MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #18

[shotgun09]

RSBM - I thought the jurors were unaware that it was the FBI. I thought the defense was only allowed to state it was, "another agency" or something like that?

True. The defense was ordered not to discuss that there was a separate FBI investigation. If I'm not mistaken, it was a CW witness on the stand who actually said the words " You mean the FBI ?" during questioning. The jurors ( possibly many) could have inferred right then and there just what/who the "other agency" was all about. Another " Clue" if you will. IMO

 

[cocomod]

RSBM - I thought the jurors were unaware that it was the FBI. I thought the defense was only allowed to state it was, "another agency" or something like that?

True, however, there was an expert witness that literally said that there was no way that the injuries were sustained by being hit by a car. The jurors were told that neither side paid for this expert witness. I just think I would have heard that testimony and I would have not been able to then say she was hit by a car. Especially given the "expert" testimony by the CW's witness that was completely unbelievable!

 

[HarmonyE.]

RSBM - I thought the jurors were unaware that it was the FBI. I thought the defense was only allowed to state it was, "another agency" or something like that?

You're corrrect. I'm not sure they could even use the words - or concept - of "another agency". Only that Read didn't hire them.

One of the jurors insisted to the others that ARCA must have been hired by Read's insurance carrier so they could deny a civil claim for wrongful death. Leaving the impression the experts were financially biased in favor of her innocence. Next time, maybe the defense will get in a question about this. "Were you hired by Karen Read? No. Okay, were you hired by an insurance company on behalf of Ms. Read or her insurance policy?"

 

[bobbymkii]

The thing that really sets this case apart from others I've followed where I've thought "Not Guilty", is that there are many cases where I just don't think the prosecution has met its' burden. In this one I don't think they ever realistically intended to meet their burden of proof and merely intended to keep the circus going on as long as possible. The Commonwealth of Massachussetts never actually intended to prove Karen Read's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for the O'Keefe family, I had an enormous amount of empathy for them at first, and still do. Nothing changes the fact that they lost a very close relative to homicide, and the incredible long-lasting impact that would have.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "Empathy" as:
"the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another"

Definition of EMPATHY

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another; also : the capacity for this… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

And on the basis of that I can fully understand why they would be more comfortable directing all of their vitriol and anger towards little Karen than someone big and scary like Brian Albert. It just emphasises how difficult it is to stand up to these people and get justice in this county which is so corrupt, they make the Feds look like the good guys!

JMO

 

[Derph]

 

[TIGER0822]

View attachment 560558

Boston Herald

Boston news, sports, politics, opinion, entertainment, weather and obituaries

www.bostonherald.com

Hope they wait until Proctors trial
Although it is thought he may be placed on some police list which bars him from testifying as a witness in court. .

 

[TIGER0822]

The appeals court has been sitting on the dismissal appeal since November! Why so long? I don’t think that is a good sign.

 

[jepop]

The appeals court has been sitting on the dismissal appeal since November! Why so long? I don’t think that is a good sign.

Maybe it's a good sign, could mean they are having difficulty reaching a majority decision. In this case I don't think they would just sit on it? Idk but wasn't the evidence hearing fast forwarded because new trial in April?

Nov to Dec Xmas holiday season, the new year probably a bit of a slack off time. Jmo. I'll place a bet on February or possibly March if there are dissenting opinions on the panel.

Trying to remain optimistic.

 

[HarmonyE.]

The SJC always takes its sweet time. So I wouldn't read much into the fact that it's been a few months. But I think the odds of them ruling in Read's favor are slim. As bad as Cannone's behavior was she apparently didn't break any established rules. Seems like a good time to establish some though.

 

[Seattle1]

The SJC always takes its sweet time. So I wouldn't read much into the fact that it's been a few months. But I think the odds of them ruling in Read's favor are slim. As bad as Cannone's behavior was she apparently didn't break any established rules. Seems like a good time to establish some though.

IMO, the rule for this situation already exists -- it's just that Cannone failed to ask the question before dismissing the jurors. She'd likely say neither party made inquiry -- afraid to learn the answer.

I think the Court's juror instructions were vague, confusing at best, and when the defense sought to instruct for clarification, Cannone threw a hissy fit and told the defense this was how it's done in MA!

