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

[LauraAnne]

jury can request to have portions of testimony read back to them, if they have concerns.

Not this jury. They only have their memories and the notes they took. No access to transcripts.

 

[CourtandSims4]

Not really. The post made reference to an interview that was NEVER even entered into evidence at this trial. I came into this with an open mind. And actually, if I was leaning anyway I was leading towards she did it, and the evidence presented changed my mind.

No, it was not entered. And she is lucky it wasn't. It confirms she was worried about a taillight while in the midst of this strangely frantic search for her boyfriend and that no one is lying when she said "I hit him." She said it was a question, would the jury believe that?

She also goes into details about thinking she could have incapacitated him, which is an illogical conclusion for someone she said she saw walk into the house.

I have the benefit of seeing that video, the jury doesn't. So, as someone who is not on the jury, I can consider that in determining if she is actually innocent. It's also part of why I can say that if I was a juror, I would find her not guilty. I see this video as a juror, I could possibly be persuaded to vote guilty.

None of that has to do with her facial expressions. The way she recklessly behaved in front of the jury is just insight into her character and mind frame. It wouldn't matter to me in terms of finding her not guilty. But, I would definitely find it strange for a woman claiming that the system has framed her. I can't account for how it may have impacted actual jurors opinions of her. Hopefully we find out.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Sorry, the statement was: "There was no evidence on his body that he got hit. I’m very unclear how there’s argument about this"

The pieces of her car, embedded in his clothing, are evidence that the car made contact with him at some pint that evening.

The amount of evidence that would need to be planted, at the level of detail that it is present, is too much for for even a team of bad-actors to pull off.

Okay, then I'm going to say it myself. There is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM AN AUTOPSY showing a motor vehicle strike.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

No, it was not entered. And she is lucky it wasn't. It confirms she was worried about a taillight while in the midst of this strangely frantic search for her boyfriend and that no one is lying when she said "I hit him." She said it was a question, would the jury believe that?

She also goes into details about thinking she could have incapacitated him, which is an illogical conclusion for someone she said she saw walk into the house.

I have the benefit of seeing that video, the jury doesn't. So, as someone who is not on the jury, I can consider that in determining if she is actually innocent. It's also part of why I can say that if I was a juror, I would find her not guilty. I see this video on the juror, I could possibly be persuaded to vote guilty.

None of that has to do with her facial expressions. The way she recklessly behaved in front of the jury is just insight into her character and mind frame. It wouldn't matter to me in terms of finding her not guilty. But, I would definitely find it strange for a woman claiming that the system has framed her. I can't account for how it may have impacted actual jurors opinions of her. Hopefully we find out.

Do you know for a fact that MS or any of her other health issues doesn't influence the faces she makes?

 

[jepop]

Not this jury. They only have their memories and the notes they took. No access to transcripts.

they have trial exhibits too I ws told so that must help. photos, maps etc

 

[CourtandSims4]

Do you know for a fact that MS or any other of health issues doesn't influence the faces she makes?

She managed not to do any smirking the last 3 days of last week when she didn't get that instant not guilty verdict.

 

[thebedbug]

Not this jury. They only have their memories and the notes they took. No access to transcripts.

Can you cite a source that the jury is not allowed to make a request to the judge to have portions of testimony read back to them?

 

[jepop]

She managed not to do any smirking the last 3 days of last week when she didn't get that instant not guilty verdict.

None of this has any bearing on her guilt or innocence imo

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

She managed not to do any smirking the last 3 days of last week when she didn't get that instant not guilty verdict.

Oh also, is the issue that people are taking FBI experts testimony over an not entered into evidence interview in determining her guilt? I'm confused as to what the original problem was? That people think she's not guilty but aren't saying "SHE"S GUILTY but she should be found not guilty"? I'm confused. Seems like you want it both ways.

 

[OldCop]

really?
I didnt see that. But Ill take your word for it.
Let's call that balance then


Because nobody is talking about the harassment and intimidation day after day after day out the front of the court house by the free KR-ers , of course it is influencing the jury and so cruel to Johns family and friends what gets thrown at them too.


moo

I agree, to a point. There have been “verdict watchers” in front of courthouses for years. Usually, they don’t affect the jury, because the jurors don’t come in through the front of the courthouses. They use a side or back door.
It has to be tough for anyone else who has to walk by them every day. Our constitution gives the protesters the right to be there. Depending on which side you’re on,
G or NG, those protesters either prop you up or tear you down.
If you had a loved one on trial for murder, how would you feel about the “lock her up” crowd?

