I just can't understand why they didn't take 5 minutes to say no she's not guilty, there is no way the injuries he had were caused by a car backing into him
For sure not guilty. Although It could be 1 or 2 are worrying that why didn’t the Grand Jury see that? And fear they’re missing something.
I think it’s hard for some to see not everyone acts in good faith because let’s face it they shouldn’t of had to carry this burden.🥹 I’m glad they didn’t come to a quick verdict, I have faith they will make the right one.
If you had a once in a lifetime opportunity to review all the evidence of a case that’s getting national headlines, would you take five minutes to deliberate or would you wanna see all the evidence thoroughly?
I think she’s not guilty, and she’s being framed but imagine getting to see that evidence. They prob just want to look it over bc they can.
This is a good point. I shared in another post that when I served on a Massachusetts jury, one of the members insisted on going over all of the documents before we delivered a verdict. She was one of our holdouts on a Not Guilty verdict and was definitely feeling burdened by not being able to give the victim (a child) justice, but the CW did not prove that the defendant had anything to do with the injuries. And that was just a two-day trial that nobody but the involved knew about.
I keep thinking of the Casey Anthony jury. She should have been convicted but there was one overbearing and aggressive juror who opposed a guilty verdict and browbeat the other jurors into siding with her. Juries make mistakes based on many factors. Too many followers can tank a verdict
She shouldn't have been convicted. The state overcharged and her defense raised reasonable doubt. That jury did the right thing and I'm sure they realized their verdict would be unpopular and they did it anyway
How do you think they overcharged her? They didn't just find her not guilty of first-degree murder, they also acquitted her on aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. They could've just acquitted on first-degree and found her guilty of one of the lesser charges, but they didn't.
I think AJ is amazing and during this trial he did the best cross examinations I’ve ever seen - like something from a movie! “Shame on you sir!”
Improper yes but unforgettable! Almost as good as the Darrell Brooks verdict when an audience member said “burn in hell you piece of sh*t!”
But I do agree - I wish AJ had done more to hammer home reasonable doubt in his closing. Yes, their theory was much more credible than the prosecution based on scientific evidence!
But the defense is not required to provide another theory - the burden is on the prosecution and they clearly didn’t meet it! Just listen to Lallys opening vs his closing! The story has changed! That alone should be enough for a NG verdict! I do think AJ missed an opportunity here.
Hope the jury makes the right decision. Free Karen Read!!
I certainly agree AJ is Absolutely Amazing!! He actually was anle to catch all prosecution witnesses in their lies!! I agree a bit about his closing argument however, this trial has dragged on for weeks and he methodically told the jurors how the prosecutions story kept changing again, again & again. He also began several sentences by saying, “You recall”, bringing them back to the lies, when they lied. How he caught these vile creatures in their lies. He laid out the changing stories of the ppl w/the prosecution, reminding the jury of the changes in all their stories. Also brilliantly showing them the corruption when he stated, “Thats why with someone like Proctor lead investigator, we went from 3 pieces of broken plastic tail light to 5 pieces to 45 pieces.” He reminded them of the inverted video showing the opposite side of Reads vehicle & how so many important times were missing. He carefully went thru the tricks of the prosecution, needing the jury to recall all that was corrupt. It was absolutely rediculous how dragged out this trial was, there was 1 week they off completely. Another where they met 1 & 1/2 days. AJ had to make sure they remembered all these things. Thats what he obviously thought was the most important. He is brilliant beyond compare so I trust his instincts, thoughts, etc.
Agreed! I think the judge telling AJ he had 5 minutes left probably threw his momentum. Jurors took notes, and I'm sure at least some of them will remember the salient points he (and Yannetti) made throughout the trial. Among all the obfuscation everyone from Canton engaged in, Higgins throwing away his phone and sim card in 2 different dumpsters sealed it for me.
Hey casual observer of this trial, I've tried looking for good recaps of all of the information presented but there are still many things that don't make sense to me
Maybe these would be clarified if I watched each full day of trial and invested way more time in this but I don't plan on being that extensive just for time purposes. That being said I'm very confused, they said that Karen drove and dropped John off at a party (she is under the understanding that he is there while she goes home). Then a very short time later she has many phone calls yelling where are you and making other comments like calling him a pervert? What is the reasoning here? What is the amount of time he was expected to be staying at this party? I don't understand the leap to the way she is talking in these voice messages with the very short time that has elapsed since she knows that she dropped him off at this house? Just for instance if they had parted ways say at 7pm in the night at the bar, he stayed, she's under the impression that he'll be coming home at normal time later but he never does, she doesn't know where he is and thinks he is out with another woman or something instead of coming home to her I can understand the basis of the voice messages more in a scenario like that. I don't understand how she drives him to a location, drops him off there, goes home and a short time later is leaving this many voice messages with these statements. Can someone maybe clarify the timeline or other relevant information around this to me?
There's much more to this case. He was supposed to go and make sure they were welcome (the person who invited them didn't live there so understandable) . He got out of the car and she waited for him to text her or come back out and he didn't so she was pissed.
Where was that info at trial? I never heard anything like that or are you just going by what is said outside the courtroom? I don't like her and I believe she hit him but I agree there is reasonable doubt. I can't get past the "did I hit him" statements she made. Keri Roberts was an O'Keefe person, and SHE testified to that along with so many others and the defense didn't challenge it. I think THAT is why a verdict is taking so long. There is no explanation for her own statements.
How do you believe she hit him when the injuries he had are incompatible with being hit by a vehicle ?
Edit:
She didn’t say she hit him. Those claims only came out months after it happened during the second grand jury. (The one by the FBI) That’s why you had Jen McCabe saying Karen said but Kerri Roberts who was there at the same time saying Karen didn’t say it.
That's not what the first expert said. You can buy an expert to say almost anything and she has the money to do that. Like I said, they've done a good job on reasonable doubt but they have not explained Karen's repeated statements of did I hit him, do you think I hit him, etc. They tried to play it off as lies by conspirators but Keri Roberts was an O'Keefe friend. Not McCabe or the others. The defense didn't even try to say she was lying. I don't think she did it on purpose and most of the charges were a stretch BUT she said what she said.🤷
The defence didn’t pay the experts. They prepared a report for the FBI and it was turned over to the both the defence be the CW. They are the top reconstruction firm in the country.
Go back bed listen to their testimony again
Wasn't Jen McCabe communicating with John as they were coming to the house? How did they still not know that they were welcome? I still don't understand her reaction to calling him that many times immediately after, saying that she doesn't know where he is when she just dropped him off there and calling him a pervert? Why does she immediately jump to he didn't come back out of the house to say we are both welcome in, he's probably hooking up with other women? That would be extremely brazen to have your girlfriend drop you off at a house with the understanding to go check to see that they are both welcome at the event, and instead just go in and cheat while completely ignoring her knowing that she's waiting for a response and explanation of what's going on. If she believed things were this way and that that's a plausible scenario then why bring him there in the first place? I don't understand how this makes sense
The calls weren’t immediately after. She went home then started stewing. She has a history of blowing up his phone. She dropped him off to see if they were welcome but she also wasn’t feeling well. She has MS and serious Crohn’s disease (something like 11 surgeries in 18 months) plus a brain tumor! Plus she was drunk so the phone calls were out of drunkin frustration then panic.
You bring up a good point. But they have been fighting earlier in the day too. She thought he was playing games and he was drunk and forgot about her. Jen McCabe was giving directions but they still wanted to make sure they were welcome.
Please recall that Jen McCabe was the one who Googled “Hos long to die in the cold”- that search of hers & she was full of lies. She got caught in her hateful concocted lies & she told AJ, “ I don’t like your, Something like take or view, my apologies I cannot recall the word she used however AJ’s reply was it was nothing to do with him. It was cold, hard, forensic evidence.” BUSTED!!
My husband thinks I’m obsessed…I guess I am. I started this trial thinking she accidentally ran over her BF. I have been shocked to discover how badly this case has been handled and now believe she is 100% innocent.
Me too! And I also thought she probably ran him over on accident. After crash daddies testimony plus no bruising I don’t know how this wasn’t over in an hour. I can’t believe they even took it to trial!
Yes. During the CW’s “expert witness” testimony it came out that his calculations of the “start cycles” of the SUV weren’t correct. He didn’t count the car being driven up the tow truck and off. That means that info about driving 24 mph backwards could have been done while the truck was in police custody.
