Curiousobserver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 29,143
Agree- the defense doesn't have to prove anything but disagree that what the jury needs to do is the exact opposite of what I have done. We probably disagree about what the reasonable part of reasonable doubt means.Well, if I may just politely try to help manage your expectations. You are a free thinking individual with agency and you have every right to interpret the case as if the defense have to prove it didn't happen, and express your thoughts in a public forum if you wish and that the "conspiracy" should be dismissed immediately on its' (admittedly) wild premise alone.
But bear in mind that whichever 12 members of the current jury panel get to deliberate on this case, they have sworn an oath to do the exact opposite, and judge whether or not the CW has proven its' case beyond a reasonable doubt.
With all due respect I have no idea why you think the defense has any obligation whatsoever to prove she wasn't there or argue that her tail light wasn't broken in order to prove her innocence, rather than that the CW have to prove that the damage caused to both the taillight and John O'Keefe's body were caused by Karen Read's car, thus proving her guilt?
There is physical evidence that she hit something that broke her tail light and left pieces in the yard, the road, and on his shirt. There is digital evidence her car moved very fast backwards. There is physical evidence his body was in contact with that tail light at some point. He was found lying there with significant injuries lying on an object, the glass, he had when he left the bar. I don't think the CW needs to also show a tail light-shaped imprint on his face for it to be beyond reasonable to conclude the events are related. The defense has a burden to present a defense, some plausible scenario where all of those things can be true but it isn't what it looks like. They don't need to prove it. BTW, the defense obviously knows this as well which is why they need a bad cop to plant evidence; its because there is lots of evidence they need the jury to ignore and they need a way for them to do that.