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 #15

[turaj]

I doubt this happens. One, it’s not legally allowed. Two, if they simply quit and refused to continue, they could be replaced with alternates. So they must not care too much about their position if they’re willing to abdicate to an alternate.

I got to wonder if we might lose one juror over the weekend? Got sick? Family emergency? I can't imagine the frustration for some of them.

 

[TTF14]

I got to wonder if we might lose one juror over the weekend? Got sick? Family emergency? I can't imagine the frustration for some of them.

I thought the same!

 

[turaj]

Today at courthouse reports indicate that there are also protestors with signs that KR is Guilty. First time I heard about those.

 

[Wishbone]

Today at courthouse reports indicate that there are also protestors with signs that KR is Guilty. First time I heard about those.

I know there was a group of 4 or 5 women with signs and yelling and that the one leading it was the woman in the legal issue with TB.

 

[keek]

I know there was a group of 4 or 5 women with signs and yelling and that the one leading it was the woman in the legal issue with TB.

Ohhhh.. great getting the skinny on that, there you go.

 

[TIGER0822]

I'd hold out for guilty.

- I think the evidence shows he was struck by KR's car and killed ~12:30am.
- I believe the testimony of the people at the Albert's house.
- I believe KR's actions in the morning after JO was killed were telling.
- With all due respect to the defense's experts - I thought they varied in terms of effectiveness - but I didn't find any of them convincing to the level that the Occam's Razor explanation doesn't fit.

I feel like the circumstances both hurt and helped KR. If it hadn't been snowing and in a dark area, no way does she even have a chance to get away with it. On the other hand, those same circumstances (in my mind) really eliminate a lot of "reasonable" doubt options. I'm left with either 1) she did it or 2) the conspiracy/cover up.

Now a lot of people here say the defense doesn't have to "prove" anything... that's true... but they do have to convince a juror that the doubt is reasonable and in this case (for me), they'd have to prove things that really point to a cover up.

1) they didn't prove JO ever made it into the house.
2) they didn't prove that he was attacked by a dog.
3) they didn't prove that JM made that internet search at 2:27 AM.

Had they been able to do so with any of those 3 (and maybe something else I'm forgetting) - my thoughts on reasonable doubt would certainly be different.

* I also don't recall the defense offering any (what I consider) even remotely believable motive for a conspiracy murder. At one point, I do remember Jackson alluding to JM "luring" JO and KR to the house... and I nearly spit out my drink as I thought that was the most absurd and ridiculous characterization of the events we could all see (from the video) of the night at The Waterfall.

The FBI hired experts testified that the injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car, and the cars damage was not consistent with hitting a pedestrian. These witnesses were completely neutral.

I know there was a group of 4 or 5 women with signs and yelling and that the one leading it was the woman in the legal issue with TB.

Julie Alberts sister I think. Just when you think this whole trial could not get any crazier,, it does. terrible family.

 

[TTF14]

- I think the evidence shows he was struck by KR's car and killed ~12:30am.

RSBM

Which evidence, specifically?

Thanks!

 

[BUF]

Just have to say, I don’t think I have ever heard a jury note to the judge worded like this. Makes me think there is maybe an attorney or someone with legal knowledge that is the foreman.

“I am writing to inform you on behalf of the jury that despite our exhaustive review of the evidence and our diligent consideration of all disputed evidence, we have been unable to reach a unanimous verdict,"

Jury in Karen Read Murder Trial Deadlocked Despite 'Exhaustive' Review

 

[Kittybunny]

I got to wonder if we might lose one juror over the weekend? Got sick? Family emergency? I can't imagine the frustration for some of them.

I just got flashbacks to the Lucy Letby trial in the UK where jurors would often not show up and everyone would be already in court and then they would have to just cancel and send everyone home. Now that case was loooong! 10 months for the trial. We even had a poll for how long deliberations would be. We were all wayyyyy under. I think it was 100 hours of deliberations stretched out over what seemed like an eternity. (@Tortoise do you remember?) Thank goodness that hasn’t happened here!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if this ends in a hung jury the CW would be crazy to try this again. Even with better experts. You can’t rewind and document and collect evidence the right way. Plus…there’s that looming FBI investigation, and at some point that will become public record. Agree with that article above that says that they will make a lot of noise about retrying in the immediate aftermath. They have to try and save face (a little too late for that, IMHO).