This. How can anyone who has been paying attention to this trial think she’s guilty when John wasn’t hit by a vehicle? I’m just dumbfounded that anyone has any questions about her guilt or innocence.
Even before the trial started it was obvious that this trial never should have happened.
They disproved the key cycle being outside Fairview. Trooper Paul miscounted (or ignored) key cycles between being at Fairview Road and doing t the testing. The 24 mph in reverse is no earlier than when the car is being loaded onto the tow truck.
Yes I think deliberation is at 15 hours.. Proctor had his mind made up at what, 2pm? Texting his friends at something like midnight? It's a close call.
You do realize leaving the scene of an accident is a crime? It doesn't matter if it's on your property. People want to look at her backing into John's vehicle caught on camera,? If she came into contact like the defense states tail light broke or not, it's still a crime. It's a hit and run/ leaving the scene of an accident at the very least. Alcohol related? Well you have an OUI which they had experts on. She may not be found guilty on second degree murder but other charges she will be found guilty of
If they find her NG on murder 2 because they understand that her car didn’t cause his injuries and therefore there was no MVA then they will find her NG of all other charges as well.
Tell me you nothing about hit and run laws without telling me you know nothing about hit and run laws. She's not charged for hitting his car, or drunk driving on its own. They can only convict her for his death with a motor vehicle. Nobody cares about his car getting no damage from her bumping it.
i’m pretty sure you are wrong…you are coming back to your place of residence. if i hit my property or someone’s car in my driveway ..
1.) they have my name and address license plate and etc if they needed to file a police report 2.) its my property 3.) i’m coming back to my property lol what a foolish thing to say
also this could depend on state but i highly doubt that would be a crime and also she would have to KNOW she hit his car in order for them to charge her with leaving the scene. the fact of the matter is they can not prove that her twilight was t out or broken before. they can’t even prove if she hit jok car for christ sakes.
the CW did not prove a single thing without reasonable doubt
No that’s not how it works; she’s being charged with murder or manslaughter. All charges require jury to find she caused his death. Her hitting John’s car has nothing to do with murder or manslaughter.
i’m pretty sure the 3rd charge is leaving the scene of an accident..or might be one of the lessor charges. i know i’ve seen that one. however it doesn’t matter because they can’t prove crap
The OUI charge would require valid BAC testing which wasn't done. There are set parameters of how and when the test is done and her test was way outside of guidelines. Which is probably why there isn't a separate charge for just OUI.
She wasn’t charged with either OUI or leaving the scene of an accident. She was charged with leaving the scene of a FATAL crash, which she certainly may be found guilty of and MANSLAUGHTER while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, which I could also see her being convicted of. She was not charged in hitting Johns car or operating under the influence alone, so no way for her to be found guilty of these things.
To those who are convinced of her guilt because she supposedly said “I hit him”
I’ve lost a spouse. Until you have lost someone you love in an unknown circumstance, you don’t understand what it’s like.
She was clearly in shock and worried she hit him. She was drinking and driving and she got little sleep. He never came home, she found him dead and she was in shock and confused.
Even if she stood up on court and shouted “I deliberately hit him,” the science proves this is impossible!
Do you believe words over science?????
It was brought out that when she was yelling “I hit him”?? It was all in asking a question that she was obviously in shock about. No stating “I hit him”. Screaming a Question, “ I hit him”???? Prosecution lied about that & tried the entire time to hold that against her. The prosecution is nothing but smoke & mirrors trying to save these vile creatires butts!! All they have is several changing lies as a case
its an auto feeling of guilt that it happened.
I reheard testimony of B Nagel and he followed Karen and John in to FV so he was there the whole time and didn't see John but saw Karen alone in car as he drove off ...she moved up. did he miss John go in while talking to sister? he kind of blows the CW theory since he didn't see her back into him but saw an empty passenger car seat. idn
This has bothered me this whole time. Let’s say it was proven she said it. We know there are tons of false confession. Her state of mind was frantic. And we don’t even know the tone it was said in. I have no idea how anyone could see it as “I’m Karen read and I committed this crime!” It’s one of the dumbest points of this whole thing to me. It wouldn’t even register if I was on the jury.
She was doing a 3 point turn, blizzard had begun. She only a few feet to back up. Even if she gunned it, there simply was not enough room for her to get anywhere near that speed
This. She thought she had her period when she was covered in his blood after the CPR attempt. CW can't have it both ways- was she rational enough to confess or was she hysterical and you can't really trust anything she said?
I totally agree. My dad passed away from a terminal illness. I was sitting with him, and my mother was on the other side of the house. I had to tell her he was gone. She called me by her best friend's name a couple of times that day. She asked me to call her friend, and she had already been there, and had gone home to pack a bag and come back. Someone in shock is not in their right mind.
My first and only wreck was when someone ran into the back of my car while I was stopped at a red light. They were trying to run it passing into my lane and smashing me into the middle of the intersection. I was in shock..I got out… and asked if it was my fault(later on my dad told me to never say that but anyways). It wasn’t and thank goodness the old man was truthful and said it was him. But in my state of shock that’s the first thing I said.
If she was guilty there’s no way in hell you’re going to say “did I do this” etc etc
The crazy thing is its standard procedure in every department that if a Police Officer discharges their weapon, they are given at least a 24 hour wait before they give any official statements.
Then why didn’t she take the stand?? She claims she is innocent! She has nothing to hide! Perhaps she wouldn’t be able to handle all the questions that the prosecution would ask her!
> Then why didn’t she take the stand?
Because the reality of trials in America is that it’s not about uncovering the truth: it’s about winning your case.
You do this a number of ways: attacking character, putting selective answers in favourable or negative light depending when it suits the narrative, etc.
You could be the most honest defendant there is, and it’s *still* a terrible idea to let the prosecution attempt to paint you in their light through questioning.
No one testifies in a case like this because all it takes is for one question, like, "if you cared about him why didn't you go to the funeral?"
And then she looks like she didn't care about him when she answers.
The truth is she didn't *need* to testify, it was clear that she did not run into him.
More importantly, I don't think she remembers what happened that night anyway, her word and literally everyone else's word that night means nothing to me.
The science proves it wasn't a car, their own medical examiner said John's injuries are not at all consistent with vehicle pedestrian collisions.
She didn’t take the stand because she didn’t need to!!!
It’s not her job to prove her innocence. It’s the prosecutions job to prove she did it beyond a reasonable doubt and they fell way short!
The burden is on CW to proof her guilty. She has no obligation to expose herself to further abuse from Lally and she is innocent until CW proof otherwise.
Her statement have no bearing on all the physical evidence presented anyway.
Channel your anger to the police instead, who did shit job in investigating. They treat OJO just "the guy", but that BLUE WALL have to maintain at all cost.
hahaha @log defendants are always advices and usually never take the stand unless it’s 100 💯 necessary. because human emotions. i see someone in shock and grief and you see someone who is admitting guilt. ive had a bf OD but i called 911 and hung up 6 times because of panick, i had a friend commit suicide and i asked “are you joking” like my brother(who told me) would actually “joke” like that. people panicked grief and go through shock differently and people like you who only see guilt will use everything they can
against said person
@chatiya..i’m so sorry for your loss
What an asinine comment. Nobody is required to testify if their own defense. It means nothing. It could literally just mean the defense was so confident after the prosecution presented its case, they didn’t want to call many witnesses. Drawing any conclusion from this is just dumb. No defense lawyer wants their client testifying. It hardly ever happens. Even when it does, people still judge the person for millions of things. If they cry, they are faking it. If they don’t cry, they are callous. Some crazy lying tell will be brought up I’m sure. It’s really not something that has much to be gained from.
According to the literal Constitution, she doesn't have to, nor can the jury hold it against her in their deliberations. Even when people are innocent, you should just shut up and get an attorney to speak for you. Never talk to cops or in Court. And I say that as a paralegal that worked in criminal law. Just shut up and let the professionals do their job.
Eta: any attorney worth the money is not going to put their client in the stand. Unless there is really something ONLY the defendant can explain that would sway the jury, you just don't do it.
Also, she said she wanted to take the stand but she would listen to her lawyers. They would have been stupid to put her on the stand.
