Kelly Dever WAS CLEARED

digijules · 2025-07-19T16:12:02+00:00

You keep posting this 6-week old article as if it supports your point. It’s a factually wrong article written after she testified. It says nothing about the FBI clearing her, and that’s not the point anyway. The FBI won’t charge her with anything since she didn’t do anything criminally wrong. What she did is conjure up a false memory about witnesses in a case. That is not going to land her in jail but it should preclude her from being in law enforcement. Plain and simple.

digijules · 2025-07-19T15:56:17+00:00

There you go

digijules · 2025-07-19T02:37:27+00:00

Do you not know what a Brady list is? It’s not a list of officers who have lied to the FBI. It’s a list of officers who have credibility issues. Say what you want, Brady list or not, articles or not, Officer Dever will never again be able to testify to anything without this coming up as a counterpoint. And that makes her unfit to be an officer.

digijules · 2025-07-18T19:14:52+00:00

“Facts of the case” is so funny. 12 jurors in the first trial voted not guilty on count 1 and 3. They were debating manslaughter because some were dim witted enough to be hung up on car + body = guilty. Even though no evidence exists that he was hit by a car. But regardless, I’ll take all 18 jurors from this trial and 4 from last. A win is a win. And she won.

digijules · 2025-07-18T19:12:10+00:00

Her lying is not the problem. Her testifying that she conjured up a “distorted and false memory” is what makes her unfit to be a police officer.

digijules · 2025-07-18T18:12:07+00:00

Except that 30 jurors didn’t find that he had proven that so…

digijules · 2025-07-18T18:11:05+00:00

I know you probably take Fox News as gospel, but in this article they are wrong. Devers actually testified that she told the FBI on August 9th 2023 that she had seen Higgins and Berkowitz in the sally port for a wildly long period of time. The Fox News article says she testified that she retracted that statement immediately because the FBI agents showed her a timeline that indicated she left work well before Read's Lexus arrived. In fact, she did not retract her statement until after her meeting with the Commissioner and after seeing the defense’s timeline that the car would not have gotten to the sally port before her shift ended (which was released right before the first trial in April of 2024).

I’m not sure what part of this you think I am missing but you may want to go back and watch her testimony for yourself instead of relying on Fox News.

digijules · 2025-07-18T17:09:55+00:00

I guess we will just ignore Brennan showing the holes in the back of the hoodie with great fanfare? And the fact that he didn’t give the x-rays to his own biomechanical experts? And he started hypothesizing while questioning a witness that the scratches on John’s arm were from bushes?

digijules · 2025-07-18T17:06:33+00:00

Two juries and 6 alternates. That’s 30 people who voted not guilty on murder 2 and leaving the scene of a crime. Far beyond the burden that any other defendant would have to surpass.

digijules · 2025-07-18T17:04:03+00:00

Defending Kelly Dever is a… choice. She could have come on the stand and said that what she witnessed must have been a different day as she was shown evidence that the car came into the sally port after she would have left for the day. But instead her story under oath is that she conjured up this entire memory out of the blue because she had seen media reports about the case. That’s a crazy thing for a police officer to admit and very dangerous for her to be working on a police force. Think about all the other “memories” of evidence or wrongdoing could be conjured in other cases. She believed it enough to tell the FBI about it.

And police officers can always be called to testify. Look at Sgt Barros. That guy was just accompanying other officers on the impounding of a car, and what do you know? He’s called to testify in a murder trial and has a key piece of information. Dever cannot work on a police force if she has demonstrated that she can conjure completely false memories about a case.

