- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Karen Read murder trial - Not guilty on main - guilty of OUI(DUI) only
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:01 am to civiltiger07
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:01 am to civiltiger07
quote:
However, the CW has pointed out a few times already in trail 2 that "all of Officer John O'Keefe's injuries were on the right side of his body". I wonder if their theory will be slightly different for this trail?
I think they are trying to get at the fact that if it was a fight and then a dog also got involved that there would be wounds to both sides of the body.
I'm not sure how they intend to explain the lacerations and swelling to the face since they have to say the strike came from the back of the arm.
0
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:04 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
Hitting a moving target (or stationary), who is presumably facing the car, at 24 mph, in reverse, on purpose, while drunk,.....
is a tough thing to do....
I don't believe that they are saying that he was facing the car. And it depends on where the object is that you are trying to hit. If the object is directly behind the car and all you have to do is step on the gas and hold the steering wheel straight, that's not that tough...
quote:
Dandy Chiggins
You keep posting a lot of things as factual statements that aren't actually true.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 10:07 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:24 am to LSBoosie
I'm assuming everyone at the after party were all parked in the driveway and none of them on the street?
Is the state presuming OJO went in for "10 mins" then came out, had a fight with KR, she pulled up enough distance to floor it in reverse, get up to 24mph then run him over?
Prosecution has no idea what killed that man.
Is the state presuming OJO went in for "10 mins" then came out, had a fight with KR, she pulled up enough distance to floor it in reverse, get up to 24mph then run him over?
Prosecution has no idea what killed that man.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:29 am to civiltiger07
quote:Don't you hate it that spellcheck doesn't catch trail?
that was the claim in the first trail.
However, the CW has pointed out a few times already in trail 2 that "all of Officer John O'Keefe's injuries were on the right side of his body". I wonder if their theory will be slightly different for this trail?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:32 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Is the state presuming OJO went in for "10 mins" then came out, had a fight with KR, she pulled up enough distance to floor it in reverse, get up to 24mph then run him over?
No the prosecution says he never went in the house.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:33 am to AlxTgr
This is one busy damn fire station next to the courthouse.. Damn
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:38 am to LSBoosie
quote:
You keep posting a lot of things as factual statements that aren't actually true.
And admit others follow it closely and admit if someone clarifies it for me.
I’m not a juror. I’m casually discussing a trial I’m interested in on a message board.
Feel free to skip over my posts.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:46 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
And admit others follow it closely and admit if someone clarifies it for me.
I’m not a juror. I’m casually discussing a trial I’m interested in on a message board.
Feel free to skip over my posts.
I don't mind you casually discussing the case, but you are posting things that aren't true as if you know them to be true. If you don't know something, that's fine, but don't act as if it's fact. I would skip over your posts if you were stating an opinion. But when you say things like "KR was in the driveway. Both sides testified to that." it confuses other people in this thread. You are stating something that is completely false. You literally just made that up.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 10:50 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:00 am to LSBoosie
quote:
I don't mind you casually discussing the case, but you are posting things that aren't true as if you know them to be true. If you don't know something, that's fine, but don't act as if it's fact. I would skip over your posts if you were stating an opinion. But when you say things like "KR was in the driveway. Both sides testified to that." it confuses other people in this thread. You are stating something that is completely false. You literally just made that up.
I'll try and keep your rules in mind for future posts...
Sorry I used "In driveway" instead of "in front of the house". It does make a difference.
Here are some other quotes from my posts:
"I must have missed that"
"certainly open to interpretation"
"I'm guessing it was the defense.?"
"You seem to know it pretty well"
I clearly admit I'm a casual follower, that I'm guessing, that others know more...etc...
So please go pick a message board fight with someone else. A cursory review of my posts shows I'm clearly not claiming to be some expert on this trial and admit other know more about this.
Its an internet message board dude....I don't take it too seriously. Sorry you do.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:08 am to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
I'll try and keep your rules in mind for future posts...