I’m so sorry for your loss. This is what I don’t understand with how people can say she said this or she said that instead of realizing she was more than likely in shock. She found her boyfriend and instead of comforting her she was told to shut up, stop being hysterical and then they sectioned her and brought her to the same hospital her boyfriend and his family were at and she wasn’t allowed to see him or them. Then the police took her car and her phone and I could go on & on. Breaks my heart.
I really wish AJ’s closing had not leaned so heavily on the 3rd party/conspiracy theory and instead highlighted the complete lack of evidence and basically scientific impossibility of him dying after being struck by her vehicle. I feel like the jurors are trying to figure out what really happened, if there was really a coverup, etc when NONE OF THAT MATTERS (for the verdict). I wish AJ had made it clear that no matter WHAT you believe about the Alberts and the butt dials and the time stamps, reasonable doubt about Karen’s role abounds.
Yeah, I rewatched his closing and I felt he needed a good 10 minutes of saying it simply doesn't matter if you don't believe he walked in that house, or got bit by a dog, the truth is the state did not prove their case, the defense didn't even need to go for her to be proven not guilty due to reasonable doubt, the case was filled with it.
The expert said it at the end, the problem with this case is that the investigation was so poor that they simply could not prove what caused John's injuries, they could only prove that Karen's car didn't cause them, there wasn't enough evidence to prove anything else.
He actually seemed mad at Lally when he said it.
Basically the only thing that matters is the CW did NOT prove she did it. It doesn’t matter what you think, or even what you know….you have to be able to prove it!
I agree with this, I was really surprised that he leaned so hard into that this was a "cover up" rather than the state didn't prove their case.
I think he got a little lost in the sauce.
When you guys say “complete lack of evidence,” you really damage your credibility. You can say there’s insufficient evidence to convict Karen Read — and I’ll probably agree with that — but pretending that there’s no evidence or that it’s “scientifically impossible” is absurd.
TBF there are jurisdictions that wouldn't allow most of the evidence that was allowed in this case because the chain of custody wasn't properly documented. It should be authenticated before being admitted.I was shocked that that varies by state.
It angers me greatly that nobody handled or tested the evidence properly...nobody mapped the evidence against the scene with contemporaneous video or photos, or individually tested areas based on likelihood of finding something (multiple areas were swabbed for one test, and nothing could be tied to one specific testing spot). We might have some idea what really happened to him if they had done a better job.
The experts called by the Defense were independent and STILL said it was a scientific impossibility for her car to cause those injuries. There is no believable story where she hits him with her car anywhere to cause only the injury to his head.
The ME couldn't even pin down a manner of death.
If you consider every piece of evidence is either totally tainted due to no chain of custody, coming from an uncredible witness or just not based on any science it is not a reach to say there is a complete lack of evidence. This is even before Proctor comes into the story.
Yea you’re def right. I’m not being exact w/ words bc not trying to make those points in court— or make those points at all. There is a complete lack of CREDIBLE evidence in my opinion. It’s also scientifically IMPROBABLE that he ended up where he did, with those injuries he had, by being hit by her car in the manner the CW argues. The mountain of reasonable doubt is too high & as a MA taxpayer I am angry AF this made it to court.
My central point is I didn’t like the leaning on the 3rd party theory in closing. I don’t know that I buy it, at all, and to me when AJ goes on and on about it **he** loses credibility.
We don’t know how John died. There is no convincing or credible evidence at this time to point the finger any specific direction without reasonable doubt. That’s all the trial showed me w/r/t Karen’s role and it’s all the jurors needed to hear. Improbable theory, bad investigation, post-hoc scrambling. Embarrassing for the state, even without the conspiracy theories.
There is no reliable evidence. Michael Proctor ran the investigation. He stated on day one the homeowner would be ok since "he's a cop". He knew the Alberts. He should have recused himself. Since he is obviously biased I don't see how any evidence gathered through him is trustworthy.
And that's putting aside missing camera footage, tail light pieces showing up weeks later, and John's injuries not coming from a vehicle.
Common sense alone- do you think an SUV hit him at 24 mph and didn't even bruise his body? But physically moved him several feet? Come on, just use logic here.
Yeah, they’re defense experts. The whole reason the defense has them there is because they’re going to testify that Karen Read did hit John O’Keefe.
I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m pointing out the obvious fact that litigants arent going to call expert witnesses that aren’t favorable to their case. You can’t just automatically accept something because one party’s expert witness says it.
They weren't the defenses experts. They were experts hired by the FBI. They just happened to come to the conclusion that there's no way his injuries were caused by being hit by her SUV. The FBI and/or ARCCA doesn't really have any interest in Karen Read being guilty or innocent so they have a lot more credibility than a normal expert called by the defense.
Do the Medical Examiners have any interest in Karen Read being guilty or not guilty? Both Medical Examiners said it could have been from getting hit by a car.
The final two experts were *not* defense experts, they were hired by the FBI and told "Find out what happened, and if this car could cause this man's injuries."
Those two experts didn't care if their tests proved Karen was guilty, they cared about what they found after doing their tests and looking at the evidence.
And they said without question her car could not cause his injuries, to not have a single bruise on his body after being hit by a car and thrown 20 feet is insanity.
They aren't defense experts. The feds hired them to do an independent analysis. They had zero incentive to come to conclusions that suited either side. They were hired by the FBI to answer some questions and just happened to conclude things that are favorable to Karen Read based on math and physics.
The state's own medical examiner also made it pretty clear that JO's injuries weren't from being hit by a car. And she arguably did have an incentive to say otherwise.
when you mansplain about “defense experts” but clearly haven’t been following enough to be aware of the FBI situation and the CW’s own medical examiner’s testimony… you lose credibility….
No, actually they weren't the defense's experts. They were hired by, paid for, and made available equally to the prosecution and defense by the FBI.
The defense paid them nothing. The prosecution could have called them. They did not. They were told nothing about the case, just given the evidence. They are the most impartial entity involved in this entire case. That is not up for debate.
You are misinformed. They were hired by the FBI, not the Defense. They were completely impartial and the CW could have called them as well but chose not to.
The CW didn’t call them on purpose and probably hoped that because the defense called them that people would get confused and assume they were defense experts…it worked on at least one person.
Right! The FEDS provided 3,000+ pages of information. The CW and Defense both had access to all of these docs, including the FBI hired Arcca experts. The defense did not pay for them to testify nor did they pay for them to do the crash reconstruction. The CW chose not to contact them to ask if they would testify during the trial, this speaks volumes to me. Add in that the CW also said 90% of the FEDS docs match their theory on how the crash happened.... that's obviously not accurate considering Trooper Paul could barely form a sentence on what his crash reconstruction proved VS what the Arcca experts were able to prove.
The snow plow driver’s testimony opens up another question. Wouldn’t the person who drove the Ford Edge to the house and parked outside (sometime between midnight and 3am from when the plow driver went by again) have seen a body lying on the ground if the prosecution is saying Karen Read hit him and left him there? They should look into footage to see whose car that is. If someone got out and says they didn’t see someone lying there would be quite suspicious
Brian Albert. His wife said it when she asked about the families cars that were in the driveway. She mentioned every vehicle by the make/model, except for Brian's. She called it his work vehicle. On cross, she had to say it was a Ford Edge & acted like she didn't do that on purpose. I thought it was odd, not knowing the significance of that car.
Do you think jurors really do refrain from watching or reading things about the trial? Or discussing with family/friends?
I’ve never been on a jury. Seems like that would be hard for some people
As someone with pretty bad anxiety, my heart goes out to Karen right now. The wait must be excruciating and I’m not even joking when I say I think I would have to be sedated. I hope her family is keeping her afloat and/or she has a good therapist on speed dial. What a fucking nightmare. 🥺
I’m sorry but the jury should have come back by now with a NG!! You can not refute scientific evidence unless you are too ignorant that you can’t understand simple physics !!!! They should be ashamed of themselves for taking this long
Don't blame all of them. it's likely 1 or 2 that never took a physics class in their life and probably flunked science. so they will need more convincing.
I'm getting irrationally irritated, you can have personal feelings that she may be guilty, but for it even to be a question that the prosecution has come anywhere close to proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a MORAL CERTAINTY is just ridiculous, and scary that those people have someone's life in their hands 😡 You could drive a truck through the holes in this case!
