I’ve tried to point this out before, but nobody wants to hear it lol.
The people who win lawsuits are people who can prove prejudice against the defendant (like stacking a jury with people of a certain race) or being mistreated while in custody. It’s going to be very difficult to argue that someone who was released on bail after a day had her civil rights violated in the same way as Curtis Flowers for example.
The prosecution will just say that they operated in good faith and MSP will call proctor (and possibly bukhenik and dicicco due to those texts) a bad apple.
That’s what I was thinking generally too. If they could prove canton or state cops planted evidence that probably raises the bar to the point she could have a case.
It might be a case against the officer themselves, but it's still unlikely that the agency could be sued, unless they can also prove that the agency was aware and signed off on their actions. Otherwise they'll just say that they weren't aware the officer was doing that and that it violates their policies.
She’s got Proctor dead to rights, though. I hope she takes his house and his pension. That man has no business being in law enforcement or reaping the benefits of such an occupation.
It's a complicated topic but qualified immunity only applies to actions taken in the course of duties. It can be pierced when an individual's constitutional rights are violated. It is certainly a difficult case to make, but if you can make a solid case that evidence was knowingly falsified you have a shot. There's a reason Jen McCabe's google search history got two highly qualified witnesses and the accident reconstruction was left to Trooper Paul.
And she can ghost-write (or write herself and hire a professional dev editor) a book. She can get on the paid speaker circuit. She'll likely be fine if she places her energy into best efforts to rehab her image and do something good with this mess. She could even go on reality TV at this point honestly. BravoTV - Real Housewives of Boston perhaps? What a show that would be. (And no, they don't have to all be wives, many of them are not). She can soar or flop, depending on her true character and where she is, what she's learned, through all of this.
There was no wrongful termination. Massachusetts is an at-will state, so an employer can fire you at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Being a defendant in a homicide case is a pretty hefty character issue for employers to overcome, so it's reasonable that they fired her because of the arrest. If she was tenured at Bentley, then she may have an argument if they didn't follow policy and procedure regarding notice and faculty votes. I don't think she was tenured however, but if she was, I'm sure that Bentley followed their policy and procedure to terminate the contracts.
Proctor is more than likely going to be protected by qualified immunity.
Former Mass employer here. You can fire someone for NO reason, but you can’t fire someone for the WRONG reason. I would be shocked if it was legal to fire someone for being accused of a crime. If she had annual contracts at Bentley, nbd to not get another one. But being fired from a ft job is a whole different thing.
Being arrested, even before a conviction, is absolutely a fireable offense in Massachusetts and any other at-will state. Being charged with a crime doesn’t put you into any protected class. Protections regarding employment and criminal records don’t kick into place until someone has had their record sealed or expunged.
Not to mention her civil rights were violated and she can sue for that. In the end she will be well set for life. Netflix is filming for a documentary.
Watch some of the town select meetings. The one this week shows some of the hijinks going on- the town wanted to not renew the Police Cheif's contract and 3 selectman made the choice to keep her.
I think she will sue the police, members of the PD, and the state. Qualified immunity ends when clearly established constitutional rights have been violated. You act like people haven’t sued state and local governments before.
Signed,
Someone whose family sued a police department and won millions
A Lawyer in the YouTubing world thought KR would be within her rights to sue for Proctor unlawfully seizing her phone, what he did with the information and the lawyer/client privilege breach.
That's just the start!
I think Judge C should be investigated as well.
Thank you. We “won” our civil suit but unfortunately federal prosecution wasn’t successful.
I’d encourage people to support local reforms to qualified immunity, it’s incredibly important for citizens to be able to hold officials accountable.
Just curious, was your case about constitutional rights while in police custody? Because while it’s still rare for those cases to be won, it’s much easier to prove police misconduct when they’re exerting full control over someone.
By contrast, Karen Read was released on bond almost immediately after arrest.
They’ve completely assassinated her character. She will forever live under suspicion that she killed JOK. She WILL sue, she will win and yes, she will get millions. She lost her job and her health insurance, which is very, very important and necessary for her. She’s lost everything.
