MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20 Retrial

[PamCake]

DBM

 

[LvsAMystry]

I don't think the term "straw poll" properly expresses what the jury members have said happened.

Instead, they said they REACHED A "NOT GUILTY" VERDICT on 2 of the charges, but not able to come to a verdict on the 3rd.

However, the jury form DEMANDED by the biased judge did not allow them to state that outcome (on individual charges, it allowed a guilty but did not allow a not guilty). I would think that should be a MAJOR part of the appeals and questions of violations of constitutional rights in that trial.

I believe the judge with her bias knew the form and its consequences and I think her actions at the trial's end made that clear. When the jury told the court they could not agree on all, the judge rushed the case to a quick dismissal by mistrial without allowing ANYONE to ask any questions. She couldn't get them out of there fast enough, and imo it was because she knew the potential existed that an unrecorded not guilty verdict for 1-2 charges was possible with her DEMANDED wording on the form.

Let’s not forget the person in charge of the 1st jury was none other than Trooper John Fanning, (former) Trooper Proctor’s supvervisor and one of the recipients of Proctor’s texts about Read. It begs the question why a state trooper would be performing this task rather than an officer of the court, and even if state troopers typically performed this task, which they don’t, wouldn’t Fanning in particular have had a conflict of interest?

 

[Spectrix]

Karen Read tells reporters 16 jurors selected for Massachusetts murder retrial!

Karen Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for case

Karen Read's statement could mean that jury selection is complete for her retrial, as the court previously stated it was seeking a group of 16.

www.wcvb.com

 

[Spectrix]

Credit to @Derph for finding this gem.
Streaming live currently, they're about 90 minutes in as I post this.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910380438452846760

Yes! they trying to add extra alternates.

10:14 AM · Apr 10, 2025

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

IMO, the jury foreperson also didn't help the matter with the three, flowery worded, apologetic notes sent to the Judge! As the appellate provided in their 36-page ruling linked below, the jurors failed to state in any of these notes that they reached a unanimous verdict on two of the charges (or any), and instead, this account was alleged post-trial by some jurors. We also know the jurors didn't understand the verdict slip -- just as the defense had predicted.

Mass. SJC denies Karen Read’s bid to get 2 of her 3 criminal charges dismissed

I tend to wonder IMO if that jury foreperson might have written the notes a certain way, regardless of the votes that might (or might not) have been taken by the jurors during deliberations? IIRC the foreperson in that trial was picked by the judge?

And I am still puzzled by IMO the judge’s somewhat rushed effort to dismiss the jury as part of the procedures to declare a mistrial. Before any other considerations could occur. SMH. IANAL. MOO

 

[thebedbug]

I don't think the term "straw poll" properly expresses what the jury members have said happened.

Instead, they said they REACHED A "NOT GUILTY" VERDICT on 2 of the charges, but not able to come to a verdict on the 3rd.

However, the jury form DEMANDED by the biased judge did not allow them to state that outcome (on individual charges, it allowed a guilty but did not allow a not guilty). I would think that should be a MAJOR part of the appeals and questions of violations of constitutional rights in that trial.

I believe the judge with her bias knew the form and its consequences and I think her actions at the trial's end made that clear. When the jury told the court they could not agree on all, the judge rushed the case to a quick dismissal by mistrial without allowing ANYONE to ask any questions. She couldn't get them out of there fast enough, and imo it was because she knew the potential existed that an unrecorded not guilty verdict for 1-2 charges was possible with her DEMANDED wording on the form.

From my very recent experience as a juror in MA superior court in a trial with a defendant facing nearly 20 very bad charges - think just about the worst and case and you've got it - what you're saying is not true. Deliberations lasted almost a week. It was hung 6-6... some charges were basically not even talked about because the CW hadn't offered the necessary evidence, but obviously others were hotly debated. There was little to no media coverage of the trial. Nobody is talking about it online forums. When the jury reported no movement after the judge's directives, a mistrial was declared. There was no polling of each charge or presentation of a vote on each. We were thanked for our service. Given a post-trial opportunity to talk to the judge and away we went.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910399568191340551

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910399854980837496

 

[Spectrix]

Not surprising that they're looking for extra alternates, there have been quite a few drop outs already.

 

[mrjitty]

From my very recent experience as a juror in MA superior court in a trial with a defendant facing nearly 20 very bad charges - think just about the worst and case and you've got it - what you're saying is not true. Deliberations lasted almost a week. It was hung 6-6... some charges were basically not even talked about because the CW hadn't offered the necessary evidence, but obviously others were hotly debated. There was little to no media coverage of the trial. Nobody is talking about it online forums. When the jury reported no movement after the judge's directives, a mistrial was declared. There was no polling of each charge or presentation of a vote on each. We were thanked for our service. Given a post-trial opportunity to talk to the judge and away we went.

Interesting post bedbug!

I agree with you that trials happen all over the country every day and have done for a very long time, and an imperfect system works well enough. I struggle with the idea we need to change how Juries operate because of what Ronnie claims in one high profile and somewhat insane case. Especially I do not want to see Judges zealously polling jurors in low profile cases that no one ever hears about.

