VERDICT WATCH 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

[kuromiiiilove]

IMO it is intentional on the part of the judge to obfuscate the jury verdict form. How unfortunate it is to intentionally make it confusing for the jurors. Just when we think we have seen it all there is something else to cause concern about this fiasco being fair.

Especially when this is the exact issue the jurors had in T1.

 

[Moe]

How could the Judge do this again? It was a huge problem the first time around, me no likey!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Thank you! So those lesser included charges are the point of contention/confusion.

 

[keek]

IMO it is intentional on the part of the judge to obfuscate the jury verdict form. How unfortunate it is to intentionally make it confusing for the jurors. Just when we think we have seen it all there is something else to cause concern about this fiasco being fair.

The plan. Anything to get the verdict wanted so obvious. Interested to see and read about the fall out and further. IMO

 

[keek]

How could the Judge do this again? It was a huge problem the first time around, me no likey!

Desssssperation. judge is well aware of all the huge problems it caused last time, so trying again. IMO

 

[missy1974]

Thank you! So those lesser included charges are the point of contention/confusion.

I can see where the confusion would be. I think some/most of us here could navigate the forms, but that is with outside influence and experience ... trials for some of us are a 'hobby'. But most people serving on a jury? would they understand? The last jury didn't.

JMO

 

[detectivewannab]

what was the split on the first trial?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

what was the split on the first trial?

From the motion to dismiss filed after T1:
-Murder 2 - unanimously NG
-Leaving the scene causing injury or death - unanimously NG
-Manslaughter while operating under the influence - deadlocked. I believe it was 8 G, 4 NG.

ETA: Karen’s defense argued after T1 that the two unanimous NG charges should not be pursued again.

 

[mzmarymac]

My concern is this - the jury knows that the CW has tried this case twice and spent 3.5 years on it. They know the taxpayers have spent so much money on it. I wonder if that will weigh on their minds, i.e. want to give them something for their efforts, or maybe "hey if they are trying this hard, there might be something there....."

 

[mzmarymac]

From the motion to dismiss filed after T1:
-Murder 2 - unanimously NG
-Leaving the scene causing injury or death - unanimous NG
-Manslaughter while operating under the influence - deadlocked. I believe it was 8 G, 4 NG.

So it is sad, but there were apparently 8 jurors in T1 that thought she hit him with the Lexus and that is how he died.

They just don't believe she did it on purpose and don't believe she actually knew she ran him over.

Crazy.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

From the motion to dismiss filed after T1:
-Murder 2 - unanimously NG
-Leaving the scene causing injury or death - unanimously NG
-Manslaughter while operating under the influence - deadlocked. I believe it was 8 G, 4 NG.

ETA: Karen’s defense argued after T1 that the two unanimous NG charges should not be pursued again.

So basically, jurors thought that *if* she hit him, she wasn’t aware. But NG on leaving the scene knowing she hit him or acting with malice to hit him.

 

[mzmarymac]

So basically, jurors thought that *if* she hit him, she wasn’t aware. But NG on leaving the scene knowing she hit him or acting with malice to hit him.

Sort of. I would think that the guilty voters for manslaughter felt she hit him period.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So it is sad, but there were apparently 8 jurors in T1 that thought she hit him with the Lexus and that is how he died.

They just don't believe she did it on purpose and don't believe she actually knew she ran him over.

Crazy.

Absolutely wild to me. I think it was a combo of ‘just world’ fallacy and ‘splitting the baby’ as AJ says.

‘Well… she was drunk. She was the last person with him. Even if we’re not 100% sure, she must bear some responsibility’

Which is not how reasonable doubt works.

 

[HarmonyE.]

So it is sad, but there were apparently 8 jurors in T1 that thought she hit him with the Lexus and that is how he died.

They just don't believe she did it on purpose and don't believe she actually knew she ran him over.

Crazy.

Agree, but it's a classic "compromise" situation. Which is why the CW charged her with murder 2 without really attempting to prove it. The jury probably just wanted to go back to home and work. Not right, but it's what happens when some people believe "the police wouldn't have arrested her if she didn't hit him". The defense did a better job this time exposing this.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Sort of. I would think that the guilty voters for manslaughter felt she hit him period.

True!!!

 

[rescuemom]

IMO it is intentional on the part of the judge to obfuscate the jury verdict form. How unfortunate it is to intentionally make it confusing for the jurors. Just when we think we have seen it all there is something else to cause concern about this fiasco being fair.

Supposedly that's how it's done in Mass. Hopefully this jury will go right to the one NG box and be done with it

 

[Amber29]

There is 1 check box for NG. And then each lesser charge has a possible ‘guilty’ check box, but no ‘not guilty’ check box. So, same as last year, it’s a bit confusing. Jurors reported that the absence of clear check boxes for each count were confusing to them, and they were scared to ask for clarification.

She explained it in the jury instructions. She said if you find Not Guilty on that page, you stop there. I hope they understood.

 

[Anniesflowers]

That's what's so fascinating to me, that she has been attending every day, even though they dated so long ago.

She was also in the documentary, A Body in the Snow.

 

[keek]

Supposedly that's how it's done in Mass. Hopefully this jury will go right to the one NG box and be done with it

I so hope they are the kind that wouid do that as we sure would !!!! Enough. Especially that they hopefully see all the horror of what’s been done and twice ! IMO.

 

[Leilei]

Absolutely wild to me. I think it was a combo of ‘just world’ fallacy and ‘splitting the baby’ as AJ says.

‘Well… she was drunk. She was the last person with him. Even if we’re not 100% sure, she must bear some responsibility’

Which is not how reasonable doubt works.

I am hoping that this time around, with all of the expert testimony showing that JOK was not hit by a car, the jurors will not be split on that last charge. Straight NG across the board. Even if she was DUI, they didn't charge her with just that, so that lesser charge would not apply, right?
IMO.