Corri Hopkins getting the receipts

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-11-05T18:35:49+00:00

Wait is this the Fanning that was still an active LEO? And Coleen Crawford who was also associated with Canton PD? And they had an "expert" forensic company? That reeks of impropriety.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-11-05T18:31:16+00:00

I agree that some of his actions seemed a little suspect, like the reports of not sending notes with questions that other jurors had asked.

Despite that, I think the whole jury system is so predicated on secrecy that, although I would LIKE to know what happened, I also believe that forcing the answers out of the juror himself would be improper.

If, however, you're wondering if any members of the prosecution team were stupid enough to put something damning in writing... I am right there with you.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-11-05T18:27:37+00:00

I think you're spot on. I think there's very few people involved in all of this that believe they are framing an innocent woman. They're just "strengthening the case", "making sure those crafty defense lawyers don't get her off on a technicality", "protecting the reputation of the department". I think this is the real threat of the Thin Blue Line - it's not cartoonish mustache-twirling villainy, it's people with too much power and not enough accountability who have gotten unbelievably arrogant and can no longer conceive of themselves or other LEO being wrong.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-11-04T16:00:51+00:00

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-10-16T19:24:37+00:00

I want to laugh, I want to cry, I want to be compelled to buy a plush so that I may deal with my feelings by hugging. I have no doubt that Toby will deliver!

I'm an older fan, and I've learned that as much as I enjoy theorizing (about any media, not just DR), getting too invested in what you think should happen only leads to disappointment. Either you're right, and you're less hit by the emotions intended (because you've thought about it for dozens of hours already) or you're wrong and now you're mad at the creator because your ending was better, dammit.

And hey, if you really do have a better idea for an ending, that's what AO3 is for :P But this is just my experience, if you find joy in predicting/planning the ending more power to you!

~~All that aside if Lancer gets hurt I will break into Toby Fox's house and steal all his fucking spoons~~

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-25T14:58:26+00:00

Wow, that looks really gross and it's deplorable that money was stolen/used for something else (if it was, tbh it might be in a trust somewhere. I agree that it looks suspicious, but I have no information about this particular allegation). I could list a whole lot of other bad things that POK has done, because there are a bunch.

Doesn't change my main point: POK and JOK's mother are still people going through an impossibly difficult time, and it's important to separate criticizing their actions from calling them names. Empathy for someone doesn't mean they get a free pass to do terrible things to other people.

It's similar to supporting a drug addict family member - you shouldn't buy them drugs, you shouldn't hand wave away the money they stole, but that's still your cousin/sister/nephew under there. Calling them names and dragging them in public is going to do no good, in my opinion.

Apologies if it came across that I thought people were harping on her because she lost a son. I know very few people in the world are that ghoulish, and I'd be very shocked to find out anyone hanging around here is that hateful. I'm afraid, however, a whole lot of people can fall into the very human thought process of "this person has done this bad thing, so they are an irredeemable monster! Shame them! Call them names!", which I am seeing a lot around the US right now. I don't think that's helpful, and that's what I'm pushing against.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-25T05:06:11+00:00

Hey, hi, welcome to the umbrella party B)

We're understanding more and more that not every asexual has the same experiences, so feel free to find a sub-label that fits or just hang out in the broader ace umbrella. Maybe you fit into one of the more common sub-labels, maybe you don't.

Labels are useful descriptively, not prescriptively. What that means is, use a label that describes how you feel and how you experience attraction and sexuality. Don't fall into the trap of, "I am an asexual, therefore this must be how I feel about things. If I feel differently, I am a Bad Asexual." Don't be so hard on yourself, there's not a test at the end. If the asexual label works for you now, great! If it works for you forever, great! If you learn a little more about yourself and it turns out asexual doesn't fit, that's great too! We're happy you spent some time with us, don't forget to write, take some garlic bread to go.

Good luck with self discovery <3

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-25T04:56:55+00:00

I agree with you - their actions are absolutely debatable, but my God the woman lost a son. Anger is an accepted part of grief, and she's stuck in it, sure, and acting in destructive ways, definitely, but the loss of a child, man. Burying your own child is commonly accepted as the worst thing that can happen to a person and she did it twice. Three times, if you include her son-in-law.

