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

[shotgun09]

TO me this case could be used in the Chapter on Reasonable Doubt 101 in law classes. I guess what is up for interpretation is "reasonable" because clearly there is doubt. Not much in closing to make this concept crystal clear to jurors who may have never considered it before. We as trial watchers have a good idea of what it means but probably some jurors do not.

I just watched 12 Angry Men last night. The movie clearly shows how reasonable doubt can come into play. Not one bit of " conspiracy" was needed. Just doubt.

This case? LOADED with reasonable doubt. IMO

ETA: I will start with the fact that the crime scene was never secured. Because CPD doesn't do crime scenes in the snow.....

 

[BrownRice]

What a difference in approaches on how to kill the time.

I’d probably prefer the bar with my friends

 

[OldCop]

I think people feel intimidated and defensive when confronted with people whose intellects or abilities far surpass their own. I think there is someone in the juror room who honestly thinks, “screw those PHD elites, I know better.” We live in very anti-science, anti-expert, and anti-education times. Lack of knowledge is valorized as long as you can back it up with enough bluster. So I guess that falls in the “witness credibility” camp. MOO.

Good points. I also think a lot of folks have heard the term “junk science” and know that both the prosecution and the defense can bring in witnesses that will testify in the way that’s needed for their arguments so they choose to disregard expert witnesses no matter how compelling the proof of their arguments.
The most important testimony, I believe, in this case were the last two witnesses called by the defense, Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ARCCA, Inc. and Andrew Rentschler, PhD. ~ARCCA, Inc.
These two very compelling and highly educated witnesses had prepared an independent report, not related to this case, for a federal law enforcement agency outlining their findings as to whether John O’Keefe could have been hit and killed by a motor vehicle. Through a series of scientific tests, accident reconstruction, pathology analysis etc., they were able to conclude that John O’Keefe was not killed by a motor vehicle.
Copies of this report were made available to both the prosecution and the defense prior to trial. Why is this important? Because these were not witnesses paid by the defense to try and reach a specific conclusion. This was an independent investigation for an agency that wanted to find out whether or not JOK had been killed by a motor vehicle.
The folks who believe that KR is guilty of killing JOK with her SUV have elected to ignore their findings.

 

[OldCop]

Totality?
Intent?
means?
self incrimination?



moo

Proof?

 

[ch_13]

Good points. I also think a lot of folks have heard the term “junk science” and know that both the prosecution and the defense can bring in witnesses that will testify in the way that’s needed for their arguments so they choose to disregard expert witnesses no matter how compelling the proof of their arguments.
The most important testimony, I believe, in this case were the last two witnesses called by the defense, Daniel Wolfe, Ph.D. ~ARCCA, Inc. and Andrew Rentschler, PhD. ~ARCCA, Inc.
These two very compelling and highly educated witnesses had prepared an independent report, not related to this case, for a federal law enforcement agency outlining their findings as to whether John O’Keefe could have been hit and killed by a motor vehicle. Through a series of scientific tests, accident reconstruction, pathology analysis etc., they were able to conclude that John O’Keefe was not killed by a motor vehicle.
Copies of this report were made available to both the prosecution and the defense prior to trial. Why is this important? Because these were not witnesses paid by the defense to try and reach a specific conclusion. This was an independent investigation for an agency that wanted to find out whether or not JOK had been killed by a motor vehicle.
The folks who believe that KR is guilty of killing JOK with her SUV have elected to ignore their findings.

I can't help but wonder how it would affect the jury's deliberations if they knew these experts were hired by the FBI instead of some random, unnamed "agency".

I'm sure there are valid legal reasons not to tell them, but at the same time the "guilty" jurors might suspect that the experts were not truly independent, like they were hired by KR's insurance company or something.

 

[OldCop]

I can't help but wonder how it would affect the jury's deliberations if they knew these experts were hired by the FBI instead of some random "agency".

I'm sure there are valid legal reasons not to tell them, but at the same time the "guilty" jurors might suspect that the experts were not truly independent, like they were hired by KR's insurance company or something.

I think they didn’t tell them because they thought if the jury knew there was an FBI investigation into some of these officers and LE agencies it would affect their decision making this case.

