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:
Defense want Judge Cannone to again clarify that holes in the back of the sweatshirt were cuts by MSP criminalist, not road rash.
Click to expand...
I think their aim (on that topic) is for significantly more than a mere clarification. I expect they feel entitled to more sanction-ness and more complete elaboration of the truth that Wolfe did NOT get that wrong at all, in light of the deliberateness of Brennan's lie.

Brennan told the lie to try to cast doubt on Wolfe's credibility, asking him if he noticed something that did NOT exist, in essence deliberately introducing false evidence. As he told that lie, he and he alone was looking directly at the back of the hoodie as he spoke, and only he could tell there were no such holes.

It was a MAJOR no-no, and his "I made a mistake" to the jury with no other clarification or elaboration completely downplayed his huge wrong, its intent, its impact. If JudgeB doesn't go strong for what the def wants on this, to let them lay it bare to the jury, any verdict for the cw will be in jeopardy. But it's hard to have confidence in her fairness.
 
Warwick7 said:
I had to look this up. Why would they withdraw that request??
Click to expand...
I think they don’t have enough for it. Pretty much the only thing they had was the ‘I hit him’ alleged statement, and the defense made it very clear in this trial that that story did not emerge for months after John’s death. She cooperated with police at every turn.

The instruction itself would tell the jury something like “If you think her behavior shows she knew she was guilty, you can take that into account.” But if the jury thinks her behavior wasn’t suspicious, just emotional, intoxicated, erratic, it could backfire and draw attention to how little hard evidence they have.

Lastly it opens them up for a defense attack. Her defense could say “They’re trying to get you to convict based on Karen’s tone of voice and scrambled texts because they can’t prove what actually happened to John O’Keefe,” or something to that effect. Better to focus the jury on the physical evidence, timeline, and statements rather than a vague behavioral theory. If they push too hard on consciousness of guilt and it fails, it could taint the rest of their argument.

all MOO
 
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...
This is an extraordinary post. ✨️
 
BUF said:
Each side allowed one hour and fifteen minutes for closings. She will give jury instructions right after closings.

Judge wants jury to start deliberations right after lunch (30 min lunch) and maybe will ask if they can stay until 5:00 or 5:30
Click to expand...
In M00 she won't ask them to wait till 5 or 5:30. She'll tell them they should go home at 3:30 or 4 everyday. That's how she operates.
 
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...

So basically behavior that practically all the CW witnesses exhibited in this trial and the last one except for the paid experts. Ya know all the lying, lying to the FBI, deleting of texts and phone messages, deleting of internet searches, re-homing of dogs, ripping up the basement floor and carpet, disposing of cell phones and memory cards in separate dumpsters on a military base, selling their home, altering photos, working on days off, going into rehab immediately following a death, retiring from the job immediately after a death on your front yard so you wouldn't have to go to work because your arm was in a sling, meeting and going on vacation and going to school get-togethers with people who they said they didn't know, changing testimony from their grand jury hearings, depositions, and 2 trials, mis-remembering, not remembering, then having moments of clarity after 3-4 yrs, making butt dials, answering butt dials but not recalling that they answered them, leaving and not leaving messages, not coming outside when there is a dear friend laying dead on your lawn despite being a 1st responder, not checking on your sister after finding a dead body on her lawn, saying " Tell them the guy didn't go in the house". All my own opinion of course!!! I'm sure I'm missing a few dozen more so please feel free to add to my list of possible consciousness of guilt acts made by other people not named Karen Read!

I'm sure it's all just 1001 incredible coincidences that would NEVER, EVER, happen again anywhere, anytime in any town USA or other parts of the world or even the universe for that matter. I mean it could happen right? RIGHT?? Someone has to win the lottery sometime when the odds are 290,472,336 to 1.
 
kuromiiiilove said:
I think they don’t have enough for it. Pretty much the only thing they had was the ‘I hit him’ alleged statement, and the defense made it very clear in this trial that that story did not emerge for months after John’s death. She cooperated with police at every turn.

The instruction itself would tell the jury something like “If you think her behavior shows she knew she was guilty, you can take that into account.” But if the jury thinks her behavior wasn’t suspicious, just emotional, intoxicated, erratic, it could backfire and draw attention to how little hard evidence they have.

