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

[TIGER0822]

I'm confused. What did I miss? I was agreeing with your last line about knowing the judge etc.

Apologies.. I was replying to a post where the poster said he had never seen a judge before this trial asking the prosecutor if he would like defense evidence evidence thrown out. I gave a specific example with no rude words, but a word ended up as ‘advertiser censored’.

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

Apologies.. I was replying to a post where the poster said he had never seen a judge before this trial asking the prosecutor if he would like defense evidence evidence thrown out. I gave a specific example with no rude words, but a word ended up as ‘advertiser censored’.

Ohh no worries. Carry on

 

[thebedbug]

My opinion is that a police offer sharing confidential details about an active investigation is severe misconduct and a huge breach of public trust. Law enforcement are meant to be held to a higher standard than average citizens. It is far more serious than mere gossiping.

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but it happens. If I recall, some of the early details of the Idaho student murders were suspected to have made it online after being shared by police to non-police. And, allegedly, the same with the fake abduction girl in Georgia(?). Also, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash investigation.

It's a murder investigation. He did something he shouldn't have and is being punished. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think the side-eyes come when we see people trying to then connect A to B and B to C and C to D... when really it's just A.

 

[RANCH]

I have seen a judge ask the defense attorney if he would like my opening statement thrown out. The DA said no, because it was short. My statement was
'This is a claim in the amount of $x for damage caused by the defendant to *advertiser censored*, the actual damage was $x, but we decided to go through small claims as we thought it would be faster. The judge claimed that was testimony (what on earth?????) . The Judge threw just about every legitimate piece of evidence out. . We won the case, but in a lessor amount than was in my opinion fair. . 'It is better to know the judge than to know the law'!

Is this a small claims case that you were part of?

I'm trying to understand how this relates to this case.

 

[keek]

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but it happens. If I recall, some of the early details of the Idaho student murders were suspected to have made it online after being shared by police to non-police. And, allegedly, the same with the fake abduction girl in Georgia(?). Also, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash investigation.

It's a murder investigation. He did something he shouldn't have and is being punished. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think the side-eyes come when we see people trying to then connect A to B and B to C and C to D... when really it's just A.

There is that Federal investigation he has been under along with others prior to this case. Bigger than him but he did have 'fun' with this one too, oh boyy Mr. P.

 

[jepop]

One thing this case has taught me:

Lies told with the dull monotone of the state are far more dangerous than lies told with any sort of charisma and edginess.

Jmo

Good Point, those lies probably tend to fly under the radar if you're not paying attention and it was hard paying attention to Lally cos dull monotone as you point out. jmo

 

[Cedars]

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but it happens. If I recall, some of the early details of the Idaho student murders were suspected to have made it online after being shared by police to non-police. And, allegedly, the same with the fake abduction girl in Georgia(?). Also, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash investigation.

It's a murder investigation. He did something he shouldn't have and is being punished. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think the side-eyes come when we see people trying to then connect A to B and B to C and C to D... when really it's just A.

I agree, there are people like this everywhere. IMO it usually involves some kind of arrogance: they believe they can do no wrong, and indeed, people don't challenge them, often because everyone just wants to get along. Lawyers, teachers, soldiers, spies, it doesn't matter, there are always bad apples turning up, who go too far in flouting professional ethics and decent behaviour - the good news is when they are caught and weeded out.

But IMO, they are the opposite of minions acting for a boss in a larger conspiracy. IMO they are entirely self-directed, acting out of their own sense of self-importance, missing out entirely on the big picture and the damage they may be causing.

Say, a school teacher caught flirting with students - would this person be acting on orders from the school superintendent determined to undermine kids? Or a massage therapist who gets too handsy - is that person acting under orders to groom his victims for some massive sex trafficking ring?

JMO

 

[TIGER0822]

Is this a small claims case that you were part of?

I'm trying to understand how this relates to this case.

A poster posted that she had never seen a judge ask a prosecutor if he wanted to have evidence by the defense thrown out.
I gave a real life example of this scenario.

