A few years ago, I caught myself falling victim to confirmation in the aftermath of the Idaho college student murders. Before the suspect was identified, I became convinced without evidence that the survivors were somehow involved. I wanted to believe it, so I did. My theory was wrong; the real perpetrator turned out to be a stranger.
That experience forced me to reflect on how I’d reached such a flawed conclusion. I realized I’d selectively focused on details that supported my preconceived narrative while dismissing anything that contradicted it.
This made me think of the Karen Read trial and the groupthink surrounding her guilt. Recently, I spoke with someone who insists Karen is guilty, despite the lack of concrete evidence. What stood out was how much her belief seemed rooted in personal dislike as she repeatedly cited Karen’s demeanor in court, her past DUI, and media portrayals as reasons to distrust her. She interpreted her behavior (arrogance, emotional detachment, or combativeness) as proof of guilt, ignoring how trauma and stress can distort a person’s reactions.
There’s also an element of moral licensing at play because Karen has flaws (her DUI, relationship issues, etc.), some people feel justified in assuming the worst. It’s easier to condemn someone who’s already been framed as "unlikable."
Beyond that, this case exposes a deeper bias the just world fallacy where people assume misfortunes only happen to those who "deserve" them. If John O’Keefe died violently, some reason, someone must be to blame otherwise, the world feels too chaotic and unjust.
In many ways, the Karen Read case acts like a Rorschach test. People see what they want to see, projecting their own biases onto the facts (or lack thereof). My experience with the Idaho case taught me how dangerous that mindset can be. Confirmation bias doesn’t just lead to wrong conclusions. it can distort justice itself. IMO
www.bostonglobe.com
www.boston25news.com
I had no idea lol 
