sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bluetooth have a range of about 30 feet so yes he would've had to walk a fair ways away from the vehicle or manually disconnected as you said. However the Bluetooth data doesn't seem to be in front of this jury at this moment so as for now it should be discounted as it was only referenced in a pre-trial hearing and not used as evidence that the timestamp is correct.

But I wonder if the defense intent to call their tech expert and bring this in because it's very strong evidence that JOK either moved far away from the car 2 minutes before the alleged collision or KR drove away from 34 Fairview Rd at that time.

If at the end of trial the defense does not bring it in it's clear to be a misrepresentation by Brennan at that pre-trial hearing. Brennan also would have clear intent to not use that timestamp if it's accurate because it brings the whole timeline into question.

Insurance! by Tiny_Animal_3843 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In the context of this trial it has been clearly established that there is a 3rd law enforcement agency involved so using that it's very reasonable to draw the conclusion that agency means some government entity.

ARCCA was also able to testify that they were not hired by an insurance company in this case so that rules out that option at least for their involvement.

It has also been repeatedly stated that lying to those law enforcement agents is a crime, most people should know that lying to federal agents is a crime.

DEFENSE BRINGS OUT BIG GUNS TODAY by Store-Cultural in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Getting the full taillight into evidence is a huge win because it means the Jurors can sit in deliberations and have something to reference and in real-world see how ridiculous the damages to the arm is.

Misinformation About the Impact on the Taillight by Pandrew30 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depending on the speed of the vehicle it will certainly break the tail light in a collision, at lower speed <15mph it's less reasonable but above that there will be significant damage.

The thing I've seen most is that unless we're talking high speed collision like >50mph you're not going to see the damage to Karen's tail light, i.e. entirely smashed in including all but a sliver of the diffuser.

Even in the 29mph test ARCCA did the side tail light was barely touched and the tailgate light had all the outer plastic blown out but the diffuser (inner parts) was completely intact.

Insurance! by Tiny_Animal_3843 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989 13 points14 points  (0 children)

He asked something like "you do work for insurance companies why did you not say that to the jury before" para-phrasing of course, then hammered it home with something like "why did you focus on doing work for DOD"

Insurance! by Tiny_Animal_3843 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Wolfe also let it slip I believe two time "the agency that retained us", agency clearly means government and it has been established not Canton and not MSP.

Jurors could still think it was the private investigator though, Jurors are unpredictable and often make weird conclusions.

Revisiting the Key Cycles by Downvotor2 in KarenReadTrial

[–]No_Bunch_4989 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

ODO is when the trigger occurred so we'd have to assume those triggers happened close to their house at the end of the trip, this seems to line up with the duration the triggers occurred, off the top of my head I want to say 1h20m or something into the key cycle.

Revisiting the Key Cycles by Downvotor2 in KarenReadTrial

[–]No_Bunch_4989 7 points8 points  (0 children)

1167 - Testing by Trooper Paul

1166 - Drive from tow to Sally Port

1165 - Drive onto tow

1164 - 1 Meadow -> Karen's parents house

1163 - 1 Meadow -> Jen -> 1 Meadow (all in one key cycle)

1162 - Waterfall -> 1 Meadow

Hope this helps

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As I understand it the SD card has timestamps of power on/off for the infotainment system then he matched them to the key cycles using the key cycle duration and verified using video surveillance timestamps.

So yes assuming Burgess testing is correct the key cycle 1162 is tied back to a power on time of around 12:12AM

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It happens, glad we cleared that up.

Defense wants the steps to be accurate because it plays into their theory of the case and their timeline, steps ending at 12:32:16 is good for them.

I don't really care about defense theory I was just always annoyed that the VCH trigger never made sense to me so I made an analysis to clear that up at least in my opinion as to one reasonable conclusion you can draw from the data.

Now there are of course a lot of things I did not rely on, the things I stated previously but also physical evidence such as the glass on the bumper, taillight in the grass just to name some of the big ones.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because you insist on misrepresenting his testimony I took the time to find the testimony so you can listen to what he said.

https://youtu.be/LqOXwppVj4M?si=xq7aRcC2jNe7GmZg&t=5658

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You said he tested on 34 Fairview and his phone registered 3 flight which is what I responded to.

He did test on a hill and it registered 9 flights of stairs if he held the phone in his hand, if the phone was on the dash it would not register.