 

[arielilane]

Imagine that cold blizzard morning as realty sets in for KR, realizing what she did. She gathers her thoughts, plans and "crew" that morning. No questions to anyone is needed. She only needs people there to witness the unfolding of events as she tragically finds her boyfriend in a mound of snow, in the dark; however, no one else could see him, yet she does.

Around 5am KR called KerR and said, “John is dead,” before Officer O’Keefe was even found.

It's interesting that not once did KR ask JMc what happened to her boyfriend or where did he go?
She never inquired about his whereabouts.


Her comments to anyone that would listen were I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, maybe he got hit by a plow, did I hit him...

Moreover, she did not hesitate to bring up her broken taillight. She apparently more worried about the broken taillight.

Not once did KR ask JMc if she saw John in the house…
Not once did KR ask JMc what happened to John?
Not once did KR ask JMc did you see John in the house?
Not once did KR ask JMc did John pass out on the couch?

It’s known that KR tried to hook up with BH and had his phone number.
KR could have called BH to inquire about John’s whereabouts.
Not once did KR contact BH to ask about John.

She knows what she did. KR refused to take accountability for drunk driving and leaving her boyfriend to die in a cold blizzard.

matter of opinion

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Imagine that cold blizzard morning as realty sets in for KR, realizing what she did. She gathers her thoughts, plans and "crew" that morning. No questions to anyone is needed. She only needs people there to witness the unfolding of events as she tragically finds her boyfriend in a mound of snow, in the dark; however, no one else could see him, yet she does.

Around 5am KR called KerR and said, “John is dead,” before Officer O’Keefe was even found.

It's interesting that not once did KR ask JMc what happened to her boyfriend or where did he go?
She never inquired about his whereabouts.


Her comments to anyone that would listen were I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, maybe he got hit by a plow, did I hit him...

Moreover, she did not hesitate to bring up her broken taillight. She apparently more worried about the broken taillight.

Not once did KR ask JMc if she saw John in the house…
Not once did KR ask JMc what happened to John?
Not once did KR ask JMc did you see John in the house?
Not once did KR ask JMc did John pass out on the couch?

It’s known that KR tried to hook up with BH and had his phone number.
KR could have called BH to inquire about John’s whereabouts.
Not once did KR contact BH to ask about John.

She knows what she did. KR refused to take accountability for drunk driving and leaving her boyfriend to die in a cold blizzard.

matter of opinion

I mean, you could just as easily imagine a scene inside 34 Fairview that morning. Where several people were awake, yet no one came outside for hours after John O’Keefe was lying in the snow. We know Brian and Nicole Albert owned the house. Jen McCabe, whose sister Nicole lived there, never once called to check on her safety or whereabouts after a man was found nearly dead in her front yard. Odd, no? Why didn’t anyone in that house come out when cops and civilians were gathered in the driveway? Why did Jen make a 2:27 a.m. Google search about how long it takes to die in the cold before Karen Read returned to the scene? Why did Jen refer to John as ‘a body’ and ‘a guy’ in her 911 calls, even though in court, she said she immediately recognized him? Sounds like intentionally distancing herself from proximity of the crime to me.

If we’re imagining guilt based on selective quotes and tone policing, I would also mention how many red flags were raised inside that house, how many ‘butt dials’ occurred in those early morning hours, and why none of the people inside seemed to be very alarmed by the body found in their lawn. MOO.

 

[keek]

I mean, you could just as easily imagine a scene inside 34 Fairview that morning. Where several people were awake, yet no one came outside for hours after John O’Keefe was lying in the snow. We know Brian and Nicole Albert owned the house. Jen McCabe, whose sister Nicole lived there, never once called to check on her safety or whereabouts after a man was found nearly dead in her front yard. Odd, no? Why didn’t anyone in that house come out when cops and civilians were gathered in the driveway? Why did Jen make a 2:27 a.m. Google search about how long it takes to die in the cold before Karen Read returned to the scene? Why did Jen refer to John as ‘a body’ and ‘a guy’ in her 911 calls, even though in court, she said she immediately recognized him? Sounds like consciously removing herself from proximity of the crime to me.

If we’re imagining guilt based on selective quotes and tone policing, I would also mention how many red flags were raised inside that house, how many ‘butt dials’ occurred in those early morning hours, and why none of the people inside seemed to be very alarmed by the body found in their lawn. MOO.

Lots of butt dials were also found throughout the night. It appeared that most were off and on phones all night per discovery. The early morning donut drop off by JMC's sister. Tradition for him per her. The longer the trial and their testimonies went on, the initial explanations of things were absolutely bizarre. JMc talking about the loaf of bread in her car to Julie Nagle and the other girl she drove home.. why the added points of interest to the night. Raining men vid, bleach cleaning, always doing laundry.. Come on.

 

[Tortoise]

Let’s not forget the person in charge of the 1st jury was none other than Trooper John Fanning, (former) Trooper Proctor’s supvervisor and one of the recipients of Proctor’s texts about Read. It begs the question why a state trooper would be performing this task rather than an officer of the court, and even if state troopers typically performed this task, which they don’t, wouldn’t Fanning in particular have had a conflict of interest?

