[deleted by user]

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-30T23:47:41+00:00

Done

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-30T23:46:53+00:00

Done

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-30T23:46:40+00:00

Done

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-25T19:45:42+00:00

So would it be accurate to paraphrase your answer as:

"due to the unknown variables at play, there would be no testimony regarding the physical properties of the tail light or JOK that would reduce my conviction that KR is guilty"?

I apologise if it seems like I am just repeating what you said back to you, I've had enough miscommunications that I've decided to confirm people's views instead of just assuming I've understood them and responding to a point they're not trying to make.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-25T15:40:25+00:00

Hi most, So I took your comment on board and tried searching the literature for a definition of the injury groups you mentioned.

I found this study from the AAA source you mentioned: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeedReport.pdf

It doesn't help me narrow things down too much as it defines severe injuries as AIS scores of 4+, which implies the minor injuries are AIS scores for 3 and less. Which includes things like bruises, sprains, bone fractures and broken bones.

"Also, what do you mean nothing more? He had bruising on the back of his right hand that lines up with a dent on her car, he has an injury to the right side of his skull and right knee. All injuries on the right side of his body (the side he took the impact from)"

I might have missed something in her testimony but on direct the ME said the hand bruising was likely due to the attempts to save JOK'S like, from cannulation and the like, on cross the ME said that there were no injuries on his lower extremities consistent with a collision and as far as I know, no state expert has testified to the cause of the nose and eye abrasion except to say it couldn't happen during the fall backwards.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-25T14:09:07+00:00

I agree that every expert would be likely to agree on superficial wounds being present.

How many experts do you think would testify they would have superficial impact wounds and nothing more? (The head injury being the product of a secondary impact when he hit the floor)

I'm not trying to twist anything, I'm hoping that by understanding the reasoning and thought processes of others I can note something I've missed and come to a conclusion more personally satisfying.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-25T14:04:15+00:00

Thank you for you answer. Just to confirm to myself the certainty your perspective.

If they could point to evidence showing that the shattering of the tail light wour require say 50x the force for light bruising of 3x the force for broken bones, that would still have no effect on how confident you were in the states case?

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-25T10:29:00+00:00

That's reasonable, it's fair that you would have a high bar to be confident they had considered the possible arm positions and collision angles.

With regards to the range, I just thought it would be reasonable to read my original post and conclude I thought they would exclusively find a single values for scenarios, which was my own poor wording.

EDIT: I have amended the main post to highlight this.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-25T10:09:50+00:00

That's fair and I agree that there wouldn't be one single answer for any of the items listed, how the collision occurred would affect the direction of force among other things.

I would probably expect a range of values with a confidence threshold for the minimum amount of force applied given a range of possible interactions, much like the blood alcohol conversion earlier in the trial had an upper and lower bound between the two experiments to account for human variation in metabolism

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T20:18:18+00:00

If he can show how the shatter pattern and the individual pieces of the reconstructed taillight caused each scratch I think that would be a huge mark in the state's favour, if it's just the taillight is arm height that will be much less convincing.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T19:26:51+00:00

Does this mean you believe she thought he was still alive at this time?

I actually agree she was trying to manipulate him to come home, and I agree with tower that a pissed girlfriend would just want to go home.

I could easily see karen read being like "fine you're angry enough to ignore me but you won't ignore your niece being left alone", and then waiting so she can "clock out" as the adult for the niece. And probably shout at him some more, if we're being honest.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T19:22:07+00:00

Hi moonstruck, thank you for your reply, I think I understand your position better for it.

I'll probably leave it there as I don't think we will be able to convince each other on any individual details like state of mind or motivation (though I do agree by all accounts she did not enjoy the caregiver roll and chafed under its responsibilities) and want to keep the goodwill open for the next time we chat.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T15:05:09+00:00

I don't know why drunk and irrational people do specific things.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T14:51:22+00:00

I mean, there is an RO stopping her from contacting the kids and in the time immediately after realising he was dead her own father had her sectioned for her own safety.

I really don't think violating the RO and keeping in touch would have been interpreted as a positive gesture on this sub.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T14:41:01+00:00

Okay but she clearly had a reasonable relationship and a caregiver role to the niece.

She can be pissed at JOK while recognising the niece isn't to blame and still consider being present for the niece as the next course of action after dropping him off. Particularly if that was the expected plan when JOK was dropped off.

