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

[Misy]

Judge Beverly Cannone.

I think she'll have to speak to each juror individually and ask each if they intended to find Read not guilty on counts 1 and 3. If all 12 are definitive that they did, she'll have to grant the motion, IMO.

But I suspect she'll find enough ambiguity in their responses to deny the motion. Even though she's the one who screwed up here in not clarifying whether they were hung on all counts.

Thanks HarmonyE! I was afraid of that. Is anyone confident in the motion being considered at all, in any legitimate way, given Judge Canonne’s bias?

MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

Did he then say he believed it was one of the girls boyfriends.MOO

Yes, but the guy there for the pickup never came into the house, per his testimony. Just for the record, I don't think KR was a good girlfriend. I suspect the jealousy between the men was cause by her. imo

 

[Halloqueenie]

I don't think KR was a good girlfriend. I suspect the jealousy between the men was cause by her. imo

What makes you think that?

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

House picture with corresponding floor plan - entrances circled. JO definitely could have come in the front door and gone down the basement stairs without being seen by anyone in the kitchen or dining room. But IMO someone would have needed to show him where to go if this was his first time at the house.

View attachment 516531

IMO if I was rolling up on this house at midnight and parked in front of the house. I wouldn't even probably know the green circled door is there. I'd walk into the blue circled door. It looks like walls block view from kitchen and dining room. He may have heard everyone but assumed they were in the basement. Just a thought. However I don't believe what occurred happened right away in the basement. Maybe the guys all went to the basement after he arrived and that's when it all went down. I believe it was BH not CA. Although CA testimony of not remembering anything except the exact time he left was pretty shady. I think BH and JOK got into over KR. JMO

 

[TTF14]

IMO if I was rolling up on this house at midnight and parked in front of the house. I wouldn't even probably know the green circled door is there. I'd walk into the blue circled door. It looks like walls block view from kitchen and dining room. He may have heard everyone but assumed they were in the basement. Just a thought. However I don't believe what occurred happened right away in the basement. Maybe the guys all went to the basement after he arrived and that's when it all went down. I believe it was BH not CA. Although CA testimony of not remembering anything except the exact time he left was pretty shady. I think BH and JOK got into over KR. JMO

I think they were all drunk and what started as words between two people escalated to 2 or 3 humans on 1 (JOK), with Chloe jumping into the fray out of fear/protection. Just being a dog, poor thing.

IMO MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

What makes you think that?

All of the texts read in court between BH and KR. And then CCTV vids of the three of them together at bar closely before the all head to Albert's.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Unless perhaps, he specifically didn’t want to identify the individual. Rather to provide only an obscure and generic description. MOO

Exactly. Covering his bases in his FBI testimony, just in case they found the DNA of a certain tall dark haired individual in the house.

 

[Wishbone]

Did he then say he believed it was one of the girls boyfriends.MOO

There has been very little information available, except in brief testimony, about the FEDERAL GRAND JURY.

 

[ch_13]

Thanks HarmonyE! I was afraid of that. Is anyone confident in the motion being considered at all, in any legitimate way, given Judge Canonne’s bias?

MOO

If she does deny the motion, I'm sure they will immediately appeal. I think this is the very reason that they added Martin G. Weinberg to the defense team. He's a very respected, very senior attorney and has experience in arguing before the appellate courts.

There's another factor to consider as well. If this double-jeopardy situation gets appealed, then it could take years to litigate. And any retrial would remain on hold for as long as it remains unresolved. Michael Morrissey, however, is up for reelection in two years. Considering how divisive this case is within the county, it's not at all unlikely that there will be a new DA by the time the retrial is scheduled, and they may have a very different view of this case and the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

 

[ShadyLady]

If she does deny the motion, I'm sure they will immediately appeal. I think this is the very reason that they added Martin G. Weinberg to the defense team. He's a very respected, very senior attorney and has experience in arguing before the appellate courts.

There's another factor to consider as well. If this double-jeopardy situation gets appealed, then it could take years to litigate. And any retrial would remain on hold for as long as it remains unresolved. Michael Morrissey, however, is up for reelection in two years. Considering how divisive this case is within the county, it's not at all unlikely that there will be a new DA by the time the retrial is scheduled, and they may have a very different view of this case and the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

So curious how this case made it into trial. The politics behind it.

Was the defense 100% on board? Did they even have a choice?

 

[geevee]

Exactly. Covering his bases in his FBI testimony, just in case they found the DNA of a certain tall dark haired individual in the house.

