• 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

1750178239084.webp

That doesn't sound good for any of the "she hit him" verdicts.
 
Well question 2 goes to that. Commonwealth is saying the clips are her admitting to hitting him.
 
It's been quite amusing watching guilty people melting down on twitter.

1750178626124.webp
daeler said:
Well question 2 goes to that. Commonwealth is saying the clips are her admitting to hitting him.
Click to expand...
They're not though, the jury probably already decided she didn't, but she does admit to drinking. And she drove that night and that morning. I bet they'd only be considering the morning. That's why they asked about the time.
 
ASHES said:
It's been quite amusing watching guilty people melting down on twitter.

View attachment 67575209

They're not though, the jury probably already decided she didn't, but she does admit to drinking. And she drove that night and that morning. I bet they'd only be considering the morning. That's why they asked about the time.
Click to expand...
Truthfully never seen the videos, but I would say that is possible, but also a bit of wishful thinking. The videos cover more than just the drinking right?
 
daeler said:
Truthfully never seen the videos, but I would say that is possible, but also a bit of wishful thinking. The videos cover more than just the drinking right?
Click to expand...
The other evidence in the case concerning the "other stuff" far outweighs it's value I think. The intact taillight. Barros. Higgy and Berky in the sallyport with the SUV until the BPD commissioner had a word about doing the right thing with the witness to that. Etc, you know the rest, you've said a lot of it yourself. Even if she had said anything remotely along the lines of admitting she struck him, it is far outweighed by the physical evidence to the contrary. Remember he said he was going to post the clips so you could see them. Did he?
 
ASHES said:
The other evidence in the case concerning the "other stuff" far outweighs it's value I think. The intact taillight. Barros. Higgy and Berky in the sallyport with the SUV until the BPD commissioner had a word about doing the right thing with the witness to that. Etc, you know the rest, you've said a lot of it yourself. Even if she had said anything remotely along the lines of admitting she struck him, it is far outweighed by the physical evidence to the contrary. Remember he said he was going to post the clips so you could see them. Did he?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but the issue here is the jury, they may not see it the way we do. So if they are asking about the video they may see something that changes some ones vote.
 
BTW, something to consider. You don't even get to considering the lesser included offense of OUI unless the murder and the manslaughter charges were already decided against.
 
daeler said:
I don't disagree, but the issue here is the jury, they may not see it the way we do. So if they are asking about the video they may see something that changes some ones vote.
Click to expand...
So due to the above post of mine, if they're asking about the oui, and they're asking about the video, it's because they want to know if they can use the video as evidence of oui. They've already dismissed the possibility of manslaughter if they're considering oui. And also they wanted to know if a conviction on oui doesn't mean a manslaughter conviction. If they think it does, they'd acquit on the oui. Otherwise, they may convict on that based on the blood draw, her interview about when she drank, and when she drove between 5-6am.

IMG_8581.webp
1750080139118-webp.67574974
 
They're going to be back from lunch soon.

I'm now thinking a verdict today is a lot more likely than when we started today.
 
Bev literally says while answering the jurors questions, "if you find her not guilty of (primary charge 2), then continue below." Below being the lesser included offenses including oui.
 
Starting to sound like a hung jury. unanimous on 2 counts hung on 1.......
 
What's messed up is if they agree not guilty on the first count of murder, or the third count of leaving the scene of an accident, and manslaughter while intoxicated, and all the lesser included offenses except the DUI, and they hang on the DUI, the Commonwealth can try her again on all the same charges, basically triple jeopardy for 1 and 3.
 
The defense's requested changes would have fixed that and allowed for retrial on only that charge if it hung, but of course Bev couldn't allow that.

We want to do it all again.
 
ASHES said:
What's messed up is if they agree not guilty on the first count of murder, or the third count of leaving the scene of an accident, and manslaughter while intoxicated, and all the lesser included offenses except the DUI, and they hang on the DUI, the Commonwealth can try her again on all the same charges, basically triple jeopardy for 1 and 3.
Click to expand...
Someone on the court tv site was pointing out the issue. Not sure what they are hung on but everything seems easy to me. I wouldn't care on the OUI just the others.
 
daeler said:
Someone on the court tv site was pointing out the issue. Not sure what they are hung on but everything seems easy to me. I wouldn't care on the OUI just the others.
Click to expand...
I bet one person doesn't want to see her get away with nothing. So a compromise verdict. The problem is she wasn't charged with OUI at 5am. The Commonwealth never argued or charged it. All the charges related to the driving at and a bit after midnight. If she's convicted of OUI at 5am, it would mean she's convicted of a crime she wasn't charged with. That'd be wild.
 
Jurors dismissed for the day.
 
Brace yourselves, 6/18, verdict day and if not Friday for sure. The hard working jurors want this over and done with before the weekend. I just hope with whatever they decide they weren't influenced by the media or the crowd outside. To think the jurors go home and not turn on they're TV's or get on the internet is naive, they know what's going on. And the pink retards are banking on it.
 
gboisjo said:
Brace yourselves, 6/18, verdict day and if not Friday for sure. The hard working jurors want this over and done with before the weekend. I just hope with whatever they decide they weren't influenced by the media or the crowd outside. To think the jurors go home and not turn on they're TV's or get on the internet is naive, they know what's going on. And the pink retards are banking on it.
Click to expand...
I feel like we are going to get a guilty on the OUI and not guilty on the rest. Either that or we get another hung jury.
 
daeler said:
I feel like we are going to get a guilty on the OUI and not guilty on the rest. Either that or we get another hung jury.
Click to expand...
And hung would be only on the OUI charge.
 
ASHES said:
And hung would be only on the OUI charge.
Click to expand...
maybe. I get why you think that. They could have been just using that option as an example just like they said. I don't know for sure, reality sure likes to bite you on the ass sometimes for the optimism.
 
daeler said:
maybe. I get why you think that. They could have been just using that option as an example just like they said. I don't know for sure, reality sure likes to bite you on the ass sometimes for the optimism.
Click to expand...
Why did they ask about the time? There were 4 questions asked, not 3. The first Bev hid till the last. It was this one.

What is the timeframe for the OUI charge, offense 002 section 5? OUI at 12:45 or OUI at 5 a.m.?


That doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation of what they're considering, especially in the context of the 3 follow-up questions.
 
ASHES said:
Why did they ask about the time? There were 4 questions asked, not 3. The first Bev hid till the last. It was this one.

What is the timeframe for the OUI charge, offense 002 section 5? OUI at 12:45 or OUI at 5 a.m.?


That doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation of what they're considering, especially in the context of the 3 follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
It doesn't leave a lot of room to interpret what most of them are considering, a couple could still be looking at other charges while the majority is not.

You could have 1-3 people looking at manslaughter while the rest are only looking at the OUI. 🤷‍♂️
 
daeler said:
It doesn't leave a lot of room to interpret what most of them are considering, a couple could still be looking at other charges while the majority is not.

You could have 1-3 people looking at manslaughter while the rest are only looking at the OUI. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I don't understand how. They only move on to lesser included charges of the second indictment when she's been found not guilty of the more serious one above. All the way down.
 


Live and broadcasting the fan this morning.
 
1750251829067.webp

Jury coming in.

Judge asks them her 3 questions, all is well. Then they all watch as they go back to deliberations.
1750252043968.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom