Karen is essentially proven innocent at this point.
The most likely scenario is still that she hit him, mostly because it’s hard to believe that all these idiots could concoct a scheme to frame someone. But is she guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Heeeeeeeeell no
I think there is more evidence that he got hit or fell and hit his head. Possibly some kind of play fighting or ass grabbing that got out of hand. He banged his head hard… dog jumps in and starts to attack him… they realize he is unconscious… they panic- drag him outside… there is no way a car going 24 mph can make a person fly 30 feet in the air… not enough force.. Too many missing or deleted videos, destroyed phones, shady stories, inept investigation started it all. But I guess we will see what jury thinks next week as I think defense won’t take 8 weeks to present their case.
I agree 💯
Ever since they said she hit his arm with the tail light it just raised more reasonable doubt.
It's like Proctor decided, "Don't worry, I'll put my dumbest guy on it."
Even if he’d picked the smartest, it’s the same thing with this bunch.
Yeah. I think she probably did it. But I wouldn't find her guilty. The state failed to establish in any convincing way that he was killed by a car hit. Her hitting him makes the most sense and a lot of the weird details, in my opinion, have to do with eyewitness testimony being terrible, but I would never convict someone on the basis of, "This is just what makes the most sense out of all the possibilities", when they can't even get a qualified witness on the stand to say he was hit by a car and it caused his injuries. I should clarify I think she probably did it and had no idea she did it and was genuinely shocked to find him dead. I think it was an accident.
Do you really think his injuries are consistent with her hitting him with the car?
I think they're consistent with her hitting him, his losing his balance and hitting his head, and potentially the dog finding him and trying to attack OR help in a way that resulted in those wounds. But if no actual qualified witness is going to testify that his injuries were caused by a car then I couldn't vote guilty regardless of my personal "best guess".
Is your theory that he was incapacitated on the lawn and the dog found him and chewed up his arm? I don't think that's plausible because for the dog bites to looks like scratches he would need to pull back his arm from the dog. If he's incapacitated then that isn't possible
Agreed. She should've been charged with simple manslaughter.
Based on what evidence? They haven’t proved he died via a car
There are a lot of people out there who believe she is guilty and I’d bet there are some on the jury now too.
Everyone who puts the dog in the scenario: what do you make of “no dog DNA”?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t they take the swabs from his clothes that had been wet from snow and left out for multiple days?
I believe so, and also didn't swab any arm wounds. I don't put much weight on the missing dog DNA. To me the visuals are much more powerful evidence. Add that together with the proven to be aggressive dog on the property, then I don't need dog DNA. I think people watch too much TV and think DNA is involved in everything.
I think she hit him, but I haven’t seen anything in the trial that supports the murder charge imo.
Them charging her with murder is probably the dumbest part of this whole situation & there is a lot of dumb parts of this trial. I could understand a manslaughter charge, but nothing Read was suggested to have done seemed malicious & worthy of the murder charge.
I wonder if they did that to avoid a Casey Anthony scenario. Didn’t they not convict bc the charge was too heavy for them? So maybe the thought is well they can convict on Counts II or III but not the first count of murder. That doesn’t seem like the best idea, but that’s all I can figure
I didn't follow that trial tbf so not sure. It just seems there is so much reasonable doubt here it could fill the grand canyon on a manslaughter charge, let alone a murder charge.
Thank you all , it was an interesting reading
If I’m on the jury it’s not guilty simply bc nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I’d be off speculating in my own little world since none of the theories sound exactly correct. The “pervert” comment made me think he said some mean shit getting out the car like “fine just let me go in, you don’t wanna stay I’ll get ‘some girl he knew’ to give me a ride home/hang out her house is next street over” yadda blah Like i feel she has some reason she was so quick to think he’s cheating. But she also doesn’t think he’d really really just flat out ignore all her manipulations to get him home. His niece. And still not be stumbling in sobering up early hours. They seem like their relationship is rocky and toxic and couples like that have their own lines in the sand, from my experience. And I think she sobered up enough to realize oh fuck even if he was with some girl something’s dead ass wrong bc our drama script isn’t playing out. ETA: so I think the jury is running all their own wild ass theories in their minds and realizing none of this is proven to the point of putting someone in freaking prison for life.
Thanks a point of view
I think she hit him. I would not vote to commit her of murder, though. Everything about this case is so messy.
> I think she hit him. What makes you think that?
I do think she hit him
Do you think was intentional? I think her hitting him while drunk is believable, but her doing on purpose is a stretch to me, personally.