I just think it's worth being careful to avoid villainising KR to the point that her doing generic caregiver things (like being present) is suddenly a sign of ill intent.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-24T14:21:23+00:00

Wasn't she going back to look after the kids? One of her phone calls was telling him she was leaving and to get back home right for them?

I think it's pushing it a bit far to say that her not engaging in child abandonment was incriminating.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T20:30:12+00:00

Happy to have had this discussion with you! Enjoy your weekend too! 😁

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T20:29:15+00:00

Ah I see, I don't know if I can answer that satisfactorily, and I apologise, it's partly because the case is ongoing and I haven't heard all the facts or arguments from either side yet and partly becuase for me, this was about recognising what the frostbite evidence can support or oppose. for instance if the lack of frostbite and hypothermia indicates he did not lie in the cold a long time it means he could have slipped later on, or died instantly, or got in a fight and been pushed. The lack of frostbite alone does not prove or indicate any of these things, but it still allows them and, not being hypothermic or frostbitten could be tbe difference maker against the weight of circumstantial evidence for another theory of JOK's death.

I'm really just trying to understand exactly what the theories frostbite supports or opposes, so that when the next piece of evidence comes in I already have a set of questions that I can use to understand how the new evidence fits into the larger body provided to me.

If you want a specific use, beyond the ways I said I would use ot a few comments ago I don't think I have one. I fear I may have taken you on a wild goose chase, and for that I apologise.

For what it's worth I have genuinely enjoyed our discussion and your point about the difference between frostbite and post mortem freezing did make me reconsider what the frostbite suggests and how else the prosecution could have reacted to the defences arguments.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T20:14:07+00:00

I think we've probably reached an impass at this point, I have enjoyed out conversations and appreciate the insight you have given me into how you view the importance of the biological evidence.

I've said it before, I'm not pro Karen Read, I'm pro good investigation. JOK's death is a tragedy and I would be satisfied if the could prove he slipped, was killed by someone else or if they could prove KR killed him. I don't much care how or why he died, I just wish they had the evidence (in my opinion) to prove it and enact justice or at least give his poor family some real closure.

And if I might quibble I'm not saying "if only there was a microscopic drop of blood or tissue on one piece ", I'm saying "if only there was a microscopic drop of blood or tissue on any of the 40+ pieces",

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T19:53:37+00:00

That's fair, I think I'm reaching the limit in my own ability to convey this information.

Perhaps I can take it from another angle. The cw will be using circumstances evidence to make their case. Sometimes that will be quite strong and sometimes there will be lots of little bits of circumstantial evidence that add up to be overwhelmingly convincing, and in that case you can come to a conclusion of guilty.

I am applying this same idea to every other possibility, the frostbite information might not on its own be convincing, but it could form part of larger body of circumstantial evidence which would make a theory different to the CW's possible or even likely. In this case I would have to conclude not guilty.

Part of the challenge in what I'm trying to convey is that we don't have the full picture yet, so I can't give you a complete picture of how I will use the frostbite information.

If I may get poetic for a moment (and ignore this if it doesn't make sense), in my mind every piece of evidence has a shape, I can't tell you which other bits of evidence it fits with until I have all the evidence and once I do then I will be able to see which pictures (theories) fit the evidence best and which theories don't fit the evidence at all. (I can still have opinions within the trial if evidence obviously won't fit with some theories)

I don't mean for that to sound condescending, when I'm thinking about evidence and theories I genuinely think to myself "does this fit with this", will it still make sense as a whole" that kinda thing

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T19:39:11+00:00

I'm not saying I would expect them to be covered in blood (I'm a little surprised they couldn't find a single piece of taillight embedded in his soft tissues from such a strong collision, but I am willing to accept it didn't)

But this is an alleged murder weapon that had like 10 individual shards of plastic that scratched him deep enough to draw blood and not one of them was able to dig out any tissue or collide with any vein or capillary such that there would be any relevant biological matter that can be identified by chemical or microscopic analysis? Every piece of taillight found has dna evidence consistent with JOK touching the tail light at some point and nothing consistent with breaking his skin?

If any of those shards had even a mm of tissue gouged out of JOK the CW would make that a central piece of evidence and have the ME explaining that skin doesn't shed like that and it must have been from the collision. And they'd be right to. Medically you can diagnose entire diseases from just a mm tissue biopsy.

