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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wishbone said:
No they were presented as pieces of the lexus tail light, not legit.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
Curiousobserver said:
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.
Click to expand...
(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.
 
MyJoey said:
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.
Click to expand...
RBBM

Can you link to these photos please? Thank you.
 
ch_13 said:
(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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wishbone said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Wishbone said:
They were turned in as evidence to the crime lab
Click to expand...
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….
 
Curiousobserver said:
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.
Click to expand...
And what I would say in response the to DNA on the taillight, it was touch DNA. There is literally no proof or evidence there was any blood or bodily fluids of JoK on those tailight pieces, literally nothing, nothing. If you're going to say to me that JoK's DNA being on the taillight is some sort of indictment on him being hit Karen Read's car, why was there literally no blood or bodily fluids of his on those pieces, please explain this to me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 143 more.
Total: 2,676 (members: 144, guests: 2,532)

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
2,532
Total visitors
2,676
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,272
Messages
18,121,614
Members
230,996
Latest member
unnamedTV
Back
Top