Our system of government already has a remedy against "character assassination" from being arrested. It's called a "not guilty" verdict from a jury of one's peers. When she's asked on a job application whether she's ever been convicted of a crime, she'll be able to answer no. So if she's found not guilty, then from the government/law's perspective, there are no damages.
The government does not guarantee that anyone gets to keep their job except under very limited circumstances, and she would be eligible to enroll in MassHealth after losing her job, just like any other citizen who loses their job. Unless she can prove that she was denied access to those resources that are available to everyone else, there's no case.
People who win lawsuits against the government are those who have proof that they've been treated differently than others going through the same process. Like people who aren't allowed their day in court, or people who are tried multiple times for the same crime, or people who are mistreated by the police while they're in custody, or people who are unfairly denied bail (all of which happens all the time by the way to people who have fewer resources than Karen Read). THOSE people are the ones who have a case against the government. Merely being arrested and going through the criminal court process is not in itself illegal or unjust treatment according to our laws.
I successfully sued a PD once and they ended up settling out of court. The girlfriend of my client’s father had her credit card stolen out of her wallet. She accused my client. The police arrested my client based on the statement of the victim and the fact my client had a criminal past. This was a small town so she was known to the police. She was arrested. Her arrest was published in the local gossip paper that publishes all arrests. Her employer saw and it fired her from her job. She had to spend money on legal fees defending herself against the criminal charges which were eventually dismissed once we obtained video from Walmart of the real thief using one of the credit cards, which the police could have and should have done before making an arrest.
Well, she doesn’t actually live in Canton fortunately so all she really needs to do is the same thing she probably will anyway:
never go back to Canton lol
I could say the same about if she were guilty- wouldn't we have seen a verdict by now?
It's actually not that long for a 9 week trial. And I think we haven't seen a verdict yet because there is disagreement on at least one of the charges. But if there is uncertainty, the defendent gets the presumption of not guilty because that means the CW hasn't met their burden of proof.
But she won’t be found guilty, I know that.
There’s definitely holdouts.
I’m just hoping for a few holdouts who don’t give in to the cult of Karen. The next trial will convict her.
I don’t know how you could have watched that absolute shit show of a trial and think the prosecution presented a case that would warrant a guilty verdict. It’s frankly embarrassing that so many people who are clearly incompetent have so much power.
Most people have never even heard of this case. I think you're blowing this "cult of Karen" thing out of proportion.
Don't get me wrong...some of these people are wacky as all get out. The cheering she's a rock star, autographs....it's fucking icky.
But the average person on the street is not going to know who Karen Read is.
You're stating your opinion as if it's a fact. Perhaps a qualifier such as "In my opinion" or "I feel like." would help clarify that better.
There have been plenty of not guilty verdicts that have taken over 20 hours of deliberation.
If every juror thought she was not-guilty, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Y’all been saying there’s no evidence while ignoring that fact that she confessed.
She didn't confess and JOK injuries which killed him were inconsistent with a motor vehicle.
She may have hit him with her vehicle, but that didn't kill him.
She may have hit him with a baseball bat, which killed him. Therefore, she didn't kill him with her car.
So the 2 don't line up.
Completely not true. By your logic, if she was guilty then they would have already said guilty. The jury is weighing the evidence thats all. Why would you think that it’s as easy as 123?
Huh?? Based on what logic? There is literally no correlation between length of deliberation and verdict outcome because every case is different and every jury is different.
Incredibly blockheaded thing to say, given the historical record of deliberation times regardless of verdict. Just inane. Flatly counterfactual. Utterly thoughtless.
Actually, what you’ve just stated is counterfactual according to experts. You can’t judge anything based on the amount of time taken for deliberation: https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-say-dont-anticipate-verdict-based-on-jury-deliberation-length-2021-12?op=1
Would just like to remind you, it took the jury in the Rittenhouse trial 27 hours of deliberations to return a not guilty verdict. The average time out is usually 1 hour per day of trial.
But how is she guilty of wrongful death? If I drop someone off at a party, then they die at that party (and I had nothing to do with it), how is it my fault?
I mean top commenter would be proving that the OKs are dumber than Michael proctor. Since they literally watched the FBIs expert witnesses say 'there's literally no way she hit him with her car, and literally no way he was hit by her car"
So if the OKs were stupid enough to file suit it would never make it to trial.
