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]

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?

 

[Wishbone]

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.

Not sure what you mean about experts in2024 but I would have to say that I was impressed and firmly believe the experts that the FBI and DOJ sought out and paid for to give a completely unbiased opinion on this case. I have never seen an outside agency do this before and to me it speaks volumes.

 

[Curiousobserver]

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?

The Jury did not buy that there was intent. Without intent you can't commit the murder, without being aware of an accident you cant be guilty of the leaving the scene charge. But the important part is the jury did in fact think she was the cause, accidentally, of his death. This is what she should have been charged with from the start.

 

[CourtandSims4]

The Jury did not buy that there was intent. Without intent you can't commit the murder, without being aware of an accident you cant be guilty of the leaving the scene charge. But the important part is the jury did in fact think she was the cause, accidentally, of his death. This is what she should have been charged with from the start.

I don't disagree that they overcharged her. They were never going to prove 2nd Degree murder, imo... and if there is a retrial, I already thought that it should be off the table. (Of course, I also didn't think there should have been a trial at all, given all of the issues. But, 8 people willing to find her guilty of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol has me rethinking my position on that as well.)

Not sure what you mean about experts in2024 but I would have to say that I was impressed and firmly believe the experts that the FBI and DOJ sought out and paid for to give a completely unbiased opinion on this case. I have never seen an outside agency do this before and to me it speaks volumes.

I understand that people were impressed by their testimonies. I am not sure if you saw my original post, it was more of a philosophical question. Probably not the right forum. lol Just something I was thinking about while considering how 8 jurors (allegedly) had a vastly different reaction to their testimonies than most everyone else.

Here is my original post:

I see a lot of people keep citing the experts and expressing disbelief that, despite their testimony, there were still 8 people (or 4?) who would have found her guilty of at least one charge, despite the expert testimony.

I asked earlier on Twitter if we could talk about how the word "expert" doesn't carry the same weight that it used to. I also pondered if, perhaps, the C19 pandemic played a part in that. We watched as experts in fields of science, certified virologists and doctors, clashed over all things related to the pandemic, to the point where the public was largely confused about who or what to trust.

I think in trial watching, we have also seen many instances where experts gave conflicting testimony, and we are left to decide which sides experts were more convincing.

What does being an "expert" even mean anymore? A lot of people think that if the jurors would have known the defense experts were hired by the FBI, they would have absolutely found Karen Read NG on all counts. I am not so sure that is the truth.

Experts are still people with varying motivations when it comes to what they say. And those motivations are not always as clear cut as we all expect it to be when an expert weighs in on something. The public is now ACUTELY aware of that, so are experts seen as trustworthy as they once were?

 

[TTF14]

The Jury did not buy that there was intent. Without intent you can't commit the murder, without being aware of an accident you cant be guilty of the leaving the scene charge. But the important part is the jury did in fact think she was the cause, accidentally, of his death. This is what she should have been charged with from the start.

Do you feel that the CW proved he was hit by a car, beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, what testimony in particular convinced you of that?

 

[Wishbone]

I don't disagree that they overcharged her. They were never going to prove 2nd Degree murder, imo... and if there is a retrial, I already thought that it should be off the table. (Of course, I also didn't think there should have been a trial at all, given all of the issues. But, 8 people willing to find her guilty of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol has me rethinking my position on that as well.)


I understand that people were impressed by their testimonies. I am not sure if you saw my original post, it was more of a philosophical question. Probably not the right forum. lol Just something I was thinking about while considering how 8 jurors (allegedly) had a vastly different reaction to their testimonies than most everyone else.

Here is my original post:

In answer to my post back to you, take a look around this discussion board and look at all the differences in opinions and views and what the jury did doesn't seem so strange. JMO

 

[CourtandSims4]

In answer to my post back to you, take a look around this discussion board and look at all the differences in opinions and views and what the jury did doesn't seem so strange. JMO

Going by polls, something like 80-90% say NG. If it had been 2 jurors that hung the jury, I would say it was inline with public perception. But EIGHT for guilty? That's much more than I ever imagined possible. That's 66% of the jury. (I think, I am horrible with numbers. lol)

Also, I have a feeling that the defense had an inkling that it was going against her. Not because I think they have a mole or anything, but because they have inside knowledge and that knowledge is why they pushed for limiting how many times the jury should be sent back, right from the start, with asking the judge to read the Tuay-Rodriguez charge the 1st time. Once that was read, there would be a limit on how many times she could send them to try again. It's why it's called the dynamite charge.

Despite what the defense says in motions, their response to each jury note was that the jury had had enough time to deliberate. Based on how practically everyone saw this trial, that didn't make the most sense to me because why risk a retrial when you clearly have "the facts" on your side and get her completely acquitted now? 9 or 10 people being flipped by 2 or 3 people would never happen.

