• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karen Read Trial - Take 2 (3 Viewers)

Now on top of everything else, your a mind reader. Sure didn't predict a mistrial, did you.
Try focusing on the case and evidence, not me, not the lawyer's personality, and not your personal animosity of the defendant. The outcome of a clearly unfair trial is not evidence of her guilt of the crime charged. Yes, I didn't predict jurors would be too biased or intimidated to focus on the facts at issue. If they hadn't been, it would have been a clear not guilty.
 
Why is it you completely ignore the federal investigation into the case @gboisjo? It's because they said she didn't do it, unequivocally.
 
A giant conspiracy, not buying it, it was an accident. A key part of Reads defense rests on the timing of witness Jennifer McCabe’s Jan. 29 Google search for “how long to die in cold.” Read’s lawyers say the search happened at 2:27 a.m., hours before O’Keefe died, while McCabe insists she made the search at Read’s insistence after the women found O’Keefe’s body around 6 a.m.

Green misinterpreted McCabe’s phone data and his opinions were an attempt to infect the jury with an inadmissible opinion that is not premised on reliable digital forensics.

Just maybe the 8-4 split was jurors not buying some of the fabricated bullshit and so called evidence Read's team concocted.

Dog bites my ass, again, by a bought and paid for witness, not buying it. Don't look like dog bites to me and maybe some of the jurors as well.

Unfortunately, you'll most likely get your way in the end as the prosecution is not rooted in reality.
 
"I did not make that search at that time," McCabe said. "I never would have left John O'Keefe out in the cold to die because he was my friend that I loved."

I 100% believe her, not you or the Karen you adore.
 
Owing her lawyers millions of dollars in deferred fees, Read has turned to unorthodox fundraising measures; a recent giveaway offered the chance at a “nice, intimate dinner” with Read and one of her attorneys, Alan Jackson, in exchange for a $50 donation to her defense fund.

Oh, if it hasn't already happened, I'm all in, a dream come true.
 
Big day for everybody tomorrow. Defense motion to dismiss, Commonwealth fixing Bev's misunderstanding because of their lie, Bev having to deal with the fact she openly showed bias. Where were the harsh words and shaking with fury at the Commonwealth for any of their blatant and ongoing discovery violations? On top of that, also hearing all the motions they didn't finish last hearing.
 
Of course Judge Cannone denied defense discovery requests made at the last hearing.


Also, more coincidental connections in the case, and a motive for Brennen besides the $75,000. An opportunity to stick it to the feds, who he hates for their role in prosecuting his former client Whitey Bulger. Oh, and Bulger's brother was in the Massachusetts Senate at the same time as the DA in this case, Michael Morrisey.

 
I can't see any jury coming back with anything other than not guilty or hung. There were a lot of shenanigans and too many unanswered questions.
 
A giant conspiracy, not buying it, it was an accident. A key part of Reads defense rests on the timing of witness Jennifer McCabe’s Jan. 29 Google search for “how long to die in cold.” Read’s lawyers say the search happened at 2:27 a.m., hours before O’Keefe died, while McCabe insists she made the search at Read’s insistence after the women found O’Keefe’s body around 6 a.m.

Green misinterpreted McCabe’s phone data and his opinions were an attempt to infect the jury with an inadmissible opinion that is not premised on reliable digital forensics.

Just maybe the 8-4 split was jurors not buying some of the fabricated bullshit and so called evidence Read's team concocted.

Dog bites my ass, again, by a bought and paid for witness, not buying it. Don't look like dog bites to me and maybe some of the jurors as well.

Unfortunately, you'll most likely get your way in the end as the prosecution is not rooted in reality.

A doctor who has seen thousands of dog bites says it absolutely looks like dog bites. Are you a doctor who has seen thousands of dog bites?
 
The slick California Alan Jackson likely to get thrown off the case by Massachusetts judge Cannone.

Apparently the ARCCA witnesses weren't completely independent as he claimed.