That's apparently simply not true.

Mar 5th -

The judge overseeing Karen Read’s murder case forcefully refuted claims made by her defense on Wednesday that a Massachusetts State Police lieutenant had direct oversight over the jury during her first murder trial.

At the hearing’s outset, Judge Beverly Cannone told Read attorney Alan Jackson, “what you state as fact” — that Lt. John Fanning had control over and access to the jury — was “simply not true.”

The “only people who have any access are court officers,” Cannone said, pressing Jackson on the “good faith basis” for the assertion Fanning, who interviewed witnesses who testified against Read during the first trial, was involved in some way.

MSN


Read’s motion also makes accusations of jury tampering. Attorney Jackson suggested that Lt. John Fanning, a State Police supervisor who was one of the investigators in the Read case, oversaw the jury during the first trial.

Cannone on Wednesday said Fanning had no involvement with the jury and the defense team was aware of that.

Karen Read returns to court: Missing 42 minutes of video interference or inconsequential?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Let’s not forget the person in charge of the 1st jury was none other than Trooper John Fanning, (former) Trooper Proctor’s supvervisor and one of the recipients of Proctor’s texts about Read. It begs the question why a state trooper would be performing this task rather than an officer of the court, and even if state troopers typically performed this task, which they don’t, wouldn’t Fanning in particular have had a conflict of interest?

Imagine that cold blizzard morning as realty sets in for KR, realizing what she did. She gathers her thoughts, plans and "crew" that morning. No questions to anyone is needed. She only needs people there to witness the unfolding of events as she tragically finds her boyfriend in a mound of snow, in the dark; however, no one else could see him, yet she does.

Around 5am KR called KerR and said, “John is dead,” before Officer O’Keefe was even found.

It's interesting that not once did KR ask JMc what happened to her boyfriend or where did he go?
She never inquired about his whereabouts.


Her comments to anyone that would listen were I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, maybe he got hit by a plow, did I hit him...

Moreover, she did not hesitate to bring up her broken taillight. She apparently more worried about the broken taillight.

Not once did KR ask JMc if she saw John in the house…
Not once did KR ask JMc what happened to John?
Not once did KR ask JMc did you see John in the house?
Not once did KR ask JMc did John pass out on the couch?

It’s known that KR tried to hook up with BH and had his phone number.
KR could have called BH to inquire about John’s whereabouts.
Not once did KR contact BH to ask about John.

She knows what she did. KR refused to take accountability for drunk driving and leaving her boyfriend to die in a cold blizzard.

matter of opinion

Don’t forget the attempts to distance herself by claiming she left John at the waterfall bar

 

[keek]

That's apparently simply not true.

Mar 5th -

The judge overseeing Karen Read’s murder case forcefully refuted claims made by her defense on Wednesday that a Massachusetts State Police lieutenant had direct oversight over the jury during her first murder trial.

At the hearing’s outset, Judge Beverly Cannone told Read attorney Alan Jackson, “what you state as fact” — that Lt. John Fanning had control over and access to the jury — was “simply not true.”

The “only people who have any access are court officers,” Cannone said, pressing Jackson on the “good faith basis” for the assertion Fanning, who interviewed witnesses who testified against Read during the first trial, was involved in some way.

MSN


Read’s motion also makes accusations of jury tampering. Attorney Jackson suggested that Lt. John Fanning, a State Police supervisor who was one of the investigators in the Read case, oversaw the jury during the first trial.

Cannone on Wednesday said Fanning had no involvement with the jury and the defense team was aware of that.

Karen Read returns to court: Missing 42 minutes of video interference or inconsequential?

Says Cannone. Enough said.

 

[keek]

Fanning/notebook/bounced juror due to Fanning. He has his own big troubles elsewhere, so no matter.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

WS does not normally allow body language discussion, but The Behavior Panel episode with Scott Rouse (a highly regarded and extensively qualified body language expert) is approved for discussion.

 

[LvsAMystry]

That's apparently simply not true.

Mar 5th -

The judge overseeing Karen Read’s murder case forcefully refuted claims made by her defense on Wednesday that a Massachusetts State Police lieutenant had direct oversight over the jury during her first murder trial.

At the hearing’s outset, Judge Beverly Cannone told Read attorney Alan Jackson, “what you state as fact” — that Lt. John Fanning had control over and access to the jury — was “simply not true.”

The “only people who have any access are court officers,” Cannone said, pressing Jackson on the “good faith basis” for the assertion Fanning, who interviewed witnesses who testified against Read during the first trial, was involved in some way.

MSN


Read’s motion also makes accusations of jury tampering. Attorney Jackson suggested that Lt. John Fanning, a State Police supervisor who was one of the investigators in the Read case, oversaw the jury during the first trial.

Cannone on Wednesday said Fanning had no involvement with the jury and the defense team was aware of that.

Karen Read returns to court: Missing 42 minutes of video interference or inconsequential?

If he had no involvement with the jury why and how was he able to have a juror dismissed toward the end of the 1st trial, an obviously pro defense leaning juror? Of course Cannone said he had no involvement with the jury but she never said he wasn’t there.