 

[cocomod]

Around the 1:58 mark the Dr talks about John’s raccoon eyes from the brain injury.
Around the 2:08 mark she’s says no major signs of an altercation on John’s body.

Exactly. A vehicle would cause a major sign on his body - especially bruising! The only thing he had was a huge gash on his head - which caused his death. This huge gash wasn't caused by the ground - as testified by experts in court. It wasn't caused by the vehicle - literally couldn't have happened and the CW wasn't even saying the vehicle did this. She also did say that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a vehicle. He did have a gash on his eye - possibly from being hit in a fight. The fight was likely very short lived because he either fell or was hit in the head causing immediate unconsciousness

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

No, the only thing Lally did is bring up once again the DNA - which was TOUCH DNA. He once again was shady trying to indicate that it was blood on the tail light. He KNOWS it was touch DNA, but continued to push that boundary trying to confuse the witness and the jury.

 

[Curiousobserver]

Do you feel that the CW proved he was hit by a car, beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, what testimony in particular convinced you of that?

We are losing track of the conversations- I think you have asked me that question a couple of times now

I 100% agree that MP is a jerk, I have no idea if those texts to his sister were typical or not, internal affairs will find out.

I did not see any evidence that he planted any evidence, only speculation that he did. Lots of sloppy police work, but enough. Once you buy that the evidence is the evidence its simple.

Therefore, the tail light pieces at the crime scene could only have come from some sort of collision. The plastic fragments on his shirt indicate he was the thing involved in that collision as well as his DNA on the car. His phone GPS that says he never moved, never moved. The lack of canine DNA on the right sleeve of his shirt cinches that no dog nibbled on his arm. She likely scratched it. The mechanism of his death that night will never be known but there are reasonable things you can imagine if you buy into that evidence was not planted.

I don't think she has any memory of this and was likely not even aware that it happened. Based on her blood alcohol levels she would have been on the verge of passing out and so would JO. She's a highly intelligent and accomplished person who, once more sober, put the pieces together that morning and realized what had happened; thus the panic and the confession at the scene.

 

[shotgun09]

Who here on this thread believes the defense motion , that the members of the jury were bothered (or intimidated) by Brian Albert glaring straight at them in the courtroom during closing arguments ? That dude was on a mission that day, IMO.

 

[Wishbone]

Going by polls, something like 80-90% say NG. If it had been 2 jurors that hung the jury, I would say it was inline with public perception. But EIGHT for guilty? That's much more than I ever imagined possible. That's 66% of the jury. (I think, I am horrible with numbers. lol)

Also, I have a feeling that the defense had an inkling that it was going against her. Not because I think they have a mole or anything, but because they have inside knowledge and that knowledge is why they pushed for limiting how many times the jury should be sent back, right from the start, with asking the judge to read the Tuay-Rodriguez charge the 1st time. Once that was read, there would be a limit on how many times she could send them to try again. It's why it's called the dynamite charge.

Despite what the defense says in motions, their response to each jury note was that the jury had had enough time to deliberate. Based on how practically everyone saw this trial, that didn't make the most sense to me because why risk a retrial when you clearly have "the facts" on your side and get her completely acquitted now? 9 or 10 people being flipped by 2 or 3 people would never happen.

Polls are just that, and they vary drastically. I've included a recent poll and quote from the jury foreman just as an example of the differences in people, which many of us are aware of....

“The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence,but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions,” the foreperson wrote.

“The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence,but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions,” the foreperson wrote. “To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.”
We asked readers if they were surprised the jurors in the Karen Read trial couldn’t come to a unanimous decision. More than 3,000Boston.com readers responded to the poll by Tuesday morning, with the majority (61%) saying they were not surprised jurors couldn’t reach a verdict. Thirty-nine percent said they were surprised.

More than 3,000 readers voted. Here’s why they’re not surprised about the Karen Read mistrial

Most were surprised jurors could not reach a unanimous decision, and a strong majority disagreed with prosecution's intent to re-try the case.

www.boston.com

 

[TTF14]

We are losing track of the conversations- I think you have asked me that question a couple of times now

I 100% agree that MP is a jerk, I have no idea if those texts to his sister were typical or not, internal affairs will find out.

I did not see any evidence that he planted any evidence, only speculation that he did. Lots of sloppy police work, but enough. Once you buy that the evidence is the evidence its simple.

Therefore, the tail light pieces at the crime scene could only have come from some sort of collision. The plastic fragments on his shirt indicate he was the thing involved in that collision as well as his DNA on the car. His phone GPS that says he never moved, never moved. The lack of canine DNA on the right sleeve of his shirt cinches that no dog nibbled on his arm. She likely scratched it. The mechanism of his death that night will never be known but there are reasonable things you can imagine if you buy into that evidence was not planted.

