I wouldn't agree that most of the posters on this thread think she is guilty, in fact I think we are in the significant minority and have been the focus of some pretty angry and disrespectful posts.
The problem here is that a sloppy investigation and unprofessional conduct makes it easy for people to believe that the evidence that was collected isn't real, that evidence that they didn't look for actually existed, that any story the defense tells is true, and that some of the evidence is in fact planted. None of that is of course true.
Absent an elaborate evidence planting conspiracy by multiple police officers you can't explain how tail light pieces from her car are at the scene, or how those pieces are on his clothes, and how his DNA is on those pieces. You can't explain how the glass from the bar is still there with him just as it would be if he died right after he got out of that car.
Absent an elaborate conspiracy to coordinate testimony of first responders, you can't explain how she confessed at the scene that she hit him in front of multiple people.
Absent a conspiracy to coordinate testimony between civilians, you can't explain why she said she hit him and why she knew her tail light was broken while in the car searching with her friends.
Many people have focused on the testimony of one expert who testified that in his opinion those injures could not have been caused by an accident. This witness has a BS in mechanical engineering, and a PhD in photonics; neither of which have any coursework or direct relevance to accident reconstruction. He actually had no formal training in accident reconstruction, He isn't a plastic engineer, a polymer scientist, an automotive engineer, he isn't a medical Dr., he has never been an EMT or medic, he hasn't even been a lifeguard. His team did not examine the car, go to the scene, look at the body, get a real bar glass, or provide the full signed report of the studies they did. And... he and his company will benefit enormously from the publicity.
Most ER Dr. will tell you that accident injuries are often not overt for several days. And studies posted on this forum from the NHTSA show low speed pedestrian crashes result in severe injuries around 30% of the time. Around 1/3 of the time people are severely injured by low speed collisions..., and she was going up to 24mph, black-out drunk, backward.
But there is a lot more. JO's shirt and all his other clothes are still in evidence and could be tested for canine DNA by the defense, but they didn't. Why do you think they didn't? The prosecution did and found no canine DNA.
There is dashcam video showing her completely obliterated tail light from 8am that morning, before MP had her car.
Chloe the dog is alive and well. If I were trying to cover up a dog bite I would put the animal down and have them cremated.
That picture of the bloody knuckles of the teenager the defense claims hit JO; taken a month later.
The FBI investigated for 2+ years and held a Federal Grand Jury- no indictments, no charges, 3000 pages turned over to the defense and no smoking gun of framing Karen Read they could use.