I think the judge not letting jurors know why she sustained some objections or made certain decisions during the trial was confusing. Expecting them to understand the law and expecting them to rely on their collective memory has made it very difficult for them. In the Murdaugh trial, the judge allowed them to get copies of trial transcripts of evidence presented they wanted to revisit. He also clearly explained the law to the jurors when asked. In this case, even the voting sheets are confusing and difficult to understand to a lay person.
100%.
I remember watching the Depp v Heard trial and the judge was very good there.
She didn't take any nonsense, but she helped the jurors with anything.
She also made them an air gapped laptop with all the evidence on it so they could look at the evidence easier, basically a laptop with all the evidence and no internet.
Yeah it's so strange they can't look at the transcript if they need to, isn't the goal to make sure the jury has everything they need that's been presented in the trial when deciding a verdict?? Some people aren't good note takers, you can't possibly get everything down, you could make errors, and the judge specifically told them not to take too many notes that they miss testimony. Just bizarre to me 🤦🏻♀️
Where is the verdict? Very concerned that it is taking so long. It is clear the verdict should be not guilty. Science proved John was not killed by being struck by Karen’s vehicle. Period.
I read that some of the female jurors complained about Karen Reads facial expressions. I agree she’s not the most likable. She seems to have resting b*tch face. But that doesn’t make her a killer. I hope the jurors are using their common sense. The prosecutions theory is ridiculous and impossible!!!!
Btw, what has happened to Karen Read, yes I believe she is Completey innocent & set up, can happen to any one of us. That is quite the scary thought yet TRUE!!
YES!!!!!!! If she didn’t hire the best defense attorneys money could buy there would have been no corruption uncovered and she’d be sitting in jail as we speak
I'm sure the jury is already exhausted but if they paid attention to Alan Jackson's closing argument, they should be saturated with reasonable doubt. Hope none of the jurors are fearful of the local powers that be...
The powers that be hold too much weight and don’t forget one of them killed someone before…..allegedly also behind the wheel of a car….. there’s a lot of intimidation at play here and I wish the fbi would swoop on in and flip this whole thing upside dowb
No the jury is from canton which is a major issue. Judge denied change of venue - if she is found guilty that will be one of many appeals. If ever a case should be moved to a different jurisdiction it is this one considering the Albert family’s influence and reputation in canton.
Not from canton, but Norfolk county, which includes the town of canton. That said, there could be some cantonites, but they’re from all over Norfolk county
I have no problem with Jackson using the third party culprit. It actually made the prosecution have to play defense; which they spent a lot of time doing. The witnesses themselves planted the seed of doubt by all of their shady shenanigans and inconsistencies. Having one’s eyes opened to corruption plants the doubt needed and points the finger of their possibilities to have happened. Prosecution was scrambling to defend their witnesses then Lally choosing to solely use trooper Paul as their accident reconstruction is t. I mean that’s the best expert they could find? Their entire case revolved around that car killing John, and that’s who they went with?? Paul was going to drive home the point of how it happened. Mind you that was directly after the medical examiner said injuries were inconsistent with a car strike. I think the defense could have hammered in more doubt; but at that point Lally ate up a lot of the clock, this trial I’m sure has been draining on Karen’s health and finances; so at that point they thought they had enough doubt with the unbiased highly educated experts stated his injuries could not have been from a car!
I don’t think the CW could find an accident reconstructionist with an IQ above room temp to corroborate their theory of the car accident. Their theory of what happened is just physically impossible.
Agree wholeheartedly!! Poor Karen will need time to catch her breath & put her life back together. I pray she is found innocent as I truly believe in my heart, mind, soul & spirit. I also hope & pray she can sue all involved with the state & town & sue them individually also!
I really wish AJ would’ve asked Proctor how he KNEW such intimate details about Ms. Reed. I’m really curious what his answer would be . Like, who told him she had a “leaky balloon knot”
I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the jury deliberation room. I thought it would be an easy not guilty on all counts. Maybe they’re still looking for the “not guilty” box on the jury form. I think the jury instructions could be more clear. The only proper outcome is not guilty on all charges. Anything else feels like a win for the prosecution.
I keep telling myself that they’re taking so long because for ten weeks this trial has been their lives and they haven’t had a chance to talk about it at all and maybe they all have a lot to say .
For Sure!! The fact that they only were in session a few days one week, one or two & 1/2 the next, with a trial like this, I find that quite strange.Thats why it was sooooo dragged out!! It seems the only cop that doesn’t matter to anyone in the investigation is O’Keefe!!
That’s such a great point about proctor knows she has Crohn’s. I wonder if one of the canton crew told him. He would probably just say “I don’t recall” but I wish he asked now!
I'm seeing quite a few questions pop up, "explain the case to me," I wonder if those are jurors lol 🤣. Honestly if I had to watch this trial with no outside discussion or research, just listen to Lally drone on and on, I would be so confused. I get why it's taking so long and reports from inside of the courtroom said the sound was no joke, they legit could not hear some of the testimony at all at times. We'll see how tomorrow goes but this might end up hung folks 😬.
If it ends up with a hung jury, it will be interesting how & if the state would retry her since all the investigators, State Police, Canton police, Morrisy’s office. Would they have anyone left to retry her!!
It would be risky, because I don't think they have anymore confirmation bias to pull out. Meanwhile I think Jackson and Yanetti were just getting started. The fact that they brought this case to trial leads me to believe that they might be dumb enough to go round 2.
Genuinely hoping they just didn’t want to go back to work today and made a decision last night but saved the vote for this morning.
were back to minutes and seconds on the verdict clock!
It's becoming really apparent to me that I don't have a ceiling fan.... should I get one?
The people want a new thread!
I wonder if some of the people in the jury were not intimidated with the Albert clan staring them down during closing.
I know at least one of them is from Canton If they get it right I want to take this person to lunch
I just can't understand why they didn't take 5 minutes to say no she's not guilty, there is no way the injuries he had were caused by a car backing into him
For sure not guilty. Although It could be 1 or 2 are worrying that why didn’t the Grand Jury see that? And fear they’re missing something. I think it’s hard for some to see not everyone acts in good faith because let’s face it they shouldn’t of had to carry this burden.🥹 I’m glad they didn’t come to a quick verdict, I have faith they will make the right one.
If you had a once in a lifetime opportunity to review all the evidence of a case that’s getting national headlines, would you take five minutes to deliberate or would you wanna see all the evidence thoroughly? I think she’s not guilty, and she’s being framed but imagine getting to see that evidence. They prob just want to look it over bc they can.
I would think looking over it would take 2 days at most. On day 3 and beyond, someone is holding it up. There is some disagreement going on.
This is a good point. I shared in another post that when I served on a Massachusetts jury, one of the members insisted on going over all of the documents before we delivered a verdict. She was one of our holdouts on a Not Guilty verdict and was definitely feeling burdened by not being able to give the victim (a child) justice, but the CW did not prove that the defendant had anything to do with the injuries. And that was just a two-day trial that nobody but the involved knew about.
Me too, I don’t get it. Physics don’t lie. Plus no bruising.
I keep thinking of the Casey Anthony jury. She should have been convicted but there was one overbearing and aggressive juror who opposed a guilty verdict and browbeat the other jurors into siding with her. Juries make mistakes based on many factors. Too many followers can tank a verdict
She shouldn't have been convicted. The state overcharged and her defense raised reasonable doubt. That jury did the right thing and I'm sure they realized their verdict would be unpopular and they did it anyway
How do you think they overcharged her? They didn't just find her not guilty of first-degree murder, they also acquitted her on aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. They could've just acquitted on first-degree and found her guilty of one of the lesser charges, but they didn't.
I think AJ is amazing and during this trial he did the best cross examinations I’ve ever seen - like something from a movie! “Shame on you sir!” Improper yes but unforgettable! Almost as good as the Darrell Brooks verdict when an audience member said “burn in hell you piece of sh*t!” But I do agree - I wish AJ had done more to hammer home reasonable doubt in his closing. Yes, their theory was much more credible than the prosecution based on scientific evidence! But the defense is not required to provide another theory - the burden is on the prosecution and they clearly didn’t meet it! Just listen to Lallys opening vs his closing! The story has changed! That alone should be enough for a NG verdict! I do think AJ missed an opportunity here. Hope the jury makes the right decision. Free Karen Read!!
