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

[LittleSeaTree]

She her head down /juts her chin out and purrrs like a kitty kat “Jurors”
Too bad Bette Davis isn’t around she would be good in the role of JBC.
Careful of the claws
JMO

I see Rosie O’Donnell in a blonde wig

 

[HarmonyE.]

The jury question I found most interesting was about the time of the alleged DUI offense. Paraphrasing, what time is the DUI alleged to have occurrred - at 12:30ish or at around 5 am when she backed into John's vehicle?

Hank wanted the judge to go with 12:45 when he's claiming John was hit by her car. But it's not specified in the charging docs, so the judge wouldn't give a time.

This likely indicates that at least someone on the jury doesn't even want to consider her being legally intoxicated at around 12:30ish, but perhaps would like to consider that (as AJ suggested in his closing) that she drank while at One Meadows overnight, which is why her blood still showed a fairly high alcohol level at the hosptial the next morning.

Not sure what it means overall, but it's interesting.

 

[keek]

View attachment 595937

Never think John O'Keefe is forgotten. The pain of his loss of life due to others is right in front along with justice for Karen Read and outing the killers in that house who have nothing even close to being human beings of the normal and average even, kind. IMO

 

[cocomod]

The jury question I found most interesting was about the time of the alleged DUI offense. Paraphrasing, what time is the DUI alleged to have occurrred - at 12:30ish or at around 5 am when she backed into John's vehicle?

Hank wanted the judge to go with 12:45 when he's claiming John was hit by her car. But it's not specified in the charging docs, so the judge wouldn't give a time.

This likely indicates that at least someone on the jury doesn't even want to consider her being legally intoxicated at around 12:30ish, but perhaps would like to consider that (as AJ suggested in his closing) that she drank while at One Meadows overnight, which is why her blood still showed a fairly high alcohol level at the hosptial the next morning.

Not sure what it means overall, but it's interesting.

I too think it is interesting. In a way, I was surprised that Hank wanted to go with 12:45 (when AJ said no time) because she was tested much later in the day. I would think that a jury would find it harder to "prove" she was drunk at 12:45 even though she had been drinking on film.

 

[Maat99]

I too think it is interesting. In a way, I was surprised that Hank wanted to go with 12:45 (when AJ said no time) because she was tested much later in the day. I would think that a jury would find it harder to "prove" she was drunk at 12:45 even though she had been drinking on film.

Plus the testimony by her friend KK is that she didn’t seem drunk at all when leaving the bar.
ETA: I think even JM testified that she didn’t seem drunk when leaving the bar. Jmo

 

[HarmonyE.]

I too think it is interesting. In a way, I was surprised that Hank wanted to go with 12:45 (when AJ said no time) because she was tested much later in the day. I would think that a jury would find it harder to "prove" she was drunk at 12:45 even though she had been drinking on film.

Karen's friend at the Waterfall said she didn't appear intoxicated. The two in Ricky D's vehicle testified that she was driving fine, not speeding, staying her lane. Didn't run any stop signs. So no testimony about her behavior that night which supports impairment at that time.

But early morning, she did drive into John's vehicle. Coupled with the blood test, this could be indication she was impaired at that time. Not necessarily while on Fairview. Maybe/probably because they don't think she hit anything or anyone on Fairview?

It all sounds good for Read. We'll see.

 

[keek]

Plus the testimony by her friend KK is that she didn’t seem drunk at all when leaving the bar.

Right, that needs to be ignored, drunk at that time. She had to have gone back to John's and tried to calm down that way, but it needs to not be part of the verdict question at all. NO proof at that time she was, regardless of her own video talk, NO proof. IMO

 

[cocomod]

Karen's friend at the Waterfall said she didn't appear intoxicated. The two in Ricky D's vehicle testified that she was driving fine, not speeding, staying her lane. Didn't run any stop signs. So no testimony about her behavior which night supports impairment at that time.

But early morning, she did drive into John's vehicle. Coupled with the blood test, this could be indication she was impaired at that time. Not necessarily while on Fairview. Maybe/probably because they don't think she hit anything or anyone on Fairview?

It all sounds good for Read. We'll see.

Yes, that is why I was actually surprised that Brennan wanted to use the 12:45 time because I think that the jury would have been more likely to vote NG for that time frame. Just interesting!

 

[nightowl1975]

I was hopeful earlier but as it gets closer to 4, I'm thinking not today.

I wonder if they wanted to drag it out so they can go home and do some… perusing… of their own to see what’s happening behind the scenes before they make a final decision. I suspect if it’s some wanting to convict on the OUI only, if they realize it would automatically leave the entire charge up for retrial, they might be agreeable to voting NG. IMO of course.

 

[Angelwatch]

Karen's friend at the Waterfall said she didn't appear intoxicated. The two in Ricky D's vehicle testified that she was driving fine, not speeding, staying her lane. Didn't run any stop signs. So no testimony about her behavior that night which supports impairment at that time.

