MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[JenaTaoson]

I'm so angry at the judge for not clarifying this matter herself before dismissing the jury. This is supposed to be her actual job. Why was she so incurious about the results of the trial?

Inexcusable.

If I recall correctly, she told them not to come back with a verdict without the verdict form filled out. That opens a whole new can of worms and supports the defenses reasoning for why the jury form was confusing.

 

[Seattle1]

Thanks for that. BUT, what I noticed is there is a curve, no sidewalk, etc. SOOOOO, if BH parked his jeep by the mailbox, he would have parked in the street BLOCKING traffic. Now don't believe he was truthful where he parked the jeep.

Snow day, and he parked in the traffic lane????

I don't recall BH's testimony but if he allegedly parked at the mailbox, this is located right at the driveway entrance. I believe BH departed earlier than others (back to the office) and it was the Ford Edge (?) belonging to BA that was parked in the snow removal traffic lane. JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

I'm so angry at the judge for not clarifying this matter herself before dismissing the jury. This is supposed to be her actual job. Why was she so incurious about the results of the trial?

Inexcusable.

I didn't follow the trial and only read a bit after the mistrial was declared.
Peter addresses the judge and jury instructions and said (paraphrasing) from now on he will have no problem arguing with the prosecutors/ judge etc.about them...he was more specific because one would think that it's a pretty common occurrence arguing over the instructions for both sides.
For those who followed the trial his video and supporters questions should be informative and address some questions you may have.

 

[keek]

A person was running a very busy dog operation (we are talking upto 8 dogs), doggie daycare, overnight dog boarding, allegedly daily walks, bathing etc., the pickup and drop off was always from the front door. This operation was illegal or multiple reasons, but the fact is that the dog owners did not come into the house.

And they should have. It’s responsible animal ownership for many reasons.

 

[keek]

I'm so angry at the judge for not clarifying this matter herself before dismissing the jury. This is supposed to be her actual job. Why was she so incurious about the results of the trial?

Inexcusable.

She knew what she was doing the entire trial. No good

 

[keek]

I don't recall BH's testimony but if he allegedly parked at the mailbox, this is located right at the driveway entrance. I believe BH departed earlier than others (back to the office) and it was the Ford Edge (?) belonging to BA that was parked in the snow removal traffic lane. JMO

Hours later

 

[cocomod]

Wondering what kind of bush that is? Rose?

That is a much better theory than the CW presented which was basically ludicrous. However, once again, if on the jury, you would not be able to come up with that theory on your own as it wasn't presented as evidence.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Boston Herald has also reported that a fourth juror has come forth and said they would be willing to testify about the unanimous NG verdicts on Counts 1 and 2.

According to Mass Live, MA laws judges at their discretion can allow jurors to hand in verdicts they unanimously agreed on to be received and recorded even if other charges have not been agreed on. However, for Karen Read Trial Judge Cannones has directed that the verdict forms returned when all the verdicts decisions have been reached. I think as a result the NG verdicts for Count 1 and 2 were not recorded or received and eventually a mistrial was declared.

MOO based on the readings below

Was the mistrial ruling for Karen Read a mistake? What experts say

Karen Read's lawyers argued that jurors were unanimously opposed to some of the charges against her — including murder — and that retrying those charges would be double jeopardy.

www.masslive.com

Was the mistrial ruling for Karen Read a mistake? What experts say

Karen Read's lawyers argued that jurors were unanimously opposed to some of the charges against her — including murder — and that retrying those charges would be double jeopardy.

www.masslive.com

 

[Love Never Fails]

Agree. Plus, since the PHD’s did study the autopsy report, they would also believe the evidence or lack thereof of additional soft tissue injuries not visible to the naked eye on the torso which would occur with a body/vehicle impact.

I have a question. Post above says jury didn’t find her guilty on murder 2 or leaving the scene of the crime. Was she charged with murder 1?
I didn’t get to watch the trial. I am just wondering. And what charges did the jury hang on? Thank you.

