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

[waldojabba]

I'm beginning to perceive the silver lining...

I am also sensing the CW will not air their dirty laundry again in another trial
JMO

 

[LaineyJ]

Facts and evidence thrown out based on beliefs. Wow!
Shaking my head in DISbelief

I hear you. I don’t agree with how it’s being handled, just what I’ve thought has been going on in the jury room. This imo is kind of like, human error, when they can’t get past things they believe. But per their note they know they should. Or at least whoever wrote the note understands

 

[Maat99]

Karen and her defense say that she was not that drunk.

Because I am forming my opinions based on evidence and not my feelings or preconceived notions of what happened, I consider the most convincing evidence regardless of which side presented it.

 

[keek]

I hear you. I don’t agree with how it’s being handled, just what I’ve thought has been going on in the jury room. This imo is kind of like, human error, when they can’t get past things they believe. But per their note they know they should. Or at least whoever wrote the note understands

It is the note writer I would say.

 

[BUF]

I would hate to be in that”tense” jury room right now.

I keep thinking back to that one juror during the defense closing argument described as staring up at the ceiling, then looking down at the floor.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

When Maura Healey spoke out about the trial, the MSP were asked for comment on Proctor and they said they wouldn’t be sharing details about any disciplinary action until after the trial. I’ve long thought that was slimy - like if they’re planning to fire or otherwise discipline Proctor they’re waiting to do it so the defense can’t use it. Mistrial would prob throw a wrench into that timeline. If Proctor does get fired, you’d have to think it would be pretty damaging to the CW case.

 

[keek]

I would hate to be in that”tense” jury room right now.

I keep thinking back to that one juror during the defense closing argument described as staring up at the ceiling, then looking down at the floor.

Mind was made up, sounds like the personality that should not be on any jury.

 

[turaj]

it depends. if CW decides to re-try the case, I'd think they could definitely find someone to do a better job in both making the case and blunting the conspiracy angles put forth by the defense.

on the other hand, if they believe that was their best effort, they might decide not to re-try the case and since i wouldn't really expect any 'new' evidence to surface - it could be a win for KR.

A win of sorts but not the same as hearing NOT GUILTY and being vindicated by a jury of her peers. And for the O'Keefe family back to square one...no one being held accountable for his death.

 

[TIGER0822]

I'm beginning to perceive the silver lining...

Two concerns it is dismissed without prejudice. Or even worse (rare) the judge can give a directed verdict

 

[justtrish]

But when an individual is being held back by beliefs and convictions then I do not see how they can be reaching decisions based on thought processes that are rooted in reason and rationality. Personal beliefs have clouded applying reason to evidence. This is nothing to do with intelligence, rudeness, or calling one juror better than another. Its about a jury's duty to consider the evidence and parse the facts, putting aside for the time being biases and personal beliefs and convictions jmo

Could it be that their personal beliefs/convictions is just what is causing some to view xyz piece of evidence as more weighty than another person views it. Maybe it's not that they can't see the evidence and make a decision based on it, but the way they view the evidence and the weight it has on the case could be different based on their own thought processes. Doesn't make one more right than another in that case. They aren't excluding any piece of evidence, but if the way they think through things and come to a decision on what that evidence means for the case it could be different than how another persons views that same evidence.

Edited to add: Or it could simply mean that those in the minority decision are not willing to agree with the majority to just get it over with. That would be a conviction I would have. If I could be swayed to view the case like the other side, sure I'd switch, but I wouldn't just agree to switch to end the deliberations. I'd need to understand and be able to believe in my gut that switching was the right and just thing and not just a means to end the deliberations.

 

[TIGER0822]

I'm beginning to perceive the silver lining...

Dam

 

[waldojabba]

Polls in forums are not the same as jury duty, lots of polls will vote guilty cos they don't like the way she looks or dresses or her mannerisms or personality.
They swore no oaths.

He did not die from a vehicular injury, is all.

