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 #14

[Chelly]

There was a dramatic exchange in Norfolk Superior Court Wednesday while the jury in the Karen Read trial deliberated the charges.

It ended with Judge Beverly Cannone snapping at Read: "Excuse me, this is funny, Ms. Read? All right, we're done."

‘This is funny, Ms. Read?' Watch judge snap at Karen Read as jury deliberates

There was a dramatic exchange in Norfolk Superior Court Wednesday while the jury in the Karen Read trial deliberated the charges. It ended with Judge Beverly Cannone snapping at Read: “Excuse me, this is funny, Ms. Read? All right, we’re done.”

www.nbcboston.com

For the record Judge Beverly chuckled first while addressing Mr. Jackson. I think that initiated Karen's smile.

 

[mickey2942]

I'm expecting it to run a few days. If it goes past a week, it could be any length of time, however.

I think that either way, it will wrap up either tomorrow or Friday.

 

[Lilbirdie]

I’m a scientist so it was the FBI testimony that sealed the deal for me. Does not seem possible the injuries on JOK and the damage to the car match the prosecution’s theory. NG verdict IMO. However, I would not be surprised if the voicemails sway the jury to a guilty verdict. Hearing them played in court was jarring and some people will not be able to look past them to the rest of the evidence.

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

We’ve been able to freely talk about it. Read other people’s opinions, see what others have pointed out. For example when another WS member says ‘how can this be true when this person said something different’ we suddenly think ‘yes that’s right! How can that be true?’ And things like that help us form our opinion.

The jury haven’t been able to do that, they’ve heard the case once, haven’t been able to pause, rewind or rewatch certain testimony. Haven’t been able to turn to eachother and say ‘well that person didn’t say this happened’ half way through testimony. So it’s completely different for them. They only have their notes and perhaps small details that are pin pointed in their minds as important and haven’t been able to speak a single word about this case even though they’ve been sat together this whole time. It must be so frustrating so now they can finally talk and listen to eachother they have so much to go over and they can have those ‘oh yes that right, that does conflict with the testimony of that other person’ moments.

All MOO

Yes!!! That’s why I think it’s so important for jurors to be allowed to take notes. Absolutely insane if they can’t and I don’t understand why some courts don’t allow that.

 

[Chelly]

Yes!!! That’s why I think it’s so important for jurors to be allowed to take notes. Absolutely insane if they can’t and I don’t understand why some courts don’t allow that.

While the jurors were not allowed to take notes during the two-hours worth of Closing Statements, they were allowed to take notes during the entire trial

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Also, I may get jumped on for this but having the main witnesses in this case who are also front and centre of the defense’s theory, people who apparently never even attended John’s funeral, some who described him as merely an acquaintance, sit with the the O’Keefe family throughout closing arguments in front of the jury - IMO this should not have been allowed. It could be seen as an attempt to get a message across to the jury, no one had to say ‘but the victims family don’t believe this theory’, but that’s what the jury saw, in front of their eyes, a message that basically said ‘the defense theory is lies’. In a way that couldn’t have been clearer. It’s the judge’s courtroom she decides and her decision should be accepted (but not necessarily agreed with) and in this instance I think it wouldn’t have been wrong to say to those people ‘please, if you wish to watch today, could you please sit elsewhere in the courtroom but by all means sit amongst the victims family (handing out tissues nonetheless) for the verdict’.

Because that sent a subliminal yet very clear message to the jury that IMO could have possibly penalised KR and the defense. IMO that felt orchestrated and unnatural but the jury were given that impression loud and clear without a word being said. But I understand it’s a tricky thing to have to say and you don’t want to upset the family at an already horrendous time. Had they sat there every day or any other day for that matter it would be different though IMO.

To have the image of the victims family sat amongst the people the defense theorise may have been involved in JOK’s death being the last thing the jury see before the go to deliberate was not necessarily the right thing for at that exact time IMO….

 

[fluffypaste]

I'm no longer optimistic. What could the jury be thinking?

 

[Aquarian]

I have a question . How do we know the “party” people did not attend JO’s funeral? Is there a link to read ? TY

 

[turaj]

Also, I may get jumped on for this but having the main witnesses in this case who are also front and centre of the defense’s theory, people who apparently never even attended John’s funeral, some who described him as merely an acquaintance, sit with the the O’Keefe family throughout closing arguments in front of the jury - IMO this should not have been allowed. It could be seen as an attempt to get a message across to the jury, no one had to say ‘but the victims family don’t believe this theory’, but that’s what the jury saw, in front of their eyes, a message that basically said ‘the defense theory is lies’. In a way that couldn’t have been clearer. It’s the judge’s courtroom she decides and her decision should be accepted (but not necessarily agreed with) and in this instance I think it wouldn’t have been wrong to say to those people ‘please, if you wish to watch today, could you please sit elsewhere in the courtroom but by all means sit amongst the victims family (handing out tissues nonetheless) for the verdict’.