 

[ShadyLady]

I don't recall BH's testimony but if he allegedly parked at the mailbox, this is located right at the driveway entrance. I believe BH departed earlier than others (back to the office) and it was the Ford Edge (?) belonging to BA that was parked in the snow removal traffic lane. JMO

He was asked several times to clarify exactly where he parked. He said the back end of jeep was slightly to left of driveway as he did not want to block driveway. Backend even with mailbox. I call foul as he would be parked in the middle of the street blocking traffic. And on a snow day??

The Edge was in the driveway, till later in the night after everyone had left, the plow guy, Lucky? saw the Edge parked where JO was found. After 3am IIRC.

BH testimony worth watching...multiple times...

 

[fluffypaste]

I have a question. Post above says jury didn’t find her guilty on murder 2 or leaving the scene of the crime. Was she charged with murder 1?
I didn’t get to watch the trial. I am just wondering. And what charges did the jury hang on? Thank you.

She was not charged with 1st-degree.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

But she said it didn't she-

This is another piece that doesn't fit the defense narrative that you have to ignore.

I don’t think her statement about seeing something is necessarily problematic or questionable because it doesn’t fit the defense’s narrative but because according to the defense she did not inform LE during the times she was interviewed, she didn’t testify this at the Grand Jury and when asked she stated she didn't mention this to BA Jr. after learning that JOK or an officer was hit on his lawn. I don’t know her personally but it seems somewhat odd that she wouldn’t ever mention this to LE considering it could have been helpful to the investigation nor did she mention it to her friend, whose family she also knows well, about what she thought saw in front of his house after she learns someone died there that night just in case it could help them or better yet the LE. She said she would have called 911 had she known someone was hurt so wouldn’t telling LE during her interview about be in line with that what she thought she saw that night? I mean she also shared her texts with JMcC so why not share that tidbit of information then also?

The Albert's were very wise to want to distance themselves from this right away-

I mean maybe they weren’t blatantly publicly engaged, but did they really keep their distance if KA, as MP testified, did help with coordinating the interviews and such even though Canton Police were recused from working on the case? JA also callef to MP’s sister over 60 times in the following months and then offers to buy MP a gift for what? Doing his job?

JMcC asked for copies of JN’s texts to her brother that night for reasons unknown or unclear but IMO still questionable

 

[fluffypaste]

Boston Herald has also reported that a fourth juror has come forth and said they would be willing to testify about the unanimous NG verdicts on Counts 1 and 2.

According to Mass Live, MA laws judges at their discretion can allow jurors to hand in verdicts they unanimously agreed on to be received and recorded even if other charges have not been agreed on. However, for Karen Read Trial Judge Cannones has directed that the verdict forms returned when all the verdicts decisions have been reached. I think as a result the NG verdicts for Count 1 and 2 were not recorded or received and eventually a mistrial was declared.

MOO based on the readings below

Was the mistrial ruling for Karen Read a mistake? What experts say

Karen Read's lawyers argued that jurors were unanimously opposed to some of the charges against her — including murder — and that retrying those charges would be double jeopardy.

www.masslive.com

Was the mistrial ruling for Karen Read a mistake? What experts say

Karen Read's lawyers argued that jurors were unanimously opposed to some of the charges against her — including murder — and that retrying those charges would be double jeopardy.

www.masslive.com

If an actual juror is willing to testify about this, then this really is getting serious. At some point, the judge will have to concede that she made a huge mess.

 

[thebedbug]

I have a question. Post above says jury didn’t find her guilty on murder 2 or leaving the scene of the crime. Was she charged with murder 1?
I didn’t get to watch the trial. I am just wondering. And what charges did the jury hang on? Thank you.

vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk. vote was apparently 8-4 to convict.

 

[BUF]

If an actual juror is willing to testify about this, then this really is getting serious. At some point, the judge will have to concede that she made a huge mess.

I agree about this is really getting serious and the mess….but just don’t think this judge will concede anything.

Let’s hope even more jurors will contact the defense about this and willing to testify and put the pressure on.

I have a feeling that July 22 hearing will be postponed….or not ever happen.

moo

 

[Universecalling]

vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk. vote was apparently 8-4 to convict.

IMO, that is disputable and shouldn’t be stated as fact.

 

[Seattle1]

I didn't follow the trial and only read a bit after the mistrial was declared.
Peter addresses the judge and jury instructions and said (paraphrasing) from now on he will have no problem arguing with the prosecutors/ judge etc.about them...he was more specific because one would think that it's a pretty common occurrence arguing over the instructions for both sides.
For those who followed the trial his video and supporters questions should be informative and address some questions you may have.

Peter is an excellent attorney, and I essentially followed this case via his trial day recaps.

In this matter of the acquitted charges, I believe the very experienced parties did not push the issue intentionally when mistrial declared because neither side wanted to know the answer.

However, relative to the Jurors who were left wondering why they were sent home when they felt like they were not finished and/or didn't understand why nobody seemed to want to know the results of their deliberations, I do hold Judge C responsible pursuant to CT Crim Rule of Proc., Rule 27-- which is specific that this is the Judge's
responsibility and requires the consent of the Judge.

IMO, no Juror should spend 7+ weeks at Trial, and sent home feeling like they were suppose to know the Trial Rules sans guidance from the Court! Especially given the consequences for the defendant where legally, I think she could very well be retried for charges she was acquitted on except for the the NG verdict never being reported and recorded on the Court record. I feel their pain and fury. JMO

In other words, it's as if it never happened.

 

[Ray_of_hope]

I couldn't help but see this as I scrolled by!

Gordon Ramsey was lucky enough to survive his accident, and therefor develop bruises. Bruises take hours/days to develop.

JO didn't survive because he died of hyperthermia first. So no bruises.

JMO

I think you mean hypothermia. Thanks.

 

[ch_13]

If I almost run you over and you hit your head on the curb while you jump out of the way, or I clip you and push you over and you hit your head, you are still guilty of manslaughter.

rsbm.

This isn't necessarily true.

It depends heavily on the particulars of each case. Every day, people are killed by automobiles and the driver is not charged with a crime. Maybe the pedestrian was jaywalking, or it was dark outside and the driver didn't see them, or the pedestrian did something unexpected and the driver didn't have sufficient time to react.

Focusing on the manslaughter charge, the commonwealth's theory is:

• The driver was reversing at 24 mph.
• The pedestrian was standing on the lawn and at some point, had his arm extended out over the roadway.
• The SUV's right rear taillight struck the pedestrian.
• The pedestrian's head hit the roadway and then his body was propelled backwards onto the lawn.
• The driver didn't realize that the pedestrian was hit.
• Several people would pass near the pedestrian over the next few hours, but no one saw him laying there.
• The driver was allegedly drunk, but her BAC wasn't tested until the next day and had to be determined via retrograde extrapolation.

I think based solely on those set of facts and without any eyewitnesses or evidence of intent, the driver would face no felony charges in pretty much every U.S. jurisdiction. Since there's no way of knowing why John chose to leave his arm extended as a car was approaching at high speed, the incident would be treated as an unfortunate accident, with the driver not at fault. I don't even think there would be a DUI charge, since it would be nearly impossible to prove the driver didn't have a drink sometime after the incident, rendering the calculations useless.

 

[Ray_of_hope]

Peter is an excellent attorney, and I essentially followed this case via his trial day recaps.

In this matter of the acquitted charges, I believe the very experienced parties did not push the issue intentionally when mistrial declared because neither side wanted to know the answer.

However, relative to the Jurors who were left wondering why they were sent home when they felt like they were not finished and/or didn't understand why nobody seemed to wanted to know the results of their deliberations, I do hold Judge C responsible pursuant to CT Crim Rule of Proc., Rule 27-- which is specific that this is the Judge's
responsibility and requires the consent of the Judge.

IMO, no Juror should spent 7+ weeks at Trial and sent home feeling like they were suppose to know the Trial Rules sans guidance from the Court! Especially given the consequences for the defendant where legally, I think she could very well be retried for charges she was acquitted on except for the the NG verdict never being reported and recorded on the Court record. I feel their pain and fury. JMO

In other words, it's as if it never happened.

This, as well as the shoddy investigation speaks volumes. They all seem out to protect the police and hide wrong doing, IMO.