 

[themonk]

Honestly? At this point, I’m not sure. I am one of those who really thought early on that KR probably did it. Perhaps she did, but it has not been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a long shot, and that is my obligation to KR as a citizen or a juror.

But do you tend to agree with the independent analysis that determined JO could not have been hit by a car?

So doesn't that rule KR completely out?

JO's injuries were not the result of a car strike and I am reasonably sure KR did not beat him up.

Perhaps another party did?

 

[shotgun09]

JO's injuries were not the result of a car strike and I am reasonably sure KR did not beat him up.

Perhaps another party did?

RSBM

The 'Investigators' clearly were LOOKING THE OTHER WAY .
Proctors " Nope...He's a Boston Cop too" confirms that.

 

[LvsAMystry]

I agree it was unnecessary.
IT still is a visual that everyone can see. Nowhere to hide. Its there.
The actions of everyone there to be seen.

Not remotely close to the importance of the missing ring camera show -casing Karen Reads activities between 12.30 am and 5am that morning.

That is the trickery exposed. The stuff gone missing.
pretty convenient.

poof!! vanished!! gone!!

moo

Funny though that the ring video had been there on initial police review of ring footage but wow it disappeared when Proctor in possession of JOK phone. You’re right that’s when it went poof! vanished! gone! It’s too bad Karen didn’t have access to the ring maybe she could’ve saved a copy before it vanished.

 

[turaj]

I just watched 12 Angry Men last night. The movie clearly shows how reasonable doubt can come into play. Not one bit of " conspiracy" was needed. Just doubt.

This case? LOADED with reasonable doubt. IMO

ETA: I will start with the fact that the crime scene was never secured. Because CPD doesn't do crime scenes in the snow.....

What is telling to me is each and every one of the CW's witnesses (except those defense chose not to question) were used by the defense to illustrate the doubt that was everywhere....this much doubt has to be reasonable. I don't recall one CW witness that was not crossed and had their story torn apart with doubt.

 

[turaj]

one of the CW's theories is how they were arguing from time to time in the weeks leading up to and in the car that night. Boy there would be a lot of people up for murder if that was enough to bring charges. Couples argue all the time.

 

[turaj]

I have heard some commentators indicate that this local jury may not be as impressed with the" slick" Jackson as some of us are. He and the judge have made it clear he is not local..can't remember if LAX had been mentioned. Maybe he comes across too "slick" in his attire and more assertive demeanor as compared to the more homestyle Lally ?The jurors see the nonstop talking between the two lawyers and Karen at defense table as they move from witness to witness whereas you contrast this with the one man show Lally. Just thinking of things that jury might observe that maybe does not work in their favor.

 

[arielilane]

Jurors know exactly what guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means.

The defense included too much fluff into their story line:
-- Why the need to attack all or most of MA LE
-- Why the need to include a conspiracy/planting of evidence theory
-- Planned birthday party at the A’s for a son - let’s have Officer O'Keefe come over w/KR so we can fight with him (JOK)

I'm sure there's more...Did defense try to throw things at the wall and see what sticks?

Why complicate a case that had so much reasonable doubt?

Dont need to complicate when you have a lot of reasonable doubt.

The CW did not prove legal burden that the defendant KR guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense knew what they had, keep it simple.

Trooper MP and shoddy police work and so much more reasonable doubt would have ended the trial with a NG verdict.

Now, we wait until Monday.

Hypothetical. Speculation. Moo

 

[arielilane]

Curious if one or two jurors lean toward guilty and the rest NG?
I can’t imagine it would be the other way around but it's possible.
I know for me I would not give in to a strong belief if I thought a person were guilty or NG. moo

 

[LvsAMystry]

I have heard some commentators indicate that this local jury may not be as impressed with the" slick" Jackson as some of us are. He and the judge have made it clear he is not local..can't remember if LAX had been mentioned. Maybe he comes across too "slick" in his attire and more assertive demeanor as compared to the more homestyle Lally ?The jurors see the nonstop talking between the two lawyers and Karen at defense table as they move from witness to witness whereas you contrast this with the one man show Lally. Just thinking of things that jury might observe that maybe does not work in their favor.

Let’s hope these things don’t work in favor of or disfavor.

I’m not sure about the talking but I’m sure there could be some judgement about “slickness,” but I’d hope that wouldn’t factor into a decision as it shouldn’t and isn’t evidence of anything other than perhaps a dislike of a certain type of personality.

