I really like to try and understand people’s thought processes and how different people listening to the same witnesses reach different conclusions. This is why thousands of dollars are spent on studying potential jurors. It could be upbringing, background, life experiences and a slew of other factors that work together to influence how a juror forms an opinion on a case.
Can I pick your mind?
You said you would be the holdout because you believe KR hit JOK with her vehicle and killed him. You also say the other possibilities do not ring true. Interestingly, you said that if the prosecution presented the alternative, it would give you reasonable doubt.
Does this mean you would always believe a prosecutor over a defense attorney?
Besides thinking the alternative defense did not ring true, what evidence leads you to conclude KR is guilty?
If neither the vehicle nor JOK’s body showed any signs that he was killed in this manner, what prompts you to disregard that evidence?
Do you disregard an eminently qualified witness because he testified for the defense instead of the prosecution?
Please do not think I am trying to pounce on your opinion. I am genuinely interested in your thought process.
In the interest of science...
-She was there- she is not disputing this
-She was several fold over the legal limit- she is not disputing this
-She was driving her car- she is not disputing this
-Prosecution showed that her car made a highly unsafe backup maneuver recorded by the EDS system that she should know is unsafe; this is the intent (I don't buy the keystroke argument about the count, I trust the mileage argument)
-Her tail light is at the scene (disputed, but testified they were under the snow not on top of it which is difficult to fake without detection by bystanders)
-His DNA is on the tail light (I don't buy the touch DNA argument, nobody touches their girlfriend's tail light, and I don't buy the transfer from the blood in the cups argument. If someone planted this there would be micrograms of his DNA, not nanograms of his DNA). The fact that there is very little DNA is more incriminating, not less.
-Pieces of the tail light are on his clothes
-His phone GPS suggests he was in the exact same spot all night
-Karen Read even thinks hitting him was a reasonable explanation and shouted it in front of multiple witnesses.
-The FBI provided 3000 pages from their investigation to the defense, including Grand Jury Testimony and the only thing they found that they could use that might be exculpatory were some guys firing a glass at the tail light with a pneumatic cannon.
-After seeing what the FBI found the Judge allowed the trial to move forward, subjecting Karen to the possibility of conviction and prison.
-No dog DNA on the swabs from his clothes (you would expect some if he laid on the floor in their house or was attacked by the dog even if they didn't swab the exact spot where she bit)
-Chloe is only in Vermont and is apparently alive and well (it would have been easy for the defense to get a bite impressions but they didn't; it would have been foolish for the prosecution to do it because they would be handing the defense credibility and an easy way to confuse the Jury on cross examination, allowing upteen experts to come in and refute them)
-If they wanted to hide chloe they would have had her put down and cremated