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

[jepop]

Seriously need an eye roll emoji!

check the space above the text box. You need to click on one or more of the three verticle dots to bring up emoji field.

 

[MyJoey]

That post stood by itself, alone. Did you mean to quote someone? (Sometimes it seems to glitch like that.) Howsomever, nothing anyone can do now but wait on the jury, and it seems...wait...and wait...and wait. Anyway, Have a great weekend.

Yeah I was quoting someone, sorry. I get messed up on here sometimes .

 

[geevee]

The tail light was largely intact before coming into Canton PD custody.

I don't understand why this is controversial. How can it even be in dispute?

There is video and testimony of it largely intact before coming into Canton PD custody.

Of course, it may go hand in hand with preferring one's own intuition over unbiased experts.

Who really knows.

Sign of the times, I suppose.

The most bizarre thing is, John's shoe stayed at the curb yet he, his phone, the bar glass and 45 taillight pieces all flew to the same general location, 30 feet away from the curb.

How is that explainable? How could the taillight explode and all the pieces go in the same direction, around his body? There are simply no physics or reasonable explanation to account for that.

 

[themonk]

I believed Kerry’s Testimony she was shown the tail light and asked if that’s what she saw. The picture the defense uses is when her brakes are on and you can’t tell because of the reflection.

ah yes.

and the Dighton police officer's testimony?

He must have struck you as dishonest.

Was it because he is from Dighton?

Is Dighton bad???

 

[kittythehare]

I posted this earlier

Understanding Hung Jury: Implications, Options, and Strategies

Delve into the intricacies of hung juries in our comprehensive guide. Learn about its implications, the circumstances leading to a hung jury, and the potential options after such a verdict. Explore strategies for navigating this complex situation with insights from experienced defense attorneys.

thedefenders.net

Circumstances That Lead to a Hung Jury​

A hung jury typically results from several circumstances:

• Disagreement on Interpretation of Evidence: Jurors may have different interpretations of the evidence presented during the trial. Some jurors might find certain pieces of evidence more compelling and convincing than others, leading to disagreement.
• Conflicting Views on Witness Credibility: If jurors differ in their assessment of the credibility of witnesses, this could lead to a deadlock. One juror might find a witness to be credible, while another may not.
• Differing Personal Beliefs and Values: Sometimes, personal beliefs or values can affect a juror’s decision-making process. For example, a juror’s stance on issues like law enforcement or crime can potentially influence their verdict.
• Insufficient Evidence: A hung jury can occur when there is insufficient evidence for a unanimous decision. If some jurors believe that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof, they may vote not guilty, resulting in a deadlock.
• Complexity of the Case: In complex cases involving multiple charges or intricate legal issues, jurors may struggle to reach a consensus. The complexity can lead to confusion or differing interpretations of the law.
• Pressure to Agree: Sometimes, a juror may feel pressured to change their vote to reach a unanimous decision. If they resist this pressure, it can result in a hung jury.

Which, if any of the above are most likely to have brought about the current status?

 

[keek]

The most bizarre thing is, John's shoe stayed at the curb yet he, his phone, the bar glass and 45 taillight pieces all flew to the same general location, 30 feet away from the curb.

How is that explainable? How could the taillight explode and all the pieces go in the same direction, around his body? There are simply no physics or reasonable explanation to account for that.

I saw the independent experts in their field, THAT particular field of physics and motion and crashes say, does not seem to have happened as CW attempting to present. Why was McCabe calling JO one after another and hanging up, some think that was bizarre of KR calling and calling him. Why would Mc do that>>>long after he was said to have left per her. That is how we find our phone, using someone else's walking around the area , house, till we hear it ringing and find it. Handy.

 

[MyJoey]

ah yes.

and the Dighton police officer's testimony?

He must have struck you as dishonest.

Was it because he is from Dighton?

Is Dighton bad???

No even Kerry said it was cracked, but when she was shown the pictures she said that’s what she saw. Just his way of describing what he seen. When the police went to John’s house to do a welfare check at 8 something, the photo was consistent with the others later that day. Remember it was also caked with snow, I did not see any difference in the photos.