 

[Odeto BJ]

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but it happens. If I recall, some of the early details of the Idaho student murders were suspected to have made it online after being shared by police to non-police. And, allegedly, the same with the fake abduction girl in Georgia(?). Also, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash investigation.

It's a murder investigation. He did something he shouldn't have and is being punished. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think the side-eyes come when we see people trying to then connect A to B and B to C and C to D... when really it's just A.

Understanding that Proctor's exchange with his buddies was totally unacceptable for an investigator and that the content of the texts was crass and crude...but something more fundamental is in play. The investigation itself was done with total disregard for the integrity of evidence and without abidance with any form of report structure. In summary, he failed to apply basic investigation techniques. The CW went to trial relying on that evidence. Proctor was proven negligent and defiant to his organization's processes, procedures and protocols ON THE WITNESS STAND for the CW and everyone to see. By any measure, the shortfall represented by the outcome lands pretty solidly in Proctor's lap.
So far he has been shifted from a high responsibility, high exposure, high profile assignment...to something else. That may well be only a first step, but his record on this case in the absence of all these exchanges mandates at least that much of a punishment.
While the specific timing and broadcast of that step and the announcement of the accompanying investigation reeks of political taint, I don't think MSP had much choice but to respond. MOO

 

[kittythehare]

Following orders to spread misogyny? I'm probably misreading you. He is probably one of a number doing the same thing jmo, though I'm not willing to speculate that there is actually a widespread culture of misogyny in MSP. jmo

No, not just misogyny, that's just cultural and probably endemic, I don't know. I'm far more concerned by his apparent flagrant disregard for the code of ethics he swore upon and how easily it became breached and normalised within a really rapid time frame.. crazy stuff, like swearing he'd spoken to an official who had informed him that no snow plough ran that night.
That simply was not the case..

 

[jepop]

I have the NYT on full boycott so I cannot read this.

Strong feelings is not enough to corrupt a jury.
They saw the evidence, better than we did.
The medical evidence was simplified, particularly by Dr Sheridan.

Simplified BARD.
With reasons and rationale provided in simple language. It's not like he is not an expert, 13000 autopsies.

What could have possibly tainted them after hearing that???

It cannot be the colour of her hair, clothes, mannerisms or personality because that only goes so far.


I think there is a story here, a big story.

I have no idea who will dare to break it though..

I agree about this being something bigger. The CW and DA's office with the Judge's blessing clearly allowed this case to go to trial with sub standard evidence. jmo But I'm not buying for present the implication that a jury member was somehow got to and tainted? While we don't know the number of gs, it does not surprise me really that some were able to ignore the medical evidence probably owing to the pull of an opposing strong emotional conviction. This is common amongst us IRL jmo. However, I am suspicious as to whether all jurors were adequately aware of their duty to be impartial: that strong convictions unrelated to a reasonable assessment of evidence should be put aside. Those notes from the jury I found kind ofstrange and contradictory. jmo

I have questions centred around whether or not the court judge sufficiently charged the jury regarding the concept of reasonable doubt and evidence. Whether there was sufficient understanding regarding putting aside personal bias and convictions and feelings to impartially assess evidence. jmo

Also, and this has been discussed a little bit, I know it it's a Court Rule that allows a judge to select the foreperson from the entire pool of jurors and alternates, but that is something I cannot understand because it is open for judicial bias and so easily fixed. Simply by having judge select foreperson after the 12 jurors have been drawn. I don't understand the rationale behind that Court Rule. moo

 

[kittythehare]

I agree, there are people like this everywhere. IMO it usually involves some kind of arrogance: they believe they can do no wrong, and indeed, people don't challenge them, often because everyone just wants to get along. Lawyers, teachers, soldiers, spies, it doesn't matter, there are always bad apples turning up, who go too far in flouting professional ethics and decent behaviour - the good news is when they are caught and weeded out.

But IMO, they are the opposite of minions acting for a boss in a larger conspiracy. IMO they are entirely self-directed, acting out of their own sense of self-importance, missing out entirely on the big picture and the damage they may be causing.

Say, a school teacher caught flirting with students - would this person be acting on orders from the school superintendent determined to undermine kids? Or a massage therapist who gets too handsy - is that person acting under orders to groom his victims for some massive sex trafficking ring?

