Good points IMHO.
If the evidence of vehicle moving at 24 MPH in reverse can be
believed (and that is a big "IF") then she may have hit him intentionally.
Granted, the Albert / McCabe clan and friends seem like a bunch of
alcoholic low-lifes, they do not seem to be bright enough to pull off
some type of conspiracy and then keep everyone keeps silent about it.
KR being so drunk at the time makes your points believable.
I think she was totally freaking out from the 12:30 AM time w/ JOK
in front of 34 Fairview, and freaking out during those early morning hours,
and then still freaking out at 6:00 AM in front of Fairview.
Again.....MOO
That still brings up yet another point of contention with the prosecution case, which is that for one thing, none of the prosecution's own witnesses saw her backup AT ALL, IIRC! Out of all the witnesses who said anything about KR's vehicle placement and movement, none of them testified they saw her backup, much less at 24mph and for 60 ft or whatever their claim was, IIRC.
And for another thing, that chart they showed of the info they got from the vehicle's computer that showed key cycles, meaning every time the car had been started, along with the events that happened with each key cycle, including whether it had backed up and for how long and at what speed, only showed that group of events happening one time, and that one time was while the car was in possession of LE and NOT KR.
According to the data they presented as evidence in this case, KR as the Lexus driver did not do (could not have done) this fast backup maneuver, the one that they allege is the action that killed JO.
So that should eliminate all confusion and make it cut and dried as to whether she's guilty or not. HOWEVER, the fact that it HASN'T, does nothing but bring up more confusion for me. How could it not be all anyone should have to hear to see she's not guilty? Is it because the data is not believed to be true? Is it because there was possibly some glitch w/extracting the info? Is it because the data was planted/fabricated/corrupt etc? If so, it would be the defense who would benefit from this data, so how would the defense get hold of it to change it in their favor? Obviously didn't happen.
So is it because I myself am interpreting the data wrong? That I could believe, since I'm no expert, but I thought I understood from the testimony how this data is read, but then again, maybe not. That's really the only explanation I can think of why this data ALONE isn't the only thing it should take to dismiss the case altogether, or at least to find her not guilty of all. So maybe I am interpreting it wrong... but I don't see where my mistake is if so. Maybe someone else does.
gitnux.org