 

[Snoods]

I wonder if Lally and Jackson both somehow received a heads-up leak about which way the wind was blowing in the deliberation room? Could that possibly be why Jackson chose not to deliberate any longer and Lally said yes continue deliberating? I hope it’s not leaning, majority guilty, but just a thought.

If it’s majority not guilty I bet head in his hands, not making eye contact guy is a hold out guilty.

 

[fluffypaste]

I wonder if Lally and Jackson both somehow received a heads-up leak about which way the wind was blowing in the deliberation room? Could that possibly be why Jackson chose not to deliberate any longer and Lally said yes continue deliberating? I hope that’s not why, but just a thought.

I bet head in his hands, not making eye contact guy is a guilty.

I thought it was Jackson who wanted the dynamite instruction?

 

[Snoods]

I thought it was Jackson who wanted the dynamite instruction?

Ahhh okay. Doh. That makes sense. Well that makes me feel slightly better. Thanks!

 

[geevee]

I thought it was Jackson who wanted the dynamite instruction?

Yes, I believe that's what he said.

 

[Pipersand]

Websleuthers, we are divided. We have all looked carefully at the evidence, applied our common sense and reached different conclusions regarding whether she hit him, and whether the CW met their burden.

The jury must be the same. If they are like us, I think (reading our comments), the majority will likely be NG, and the minority G.

If that is the case and the jury remains hung, will the CW refile? So much may depend on the outcome of the FBI's investigation ... but I remain angry at the CW for not effectively responding to the scientific evidence they knew was out there. Ignoring that evidence, or putting Trooper Paul on the stand to respond, is simply unforgivable.

Scientific evidence - particularly when independent and brought forward by properly qualified experts - is relevant. If it truly is to be dismissed or ignored, there must be evidence that effectively counters it. Not simply disbelief. The CW should have led that. In MOO, they failed to do so.

Last thoughts: the FBI experts were not tainted. They did have sufficient information to render their opinions. I honestly suspect the "glass thrown at the tail light" by the canon was testing whether a small projectile could have resulted in the damage. Such as a hammer.

That is frightening.

 

[seekingjustice**]

All I can say is her and her family have been harassed, even her children. I can understand why she was so angry and defensive on the stand. She also willingly handed her phone over. Like or dislike, I can understand where she was coming from.

I personally found her credible and like you completely understand where she was coming from. She seemed hostile and angry at times which is absolutely understandable and I don't blame her considering how much harassment her family including children and JO's family have been subjected too. It's sickening watching the pro Karen supporters outside the courthouse! All IMO of course.

 

[MyJoey]

The most bizarre thing is, John's shoe stayed at the curb yet he, his phone, the bar glass and 45 taillight pieces all flew to the same general location, 30 feet away from the curb.

How is that explainable? How could the taillight explode and all the pieces go in the same direction, around his body? There are simply no physics or reasonable explanation to account for that.

Wasn’t his body 8-12 feet from the curve?

 

[cocomod]

One of the things that bothers me the most is that Lally lied in his closing arguments. That really really bothers me and just another nail in the coffin of something rotten in Canton.

There is a difference between “Did I hit him?” And “I hit him”. He was effective in reiterating that over and over in his closing. I do think that would stick in minds. Remember the OJ trial? A very effective catchy line can stick in the jury’s mind.

I personally think that evidence was planted to help secure a conviction. I think the CW’s “expert” was anything but an expert. I think Jen Mc is a lying liar who lies and I think all of the Alberts & Higgins did shady crap! But, I think the strongest evidence that the defense should have hammered home is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There is no way with the Horrible evidence collection, lack of proper procedures, no chain of custody, and lack of logs , this is a no brainer BARD case.

I also believe person bias has to be in play because they can’t be following the evidence. The defense doesn’t have to prove another option, they proved he didn’t die from a vehicle. Even the CW’s ME admitted that his injuries do not look like they were caused by a vehicle.