 

[jepop]

Trying to get my mind around the basis on which some jurors may be digging in on a guilty stance.

It bothers me that they may be unable to override their biases for the time necessary to digest the evidence and apply reason. Everything cannot be relative. There have to be some agreed facts. The state of victim's body shows it is unreasonable to believe he was hit by vehicle. IMO. How is it that there are some jurors who despite the seriousness of their duties, are ignoring or disregarding evidence presented by the defense that was not challenged by the cw?

I think @OldCop's post from some ways back has a paragraph that in summary covers many of the possibilities. My emphasis added.

"So, since the defense does show us proof that JOK did not die from being struck by a motor vehicle through science, medicine, forensic science, kinetics and physics, why do some jurors not see it? "

"Because, the fact is that some people can not clear their minds of biases, past experiences, of their dislike of defense lawyers, their trust in law enforcement officers, of the way the defendant looks or comports himself, or they hate science and think that cellphone data is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. They can not disassociate themselves from their personal feelings or beliefs and make a compartment in their minds into which they put the EVIDENCE in the case to the exclusion of all other things.
They literally do not have the ability to parse out the facts. MOO"

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 #15

Losing my mind over here. What was the point of 4:15?? IMO So odd!

www.websleuths.com

 

[TIGER0822]

RSBM

Which evidence, specifically?

Thanks!

 

[TIGER0822]

I thought the same!

More than one.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Well, Jen McCabe says differently of course. She says that she definitely told a cop, but the cop never wrote it down. And she says that she never mentioned it in her state grand jury testimony because she wasn't asked directly about it.

It's also important to mention that a couple of months before the federal grand jury (when she's first on record) is when Jen's name became publicly associated with this case and the "Hos long to die in cold" google search.

Seriously need an eye roll emoji!

 

[JaimeInLA]

Everyone is assuming that one of the jurors is a blue line supporter. But maybe someone on the jury is concerned about retribution from the police if there is a not guilty verdict.

 

[fluffypaste]

I've said this multiple times now, but I think it may have been a mistake for the defense to try so hard to deny that Karen ever said "I hit him." I think it is actually rather indisputable that she did say that, or something very similar to that. She said it to too many people, including people with no obvious connection to the "conspiracy."

I believe that she said those words, but she was in a state of extreme emotional disturbance. She was confused. She was distraught. She was hysterical. She was trying to figure out what happened what happened to John. That's what I believe really happened, and I don't see it as being equivalent to a confession.

But, by trying so hard to deny that it happened, the defense may have actually made it look worse.

Based on the medical testimony, the engineering testimony, and KR's reaction to John's body being discovered, and the fact that she allegedly turned down a plea bargain for 16 months, I firmly believe that KR is actually innocent. But I still don't find it believable that every single firefighter or paramedic who claims to have heard her say "I hit him" could all be lying.

Police lie during trials all the time to make convictions easier to achieve, I believe that 100 percent; I don't believe that to be the case for firefighters or paramedics.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Trying to get my mind around the basis on which some jurors may be digging in on a guilty stance.

It bothers me that they may be unable to override their biases for the time necessary to digest the evidence and apply reason. Everything cannot be relative. There have to be some agreed facts. The state of victim's body shows it is unreasonable to believe he was hit by vehicle. IMO. How is it that there are some jurors who despite the seriousness of their duties, are ignoring or disregarding evidence presented by the defense that was not challenged by the cw?

I think @OldCop's post from some ways back has a paragraph that in summary covers many of the possibilities. My emphasis added.