I put nothing past this slickster, a slimy bullshit artist.

 
The slick California Alan Jackson likely to get thrown off the case by Massachusetts judge Cannone.

Apparently the ARCCA witnesses weren't completely independent as he claimed.

I put nothing past this slickster, a slimy bullshit artist.

It's really a nothingburger. She has no grave concerns about the flagrant discovery violations from the Commonwealth, but you and she are slobbering all over the lie Brennen told that was already corrected.
 
A doctor who has seen thousands of dog bites says it absolutely looks like dog bites. Are you a doctor who has seen thousands of dog bites?
A hired gun, don't look like dog bites to me, more like deep scrapes not made by an animal, common sense 101
 
Not to mention, it's just plain factual they're independent. They were hired by DOJ and came to their conclusions before ever speaking to the defense.
 
A hired gun, don't look like dog bites to me, more like deep scrapes not made by an animal, common sense 101
Deep scrapes that made punctures not tears in his clothes. Right. From a snowplow.
 
A hired gun, don't look like dog bites to me, more like deep scrapes not made by an animal, common sense 101

She’s an expert. When an expert says that looks exactly like the thing I’ve seen thousands of times, that holds weight.
 
The slick California Alan Jackson likely to get thrown off the case by Massachusetts judge Cannone.

Apparently the ARCCA witnesses weren't completely independent as he claimed.

I put nothing past this slickster, a slimy bullshit artist.

It's really a nothingburger. She has no grave concerns about the flagrant discovery violations from the Commonwealth, but you and she are slobbering all over the lie Brennen told that was already corrected.

I would love nothing more than to see Jackson kicked out of Massachusetts, your right I would slobber over that.

Just like you slobber, drool over Karen's innocence, its sickening.
 
I would love nothing more than to see Jackson kicked out of Massachusetts, your right I would slobber over that.
That sounds entirely rational and like you really care about the truth and facts.

Just like you slobber, drool over Karen's innocence, its sickening.
Yes, the truth is important. I do make sure it gets said. You know that the Commonwealth had the exact same access to ARCCA as the defense, they just chose to ignore them. That doesn't mean the defense did anything wrong when the next idiot prosecutor comes along and says GOTCHA about literally nothing. Evidence that was turned over by the defense in discovery. Brennan said it was turned over by the feds not the defense and that's why Bev got her panties in a wad.
 
I would love nothing more than to see Jackson kicked out of Massachusetts, your right I would slobber over that.

Just like you slobber, drool over Karen's innocence, its sickening.

Your opinions here are driven by emotion.
 
Deep scrapes that made punctures not tears in his clothes. Right. From a snowplow.
Dog bites look like this, duh.

images
 
Dog bites look like this, duh.

images
They all look the same? Weird, the ones I posted pictures of looked like O'Keefe's injuries. The only expert said they were animal attack injuries. Nobody from the Commonwealth contradicted that. The Commonwealth experts also agreed his injuries weren't consistent with being struck by a car.
 
Hearing scheduled to start in 15 minutes, at 11am EST.

 
Full courtroom, with Paul and Peggy O'Keefe who came in with CPD Chief Susan Rafferty, some McAlberts, and Read's parents to name a few.
 
Defense is responding to the judge's "grave concerns" about alleged defense discovery rule 14 violation, after she takes 5 minutes to review their submitted notebook of receipts.
 
She is constantly interrupting him and asking him stupid questions, like what date the opening statements were.
 
Read's attorney Alessi has completely dismantled Brennan's false accusations of discovery violations so egregious they warrant her losing an attorney of her choice, and the ability to introduce exculpatory evidence, which the peanut gallery here was cheering on with no regards for it's truthfulness or if it affected her right to a fair trial, as long as they stick it to her, innocent or not. The final nail in the coffin is the alleged bill from ARCCA Brennen said was not turned over during the first trial and was the smoking gun. Turns out the bill was from after the trial. So not the violation Brennen claims it to be.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom