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 #13

[TTF14]

Why did the judge allow the Aruba trip? Should have been struck our.

I'm still wondering why one of the sisters tried to get in something about a bleu cheese martini? She was clearly coached to try to get that in, but was cut off because it wasn't relevant. It seemed like the CW also tried to confuse the jury into thinking KR paid for everyone's meals and drinks that night, when she only paid for a small group of "first arrivers'" drinks.

The sisters were not a great addition to the CW's case. I think it just pointed to their desperation to try to make a point that Karen was some crazed, angry, jilted lunatic, but their relationship issues weren't unlike many many others we have all either witnessed or been in. It missed the mark, totally.

IMO MOO

 

[RANCH]

It is probably bc KR shared it with Higgins in their texting etc. Otherwise I think it would have been considered irrelevant re prior bad acts. JMO

That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[TIGER0822]

WOW! Nice work and thanks for the shout out and the assist. What's even more incredible is we can add to it.

Added: Why did the Officers play 'hide and seek' for weeks using pieces of tail lights? MOO.

 

[Aquarian]

That makes sense. Thanks.

Just my guess.

 

[TIGER0822]

That makes sense. Thanks.

Not trial related. Oh its Judge Bev.

 

[KSwizzle]

I’m not a lawyer, I’m an engineer, I’ve made opinions on the science for certain situations, it seemed that Lally changed some items like the timeline from what they argued, is that enough to make an appellate issue regardless if she would be found not guilty?

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

It was pretty gross Albert was there sitting front and centre after not coming out of his house and not going to the funeral, gross and disgusting JMO

I’m sure AJ couldn’t get away with saying this, but I really wanted him to say, “Brian Albert came all the way to this courtroom but couldn’t walk 20 feet outside his front door to help a dying man.” Or go to the funeral I suppose! Pick your poison!

 

[RANCH]

I’m not a lawyer, I’m an engineer, I’ve made opinions on the science for certain situations, it seemed that Lally changed some items like the timeline from what they argued, is that enough to make an appellate issue regardless if she would be found not guilty?

If Karen Read is found not guilty there would not be an appeal.

Maybe you're talking about some kind of BAR sanction that would affect his ability to practice law? JMO.

 

[KSwizzle]

Yes sorry I should have clarified the two situations would be obviously an appeal for a new trial of found guilty, but some sort of sanction if not guilty

 

[jepop]

I’m not a lawyer, I’m an engineer, I’ve made opinions on the science for certain situations, it seemed that Lally changed some items like the timeline from what they argued, is that enough to make an appellate issue regardless if she would be found not guilty?

Yes, not a lawyer either but it strikes me as out of line to actually change some of the details of evidence as presented in trial during the closing argument when supposedly summarising that evidence. And using new visual aids too which is alright I guess but not so much if the summarised evidence is altered. He and Jen Mc like two peas in a pod. And I can't under emphasise the irony given Jackson's closing theme of 'look the other way'. moo

I think it's an important question and wonder if what he did breaks any codes of conduct. If it does, defense lawyers may have grounds for a complaint regardless of trial outcome? Probably they would have to wait for official transcript though (if there has been a potential code of conduct violation which I don't know so this is just an enquiry and discussion point). moo

 

[geevee]

Yes sorry I should have clarified the two situations would be obviously an appeal for a new trial of found guilty, but some sort of sanction if not guilty

I suppose someone would have to lodge a Bar complaint. One could also be lodged for his submitting an inverted video to the jury as a 'true and correct depiction of the events as they happened' - which was an obvious fraud on the court. As Jackson pointed out, the time stamp had to be intentionally reversed to make it appear that it wasn't inverted.

 

[jepop]

I suppose someone would have to lodge a Bar complaint. One could also be lodged for his submitting an inverted video to the jury as a 'true and correct depiction of the events as they happened' - which was an obvious fraud on the court. As Jackson pointed out, the time stamp had to be intentionally reversed to make it appear that it wasn't inverted.

It should be done even if/when KR is acquitted. jmo

 

[cocomod]

I started this case in pure curiosity. I didn't know anything about it until Turtleboy made this case blow up in the media. I researched AJ and found that he is very good at getting people off. I wondered if this was smoke and mirrors and she was actually guilty. Watching the case with all of you, I came to the conclusion that I do NOT believe she hit him. I do think she was confused that morning. I do think she was basically black out drunk. I do think that the idea may have been planted in her mind, or she just plain remembered bumping his vehicle. She remembered a bump and not necessarily when that bump occurred. She had someone there that night when they found OJO on the lawn to help gaslight her into believing she was at fault. The one female that unquestioningly committed perjury. Jen Mc
The FBI scientists drove the case right into the ground for me - a pure death.

I loved watching AJ's closing. He was clear, he was concise, he touched most items I wanted to hear. I forgot about the "typo" on the affidavit!! He had the car much earlier than the taillight was found.

This is my puppy. He even liked listening to AJ! His voice drew in Coco!

Magic Hair!! No blood, no tissue, just touch DNA! Thankfully he brought that up!

The taillight pieces coming out of the bag. I didn't know he only took 2 pieces out until AJ told him to bring out the other pieces.

The FBI scientists - the vehicle did not hit OJO!

I wish that he would have disputed the car key stroke data. But...

