MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #16

[Elliot_Alderson]

If federal charges are brought, they would have to answer to them. Also, at least one, BH, is a federal agent, ATF.
The fact that at least some portion of the investigation involved their study into whether JOK was hit by a car would seem to indicate their probe is focused on the this case.

I also wonder if Proctor and Higgins are fired and/or under federal indictment by the time CW retries this case, where that leaves their confidence in recharging? Neither prosecution nor defense wanted this to go to trial yet but the Honorable Beverly Cannone deemed it so.

 

[KMouse]

After the jury is dismissed, you are no longer prohibited from talking about the trial. However, you should avoid revealing the names of other jurors, how any juror voted, or anything discussed during jury deliberations.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/trial-jurors-handbook#:~:text=After%20the%20jury%20is%20dismissed,anything%20discussed%20during%20jury%20deliberations.

Exactly. Outing other jurors or what was discussed should remain private. So somebody claiming to have the skinny on the vote count is lying or somebody is talking out of turn.

 

[shotgun09]

That’s pretty much the only response they could have. If they said they won’t retry it immediately, it gives off the air that they never believed in it in the first place. MOO

I also re-read the statement. It's kind of sus, with the words
" The CW "intends to retry the case" vs the CW will re-try the case. As in, yeah we are waiting for the feds, but...

 

[TTF14]

Exactly. Outing other jurors or what was discussed should remain private. So somebody claiming to have the skinny on the vote count is lying or somebody is talking out of turn.

I don't need to know who voted which way, but I do need to know what the split was!

 

[TTF14]

I also wonder if Proctor and Higgins are fired and/or under federal indictment by the time CW retries this case, where that leaves their confidence in recharging? Neither prosecution nor defense wanted this to go to trial yet but the Honorable Beverly Cannone deemed it so.

I wonder what Judge C.'s feeling is about this case now. Does she regret pushing it through?

 

[OldCop]

I also wonder if Proctor and Higgins are fired and/or under federal indictment by the time CW retries this case, where that leaves their confidence in recharging? Neither prosecution nor defense wanted this to go to trial yet but the Honorable Beverly Cannone deemed it so.

Let’s not forget that BH was allowed to have his attorney on the stand with him. That was a first for me.

Karen Read Defense Accuses Brian Higgins of Federal Crime

Brian Higgins' attorney went to the stand to confer with his client after Karen Read's defense accused him of misusing federal resources.

www.courttv.com

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I also re-read the statement. It's kind of sus, with the words
" The CW "intends to retry the case" vs the CW will re-try the case. As in, yeah we are waiting for the feds, but...

Exactly. They might intend to do something different tomorrow. If they retry it then Lally’s boss should be lead prosecutor. He’s the one who was out in the media guaranteeing guilt anyway.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Let’s not forget that BH was allowed to have his attorney on the stand with him. That was a first for me.

Karen Read Defense Accuses Brian Higgins of Federal Crime

Brian Higgins' attorney went to the stand to confer with his client after Karen Read's defense accused him of misusing federal resources.

www.courttv.com

A first for me as well.

 

[turaj]

I won't repeat the quoted phrase but not sure it is smart for victim's family to be saying anything to KR. Disappointed. I guess after all of these witnesses and lies coming out if I were in their shoes I might just want to delve more into other possibilities of what went down that night.

 

[OldCop]

Exactly. Outing other jurors or what was discussed should remain private. So somebody claiming to have the skinny on the vote count is lying or somebody is talking out of turn.

You could still give the count without mentioning names.

 

[TTF14]

I won't repeat the quoted phrase but not sure it is smart for victim's family to be saying anything to KR. Disappointed. I guess after all of these witnesses and lies coming out if I were in their shoes I might just want to delve more into other possibilities of what went down that night.

You'd think! But, I also have never been in their shoes, so I won't judge. Although, threatening someone is never OK.

IMO MOO

 

[Charlot123]

In a way, it is a better outcome. While I haven't changed my opinion of what has happened, I would have a hard time sending someone to prison in a poorly presented case. Nor do I feel she is innocent. I think the case needs better investigative work, that's all. At the same time, I do respect people who have strong opinion, on both sides. On the human note, one wants to thank the jury who spent days in that small room going through mounds of information.

 

[TIGER0822]

I hope the MA AG does not give the police a tap only on the wrist to ‘help her chances at reelection’. However 99% of police Officers would be angered by the Canton bad apples.

 

[Spectrix]

I won't repeat the quoted phrase but not sure it is smart for victim's family to be saying anything to KR. Disappointed. I guess after all of these witnesses and lies coming out if I were in their shoes I might just want to delve more into other possibilities of what went down that night.

I agree that was poor form on the part of Paul O'Keefe.
I understand that they want justice for their loved one, but did they not comprehend that John wasn't hit by a car, and that Karen didn't hit anyone?

I try to put myself is his shoes, but I think that no matter how upset I was, I couldn't ignore that evidence.
Wouldn't it better to focus on finding out the truth rather than acting out a personal vendetta?

Edit - being an engineer I tend to base my thoughts on careful observation of as much information as I can find. I don't make decisions based on emotion. And I readily re-evaluate my thoughts if more information comes to light.
My method is neither right or wrong, it's simply how my brain works.

 

[fluffypaste]

As much as I'd like to know all the details, it would be in the best interest of the jurors (or now, former jurors) for them to maintain ambiguity about which side they were on and why.

 

[TTF14]

I agree that was poor form on the part of Paul O'Keefe.
I understand that they want justice for their loved one, but did they not comprehend that John wasn't hit by a car, and that Karen didn't hit anyone? No matter how upset I was, I couldn't ignore that evidence.

I don't understand it either. But folks are willing to disregard expert testimony when it doesn't fit their narrative, but accept it (Cellbrite/"Hos Long") when it does.

 

[LvsAMystry]

I’m disappointed. Is there any doubt that’s reasonable, especially when the stakes are murder and a life sentence?

I hope we find out more about what led to this result because I don’t understand it.

 

[TTF14]

As much as I'd like to know all the details, it is in the best interest of the jurors (or now, former jurors) to maintain ambiguity about which side they were on and why.

Absolutely. None of us (I assume) has any idea how deep and dark this FBI investigation is or is going to get. Safety first for all of them.

But I still wanna know the split!

 

[CourtandSims4]

In a way, it is a better outcome. While I haven't changed my opinion of what has happened, I would have a hard time sending someone to prison in a poorly presented case. Nor do I feel she is innocent. I think the case needs better investigative work, that's all. At the same time, I do respect people who have strong opinion, on both sides. On the human note, one wants to thank the jury who spent days in that small room going through mounds of information.

This is pretty much how I feel. I know we are in the minority, so I wanted to voice support.

Personally, I really don't think they should retry this case. All of the issues with the case are always going to be issues. I really wish we at least knew the split. I can understand why jurors are not running to talk to the media, though. I hope they can at least say the split even if they can't say who voted which way.

 

[Spectrix]

I don't understand it either. But folks are willing to disregard expert testimony when it doesn't fit their narrative, but accept it (Cellbrite/"Hos Long") when it does.

Hos long to die in cold. There were too many differing opinions and I disregarded that 'evidence' completely.