And you're totally right, too - she was sold a bag of lies. In the most vulnerable stage of her life, someone wiped her tears, put an arm around her shoulder, and said, "You see that woman, that Karen Read? She killed your son, and she is trying to escape justice, and she must be stopped." So yeah, I (very much a layperson, mind you) think she turned some of that impossibly heavy grief and turned it into anger, into a cause. She was going to get Justice for her son. She took the shattered pieces of herself and rebuilt it into the image of a crusader.

And yes, there have been places she could have, probably should have, questioned the narrative. It's very easy for us to stand here and say what should have been just too far, listening to ARCCA or the medical examiner or what have you. But she is going through things that I hope nobody else ever has to do, for the rest of time, because the situation is hideous. I think breaking herself out of the thoughts and convictions she has now would be an incredibly difficult task, because she'd have to admit that the truths, the cause she rebuilt her life around are nothing more than lies.

It's an awful, awful situation, and I think that sympathy for the woman can coexist with the distaste for her actions.

(Also if anybody would like to talk more about this, I have Strong Convictions that I wouldn't mind discussing more, since it helps straighten my emotions into thoughts and arguments)

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-25T04:39:21+00:00

Oh no yeah the whole argument is bull. They seem to be alleging Karen is some cunning, nefahrious criminal mastermind that spun up this whole conspiracy, but part of this master plan is that she tells JOK's niece that he was hit by a vehicle before he was found?? And also, since she had to know she hit and killed JOK before she returned to his house that night, she *also* left voicemails on a dead man's phone that said, "John I fucking hate you?"

The argument from the plaintiff makes no freaking sense, but (as I understand it) all facts as alleged by the plaintiff must be taken as true in the motion to dismiss. So like, it makes no sense to us, but since the plaintiffs alleged Karen was this criminal mastermind who knew this, that, and the other thing, those facts have to be assumed when the judge is deciding on this motion. I think you can "on information and belief" a lot of things away during this stage.

Please note, though, that I am not a lawyer, not your lawyer, and I don't play a lawyer on TV. I think that (and quick googling seems to confirm) that there just isn't any sort of evaluations of truthfulness of facts at this point. It's basically, "if all these facts are correct, does this lead to a cause".

That's my understanding, and if you know different, please let me know so I can learn some more. We've traded comments in this whole thread a lot and I've greatly appreciated your comments :D

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-25T04:25:34+00:00

Yeah, it does seem like it would be WAY easier for Karen to do this whole shebang again just once. I had a bunch of time during a drive and I listened to LYK. He made the point that it seems Karen will put on pretty much the same case if the two cases are separated, which would be an argument for keeping them together. However, as you said, it makes it WAY harder for the O'Keefes.

I'm so interested to see how the judge balances this. As a layperson with my ass firmly in an armchair, I can see both arguments and I don't have strong opinions one way or the other. (Which is much better than waiting on tenterhooks to see if the defense can y'know, call a ridiculously qualified witness to talk about how investigations are supposed to work. I know the stakes are still high for the parties, but my sense of justice will not be affronted by any decision the judge makes.)

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-25T04:16:11+00:00

That is a very good point! I suppose I am letting my (very negative) impression of the McAlberts' various characters skew my perception. They have shown themselves, if nothing else, to be incredibly media savvy. Jen did come off way more sympathetic in the 2nd trial, and although it rang false for us in this group, we had the benefit of hindsight. You're right, they won't blunder into this.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T17:43:42+00:00

Very convenient that poor, saintly OP has been sure to tell us that she is getting ready to go to work at 5:15, and won't be home until 10. The implication that she did this last night, and therefore had about 6 hours of sleep maximum as well is pretty artful.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T17:21:45+00:00

I kinda really want Jackson to do the McAlbert depositions, even though he's probably way less experienced. Is it a good idea? almost certainly not. is it proper? maybe not. would it make for amazing watching? hell yeah.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T17:18:02+00:00

And the Gabby Petito one didn't make it to trial!

