VERDICT WATCH MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #15

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
<modsnip - quoted post was reamoved>

I asked yesterday if any journalists had been live tweeting from jury selection - not sure if that’s allowed or what. But I swear I’ve seen trials before where we know things about some jurors but obviously we don’t see them and don’t know who has x profession, etc.

Defense would’ve tried to avoid getting anyone like that on the jury but unless for cause, they only have so many peremptory challenges. It would be something the CW would really like, though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
arielilane said:
It should have never gone to trial without substantial evidence against the defendant to present in a court of law.
Way too lengthy of a trial and way too much reasonable doubt. Overload of unnecessary info. Too much to retain and go thru. moo

It is interesting that CA wasn't mentioned in AJ's closing - I'll wait to be corrected. TIA
I know closing arguments are not evidence.
moo

:)
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing too! (re CA). I also was surprised he didn’t get into BA and BH “butt dials” (eye rolls) - unless I missed it. Moo
 
<modsnip - quoted post was removed because it was a rumor>

I still don't see why the jury has to believe in a conspiracy or frame up in order to find kR ng. There was a mountain of evidence to create reasonable doubt that JO could have been hit by a vehicle and that is what the cw failed to prove BARD. That evidence certainly has to somehow be disregarded to come to a conclusion that KR is guilty. jmo

ETA on juries vs the general public

To me jurors as opposed to the general population are charged with the most important and serious duties to look at the evidence at trial and set aside any personal attitudes, prejudice and bias and apply to it the test of reasonable doubt. If evidence is ignored and disregarded then I don't believe a jury reaches a verdict through applying reason to evidence. I intend no offence. And all of my comments are speculations related to the jury who are charged with serious duities not at anyone with opinions who differ from mine on this thread. None of us are on this jury.Moo
 
Last edited:
jepop said:
I still don't see why the jury has to believe in a conspiracy or frame up in order to find JR ng. There was a mountain of evidence to create reasonable doubt that JO could have been hit by a vehicle and that is what the cw failed to prove BARD. That evidence certainly has to somehow be disregarded to come to a conclusion that KR is guilty. jmo
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no proof at all that he died from being hit by ANY car. Case closed. I don't get what this jury is not seeing (or at least one of them). Crazy!
 
LaineyJ said:
<modsnip - quoted post was reamoved>

I asked yesterday if any journalists had been live tweeting from jury selection - not sure if that’s allowed or what. But I swear I’ve seen trials before where we know things about some jurors but obviously we don’t see them and don’t know who has x profession, etc.

Defense would’ve tried to avoid getting anyone like that on the jury but unless for cause, they only have so many peremptory challenges. It would be something the CW would really like, though.
Click to expand...

I find it odd as well. There are RUMORS that have been posted here about the makeup of the jury, but nobody seems to have found anything in MSM that supports the rumors (and of course, we get rid of those :))
 
mzmarymac said:
Wondering if the definition of "reasonable doubt" needs to be read to the jury. When you're deadlocked, there probably some reasonable doubt.

www.law.cornell.edu

beyond a reasonable doubt

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict."
Click to expand...
I think I'd now be asking the G's to defend how they are dismissing every single reasonable explanation and scientifically supported evidence offered by the defense point by point that the NG's unanimously support, to leave them with absolutely zero doubt of guilt. 99% sure of guilt is still a not guilty vote, before one even checks their moral compass. I just don't understand how anyone can look at the evidence and not see that the investigation was wholly incompetent, possibly compromised, lacking a full crime scene investigation and still not have a sliver of doubt. I cannot imagine this being retried given what has come out in court, and also what hasn't that should have been and could be added in round two. If they pursue charges against her again it better be after an entirely new investigation by an outside agency (hello FBI) with new findings. One of those party goers will eventually spill the beans, and I'd start with the young ones. Hoping for NG today, or at worst hung and then dismissed all charges. Then feel free to charge her with drunk driving, because that charge she deserves to face. Someone else is responsible (or two, or three, or all of those present at 34) IMO and deserve some interrogation and JO deserves justice. This is a case where I really wish I had psychic capabilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 102 more.
Total: 2,338 (members: 103, guests: 2,235)

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
2,235
Total visitors
2,338
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,021
Messages
18,117,313
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top