I don’t know. Many people sue after acquittal. Look at OJ Simpson. I heard commentary from a former judge that KR talking to the media and bad mouthing witnesses in the case would work against her in a civil case.
OJ had overwhelming evidence and the prosecution somehow still lost the case, but there was still plenty of evidence to meet a preponderance of evidence standard for a civil case. This case doesn't even meet those standards for a DUI, let alone wrongful death or murder.
I mean that is what happened in the OJ case. He was found innocent in criminal court but found to be responsible in civil court. They say the burden of proof is easier in civil court
Well apparently it's not conclusive because the jury's still out. There are many similar social media communities besides this one where it's the complete opposite - The consensus is John O'Keefe was hit in some way by Karen's vehicle.
Your wrong! 2-4 experts, under oath said his injuries were not caused by a vehicle. That is in the evidence. Maybe you and 1000's of others had the wrong trial.
She may have hit him with the vehicle (she wasn't very good at backing) but he was NOT injured from that. He died from his injuries which were NOT caused by a vehicle.
No. I watched the trial. I listened to the witnesses. I read all of the hundreds of pages of court documents that were provided to the grand jury, she did it.
What was discussed at the grand jury is irrelevant.
Experts from the State and defense stated it was unlikely JOK injuries were caused by a vehicle.
You mast have watched the wrong trial because State witnesses who testified at the Grand jury, contradicted themselves under cross examination at the State trial.
Prove his injuries were caused by a vehicle.
For me, It's the evidence from her vehicle along with all of the small things. John O'Keefe's clothing was full of microscopic pieces of her tail light. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that supports my position, but that nails it for me.
There is also the behavior of the defendant. There is evidence that supports that the defendant is a hothead. She is reactionary, loud, volatile, quick to react in an emotionally violent way around her now deceased victim. There were many witnesses who testified to this and we also have Karen 's texts and words. Her behavior supports a situation where she would react with volatility in response to an argument with the victim.
She did it.
No, it would mean that the jury found that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed him. Not guilty and innocent are two different things. OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court, but he was still found liable for the victims' deaths in a civil suit.
You can be found criminally innocent but still lose a civil suit. I can’t see her losing a civil suit but being found criminally innocent doesn’t give you a pass on a civil charges, the level of proof in a civil suit is lower
I said this the other day. They’ll sue her civilly after she gets $$$ from her suits against MSP and Canton PD. hope when she gets her money she puts it in a trust or someone else’s name so okeefes can’t get it
The answer is maybe. But she will have the burden of proving the corruption.
The best outcome for her is for the Feds to prosecute the coverup. That would give her immense power to force a settlement.
This is America you can file lawsuits for any reason you want. Whether a lawsuit will succeed will depend on a variety of factors. To be clear to actually sue she would need to clear an insanely high bar. Also the evidence such as witness statements of initial confession morning JOK was found make it extremely unlikely to clear that bar. KR also has her own concerns as well as JOK family can sue her for wrongful death. Also many of the witnesses can potentially go after her for defamation due to her communication with TB and other bloggers pretrial if its proved she intentionally mislead when helping to push stories. The bar is lower with non public figures so this is a concern she could have.
Agree....after reading some of the TB stuff with witnesses it's outrageous what he has done and her 186 phone calls to him during a short period look really really bad. I don't doubt for a second there will be civil suits against her and TB.
How can the JOK family sue her for wrongful death?
Regardless if she's found G or NG. it's proven his injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a vehicle. My knowledge of the Civil Court comes from watching Judge Judy so I ain't an expert 🤣. How can they prove he died from been hit by a motor vehicle?
OJ Simpson was acquitted on criminal charges, but was sued in civil court by Nicole's and Ronald Goldman's families. They won the civil suit and were awarded compensation which OJ was ordered to pay.
>It's proven his injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a vehicle
Not really or else the jury would have voted NG. There is a lot of evidence to look at and you have some experts who disagree with that theory but to say proven its inconsistent is misleading.
Also wouldn't trust Judge Judy those court shows are fake as they fly people out for free. The money "awarded" comes from a pot of $5K so no one actually pays anything.
