Today 10:32 am
They're not married. They have separate homes. But she did stay with him quite a lot, and they were nominally a monogamous couple.Skans » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ She did it. I'm sure of it. I would convict in 2 minutes. Could care less about what cops say or lied to. Here's what I know. Karen Read did not testify in her own defense during her first trial. Very doubtful she will testify in this one. Not to mention, all of the facts point to her killing her husband. ****, the husband or wife is always guilty in marital murder cases! She's guilty as hell.
He was beaten to death inside of the albert home (albert is a fellow cop), and while he was being beaten to death, he was vigorously clawed by a dog. Albert had a german shepherd named chloe, who they CLAIM was "rehomed" but they cannot say where the dog is.
The charade that you fell for was deconstructed in court the FIRST time, when she was acquitted on two of three charges and subsequently exposed to double jeopardy by the judge's misconduct in dismissing the jury without polling them as to the verdicts they were NOT deadlocked on.
No.Skans » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The investigators know way more than they will be allowed to say in court.
They've been allowed to lie in court, and their lies have been (ineffectively) protected from exposure by the corrupt co-prosecutor/judge.
People who are not retarded follow their attorneys' advice. When the clase is CLEARLY won, attorneys will always play it conservative and keep their clients off the stand.Skans » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑Regardless, people who truly didn't commit the crime (0.01% of them) will testify in their own defense, unless they are retarded. What have you got to convince me otherwise?
Judges are required by law to caution juries not to weight it as evidence that defendants listened to their attorneys and did not testify.
Your position is based on the misapprehension that our system requires defendants to prove their innocence. It is actually on the STATE to prove the case that the STATE is bringing - not on the defendant to disprove it. I can name a thousand reasons for staying off the stand, if you are convinced the state has failed to make its case - as WAS the case in the last trial, when she was acquitted on all of the serious charges and the jury was deadlocked on one lesser included.
This is a woman with several chronic health issues, and I highly doubt whether her doctors want her to spend days under a blistering and vicious cross-examination delving into embarrassing personal issues, likely forcing her to waive hipaa rights in order to explain herself, etc. Especially when the states case has imploded faster than beevee facing a fifth grade biology test.
When you complain, your friends roll their eyes and your enemies smile
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not your friend
An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?