• 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

ASHES said:
Explicit bias. How can you claim you're not biased against Read and for the prosecution?
Click to expand...
I am biased, but not from the very beginning like you. I made my mind up half way through the first trial.
 
gboisjo said:
I am biased, but not from the very beginning like you. I made my mind up half way through the first trial.
Click to expand...
We knew before the first trial there was no collision. That was clear and evident from the evidence. Just as it is now.
 
Since @gboisjo can't/won't provide any examples of lies from Jackson during the entirety of his hour and a half closing as he claimed, I'm going to go ahead and put him in the voting for "not guilty" camp.
 
gboisjo said:
I am biased, but not from the very beginning like you. I made my mind up half way through the first trial.
Click to expand...
Even though during the last trial you knew the Commonwealth theory was total bullshit, and you made excuses for them that he must have also been hit by the plow, I'm going to just assume your bias was preexisting.
 
Last edited:
Once upon a time @gboisjo, you said "let's wait and see what the experts have to say."

Well, after 2 trials, we've done that. All 4 medical experts (2 on each side) say that the injuries were inconsistant with a car accident. 3 of them that were allowed to opine on the matter said that the injuries were consistent with a dog bite/claws. The one that wasn't said the head injury happens all the time when drunk people slip and fall. But you're still not listening to the experts. You think you know better because you personally dislike people on the defense team.
 
Judge Bev is reading the jury the charging instructions. Hopefully she doesn't **** it up again and put Read in triple jeopardy, since the first jury already unanimously found her not guilty of murder and leaving the scene.
 
Brennan's closing summation, A. Brennan told a convincing story highlighted by Read's own words unlike Jackson who continued to throw shit at the wall. That's what defense attorneys do. I'm glad Brennan expounded on the manslaughter charge. Something Lally didn't do in the first trial and if he did I don't remember. Unlike Brennan, Lally's close was lack Luster. Regardless it was a 9-3 split on manslaughter.
 
There wasn't a collision. Remember what all the medical experts said. No collision with a car. Injuries consistent with a dog bite. No medical expert testified for the Commonwealth to anything contrary.

gboisjo said:
Regardless it was a 9-3 split on manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Still no citation. Only 2 jurors have given interviews that I'm aware of (and both gave them to Turtleboy, that's gotta sting), and neither of them said 8-4 or 9-3.
 
Bullshit, all we can do now is wait for the verdict. Your pissed off cause you couldn't wrap me around your finger like most people you deal with. Like I said get over it, everything is in, the arguments are over, now we wait for the verdict.
 
I will admit this, we just witnessed two highly skilled lawyers go at it.
 
gboisjo said:
Bullshit, all we can do now is wait for the verdict. Your pissed off cause you couldn't wrap me around your finger like most people you deal with. Like I said get over it, everything is in, the arguments are over, now we wait for the verdict.
Click to expand...
Which part is bullshit? It's not what the medical experts testified to, we all heard that. Is it that you said let's wait for the experts? Is that the bullshit? Well, let's see about that.

This isn't all of them, it's just what I found in about 30 seconds.

gboisjo said:
Both sides have hired experts who will negate one another, so it becomes a wash.
Click to expand...

gboisjo said:
The details will be explained when the experts testify.
Click to expand...

gboisjo said:
Listen to the upcoming experts.
Click to expand...

gboisjo said:
We haven't heard from the experts yet.
Click to expand...

The experts have spoken. No car/O'Keefe collision. From the Commonwealth and defense experts.
 
Still reading the charging instructions.
 
Charging instructions done, alternates picked, and Bev chose juror 5 to be foreperson. Defense thinks the verdict forms are too confusing, again. We know what that led to last time. Before she can give it too the jury Bev needs to go fix all her typos and mistakes on the forms.
 
Jury has it. We're on verdict watch. Not many people think we'll get a verdict today. I agree, unless they don't take a vote before reviewing all the evidence.




Short clip of defense closing argument.
45 seconds

Short clip of Commonwealth closing argument.
57 seconds
 
In closing arguments today, Jackson came off as way more compelling than Brennan.

I have shown up for jury duty, spread over more than a few decades, only in Florida ; never selected. Jury verdicts sometimes surprise me. That written, no way do I expect a guilty verdict on any of the charges.

I cannot fathom how all the jurors could conclude the Commonwealth proved a single charge “beyond a reasonable doubt” .

In short, too much evidence pointed to cops willing to lie.
 
Jackson's complete closing:
 
Complete Commonwealth closing argument:
 
Larry Forman doesn't buy Brennan's "I made a mistake" excuse for prosecutorial misconduct.

51 seconds
 
gboisjo said:
I am biased, but not from the very beginning like you. I made my mind up half way through the first trial.
Click to expand...
I really must sincerely thank you for your participation through both trials. You're really the only one that stuck it through both trials to the end with me.

Without your input, I wouldn't have done half the work on these threads I did. It would have been very easy to get complacent and lazy.
 
gboisjo said:
Its an even split across social media on guilt or innocence, its why the first trial was hung., ASHES sees everything via her introductory opinion that Read is innocent. This thread was built on that assumption, zero objectivity.
Click to expand...
We knew this wasn't true, but here it is from CourtTV so you can know it isn't true.



Of course, if you've just been listening to John Depetro all this time, it makes sense you would think that.


 
Funny reaction from Runkle of the Bailey to one of the times Brennan tanked his case in his closing.

1 minute.

Brennan says his theory is "viable", Runkle says AYFKM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.