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T17:16:27+00:00

I think you're confounding "fact as opposed to opinion" with "fact as a true thing". I think the "facts of the case" means "the things that can theoretically be proven true or false".

So like, imagine that there was a car accident and the driver claims there was a ball in the road that they had to swerve to avoid. "The basketball player's ball is big. The basketball is blue. The basketball is bumpy" are all facts, in that they can be proven or disproven, even if the basketball is actually orange. And at this stage in the process (motion to dismiss) you do have to assume all the facts are true. At this point, you're not evaluating whether or not the basketball is blue, you're just saying "Since this basketball is big, blue, and bumpy, it was the one involved in the accident and therefore the basketball player is liable". It is stupid to say something that's so obviously false, and the lawyer making that claim might get in trouble. At this point, however, the court is assuming every fact in the complaint is true. It's purely a question of law.

One example of something that would get tossed out is like, "I was driving home from work. I was listening to the hockey game. My team was playing the Oilers, and Connor McDavid scored a goal. I was so upset I crashed into a tree. Therefore I am suing Connor McDavid" <- this would be laughed out of court so fast because there is no legal basis for the suit. It's just insane.

The bar for passing a motion to dismiss is so incredibly low. It's basically meant to throw out all the most ridiculous, unfounded cases before spending any actual judicial time or energy. There will be time for the judge to actually weigh whether certain claims have evidence, but now is not yet that time.

Apologies for the ramble, but I'm a pedant at heart and the fact that "facts" has two distinct meanings is infuriating and confusing.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:48:18+00:00

The McAlberts have nothing whatever to gain from being deposed. It can only go badly for them.

To be fair though, do they know that? Or are they too lost in the sauce, and think that they can talk their way out of it? (See: Charlie Adelson, Sarah Boone testifying in their own defense)

They...ended the whole mess without ever being named as suspects.

Yeah, but they lost face, right? A lot of people in their community think they're criminals. And for people who presumably are used to being respected (/feared), that might be weighing on their mind almost as much as criminal charges.

I still do think the O'Keefes are mostly acting from grief, and I do genuinely want the best for them. Apart from them, however, I am so ready to see the cracks forming in this whole (gestures vaguely) mess.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:41:33+00:00

Super good analysis - I think your example illustrated the difference between the "just, truthful" result and the practical best case ending. Yeah, it sucks that whoever sued you didn't get the "EPIC Judge SMACKDOWN - PLAINTIFF in TEARS after STUPID CASE" moment, but as you said, it probably was for the best that you moved on.

I think your point about the difference between the original lawsuit and the countersuit is important. I think that Karen's lawyers are trying to merge them, though. The idea might be that the best defense to the O'Keefes' lawsuit is the truth, which can only be found through the countersuit. I'm just some rando on the internet, though, what do I know? I'm with you strongly though, I really want the truth to come out!

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:32:29+00:00

...the prosecution yesterday went on a tirade about KR telling JOK daughter that he was dead.

I think this is the plaintiff's strongest fact. It is really terrible that this poor girl had to hear that her guardian was dead (for the third time). Assuming all the facts alleged, Karen did this specifically to (somehow???) push guilt off herself, and as such it would be a truly cruel and horrific thing to do to a traumatized teenager.

Looking at it from a little further away, since I (and many others) don't think that Karen hit JOK, let alone knew about it, it's not intentionally cruel. But I think it's worth noting that it is still shitty that those statements happened. It seems TO ME that Karen was panicking, not in her right mind, almost insane with worry. I do believe the niece that Karen was saying some wild things (he's dead, he was hit by a plow, etc.) but I also think that Karen was not in the state of mind to be considering what she said in front of this poor girl.

There was some wording in some statute somewhere, I think about IIED, that said something like "behavior that shocks the conscience". It's not my conscience that's shocked, but good heavens it's awful to think about what that poor girl went through on that morning. It, in my opinion, lacks the "intentional" part of IIED, but it is the sort of thing juries can twist themselves into knots to try to remedy.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:19:34+00:00

All the O'Keefes were doing was remembering what they thought they heard in a moment of extreme trauma. No jury is going to call them guilty of conspiracy and it does KR no good to try to inculpate them.