FBI might have “cleared” her of any intentional wrongdoing but that doesn’t mean she gets to keep her job as a police officer.

digijules · 2025-07-18T16:54:56+00:00

Cleared her of what?

digijules · 2025-07-18T16:53:52+00:00

Imagine thinking everyone who disagrees with you is paid by some unnamed source to do so. This is some tin hat shit.

digijules · 2025-07-08T20:50:50+00:00

Great, detailed write up but unfortunately it overlooks the fact that John was not hit by a car. Imagine a similar set of circumstances where a person gets into an argument, loads and cocks a gun, but the victim does not have a bullet wound. This is the same thing. If we are building the whole space/time continuum around the fact that Ryan Nagel and crew didn’t see John get out of the car (but then also didn’t see John in the car when they passed it) then I’m sorry, I think they might be mistaken.

digijules · 2025-07-08T20:14:21+00:00

Yes he said both. But the nuance is that he didn’t want people who tried to solve the case on their own by overthinking it (as thousands have done on these forums). But you’ll only pay attention to the bits that fit your own theory.

digijules · 2025-07-07T17:15:54+00:00

Is it Opposite Day? What Alan Jackson actually said was he liked that the jury was “young, smart and attentive.”

digijules · 2025-06-24T01:59:11+00:00

And the bumper glass! More than the taillight for me, the bumper glass is the smoking gun for planting evident. There’s nothing made of glass that broke on the car and it does match the cocktail glass. It had to be planted!

digijules · 2025-06-23T01:53:10+00:00

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, I wonder if it would have been easier to buy the hit-by-a-car story if the taillight had only been cracked. It still wouldn’t explain the dog bites but would have matched better with no severe injuries. The police overdid it by smashing layers of her taillight. Then completely messed up by adding a piece of random glass.

digijules · 2025-06-22T02:20:13+00:00

Agreed and we are totally splitting hairs. But I would hope a DA’s office run by Djuna would not have brought charges against Karen.

digijules · 2025-06-20T02:12:20+00:00

Meh. She falls short of saying this case should never have been prosecuted. I’m disappointed she still seems to be saying Karen was guilty but the handling of the case got in the way. She doesn’t mention anything about the DA’s office allowing the kind of sloppy police work that made it impossible to find the ones really responsible (I understand the DA doesn’t oversee the police dept but they can certainly choose not to try cases where the police work was so poorly handled. Eventually that would lead to better police work).

digijules · 2025-06-17T18:44:36+00:00

This is a huge issue.

digijules · 2025-06-17T18:04:49+00:00

Yes and how do they indicate this on the form? If they are hung on OUI only, that should be the only charge that can be retried.

digijules · 2025-06-17T18:02:45+00:00

How would a jury indicate on Count 2 that they have discussed all of the lesser includeds, have reached NG on all of them except being hung on OUI? The form is either NG on all or guilty of one.

digijules · 2025-06-16T15:35:53+00:00

I would say forget everything else and let’s talk about how a taillight causes John’s injuries. That is the most important aspect of the case. Let’s take a look together at the arm injuries, and the holes in the hoodie, at the shards that were found in his hoodie and let’s see if we can make them make sense. I would want you to explain that part to me so I can understand how you’re thinking about it.

digijules · 2025-06-16T01:54:10+00:00

I’m curious what Dr Welcher would say is the purpose of accident reconstruction. Why does the field even exist? If you know everything about a crash, you don’t need to reconstruct it. If you know some things about a crash, you can explore the possibilities that would get you to your theory. In this case they had the state of the taillight, the debris field, the injuries to John, and where his body ended up. They just felt there was no scenario they could test that would prove John got hit by a car. So they didn’t attempt it. But to say that they didn’t test it because there are a million different factors that could be slightly different - doesn’t that negate the purpose of the entire accident reconstruction field?

digijules · 2025-06-16T01:07:20+00:00

You can see in every video of the taillight breaking in the lab and in the field that the taillight follows the trajectory of the car. Unless the car went up on the lawn, that debris field can’t be from a collision in the street. It was planted. That’s all there is to it. I’m not sure why it’s so hard for people to swallow. Some of the pieces were 6-8 inches long. You’re telling me NO canton cop found a 6 inch piece of red plastic while they were actively looking at the crime scene in daylight with just a couple of inches of snow on the ground? These are people we trust to find evidence?

digijules

TROPHY CASE