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 #36 Retrial

[Elliot_Alderson]

Sorry that's not correct. It's the party alleging the crime that must prove it, or at least try to do so. That's why there is a defence part of the trial, otherwise the case would go to the jury after the commonwealth rests.

It's not sufficient for Joe Bloggs to stand up and say the bogeyman did it. They have to show some evidence, which is why third part culprit was denied pre-trial for one individual.

35.45

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

Sorry but it is correct

 

[Izzylizzy]

Defence produced not a scintilla of evidence of anyone either obtaining or planting evidence.

Most defendants come up with ridiculous theories to explain away their involvement in crimes. Juries aren't allowed to speculate. A whispering defence attorney isn't evidence.

Taillight plastic was found at the scene of the accident while Proctor was at the sallyport.

MOO

Karen Read hearing focuses on missing Canton police video footage ahead of second trial​

Karen Read hearing focuses on missing Canton police video footage ahead of second trial

The Karen Read case was back in a Massachusetts courtroom for a hearing on what evidence may be used in her second trial.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Sorry that's not correct. It's the party alleging the crime that must prove it, or at least try to do so. That's why there is a defence part of the trial, otherwise the case would go to the jury after the commonwealth rests.

It's not sufficient for Joe Bloggs to stand up and say the bogeyman did it. They have to show some evidence, which is why third part culprit was denied pre-trial for one individual.

35.45

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

You’re confusing burden of proof and defense strategy.

 

[Soulmagent]

I linked above the testimony from the crime lab scientist saying she wanted to collect all biological material that might be on the light housing. She didn't do a test for presumptive blood on any part of the car except the undercarriage.

Andre Porto who did the DNA testing on the swabs said that there is no difference in DNA results between blood or any other type of DNA.


49.44

Q. Is DNA the same in every cell of a person’s body?

A. Yes, so what that means is if I were to take a blood sample and a saliva sample from the same person, the same DNA profile will be generated.

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

Is this the tech that useed like one q tip and smeared it all over the suv?

 

[Warwick7]

Defence produced not a scintilla of evidence of anyone either obtaining or planting evidence.

Most defendants come up with ridiculous theories to explain away their involvement in crimes. Juries aren't allowed to speculate. A whispering defence attorney isn't evidence.

Taillight plastic was found at the scene of the accident while Proctor was at the sallyport.

MOO

The problem is..... the defense doesn't need to prove the defendant's innocence. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So KR's team doesn't need to produce evidence.

 

[jepop]

Where does it state not blood or tissue please.

No blood or tissue was introduced by the cw, because there wasn't any. Not on shards, not on Lexus. None.

 

[Tortoise]

Sorry but it is correct

It is a legally protected right not have to prove one's innocence, but if the defendant is raising 3rd party culprit defence they have to bring some evidence of it. Otherwise no one else is going to do it for them, and they won't have given the jury anything to deliberate. It doesn't mean they have to collect their own DNA evidence etc, but they at least have to raise a reasonable doubt by showing means and opportunity.

I've linked the judge's ruling on 3rd party culprit just above, which specifically shows the defence had that burden.

 

[Tortoise]

No blood or tissue was introduced by the cw, because there wasn't as any. Not on shards, not on Lexus. None.

The shards weren't swabbed. See Yanetti's cross of Andre Porto.

Scientists don't introduce biological material into evidence, it's swabbed and tested in the lab.

MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

It is a legally protected right not have to prove one's innocence, but if the defendant is raising 3rd party culprit defence they have to bring some evidence of it. Otherwise no one else is going to do it for them, and they won't have given the jury anything to deliberate. It doesn't mean they have to collect their own DNA evidence etc, but they at least have to raise a reasonable doubt by showing means and opportunity.

I've linked the judge's ruling on 3rd party culprit just above, which specifically shows the defence had that burden.

You’re still conflating evidentiary thresholds with burden of proof. The defense’s obligation to meet a threshold of admissibility for a third-party culprit theory is not the same as assuming the burden of proof at trial.

 

[Tortoise]

You’re confusing burden of proof and defense strategy.

No I'm not. MOO

 

[nightowl1975]

Being so a young jury, it makes me wonder if they did?

I would fall over in shock if at least some of them haven’t been on social media all this time. IMO.

 

[Leilei]

It is a legally protected right not have to prove one's innocence, but if the defendant is raising 3rd party culprit defence they have to bring some evidence of it. Otherwise no one else is going to do it for them, and they won't have given the jury anything to deliberate. It doesn't mean they have to collect their own DNA evidence etc, but they at least have to raise a reasonable doubt by showing means and opportunity.

I've linked the judge's ruling on 3rd party culprit just above, which specifically shows the defence had that burden.

The defense abandoned the third party culprit strategy prior to closing arguments, so this is all moot.
IMO

 

[Soulmagent]

It is a legally protected right not have to prove one's innocence, but if the defendant is raising 3rd party culprit defence they have to bring some evidence of it. Otherwise no one else is going to do it for them, and they won't have given the jury anything to deliberate. It doesn't mean they have to collect their own DNA evidence etc, but they at least have to raise a reasonable doubt by showing means and opportunity.

I've linked the judge's ruling on 3rd party culprit just above, which specifically shows the defence had that burden.

I dont know if you have heard but 75 percent of the polled audience does not think this judge is umm....fair .

 

[kuromiiiilove]

No I'm not. MOO

The burden of proof in a criminal trial always lies with the prosecution, full stop. The defense raising an alternative theory doesn’t magically shift that burden.

 

[Tortoise]

The defense abandoned the third party culprit strategy prior to closing arguments, so this is all moot.
IMO

Do you think they would have done that if they had evidence of it?

 

[Tortoise]

I dont know if you have heard but 75 percent of the polled audience does not think this judge is umm....fair .

Depends which audience they're polling.

 

[jepop]

It is a legally protected right not have to prove one's innocence, but if the defendant is raising 3rd party culprit defence they have to bring some evidence of it. Otherwise no one else is going to do it for them, and they won't have given the jury anything to deliberate. It doesn't mean they have to collect their own DNA evidence etc, but they at least have to raise a reasonable doubt by showing means and opportunity.

I've linked the judge's ruling on 3rd party culprit just above, which specifically shows the defence had that burden.

No. Defense didn't raise 3rd party culprit. It was hybrid Bowden - proctor failed to investigate potential suspects. That was the strategy they went with. <modsnip>

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Do you think they would have done that if they had evidence of it?

Do you think the CW would have abandoned the consciousness of guilt instruction if they had evidence of it?

 

[Leilei]

Do you think they would have done that if they had evidence of it?

I'm not part of the defense team, so I can't answer that.
I can link AJ's website, though. Perhaps he will answer your question.
IMO.

 

[turaj]

AFter jury left the courtroom this morning the judge said defense had given her something....she would need some time to read it....have we heard any more? I am most nervous about juror misconduct. Sorry if this has been discussed here ...if so I missed it.