Lastly it opens them up for a defense attack. Her defense could say “They’re trying to get you to convict based on Karen’s tone of voice and scrambled texts because they can’t prove what actually happened to John O’Keefe,” or something to that effect. Better to focus the jury on the physical evidence, timeline, and statements rather than a vague behavioral theory. If they push too hard on consciousness of guilt and it fails, it could taint the rest of their argument.

all MOO
Click to expand...
Brennan's long-winded questioning of Dr. Russell most likely helped too... her being able to explain how people who lose loved ones say things that may not be true, blame themselves, say things while they try to figure out what happened, etc.
 
Angelwatch said:
Cannone really seems to want to bring up Aruba.
Click to expand...
Appears this was introduced during the niece's testimony which was not broadcast nor reported by MSM. More dirty play by team Brennan-- using the child to bring in alleged prior bad acts by the defendant per the Judges charging instructions. MOO
 
Derph said:
So basically behavior that practically all the CW witnesses exhibited in this trial and the last one except for the paid experts. Ya know all the lying, lying to the FBI, deleting of texts and phone messages, deleting of internet searches, re-homing of dogs, ripping up the basement floor and carpet, disposing of cell phones and memory cards in separate dumpsters on a military base, selling their home, altering photos, working on days off, going into rehab immediately following a death, retiring from the job immediately after a death on your front yard so you wouldn't have to go to work because your arm was in a sling, meeting and going on vacation and going to school get-togethers with people who they said they didn't know, changing testimony from their grand jury hearings, depositions, and 2 trials, mis-remembering, not remembering, then having moments of clarity after 3-4 yrs, making butt dials, answering butt dials but not recalling that they answered them, leaving and not leaving messages, not coming outside when there is a dear friend laying dead on your lawn despite being a 1st responder, not checking on your sister after finding a dead body on her lawn, saying " Tell them the guy didn't go in the house". All my own opinion of course!!! I'm sure I'm missing a few dozen more so please feel free to add to my list of possible consciousness of guilt acts made by other people not named Karen Read!

I'm sure it's all just 1001 incredible coincidences that would NEVER, EVER, happen again anywhere, anytime in any town USA or other parts of the world or even the universe for that matter. I mean it could happen right? RIGHT?? Someone has to win the lottery sometime when the odds are 290,472,336 to 1.
Click to expand...
You go girl! Excellent post!!
 
kuromiiiilove said:
Defense want Judge Cannone to again clarify that holes in the back of the sweatshirt were cuts by MSP criminalist, not road rash.
Click to expand...
IMO Judge Canone's statement glossed over Brennan's breech/fabrication regarding the cuts on the back of JOK's sweatshirt, which also called into question the integrity of Daniel Wolfe's research. More emphasis of this breech is necessary to correct Brennan's false information and to restore the validity of Wolfe's testimony.
 
kuromiiiilove said:
I think they don’t have enough for it. Pretty much the only thing they had was the ‘I hit him’ alleged statement, and the defense made it very clear in this trial that that story did not emerge for months after John’s death. She cooperated with police at every turn.

The instruction itself would tell the jury something like “If you think her behavior shows she knew she was guilty, you can take that into account.” But if the jury thinks her behavior wasn’t suspicious, just emotional, intoxicated, erratic, it could backfire and draw attention to how little hard evidence they have.

Lastly it opens them up for a defense attack. Her defense could say “They’re trying to get you to convict based on Karen’s tone of voice and scrambled texts because they can’t prove what actually happened to John O’Keefe,” or something to that effect. Better to focus the jury on the physical evidence, timeline, and statements rather than a vague behavioral theory. If they push too hard on consciousness of guilt and it fails, it could taint the rest of their argument.

all MOO
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just a conspiracist, but to me, they already kind of used this to be allowed to repeatedly play out of context video interview clips of KR in front of the jury so "mission accomplished" in a GW Bush aircraft carrier celebration kind of way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 189 more.
Total: 709 (members: 190, guests: 519)

Online statistics

Members online
190
Guests online
519
Total visitors
709
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,485
Messages
18,504,871
Members
240,803
Latest member
10 :)
Back
Top