I don't think she has any memory of this and was likely not even aware that it happened. Based on her blood alcohol levels she would have been on the verge of passing out and so would JO. She's a highly intelligent and accomplished person who, once more sober, put the pieces together that morning and realized what had happened; thus the panic and the confession at the scene.

Haha, sorry for my repeat question! So, basically since you don't believe there's evidence of evidence being planted, you believe the taillight evidence to be legit, and that's what points to him being hit. And you don't believe the scratches were from a dog bite.

Thank you for your answer. I obviously disagree, but it's good to understand the other side's reasoning.

 

[cocomod]

Who here on this thread believes the defense motion , that the members of the jury were bothered (or intimidated) by Brian Albert glaring straight at them in the courtroom during closing arguments ? That dude was on a mission that day, IMO.

I 100% believe this! I thought it was wrong and he has an incredible RBF that would intimidate anyone. I also thought it was completely wrong to have POK sit next to KR during the trial. I think it was a factor in the jury's mind - it is typical for the victim's family to sit behind the prosecution, not next to the defense. It think it was terribly wrong and sent a message to the jury - even almost to the point of tampering. It played on their emotions and may have been prejudicial against the defendant.

 

[Wishbone]

Haha, sorry for my repeat question! So, basically since you don't believe there's evidence of evidence being planted, you believe the taillight evidence to be legit, and that's what points to him being hit. And you don't believe the scratches were from a dog bite.

Thank you for your answer. I obviously disagree, but it's good to understand the other side's reasoning.

For the taillight evidence to be legit ALL the gathered pieces would have had to be included in the tail light reconstruction completed by the lab tech. They did not. She ended up with bogus pieces of tail light that didn't fit anywhere.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Therefore, the tail light pieces at the crime scene could only have come from some sort of collision. The plastic fragments on his shirt indicate he was the thing involved in that collision as well as his DNA on the car. His phone GPS that says he never moved, never moved.

.

No, the taillight pieces were easily planted by disgraced Trooper Proctor and he had control of the unlogged clothing for a month at least And the FBI experts thoroughly explained how there is no way the CW's theory has any validity. Physics and math. He wasn't hit by a car and the CW had no expert to explain their theory anyway.

His GPS stopped upon his arrival at 12:25 at 34 Fairview. There was nothing further to track. He'd arrived. His phone didn't stop moving until 12:32. Karen was back at One Meadows by 12:36, confirmed by John's WIFI and Read's phone call. She could not have made it there in 4 minutes. More proof she didn't hit him.

 

[MyJoey]

Exactly. A vehicle would cause a major sign on his body - especially bruising! The only thing he had was a huge gash on his head - which caused his death. This huge gash wasn't caused by the ground - as testified by experts in court. It wasn't caused by the vehicle - literally couldn't have happened and the CW wasn't even saying the vehicle did this. She also did say that his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a vehicle. He did have a gash on his eye - possibly from being hit in a fight. The fight was likely very short lived because he either fell or was hit in the head causing immediate unconsciousness




No, the only thing Lally did is bring up once again the DNA - which was TOUCH DNA. He once again was shady trying to indicate that it was blood on the tail light. He KNOWS it was touch DNA, but continued to push that boundary trying to confuse the witness and the jury.

At the very end when Lally asks him about side swipe hits, I thought he did very good. The expert said there’s a lot of possibilities. I don’t believe in a fight at all, John was never in the house there is no evidence of that. Much more evidence around his body (tail light pieces ) and on his body he was hit….

 

[keek]

I 100% believe this! I thought it was wrong and he has an incredible RBF that would intimidate anyone. I also thought it was completely wrong to have POK sit next to KR during the trial. I think it was a factor in the jury's mind - it is typical for the victim's family to sit behind the prosecution, not next to the defense. It think it was terribly wrong and sent a message to the jury - even almost to the point of tampering. It played on their emotions and may have been prejudicial against the defendant.

Paul the brother of John invited them. He has his own issues.

 

[MyJoey]

For the taillight evidence to be legit ALL the gathered pieces would have had to be included in the tail light reconstruction completed by the lab tech. They did not. She ended up with bogus pieces of tail light that didn't fit anywhere.

It can be both legit and extra plastic pieces were found ….they collected everything they found along side the road and grass. It doesn’t change the fact that Karen’s tail light piece were found around and on Johns body.

 

[Wishbone]

At the very end when Lally asks him about side swipe hits, I thought he did very good. The expert said there’s a lot of possibilities. I don’t believe in a fight at all, John was never in the house there is no evidence of that. Much more evidence around his body (tail light pieces ) and on his body he was hit….

The expert never agreed with anything lally was trying to go for. He stayed true to his original opinion as per the video you posted and I watched.