I’m sure there is also judgement, which we’ve even seen here in these threads regarding the case, that Karen should be a good little defendant and sit at the table quiet and looking repentant rather than being an open participant in her defense and showing emotion when her life is at stake. This too shouldn’t matter to a jury because again, personal preference for character isn’t evidence.

I’ve heard rumor one of the jury members is a cop. Not sure if true because not sure how that information would’ve gotten out but I’d like to think if true that person would still only weigh the evidence rather than personal feelings or considerations about the matter.

 

[minazoe]

it's too bad because I think they failed to put this case together. there are a myriad of things that could have happened to his arms...for instance , Karen could have been scratching him, if she is driving and reaches over his arms are level with hers and she could stop at a light, say and start fighting with him, maybe he hurt himself trying to get her to calm down. also she could have had something in her hand like a metal drinking straw or a pen.

someone is totally lying, but I think she has a bad temper and she may have committed vehicular homicide in which case she should be prosecuted for it. I just don't think all these cops are going to collude and lie to save a German Shepardrd and a home owners insurance company. It's not against the law to be drunk at your house and if someone accidentally hurt John in the midst of some kind of Dog attack, then it's an accident and everyone can attest to it. I just don't understand it, it doesn't make sense.

mOO

 

[turaj]

Jurors know exactly what guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means.

The defense included too much fluff into their story line:
-- Why the need to attack all or most of MA LE
-- Why the need to include a conspiracy/planting of evidence theory
-- Planned birthday party at the A’s for a son - let’s have Officer O'Keefe come over w/KR so we can fight with him (JOK)

I'm sure there's more...Did defense try to throw things at the wall and see what sticks?

Why complicate a case that had so much reasonable doubt?

Dont need to complicate when you have a lot of reasonable doubt.

The CW did not prove legal burden that the defendant KR guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense knew what they had, keep it simple.

Trooper MP and shoddy police work and so much more reasonable doubt would have ended the trial with a NG verdict.

Now, we wait until Monday.

Hypothetical. Speculation. Moo

very good analysis and I agree....in retrospect while the "frame up" theory makes for some good press and town involvement it was not at all necessary in this case. It would have been a much simpler case and with so much doubt and shoddy police work might have had a better result. I will be shocked (I am often shocked in these cases) if they come back Monday and the hold outs have turned around. The note told me this group of jurors gave it their all and thought that judge would dismiss them. I have heard some pretty persuasive "allen charges" explaining how important a verdict is and stressing that everyone consider others thoughts. They also sometimes include that they are 100% the best people to decide the case rather than moving it on to another jury. I wish they had had that charge instead of an invitation to relax and enjoy lunch.

 

[arielilane]

Downsizing would have been sufficient for both sides in this case.
Both families on each sides suffer, and so does KR and the community.
moo

 

[shotgun09]

We know the Feds are involved. Somehow.

Brian Higgins obtained an attorney QUICKLY in early Feb, 2022.
The McCabes and Alberts have an attorney.
Proctor most definitely does as well.

Why? Hint: It's not for harassment. IMO

 

[keek]

I just watched 12 Angry Men last night. The movie clearly shows how reasonable doubt can come into play. Not one bit of " conspiracy" was needed. Just doubt.

This case? LOADED with reasonable doubt. IMO

ETA: I will start with the fact that the crime scene was never secured. Because CPD doesn't do crime scenes in the snow.....

it's too bad because I think they failed to put this case together. there are a myriad of things that could have happened to his arms...for instance , Karen could have been scratching him, if she is driving and reaches over his arms are level with hers and she could stop at a light, say and start fighting with him, maybe he hurt himself trying to get her to calm down. also she could have had something in her hand like a metal drinking straw or a pen.

someone is totally lying, but I think she has a bad temper and she may have committed vehicular homicide in which case she should be prosecuted for it. I just don't think all these cops are going to collude and lie to save a German Shepardrd and a home owners insurance company. It's not against the law to be drunk at your house and if someone accidentally hurt John in the midst of some kind of Dog attack, then it's an accident and everyone can attest to it. I just don't understand it, it doesn't make sense.

mOO

Not about the dog, that is why it doesn't make sense to you.