MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[jepop]

^^rsbm

What did I miss here?

If we are to believe a select group of the jurors communicated with the defense and the DA's office and provided to them that the panel was only deadlocked on Indictment 2 (Manslaughter), where the vote vacillated at 6-6 GUILTY, 8-4 GUILTY, and finally 9-3 GUILTY, does this not also say that 9 jurors believe that JOK was struck by KR's vehicle?

To be clear, they further offered: "Nobody thought she hit him on purpose, or even knew she hit him."

And all knowing the FBI provided science says no vehicle struck JOK, his injuries do not support being hit by a vehicle, nor does the terrain support this thesis-- but still there are 9 jurors who voted KR was GUILTY of manslaughter, and who presumably thought JOF was "hit" by KR (vehicle) but NONE thought it was on purpose or that she was aware she "hit" him.

"Hit" being the operative word.

The objective experts, FBI, the science, their qualifications, and it fell on deaf ears?

But more important, how does the defense overcome the next 9 panelists inclined to vote KR guilty of (vehicular) manslaughter?

MOO

I don't think you missed anything? It seems to be correct that 9 out of 12 jurors still believed JOK was hit by a vehicle despite strong and unchallenged defense presented evidence to the contrary. Jmo.

Hence the questions I have regarding the content of jury notes, especially references to their "deeply held convictions" and morality if I recall the general gist correctly. Jmo.

Also I have questions around how effectively the jury were instructed on the concept of ' beyond a reasonable doubt', with emphasis on the word reasonable. Jmo.

 

[SteveS]

^^rsbm

What did I miss here?

If we are to believe a select group of the jurors communicated with the defense and the DA's office and provided to them that the panel was only deadlocked on Indictment 2 (Manslaughter), where the vote vacillated at 6-6 GUILTY, 8-4 GUILTY, and finally 9-3 GUILTY, does this not also say that 9 jurors believe that JOK was struck by KR's vehicle?

To be clear, they further offered: "Nobody thought she hit him on purpose, or even knew she hit him."

And all knowing the FBI provided science says no vehicle struck JOK, his injuries do not support being hit by a vehicle, nor does the terrain support this thesis-- but still there are 9 jurors who voted KR was GUILTY of manslaughter, and who presumably thought JOF was "hit" by KR (vehicle) but NONE thought it was on purpose or that she was aware she "hit" him.

"Hit" being the operative word.

The objective experts, FBI, the science, their qualifications, and it fell on deaf ears?

But more important, how does the defense overcome the next 9 panelists inclined to vote KR guilty of (vehicular) manslaughter?

MOO

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

But my point is that "what can you get jurors to believe" should not be the CW's standard. It should be "what happened." And that can only fall somewhere within the realm of what's scientifically possible.

You ask "The objective experts, FBI, the science, their qualifications, and it fell on deaf ears?" and the answer is "Obviously." It should not be possible, but it is.

Jurors can be misled, or make mistakes in judgment. Can prosecutors be tricky and sell a lie and get jurors to believe it? Of course. But if you are the CW and supposedly trying to obtain true justice, why would you? And why would you try to do it again? It's that sort of scenario that should make everyone wonder about the DA and judge, if they do it again.

Ultimately, a miscarriage of justice can be VERY expensive to all who make it happen. On every level. Just saying.

To be fair, the jurors only had part of the picture. They weren't allowed to know the experts were hired by the FBI, that the FBI was searching for the truth of what could have happened, they didn't have an agenda for either side, and they found out that 'a vehicle hit POK' was not the answer but that his injuries (and lack of them) told that it was some other cause. That's super credibility. And those details were kept hidden.

But the DA and judge know. They have no excuse.

As for how the defense can keep her from being convicted wrongfully in another trial (or 2 or 3), that's my point -- ie, that the CW themselves should be zealous to avoid a wrongful prosecution, and when they are trying closing their eyes to the truth, they ultimately stand to pay a price. The CW knows who these experts were, the legitimacy of their testimony (and it's objective source), and what it means to the case, and for them to just put on a blindfold and ignore it is really NOT in their best interest.

Nor is it in the best interest of POK either. Someone made him dead, and it was not KR's vehicle (or any vehicle) that did it. Get to work.

 

[rescuemom]

This is another extraordinary set of events that needed to have happened to explain why its a conspiracy to kill someone who nobody had any motive to kill and not just a very common drunk driving accident.

JO's shirt was like a collection sponge we use to collect DNA samples on people. It is extremely unlikely that that treatment of those wounds would have even started given the description of his emergency and ultimately futile medical treatment (he was brought in with a core temperature of 80F and no measured pulse). They attempted to re-warm him and gave him external circulatory support in the form of CPR and AED but he never warmed, never sustained a pulse, and was pronounced dead. Nobody was washing in clothes with disinfectant.

There was no dog attack.

But her defense attorney's obviously don't need to take my word for it- they can go get the entire shirt tested, I triple dog dare them.