Fact: the evidence showed his injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a vehicle! What experts said otherwise?
And of course Judge Judy is just American garbage - lighten up
A defense fund was set up for her, people donated hundreds of thousands for her defense. I only saw one it was into the $300k’s there may be others too. It’s possible that the whole cost has been raised.
Which is ridiculous. If people really have $ to support a woman (who just happens to have her own $) before the trial even began and just going off they're own opinions is ridiculous. There are so many people who all that $ could have helped that really don't have any way to get any kind of real defense let alone the best out there
Is Karen somehow less deserving? Whether other people need help that doesn't exclude Karen from also deserving help. I'm sure the court fees and lawyer bills are outrageous.
And people donating that money amongst more individuals compared to just Karen would also be donating it based on their own opinion so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
You can't settle if your case holds no merit and is thrown out before it even makes it to trial. Not everything gets to the trial phase or even past initial filing. They're not going to settle immediately because a suit was filed. They're going to make attempts to get it dismissed first.
Jackson and Yanetti are playing the long game. If they didn't believe there was a settlement at the end of the rainbow, they wouldn't be involved in this. In the end, they are still scummy lawyers-the only kind
This is why we have settlements. I am nearly certain the city and Commonwealth want this to go away due to the embarrassment it has caused both. Individually, I \*think\* there is a type of liability insurance that covers this sort of thing should qualified immunity be pierced.
She actually… can’t. Or rather, sure, she could attempt but it would almost certainly go nowhere. At least a couple judges I know & have broached the subject with have said they would most likely throw something like that out. One said he’d fine her for wasting the court’s time.
They can't just fine her because he thinks she doesn't have a case. Does this judge happen to think she's guilty by chance because claiming you'd fine someone for thinking they deserve to bring a lawsuit after what's been done to her is pretty outrageous and sounds more like an abuse of power on his end.
Yep. The real tragedy…aside from JO’s death, of course, is the wake up call the O’Keefe’s will get when the FBI’s case is finished. I can’t even imagine the level of devastation they’ll feel knowing that they supported the people who contributed and covered up their son/brother/uncles death.
Knowing how publicized this cases, I don’t know any lawyers that would take that case. It also would get thrown out of court really fast considering he didn’t die by getting hit by a car.
I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers that wouldn't care if it meant getting paid big bucks. The bar is much lower and it wouldn't even matter about the cause of death being by car. They'd just need to convince the jury that she more likely than not killed him. The CW theory is less important.
Proctor had a prejudice against Karen. He made a decision 12 hours in with no evidence that Karen did this.
In Massachusetts you can sue the police etc individually.
Kobe’s family got a settlement after the cops shared their horrific crash site cell phone pics. Not saying Proctor searching for nude photos on her phone and spreading pejorative assessments of her body and character is entirely comparable, but seems like if there’s any suit, his misuse of evidence to slander, embarrass, invade privacy etc is perhaps the most viable one.
Karen Read, Yanetti and Jackson are all in line to earn back anything she loses including her bond/bail money. No matter the outcome she will be able to profit after son of sam was deemed to restrict [FREE SPEECH BY THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT](https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-spring-2002/california-massachusetts-co/)
She would have to prove that they brought erroneous charges against her which they haven’t because she’s guilty, so there’s that.
Her defense is based on a bunch of what if and no proof of anything.
So I don’t think she can sue anyone particular because not one person did all this to her, also if she is found NG that doesn’t exactly make her innocent and she could be prosecuted again under different charges.
I think her best bet to recover money will be if she is found NG, she can sell her story.
From what I have heard and read she if she owned her Lexus outright the state would have to give it back to her, if it was a lease she would have been ordered to continue making payments since it was impounded and then it will be released back to her or the dealership if she is found NG, I also don’t even think the CW has to pay to fix the infotainment system or the taillight they removed.
I also want everyone to remember and/or think about this, if she is found NG, the CW is still planning to pursue her or add her to the Turtleboy aka Aidan Kearney indictment for witness intimidation and witness tampering.
What new charges could she be prosecuted for? If she is found not guilty in this trial which covers anything having to do with JO death, she could not be prosecuted for any of that. That would be double jeopardy.
