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

[keek]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed (rude, personalizing)

Yes it was, it was laughable. J Mc just lied and lied like there was no tomorrow.

This time around with JMc on the stand again, we will see how previous statements of insistence of time frames just cannot hold up I believe. IMO

 

[Sustained]

She was given information that made her realize she was being railroaded. A witness actually came forward and told her where to look and who to look at. It had nothing at all to do with consequences. It had everything to do with overcharging her as well as the witness that provided information that was critical to her for that fateful night.

Why did she need that information ? She was there !

 

[angkg]

Why did she need that information ? She was there !

She was drunk. That is a fact that is not in dispute. So was a LOT of other people there that night. She was not at the house during the party though. She was not there when he died. She was not aware of the people conspiring to get their stories straight. She was not there when they let those witnesses sit together to answer questions way after that night. That is also a fact.

 

[keek]

She was given information that made her realize she was being railroaded. A witness actually came forward and told her where to look and who to look at. It had nothing at all to do with consequences. It had everything to do with overcharging her as well as the witness that provided information that was critical to her for that fateful night.

Then all the further investigations came into play with the people at the house, they did not expect ANY of that.

 

[mrjitty]

TB/AK files affidavit re. the discovery of his phone texts and data and brings the receipts (i.e., terminated employees following the leaks)!


View attachment 574164

View attachment 574165
View attachment 574166

This is all such a hot mess.

 

[Sustained]

She was drunk. That is a fact that is not in dispute. So was a LOT of other people there that night. She was not at the house during the party though. She was not there when he died. She was not aware of the people conspiring to get their stories straight. She was not there when they let those witnesses sit together to answer questions way after that night. That is also a fact.

So how many people are in on the conspiracy ?

 

[keek]

So how many people are in on the conspiracy ?

That's just what the commonwealth, prosecutors and the people at the house's friends and relatives are calling it., only. To be expected!

 

[mrjitty]

Of all the KR issues and rabbit holes, I find the verdict one the least interesting and was glad to see the Appeal Court judgement on all of this.

There was no 'acquittal' on any charge. It's not a thing. We can argue about the juror form until the cows come home but end of the day, nothing stopped the jury from telling the judge they did all in fact agree on a some counts.

Maybe that's tough on the defendant but at the end of the day the appeal court was clearly correct, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

The more credible witness, Kerry, did not at any point in her testimony say that KR said "I hit him". The contrast sincerity wise between Kerry and JMcabe cannot be over-stated. Kerry was so credible that the defense chose to forgo cross examination. IMO.

J mcCabe was caught out in lies during several parts of her testimony. Ie saying KR's Lexus was at 34 Fairview between 12.30 and 12.45, when in actual fact KR's phone connected with J0K's home wifi at 12.36 am (JOK's home was at a conservative estimate six minutes drive from 34 Fairview).

JMc also denied she made.. idk was it eight calls? to JOK's phone between c12.30 and 12.45. Those calls were deleted by the user prior to handing over her phone but were recovered by forensics. She continued to deny this fact on cross and then tried to suggest they must have been butt dials. Somehow her butt both dialed, then hung up and then dialed again...repeatedly. She denied deleting them and claimed it must have been an accidental deletion. Shady and nuts. Jmo.

I tend to agree this is one of the biggest oddities in the whole case. I'm not sure it is incriminating, because if you really did some crimes, why would you make these calls then delete them? But she clearly sought to conceal something.

MOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Of all the KR issues and rabbit holes, I find the verdict one the least interesting and was glad to see the Appeal Court judgement on all of this.

There was no 'acquittal' on any charge. It's not a thing. We can argue about the juror form until the cows come home but end of the day, nothing stopped the jury from telling the judge they did all in fact agree on a some counts.

Maybe that's tough on the defendant but at the end of the day the appeal court was clearly correct, IMO.

Appeal or not, that doesn't change the fact of how the jury voted. JMO

 

[Wishbone]

I tend to agree this is one of the biggest oddities in the whole case. I'm not sure it is incriminating, because if you really did some crimes, why would you make these calls then delete them? But she clearly sought to conceal something.

MOO

Maybe trying to locate a phone that got lost in the scuffle?

