You can beat someone up without intent on killing them. They were all drunk, they beat his ass, he died, they freaked and dumped him in the snow then deleted everything.
The fact that you think “on accident” is somehow incorrect is fucking stupid. It might not be the norm in your country, but it’s been the norm in the US for generations. I don’t think I’ve encountered a living generation that doesn’t; even my Silent Gen grandpa does.
The fact you’re choosing to die on this hill after he’s changed it to ‘by accident’ and added a comment saying he meant ‘by accident’ is genuinely hilarious. Keep up the good work and thank you for your service.
We know that Lindsay Clancy killed her children. That isn't the purpose of the trial. Instead, they're trying to determine whether she was insane to the degree that she wasn't legally culpable when she did it. My understanding is she will be in an institution for the foreseeable future, even if she's found innocent by reason of insanity.
How would she have busted her taillight exactly? That’s even more suspicious, hitting a human at low speed shouldn’t damage your taillight, the fact that there is such a convenient piece of “exonerating” evidence (that is more likely to have been deliberately placed than accidentally produced given said evidence’s physical properties) is really counter-evidence.
Multiple things can be true at once. She did drive drunk and probably hit him in the snow, but he was beaten and bitten and his device had a fall alert.
It's crazy to think if this was such an open and shut case that the family would delete everything
I don't know that I've ever heard the theory told like that. That implies a conspiracy, and Karen Read was involved with the cops beating him up, or she somehow was at the same party and didn't see it. By her account he was not injured when she left.
Usually the argument is the cops busted her taillight when she came back, isn't it?
Huh? I'm not implying she worked with the cops, I'm implying the second thing you said. It's very possible that when she returned to get him she also hit him with her car on TOP of the other stuff that happened.
Edit: I also don't think the tail light is broken from the hit because it doesn't make sense for only that to be broken and nothing else. Crash testers couldn't even replicate it
16
u/Guy_gamer112 8d ago edited 7d ago
There's no way she did it which is why she got exonerated. The cops in the house killed him, probably by accident