Regarding Lally, he was actually better than I thought he would be. However, I am angry!! Super angry!! How is he able to completely lie - a prosecutor lied!! I cannot believe he even changed his own story from the opening to the closing. He even changed their own timeline for his closing because he knows that his own witnesses broke their supposed timeline. He was trying to fix the lies from early in the trial. He didn't do what he should have done. He didn't prove their case. He didn't even tell it like a story that is believable. He didn't dispute that the science proves that he was never hit by a car. How can he think that it is okay to not make it clear that their case hinged on her hitting him with a vehicle, but science proves that didn't happen.

 

[jepop]

I started this case in pure curiosity. I didn't know anything about it until Turtleboy made this case blow up in the media. I researched AJ and found that he is very good at getting people off. I wondered if this was smoke and mirrors and she was actually guilty. Watching the case with all of you, I came to the conclusion that I do NOT believe she hit him. I do think she was confused that morning. I do think she was basically black out drunk. I do think that the idea may have been planted in her mind, or she just plain remembered bumping his vehicle. She remembered a bump and not necessarily when that bump occurred. She had someone there that night when they found OJO on the lawn to help gaslight her into believing she was at fault. The one female that unquestioningly committed perjury. Jen Mc
The FBI scientists drove the case right into the ground for me - a pure death.

I loved watching AJ's closing. He was clear, he was concise, he touched most items I wanted to hear. I forgot about the "typo" on the affidavit!! He had the car much earlier than the taillight was found.

This is my puppy. He even liked listening to AJ! His voice drew in Coco!

Magic Hair!! No blood, no tissue, just touch DNA! Thankfully he brought that up!

The taillight pieces coming out of the bag. I didn't know he only took 2 pieces out until AJ told him to bring out the other pieces.

The FBI scientists - the vehicle did not hit OJO!

I wish that he would have disputed the car key stroke data. But...

Regarding Lally, he was actually better than I thought he would be. However, I am angry!! Super angry!! How is he able to completely lie - a prosecutor lied!! I cannot believe he even changed his own story from the opening to the closing. He even changed their own timeline for his closing because he knows that his own witnesses broke their supposed timeline. He was trying to fix the lies from early in the trial. He didn't do what he should have done. He didn't prove their case. He didn't even tell it like a story that is believable. He didn't dispute that the science proves that he was never hit by a car. How can he think that it is okay to not make it clear that their case hinged on her hitting him with a vehicle, but science proves that didn't happen.

Thank you! I'm also extremely angry with the way Lally conducted his case and cannot believe the alteration incidents during closing (and the sally port inversion plus anything else?) are permissible behaviour for a DA. moo

 

[k-mac]

I was happy with the closing.
Prosecution finished off strong.


Totality matters.
I still think KR Goose is cooked!

MOO

 

[cocomod]

All the prosecution can talk about is text messages and voice mails. They still even in their closing can’t prove or show their case.

Can I tell you my experience with a person who is drunk? They are overly emotional in every single way! Joy, extreme happiness (bubbly), Anger, sadness, despair! They can hit all of these in the course of an evening - heck in the course of an hour. Most importantly, they never remember all that happened the night before. It is called blackout drunk for a reason. They can still drive and act like they know what life is about but usually with over-the-top emotions. But, the next morning they remember nothing - or maybe just bits and pieces here and there.

All of the people in that house were drunk. Being drunk didn’t make all of them killers. Being drunk didn’t mean KR was absolutely a killer. But they all likely had very high emotions, including the very drunk victim OJO

 

[TIGER0822]

I was happy with the closing.
Prosecution finished off strong.


Totality matters.
I still think KR Goose is cooked!

MOO

Lally came out swinging in closing argument, which then rapidly descended into nonsense.

The verdict will likely come down to personality preferences.'"People hear what the want to hear and disregard the rest". (Simon and Garfunkel).

Did Jackson and Yanettis charisma do enough to win over the jury? Lally was for most part annoying IMO.

 

[RANCH]

I think there's a good reason why the Judge tell's the jury that the lawyer's statements are not evidence.

It's because both sides can say things that are not entirely true. I found that out in the first case I followed on this forum with statements made by defense attorney Jose Baez in the Casey Anthony trial. JMO.

 

[SteveS]

There's one piece of proof that is more important than the rest put together - which is, did KR's car actually hit JOK? The unbiased testimony of the FBI elite experts in finding what was physically possible, and what was not, made that answer a clear and unchallenged no. It could NOT have hit him. That scene and those injuries could NOT have been caused by a car hitting him. (The cw had no one who could or would actually testify otherwise, because, well, the facts are the facts.)

The rest is just mud wrestling over what to make of the other pieces brought to court, in light of that one scientifically-proven, unchallenged fact.

If KR's car did not hit, you must acquit.

 

[jepop]

Lally came out swinging in closing argument, which then rapidly descended into nonsense.

The verdict will likely come down to personality preferences.'"People hear what the want to hear and disregard the rest". (Simon and Garfunkel).

Did Jackson and Yanettis charisma do enough to win over the jury? Lally was for most part annoying IMO.

If we're talking about more subtle influences on a jury such as charisma. then Lally's lack of probably hasn't been helped by hits to his credibility owing to inconsistency, misleading presentation of evidence and lies in closing statement. moo

But I still believe in general that the vast majority of jurors will take their duties seriously, and attempt to deliberate on evidence rather than personalities. moo