 

[keek]

Right, locating his phone, ring, ring, ring during that particular time frame. Time frame is UTMOST important in this, as each actual minute makes a big difference we see.

 

[mrjitty]

Appeal or not, that doesn't change the fact of how the jury voted. JMO

No such fact was established. That's the problem.

I get it's seductive but it's not reliable to get a 'vote' after everyone all went home, read up on the case, checked out the reaction etc etc and then some jurors tell us what went down. The jury is a black box, and the verdict is the only output. I get that may suck in this case, but the D did have the opportunity to ask for a poll and didn't, so that 'verdict' is always unknowable.

There is no way to know whether what some jurors tell us later is what the vote would have been.

IMO

 

[HarmonyE.]

Maybe trying to locate a phone that got lost in the scuffle?

Likely what happened

It's bad enough Jen deleted these calls (and not others) but she testified that all these calls were butt dials. Butt dials that went to voice mail before her phone disconnected each call? So just like the 2 am butt dials between the Brians, Jen butt dialed John and then butt hung up on each call?

Beyond unbelievable.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe trying to locate a phone that got lost in the scuffle?

Maybe - but in that scenario, you'd have to know ringing his phone many times and then deleting the calls would be a very dumb thing to do.

I personally speculate the other way - she was ringing him because she was looking for him - then sought to conceal that later. Which is why the deleting is so bizarre. Why would it be bad to have been ringing?

 

[mrjitty]

Likely what happened

It's bad enough Jen deleted these calls (and not others) but she testified that all these calls were butt dials. Butt dials that went to voice mail before her phone disconnected each call? So just like the 2 am butt dials between the Brians, Jen butt dialed John and then butt hung up on each call?

Beyond unbelievable.

I agree. It's not believable.

 

[Wishbone]

Maybe - but in that scenario, you'd have to know ringing his phone many times and then deleting the calls would be a very dumb thing to do.

I personally speculate the other way - she was ringing him because she was looking for him - then sought to conceal that later. Which is why the deleting is so bizarre. Why would it be bad to have been ringing?

She is dumb IMO

 

[mrjitty]

The juror/attorney is a first for Peter

I listened this through.

reax

1. I tend to agree with Peter that most Judges do not dismiss here. I also agree with him that there were better opportunities to deep six this mess. But now we got this far, it was always going to trial again. His logic of comparing to an appeal is good IMO. On appeal, the remedy would be a new trial.

2. Of course there is prejudice to the defendant here - but again I agree with an earlier LYK opinion that the remedy would be a direction to the jury about the video issues. For example, the defence has lost the opportunity to see the original source video and see if that was inverted. The judge should instruct the jury on that point IMO.

3. Lack of evidentiary hearing REALLY bugs me. What got me back into this case was the inverted video which really annoyed me in trial 1. I wondered if that should have been a dismissal just for that. However Peter explained that a jury direction is a more proportional remedy. Fine i agree. But I also agree with Peter that it is simply bizarre here that the Judge allows for the possibility that Proctor intentionally withheld this evidence but won't allow him to be examined on that. I watched back his trial 1 testimony and it seems at least possible he also deleted Ring video. But at trial 1, no one knew he was withholding potentially critical sallyport video. WUT?! My guess is that critical video only ever surfaced because LE started cleaning up as regards Proctor and someone somewhere realised that they better discover it. Like Peter, it's hard to be confident LE didn't, at the very least, hide this stuff, or worse, doctor/destroy evidence.

Is the judge going to let the defence inquire about this at trial instead???

I really can't get my head around this part of it.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Of all the KR issues and rabbit holes, I find the verdict one the least interesting and was glad to see the Appeal Court judgement on all of this.

There was no 'acquittal' on any charge. It's not a thing. We can argue about the juror form until the cows come home but end of the day, nothing stopped the jury from telling the judge they did all in fact agree on a some counts.

Maybe that's tough on the defendant but at the end of the day the appeal court was clearly correct, IMO.

I also agree with the appellate decision as the remedy was in the district court at the discretion of the Judge. Personally, I don't think either side pushed for polling of the jurors before they were dismissed because neither wanted to hear how close they were to guilty or an acquittal! JMO

 

[turaj]

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.

She did not make the deliberations and I will always have questions about what would have happened if she was in that room.