Why would he be standing in the middle of the road to be hit? She didn’t run up on the law to hit him. Why would the tail light pieces follow him 30’ to the lawn. It doesn’t make logical or scientific sense. It just doesn’t jive.

I hope they come to a conclusion and not a hung jury, but as evidenced right here in this thread, some people have their opinion and they don’t care about the scientific facts. I wouldn’t want to be on a jury with such a hard task of changing one or two people’s minds that have dug in their heels. Conviction is a good thing, but common sense and listening is a good thing too. When on a jury, one should put all personal aside to discuss and try to come to a resolution. I will be very interested if/when this is over and we hear if there was any impropriety.

 

[Wishbone]

One of the things that bothers me the most is that Lally lied in his closing arguments. That really really bothers me and just another nail in the coffin of something rotten in Canton.

There is a difference between “Did I hit him?” And “I hit him”. He was effective in reiterating that over and over in his closing. I do think that would stick in minds. Remember the OJ trial? A very effective catchy line can stick in the jury’s mind.

I personally think that evidence was planted to help secure a conviction. I think the CW’s “expert” was anything but an expert. I think Jen Mc is a lying liar who lies and I think all of the Alberts & Higgins did shady crap! But, I think the strongest evidence that the defense should have hammered home is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There is no way with the Horrible evidence collection, lack of proper procedures, no chain of custody, and lack of logs , this is a no brainer BARD case.

I also believe person bias has to be in play because they can’t be following the evidence. The defense doesn’t have to prove another option, they proved he didn’t die from a vehicle. Even the CW’s ME admitted that his injuries do not look like they were caused by a vehicle.

Why would he be standing in the middle of the road to be hit? She didn’t run up on the law to hit him. Why would the tail light pieces follow him 30’ to the lawn. It doesn’t make logical or scientific sense. It just doesn’t jive.

I hope they come to a conclusion and not a hung jury, but as evidenced right here in this thread, some people have their opinion and they don’t care about the scientific facts. I wouldn’t want to be on a jury with such a hard task of changing one or two people’s minds that have dug in their heels. Conviction is a good thing, but common sense and listening is a good thing too. When on a jury, one should put all personal aside to discuss and try to come to a resolution. I will be very interested if/when this is over and we hear if there was any impropriety.

I'm pretty sure that if KR was screaming "I hit him" over and over that there would have been a report written and she would have been taken into custody right then.

 

[seekingjustice**]

One of the things that bothers me the most is that Lally lied in his closing arguments. That really really bothers me and just another nail in the coffin of something rotten in Canton.

There is a difference between “Did I hit him?” And “I hit him”. He was effective in reiterating that over and over in his closing. I do think that would stick in minds. Remember the OJ trial? A very effective catchy line can stick in the jury’s mind.

I personally think that evidence was planted to help secure a conviction. I think the CW’s “expert” was anything but an expert. I think Jen Mc is a lying liar who lies and I think all of the Alberts & Higgins did shady crap! But, I think the strongest evidence that the defense should have hammered home is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There is no way with the Horrible evidence collection, lack of proper procedures, no chain of custody, and lack of logs , this is a no brainer BARD case.

I also believe person bias has to be in play because they can’t be following the evidence. The defense doesn’t have to prove another option, they proved he didn’t die from a vehicle. Even the CW’s ME admitted that his injuries do not look like they were caused by a vehicle.

Why would he be standing in the middle of the road to be hit? She didn’t run up on the law to hit him. Why would the tail light pieces follow him 30’ to the lawn. It doesn’t make logical or scientific sense. It just doesn’t jive.

I hope they come to a conclusion and not a hung jury, but as evidenced right here in this thread, some people have their opinion and they don’t care about the scientific facts. I wouldn’t want to be on a jury with such a hard task of changing one or two people’s minds that have dug in their heels. Conviction is a good thing, but common sense and listening is a good thing too. When on a jury, one should put all personal aside to discuss and try to come to a resolution. I will be very interested if/when this is over and we hear if there was any impropriety.