There did not need to be a motive, just several drunk individuals looking for a fight.

 

[HarmonyE.]

The objective experts, FBI, the science, their qualifications, and it fell on deaf ears?

But more important, how does the defense overcome the next 9 panelists inclined to vote KR guilty of (vehicular) manslaughter?

MOO

snipped

I look at it a little differently. The defense now knows exactly what the state will present and who will present it (and oh, wow, the testimony of Proctor and his creepy superiors next time!) and should be in a much better position to address the ridiculousness of the CW's "science" I don't see how the state can improve on the testimony of the very confused Trooper Joe Paul. If they could have found a competent outside reconstructionist/biomechanical expert to explain how a vehicle could have caused those very specific injuries, they wouldn't have used Paul in the first place. Lally had to have known what a mess he is.

So I think it's more how will the CW overcome the next 3 (or 4, according to who you believe) who firmly refused to buy what the prosecution was selling? The defense only needs one juror steadfastly on their side. The CW needs all 12, and the next time I think they have even less of a chance of pulling that off.

With that said, it is horrifying that 8 or 9 jurors were willing to find her guilty of hitting O'Keefe. I can only say from personal experience in the very same courthouse that people often have a natural bias in favor of the prosecution. In one of the cases I was on where we eventually went with NG, one of my fellow jurors kept saying "The police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty". Scary stuff, but it's how a lot of people think. Cops and prosecutions are good and right and defendants, especially if they have unrelated baggage or histories, are wrong and bad.

If anything good is to come out of this nightmare of a trial, I hope it's that people wake up to the reality of some police investigations and prosecutions. Cops DO sometimes plant evidence and prosecutors (or County DAs as the case may be) sometimes will bring forward cases with no merit.

Don't get me started on the judge....

 

[nodamselindistress]

Speaking of the Judge, I will be very surprised if she allows any of the jurors to testify as to their prior conclusions (i.e., not guilty on counts 1 and 3). TV analysts go on and on about how she needs to call in all the jurors but I absolutely do not see her doing that. AT ALL.

 

[fluffypaste]

There did not need to be a motive, just several drunk individuals looking for a fight.

But without a motive, how can you say that anybody was "looking for a fight"?

 

[PamCake]

snipped

I look at it a little differently. The defense now knows exactly what the state will present and who will present it (and oh, wow, the testimony of Proctor and his creepy superiors next time!) and should be in a much better position to address the ridiculousness of the CW's "science" I don't see how the state can improve on the testimony of the very confused Trooper Joe Paul. If they could have found a competent outside reconstructionist/biomechanical expert to explain how a vehicle could have caused those very specific injuries, they wouldn't have used Paul in the first place. Lally had to have known what a mess he is.

So I think it's more how will the CW overcome the next 3 (or 4, according to who you believe) who firmly refused to buy what the prosecution was selling? The defense only needs one juror steadfastly on their side. The CW needs all 12, and the next time I think they have even less of a chance of pulling that off.

With that said, it is horrifying that 8 or 9 jurors were willing to find her guilty of hitting O'Keefe. I can only say from personal experience in the very same courthouse that people often have a natural bias in favor of the prosecution. In one of the cases I was on where we eventually went with NG, one of my fellow jurors kept saying "The police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty". Scary stuff, but it's how a lot of people think. Cops and prosecutions are good and right and defendants, especially if they have unrelated baggage or histories, are wrong and bad.

If anything good is to come out of this nightmare of a trial, I hope it's that people wake up to the reality of some police investigations and prosecutions. Cops DO sometimes plant evidence and prosecutors (or County DAs as the case may be) sometimes will bring forward cases with no merit.

Don't get me started on the judge....

I don't think you missed anything? It seems to be correct that 9 out of 12 jurors still believed JOK was hit by a vehicle despite strong and unchallenged defense presented evidence to the contrary. Jmo.

Hence the questions I have regarding the content of jury notes, especially references to their "deeply held convictions" and morality if I recall the general gist correctly. Jmo.

Also I have questions around how effectively the jury were instructed on the concept of ' beyond a reasonable doubt', with emphasis on the word reasonable. Jmo.

 

[PamCake]

I think the "deeply held convictions" held by the 9 jurors are based on the drunk driving charge. People feel very strongly about drunk drivers, and their judgement may have been clouded by an overwhelming desire to "punish" KR for that. Although she was far from alone in that area that night, she's the one in the bullseye.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I think the "deeply held convictions" held by the 9 jurors are based on the drunk driving charge. People feel very strongly about drunk drivers, and their judgement may have been clouded by an overwhelming desire to "punish" KR for that. Although she was far from alone in that area that night, she's the one in the bullseye.

