Doctor Marie Russell is a forensic pathologist with expertise in dog bite wounds. She taught forensics and emergency medicine at USC and is a former police officer. Those sure looked like dog bites to me and I heard no explanation of how they could have resulted from a vehicle strike from the prosecution. Your unsupported assertions to the contrary seems quite "flimsy" to me.
I totally disagree with your last three words and recognize that you opted not to address three quarters of my post.
Well, so far anyway, the guy has not offed himself - so I guess I swung and missed on that one. One thing that has not been discussed is how he got from the scene of the second shooting to wherever he had the black car stashed that was later found near the farmhouse his wife lived, not far from where he was captured. Seeing that he went to four locations, shooting at two of them, over a fairly good sized area could he have had somebody bring him the car or was he just lucky to be close to where the car was when he fled the cops?
the taillight has the victims dna on it. Yeah, that’s hard to refute. Her fancy lawyers did a good job though distracting people from that, clearly they distracted you
For me, this cuts the opposite way, toward the defense. In multiple swabs, I think only one showed touch dna, but no blood or tissue. That, along with the absence of any fractures or bruising, seems hard to reconcile with the prosecution theory of a 24 mph collision that smashed the tail light and tore up his arm. I was late to the first KR party but followed the second a bit closer. It’s right in my backyard, so it’s tough to avoid, although I came in as a totally blank slate and worked into reasonable doubt. Still, I’m thinking the jury is going to come back with something really screwy. Like, hung on counts 1-3, (because of her idiotic interview clips) and guilty on #4 - the OUI (which she as much as admitted). Pretty much a guarantee of Trial #3, and probably an eventual conviction.
Seems like the KR jury is close. Just returned with three questions, One was on how much evidentiary weight KR's moronic interview clips should have, another asking about the time frame for the OUI charge - which she flat-out admitted in one of those idiotic interviews. Can't wrap my head around why this high-priced legal team allowed her to speak so freely into cameras while a murder charge hung over her head.
Following the jury watch. I’m officially a loser. Last time I remember doing something like this was a thousand years ago on the OJ trial. Another jury question, where they seem settled on acquittal for two of the charges, stuck on the OUI-related charges. The judge won’t clarify what they should do.
Did not see that about the DNA. I wonder what part of the taillight? The part that was intact when the police seized the car or the part that was smashed out while in police custody?
Scientists confirm victim’s DNA on tailight of Karen Reads vehicle https://www.unionleader.com/news/co...cle_f3f4ff74-126e-4b01-bcaa-e5d5adca2e23.html 740 nonillion chance that it’s his. I didn’t know that’s a real number but it’s 30 zeros
How many zeroes does it take to figure the odds that guys with access to a) the taillight and b) O'Keefe's shirt may have have gotten them mixed together at one time or another? By accident, of course.
It was the right decision by the jury on Karen Read. Even though I personally do think she is guilty, you gotta prove it. Through a combination of weather challenges and police/detective incompetence and lack of professionalism in some cases, prosecutors didnt prove it. specifically in the 2nd trial, they couldn't even have the lead investigator testify because he sucked so much and got himself fired