I think the "oath" to some people and yes to jurors too, is just another formality and not taken seriously. Witnesses take the oath and lie through their teeth. There are many people who cannot separate fact from ficttion - we see and hear it everyday.
I could go on and on but I won't.
I will take a hung jury and move on.
I believe that no matter what the verdict - everyone's opinions will stay the same.
I do hope that the truth comes out somewhere along the line - it usually does
JMO.

 

[Spectrix]

I’ve always found it highly suspic that the neighbor reviewed his footage, deemed it “not useful”, and erased it. His camera view absolutely should have caught KR backing into JO. Clearly it didn’t or he wouldn’t have erased it.

Didn't that neighbour happen to be the Chief of Police?
It's possible that when he reviewed his footage he discovered Karen Read's Lexus driving away without incident, then later two of his own Troopers dragging a dead guy out of a side gate and disappearing behind a Ford Edge.

So the footage was very much "not useful". At least, not useful to him or to his troopers.

 

[TIGER0822]

Directed verdict (judge decides) my main concern. Rare but an option
Two concerns it is dismissed without prejudice. Or even worse (rare) the judge can give a directed verdict

 

[thebedbug]

I love how the word conspiracy gets bandied about. Optics imo.
The other more accurate word IMO for it is "business as usual".
A group decides to set up an individual - for a reason or no reason - I used to see it all the time in Corporate America until I ran out screaming lol and founded my own company.
The stakes were maybe not as high in corporate America but people lost thier jobs etc because they got targeted by people in positions of power or were targeted to become the fall guy for failed projects bc they happened not to be in favor or were percceived as "other".
JMO

The alternate theory proposed by the defense is the literal definition of a conspiracy. It's not a word that is bandied about, it is an accurate use of the term.

Definition of CONSPIRACY

the act of conspiring together; an agreement among conspirators; a group of conspirators… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[KSwizzle]

I could actually see the jury just being tired and not tense or upset at each other, I find we tend more to be argumentative and hostile online then when you’re with somebody else in real life.

Like, hey we don’t agree, we went through everything, we just personally are different in our thoughts let’s hope the judge stops keeping us hostage

 

[LaineyJ]

But when an individual is being held back by beliefs and convictions then I do not see how they can be reaching decisions based on thought processes that are rooted in reason and rationality. Personal beliefs have clouded applying reason to evidence. This is nothing to do with intelligence, rudeness, or calling one juror better than another. Its about a jury's duty to consider the evidence and parse the facts, putting aside for the time being biases and personal beliefs and convictions jmo

Yes, and whoever wrote the note appears to understand that. But the note clearly states that some people just can’t get past their convictions despite understanding the evidence.

I don’t agree with letting their biases or convictions get in the way of their duties. As I just said to oldcop, this is human error. Perhaps someone with a G vote just won’t convict out of spite - they hated the way the defense made LE look because they will back the blue 100% of the time no matter what (Though LE did in fact screw themselves w the mess they made)… I literally have no idea, this has just been my thought for a while - and again considering the note, it is not due to lack of understanding - just the convictions they hold - which tells me they are actually failing imo in their duties but I always disagreed that they weren’t thinking so irrationally that they couldn’t grasp the evidence. That was my initial idea last week - it was towards them processing the evidence initially. Making their vote based on their convictions IS unreasonable.

We can agree to disagree on certain aspects of this. I 100% agree that letting your convictions override your full understanding of the evidence is wrong.

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

More drama in the court!

Breaking: Prisoner who escaped from Dedham District court moments ago is now back in custody after racing through the crowd of Karen Read supporters camped outside superior court and still waiting for a verdict

https://twitter.com/x/status/1807816449060212970

 

[jepop]

Directed verdict (judge decides) my main concern. Rare but an option
Two concerns it is dismissed without prejudice. Or even worse (rare) the judge can give a directed verdict

If the split is like 10 ng and 2 g the judge could surely not direct the verdict g. Do you really think directed verdict is possible?( I wouldn' t have a clue)

 

[arielilane]

@BienickWCVB

The judge has left her chamber. No verdict or questions until at least 2pm. Enjoy your lunch.


1:01 PM · Jul 1, 2024