MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #19

[Elliot_Alderson]

Three things can be true at the same time -

• TB is harassing Read trial witnesses
• LE did a shoddy investigation
• KR is actually guilty of hitting and killing JOK

These are opinions, not truths.

 

[Wishbone]

Three things can be true at the same time -

• TB is harassing Read trial witnesses
• LE did a shoddy investigation
• KR is actually guilty of hitting and killing JOK

JO was not hit by KR's car...see ARCCA testimony

 

[turaj]

Is there proof KR encouraged TB to harass trial witnesses?

i imagine the proof is in the texts. She had openly. discussed that she and her brother had been following TB for some time online ...before this all happened. At first she was giving him info via third party but then started giving him leads herself. I believe that was from the docu series.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

i imagine the proof is in the texts. She had openly. discussed that she and her brother had been following TB for some time online ...before this all happened. At first she was giving him info via third party but then started giving him leads herself. I believe that was from the docu series.

Is giving someone leads or information the same thing as encouraging TB to harass witnesses?

 

[Wishbone]

i imagine the proof is in the texts. She had openly. discussed that she and her brother had been following TB for some time online ...before this all happened. At first she was giving him info via third party but then started giving him leads herself. I believe that was from the docu series.

To imagine does not make it fact.

 

[Sustained]

JO was not hit by KR's car...see ARCCA testimony

Then why is she on trial for a 2nd time ?

 

[Wishbone]

Then why is she on trial for a 2nd time ?

Because she is innocent until proved guilty.
3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt


It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.


The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you, [__________], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

 

[Sustained]

Because she is innocent until proved guilty.
3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt


It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.


The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you, [__________], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The CW could have chosen not to retry her. I'm well aware of the presumption of innocence.

 

[Sustained]

To imagine does not make it fact.

To imagine JOK in the Albert house does not make it fact.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Then why is she on trial for a 2nd time ?

You tell me. The first trial’s jury said they were not guilty on murder charges yet here we are wasting taxpayers’ money. It must be Trooper Paul's spot on analysis and accident reconstruction.

 

[nodamselindistress]

If only the new attorney (who was a juror in the 1st trial) had been selected as a deliberating juror, then perhaps she could have informed the Jury Foreman and the rest of the jury that they can provide a verdict on only 2 of the 3 counts. You know, since Judge Cannone did her absolute best to confuse the hell out of the jury.

 

[Sustained]

You tell me. The first trial’s jury said they were not guilty on murder charges yet here we are wasting taxpayers’ money. It must be Trooper Paul's spot on analysis and accident reconstruction.

Sarcasm will not get Read acquitted.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Sarcasm will not get Read acquitted.

So no response to Trooper Paul's analysis and reconstruction of the accident? You haven't watched that part of the first trial I guess. And there's nothing sarcastic about the fact that the jury provided not guilty verdicts on two counts. That is a fact.

 

[Sustained]

So no response to Trooper Paul's analysis and reconstruction of the accident? You haven't watched that part of the first trial I guess. And there's nothing sarcastic about the fact that the jury provided not guilty verdicts on two counts. That is a fact.

I did watch Trooper Paul and apparently the CW has retained someone different for the retrial. Not a surprise.

 

[HarmonyE.]

i imagine the proof is in the texts. She had openly. discussed that she and her brother had been following TB for some time online ...before this all happened. At first she was giving him info via third party but then started giving him leads herself. I believe that was from the docu series.

She can talk to anyone about what she knows about her own case. She wasn't and isn't under a gag order. Local media, including the biggest outlet, the Boston Globe essentially ignored the case or only reported law enforcement's obviously slanted version. TB was the only one who would give her the time of day back then.

 

[Linda7NJ]

JO was not hit by KR's car...see ARCCA testimony

Why do you put so much weight & faith on them?
They didn’t have all the information
They didn’t test every variable

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Why do you put so much weight & faith on them?
They didn’t have all the information
They didn’t test every variable

But Trooper Paul did? I'd put more faith into someone who was hired by the FBI than I would into a law enforcement agency that let their officers rape and murder Sandra Birchmore.

 

[Linda7NJ]

So no response to Trooper Paul's analysis and reconstruction of the accident? You haven't watched that part of the first trial I guess. And there's nothing sarcastic about the fact that the jury provided not guilty verdicts on two counts. That is a fact.

Actually, the jury didn’t provide it. They never checked the boxes.
I don’t have much faith in people incapable of filling out the form correctly.

 

[Wishbone]

To imagine JOK in the Albert house does not make it fact.

I never stated it as fact.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Actually, the jury didn’t provide it. They never checked the boxes.
I don’t have much faith in people incapable of filling out the form correctly.

Yeah because of how bad a job the HONORABLE Judge Bev Cannone performed when giving instructions. You can say the jury didn't provide it but jurors are on record as saying that was the way they voted. Or did TB and KR text each other to make that all up?