But early morning, she did drive into John's vehicle. Coupled with the blood test, this could be indication she was impaired at that time. Not necessarily while on Fairview. Maybe/probably because they don't think she hit anything or anyone on Fairview?

It all sounds good for Read. We'll see.

Jen McCabe also stated she didn’t seem impaired.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Yes, that is why I was actually surprised that Brennan wanted to use the 12:45 time because I think that the jury would have been more likely to vote NG for that time frame. Just interesting!

He's not looking for her to be found guilty of just DUI (stand alone). It's a total loss to the CW if she's not convicted of murder or manslaughter, even if the judge sentences her to prison time (which never, ever happens on a misdemeanor first offense DUI).

I can't believe we're dealing with another flawed jury slip. Astounding, really.

 

[Warwick7]

I too think it is interesting. In a way, I was surprised that Hank wanted to go with 12:45 (when AJ said no time) because she was tested much later in the day. I would think that a jury would find it harder to "prove" she was drunk at 12:45 even though she had been drinking on film.

I have been away from the thread most of the day. So this may be recycling what some of you already talked about. But, in the end if they get her for a OUI or a DWI then they better dish some out to the rest of the police officers and their wives that were there that night then turned around and drove.

 

[nightowl1975]

Verdict By noon tomorrow. I bet that at least one of the jurors is going to google jury forms tonite and get some clarity.
JMO

I actually suspect something along these lines as well. Someone or multiple someones want to know what happens legally if they don’t agree on the OUI charge, maybe what the penalty is for OUI, etc. What exactly was being debated about how to answer the questions while the jury was out of the room, etc. I would struggle so much with feeling like I was in the dark, unable to make a solid decision bc of corruption.

 

[nightowl1975]

The jury question I found most interesting was about the time of the alleged DUI offense. Paraphrasing, what time is the DUI alleged to have occurrred - at 12:30ish or at around 5 am when she backed into John's vehicle?

Hank wanted the judge to go with 12:45 when he's claiming John was hit by her car. But it's not specified in the charging docs, so the judge wouldn't give a time.

This likely indicates that at least someone on the jury doesn't even want to consider her being legally intoxicated at around 12:30ish, but perhaps would like to consider that (as AJ suggested in his closing) that she drank while at One Meadows overnight, which is why her blood still showed a fairly high alcohol level at the hosptial the next morning.

Not sure what it means overall, but it's interesting.

It definitely says to me that they’re considering a lot of angles that even I haven’t seen questioned or discussed. I think it’s a good sign.

 

[DustysMom]

If I recall the judge’s instructions regarding DUI, it doesn’t sound like KR is guilty of that. IIRC, the parameters that Judge outlined were more than fair towards a defendant. Furthermore, how can the estimation of KR’s BAC, hours after she drove to 34F, be used to prove anything? Counting drinks from video coverage, many of which were shots poured into a pretty full glass, is not hard evidence that she was drunk when she got behind the wheel. It’s all pretty much BS to me.

 

[nightowl1975]

Yes, that is why I was actually surprised that Brennan wanted to use the 12:45 time because I think that the jury would have been more likely to vote NG for that time frame. Just interesting!

I suspect this is exactly why Bev didn’t want to “give” Hank the 12:45am time frame. She knew that was not good bc the implication is clearly that someone is thinking if she did drink more after getting home, we know she drove at 5am, and we know her blood level was xyz later that morning. So maybe they’d be willing to convict on OUI if it was 5am, but not 12:45am. Bev knew this.

I also think legally speaking, the correct answer was given bc the indictment didn’t specify a time frame, just the date.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I have been away from the thread most of the day. So this may be recycling what some of you already talked about. But, in the end if they get her for a OUI or a DWI then they better dish some out to the rest of the police officers and their wives that were there that night then turned around and drove.

Not likely to happen, and I'd rather see John O'Keefe's actual killers arrested for his murder.

Because it surely looks like this has all been about protecting the people responsible for his death.

 

[Wishbone]

At this point the jury is aware that this is KR's second trial. The last question they asked makes it appear they are worried about causing a third one. Hopefully they will find a way to all agree on what I suspect is #5 of the second charge. Was she operating that car legally over the alcohol limit.It's a possibility but for myself I would not find her guilty on the evidence that has been presented. JMOO

 

[Pugsterpig]

We're all feeling so anxious awaiting the verdict. I can't imagine how KR feels. Hopefully they reach a verdict tomorrow.

 

[Angelwatch]

At this point the jury is aware that this is KR's second trial. The last question they asked makes it appear they are worried about causing a third one. Hopefully they will find a way to all agree on what I suspect is #5 of the second charge. Was she operating that car legally over the alcohol limit.It's a possibility but for myself I would not find her guilty on the evidence that has been presented. JMOO

If I was a juror, I’d vote not guilty if Cannone wasn’t willing to answer the question. If it’s not crystal clear, it’s not BARD and that includes the jury instructions. For whatever reason, this is the hill Cannone wants to die on, figuratively. She’s not going to amend the verdict slip. All she wants to do is regurgitate her instructions.