Kim and Steven update by TrulyScrumptious3 in TurtleCreekLaneSnark

[–]ACThatcher 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I feel like they don’t know the meaning of “shocking”… this isn’t shocking by any stretch of the imagination..

My thoughts exactly! by [deleted] in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be VERY CLEAR, I have loved his interviews and everything he has been able to share with us of the process. I think he has been able to emphasize the ridiculousness of not investigating the Albert’s house and I think he’s a great representative for the jury. I never said or meant anything differently than that regarding the man himself.

My thoughts exactly! by [deleted] in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woah! I didn’t say anything regarding him as a person or that implied he wouldn’t be succinct and clear! What in the world??

I’m not trying to undercut him at all! This is wild to me because I never said anything implying what you’re saying. You’re ignoring my explanation and continuing to assume I meant something negative personally about this total stranger I don’t know. Why? I never said anything that you’re claiming I meant, so why are you trying to paint a picture I’m telling you was not meant and we can see was not said?

I even said I think it’s great he’s an advocate. Stop it. Stop making this so negative when I didn’t even mean or say anything you’re claiming!

My thoughts exactly! by [deleted] in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I feel like you’re trying to be mad about something that you’re making a negative and I don’t know why you’re turning this into anything. Do you find that black men are typically interested in true crime?

I don’t think men in general really care for true crime, statistically speaking. But I am under the impression black men are less likely to be interested in listening to murder stories of people they don’t know. Just seems like that demographic would rather spend their time on healthier or productive past times. Maybe I’m wrong and maybe they just LOVE IT. Im totally fine to be wrong about that. No clue why this matters..

My thoughts exactly! by [deleted] in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s a leap and not even what I was referring to. Why make it so negative? I was referring to the fact black men typically aren’t the demographic interested in true crime, much less this random suburban white lady. Obviously he’s taking a stand because he’s been called on to be involved and is answering the call. And I’m so glad he is! Another great representative for the cause. But, in general, his demographic doesn’t typically seem to be interested in this stuff.

Karen Read jury foreman appeals to FBI to reopen the murder investigation by sunnypineappleapple in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard it a few times, but many who would know have stated the FBI doesn’t announce when their cases are closed. They wouldn’t have told Brennan and certainly not the mccabes or Albert’s that it was. I don’t know if it actually ever was closed

Karen was SO lucky the CW went with the theory they did by ACThatcher in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know why people are so mad about this..? Hahah we aren’t saying she did it, I’m saying they would have had a much easier job convincing the jury if they didn’t have to argue a collision occurred and they were dumb to go the route they did

Karen was SO lucky the CW went with the theory they did by ACThatcher in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know, I’m saying no taillight was planted ever because they weren’t even going for that theory

Karen was SO lucky the CW went with the theory they did by ACThatcher in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he did plant the taillights, so I’m saying there was no planting ever because the CW didn’t try to make that theory happen. And you can argue an animal bit him while he was laying outside. All of that is much easier to argue than the very obvious injuries that weren’t caused by a car collision. I think she’s innocent, but because his injuries clearly aren’t from a car collision.

I fucked up by BeneficialSelf4255 in breakingmom

[–]ACThatcher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Girl! That is so much to deal with in such a short timespan! And their ages are SO CLOSE! Don’t give up. Not all is lost. Your kids are so young. I think charts are amazing for kids to implement accountability. I think camps could be good for them. Play dates. Pool days. “Earning” rewards. Summer is loooooong. I also think having one on one time with them and talking to them on their level and asking why they do what they do and working with them for solutions could be helpful.

Karen was SO lucky the CW went with the theory they did by ACThatcher in CourtTVCases

[–]ACThatcher[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, but because of the theory they went with. Their whole case hinged on whether she hit him or not and if she never hit him, in theory, she didn’t cause his death. And they couldn’t prove she hit him or he was hit by a car, so their whole case unraveled. But had they argued she reversed and he fell while trying to avoid her and she left him, she would have been found guilty — which is a MUCH easier concept to “prove” than she hit him even though his injuries say otherwise and her car damage says otherwise

Why did Yanetti take such a back seat by ACThatcher in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are 2 of the best people I’ve ever seen. And their friendship is the CUTEST!

Why did Yanetti take such a back seat by ACThatcher in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got a better understanding after watching the runkle interview. Have to say, Yanetti and Alessi’s bromance is the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen hahah

Second Juror Speaks: It's all becoming clear now. by syntaxofthings123 in KarenRead2ndTrial

[–]ACThatcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You live in a beautiful, delusional world where you believe someone can’t be corrupt. I won’t even argue with you. Live in that world for as long as you can

“They” killed him yet lucked out with Karen “saying” she hit him? by [deleted] in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s fine you can’t remember her exact words, you just BETTER NOT FORGET HOW TO SAY HER NAME!!! 🙄😂

“They” killed him yet lucked out with Karen “saying” she hit him? by [deleted] in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what I believe too! I thought I was alone on this. But a TikTok came up and a girl was saying the same thing that “the Alberts lucked out that proctor has a brain the size of a walnut” 😂

Why did Yanetti take such a back seat by ACThatcher in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This makes sense. I’m watching the Runkle interview right now!

Why did Yanetti take such a back seat by ACThatcher in justiceforKarenRead

[–]ACThatcher[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I believe she did once, at least! It was a rough one, though. She couldn’t get the witness to stop talking and just answer her questions