Old Bev needs to get on this!! She either dropped the ball, or done this bs on purpose! I trust her about as much as I do JM, which is ZERO. The jury SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD and they still should!! IF their decision was NOT GUILTY, it should be respected!!!
@@Fazzel ok yet the defense team has no names no jurors have come forward… so believe the defense attorneys who will do and say whatever they need to in order to get their client free
IF they all said Not Guilty on Count #3, they COULDN'T say she was Guilty on Count #2. I suspect the "intoxicated" part of Charge #2 is what led to confusion. OR the Jury was FIXED somehow. By "stacking" the jury, which means dismissing jurors thought to be leaning toward Acquittal and replacing them with pro-prosecution jurors. This was done by Defense manipulation in the OJ Simpson trial back in 1995. THIS TIME, it required the Judge and the Clerk. OR someone "got to" one or more jurors. Keep in mind that these Jurors weren't sequestered during the trial NOR during Deliberation. It'd also include the BLATANT Jury Intimidation during Closing Arguments. NO ETHICAL JUDGE would've allowed it.
Are you kidding did you watch this trial because the judge hated the defense and wouldn't let them clarify those charges, or how to fill out the form. This has to be one of the most horrific judges I've ever seen in my life in action
That was a strange ; the verdict sounded the jury was a hung jury on all charges wasn’t the foreman suppose to have explained the count in detail. Not sure myself. The biggest charge was eliminated. We did not know that til much later.
These dirty people if they did not think of Blaming Karen read.. they would of picked on Lucky as a victim of their false Blaming. Lucky the Plow driver.
@@zigfriedsmother Not at all, as "would've" is the correct contracted form of "would" and "have." Although "would've" and "would of" are phonetically similar, they're vastly different parts of speech.
