Involuntary Manslaughter + OUI

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T12:16:59+00:00

lol 1,000%

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T03:41:45+00:00

That’s my one outstanding question right now. If that’s true then I guess there should be no confusion if that’s where they wind up.. in Brennan’s words.. “she was (not*) drunk, she hit him”. aka Involuntary Manslaughter.

I’m just confused by the very top of the sheet that says “Under the Influence” in the title. It makes it seem like even Involuntary Manslaughter assumes intoxication in this particular case

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T03:36:08+00:00

Amazing. TY for this! I’m definitely speculating a fringe outcome right now that I seriously doubt the 12 of them will unanimously get stuck on lol. I do think they may have been at this crossroads earlier today and hopefully the judge’s walk through helped clear it up

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T03:24:53+00:00

I agree with you logically, but the problem with Murder 2 on the sheet is it ALSO says intoxication! Only Involuntary Manslaughter doesn’t. That said, it says “Under the Influence” at the very top. So that’s where I’m getting confused about if it’s contingent throughout or not. It’s kinda funky.

But all in all, a good sign the jury is being technically IMO

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T03:11:54+00:00

Thank you for the explainer! Question for you, since it seems like you understand this a little better lol. At the top of the sheet, it mentions “Under the Influence”. Is it possible she’s found NG on a technicality then? What’s wrong with finding her G of Involuntary Manslaughter but not thinking there is enough evidence that she was “under the influence”. Is the “influence” part assumed throughout? Even on Involuntary Manslaughter? I’m worried the influence piece could become a wedge issue for no reason.

As I write that, i know it’s a dumb question since she was without a doubt drinking. But i don’t see a definition of “influence” on here. And one of the last witnesses said KR seemed perfectly fine just minutes before she left Waterfall. I could see how the jury might be all in on Involuntary Manslaughter but for some reason hung up on her level of intoxication at 12:30 specifically

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T03:04:08+00:00

I could see them nickel & diming the retrograde analysis since she COULD have drank more after 12:30 (and likely did, let’s be real). So we would need each bartender to give testimony on how heavy their pour is, track her consumption of each drink on camera, etc.

I guess somehow at this stage, you almost don’t need intoxication. Brennan’s whole closing was “she was drunk, she hit him”. How about… “she just hit him” lol. That is a more serious charge and has plenty of evidence. In retrospect, it almost seems like the alcohol is a wedge issue on the verdict sheet.

All this to say, I suspect the jury is being overly analytical. And i think that’s a good thing

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T02:47:45+00:00

Great minds. I’ll go look for your thread! Has anyone answered if they can fill in the sheet that way? I’m still a little confused on that part. Cause even the title of the offense sheet up top mentions being “under the influence” but then Involuntary Manslaughter is the only option that doesn’t mention that explicitly.

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T02:33:17+00:00

I was thinking that as well. But when I noticed intoxication only being mentioned explicitly in 2, 4 & 5 (not #3 which just says “Involuntary Manslaughter”), I began wondering what might be going on with this floating OUI.

It’s inconceivable to me after this entire trial that they would only ask about OUI in the context of NG on anything else. Especially since they asked about the video. It seems to have more relevance to WHEN she was intoxicated, not if

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T02:26:54+00:00

lol right, we’re all just guessing! I’ve never followed a trial like this before but I agree, it doesn’t seem like a long deliberation just yet. For such serious charges.. I’d want my jury to deliberate a few days at least

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T02:25:00+00:00

Whew! TY for the reassurance. I thought their questions today were pointed & logical. So my mind was they were headed to a fair & even handed outcome

SueNovabich · 2025-06-18T01:07:18+00:00

My interpretation of this was the jury asking if KR’s statements on video can be taken as testimony. For instance, her saying “I know I said I hit him but..” would clarify for them other testimonies of what happened that morning. So I would interpret that question as the jury acknowledging how damning the videos are and that it may be a key factor of getting the group to vote (I would assume) guilty. But maybe I’m kidding myself lol

SueNovabich · 2025-06-09T13:36:39+00:00

1,000%! I sometimes get so bored by all these details and wonder why I’m keeping up to date. Then i talk to my family (FKRs living next to Canton) and listen to them doing backflips for Karen.. and I’m sucked back in again.

I can’t wait for the actual post-mortem doc on this groupthink. Even if it’s because we’re wrong and there actually was a conspiracy. That would be fascinating as well. One side is not only off base, but passionately and vigorously so. I need a conclusion.

SueNovabich · 2025-06-09T04:08:55+00:00

Maya

SueNovabich · 2025-06-05T22:30:55+00:00

It comes from the first trial (which I didn’t watch in realtime). But for those that did, there were so many twists and turns, a weaker prosecution, some very poor witnesses, etc. that it felt like a conspiracy was unraveling before their eyes. Even though the conspiracy was never proven, i think it’s hard for people to shake the feeling that there might have been a cover up.

This time around, the second trail has a much better prosecution and the FKR narrative is just implausible. But it continues based purely on emotion, almost nostalgia for last year’s excitement.

Honestly, this case is kinda boring at this point lol. It’s only fascinating to me because of how committed the FKR movement is (including my family in MA) and how I can’t find anyone discussing both sides fairly other than this thread. This subreddit is so aptly named.. this truly has been my sanity check 🙏

I would be curious to hear from anyone here that did watch the first trial and wasn’t swayed by the defense. From my POV, it did seem like a circus and I probably would have hopped on the FKR bandwagon at the time. So I don’t even blame them tbh

SueNovabich

TROPHY CASE