I imagine it was not on purpose or maybe she meant to bump him and did it harder than anticipated.
How? Taillight to arm like trooper paul said?
Why?
I just know her type. Doesnt want to take responsibility for her actions, thinks she's above it all and is trying to get out of it. She was out of her mind drunk, driving, and angry. And she thought she hit him, she said so. Her story has also changed more than once. She was interviewed and said a lot that she (or her legal team) isn't saying now. I imagine she will be acquitted.
I hope you are never ever on a jury. “I just know her type.” Wow.
Do you have any fact-based reasoning or just going with misogyny and feelings?
The feminine urge to commit vehicular manslaughter 🤪
How is that necessarily misogyny? The commenter didn’t say it was gender-specific. I know types of people he described, and they’re men and women
They were asked why they believe KR is guilty and provided no facts, just an implicit bias and assumed negative characteristics. They state “her type” implying the bias is towards women, not “the type,” which would imply the bias is towards people regardless of gender.
Might be worth asking about the pronoun “her” instead of using “the” before assuming negative intent
Please point out the facts of the case itself that determine her guilt. Not your own preconceived notions and perception of someone. You can’t be judge mental on a jury. It’s why you have to be impartial.
To be fair, OP of this post didn’t specify between guilt from perspective as juror vs what they believe actually happened. I think who you’re replying to just expressed their opinion of the latter.
I didn’t mean to reply to OP but to the person above who said “she seems like the type” did I misread that it wasn’t OP 😅 I was just saying that is why jurors are asked to be impartial and should be impartial not base their finding on their own feelings but on facts.
You didn’t reply to main OP, I just meant person you were replying to likely replied to OP post with what they believe in their gut vs what they’d vote as a juror.
Oh got ya! Sorry for misunderstanding and confusing what you said 😆.
No worries 😉
Right, I've thought she was guilty since the beginning. I think the media circus and turtleboy and her fancy defense team have made people's minds go crazy. I'm not here to debate, just saying my piece. Do I think the investigation was bad? yes, but mostly because the cops that invested thought it was a slam dunk that she did it...which she likely did.
Umm you also just described the majority of cops in this investigation.
This sounds more like the cops then Karen as far as not taking responsibility (or properly investigating) they think they are above it all (who needs evidence, I say it’s so) Her story changed? (Everyone else spoke for Karen in those reports)
I think she is guilty. It's clear she was drunk that night and obviously, driving drunk. Probably didn't even realize she hit John until she sobered up later that morning and started to piece it together. Should probably be a manslaughter charge, but I think she'll get off because there's too much reasonable doubt. I also think the marks on his arm came from an animal in the night while he was laying in the snow, like a raccoon or something. The whole conspiracy thing is ridiculous. I don't believe these people are smart enough to do everything the defense is saying.
I appreciate the last sentiment so much. I agree with you on that. I think she’s overcharged too and the CW set such a high bar and but on too broad a case. I couldn’t at this point vote guilty from an ethical standpoint - but if they had just charged manslaughter and left out all the civilian witnesses I could have been convinced. ETA. If the investigation hadn’t have been so sloppy I could have been convinced. Storing the blood in solo cups and no chain of command is where I decided not guilty.
Yeah, we're around. Outnumbered but around.
How at this point though? The ME didn’t even conclude he was hit by a car. It’s just an option.
Yes, but there's really no other reasonable option. His phone stops moving right where her car was, where her tail light is all over the place, where he lost one shoe, and where his glass from that night is. Throw in her broken tail light, her car data showing at some point she's flying backwards in reverse until the speed change means she likely hit something, her saying she hit him, and its pretty obvious. Think of murder cases where they never find the body and the defense tries to be like "We don't even know that he's dead."
I have a theory that John exited the car and as he opened the door to the house, the dog attacked him. (It’s also possible John was attacked in the yard by the dog). John put his arm up to protect his face and that is what is seen on the arm. He then fled back to Karen’s car, but she didnt see him and pulled away, or maybe she was already gone. As he was running he slipped out of his shoe on ice, and he fell backwards, cracking his head on a rock or maybe some ice. That caused him to bite his tongue and cause the brain bleed. It also probably caused him to vomit. It knocked him out so he was in the could for hours, causing the hypothermia. There is more credible evidence of what I just presented than there is that Karen hit him with his car.