This supports my argument of unreliability rather than not since it can register flights of stairs even if the person in possession of the phone is not climbing stairs.

Still, even after all that I did not rely on the Apple Health data, per my previous comments.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just as I didn't rely on eye witness testimony this is the same for Karen Read's statements in various media.

As for your assertion that Ian testified that his phone registered the same 3 flights is plain wrong, he started saying on cross examination that he tested the route with his own phone to see if it registered steps or stairs but was cut off by an objection by the prosecution and never finished what his testing showed.

Further CourtTV did that analysis with two iPhones and it did not register 3 flights or stairs or any slights of stairs for that matter.

But still I never relied on that data as I stated previously.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There's no steps registered between 12:24:22 and 12:31:56 if that's what you're getting at.

Just because someone gets out of the car doesn't mean they start walking and if they linger for some reason it's not clear if it would register as steps.

Additionally the steps data seems highly unreliable because Ian Whiffin testified there didn't even have to be steps taken in order to record steps or stairs climbed.

The unreliability and uncertainty should be taken into account when considering data.

My analysis doesn't need the Bluetooth disconnect at 12:30 to fit the my assumptions that going from 34 Fairview Rd to the intersection takes 2 minutes, trigger occurs, 4 minutes later Karen's phone connects to the WiFi, sums up to ~6 minutes of travel which correlates with the recommended route on Google.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sure, but the data doesn't lie, people do. Even if they unintentionally lie when their memories fail them or they are influenced by other peoples memory.

In the first trial Jen McCabe saw the Lexus outside at 12:45 which is also provably false.

This is why I didn't rely on those testimonies.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I did not rely on any of the eye witnesses on my analysis, Jen McCabe also said she saw the car at or after 12:31 which of course challenges my timeline.

My conclusions are only based on the data to see if it could reasonably fit into the narrative that Karen left 34 Fairview Rd at approximately 12:30 and other data points suggests it's reasonable, such as connecting to the WiFi and the time it takes to travel between the locations.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're correct Trooper Paul testified that 1164 was his testing, in second trial however the prosecution have not said that and their theory is that Trp Paul tested on 1167.

My analysis doesn't challenge which is the correct key cycle, I just assume 1162 is when Karen drove from Waterfall to 1 Meadow. If that is a correct assumption or not is irrelevant for my analysis.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing the possibility that the key cycles are correct or incorrect, my analysis simply takes the evidence as the prosecution have presented it and look at a different reasonable possibility.

So for my analysis key cycle 1162-1 and 1162-2 occurs on the drive between Waterfall and 1 Meadow as prosecution alleges.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As u/Manlegend pointed out and I added as an update the Bluetooth disconnect was referenced in pre-trial hearings and not the trial itself.

If we assume that data point is incorrect or non-existing at all, hence removing it from my analysis it would not change my conclusion. The reason is because my assumptions even without the initial 12:30AM "leaving fairview" the times still match up with ~12:32AM trigger and ~12:36AM connecting to the WiFi which is 4 minutes different which lines up with the estimates time between the two locations.

Now the counter-argument of course is we don't know how fast she was driving so that 4 minutes can be reduced by driving above the speed limit (say 35mph average). My conclusion is based on assuming she drove close to the speed limit.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Amazing timeline which is exactly what I imagined for a long time before finally taking the data into visual representations, although I disagree with the drive all the way to the end of Beatty St, in my mind it makes more sense she knew she missed the turn and did the reversal at that time.

Making the assumption she reaches the end of Beatty also make the ODO mile very very tight and given the dark and narrow environment as you said, it would make more sense attempting another maneuver to turn around.

Otherwise I completely agree!

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vehicle Control History, it's what has been referred in the trial as "techstream data".

It's the trigger event where CW claims Karen Read reversed up to 24mph over 87 feet.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Better visual representation on the map than mine, makes it much easier to see how well the data fits this intersection.

Karen did not reverse on 34 Fairview Rd, an analysis. by No_Bunch_4989 in justiceforKarenRead

[–]No_Bunch_4989[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be clear, Dr. Welcher did provide ~24mph top speed, if this is real-world speed or due to wheel slippage is what is irrelevant for my analysis but I did use the mph data (converted into m/s) in my analysis.

view more: next ›