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

[minazoe]

I feel the truth of this case is different than what the prosecution presented...but I have a weird vibe from Karen, like she is used to getting her way and being fawned over...that she was getting dumped and she didn't like it. I feel like
she is guilty for some reason but they just didn't prove it. mOO

 

[kittythehare]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed for telling others how to post>

He suffered a devastating brain injury which evidence showed immediate damage to life sustaining brain processes.
Brain injured people are not a homogeneous group.
All brain injuries are not the same, some are survivable, his was not.

It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

[Aquarian]

With all due respect, the only people who can comment on whether John was capable of movement are the medical professionals who looked at the actual autopsy results.

Just some generic statement about what "brain injured" people can do has little meaning. Every injury is different, every person is different. It makes no sense to say that John could have been walking around because some other person who once got hit on the head was able to remain mobile.

Well the medical ppl evaluated him when it was over and done with, meaning full insult of injuries were present. A head injury evolves, it’s not like a rifle blew his head off. Think of a child who crashes down on their head.
Many parents take them to ED for eval even though at the moment they appear fine.
I only commented on his possible movement bc no one was with him to see if he moved at all, that’s it. JMO and all that.

 

[Occam's Zebra]

If he'd been outside since she dropped him off, his body temperature would have been much lower than 80 degrees.

That alone calls the CW's version of events into question. And it's not something that's easy to alter or "fix" to fit a storyline.

 

[Vaderman]

Went out for a walk hoping to come back to a "not guilty" verdict. No luck yet I see...

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I feel the truth of this case is different than what the prosecution presented...but I have a weird vibe from Karen, like she is used to getting her way and being fawned over...that she was getting dumped and she didn't like it. I feel like
she is guilty for some reason but they just didn't prove it. mOO

Was she though? The texts I read between them had her basically begging him if he didn't want to be with her to tell her that. That doesn't exactly jive with her being worried about being dumped or not liking it. He was asking her to come stay the whole weekend with him. If my partner was asking me to spend the whole weekend with her, I'm definitely not worried about being dumped. JMO

 

[TTF14]

If he'd been outside since she dropped him off, his body temperature would have been much lower than 80 degrees.

That alone calls the CW's version of events into question. And it's not something that's easy to alter or "fix" to fit a storyline.

Yes, this!

 

[OldCop]

A little O/T but we are all just sitting here. Hope it's OK. I finally got around to watching Anatomy of a Fall last night and some of it reminded me of this case. I won't spoil it or anything, but it's about a man who is found dead after a fall outside his home and a court case set in France. (If the movie is indicative of how the French court system works then WOW it's crazy!!!) Anyway, there were blood spatter experts and animations presented in court and all of the stuff that we might have expected here, but didn't get. I understand that may not be allowed in the US, but it was a fascinating movie, gripping and a very interesting look at how different things can be in a different legal system than here.

I often wish jury members could ask a witness questions for clarification while that witness is still on the stand instead of sending them to deliberate on some piece of evidence that they may not understand. This is especially true of forensic, scientific, and digital types of evidence. Witnesses come in all shapes and forms; some extremely believable, some not so much, some very clear and precise, some not so much. Expert witnesses in particular can provide very long, intricate statements to bolster their theories, some of which go right over the head of some jury members. Some of these tedious statements can include extremely important information, but what good is their testimony if it is not understood by the jury?
Edit to add that I realize it is the job of both the defense and prosecution attorneys to try and extract the needed information from a witness, but sometimes you still have questions.

 

[Wishbone]

I feel the truth of this case is different than what the prosecution presented...but I have a weird vibe from Karen, like she is used to getting her way and being fawned over...that she was getting dumped and she didn't like it. I feel like
she is guilty for some reason but they just didn't prove it. mOO

I've seen no credible evidence presented to find her guilty. Just the opposite. JMOO

 

[turaj]

I have heard some commentators say that a "hung jury" in this case would be a win for the CW..I would agree with that. But then some say a win for defense.....as CW probably would not retry....but that leaves KR with the cloud of suspicion forever. I think most agree a guilty verdict is just not possible.

 

[TTF14]

I often wish jury members could ask a witness questions for clarification while that witness is still on the stand instead of sending them to deliberate on some piece of evidence that they may not understand. This is especially true of forensic, scientific, and digital types of evidence. Witnesses come in all shapes and forms; some extremely believable, some not so much, some very clear and precise, some not so much. Expert witnesses in particular can provide very long, intricate statements to bolster their theories, some of which go right over the head of some jury members. Some of these tedious statements can include extremely important information, but what good is their testimony if it is not understood by the jury?

Some states allow that. It was allowed in one of the Dan Markel murder trials (I think it was the combined trial of Sigfredo Garcia and Katie Magbanua) in Florida....depends on the judge. And, recently (just this week), there's chatter on the Delphi thread about how Indiana also allows it.

I think it's great when a judge allows it! It will only happen in a case where the judge REALLY wants justice, IMO.