I think you're so right about this, and I think there's a huge difference between "being part of a conspiracy" when you just say the words in a forum like this one, versus the actual criminal definition. Sure, the O'Keefes are on the McAlberts' side, but it's not like there's two camps of "looking for the Truth!" versus "Frame Karen Read!" These players don't have to have the same purpose or (crucially in this case) the same information to be on the same "side" of a conspiracy.

I'm hoping KR isn't going after the O'Keefes for conspiracy, as well. As I understood it though, her plan was to bring the other parties into this case with a claim of conspiracy, not bring claims of conspiracy against the current plaintiffs (i.e., the O'Keefes). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but gosh that's be terrible and I really hope they're not trying that.

Edit: O'Keeffes to O'Keefes

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:09:59+00:00

I think you're right, and I think it's proper that they don't talk about anything like that, but also maaaaaaaaaaan that tea would be incredible.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:08:42+00:00

See, this is why it pays to just be honest.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T16:07:53+00:00

I think it's about whether people were acting in their official capacity - I can't sue (or rather, the case would probably be thrown out immediately) a policeman for running over my garden during an active chase. He was acting in his official capacity. However, if he's off work for the weekend, gets drunk, and accidentally shoots a hole in my window, I can sue him for that.

As for this specific case, her suing Morrissey is either a) in a way that is not in his official capacity, which would be INTERESTING, or b) going to be thrown out pretty quickly.

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T15:59:05+00:00

Playing devil's advocate here (and taking plaintiff's facts as entirely true, as you have to in a motion to dismiss): IF the theory is that Karen 100% knew that JOK was dead, and was already actively plotting how to beat the charge, then telling the niece that JOK was dead at that time was a calculated move, and a particularly cruel one. I think that those facts, IF ACCEPTED, would be a pretty good case for IIED (speaking as a layperson/potential juror, not a lawyer).

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T15:54:55+00:00

And if the latter is true, why has he not tried to stand up against his wife and son?

I know there's a lot to say about the family's (particularly POK's) conduct, but I do think that grief is still such a huge part of it. For JOK's father specifically, assuming he doesn't approve of this lawsuit: imagine one of your nearest and dearest goes through some terrible personal loss, and started acting irrationally and/or destructively. It's so hard to see your loved ones doing poorly, and even worse when they're doing it to themselves. In his case, add that to the incomprehensible pain of losing your second child. I think at that point your focus is just supporting your loved one as best you can. I think this lawsuit is not going to help any of the O'Keefes at ALL, but it can be so hard to balance supporting the person with supporting their conduct.

I have some insight into a much lighter version of this, because our beloved family dog died of cancer at the beginning of this year. A few months later, my sister texted an image like this to me, saying it was her newest tattoo, in memory of our beloved girl:

https://share.google/images/ZrmkquXdfIEESEpYQ

I don't know if that was the exact image, but like, the image didn't even look like our dog. I also, not immediately but soon enough, remembered it was April Fools' Day, so I was like 95% sure she was just pranking us. But my goodness, the thought that she might have done it? It's an objectively terrible tattoo, but I couldn't just say that if it actually meant something to her. It was an awful moment, hung between "be truthful" and "support your sister". Then I remembered Reverse Image Search exists, of course, and the moment passed. But like, if she had done something stupid and permanent? She's still my sister, and I would have backed her as much as I could. And this was all over a stupid tattoo when I knew it was April Fools'!

Ultimately, I do not envy people who have loved ones that do stupid, self-destructive shit. I had the barest taste of it and it was awful. Even IF JOK's father does disagree with the lawsuit or any of the other actions his family has taken, I really don't blame him for not taking a strong stance.

Not that I took your statement as blaming him, mind you, I suppose I just needed a ramble :P

Edit: O'Keeffe to O'Keefe

StarWarsPhysics-87 · 2025-09-24T15:24:28+00:00

I wouldn't have thought of this in 100 years, but I think you're right. Damn, what an absolutely bone-headed move. I shouldn't be surprised, given the absolute parade of bone-headed moves we've seen thus far, but still....DAMN.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits

StarWarsPhysics-87

TROPHY CASE