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
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karen was NOT ALLOWED to attend his funeral. There was a condition of her bail stating she was not allowed to contact his family,
After watching his family interact with her in court, and hearing interviews they've given, and seeing that she wasn't even allowed to go to the funeral, it makes me wonder how they'd treat someone they didn't like from the get? They reportedly were fond of her. SMH The brothers hatred of KR seems almost out of control. MOO
 
From his perspective, completely understandable. Not only did KR kill his brother, but her defense also tried to unabashedly slander and frame a bunch of innocent people for the murder.

Whatever words he used probably aren't vile enough to describe his feelings towards her. Again, from his perspective.
It's understandable to harass someone in court?
He can have emotions, but is still reponsible for his actions.
 
After watching his family interact with her in court, and hearing interviews they've given, and seeing that she wasn't even allowed to go to the funeral, it makes me wonder how they'd treat someone they didn't like from the get? They reportedly were fond of her. SMH The brothers hatred of KR seems almost out of control. MOO
Agreed - pathoogical. Seething anger/hatred - everyday like he was going to explode. I'd be afraid of vigilante justice.
There are many things I wonder about and suspect but I'll save those thoughts for another forum as I would run afoul of tos.
JMO
 
I can't imagine with ALL of the negative attention Canton and the cw faced during this trial they will want to put on an even bigger circus that another trial will bring! Their entire PD has crucified by the rest of the country. People who don't even live in the same town, let alone state are live streaming their public board meetings and are enraged out the goings on in that town. Who wants that again? I would think they would want to distance themselves from this FIASCO as quickly as possible, and make no qualms about it, this trial was an absolute FIASCO that garnered international attention. Another trial will make this look like a kindergarten play.

Then there is this itty bitty little FBI investigation into the Canton PD and State Police. Who knows what that's going to uncover?? There's this whole other case going on concerning police misconduct in the Sandra Birchmore case with some of the same players involved.

I think re-trying this case would be a huge mistake.

Looking at some things on the internet..Conviction rates drop following a hung jury. Even if this trial had ended in a guilty verdict, I think there was more than enough evidence of misconduct by the judge and lying witnesses that the verdict would have been overturned on appeal.

This case is dead. Proctor and his abortion of an investigation insured it. JO was forgotten about and somebody killed him. I just don't think that person(s) responsible was on trial here.
 
I'm not sure how to interpret this: "The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principals and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile, and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs."

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. I'm a DP case, jurors are asked if they can put aside any convictions against the DP and render that judgement if the accused is found guilty.

It seems to me that the questionnaires do not do a good job of uncovering those who have a bias for guilt. That should be addressed, imo.
 
exactly - its totally strategic imo. They state they "intend" to retry.
I intend to do a lot of things but then ...I don't
JMO
CW WAS ready to go with the statement....they knew since the first note where this was going. Bearing in mind they know the split by now my guess is not just one or two. Based on the split they will try again.
 
You just agreed with me. I never said they HAD to speak; I said the judge can't put restrictions on them speaking after a mistrial is declared because the jury is released from duty.
Read my original comment and your reply. You said "She can't". That is wrong. the judge can give instructions saying you can talk if you want. But she chose not to. This is my last comment on this.
 
I can't imagine with ALL of the negative attention Canton and the cw faced during this trial they will want to put on an even bigger circus that another trial will bring! Their entire PD has crucified by the rest of the country. People who don't even live in the same town, let alone state are live streaming their public board meetings and are enraged out the goings on in that town. Who wants that again? I would think they would want to distance themselves from this FIASCO as quickly as possible, and make no qualms about it, this trial was an absolute FIASCO that garnered international attention. Another trial will make this look like a kindergarten play.

Then there is this itty bitty little FBI investigation into the Canton PD and State Police. Who knows what that's going to uncover?? There's this whole other case going on concerning police misconduct in the Sandra Birchmore case with some of the same players involved.

I think re-trying this case would be a huge mistake.

Looking at some things on the internet..Conviction rates drop following a hung jury. Even if this trial had ended in a guilty verdict, I think there was more than enough evidence of misconduct by the judge and lying witnesses that the verdict would have been overturned on appeal.

This case is dead. Proctor and his abortion of an investigation insured it. JO was forgotten about and somebody killed him. I just don't think that person(s) responsible was on trial here.
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT with you on all of this !!
JMO
 
Read my original comment and your reply. You said "She can't". That is wrong. the judge can give instructions saying you can talk if you want. But she chose not to. This is my last comment on this.
That's not an order from a judge. It's judge telling the jury they can NOW speak publicly. It's the judge RELEASING the jury from prior restrictions. Jury instructions are not legally binding after the jury has been released.
 
I didn't vote in the survey, because I think it needs to be clearer what it's asking.

Are you asking us if we were a jury member would we vote for G or NG?

Or if we personally think she did it (= G) or didn't do it (=NG).

The former is NG, 100%. I don't think the state proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not even close. So no question on that.

Do I think she did it? Not sure, but I think it's unlikely.

The purpose of the poll is solely to gauge your individual thoughts on whether she caused JOK's death.
Not what you would vote on a jury. I might see if it can be edited to reflect that.
Thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
2,813
Total visitors
2,981

Forum statistics

Threads
602,681
Messages
18,145,150
Members
231,486
Latest member
CourtKnee
Back
Top