Because that sent a subliminal yet very clear message to the jury that IMO could have possibly penalised KR and the defense. IMO that felt orchestrated and unnatural but the jury were given that impression loud and clear without a word being said. But I understand it’s a tricky thing to have to say and you don’t want to upset the family at an already horrendous time. Had they sat there every day or any other day for that matter it would be different though IMO.

To have the image of the victims family sat amongst the people the defense theorise may have been involved in JOK’s death being the last thing the jury see before the go to deliberate was not necessarily the right thing for at that exact time IMO….

could not agree more and said the same myself but less eloquently. I don't think judge could control who sat behind the O''Keefes. I think the O'Keefe family as time goes on will regret having that image sent out as they see more and more that KR did not do this and those people are involved.

 

[minazoe]

so now are we thinking that they framed Karen because they didn't want the liability of a death in the house , possible repercussions for the dog? this sounds like a lot of work and staging and framing of Karen. Did they hate her? I mean
it's still on the property...not inside but on the property so I am struggling with the motive for the framing if the death was an accident like a fall. Did they have a timeline ? Did the other people in the house say he never came inside?

I can't figure this out. Karen doesn't need to prove what actually happened. but I think they need to go back to the drawing board. weird. mOO

 

[turaj]

so now are we thinking that they framed Karen because they didn't want the liability of a death in the house , possible repercussions for the dog? this sounds like a lot of work and staging and framing of Karen. Did they hate her? I mean
it's still on the property...not inside but on the property so I am struggling with the motive for the framing if the death was an accident like a fall. Did they have a timeline ? Did the other people in the house say he never came inside?

I can't figure this out. Karen doesn't need to prove what actually happened. but I think they need to go back to the drawing board. weird. mOO

I think the "framing" was more a matter of a theory that fell into place. I am not even ruling out that he got into a fight inside the house...made his way outside..fell down and with being so drunk never got up again. It was the worst possible end to a night of drinking that got out of control. Nothing planned. Probably some comments made about Karen by Higgins? If one or more jurors are looking to 100% nail down what happened with this alleged frame up then they will hang. Hopefully that won't happen. Just need to determine that KR did not kill John or cause him to be killed.

 

[Blondiexoxo]

I'm no longer optimistic. What could the jury be thinking?

It’s only been a few hours. 12 people have to get across their opinions. Imagine 12 people in a room who haven’t been able to talk about ANY of the evidence they’ve heard for weeks. They haven’t been able to speak a single word about it. They might have vibes from facial expressions what some of their fellow jurors are thinking but now is the time when they can finally ask ‘so what do you think?’.

Example - and the following is all hypothetical but an example of how it could possibly go in the deliberation room just to get an idea of the amount of things they have to talk about, and all 12 need to agree on… try getting a family for 5 to agree on what to have for dinner. Never mind agreeing if someone is a murderer or not.

So hypothetically foreperson could start off, ‘well I think the prosecution have proved their case’ then lists reason x y and z. Then one person says ‘yes but i think that only proves this one charge’ for example. Then they start looking at the charges. Perhaps they sit down first and say ‘right, first of all. We have to establish whether KR hit and killed JOK with her car’ a debate then starts as some jurors believe the CW ME testimony while others don’t believe it was proven that JOK died as a result of being hit by a car. They discuss the evidence. Most might agree but then they have to go through each individual charge because it’s not ‘did KR hit JOK with her car? ‘ ‘yes’ ‘well she’s guilty on all counts then’ - they’ve got to decide each charge, most likely have a deep discussion about each charge. Most likely have an ‘omg did you see that’ moment about the proctor texts.

Maybe one person speaks up, points out that JOK was still walking according to his phone when he was apparently dead. That the defense had their own experts who say JOK had no injuries suggesting he was hit by KR’s vehicle. That the defense experts who were impartial say that the damage to the taillight was indicative of a glass being thrown at it. A discussion about the cover up theory begins, they get off track a little. maybe the foreperson says let’s get back to the evidence, and they talk about what physical evidence actually ties KR to the crime. Then maybe more jurors start to think ‘perhaps there isn’t as much evidence as we think there is’ opinions start to change. Hypothetically another says ‘why were those witnesses sat with the family through closings? They must believe that the coverup theory is nonsense’ they start talking/debating about that again.

In between all this they go home for the day (after only a couple hours of deliberations yesterday) today they get called into court for an amendment on the verdict forms, they have lunch, they have a question. Perhaps for example, one juror is watching the clock, they want to go home. Let’s sleep, clear our heads and get back on track tomorrow.

12 people in a room, an hour can go much faster than you think probably not even enough time to discuss one single charge.

All MOO

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

While the jurors were not allowed to take notes during the two-hours worth of Closing Statements, they were allowed to take notes during the entire trial

Right. I was referring to other trials.