 

[Derph]

I'm hearing Jury question incoming.

 

[Wishbone]

Can you cite a source that the jury is not allowed to make a request to the judge to have portions of testimony read back to them?

Reminder: The jury has no access to transcripts of witnesses' testimony. They must rely on their memories and personal notes. If jurors disagree about what a witness said, there's no way to check.

Karen Read verdict watch: Jury remains at an impasse in deliberations

Jurors deliberating the verdict in the trial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused of hitting her boyfriend John O'Keefe with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm, have again told the judge they are at an impasse and unable to reach a unanimous decision.

www.wcvb.com

 

[LauraAnne]

they have trial exhibits too I ws told so that must help. photos, maps etc

Are you sure they have access to anything at all, besides their own notes? The article I posted stated they had only to rely on their own notes.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

Not really. The post made reference to an interview that was NEVER even entered into evidence at this trial. I came into this with an open mind. And actually, if I was leaning any way, I was leading towards she did it, and the evidence presented changed my mind. Not her character or what she said when in hysterics that has been disputed and misquoted ad nauseum.


ETA: I'm not a supporter of Karen Read. I support the justice system. I don't see anything BARD at this point. Sorry that I'm not going to reduce myself to judging her based on the faces she makes and things that weren't presented in court. I actually resent you labeling me as such but go ahead and do you. I don't know how determining someone's guilt or innocent IN MY OPINION based on the evidence presented in a trial is having blinders. JMO

This is exactly how I feel! I don't have any feelings towards Karen, positive or negative. To me everything else has overshadowed that. I think if you're using judgements of a persons character, their appearance and messages sent when drunk instead of scientific and solid evidence then that speaks volumes to how weak the CW case is. JMO.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

seems some people think you must automatically be guilty of a crime if you're charged with it lol. all the science shows karen didn't do this. hoping today's the day for a NG verdict.

Scary isn't it. Let's hope people with those beliefs don't have to learn the hard way if heaven forbid they're accused of something they didn't do. JMO.

 

[TTF14]

I don't understand why the jury can't be given the transcripts if they ask. What is the point of making meticulous, detailed transcripts if the jury can't access them during deliberations? What we seem to have here, is a case where jurors recall testimony differently and they aren't being allowed to clear up their recollections of testimony.

Transcripts take time to produce. They are not instantaneous and I would assume the entire trial has not been transcribed, edited, and finalized yet. I've never watched a trial where the jury was given transcripts.

 

[OldCop]

As a person who leans more towards the idea that she is not guilty, I still go back and forth. I think your post is the most well laid out post from the “likely guilty” camp that I’ve seen. I like your opposing view and think you’ve laid out a very good argument that makes a lot of sense to me.

I agree that her demeanor at times seems like someone who has constant “dupers delight”. I think it could also be argued, though, that if she is not guilty her demeanor is based on being angry and incredulous of these people to the point of contempt. I think contempt and dupers delight look similar.

In regards to her initially saying it was an accident when they told her they had footage, I also hesitate at this one. I think I’d keep my mouth shut on saying I was guilty until I saw it. And, if I believe that Karen is an extremely anxious person I could also see her freaking out and saying she is willing to take the punishment for something even if she doesn’t remember doing it.

I struggle with her mentioning she hit something before finding him. I can’t do much with this other than excuse it as something bizarre and, if she’s not guilty, saying it fell into the laps of the others. I do think her exclamations of “I hit him!” are being exaggerated years later. I don’t think it’s odd to find the person you love near where you left them and to start to scream all sorts of things … maybe even “omg !! Is it possible I hit him” especially if you’re still what I would assume is very drunk.

