Take the poll: Is Karen Read Guilty

[Snoop Sister]

Do you think Karen Read is guilty of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an accident in the death of John O'Keefe?

I don’t think second degree and manslaughter should be together in the same vote. I think she is guilty of manslaughter not second degree murder.

 

[arielilane]

Today the CW rest. Guilty, includes M2. The CW proved their case, BARD. jmo

 

[AngTxGal]

I can’t square why the glass from the bar was broken near John’s body.
If he went into the house and stayed for any length of time, why was the glass broken with him outside? When you finish a drink you sit it down.
If there was an altercation, did it happen before he finished the drink- and he kept it in his hand?
If someone harmed him and moved him outside- they had to know that this specific glass came in with him to take it outside and break it near him.
Too many questions- simplest explanation is she hit him with her car.

 

[dreamwarrior66]

I can’t square why the glass from the bar was broken near John’s body.
If he went into the house and stayed for any length of time, why was the glass broken with him outside? When you finish a drink you sit it down.
If there was an altercation, did it happen before he finished the drink- and he kept it in his hand?
If someone harmed him and moved him outside- they had to know that this specific glass came in with him to take it outside and break it near him.
Too many questions- simplest explanation is she hit him with her car.

I agree with this. It seems really odd but it's possible that there was both an accidental murder (Karen hit John and killed him) and a coverup by people who thought it was a different accidental murder (dog killed John). That explains why there's two sets of glasses. One was the one John had in his hand. The other was discovered days later on the ground and on Karen's bumper.

 

[Maat99]

Not guilty. No evidence he was hit much less killed by a car.

 

[Snoods]

I’m nervous about how many people voted guilty, gotta be honest.

 

[mzmarymac]

Anyone else completely shocked at the results of this poll?? Just over 1/2 NG???

 

[Snoods]

It seems just the fact that she simple drove away from the house means she’s guilty?!

How are they going to understand these instructions?

 

[Wishbone]

It seems just the fact that she simple drove away from the house means she’s guilty?!

How are they going to understand these instructions?

If the jury decides the Lexus didn't hit JO BARD and it did not cause his injuries all these excessive charges and sub charges that are on that excessive jury form can all be answered not guilty without suffering thru them sentence by miserable sentence. What overkill.

 

[Snoods]

I bet they compromise on the drunk driving.

 

[Snoods]

If the jury decides the Lexus didn't hit JO BARD and it did not cause his injuries all these excessive charges and sub charges that are on that excessive jury form can all be answered not guilty without suffering thru them sentence by miserable sentence. What overkill.

Exactly, why make it so difficult. It seems insane. To me, anyway.

So the person she moved to seat 1 is the jury foreman, just like she did last trial. How convenient.

 

[Snoods]

Hell with that, Bev. Do a straw poll, jury.

 

[EnigmaticEpiphany]

I voted "I don't know." But its scary how people (in general, not people in here) are treating her case as a spectator sport. This could happen to any of us.

 

[Traymar]

The thing is, I could see it happening (in an alternate universe) the way the guilty crowd is claiming. I could see it because we somehow know this story, don't we? Drunken rage, driving recklessly, and a terrible accident happens.

Honestly, it's so easy to see this happening. I thought that WAS what happened when I first started following the first trial. It was so easy to believe.

BUT, I am not, and never was, emotionally invested in believing in the guilt of a drunk, angry woman with an angry face whose actions I abhor (driving drunk) and whose language during the angry calls and texts was rather jolting.

Instead, I just considered the arguments and evidence of both sides. And the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Police procedure and protocol and chain of custody should matter to you. It WOULD matter to you if you or a loved one were on trial.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not mad.

Again, the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all you need to know in terms of this trial.

MOO

 

[LibraStarr]

I voted No. Not because I know Karen Read is innocent, but because the Commonwealth didn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were on the jury, I couldn’t convict with this many gaps, questions, and issues in the evidence. IMO

 

[justiceck]

Guilty.

 

[justiceck]

Guilty.

 

[Snoods]

Not guilty.

 

[Snoop Sister]

I can’t decide.

 

[AngTxGal]

Anyone else completely shocked at the results of this poll?? Just over 1/2 NG???

I’m not shocked- it is quite logical that it was a drunk car collision that caused his fall and death.

And there are many questions I still have as to what happened.

If they are seeking simple answers rather than review the evidence that clearly shows probable cause.

What probable cause doesn’t do- is explain what actually happened. And some people will quickly satisfy their need for answers with a presumption of Guilt.

IMO