True. One of the cases I sat on in Norfolk was a drunk driving case. Jury selection went very swiftly, but the judge was very clear that anyone impacted in any way by drunk driving (victim or perp!) or with any possible bias against someone accused of driving while under the influence needed to step forward. Seemed like half the jury pool came forward and was dismissed. Probably a convenient excuse for some, but the woman next to me I'd been chatting with said her brother had been badly injured in a drunk driving related crash.

One of the seemingly million problems with this case was how difficult it was to find a "non-biased" jury unfamiliar with the details of the case. Maybe less attention was paid to other sorts of biases because of this?

 

[HarmonyE.]

But without a motive, how can you say that anybody was "looking for a fight"?

I have a feeling if someone was looking for a fight with anyone it was John wanting a few words with Higgins. With all the egos, testosterone and booze flying around, things easily could have escalated very quickly. I don't believe John received the deep head injury from just falling onto something; not enough momentum would have been generated. He was whacked hard from behind with a heavy object. Just my opinion, but it's always made sense to me.

Between her own trauma and probable level of intoxication, I'm not sure what Read remembers of that ride from the Waterfall to Fairview. But I'd love to know what they talked about because it might provide some clues as to why John wanted to go there at all. His home fridge was probably well stocked with beer.

 

[keek]

But without a motive, how can you say that anybody was "looking for a fight"?

There is a lot of background you may have not read all along, to understand that there was. Put it together, the few motives that were discussed, involving a few of the people that were on the stand and one had their texts read out. Facts and 'seeing' how a few scenarios created what happened. Alberts were not going to deal with any of what happened at their house, too messy and problematic for them and the other adults there involved at the after party that night. Lots of reading and going back I'd recommend. Motives are all there.

 

[LvsAMystry]

Great points. I will combine these additional points periodically.

This isn’t really a point to add, just a musing about at what point or what number of coincidences in a string of coincidences does it become illogical to be coincidence?

 

[Forest_Wood]

There is a lot of background you may have not read all along, to understand that there was. Put it together, the few motives that were discussed, involving a few of the people that were on the stand and one had their texts read out. Facts and 'seeing' how a few scenarios created what happened. Alberts were not going to deal with any of what happened at their house, too messy and problematic for them and the other adults there involved at the after party that night. Lots of reading and going back I'd recommend. Motives are all there.

I think BH had a motive to possibly put JOK "in his place". And maybe John felt the same way.
BH had been texting KR for weeks, was clearly interested in her, and was sniffing around her at every opportunity at John's home and at the bars they all frequented. He even met up with her at his place. I don't believe that nothing happened during that meet-up like he testified to.
We also don't know what else they talked about regarding her relationship with JOK. In the texts, she told BH about John 'making out' with the woman in Aruba. What else might she have told him verbally about her perception of what was going on in their relationship? Higgins may have wanted to be seen as a knight in shining armor, fantasizing that she really wanted to be with him.
John was already suspicious because Karen told BH that JOK had cameras all over his house and saw her walking him to the door.
It was the perfect scenario for a run-in between the two.
MOO.

 

[Universecalling]

This is another extraordinary set of events that needed to have happened to explain why its a conspiracy to kill someone who nobody had any motive to kill and not just a very common drunk driving accident.

JO's shirt was like a collection sponge we use to collect DNA samples on people. It is extremely unlikely that that treatment of those wounds would have even started given the description of his emergency and ultimately futile medical treatment (he was brought in with a core temperature of 80F and no measured pulse). They attempted to re-warm him and gave him external circulatory support in the form of CPR and AED but he never warmed, never sustained a pulse, and was pronounced dead. Nobody was washing in clothes with disinfectant.

There was no dog attack.

But her defense attorney's obviously don't need to take my word for it- they can go get the entire shirt tested, I triple dog dare them.

I triple dog dare you to look at pre trial motions regarding defense’s requests to test the clothes. Not only that, but also requested the info on where Chloe is.
Also, Jackson confirms this during Coco Albert’s cross.
Another great resource regarding dog DNA is the expert testimony. Especially at the end of cross. Where it is explained that dye in shirts and mold severely impact the DNA-as in destroy it. Important to note, his shirt was dark colored and sat wet for 8 or 9 hours in a bag, in the back of Proctor’s car.

 

[acutename]

Police dogs (which Chloe was or was trained for??) are trained to go for the arm.

Was Chloe trained to be police dog? What I have not understood in this case, and I am no accident reconstructionist, is that the dead man has multiple arm lacerations, through his clothing, and then a back head wound and facial/eye blackening. I just picture if someone is hit by a car, they have a huge impact wound somewhere- chest or back? So I do not understand the wounds. If a person had his arm out- maybe even in an attempt to stop impact, the arm wound be bashed not lacerated? And then how would there be a back head wound? I just do not get it and maybe I need to be hit by a tail light to further comprehend. I also do not understand the person not screaming- instantly knocked out by impact? No attempt to go toward the house, just flat out on his back. I cannot logically piece it together, so I would like an expert to explain it so it makes sense to me. IMO