MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #35 Retrial

New Posts

kuromiiiilove said:
It means the CW is no longer asking the judge to tell the jury that certain actions by Karen Read (like fleeing, lying, hiding evidence, etc.) could be interpreted as signs she knew she was guilty. Consciousness of guilt instruction is usually used to frame behavior (like deleting texts, calling a lawyer, acting frantic) as suspicious or incriminating. By pulling back that request, the CW is basically conceding that they can’t confidently argue she acted like someone who knew she committed a crime. They basically just admitted they don’t have a strong case for claiming her behavior after John’s death proves she knew she was guilty.

All MOO

ETA: Karen didn’t do things like fleeing, deleting texts, etc. Those are just examples of things that could be used as consciousness of guilt in a theoretical case.
Click to expand...
Weird. Because I seem to remember Hank's argument for submitting most of those interview clips was that they showed "consciousness of guilt"
 
Alcina said:
Mr. Alessi is the only one who is loud and clear. Have no trouble hearing him.
Click to expand...
The court clerk is very loud this trial. Last trial you could hardly hear the lady talking into her equipment. Maybe they moved a microphone closer to her this trial to hear the prosecutors better and it's capturing her talking.
 
kuromiiiilove said:
It means the CW is no longer asking the judge to tell the jury that certain actions by Karen Read (like fleeing, lying, hiding evidence, etc.) could be interpreted as signs she knew she was guilty. Consciousness of guilt instruction is usually used to frame behavior (like deleting texts, calling a lawyer, acting frantic) as suspicious or incriminating. By pulling back that request, the CW is basically conceding that they can’t confidently argue she acted like someone who knew she committed a crime. They basically just admitted they don’t have a strong case for claiming her behavior after John’s death proves she knew she was guilty.

All MOO

ETA: Karen didn’t do things like fleeing, deleting texts, etc. Those are just examples of things that could be used as consciousness of guilt in a theoretical case.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation
 
Forest_Wood said:
The court clerk is very loud this trial. Last trial you could hardly hear the lady talking into her equipment. Maybe they moved a microphone closer to her this trial to hear the prosecutors better and it's capturing her talking.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can definitely hear her this trial. I'm surprised by that. It's like a low "hum" while others are talking.
 
kuromiiiilove said:
It means the CW is no longer asking the judge to tell the jury that certain actions by Karen Read (like fleeing, lying, hiding evidence, etc.) could be interpreted as signs she knew she was guilty. Consciousness of guilt instruction is usually used to frame behavior (like deleting texts, calling a lawyer, acting frantic) as suspicious or incriminating. By pulling back that request, the CW is basically conceding that they can’t confidently argue she acted like someone who knew she committed a crime. They basically just admitted they don’t have a strong case for claiming her behavior after John’s death proves she knew she was guilty.

All MOO

ETA: Karen didn’t do things like fleeing, deleting texts, etc. Those are just examples of things that could be used as consciousness of guilt in a theoretical case.
Click to expand...
Hmm, this is interesting considering the people at Albert's house did exactly all of those things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 705 (members: 176, guests: 529)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
529
Total visitors
705
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,479
Messages
18,504,648
Members
240,802
Latest member
10 :)
Back
Top