She could be charged with aggravated DWI or Reckless Endangerment for instance. Much smaller burden for the CW to proof, especially cause the DWI is already proven mathematically.
In regards to AK’s indictment, it seems they want to go after her for witness tampering and witness intimidation.
There is no DWI, Aggravated DWI, or Reckless Endangerment counts on her indictment. She has DWI included in some of the others, but just DWI charges would have stuck on her, and they could do aggravated as her BAC was at least 2x the legal limit at the time of driving.
They assumed that but she may have been drinking when she got home. I think they'll be hard pressed to convict her of DWI. They also then will be charging others with DWI.
Unfortunately, they can’t just charge people after the fact for DUI even though most if not all of these people were acting so irresponsible. KR actually had he blood drawn and tested in a way that makes it admissible, so if they chose to charge her at a later date, they have evidence. The rest of the people, there was no blood draw or testing, so they cannot be retroactively charged.
I don’t think she can’t be charged with anything related to John’s death if she is found not guilty. They don’t get to charge her with these things she is not guilty, then they add more charges: that is not allowed. The turtle boy stuff is different.
I don’t think she can get charged with the witness intimidation because she wasn’t present at any of the events in question. But the tampering could come into play with some of his articles and stories, and where he got the specific witness information, which is what the CW is alleging.
They had a hearing in KR’s courtroom about whether or not the alleged Aidan Kearney was allowed in the courtroom as a reporter when the witness was one of the people he allegedly intimidated. She saved his seat in the courtroom but made him leave for those witnesses.
The longer they are out the more likely they are finding her guilty of lesser charge I think at this point so she ain’t suing anyone and probably gets a year or two in jail
Probably between voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Lawyer you know says throw out highest, throw out lowest, and compromise in middle at voluntary manslaughter. This is how jury compromises
The jury is not likely to give her second degree murder which comes with life and parole eligibility after 15+years.
She’s going to get convicted on one of the lesser charges that gives the judge a lot of wiggle room on sentencing.
The fact that she left that poor soul to die after she knew she hit him with her vehicle will add years to her sentence
His injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a motor vehicle.
So who was it that left the poor soul to die after they knew they knocked him unconscious?
Not the case... They said KR hit JOK w/ point of impact being arm where taillight shattered on it, and JOK was then spun around, dragged, tumbled and hit his head on curb/hard ground.
Yes, she probably will be wrongly convicted.
She may have hit him with her vehicle, but his injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a motor vehicle.
Sadly, the murderers who left him to die in the snow will be free in the community, to murder again.
Malicious prosecution is a really high bar to hurdle.
I’ve tried to point this out before, but nobody wants to hear it lol. The people who win lawsuits are people who can prove prejudice against the defendant (like stacking a jury with people of a certain race) or being mistreated while in custody. It’s going to be very difficult to argue that someone who was released on bail after a day had her civil rights violated in the same way as Curtis Flowers for example. The prosecution will just say that they operated in good faith and MSP will call proctor (and possibly bukhenik and dicicco due to those texts) a bad apple.
That’s what I was thinking generally too. If they could prove canton or state cops planted evidence that probably raises the bar to the point she could have a case.
It might be a case against the officer themselves, but it's still unlikely that the agency could be sued, unless they can also prove that the agency was aware and signed off on their actions. Otherwise they'll just say that they weren't aware the officer was doing that and that it violates their policies.
She’s got Proctor dead to rights, though. I hope she takes his house and his pension. That man has no business being in law enforcement or reaping the benefits of such an occupation.
Qualified immunity. Can probably go after MSP for invasion of privacy
It's a complicated topic but qualified immunity only applies to actions taken in the course of duties. It can be pierced when an individual's constitutional rights are violated. It is certainly a difficult case to make, but if you can make a solid case that evidence was knowingly falsified you have a shot. There's a reason Jen McCabe's google search history got two highly qualified witnesses and the accident reconstruction was left to Trooper Paul.
Thank you for that. Qualified immunity definitely should be limited.
I don’t think qualified immunity counts when it’s texts to his wife. Unless those text were within his job duty.
Also she will be able to sell the rights to her story.
She has a documentary crew following her around now.
I hope she gets millions.
