kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,054
Amazing insights here. Thank you.As a person who leans more towards the idea that she is not guilty, I still go back and forth. I think your post is the most well laid out post from the “likely guilty” camp that I’ve seen. I like your opposing view and think you’ve laid out a very good argument that makes a lot of sense to me.
I agree that her demeanor at times seems like someone who has constant “dupers delight”. I think it could also be argued, though, that if she is not guilty her demeanor is based on being angry and incredulous of these people to the point of contempt. I think contempt and dupers delight look similar.
In regards to her initially saying it was an accident when they told her they had footage, I also hesitate at this one. I think I’d keep my mouth shut on saying I was guilty until I saw it. And, if I believe that Karen is an extremely anxious person I could also see her freaking out and saying she is willing to take the punishment for something even if she doesn’t remember doing it.
I struggle with her mentioning she hit something before finding him. I can’t do much with this other than excuse it as something bizarre and, if she’s not guilty, saying it fell into the laps of the others. I do think her exclamations of “I hit him!” are being exaggerated years later. I don’t think it’s odd to find the person you love near where you left them and to start to scream all sorts of things … maybe even “omg !! Is it possible I hit him” especially if you’re still what I would assume is very drunk.
Re: the unlikelihood of a massive conspiracy, I think the defense did itself a disservice focusing on it being so complex. I don’t believe it was a “set up”. I do think it’s possible that something happened that was not planned (he fell and hit his head, people got angry and he got beat up, the dog did something and they worried about a lawsuit due to past poor behavior from dog). Like you, I can’t get past why they would throw him on the lawn UNLESS they actually didn’t think he would die and initially it was a “get the “eff” out” kind of toss by really drunk men. This argument doesn’t fully make sense either. I do think that this mess is a result of a lot of people protecting themselves for varying reasons.
My other thought is that these cops are hiding a lot (not related to John) and they needed to distance themselves from whatever accident/ fight killed him because they couldn’t risk anyone knowing they were dealing drugs (letting underaged people drink) or something else that night. I think they’re smart enough to know that throwing him in the woods looks like murder, but if they throw him in the lawn it either looks like drunk guy passed out, fell and died OR if it did come back to them they’d say “oh my god! We got in a fight but we didn’t realize he died! He must have walked outside and passed out”. This would have a better outcome than finding someone “buried” in the woods.
I can’t get past Jen’s incessant calls - I do understand why Karen would be freaking out that John wasn’t home but I don’t get why Jen would care so much about him coming inside. I think the theory she was looking for his phone makes sense to me.
I can’t get over the flurry of action around 2:30 - phone calls, Google searches, moved cars. And I can’t get past no one seeing a body in the yard. Many people came and went, snowplow driver went by, and I’m sure other random drivers and yet no body was seen. I live on a similar road with very similar lighting and yards and every night when I drive , I become more and more doubtful his body was out in that spot all night. I can see my neighbors yards clearly (even in bad weather).
Lastly, I can’t get past the lack of bruising, lack of blood, and injuries that don’t look like a vehicle hit him. I also think so much evidence about her car was misleading (the key turns don’t line up with when she’d be reversing, the multiplying tail light pieces, reversed video).
At the end of the day we may never know because a group of adults (including Karen) were incredibly negligent, immature, selfish drunks with no regard to human life - every single person in that home and Karen thought it was ok, during inclement weather, to get wasted like they were in college and drive around town. The people in the home even included their children. The owners of the home KEPT a vicious dog that had harmed their OWN neighbors twice. The family of the owners killed someone in a hit and run. The brother of the deceased drunk drove and hurt someone. The lead investigator is a disgusting misogynistic police officer and liar and I shudder to think how he treats people that have even less recourse than Karen. These aren’t pillars of any community, regardless of their career path.
This is a group of people that cares very little about the safety of others - including their loved ones. They are all unlikable, in moo, which is why people dislike Karen but also why people dislike Proctor, Higgins, the McCabes, Alberts and even sadly the O’Keefe family - at the end of the day most recognize any of these people would be willing to harm them and try to get away with it. Maybe that’s why the jury is having trouble - everyone seems guilty of something in some way. It gets confusing.
Edited to fix typos and make some points more clear.
For me it's simply the same as charging somebody for a shooting but the dead person did not die of gunshot wounds.
The entire process has been awol.
I can't believe what I have seen.
It really needs to be reinvestigated but will they?
Or will they decide to let sleeping dogs lie forever?
Defense witnesses being eminently qualified disallowed from declaring their conclusions is bizarre...