Verdict Watch Day 5 | July 1 | General Discussion Thread | Commonwealth V Karen Read Day 35

Trial Discussion

Please feel free to use this space to discuss the trial, deliberations, etc.

A few reminders:

Remember the victim & respect his surviving loved ones. We will not tolerate harassment of, or speculation about the O’Keefe family.
Please keep it trial related/do not derail with commentary on other current cases or other Canton gossip that may be case adjacent.
NBC10, Court TV, and Law & Crime are places you can stream on YouTube.
Please do not use this space as a place to discuss YouTube streamers, bloggers, or other online personalities (it quickly tends to derail the topic!)

in KarenReadTrialby swrrrrg

101

92%

View all comments

Suspicious_Constant7

You mean you’re answering 1/10 of the original Question you responded to because there were about 9 people in that house (maybe more) that would have been in position to see him plus Lucky and you’re only addressing 1 of the 10 people after I already said forgot Lucky but you continue to only address the 10% of people that I already said forget about and disregard the other 90% of people because you have no answer for it.

Got it.

frickindeal

So if the body isn't there when Lucky goes by, obviously the inference is that JOK's still inside the house, so anyone inside the house's opinion of what they saw shouldn't matter because they're all "in on it" at that point. The question is, would Lucky have necessarily seen the body? If your answer is "absolutely yes," then he's still in the house. Why do you trust Lucky's eyesight so implicitly when he didn't see a basketball goal and subsequently hit it with his plow truck?

Suspicious_Constant7

You’re still talking about Lucky after I said forget Lucky an hour ago and asked about the 10 other people.

frickindeal

Those 10 are in on the conspiracy in your theory, so why should anyone trust their testimony and why would you?

Suspicious_Constant7

That’s the entire point of the question …

frickindeal

You want me to address the people's testimony that you don't trust? What sense does that make? They're lying anyway in your theory. Lucky hit a big ass basketball goal, yet he should have seen a body wearing dark clothes a distance from the road in the dark. Why trust that so implicitly?

Suspicious_Constant7

No, I want you to address EVERYONE who said they didn’t see a body on the lawn. I’m not cherry-picking who to address I’m saying any and all. That is a MAJOR piece of testimony and topic so that is the question. This isn’t a hard concept to understand.

What I am trusting is that not one single person out of MANY saw John on the lawn. 10+ witnesses becomes overwhelmingly strong. One individual by themself can be doubted more but we don’t have that. We have 10+ is my point/question.

frickindeal

Aren't they all in on the conspiracy though? That's the theory. Lucky is the one standout who isn't in the house and who doesn't agree to the story they all concocted. Lucky who can't see a basketball goal to avoid hitting it.