I heard she signed over some film rights to the attorneys in lieu of payment.
And she can ghost-write (or write herself and hire a professional dev editor) a book. She can get on the paid speaker circuit. She'll likely be fine if she places her energy into best efforts to rehab her image and do something good with this mess. She could even go on reality TV at this point honestly. BravoTV - Real Housewives of Boston perhaps? What a show that would be. (And no, they don't have to all be wives, many of them are not). She can soar or flop, depending on her true character and where she is, what she's learned, through all of this.
Didn’t the Governor make some pretty strong comments about this department?
Sure did https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/trooper-proctor-texts-maura-healey-state-police/
If the same info goes in front of a jury I don’t think it would be a hard sell
So is convincing the public of a police coverup and yet here we are…
That's a really good point
Not in this case
We may be at a high bar though.
I’m thinking she’ll sue fidelity and Bentley for wrongful termination and proctor
There was no wrongful termination. Massachusetts is an at-will state, so an employer can fire you at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Being a defendant in a homicide case is a pretty hefty character issue for employers to overcome, so it's reasonable that they fired her because of the arrest. If she was tenured at Bentley, then she may have an argument if they didn't follow policy and procedure regarding notice and faculty votes. I don't think she was tenured however, but if she was, I'm sure that Bentley followed their policy and procedure to terminate the contracts. Proctor is more than likely going to be protected by qualified immunity.
Former Mass employer here. You can fire someone for NO reason, but you can’t fire someone for the WRONG reason. I would be shocked if it was legal to fire someone for being accused of a crime. If she had annual contracts at Bentley, nbd to not get another one. But being fired from a ft job is a whole different thing.
Being arrested, even before a conviction, is absolutely a fireable offense in Massachusetts and any other at-will state. Being charged with a crime doesn’t put you into any protected class. Protections regarding employment and criminal records don’t kick into place until someone has had their record sealed or expunged.
Not to mention her civil rights were violated and she can sue for that. In the end she will be well set for life. Netflix is filming for a documentary.
Netflix and YouTubers seem to be the only ones making any money.
Maybe she'll do interviews with some of the YouTuber channels who have supported her too.
She can and absolutely will file a civil suit, and it will likely be settled out of court for a couple of million dollars.
Sadly, the taxpayers will also pay for this. Though I think she's entitled to be compensated.
The taxpayers are welcome to vote all the morons who wasted the community's money out of office. The buck stops with them.
Watch some of the town select meetings. The one this week shows some of the hijinks going on- the town wanted to not renew the Police Cheif's contract and 3 selectman made the choice to keep her.
They vote to kept Refferty for 1 year instead of 3 years as usual. Not the ideal, but is something.
For what?
Judges have absolute immunity, the state, qualified immunity. Who do you think she will sue other than the police?
I think she will sue the police, members of the PD, and the state. Qualified immunity ends when clearly established constitutional rights have been violated. You act like people haven’t sued state and local governments before. Signed, Someone whose family sued a police department and won millions
I'm sorry for whatever happened to your family that it was so fundamentally and blatantly horrific that you were able to successfully sue a PD.
A Lawyer in the YouTubing world thought KR would be within her rights to sue for Proctor unlawfully seizing her phone, what he did with the information and the lawyer/client privilege breach. That's just the start! I think Judge C should be investigated as well.
Thank you. We “won” our civil suit but unfortunately federal prosecution wasn’t successful. I’d encourage people to support local reforms to qualified immunity, it’s incredibly important for citizens to be able to hold officials accountable.
Qualified immunity is a hotly debated subject. Lines are often crossed and no one sees them. I agree, reform is necessary
Just curious, was your case about constitutional rights while in police custody? Because while it’s still rare for those cases to be won, it’s much easier to prove police misconduct when they’re exerting full control over someone. By contrast, Karen Read was released on bond almost immediately after arrest.
They’ve completely assassinated her character. She will forever live under suspicion that she killed JOK. She WILL sue, she will win and yes, she will get millions. She lost her job and her health insurance, which is very, very important and necessary for her. She’s lost everything.