IMO MOO

 

[nightowl1975]

Agree, but I also think they could just go to the Waterfall afterwards to debrief together!

OK, maybe not the Waterfall. Maybe someone in a neighboring town.

Not the pizza shop either.

 

[TTF14]

I have heard some commentators say that a "hung jury" in this case would be a win for the CW..I would agree with that. But then some say a win for defense.....as CW probably would not retry....but that leaves KR with the cloud of suspicion forever. I think most agree a guilty verdict is just not possible.

I don't see how a hung jury is a win for either side, but especially not for the CW. I can't see any way they'd attempt to try this again unless they could get their hands on a really, really good expert witness to testify that JOK definitely got hit by a car.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

I feel the truth of this case is different than what the prosecution presented...but I have a weird vibe from Karen, like she is used to getting her way and being fawned over...that she was getting dumped and she didn't like it. I feel like
she is guilty for some reason but they just didn't prove it. mOO

"She is guilty for SOME REASON but they just didn't prove it" well I hope if I ever rely on a jury they don't go off vibes...JMO.

 

[jepop]

If he'd been outside since she dropped him off, his body temperature would have been much lower than 80 degrees.

That alone calls the CW's version of events into question. And it's not something that's easy to alter or "fix" to fit a storyline.

Was defense able to get this in at some point, am trying to recall if this was elicited out of the ME under cross and really can't recall it. Seems really important and yet did not form part of defenses closing arguments. Not saying it's not true, only why defense didn't get it from the ME. Maybe they did and I missed (I really hope so) and then because of one hour closing had to pick and chose.

ETA defense had DR Sheridan who was an excellent witness. He had access to the autopsy report yet I'm fairly certain defense never raised temperature, ICBW. Seems it's possible they missed it.

 

[Wishbone]

I have heard some commentators say that a "hung jury" in this case would be a win for the CW..I would agree with that. But then some say a win for defense.....as CW probably would not retry....but that leaves KR with the cloud of suspicion forever. I think most agree a guilty verdict is just not possible.

The people that feel like KR is guilty will keep feeling that way if this jury is hung. Or if there is a NG result. These people will hold onto their cloud of suspicion. JMOO

 

[Curiousobserver]

So ignore medical testimony because no expert can tell me definitively? No expert can tell me definitely how JOK died or that he was hit by a car, but that hasn't stopped anyone from making those assertions. How do I know which testimony to ignore? Since I don't think anything was said as "definitively" happening in this trial other than it snowed, and even then, nobody can appear to agree on the amount of snow. JMO

I am not sure why this surprises anyone. Anyone who has ever been to a Dr. and been told they have a virus, only to return 2 days later with strep throat should understand this. Opinions have error bars, which is why most expert testimony must be taken with a grain of salt and in many cases is useless. You have to apply judgement and common sense.

He definitively died from blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia, 100% without a doubt.

This case is about how he got into that predicament, accident or homicide and if so by whom.

We have heard a lot of opinions on how this might have happened. One of those is that he was beat up and bitten by a dog, the other that her car interacted with him resulting in those injuries.

There are only 2 disputed things in this case: did her car interact to cause those injuries and did she intend or should she have known that would happen.

That she was driving is not in dispute by her legal team.
That she was there in front of the house is not in dispute.
That she was several times over the legal limit at the time is not in dispute.

Edited later: And even she speculated/confessed she may have interacted with him with her car, so that is only sort of in dispute.

 

[kittythehare]

Well the medical ppl evaluated him when it was over and done with, meaning full insult of injuries were present. A head injury evolves, it’s not like a rifle blew his head off. Think of a child who crashes down on their head.
Many parents take them to ED for eval even though at the moment they appear fine.
I only commented on his possible movement bc no one was with him to see if he moved at all, that’s it. JMO and all that.

Multiple skull fractures did not evolve slowly or in any other fashion because that is impossible. The skull houses the brain and there is minimal expansion movement.

 

[kittythehare]

Was defense able to get this in at some point, am trying to recall if this was elicited out of the ME under cross and really can't recall it. Seems really important and yet did not form part of defenses closing arguments. Not saying it's not true, only why defense didn't get it from the ME. Maybe they did and I missed (I really hope so) and then because of one hour closing had to pick and chose.

They did. I remember cos I wasn't sure what his body temp was, thought 80something but defense clarified 80F

 

[OldCop]

Some states allow that. It was allowed in one of the Dan Markel murder trials (I think it was the combined trial of Sigfredo Garcia and Katie Magbanua) in Florida....depends on the judge. And, recently (just this week), there's chatter on the Delphi thread about how Indiana also allows it.

I think it's great when a judge allows it! It will only happen in a case where the judge REALLY wants justice, IMO.

IMO MOO

Thanks, @TTF14 I did not realize that. In cases where it is allowed, how does that work? Can they raise their hand/send a note while the witness is still on the stand? I worked for a major city PD and that was not allowed in our state. I wish it was!