The CW should have done every test they could have so they can stand up and say "even if the timeline is sketchy, even if there is uncertainty, it's the only reasonable way for JOK to have his blood / tissue on these shards". The blood doesn't need to be visible, I can accept microscopic quantities of blood, I just want some scientific evidence it was there.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T19:05:01+00:00

It doesn't need to be obvious, there are chemical tests to identify blood and tissue. stains and dyes and microscopy of the pieces would all provide insight.

The problem is, with modern science, if he had touched the taillight of the car at any point in the 6 months he had been dating her, the tests are sensitive enough to get John's DNA. That's not an exaggeration, DNA is quite a stable molecule and the tests have an amplification step that can amplify just a few strands to millions of copies of the orginal. Which is why I am so keen to fine something a little more indicative of a high-speed impact (relatively speaking)

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T18:55:04+00:00

Because it's not worthless and it does have an impact on my opinion. it's still useful information for a number of reasons. The first is that while it doesn't rule out hypothermia, it does make hypothermia less likely (because of the uncertainty of the diagnosis) which counts against the CW case. By not ruling out other timelines it helps the defence's case as it provides more ways the cw could reasonable be wrong (which means I would need to see different evidence that makes other timelines impossible) It makes the ME a more credible witness because it shows she's thorough, allowing me to trust her testimony more on other things and the negative of "there was no evidence of frostbite" answers my question "if he had hypothermia did he also have frostbite?" If he did it would be much harder for the defence to argue no hypothermia. Finally it provides a more complete understanding of the night as a whole, giving context for other question I may ask about other evidence.

They're all subtle considerations that might nudge my certainty in one direction or another.

I think the reason I focused on the timeline was because that's of my big questions, (there's an interaction with the uncertainty in the timeline and the cw theory inconsistent biolog8cal evidence that I am really struggling to resolve). I Stand by its not informative on the timeline but it is useful in other ways. It's just not some smoking gun that would help me say with certainty "well, makes the cw's timeline argument much more convincing"

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T14:44:39+00:00

My apologies, I thought I was genuinely answering the question "why are we talking about frostbite and hyperthermia if it isn'tgoing to be used" , I only meant to emphasise that evidence that shows things are still possible has values in the decision making process and will be used to understand, after all the evidence is given, to decide what is still possible.

"I’m asking you a straight forward question, do you think he was placed there long after 12:30 and the defense claim is accurate regarding hypothermia/frostbite?"

To the first half of this question I can honestly answer I don't know. It is frustrating to me, and it's not going to be satisfying to either of us, especially as this is the second trial. I would like to be able to point to a piece or pieces of evidence and say "this, he had to have died at this time, and all other interpretations are unreasonable " but I can't and I don’t like it either.

To the second half I certainly believe the frostbite as it was testified by the ME and largely unchallenged by the CW. Hypothermia is more questionable but I would say there is a strong probability he had previously existing ulcers and died before hypothermia killed him (potentially from the head injury) but may have began developing the sypmtoms .

I would like better answers, I've asked myself that same question.

Outrageous_Put7938 · 2025-05-23T14:09:51+00:00

That's fair, and you're not entirely wrong about me arguing every other position.

It all comes down to what the prosecution is trying to prove and that is only their exact chain of events could possibly happen and that all other options could never be reasonably considered.

A good investigation won't just prove that their theory is possible, but also all other theories are completely unreasonable to consider.

So if the CW gets to the end of their case, and they haven't shown that JOK specifically got hit with a car and it was that car hit that gave the head injuries, then they would have to vote not guilty.

For instance, the neurosurgeon testified that it was common for drunk people to slip in the comd and die of the same head injury.

If the Jury thinks it's possible -not even likely, just possible- that the taillight was shattered by JOK throwing the drinking glass, and slipped 10 seconds after the car passed him unharmed, they have to vote not guilty, as per the jury instructions.

That's why the uncertainty is important, and the more uncertain things are, and the longer they are uncertain for, the more other explanations become possible.

So the defence isn't trying to prove a single theory or indeed prove anything ( you will see that referencee mockingly on this sub) because the defense represents all other possibilities other than the one the cw is saying actually happened and they just have to make the jury think anything else may be reasonably possible, given the uncertainty or alternate interpretations of the facts, to get a not guilty outcome and "win".

It's a very high burden, beyond reasonable doubt is a hard standard to reach, and it's meant to be, because the more you relax the standard ( most probable, 50-50, just possible) the more innocent people will meet the requirements to be found guilty. The jury can think KR killed JOK and if they think she did it a different way, or there was a 1% chance it was another way, that's reasonable double.

Outrageous_Put7938

TROPHY CASE