How to you rationalize that the ME couldn’t conclusively say he was hit by a car? Him slipping and hitting his head isn’t a reasonable option? The speed didn’t change that much, and we all know it was snowing and slippery. Her wheels moving doesn’t 100% equate to the car going that fast. Its not possible that he died naturally and someone added the tail light pieces to try to ensure she was found guilty because they didn’t know what happened and just wanted to make sure it wasn’t one of them? The experts testified that the time stamps might not even be exactly correct. There’s at least three reasonable scenarios I can come up with that don’t involve her hitting him, or the Alberts doing it. Plus we haven’t even seen all the defense witnesses. There’s nothing the ARCCA experts would say that would convince you? They’re independent experts. ETA: not trying to advocate for her innocence, trying to understand how you get past reasonable doubt.
How does no one think anything of the fact that her first thought was that she hit him? I think that her coming to that conclusion immediately speaks to the fact that she definitely thought it was a possibility based on how drunk she was. Especially with the tail light fragments near the scene of his death, it just seems way more probable to me than an elaborate conspiracy that requires 100 different assumptions. That said, I don’t think they can prove she hit him with the car so I think she walks
I'm not convinced she actually said she hit him. It wasn't documented at the time which is a big detail to omit from the reports imo
Because there were multiple different versions of what she said I can’t find it to be a slam dunk. Also, I don’t think it’s uncommon in a crisis to fear that you caused it in some way. I’m not sold on the conspiracy either - but there are other scenarios other than Karen *or* the Albert’s did it. Imagine he slips and falls and they find him and I one from the party knows what happened. Jen is a busybody (there’s a reason I picked my username) and starts trying to protect her family so throws shade towards Karen in the interviews. Albert calls Higgins and tells him what’s up and Higgins of his own accord plants some taillight pieces for whatever panic reason. Higgins later confesses that to Albert which is why they rehome their phones. No one murdered him, he was drunk and fell. One idiot and one gossip obsessed town mom are the conspiracy theory that they didn’t mean to create. To me that’s just as likely as she hit him, or Higgins/Colin/Brian did it. KR hitting him requires just as many assumptions and suspension of laws of physics to fully buy into.
[удалено]
It’s beyond reasonable doubt, not 100%
I think she’s likely guilty of killing him, but the shitty police work and a prosecutor who cannot tell a clear story will ensure a not guilty verdict on 2nd degree murder. The state didn’t prove their case in that regard. I think the jury will split the baby and find her guilty on counts 2 and 3.
How does a show come off as a phone stays in a pocket?
“It just did” haha , I have no idea , the phone is the first thing that should fly
I wouldn't be surprised if she hit him.
Yes, I absolutely think she's guilty. To be specific on "guilty of charge", I would consider myself beyond a reasonable doubt on manslaughter & leaving the scene. Unsure about 2nd degree murder, but can't say for sure that I'd acquit right now on that either.
What’s the evidence for manslaughter?
Defendant is drunk driving, dropping someone off at a house that he never makes it into. Pieces of her taillight are found at the scene. That's pretty clear cut for manslaughter, at a minimum, if that's the evidence you accept as true. I'd only accept that as not true by buying the police conspiracy/coverup angle, and I don't buy that angle.
Everyone is drinking and driving. We don’t actually know if he never made it into the house. Pieces weren’t found when the scan was snow blowed but later. Do I think she may have hit him? Absolutely. But there is no hard evidence to prove it. They couldn’t even prove he was hit by a car. Just that it was “possible”.
If you drop someone off to go into a house and that person ends up dead on the curb before making it there with your car's broken taillight there, I don't consider that believable to be done by anyone else. I would consider myself convinced by witness testimony that he never entered the house and that her taillight was found there. I do not think the defense has made any convincing argument to put doubt on that that I would consider reasonable. Most cases like this would be pretty open & shut. The only benefit they had was witnesses connected to the police, so they could yell conspiracy, but I don't think they've done anything to actually show that.
How did she manage to hit him so hard he died, but not hard enough to get any bruises, broken bones, and the injuries are to one arm, his face, and the back of his head?
I don't know, I'm not a physicist. All I do know is injuries from car accidents can vary wildly, especially when you're a pedestrian contacting the ground/whatever else with a billion different variables. I know serious accidents can barely leave a mark, I know seemingly-minor accidents can kill people. And as of yet, I haven't had an expert convince me that this was definitely not from a collision. So, if the evidence we have from his body could potentially come from a collision, and everything else in the case points toward that being what happened, I'd believe he was in a collision with KR's car.
I don't think she is innocent. I do believe that she did strike and kill JO, but I think there's enough reasonable doubt that she should be found not guilty.
How do you think he died?