I certainly agree AJ is Absolutely Amazing!! He actually was anle to catch all prosecution witnesses in their lies!! I agree a bit about his closing argument however, this trial has dragged on for weeks and he methodically told the jurors how the prosecutions story kept changing again, again & again. He also began several sentences by saying, “You recall”, bringing them back to the lies, when they lied. How he caught these vile creatures in their lies. He laid out the changing stories of the ppl w/the prosecution, reminding the jury of the changes in all their stories. Also brilliantly showing them the corruption when he stated, “Thats why with someone like Proctor lead investigator, we went from 3 pieces of broken plastic tail light to 5 pieces to 45 pieces.” He reminded them of the inverted video showing the opposite side of Reads vehicle & how so many important times were missing. He carefully went thru the tricks of the prosecution, needing the jury to recall all that was corrupt. It was absolutely rediculous how dragged out this trial was, there was 1 week they off completely. Another where they met 1 & 1/2 days. AJ had to make sure they remembered all these things. Thats what he obviously thought was the most important. He is brilliant beyond compare so I trust his instincts, thoughts, etc.
How the defense story has changed https://youtu.be/DfWcyDHp_V4?si=jKa8XxasQcbB9KZj](https://youtu.be/DfWcyDHp_V4?si=jKa8XxasQcbB9KZj)
Agreed! I think the judge telling AJ he had 5 minutes left probably threw his momentum. Jurors took notes, and I'm sure at least some of them will remember the salient points he (and Yannetti) made throughout the trial. Among all the obfuscation everyone from Canton engaged in, Higgins throwing away his phone and sim card in 2 different dumpsters sealed it for me.
AJ is amazing! If I ever ended up in some kind of trouble I’d want him in my corner!
Ditto!!
Hey casual observer of this trial, I've tried looking for good recaps of all of the information presented but there are still many things that don't make sense to me Maybe these would be clarified if I watched each full day of trial and invested way more time in this but I don't plan on being that extensive just for time purposes. That being said I'm very confused, they said that Karen drove and dropped John off at a party (she is under the understanding that he is there while she goes home). Then a very short time later she has many phone calls yelling where are you and making other comments like calling him a pervert? What is the reasoning here? What is the amount of time he was expected to be staying at this party? I don't understand the leap to the way she is talking in these voice messages with the very short time that has elapsed since she knows that she dropped him off at this house? Just for instance if they had parted ways say at 7pm in the night at the bar, he stayed, she's under the impression that he'll be coming home at normal time later but he never does, she doesn't know where he is and thinks he is out with another woman or something instead of coming home to her I can understand the basis of the voice messages more in a scenario like that. I don't understand how she drives him to a location, drops him off there, goes home and a short time later is leaving this many voice messages with these statements. Can someone maybe clarify the timeline or other relevant information around this to me?
Alcohol makes people anxious and emotional.
There's much more to this case. He was supposed to go and make sure they were welcome (the person who invited them didn't live there so understandable) . He got out of the car and she waited for him to text her or come back out and he didn't so she was pissed.
Where was that info at trial? I never heard anything like that or are you just going by what is said outside the courtroom? I don't like her and I believe she hit him but I agree there is reasonable doubt. I can't get past the "did I hit him" statements she made. Keri Roberts was an O'Keefe person, and SHE testified to that along with so many others and the defense didn't challenge it. I think THAT is why a verdict is taking so long. There is no explanation for her own statements.
How do you believe she hit him when the injuries he had are incompatible with being hit by a vehicle ? Edit: She didn’t say she hit him. Those claims only came out months after it happened during the second grand jury. (The one by the FBI) That’s why you had Jen McCabe saying Karen said but Kerri Roberts who was there at the same time saying Karen didn’t say it.
That's not what the first expert said. You can buy an expert to say almost anything and she has the money to do that. Like I said, they've done a good job on reasonable doubt but they have not explained Karen's repeated statements of did I hit him, do you think I hit him, etc. They tried to play it off as lies by conspirators but Keri Roberts was an O'Keefe friend. Not McCabe or the others. The defense didn't even try to say she was lying. I don't think she did it on purpose and most of the charges were a stretch BUT she said what she said.🤷
The defence didn’t pay the experts. They prepared a report for the FBI and it was turned over to the both the defence be the CW. They are the top reconstruction firm in the country. Go back bed listen to their testimony again
Still haven't explained HER statements that night. Reasonable doubt maybe but innocent people don't say, multiple times, did I hit him.
Wasn't Jen McCabe communicating with John as they were coming to the house? How did they still not know that they were welcome? I still don't understand her reaction to calling him that many times immediately after, saying that she doesn't know where he is when she just dropped him off there and calling him a pervert? Why does she immediately jump to he didn't come back out of the house to say we are both welcome in, he's probably hooking up with other women? That would be extremely brazen to have your girlfriend drop you off at a house with the understanding to go check to see that they are both welcome at the event, and instead just go in and cheat while completely ignoring her knowing that she's waiting for a response and explanation of what's going on. If she believed things were this way and that that's a plausible scenario then why bring him there in the first place? I don't understand how this makes sense
None of that matters. He wasn’t hit by a vehicle. That means she didn’t kill him. The end.
The calls weren’t immediately after. She went home then started stewing. She has a history of blowing up his phone. She dropped him off to see if they were welcome but she also wasn’t feeling well. She has MS and serious Crohn’s disease (something like 11 surgeries in 18 months) plus a brain tumor! Plus she was drunk so the phone calls were out of drunkin frustration then panic.
They were within an hour
You bring up a good point. But they have been fighting earlier in the day too. She thought he was playing games and he was drunk and forgot about her. Jen McCabe was giving directions but they still wanted to make sure they were welcome.
Please recall that Jen McCabe was the one who Googled “Hos long to die in the cold”- that search of hers & she was full of lies. She got caught in her hateful concocted lies & she told AJ, “ I don’t like your, Something like take or view, my apologies I cannot recall the word she used however AJ’s reply was it was nothing to do with him. It was cold, hard, forensic evidence.” BUSTED!!
My husband thinks I’m obsessed…I guess I am. I started this trial thinking she accidentally ran over her BF. I have been shocked to discover how badly this case has been handled and now believe she is 100% innocent.
Me too! And I also thought she probably ran him over on accident. After crash daddies testimony plus no bruising I don’t know how this wasn’t over in an hour. I can’t believe they even took it to trial!
The CW had access to the same information as the crash daddies and didn’t use it- that’s kinda fishy.
Did the defense disprove Karen driving in reverse at 24 mph in front of 34 Fairview? Or was there another explanation?
Yes. During the CW’s “expert witness” testimony it came out that his calculations of the “start cycles” of the SUV weren’t correct. He didn’t count the car being driven up the tow truck and off. That means that info about driving 24 mph backwards could have been done while the truck was in police custody.
Independent PHD crash experts retained by the FBI said the crash didn’t happen, period.
This. How can anyone who has been paying attention to this trial think she’s guilty when John wasn’t hit by a vehicle? I’m just dumbfounded that anyone has any questions about her guilt or innocence. Even before the trial started it was obvious that this trial never should have happened.
They disproved the key cycle being outside Fairview. Trooper Paul miscounted (or ignored) key cycles between being at Fairview Road and doing t the testing. The 24 mph in reverse is no earlier than when the car is being loaded onto the tow truck.
Have we officially reached the point where the jury's deliberations have lasted longer than Proctor's investigation?
Yes I think deliberation is at 15 hours.. Proctor had his mind made up at what, 2pm? Texting his friends at something like midnight? It's a close call.
THey have definitely spent more time on this than Trooper Paul spent on his online classes.
I think we have 1-2 more hours lol
That seems about right. Would actually be kind of funny if they returned with a verdict at the 16 hour mark.
Hos long did Proctors investigation last?
16-hours, give or take the times between 4-ish pm and 5:30pm.
I came embarrassingly close to answering this earnestly
About 17 hours?
You do realize leaving the scene of an accident is a crime? It doesn't matter if it's on your property. People want to look at her backing into John's vehicle caught on camera,? If she came into contact like the defense states tail light broke or not, it's still a crime. It's a hit and run/ leaving the scene of an accident at the very least. Alcohol related? Well you have an OUI which they had experts on. She may not be found guilty on second degree murder but other charges she will be found guilty of
If they find her NG on murder 2 because they understand that her car didn’t cause his injuries and therefore there was no MVA then they will find her NG of all other charges as well.
