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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
No they were presented as pieces of the lexus tail light, not legit.

I admittedly zoned out during the taillight testimony. So, what you're saying is there were extra pieces of taillight, but the CW stuck to their story that ALL of the pieces were from the Lexus? They didn't say, "We collected everything there and it's possible some pieces were from some other car at some other time?"
 
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.
(bolded by me)

I'm going to disagree that "the jury" thought she was the cause of his death. According to Yannetti's affidavit the jury was originally split 6-6 and ended up at 8-4 when the mistrial was declared. That's clearly not "the jury", it's only some of the jury. And the important part is that they reached an impasse. Twelve people could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge.

Sure sometimes a jury deadlocks at 11-1 because of a single obstinate juror. But that's clearly not what happened here. In any other case it would be a huge embarrassment for the DA to only be able to convince 2/3 of the jury and only on a lesser charge. (Assuming the jury split is accurate.) I think it's a mark of how topsy-turvy this case is that people seem to think that this somehow validates the prosecution.

I will say that I am very curious about how the deliberations went, if/when the jury members ever choose to speak publicly. What they believed happened that night; which witnesses they found believable; what evidence they focused on during their discussions, etc.
 
I believe both sides wanted more time but the judge pushed it. One thing you didn’t find in Proctor’s phone was a cover up or conspiracy. Although the investigation was horrible, the truth is still there. There were plenty of photos of the car before it got the Sally Port.
I would have liked to see the Defense try this case without all the conspiracy and blaming everyone else, I get the expert testimony is still there but as I said before the tail light pieces around and on John speak louder to me.
RBBM

Can you link to these photos please? Thank you.
 
(bolded by me)

I'm going to disagree that "the jury" thought she was the cause of his death. According to Yannetti's affidavit the jury was originally split 6-6 and ended up at 8-4 when the mistrial was declared. That's clearly not "the jury", it's only some of the jury. And the important part is that they reached an impasse. Twelve people could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge.

Sure sometimes a jury deadlocks at 11-1 because of a single obstinate juror. But that's clearly not what happened here. In any other case it would be a huge embarrassment for the DA to only be able to convince 2/3 of the jury and only on a lesser charge. (Assuming the jury split is accurate.) I think it's a mark of how topsy-turvy this case is that people seem to think that this somehow validates the prosecution.

I will say that I am very curious about how the deliberations went, if/when the jury members ever choose to speak publicly. What they believed happened that night; which witnesses they found believable; what evidence they focused on during their discussions, etc.
The final note did not say the withholding few jurors on a couple lesser charges based their finding on facts and evidence but their own personal convictions I believe ? LE do not do wrong things ? KR drank along with John that night ? She was hurt and upset he did not text her back from the house so murderous ? Sounded personal mentality and personal outlook on social behavior of their own was the unfortunate reasoning, not evidence nor facts. If so they were not fit to be on any jury. If this what it meant.
 
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.
Where do you believe the extra pieces came from? They went around just breaking up random pieces of taillight and added it to the scene? What would be the point?
 
Last edited:
They were turned in as evidence to the crime lab
You’re not talking about the pieces that didn’t fit mechanically? Your saying there were pieces that didn’t belong to Karen’s car? Just want to be sure what I’m listening for here….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
1,803
Total visitors
1,966

Forum statistics

Threads
598,966
Messages
18,088,758
Members
230,771
Latest member
Sugar4Mama
Back
Top