Quote:
Originally Posted by ithos
The 12 jurors and alternatives clearly disagree. Almost all were interviewed and said they believed she was innocent, not merely Not Guilty. There is an avalanche of evidence proving that John O'keefe entered the house. But in the second trial the lawyers focus was narrowed to just meeting the low bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
You still continue to avoid explaing how a impact with a SUV causes scratches without leaving any bruises.
|
The Karen Reed trial still gets at least an hour of TV coverage, every night in Boston. Her lawyers were being interviewed tonight.
It's clear the Prosecution was out classed, despite spending $1,000,000+, just for the "heavy hitter" (Hank Brennan) they brought in. Such spending is needed, when you have a case, based on facts and evidence.
One issue her defense attorneys both brought up, was the issue of Read being "over charged". If O'Keefe wasn't a Boston Police Officer, she would have been charged with Vehicular Homicide and made a deal. The Prosecutors bit off way more than they could chew and they paid for it.
As for Aiden, I don't always like his approach, but I typically agree with his targets. I was personally involved with one of his cause célèbres and he's relentless at digging up the truth and trying to help level the playing field.