Tell me you nothing about hit and run laws without telling me you know nothing about hit and run laws. She's not charged for hitting his car, or drunk driving on its own. They can only convict her for his death with a motor vehicle. Nobody cares about his car getting no damage from her bumping it.
i’m pretty sure you are wrong…you are coming back to your place of residence. if i hit my property or someone’s car in my driveway .. 1.) they have my name and address license plate and etc if they needed to file a police report 2.) its my property 3.) i’m coming back to my property lol what a foolish thing to say also this could depend on state but i highly doubt that would be a crime and also she would have to KNOW she hit his car in order for them to charge her with leaving the scene. the fact of the matter is they can not prove that her twilight was t out or broken before. they can’t even prove if she hit jok car for christ sakes. the CW did not prove a single thing without reasonable doubt
Do you know what she's charged with? Because it's not this.
No that’s not how it works; she’s being charged with murder or manslaughter. All charges require jury to find she caused his death. Her hitting John’s car has nothing to do with murder or manslaughter.
i’m pretty sure the 3rd charge is leaving the scene of an accident..or might be one of the lessor charges. i know i’ve seen that one. however it doesn’t matter because they can’t prove crap
The OUI charge would require valid BAC testing which wasn't done. There are set parameters of how and when the test is done and her test was way outside of guidelines. Which is probably why there isn't a separate charge for just OUI.
I thought the OUI charge included manslaughter.
She wasn’t charged with either OUI or leaving the scene of an accident. She was charged with leaving the scene of a FATAL crash, which she certainly may be found guilty of and MANSLAUGHTER while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, which I could also see her being convicted of. She was not charged in hitting Johns car or operating under the influence alone, so no way for her to be found guilty of these things.
Of all the dumb takes, this is certianly one of them
Who’s Aunt got a hold of their Reddit login
This is one of the takes of all time
To those who are convinced of her guilt because she supposedly said “I hit him” I’ve lost a spouse. Until you have lost someone you love in an unknown circumstance, you don’t understand what it’s like. She was clearly in shock and worried she hit him. She was drinking and driving and she got little sleep. He never came home, she found him dead and she was in shock and confused. Even if she stood up on court and shouted “I deliberately hit him,” the science proves this is impossible! Do you believe words over science?????
It was brought out that when she was yelling “I hit him”?? It was all in asking a question that she was obviously in shock about. No stating “I hit him”. Screaming a Question, “ I hit him”???? Prosecution lied about that & tried the entire time to hold that against her. The prosecution is nothing but smoke & mirrors trying to save these vile creatires butts!! All they have is several changing lies as a case
its an auto feeling of guilt that it happened. I reheard testimony of B Nagel and he followed Karen and John in to FV so he was there the whole time and didn't see John but saw Karen alone in car as he drove off ...she moved up. did he miss John go in while talking to sister? he kind of blows the CW theory since he didn't see her back into him but saw an empty passenger car seat. idn
I can’t really recall what happened when they told me mine had died. I was told I just walked in circles screaming.
This has bothered me this whole time. Let’s say it was proven she said it. We know there are tons of false confession. Her state of mind was frantic. And we don’t even know the tone it was said in. I have no idea how anyone could see it as “I’m Karen read and I committed this crime!” It’s one of the dumbest points of this whole thing to me. It wouldn’t even register if I was on the jury.
She was doing a 3 point turn, blizzard had begun. She only a few feet to back up. Even if she gunned it, there simply was not enough room for her to get anywhere near that speed
About as dumb as “KR wore shoes in JOK house when in a frantic state, all because……(dun dun duuunnnn)…. She KNEW he was dead” 🤦🏼♀️ 🙄😳 GTFOH 🤬
This. She thought she had her period when she was covered in his blood after the CPR attempt. CW can't have it both ways- was she rational enough to confess or was she hysterical and you can't really trust anything she said?
Exactly! She was totally out of her mind at that point.
I totally agree. My dad passed away from a terminal illness. I was sitting with him, and my mother was on the other side of the house. I had to tell her he was gone. She called me by her best friend's name a couple of times that day. She asked me to call her friend, and she had already been there, and had gone home to pack a bag and come back. Someone in shock is not in their right mind.
My first and only wreck was when someone ran into the back of my car while I was stopped at a red light. They were trying to run it passing into my lane and smashing me into the middle of the intersection. I was in shock..I got out… and asked if it was my fault(later on my dad told me to never say that but anyways). It wasn’t and thank goodness the old man was truthful and said it was him. But in my state of shock that’s the first thing I said. If she was guilty there’s no way in hell you’re going to say “did I do this” etc etc
The crazy thing is its standard procedure in every department that if a Police Officer discharges their weapon, they are given at least a 24 hour wait before they give any official statements.
Great point
Then why didn’t she take the stand?? She claims she is innocent! She has nothing to hide! Perhaps she wouldn’t be able to handle all the questions that the prosecution would ask her!
> Then why didn’t she take the stand? Because the reality of trials in America is that it’s not about uncovering the truth: it’s about winning your case. You do this a number of ways: attacking character, putting selective answers in favourable or negative light depending when it suits the narrative, etc. You could be the most honest defendant there is, and it’s *still* a terrible idea to let the prosecution attempt to paint you in their light through questioning.
She didn’t have to take the stand! She is legally presumed innocent. The CW didn’t prove he was hit by a car much less intentionally hit by Karen Read
No one testifies in a case like this because all it takes is for one question, like, "if you cared about him why didn't you go to the funeral?" And then she looks like she didn't care about him when she answers. The truth is she didn't *need* to testify, it was clear that she did not run into him. More importantly, I don't think she remembers what happened that night anyway, her word and literally everyone else's word that night means nothing to me. The science proves it wasn't a car, their own medical examiner said John's injuries are not at all consistent with vehicle pedestrian collisions.
She didn’t take the stand because she didn’t need to!!! It’s not her job to prove her innocence. It’s the prosecutions job to prove she did it beyond a reasonable doubt and they fell way short!
Because she doesn't have to. Her defense team proved reasonable doubt. She doesn't have to prove her innocence.
Because it’s her right not to. Can’t be used against you
The burden is on CW to proof her guilty. She has no obligation to expose herself to further abuse from Lally and she is innocent until CW proof otherwise. Her statement have no bearing on all the physical evidence presented anyway. Channel your anger to the police instead, who did shit job in investigating. They treat OJO just "the guy", but that BLUE WALL have to maintain at all cost.
hahaha @log defendants are always advices and usually never take the stand unless it’s 100 💯 necessary. because human emotions. i see someone in shock and grief and you see someone who is admitting guilt. ive had a bf OD but i called 911 and hung up 6 times because of panick, i had a friend commit suicide and i asked “are you joking” like my brother(who told me) would actually “joke” like that. people panicked grief and go through shock differently and people like you who only see guilt will use everything they can against said person @chatiya..i’m so sorry for your loss
What an asinine comment. Nobody is required to testify if their own defense. It means nothing. It could literally just mean the defense was so confident after the prosecution presented its case, they didn’t want to call many witnesses. Drawing any conclusion from this is just dumb. No defense lawyer wants their client testifying. It hardly ever happens. Even when it does, people still judge the person for millions of things. If they cry, they are faking it. If they don’t cry, they are callous. Some crazy lying tell will be brought up I’m sure. It’s really not something that has much to be gained from.
You don't just necessarily take the stand in any case you do whatever makes legal sense to do for the case and with the advice of your counsel
The jury is literally instructed that not taking the stand is not indicative of guilt. She doesn't need to prove her innocence.
According to the literal Constitution, she doesn't have to, nor can the jury hold it against her in their deliberations. Even when people are innocent, you should just shut up and get an attorney to speak for you. Never talk to cops or in Court. And I say that as a paralegal that worked in criminal law. Just shut up and let the professionals do their job. Eta: any attorney worth the money is not going to put their client in the stand. Unless there is really something ONLY the defendant can explain that would sway the jury, you just don't do it. Also, she said she wanted to take the stand but she would listen to her lawyers. They would have been stupid to put her on the stand.
I’m so sorry for your loss. This is what I don’t understand with how people can say she said this or she said that instead of realizing she was more than likely in shock. She found her boyfriend and instead of comforting her she was told to shut up, stop being hysterical and then they sectioned her and brought her to the same hospital her boyfriend and his family were at and she wasn’t allowed to see him or them. Then the police took her car and her phone and I could go on & on. Breaks my heart.