Exactly

 

[MyJoey]

If the physics don't match, a good reconstruction expert would rule out a vehicle pedestrian incident.

The end around the 3:50 mark, think Lally did very well and it came down to many possibilities on a side swipe.

 

[HarmonyE.]

So curious how this case made it into trial. The politics behind it.

Was the defense 100% on board? Did they even have a choice?

There's plenty of information about Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey and his personal involvement with this matter. He personally vouched for Michael Proctor. Most political pundits here think he'll retire now because of this case. He's up for re-election in 2026.

What do you man by the defense being on board? On board with what in particular?

 

[Wishbone]

The end around the 3:50 mark, think Lally did very well and it came down to many possibilities on a side swipe.

I watched from 3:50 and nothing changed the view of the witness. Don't know about lally doing anything very well at all either.JMOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

If this double-jeopardy situation gets appealed, then it could take years to litigate. And any retrial would remain on hold for as long as it remains unresolved. Michael Morrissey, however, is up for reelection in two years. Considering how divisive this case is within the county, it's not at all unlikely that there will be a new DA by the time the retrial is scheduled, and they may have a very different view of this case and the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

Agree. It will take years. And I really think the judge will now pretend all is well and that she didn't royally screw up by not bothering to even ask the jury if they were deadlocked on all counts. It appears she may have just assumed they were. She didn't need to poll them. All she needed to ask was, "Mr. Foreman, are you deadlocked on all three counts?" And if the answer was "No, we're on the same page on two of them", she should have had him fill out the damn verdict sheets.

Pretty mindboggling. Clown show.

 

[ShadyLady]

There's plenty of information about Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey and his personal involvement with this matter. He personally vouched for Michael Proctor. Most political pundits here think he'll retire now because of this case. He's up for re-election in 2026.

What do you man by the defense being on board? On board with what in particular?

I wondered if the defense lawyers thought they had a good case, or were they pressured to bring the case to trial.

BTY, rewatching NA's testimony...she said photos were on shelf in family room, and she was with them for a bit. And she also called the dining room a dining room, not part of kitchen.

So many little details.

 

[Wishbone]

I wondered if the defense lawyers thought they had a good case, or were they pressure to bring the case to trial.

Both the cw, or maybe I should say lally, and the defense wanted to hold off going to trial. The judge pushed it.

 

[CourtandSims4]

It doesn't take an expert to understand that a man hit by a car so hard he was deposited 8 feet away from the roadway would sustain injuries below his head.

I ask you, with the upmost sincerity, to explain how you think this vehicular homicide played out, exactly?

My question was about wondering if people do not regard experts in the same way they once did and how that may have impacted the jurors - 8 of them - who wanted to find Karen Read guilty. What any of us think really doesn't matter, since we were not deliberating and had no say. These experts are often the first thing people reference when stating that Karen is not just Not Guilty, but "factually innocent."

I'm wondering why they did not have the same impact on the jury.

I was honestly surprised that it was more than 3 of them voting guilty on any charge. This made me reconsider my own perception of the trial and how, even though I didn't consume that much anti-CW/Alberts/McCabes media, maybe what I did see still subconsciously played a part in how I viewed the evidence presented. The jurors, theoretically, would have a blanker slate than I did coming in and only were going by the evidence presented at trial.

Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone had an opinion or thoughts on the roles that experts play at trial, present day, given all that we know about "experts" in 2024.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

My question was about wondering if people do not regard experts in the same way they once did and how that may have impacted the jurors - 8 of them - who wanted to find Karen Read guilty. What any of us think really doesn't matter, since we were not deliberating and had no say. These experts are often the first thing people reference when stating that Karen is not just Not Guilty, but "factually innocent."

I'm wondering why they did not have the same impact on the jury.

I was honestly surprised that it was more than 3 of them voting guilty on any charge. This made me reconsider my own perception of the trial and how, even though I didn't consume that much anti-CW/Alberts/McCabes media, maybe what I did see still subconsciously played a part in how I viewed the evidence presented. The jurors, theoretically, would have a blanker slate than I did coming in and only were going by the evidence presented at trial.

Anyway, I just wanted to see if anyone had an opinion or thoughts on the roles that experts play at trial, present day, given all that we know about "experts" in 2024.

Did they not vote 12-0 NG on murder?

 

[CourtandSims4]

Did they not vote 12-0 NG on murder?

The charge they voted 8-4 on still requires her striking him with the car. So 8 of them still thought she struck him and caused his death. All 3 charges, you have to agree she hit him to get a guilty verdict. How else could they have thought she would have been responsible?