 

[turaj]

It’s only been a few hours. 12 people have to get across their opinions. Imagine 12 people in a room who haven’t been able to talk about ANY of the evidence they’ve heard for weeks. They haven’t been able to speak a single word about it. They might have vibes from facial expressions what some of their fellow jurors are thinking but now is the time when they can finally ask ‘so what do you think?’.

Example - and the following is all hypothetical but an example of how it could possibly go in the deliberation room just to get an idea of the amount of things they have to talk about, and all 12 agree on…

So hypothetically foreperson could start off, ‘well I think the prosecution have proved their case’ then lists reason x y and z. Then one person says ‘yes but i think that only proves this one charge’ for example. Then they start looking at the charges. Perhaps they sit down first and say ‘right, first of all. We have to establish whether KR hit and killed JOK with her car’ a debate then starts as some jurors believe the CW ME testimony while others don’t believe it was proven that JOK died as a result of being hit by a car. They discuss the evidence. Most might agree but then they have to go through each individual charge because it’s not ‘did KE hit JOK with her car? ‘ ‘yes’ ‘well she’s guilty on all counts then’ - they’ve got to decide each charge, most likely have a deep discussion about each charge. Most likely have an ‘omg did you see that’ moment about the proctor texts.

Maybe one person speaks up, points out that JOK was still walking according to his phone when he was apparently dead. That the defense had their own experts who say JOK had no injuries suggesting he was hit by KR’s vehicle. That the defense experts who were impartial say that the damage to the taillight was indicative of a glass being thrown at it. A discussion about the cover up theory begins, they get off track a little. maybe the foreperson says let’s get back to the evidence, and they talk about what physical evidence actually ties KR to the crime. Then maybe more jurors start to think ‘perhaps there isn’t as much evidence as we think there is’ opinions start to change. Hypothetically another says ‘why were those witnesses sat with the family through closings? They must believe that the coverup theory is nonsense’ they start talking/debating about that again.

In between all this they go home for the day (after only a couple hours of deliberations yesterday) today they get called into court for an amendment on the verdict forms, they have lunch, they have a question. Perhaps for example, one juror is watching the clock, they want to go home. Let’s sleep, clear our heads and get back on track tomorrow.

12 people in a room, an hour can go much faster than you think probably not even enough time to discuss one single charge.

All MOO

I can imagine after all this time just exchanging all their impressions of the case in general and various witnesses must take a long time. That said beyond tomorrow I will be worried that they may go with a lesser. This is one case where even the lessers are way too much.

 

[Chelly]

I've come to believe Canton LE and MSP are toxic. Has their poison spread to the jurors is my concern.

 

[Warwick7]

leaving for the day...defense looks very concerned

We all need to remember:

Patrick Frazee: 9 hours (Guilty)
Johnny Depp: 12 hours (Not guilty)
Jodi Aria: 15 hours (Guilty)

And the juries nailed them all perfectly.

 

[Chelly]

I can imagine after all this time just exchanging all their impressions of the case in general and various witnesses must take a long time. That said beyond tomorrow I will be worried that they may go with a lesser. This is one case where even the lessers are way too much.

Do you notice Judge devoted a great deal of extra time today reading the lesser charges again? This was just after Mr. Jackson brought up the issue of the confusing verdict form. She really made a point emphasizing charges 2, 3, 4. She planted an ear worm for me; I couldn't get those manslaughter charges out of my head. If I was a juror, I'd be asking myself , "Why does she keep stressing those lesser charges? Is she planting a seed?"

 

[keek]

Do you notice Judge devoted a great deal of extra time today reading the lesser charges again? This was just after Mr. Jackson brought up the issue of the confusing verdict form. She really made a point emphasizing charges 2, 3, 4. She planted an ear worm for me; I couldn't get those manslaughter charges out of my head. If I was a juror, I'd be asking myself , "Why does she keep stressing those lesser charges? Is she planting a seed?"

She certainly did and emphasized the word killing that jarred me right away, very noticeable, in one of the long explanations. Planting a seed, planting a full garden all along.

 

[whitelilac]

Do you notice Judge devoted a great deal of extra time today reading the lesser charges again? This was just after Mr. Jackson brought up the issue of the confusing verdict form. She really made a point emphasizing charges 2, 3, 4. She planted an ear worm for me; I couldn't get those manslaughter charges out of my head. If I was a juror, I'd be asking myself , "Why does she keep stressing those lesser charges? Is she planting a seed?"

Was the jury present during that exchange between the judge and Jackson?

 

[Odeto BJ]

I've come to believe Canton LE and MSP are toxic. Has their poison spread to the jurors is my concern.

I believe the jurors are representative of the county overall...And it is the colloquy of Canton that is specifically toxic, it seems to operate and tolerate in an isolated fashion reminiscent of the old west, without the cattle.

Thankfully the county has 726000 persons in just under 400 square miles so the actual predominancy of the Canton crew is in fact, pretty dilute. They are a demonstrative bunch, however.