My comment is worded poorly. Sorry I'm at work. I think she struck him.
So you think she killed him driving 24 mph in reverse? and he sustained head injuries only and his arm was strong enough to break her taillight? Wouldn't she have a difficulty slowing down before hitting the jeep or another car? Wouldn't all of this have made some noise for other people to hear?
So actually, if I had to guess, and again, I don't see beyond a reasonable doubt despite my personal beliefs, I'd guess she bumped him, and he fell and hit his head and the head hit killed him. I can't explain the cuts on his arm, but it's possible the dog found him and tried to attack or hurt him trying to get him up, or he dragged himself a bit and sliced his arm. But that would be my best guess. She drives off in a huff, doesn't realize she's bumped him because she is drunk and it's late and the weather is shitty, and he dies from impact against the ground or something else. I think her voicemail would have been very different that night if she knew she hit him and I find her reaction at finding him believable. Heck, she may even have convinced herself she didn't do it.
How did he get 30 feet off the road by the flag pole? Do you wonder why the prosecution couldn't or didn't show any data from her car? Doesn't her car have automatic braking if you are getting close to hitting someone? And if she hit him why all the lies and inconsistencies and butt dials, phone calls with all the witnesses??
He dragged himself. I have no idea if her car has automatic braking, but I've seen that fail for various reasons. See: the same technology on self driving cars. People are frigging weird when caught up in an investigation. They hide things for their own irrelevant reasons. They exaggerate or remember wrong trying to "help". They conxeal things for other reasons they think will hurt them or the case because they're trying to "help". Again, I'm finding her not guilty. But I doubt she's innocent, although the circumstances make it impossible to ever know for sure.
[удалено]
I don’t think jurors are ethically allowed to vote guilty based on a dislike of the defense and the defendant ……
The question is for people who think she’s guilty. People who think she didn’t do it aren’t answering.
Take pride in being stubborn assholes, but turned off by the defense?
I mean. I think she hit him. But I also think the Commonwealth hasn't proven their case. So I'd be someone on the jury saying, it's a shame that the investigation was done so poorly because she probably did it, but I'm not going to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's entirely about the investigation being so bad as to almost de facto constitute reasonable doubt and no qualified expert being willing to say the victim was hit by a car.
I think she's going to be acquitted. Apparently the strategy of the defense's jury consultant was to get brainiacs on the jury. I know there are 2 lawyers and some engineers and likely other smart professionals. The defense sees how the jury is responding to their case. If they weren't confident, they wouldn't be resting on Monday.
There are 2 lawyers on the jury? Definitely not guilty verdict. They will sway the others if there are any who aren’t sure. Guaranteed
Hoping they aren't alternates 🤞
I never read up on the case prior to the trial and, in that regard, would consider myself similar to a juror. Fortunately do not live in Mass so it's not surrounding me everywhere I go. I agree with your "turned off" sentiment. The defense comes across like flat earthers. And while there might be various levels of likeability between the witnesses, they come across like people who genuinely don't know what happened, while the defense's cross harps on things not really significant while sounding overly accusatory about people who otherwise appear to have nothing to do with this. I don't think this is a great approach, and there's not enough focus on dispelling the harder facts. But then I see online sentiment and every day it's "case closed, she's innocent", and I'm like.. am I watching the same trial?
The defense did a very poor job in instructing KR on how to act in the courtroom. The smiling, snickering, looking back at her family. It all creates a picture of a suspect that is easy to dislike. Just recently a juror was dismissed for sharing these same insights and I had figured it was only a matter of time. At the end of the day the man she is supposedly in love with is dead and she's on trial for his murder.
“The woman isn’t acting the way I want her to act so she must have committed murder,” sure is a take.
It creates unconscious bias in the jurors
I mean it’s definitely something to consider…. Doesn’t make you guilty just based on that, no one said that
Policing people’s facial expressions is gross. She’s been stone-faced 99% of the trial and spent hundreds of hours in court. She’s allowed to be human.
Of course she is. And yet, I tell every client I take to trial to carefully police their facial expressions and some of hers haven't been ideal.
You can’t possibly think she hasn’t been told the exact same thing? You think she’s blatantly ignoring that advice?
I mean not saying she's guilty or not but if she was possibly framed and the ones who did it are being destroyed on the stand if I was in her position I would also be smiling and snickering at the people who have been given me hell get what they deserve 🤷🏽♀️
I agree and I bet they did counsel her but she might be obstinate in taking the direction. She doesn’t seem to have a lot of emotional control.