JMO

he probably violated every single rule and procedure in the book. i have not read the book but I'm pretty sure it exists..
who was his supervisor?

 

[jepop]

No, not just misogyny, that's just cultural and probably endemic, I don't know. I'm far more concerned by his apparent flagrant disregard for the code of ethics he swore upon and how easily it became breached and normalised within a really rapid time frame.. crazy stuff, like swearing he'd spoken to an official who had informed him that no snow plough ran that night.
That simply was not the case..

Sure I'm with you on all that. My post was just about the misogyny side of it, so I misunderstood your reply...didn't make the connection over to the wider issues.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but it happens. If I recall, some of the early details of the Idaho student murders were suspected to have made it online after being shared by police to non-police. And, allegedly, the same with the fake abduction girl in Georgia(?). Also, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash investigation.

It's a murder investigation. He did something he shouldn't have and is being punished. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think the side-eyes come when we see people trying to then connect A to B and B to C and C to D... when really it's just A.

I posted right after someone who did in fact explicitly disagree, lol. I didn’t quote them because they said they didn’t want to discuss it.

 

[RANCH]

A poster posted that she had never seen a judge ask a prosecutor if he wanted to have evidence by the defense thrown out.
I gave a real life example of this scenario.

In a small claims court case?

 

[geevee]

he probably violated every single rule and procedure in the book. i have not read the book but I'm pretty sure it exists..
who was his supervisor?

I could be misremembering but I thought Bukhenic said he was Proctor's supervisor.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

Say, a school teacher caught flirting with students - would this person be acting on orders from the school superintendent determined to undermine kids? Or a massage therapist who gets too handsy - is that person acting under orders to groom his victims for some massive sex trafficking ring?

RSBM.

I would agree, but the situation at hand is a little different. How about if that teacher texted the superintendent about flirting with kids, and the super did nothing? Then yes, I’d argue the school district is indeed tacitly encouraging and facilitating the behavior.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree about this being something bigger. The CW and DA's office with the Judge's blessing clearly allowed this case to go to trial with sub standard evidence. jmo But I'm not buying for present the implication that a jury member was somehow got to and tainted? While we don't know the number of gs, it does not surprise me really that some were able to ignore the medical evidence probably owing to the pull of an opposing strong emotional conviction. This is common amongst us IRL jmo. However, I am suspicious as to whether all jurors were adequately aware of their duty to be impartial: that strong convictions unrelated to a reasonable assessment of evidence should be put aside. Those notes from the jury I found kind ofstrange and contradictory. jmo

I have questions centred around whether or not the court judge sufficiently charged the jury regarding the concept of reasonable doubt and evidence. Whether there was sufficient understanding regarding putting aside personal bias and convictions and feelings to impartially assess evidence. jmo

Also, and this has been discussed a little bit, I know it it's a Court Rule that allows a judge to select the foreperson from the entire pool of jurors and alternates, but that is something I cannot understand because it is open for judicial bias and so easily fixed. Simply by having judge select foreperson after the 12 jurors have been drawn. I don't understand the rationale behind that Court Rule. moo

Not tainted but possibly intimidated were my thoughts.
I just cannot understand it.

For one thing they did not get to that pub until 11pm, they left shortly after midnight.. how much can one consume in that period without everybody noticing?

she was clearly quite demented and in a state of desperation since the Aruba event, real or imaginary but I really don't believe she arrived at that pitch in a single leap, I think it had built up and there is no blame in that, it happens. she wasn't putting herself first or receiving what she needed, it became advanced in her. Problem with that is that the victim is in a super heightened state of awareness and borderline paranoia which they are unwilling to rationalise. She would have believed her mental state rather than the facts of reality, I think she had already lost herself. That's why it feels so utterly cruel.

 

[kittythehare]

I could be misremembering but I thought Bukhenic said he was Proctor's supervisor.

Oh Lordy..is all..

 

[jepop]

I could be misremembering but I thought Bukhenic said he was Proctor's supervisor

That's right he was.