Community Chat

[Etoile308]

There was conflicting testimony from all the expert witnesses concerning the vehicle's electronics, the cell phone data, the injuries, the broken glass, and the condition of the taillight.

The jury studied the evidence, to include not seeing the taillight broken when she returned and then again left the house.

And not to besmirch a victim, but there were two intoxicated people in the SUV that night. Of the two I would think the law enforcement officer would have had the better understanding for the need to call an Uber. Goes to show how one's reasoning and sensibilities can be impaired by alcohol. How different that evening may have ended if Uber had been used.

I think the majority of her support was due to the fact that many were beyond suspicious of the police and prosecution in the area based on past behavior.

In fact there were irregularities in this case and others to the point where the FBI began their own investigation of the police department and district attorney's office.

And yes, the defense was to show conflicting and confusing details to establish reasonable doubt. But you can't muddy the water if there isn't dirt there to begin with.

[Venezia]

@Etoile308 - I don't agree that the defense can't muddy the water without dirt.  I certainly remember the travesty of the O.J. Simpson trial.

High-powered lawyers are able to sow doubts where most people would think something is perfectly clear.  That's what they're paid for.  Their job is to get their clients off, nothing else.

(Karen Read's lawyer previously represented Whitey Bulger and no one is convincing me he was an innocent, upstanding citizen.  Sadly, money can buy the best defense.)

[mousiegirl]

---

@Venezia wrote:

@Etoile308 - I don't agree that the defense can't muddy the water without dirt.  I certainly remember the travesty of the O.J. Simpson trial.

High-powered lawyers are able to sow doubts where most people would think something is perfectly clear.  That's what they're paid for.  Their job is to get their clients off, nothing else.

(Karen Read's lawyer previously represented Whitey Bulger and no one is convincing me he was an innocent, upstanding citizen.  Sadly, money can buy the best defense.)

---

@Venezia   The attorneys should not be able to lie and fantasize in their opening and closing statements, never was this way long ago, and even though the Judge tells the Jury not to take what they say as evidence, once the bell is rung...

Remember the Casey Anthony trial, her attorney lied the entire time.

[shoekitty]

@Venezia Karen was able to afford a top lawyer because her "fans" paid for it.  I will never understand how a case like this acquires fans .. kind of creepy. She was blazing drunk, it was admitted... she couldn't even remember anything.  But, that might have been a Convenience .  I have no qualms that she might not have meant to kill him, or even intended too. I have  problems with her drunk driving and getting away with it with little punishment., and his parents probably ache with the fact that people paid basically to help free her with no charges. Well, she got a slap on wrist. She will go on, but their son won't.she didn't seem to have a lot of remorse or grief. But who knows about that, she was probably too worried about her charges to think of him.  We all know, had she been a woman of color, poor, or had issues she would be doing doing time. Or, we wouldn't have ever heard of this case!  JMO

[occasionalrain]

His family filed a suit against her before the death was even fully investigated. They seem to be quite concerned with profiting from their family member's death.

The court delayed the lawsuit until after the trial.

[shoekitty]

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

His family filed a suit against her before the death was even fully investigated. They seem to be quite concerned with profiting from their family member's death.

The court delayed the lawsuit until after the trial.

---

@occasionalrain   they should have delayed the suit  til after the trial!  That was the right thing to do there. But, if anyone should profit, it is the person who lost their child....unless they murdered him. I'm surprised that hasn't been thought of, lol. But oh well, what happens ...happens.