I'm not over here trying to make rules for this thread. Surely you can understand how you saying that both sides testified to something that is the opposite of what they actually testified to is confusing right? There are many others in this thread that are in your same situation and haven't followed along super closely. So when you post things that simply aren't true, it confuses them.
quote:
Here are some other quotes from my posts:
"I must have missed that"
"certainly open to interpretation"
"I'm guessing it was the defense.?"
"You seem to know it pretty well"
That's great. I would recommend using more language like that. That are several people in this thread that are willing to help you with the facts, inluding me.
quote:
I clearly admit I'm a casual follower, that I'm guessing, that others know more...etc...
So please go pick a message board fight with someone else. A cursory review of my posts shows I'm clearly not claiming to be some expert on this trial and admit other know more about this.
Its an internet message board dude....I don't take it too seriously. Sorry you do.
I'm not taking it too seriously. I'm simply asking you to not post made up things as if they are fact. I don't understand why you think that's a crazy request.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:12 am to LSBoosie
Alan Jackson is a master of redirect.
I thought Kerry Roberts came off as an honest witness on direct and he's destroying her
ETA-- Brennan is pretty damn good too..
I thought Kerry Roberts came off as an honest witness on direct and he's destroying her
ETA-- Brennan is pretty damn good too..
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 11:30 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:14 pm to JDPndahizzy
Apply the razor to this,
Tiktok of opening re: Higgins and Albert.
Tiktok of opening re: Higgins and Albert.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:31 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
That's great. I would recommend using more language like that.
So the recommendation is to use "more" of the language I've already been using? Got it.
quote:
I'm simply asking you to not post made up things as if they are fact.
Use "in front of house" instead of "driveway", which I already admitted was a mistake. Got it.
quote:
I'm not taking it too seriously. I'm simply asking you to not post made up things as if they are fact. I don't understand why you think that's a crazy request
I'm certainly not going to fact check my memory against the trial transcripts before posting to a tigerdroppings thread; so again, feel free to skip over my posts. Or continue to have a weird boner for fact checking me.
Once again, I'm no expert and have freely admitted if I've made an error and; continually add qualifiers to my posts as noted above. Hope your day gets better man.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:42 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
So the recommendation is to use "more" of the language I've already been using? Got it.
Yes, if you don't know something to be a fact, you should clarify that.
quote:
Use "in front of house" instead of "driveway", which I already admitted was a mistake. Got it.
Yes.
quote:
I'm certainly not going to fact check my memory against the trial transcripts before posting to a tigerdroppings thread; so again, feel free to skip over my posts.
You don't have to triple check trial transcripts. Where Karen's car was is a very simplistic fact of the case that doesn't require you to read through transcripts. And no, I'm not going to simply skip over posts in which you are stating incorrect claims as if they are fact. I am going to correct you, just as other have in this thread. Again, there are other people in this thread that are also learning about the case. So it's nice to have factual information presented in here. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:48 pm to LSBoosie
Its back on....
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:51 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
I'm certainly not going to fact check my memory against the trial transcripts before posting
I don't think it's a big or unreasonable ask not to present fiction as fact. i gotta side with Boosie on this one. But I'll just skip over your posts.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:52 pm to JDPndahizzy
John Okeefe Mom is on now.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:53 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
I think that ship has sailed.
Agree, it is admittance they wasted $millions of taxpayer money on a bad investigation/prosecution.
*Note: This is an opinion only, I have not checked trial transcripts; nor been provided with a cost of prosecution analysis. Please do not rely on this post. Please draw your own conclusions based on trial transcripts only. For entertainment purposes only*
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:54 pm to Dandy Chiggins
quote:
*Note: This is an opinion only, I have not checked trial transcripts; nor been provided with a cost of prosecution analysis. Please do not rely on this post. Please draw your own conclusions based on trial transcripts only. For entertainment purposes only*
Posted on 4/23/25 at 1:00 pm to LSBoosie
Y’all both need to stfu and quit cluttering the thread
Page 42 of 159
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News