Later, Jurors further expressed they did not understand if they could ask Judge Cannone questions or feel a level of comfort when she came back to the Jurors room to make inquiry and they left the trial with unresolved questions. Ultimately, Jurors did not understand whether or not they had the option to deliver a unanimous verdict for a single charge which could have been recorded by the Court before they were dismissed-- avoiding the need to file for a decision by the higher court. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Latest Defense Motion & Expert's Affidavit in opposition of CW's Motion to exclude more defense expert witnesses...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884360048068935788

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884360620364931287

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884367943137419698

 

[imstilla.grandma]

"It has been 3 years since Johnny was senselessly taken from us," the O'Keefe family said in a statement to WBZ-TV. "The void in our lives grows with each passing day, week, month and year. His absence is profound and we will continue to seek justice for him. He is always in our hearts."

3 years after John O'Keefe's death, Karen Read murder trial still center stage

It's now been three years since Boston police officer John O'Keefe died. Karen Read is facing her second trial in the case. O'Keefe's family "will continue to seek justice for him."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[HarmonyE.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884367943137419698

At the end of the day, I think there is a good chance the "sallyport video fiasco" will result in Read's charges - or worst case for her, conviction - getting dropped/overturned. The police and prosecution have engaged in far too many shenanigans here and this may be the easiest of all the shenanigans to prove. Not that the Whiffen/Green allegations aren't totally fascinating.

What say you, Hank Brennan? You don't work for the Commonwealth and presumably care about your reputation in the community.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884593470083326359

 

[Seattle1]

At the end of the day, I think there is a good chance the "sallyport video fiasco" will result in Read's charges - or worst case for her, conviction - getting dropped/overturned.

^^rsbm

I never understood why this video did not result in a mistrial when it was first discovered inverted during the middle of trial. All I could think at the time was the matter resolved at side bar where the public never had access to the discussion by the parties.

Nonetheless, I agree very much with Attorney Burkhart's message below where at minimum, Juror instructions that the Commonwealth destroyed evidence should be included, and we know how Judge Cannone doesn't take kindly to being advised on Juror instructions so the defense will have to stick to their guns on this! MOO

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882483902125900043

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

IMO, the rule for this situation already exists -- it's just that Cannone failed to ask the question before dismissing the jurors. She'd likely say neither party made inquiry -- afraid to learn the answer.

I think the Court's juror instructions were vague, confusing at best, and when the defense sought to instruct for clarification, Cannone threw a hissy fit and told the defense this was how it's done in MA!

Later, Jurors further expressed they did not understand if they could ask Judge Cannone questions or feel a level of comfort when she came back to the Jurors room to make inquiry and they left the trial with unresolved questions. Ultimately, Jurors did not understand whether or not they had the option to deliver a unanimous verdict for a single charge which could have been recorded by the Court before they were dismissed-- avoiding the need to file for a decision by the higher court. MOO

Yes @Seattle1 …. very nicely and eloquently stated. From watching this case evolve from the beginning, through the mistrial and since, IMO there is one particular dismissal that would be advantageous. IMO the judge in this case should be dismissed and removed from the case.

Reasons include: the confusion over the jury instructions, the way the judge responded to the defense counsel attempt for clarification on the instructions, as well as the judge’s apparent refusal during court proceedings to clearly articulate on the record the basis for objections either sustained or overruled. And add to that the multiple evidentiary questions that were allowed to IMO nebulously filter through the trial. SMH. MOO

 

[Derph]

So why in over 45,000 Google searches is " Hos long to die in cold" THE ONLY SEARCH Jen Mc Cabe deleted??? It's looking more and more evident that she did in fact make that search at 2:27 am! In my best Ricky Riccardo voice: "Jeeeeenny You've got some "splaining to do?"

 

[jepop]

So why in over 45,000 Google searches is " Hos long to die in cold" THE ONLY SEARCH Jen Mc Cabe deleted??? It's looking more and more evident that she did in fact make that search at 2:27 am! In my best Ricky Riccardo voice: "Jeeeeenny You've got some "splaining to do?"

I like to imagine LE/FBI coming for her with the cuffs.

ETA or in question form: Hos long till FBI cuff her?

 

[Wishbone]

Hearing today

Off-the-record notes from Karen Read interview in question at Friday hearing

The Karen Read case is expected to return to Norfolk Superior Court on Friday for a hearing to discuss whether a journalist’s off-the-record notes should be included in the upcoming trial. In December, a judge granted prosecutors’ request for access to off-the-record interviews, notes and other...

www.nbcboston.com