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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
nodamselindistress said:
I asked in Post #589 and am asking again, please provide a link to testimony where Kerry says the taillight looked the same in the sallyport. <modsnip>
Click to expand...
Lallys closing he mentions Kerry being shown. I have to go rewatch a few things, definitely not trying to spread misinformation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how many total hours of deliberation has there been?
 
sunspun said:
That still brings up yet another point of contention with the prosecution case, which is that for one thing, none of the prosecution's own witnesses saw her backup AT ALL, IIRC! Out of all the witnesses who said anything about KR's vehicle placement and movement, none of them testified they saw her backup, much less at 24mph and for 60 ft or whatever their claim was, IIRC.

And for another thing, that chart they showed of the info they got from the vehicle's computer that showed key cycles, meaning every time the car had been started, along with the events that happened with each key cycle, including whether it had backed up and for how long and at what speed, only showed that group of events happening one time, and that one time was while the car was in possession of LE and NOT KR.

According to the data they presented as evidence in this case, KR as the Lexus driver did not do (could not have done) this fast backup maneuver, the one that they allege is the action that killed JO.

So that should eliminate all confusion and make it cut and dried as to whether she's guilty or not. HOWEVER, the fact that it HASN'T, does nothing but bring up more confusion for me. How could it not be all anyone should have to hear to see she's not guilty? Is it because the data is not believed to be true? Is it because there was possibly some glitch w/extracting the info? Is it because the data was planted/fabricated/corrupt etc? If so, it would be the defense who would benefit from this data, so how would the defense get hold of it to change it in their favor? Obviously didn't happen.

So is it because I myself am interpreting the data wrong? That I could believe, since I'm no expert, but I thought I understood from the testimony how this data is read, but then again, maybe not. That's really the only explanation I can think of why this data ALONE isn't the only thing it should take to dismiss the case altogether, or at least to find her not guilty of all. So maybe I am interpreting it wrong... but I don't see where my mistake is if so. Maybe someone else does.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
I thought that evidence was very muddled in it's presentation.
The key cycles, extraction of data from the Lexus, somehow trying to
prove the 24 MPH in reverse, etc.
It may have been so confusing and murky that the jury could disregard all.
And focus it's attention on evidence which was more cut and dry.
Again....MOO.
 
How long can this continue? I mean, what are the rules/laws? If there are one or two jurors not in agreement with the rest, how long can they continue before they realize there is no changing their minds? Does each state have different rules about how long it can drag on?

I also don't see why they can't "work" an 8 hour day.
 
Fourth of July next week. I’m wondering if jury is close, but wants to get out of town on a Friday as the reaction to any verdict erupts. If they have working spouses or other obligations, they may not want to hang around the area while waiting for the weekend.
 
JudyBolton said:
According to journalists who were in the courtroom, the 3 jurors not deliberating (2 alternates and the 1 juror dismissed by the judge on the last day) were the 3 who appeared most "engaged with the defense testimony and expert witnesses." I wonder if the dismissed juror will speak out after it's over and tell what happened. It was also reported that one of the alternates was crying as she entered the court yesterday. Hmmmm - just makes one wonder!
Click to expand...
Yes it certainly does make one wonder.
 
OldCop said:
I really like to try and understand people’s thought processes and how different people listening to the same witnesses reach different conclusions. This is why thousands of dollars are spent on studying potential jurors. It could be upbringing, background, life experiences and a slew of other factors that work together to influence how a juror forms an opinion on a case.
Can I pick your mind?
You said you would be the holdout because you believe KR hit JOK with her vehicle and killed him. You also say the other possibilities do not ring true. Interestingly, you said that if the prosecution presented the alternative, it would give you reasonable doubt.
Does this mean you would always believe a prosecutor over a defense attorney?
Besides thinking the alternative defense did not ring true, what evidence leads you to conclude KR is guilty?
If neither the vehicle nor JOK’s body showed any signs that he was killed in this manner, what prompts you to disregard that evidence?
Do you disregard an eminently qualified witness because he testified for the defense instead of the prosecution?
Please do not think I am trying to pounce on your opinion. I am genuinely interested in your thought process.
Click to expand...
In the interest of science...

-She was there- she is not disputing this
-She was several fold over the legal limit- she is not disputing this
-She was driving her car- she is not disputing this
-Prosecution showed that her car made a highly unsafe backup maneuver recorded by the EDS system that she should know is unsafe; this is the intent (I don't buy the keystroke argument about the count, I trust the mileage argument)
-Her tail light is at the scene (disputed, but testified they were under the snow not on top of it which is difficult to fake without detection by bystanders)
-His DNA is on the tail light (I don't buy the touch DNA argument, nobody touches their girlfriend's tail light, and I don't buy the transfer from the blood in the cups argument. If someone planted this there would be micrograms of his DNA, not nanograms of his DNA). The fact that there is very little DNA is more incriminating, not less.
-Pieces of the tail light are on his clothes
-His phone GPS suggests he was in the exact same spot all night
-Karen Read even thinks hitting him was a reasonable explanation and shouted it in front of multiple witnesses.
-The FBI provided 3000 pages from their investigation to the defense, including Grand Jury Testimony and the only thing they found that they could use that might be exculpatory were some guys firing a glass at the tail light with a pneumatic cannon.
-After seeing what the FBI found the Judge allowed the trial to move forward, subjecting Karen to the possibility of conviction and prison.
-No dog DNA on the swabs from his clothes (you would expect some if he laid on the floor in their house or was attacked by the dog even if they didn't swab the exact spot where she bit)
-Chloe is only in Vermont and is apparently alive and well (it would have been easy for the defense to get a bite impressions but they didn't; it would have been foolish for the prosecution to do it because they would be handing the defense credibility and an easy way to confuse the Jury on cross examination, allowing upteen experts to come in and refute them)
-If they wanted to hide chloe they would have had her put down and cremated
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 207 more.
Total: 2,060 (members: 208, guests: 1,852)

Online statistics

Members online
208
Guests online
1,852
Total visitors
2,060
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,313
Messages
18,094,438
Members
230,846
Latest member
sidsloth
Back
Top