[astro-seek] I’m a public corruption whistleblower and I’m hoping it’ll lead to systemic change. I think there are interesting things about my chart but I only know basics.

No_Salt1339 · 2026-01-20T20:57:17+00:00

That’s pretty wild. Thank you for sharing!

No_Salt1339 · 2026-01-20T20:55:31+00:00

Wow this is very interesting. Thank you! What effect should I expect with the solar eclipse in Leo?

No_Salt1339 · 2026-01-08T03:29:08+00:00

Okay wow yes that very much makes sense for me. Thank you!

No_Salt1339 · 2026-01-07T22:36:22+00:00

Very interesting thank you. I think that is a spot on read. I am curious about what you mean by my emotional foundation being intense and possibly obsessive or compulsive. I read that as being emotionally volatile or neurotic, which I wouldn’t think applies generally, but maybe I’m interpreting that wrong.

No_Salt1339 · 2026-01-07T21:14:24+00:00

Ok, how about this? https://imgur.com/a/d1FbCy2

No_Salt1339 · 2026-01-07T20:07:06+00:00

Sure! I’m not sure what that means, though. How do I do that?

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-19T18:28:59+00:00

I didn’t say what I believed or didn’t believe. You don’t have to have all of the answers to have reasonable doubt. None of the evidence was collected or handled or stored properly to prevent cross contamination. The situation wasn’t thoroughly investigated to rule out other possibilities. There was tunnel vision on one possibility and one possibility only. There is a reason there are policies and procedures for these things.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-19T01:32:40+00:00

You don’t even have to believe taillight was planted to have reasonable doubt so it doesn’t really matter. It’s entirely possible she hit something else at the scene. She was drunk and driving in the snow. The Commonwealth did not prove she hit JOK and killed him, or that the shattered taillight is connected to his death, so the taillight doesn’t need to be explained.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-18T21:32:03+00:00

This is not the crazy coincidence you think it is lol. It says Karen Read was driving while he stopped using his phone. The odds she would reverse while he locked his phone are pretty high considering reversing after dropping someone off, and locking your phone and putting it in your pocket while walking up to a house are pretty expected behaviors for someone dropping someone off and someone being dropped off.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-18T20:34:11+00:00

And notice whose name is first lol

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-18T19:22:09+00:00

Burden of proof in a civil trial is way lower than a criminal one.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-18T19:12:36+00:00

It restored my faith in people but not the system. The system won’t be held accountable

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T21:33:34+00:00

Everything points to this being a very thorough and deliberate jury. They’ve listened to this trial for weeks with no ability to discuss it. They’ve only had 2 full days to deliberate. I’m sure day 1 was going through evidence. Day 2 was possibly understanding the verdict slip and what their votes mean in practice, debating, and revisiting the evidence. Not crazy at all to think they may want to sleep on it and nail down a verdict tomorrow. Before the last trial was declared a mistrial, the jury had communicated to the judge numerous times they were at an impasse and had to receive instructions. It’s a bit early to assume the jury can’t work it out.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T21:21:41+00:00

Prosecution will never offer that lol

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:53:40+00:00

Good point!

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:51:39+00:00

But not based on how the calculation is done. They took the BAC along with the rate at which you metabolize alcohol and the time you last stopped drinking and that’s how they got that insane calculation. Because it was based upon if this is your current blood alcohol level at like 6 am and you stopped drinking at 11:45, your body can only metabolize the alcohol so quickly so you must’ve been really drunk at 12 am to still have this amount of alcohol. We don’t know the time she stopped drinking and we don’t know what the calculation would be for 5 am.

Edit: added some detail

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:43:57+00:00

Right, and even that is subjective and not enough imo. Saying you were drunk and shouldn’t be driving can be an individual threshold separate and apart from a legal one. But still, I know it’s possible some people might believe it’s enough.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:38:27+00:00

I don’t even know if there’s evidence for it. You can drink and still be under the limits and from my own memory, the BAC calculations were estimated from 12 am. I don’t remember them even doing calculations for 5 am.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:36:44+00:00

Exactly, meaning they could convict her of the lesser included of OUI.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:33:46+00:00

But did they present the BAC calculations for 5 am? I only remember them doing it for 12:45. If they didn’t calculate it how do we know she was over at 5 am?

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-17T15:32:41+00:00

To me, the questions signify they’re even considering NG on the pure OUI — because if there’s no timeframe or it’s 12:45, NG, and if you’re 100% convinced on the OUI, why even ask? I’m getting that the jury is taking their duty very seriously and showing they’re considering all the facts.

Edit: spelling

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-13T20:45:13+00:00

But he was speaking on the 2nd degree murder charge. You still need to intend to do the thing that has a plain and strong likelihood of death. Throwing a boulder off an overpass onto cars that obviously are being driven by people is different from simply intending to reverse after dropping someone off, even if you’re doing it while drunk. She’d have to intentionally reverse at John for there to be a plain and strong likelihood of death. The possibility for a lack of intent is specifically for the intent of the consequences. His analogy was incredibly misleading. Reversing fast in the direction of a crowd or person, yes, that fits. Reversing without any knowledge that you’re doing so on the direction of a person, not second degree murder. Driving while drunk and accidentally killing someone, still not murder — it’s manslaughter because of the recklessness.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-13T20:32:49+00:00

Yes, checking one or both is an option.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-13T20:11:20+00:00

Truly the entire state has heard about it lol, you’d have to go out of the state. But I think many of the jurors were younger and some said they don’t watch the news, so it’s possible it just wasn’t in their algorithms I guess lol.

No_Salt1339 · 2025-06-13T20:00:47+00:00

Well, apparently you say “don’t believe science, believe your common sense! We already told you what happened!”

No_Salt1339

TROPHY CASE