Re: the unlikelihood of a massive conspiracy, I think the defense did itself a disservice focusing on it being so complex. I don’t believe it was a “set up”. I do think it’s possible that something happened that was not planned (he fell and hit his head, people got angry and he got beat up, the dog did something and they worried about a lawsuit due to past poor behavior from dog). Like you, I can’t get past why they would throw him on the lawn UNLESS they actually didn’t think he would die and initially it was a “get the “eff” out” kind of toss by really drunk men. This argument doesn’t fully make sense either. I do think that this mess is a result of a lot of people protecting themselves for varying reasons.

My other thought is that these cops are hiding a lot (not related to John) and they needed to distance themselves from whatever accident/ fight killed him because they couldn’t risk anyone knowing they were dealing drugs (letting underaged people drink) or something else that night. I think they’re smart enough to know that throwing him in the woods looks like murder, but if they throw him in the lawn it either looks like drunk guy passed out, fell and died OR if it did come back to them they’d say “oh my god! We got in a fight but we didn’t realize he died! He must have walked outside and passed out”. This would have a better outcome than finding someone “buried” in the woods.

I can’t get past Jen’s incessant calls - I do understand why Karen would be freaking out that John wasn’t home but I don’t get why Jen would care so much about him coming inside. I think the theory she was looking for his phone makes sense to me.

I can’t get over the flurry of action around 2:30 - phone calls, Google searches, moved cars. And I can’t get past no one seeing a body in the yard. Many people came and went, snowplow driver went by, and I’m sure other random drivers and yet no body was seen. I live on a similar road with very similar lighting and yards and every night when I drive , I become more and more doubtful his body was out in that spot all night. I can see my neighbors yards clearly (even in bad weather).

Lastly, I can’t get past the lack of bruising, lack of blood, and injuries that don’t look like a vehicle hit him. I also think so much evidence about her car was misleading (the key turns don’t line up with when she’d be reversing, the multiplying tail light pieces, reversed video).

At the end of the day we may never know because a group of adults (including Karen) were incredibly negligent, immature, selfish drunks with no regard to human life - every single person in that home and Karen thought it was ok, during inclement weather, to get wasted like they were in college and drive around town. The people in the home even included their children. The owners of the home KEPT a vicious dog that had harmed their OWN neighbors twice. The family of the owners killed someone in a hit and run. The brother of the deceased drunk drove and hurt someone. The lead investigator is a disgusting misogynistic police officer and liar and I shudder to think how he treats people that have even less recourse than Karen. These aren’t pillars of any community, regardless of their career path.

This is a group of people that cares very little about the safety of others - including their loved ones. They are all unlikable, in moo, which is why people dislike Karen but also why people dislike Proctor, Higgins, the McCabes, Alberts and even sadly the O’Keefe family - at the end of the day most recognize any of these people would be willing to harm them and try to get away with it. Maybe that’s why the jury is having trouble - everyone seems guilty of something in some way. It gets confusing.

Edited to fix typos and make some points more clear.

Outstanding post.

 

[BUF]

CourtTV reporting jury question, stay tuned…

 

[TTF14]

100% agree- the jury should own all of the evidence and get to see anything they like as many times as they would like.

Then deliberations would have to wait until weeks after trial when the transcripts could be accurately prepared.

 

[CourtandSims4]

Oh also, is the issue that people are taking FBI experts testimony over an not entered into evidence interview in determining her guilt? I'm confused as to what the original problem was? That people think she's not guilty but aren't saying "SHE"S GUILTY but she should be found not guilty"? I'm confused. Seems like you want it both ways.

My point was that there is some extreme denial when it comes to Karen's own words and actions implicating her in this crime.

People can't understand why John's family believes Karen is guilty. Part of that is that they believe their niece/granddaughter when she says that Karen's story kept changing depending on who she was talking to that morning. They believe John's childhood friend who says that Karen called and said John was dead and was worried about being responsible for it or that he was hit by a snowplow.

It's then a huge coincidence that they go to 34 Fairview, and the Alberts had allegedly thrown him out on the front lawn and the plan was to blame it on the snowplow guy. I mean, what kind of odds?? Kerry Roberts know for a fact what Karen said to her. There is no reason for her to have a preference for who gets charged for her friend's murder.

I am not saying that people are wrong for taking the experts the FBI hired word for it when they say that her car didn't hit him.<modsnip>