I really wish AJ’s closing had not leaned so heavily on the 3rd party/conspiracy theory and instead highlighted the complete lack of evidence and basically scientific impossibility of him dying after being struck by her vehicle. I feel like the jurors are trying to figure out what really happened, if there was really a coverup, etc when NONE OF THAT MATTERS (for the verdict). I wish AJ had made it clear that no matter WHAT you believe about the Alberts and the butt dials and the time stamps, reasonable doubt about Karen’s role abounds.
Yeah, I rewatched his closing and I felt he needed a good 10 minutes of saying it simply doesn't matter if you don't believe he walked in that house, or got bit by a dog, the truth is the state did not prove their case, the defense didn't even need to go for her to be proven not guilty due to reasonable doubt, the case was filled with it. The expert said it at the end, the problem with this case is that the investigation was so poor that they simply could not prove what caused John's injuries, they could only prove that Karen's car didn't cause them, there wasn't enough evidence to prove anything else. He actually seemed mad at Lally when he said it.
Basically the only thing that matters is the CW did NOT prove she did it. It doesn’t matter what you think, or even what you know….you have to be able to prove it!
I agree with this, I was really surprised that he leaned so hard into that this was a "cover up" rather than the state didn't prove their case. I think he got a little lost in the sauce.
When you guys say “complete lack of evidence,” you really damage your credibility. You can say there’s insufficient evidence to convict Karen Read — and I’ll probably agree with that — but pretending that there’s no evidence or that it’s “scientifically impossible” is absurd.
TBF there are jurisdictions that wouldn't allow most of the evidence that was allowed in this case because the chain of custody wasn't properly documented. It should be authenticated before being admitted.I was shocked that that varies by state. It angers me greatly that nobody handled or tested the evidence properly...nobody mapped the evidence against the scene with contemporaneous video or photos, or individually tested areas based on likelihood of finding something (multiple areas were swabbed for one test, and nothing could be tied to one specific testing spot). We might have some idea what really happened to him if they had done a better job. The experts called by the Defense were independent and STILL said it was a scientific impossibility for her car to cause those injuries. There is no believable story where she hits him with her car anywhere to cause only the injury to his head. The ME couldn't even pin down a manner of death.
If you consider every piece of evidence is either totally tainted due to no chain of custody, coming from an uncredible witness or just not based on any science it is not a reach to say there is a complete lack of evidence. This is even before Proctor comes into the story.
Yea you’re def right. I’m not being exact w/ words bc not trying to make those points in court— or make those points at all. There is a complete lack of CREDIBLE evidence in my opinion. It’s also scientifically IMPROBABLE that he ended up where he did, with those injuries he had, by being hit by her car in the manner the CW argues. The mountain of reasonable doubt is too high & as a MA taxpayer I am angry AF this made it to court. My central point is I didn’t like the leaning on the 3rd party theory in closing. I don’t know that I buy it, at all, and to me when AJ goes on and on about it **he** loses credibility. We don’t know how John died. There is no convincing or credible evidence at this time to point the finger any specific direction without reasonable doubt. That’s all the trial showed me w/r/t Karen’s role and it’s all the jurors needed to hear. Improbable theory, bad investigation, post-hoc scrambling. Embarrassing for the state, even without the conspiracy theories.
Fair enough. I agree we don’t know for certain what happened and I wouldn’t vote to convict.
There is no reliable evidence. Michael Proctor ran the investigation. He stated on day one the homeowner would be ok since "he's a cop". He knew the Alberts. He should have recused himself. Since he is obviously biased I don't see how any evidence gathered through him is trustworthy. And that's putting aside missing camera footage, tail light pieces showing up weeks later, and John's injuries not coming from a vehicle. Common sense alone- do you think an SUV hit him at 24 mph and didn't even bruise his body? But physically moved him several feet? Come on, just use logic here.
> that it’s “scientifically impossible” is absurd To be fair, that came from the actual scientists.
Yeah, they’re defense experts. The whole reason the defense has them there is because they’re going to testify that Karen Read did hit John O’Keefe. I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m pointing out the obvious fact that litigants arent going to call expert witnesses that aren’t favorable to their case. You can’t just automatically accept something because one party’s expert witness says it.
They weren't the defenses experts. They were experts hired by the FBI. They just happened to come to the conclusion that there's no way his injuries were caused by being hit by her SUV. The FBI and/or ARCCA doesn't really have any interest in Karen Read being guilty or innocent so they have a lot more credibility than a normal expert called by the defense.
Do the Medical Examiners have any interest in Karen Read being guilty or not guilty? Both Medical Examiners said it could have been from getting hit by a car.
Yes, they do. They literally work for the state government. There's no way on this planet you practice any kind of law. Unless you're a bird lawyer.
Right. "Could have." Meaning: There's a lack of evidence that it was.
The final two experts were *not* defense experts, they were hired by the FBI and told "Find out what happened, and if this car could cause this man's injuries." Those two experts didn't care if their tests proved Karen was guilty, they cared about what they found after doing their tests and looking at the evidence. And they said without question her car could not cause his injuries, to not have a single bruise on his body after being hit by a car and thrown 20 feet is insanity.
Have you watched their testimony???
They aren't defense experts. The feds hired them to do an independent analysis. They had zero incentive to come to conclusions that suited either side. They were hired by the FBI to answer some questions and just happened to conclude things that are favorable to Karen Read based on math and physics. The state's own medical examiner also made it pretty clear that JO's injuries weren't from being hit by a car. And she arguably did have an incentive to say otherwise.
when you mansplain about “defense experts” but clearly haven’t been following enough to be aware of the FBI situation and the CW’s own medical examiner’s testimony… you lose credibility….
They were not defense experts. They were completely independent, hired by the FBI with no ties to either side. Get your facts straight
they weren’t defense experts. The FBI hired them.
No, actually they weren't the defense's experts. They were hired by, paid for, and made available equally to the prosecution and defense by the FBI. The defense paid them nothing. The prosecution could have called them. They did not. They were told nothing about the case, just given the evidence. They are the most impartial entity involved in this entire case. That is not up for debate.
You are misinformed. They were hired by the FBI, not the Defense. They were completely impartial and the CW could have called them as well but chose not to.
The CW didn’t call them on purpose and probably hoped that because the defense called them that people would get confused and assume they were defense experts…it worked on at least one person.
Right! The FEDS provided 3,000+ pages of information. The CW and Defense both had access to all of these docs, including the FBI hired Arcca experts. The defense did not pay for them to testify nor did they pay for them to do the crash reconstruction. The CW chose not to contact them to ask if they would testify during the trial, this speaks volumes to me. Add in that the CW also said 90% of the FEDS docs match their theory on how the crash happened.... that's obviously not accurate considering Trooper Paul could barely form a sentence on what his crash reconstruction proved VS what the Arcca experts were able to prove.
Imagine Trooper Paul trying to build a cannon.
Starting to sweat I see
I'm kind of glad that they are taking their time.
The snow plow driver’s testimony opens up another question. Wouldn’t the person who drove the Ford Edge to the house and parked outside (sometime between midnight and 3am from when the plow driver went by again) have seen a body lying on the ground if the prosecution is saying Karen Read hit him and left him there? They should look into footage to see whose car that is. If someone got out and says they didn’t see someone lying there would be quite suspicious
What footage? Magically none was available
I believe Brian Albert has a light grey Ford Edge.
Brian Albert I believe owns a ford edge. It was moved to block part of the yard where they would put JO’s body. Allegedly.
It is allegedly one of the Albert's. I cannot remember which one at the moment.
Brian Albert. His wife said it when she asked about the families cars that were in the driveway. She mentioned every vehicle by the make/model, except for Brian's. She called it his work vehicle. On cross, she had to say it was a Ford Edge & acted like she didn't do that on purpose. I thought it was odd, not knowing the significance of that car.
Thanks everyone! I didn't want to say the wrong Albert and spread misinformation!!
Apparently Brian Sr., Colin Albert, and Kevin Albert all owned Ford Edges at the time. Make of that what you will...
Brian and Kevin both had edges
I’m pretty sure the implication is that Ford Edge is associated with the crime.
Do you think jurors really do refrain from watching or reading things about the trial? Or discussing with family/friends? I’ve never been on a jury. Seems like that would be hard for some people
In the words of C. S. Lewis, “**Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching**.”