"So, since the defense does show us proof that JOK did not die from being struck by a motor vehicle through science, medicine, forensic science, kinetics and physics, why do some jurors not see it? "

"Because, the fact is that some people can not clear their minds of biases, past experiences, of their dislike of defense lawyers, their trust in law enforcement officers, of the way the defendant looks or comports himself, or they hate science and think that cellphone data is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. They can not disassociate themselves from their personal feelings or beliefs and make a compartment in their minds into which they put the EVIDENCE in the case to the exclusion of all other things.
They literally do not have the ability to parse out the facts. MOO"

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 #15

Losing my mind over here. What was the point of 4:15?? IMO So odd!

www.websleuths.com

Well said! In death penalty cases, people are asked if they could impose the ultimate sentence. But some have a guilty bias to start with in all cases, and it seems they are more difficult to identify through questioning.

 

[MyJoey]

Exactly, and if that person feels that the evidence is inconclusive, that should equate to reasonable doubt.
The defense does not have to prove that their defendant did not commit the crime they are charged with.
The prosecution has to prove that they did.
For what it’s worth, I asked (nicely) in the last thread of someone, who posted that they would be a holdout for a guilty verdict, if they could explain their thought process and what has convinced them that KR was guilty, but they did not respond.

I’ll tell you…. I really believe Karen’s Tail light pieces were around John’s body, I really believe John’s phone stayed in the same area. I really believe all Karen’s words and actions screamed guilt. I don’t see a conspiracy to frame Karen, I don’t believe he was ever in the house. In my eyes and I know others disagree, all that over rides the expert opinion's (which I never have put much into, since each side can say something different). I think the holdouts are a few NG VS Guilty. I really feel it’s hard for many like myself to get past her own words and actions. I realize it was a horrible investigation, and LE needs to get their act together but there is still enough evidence that tells me it was Karen that caused John’s death. Not debating what I feel, just giving insight.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I've said this multiple times now, but I think it was a mistake for the defense to try so hard to deny that Karen ever said "I hit him." I think it is actually rather indisputable that she did say that, or something very similar to that. She said it to too many people, including people with no obvious connection to the "conspiracy."

I believe that she said those words, but she was in a state of extreme emotional disturbance. She was confused. She was distraught. She was hysterical. She was trying to figure out what happened what happened to John. That's what I believe really happened, and I don't see it as being equivalent to a confession.

But, by trying so hard to deny that it happened, the defense may have actually made it look worse.

Based on the medical testimony, the engineering testimony, and KR's reaction to John's body being discovered, and the fact that she apparently turned down a plea bargain for 16 months, I firmly believe that KR is actually innocent. But I still don't find it believable that every single firefighter or paramedic who claims to have heard her say "I hit him" could all be lying.

Police lie during trials all the time to make convictions easier to achieve, I believe that 100 percent; I don't believe that to be the case for firefighters or paramedics.

How many people and who are they who actually testified to KR saying exactly and only, "I hit him?"

 

[jepop]

I have a sneaking suspicion she doesn’t want to do that. JMO

I haven't even listened to jury receiving their initial instructions yet. May get the chance later today and will report back for duty!

 

[MyJoey]

I've said this multiple times now, but I think it was a mistake for the defense to try so hard to deny that Karen ever said "I hit him." I think it is actually rather indisputable that she did say that, or something very similar to that. She said it to too many people, including people with no obvious connection to the "conspiracy."

I believe that she said those words, but she was in a state of extreme emotional disturbance. She was confused. She was distraught. She was hysterical. She was trying to figure out what happened what happened to John. That's what I believe really happened, and I don't see it as being equivalent to a confession.

But, by trying so hard to deny that it happened, the defense may have actually made it look worse.

Based on the medical testimony, the engineering testimony, and KR's reaction to John's body being discovered, and the fact that she apparently turned down a plea bargain for 16 months, I firmly believe that KR is actually innocent. But I still don't find it believable that every single firefighter or paramedic who claims to have heard her say "I hit him" could all be lying.

Police lie during trials all the time to make convictions easier to achieve, I believe that 100 percent; I don't believe that to be the case for firefighters or paramedics.

I would like to see a link that she turned down a plea for 16 months, if you have one please.