I don't believe Lally lied at all. It was testimony from credible witnesses who don't have a reason to lie.

Jurors in Karen Read’s murder trial heard testimony Thursday from paramedics who said she repeatedly shouted “I hit him” as her boyfriend lay motionless outside during a blizzard in Canton in January 2022, while Read’s lawyers sought to cast doubt on their recollections.

“I asked her if there had been any significant trauma that happened before this,” McLaughlin said. “She said, ‘I hit him.’ She repeated it.”

Paramedics testify that Karen Read said ‘I hit him’ as her boyfriend lay motionless in the snow - The Boston Globe

Jurors heard testimony Thursday from paramedics, while Read’s lawyers sought to cast doubt on their recollections.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[LvsAMystry]

One of the things that bothers me the most is that Lally lied in his closing arguments. That really really bothers me and just another nail in the coffin of something rotten in Canton.

There is a difference between “Did I hit him?” And “I hit him”. He was effective in reiterating that over and over in his closing. I do think that would stick in minds. Remember the OJ trial? A very effective catchy line can stick in the jury’s mind.

I personally think that evidence was planted to help secure a conviction. I think the CW’s “expert” was anything but an expert. I think Jen Mc is a lying liar who lies and I think all of the Alberts & Higgins did shady crap! But, I think the strongest evidence that the defense should have hammered home is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There is no way with the Horrible evidence collection, lack of proper procedures, no chain of custody, and lack of logs , this is a no brainer BARD case.

I also believe person bias has to be in play because they can’t be following the evidence. The defense doesn’t have to prove another option, they proved he didn’t die from a vehicle. Even the CW’s ME admitted that his injuries do not look like they were caused by a vehicle.

Why would he be standing in the middle of the road to be hit? She didn’t run up on the law to hit him. Why would the tail light pieces follow him 30’ to the lawn. It doesn’t make logical or scientific sense. It just doesn’t jive.

I hope they come to a conclusion and not a hung jury, but as evidenced right here in this thread, some people have their opinion and they don’t care about the scientific facts. I wouldn’t want to be on a jury with such a hard task of changing one or two people’s minds that have dug in their heels. Conviction is a good thing, but common sense and listening is a good thing too. When on a jury, one should put all personal aside to discuss and try to come to a resolution. I will be very interested if/when this is over and we hear if there was any impropriety.

Same! He changed so many facts during closing from what he presented as testimony during the trial and that’s unforgivable. Especially when there is no transcript for the jury to look back on, which he knew would be the case. Two of the bigger ones were the time she allegedly hit him and when she was seen outside 34 Fairview, which in his opening was 1245 but that was debunked by her arriving back to JOK home at 1236, and the other huge one was him saying the only DNA found on JOK clothing was his own and that’s simply not true. The testimony indicated 2 others’ DNA found. There were a multitude of other things he changed too.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't believe Lally lied at all. It was testimony from credible witnesses who don't have a reason to lie.

Jurors in Karen Read’s murder trial heard testimony Thursday from paramedics who said she repeatedly shouted “I hit him” as her boyfriend lay motionless outside during a blizzard in Canton in January 2022, while Read’s lawyers sought to cast doubt on their recollections.

“I asked her if there had been any significant trauma that happened before this,” McLaughlin said. “She said, ‘I hit him.’ She repeated it.”

Paramedics testify that Karen Read said ‘I hit him’ as her boyfriend lay motionless in the snow - The Boston Globe

Jurors heard testimony Thursday from paramedics, while Read’s lawyers sought to cast doubt on their recollections.

www.bostonglobe.com

sane paramedic that testified he removed JOK'S COAT EVEN THOUGH jok WASN'T WEARING ONE?

 

[Spectrix]

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.

I appreciate your clear and concise explanation, it goes some way to help me understand what may be going on for those jury hold outs.

Edit - are you able to explain your thoughts on why JOK's injuries below the neck might be so minor and don't appear as one would expect from a motor vehicle accident?
Thank you.