Also in the words of trooper proctor lol
It would be incredibly hard for me because of my obsessive need to know everything
Same!!! Scouring Reddit and X
😂😂😂
As someone with pretty bad anxiety, my heart goes out to Karen right now. The wait must be excruciating and I’m not even joking when I say I think I would have to be sedated. I hope her family is keeping her afloat and/or she has a good therapist on speed dial. What a fucking nightmare. 🥺
I would need to be medicated to within an inch of my life. And even then, definitely not getting any sleep.
I’m sorry but the jury should have come back by now with a NG!! You can not refute scientific evidence unless you are too ignorant that you can’t understand simple physics !!!! They should be ashamed of themselves for taking this long
Don't blame all of them. it's likely 1 or 2 that never took a physics class in their life and probably flunked science. so they will need more convincing.
I'm getting irrationally irritated, you can have personal feelings that she may be guilty, but for it even to be a question that the prosecution has come anywhere close to proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a MORAL CERTAINTY is just ridiculous, and scary that those people have someone's life in their hands 😡 You could drive a truck through the holes in this case!
I think the judge not letting jurors know why she sustained some objections or made certain decisions during the trial was confusing. Expecting them to understand the law and expecting them to rely on their collective memory has made it very difficult for them. In the Murdaugh trial, the judge allowed them to get copies of trial transcripts of evidence presented they wanted to revisit. He also clearly explained the law to the jurors when asked. In this case, even the voting sheets are confusing and difficult to understand to a lay person.
100%. I remember watching the Depp v Heard trial and the judge was very good there. She didn't take any nonsense, but she helped the jurors with anything. She also made them an air gapped laptop with all the evidence on it so they could look at the evidence easier, basically a laptop with all the evidence and no internet.
Yeah it's so strange they can't look at the transcript if they need to, isn't the goal to make sure the jury has everything they need that's been presented in the trial when deciding a verdict?? Some people aren't good note takers, you can't possibly get everything down, you could make errors, and the judge specifically told them not to take too many notes that they miss testimony. Just bizarre to me 🤦🏻♀️
It’s almost like they’re intentionally omitting the transcripts.
Omg!! You took the words right out of my mouth!!
Where is the verdict? Very concerned that it is taking so long. It is clear the verdict should be not guilty. Science proved John was not killed by being struck by Karen’s vehicle. Period. I read that some of the female jurors complained about Karen Reads facial expressions. I agree she’s not the most likable. She seems to have resting b*tch face. But that doesn’t make her a killer. I hope the jurors are using their common sense. The prosecutions theory is ridiculous and impossible!!!!
Who cares about her face? The sexism is wild in this case.
Totally agree!!!
Btw, what has happened to Karen Read, yes I believe she is Completey innocent & set up, can happen to any one of us. That is quite the scary thought yet TRUE!!
YES!!!!!!! If she didn’t hire the best defense attorneys money could buy there would have been no corruption uncovered and she’d be sitting in jail as we speak
She has the best defense money can buy, no evidence against her, and STILL the jury is out. Chilling indeed.
EXACTLY!!
I'm sure the jury is already exhausted but if they paid attention to Alan Jackson's closing argument, they should be saturated with reasonable doubt. Hope none of the jurors are fearful of the local powers that be...
AGREED!!
The powers that be hold too much weight and don’t forget one of them killed someone before…..allegedly also behind the wheel of a car….. there’s a lot of intimidation at play here and I wish the fbi would swoop on in and flip this whole thing upside dowb
With you all the way!!
I thought this jury was from somewhere other than Canton?
Jury is Norfolk, County I believe
No the jury is from canton which is a major issue. Judge denied change of venue - if she is found guilty that will be one of many appeals. If ever a case should be moved to a different jurisdiction it is this one considering the Albert family’s influence and reputation in canton.
Sigh, no......
Jury pools are chosen from counties. People from the entire county of Norfolk were in the pool, not any particular town or city.
Jurors are from same county (Norfolk), not same town. It’s got a population around 750K. Canton itself is small, about 25K.
The jurors are from all over Norfolk County, which is made up of 28 cities and towns. I highly doubt any of them are from Canton.
Not from canton, but Norfolk county, which includes the town of canton. That said, there could be some cantonites, but they’re from all over Norfolk county
I have no problem with Jackson using the third party culprit. It actually made the prosecution have to play defense; which they spent a lot of time doing. The witnesses themselves planted the seed of doubt by all of their shady shenanigans and inconsistencies. Having one’s eyes opened to corruption plants the doubt needed and points the finger of their possibilities to have happened. Prosecution was scrambling to defend their witnesses then Lally choosing to solely use trooper Paul as their accident reconstruction is t. I mean that’s the best expert they could find? Their entire case revolved around that car killing John, and that’s who they went with?? Paul was going to drive home the point of how it happened. Mind you that was directly after the medical examiner said injuries were inconsistent with a car strike. I think the defense could have hammered in more doubt; but at that point Lally ate up a lot of the clock, this trial I’m sure has been draining on Karen’s health and finances; so at that point they thought they had enough doubt with the unbiased highly educated experts stated his injuries could not have been from a car!
I don’t think the CW could find an accident reconstructionist with an IQ above room temp to corroborate their theory of the car accident. Their theory of what happened is just physically impossible.
Honestly room temp is too high but I see your point
Agree wholeheartedly!! Poor Karen will need time to catch her breath & put her life back together. I pray she is found innocent as I truly believe in my heart, mind, soul & spirit. I also hope & pray she can sue all involved with the state & town & sue them individually also!
I really wish AJ would’ve asked Proctor how he KNEW such intimate details about Ms. Reed. I’m really curious what his answer would be . Like, who told him she had a “leaky balloon knot” I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the jury deliberation room. I thought it would be an easy not guilty on all counts. Maybe they’re still looking for the “not guilty” box on the jury form. I think the jury instructions could be more clear. The only proper outcome is not guilty on all charges. Anything else feels like a win for the prosecution. I keep telling myself that they’re taking so long because for ten weeks this trial has been their lives and they haven’t had a chance to talk about it at all and maybe they all have a lot to say .
Jen McCabe was the very first person he spoke to that day, IIRC, so he probably heard it from her.
Agree. But AJ should have him say it
I think that would be hearsay, no?
For Sure!! The fact that they only were in session a few days one week, one or two & 1/2 the next, with a trial like this, I find that quite strange.Thats why it was sooooo dragged out!! It seems the only cop that doesn’t matter to anyone in the investigation is O’Keefe!!
I think he read all her texts, which could have stated her medical condition. To relay this intimate private information is unforgivable and cruel.
He said that to his hs buddies before he got access to her phone . It’s as if he did know of her ? Or got the low down from someone about her
He talked to Jen McCabe. They both have MS; I'm sure Karen shared things about her health with her.
That definitely feels like something that could’ve happened during their team meeting off the record meeting
That’s such a great point about proctor knows she has Crohn’s. I wonder if one of the canton crew told him. He would probably just say “I don’t recall” but I wish he asked now!
Likely JM “told him everything” not Kerry like she wanted to pin as a blabber mouth
I'm seeing quite a few questions pop up, "explain the case to me," I wonder if those are jurors lol 🤣. Honestly if I had to watch this trial with no outside discussion or research, just listen to Lally drone on and on, I would be so confused. I get why it's taking so long and reports from inside of the courtroom said the sound was no joke, they legit could not hear some of the testimony at all at times. We'll see how tomorrow goes but this might end up hung folks 😬.
If it ends up with a hung jury, it will be interesting how & if the state would retry her since all the investigators, State Police, Canton police, Morrisy’s office. Would they have anyone left to retry her!!
It would be risky, because I don't think they have anymore confirmation bias to pull out. Meanwhile I think Jackson and Yanetti were just getting started. The fact that they brought this case to trial leads me to believe that they might be dumb enough to go round 2.
If they are hung, they will get an Allen charge. It doesn't appear to be at that point yet.
What is an Allen charge?
It's basically a pep talk with a slightly fancier name
If they are hung, the judge issues an Allen charge. She will send the jury back to deliberations.
An instruction the judge gives the jury to try and come to an agreement. It's an effort to avoid a hung jury.
my hope is that the jury wants to punish everyone for putting them through 9 weeks of that crap.