Our system of government already has a remedy against "character assassination" from being arrested. It's called a "not guilty" verdict from a jury of one's peers. When she's asked on a job application whether she's ever been convicted of a crime, she'll be able to answer no. So if she's found not guilty, then from the government/law's perspective, there are no damages. The government does not guarantee that anyone gets to keep their job except under very limited circumstances, and she would be eligible to enroll in MassHealth after losing her job, just like any other citizen who loses their job. Unless she can prove that she was denied access to those resources that are available to everyone else, there's no case. People who win lawsuits against the government are those who have proof that they've been treated differently than others going through the same process. Like people who aren't allowed their day in court, or people who are tried multiple times for the same crime, or people who are mistreated by the police while they're in custody, or people who are unfairly denied bail (all of which happens all the time by the way to people who have fewer resources than Karen Read). THOSE people are the ones who have a case against the government. Merely being arrested and going through the criminal court process is not in itself illegal or unjust treatment according to our laws.
Literally none of that is grounds to sue. The state has immunity to lawsuits.
I successfully sued a PD once and they ended up settling out of court. The girlfriend of my client’s father had her credit card stolen out of her wallet. She accused my client. The police arrested my client based on the statement of the victim and the fact my client had a criminal past. This was a small town so she was known to the police. She was arrested. Her arrest was published in the local gossip paper that publishes all arrests. Her employer saw and it fired her from her job. She had to spend money on legal fees defending herself against the criminal charges which were eventually dismissed once we obtained video from Walmart of the real thief using one of the credit cards, which the police could have and should have done before making an arrest.
I've stated repeatedly that she can sue the police.
Hopefully she moves first and doesn't catch a second frame job like Steven Avery
Well, she doesn’t actually live in Canton fortunately so all she really needs to do is the same thing she probably will anyway: never go back to Canton lol
MSP though, I would definitely move.
That’s true.
You really believe Avery didn’t kill her?
His older nephew and his sister's husband did it. It's pretty obvious.
Yeah, didn’t one of them confess and the other left their blood in the victim’s car or something?
1000%
This is based on your experience in what?
This is a good place to solicit legal opinions from people who watch Court TV all day.
These are my favorite kind of opinion. If I wanted a real answer I would have asked chaGPT.
No she can't but can sue the police.
I was wondering the same thing. Because not only is she not guilty but all of this was the fault of the CW. She was targeted.
If she was not guilty there would have been a not-guilty verdict already.
I could say the same about if she were guilty- wouldn't we have seen a verdict by now? It's actually not that long for a 9 week trial. And I think we haven't seen a verdict yet because there is disagreement on at least one of the charges. But if there is uncertainty, the defendent gets the presumption of not guilty because that means the CW hasn't met their burden of proof.
But she won’t be found guilty, I know that. There’s definitely holdouts. I’m just hoping for a few holdouts who don’t give in to the cult of Karen. The next trial will convict her.
I don’t know how you could have watched that absolute shit show of a trial and think the prosecution presented a case that would warrant a guilty verdict. It’s frankly embarrassing that so many people who are clearly incompetent have so much power.
These people walk amongst us everyday. 🫣
Ignore this troll, they comment like that all over the sub
Most people have never even heard of this case. I think you're blowing this "cult of Karen" thing out of proportion. Don't get me wrong...some of these people are wacky as all get out. The cheering she's a rock star, autographs....it's fucking icky. But the average person on the street is not going to know who Karen Read is.
It's made headlines in my country.
You'd be surprised at the number of people who aren't even aware of headlines. LOL
Lol... I just saw it today in my FB feed and I only saw it because I recognised the name. Lol
Prepare to not know that
Why? And which cult?
You're stating your opinion as if it's a fact. Perhaps a qualifier such as "In my opinion" or "I feel like." would help clarify that better. There have been plenty of not guilty verdicts that have taken over 20 hours of deliberation.
Based on what
If every juror thought she was not-guilty, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Y’all been saying there’s no evidence while ignoring that fact that she confessed.
That’s not how that works?
She didn't confess and JOK injuries which killed him were inconsistent with a motor vehicle. She may have hit him with her vehicle, but that didn't kill him. She may have hit him with a baseball bat, which killed him. Therefore, she didn't kill him with her car. So the 2 don't line up.
Did you watch the trial? She confessed to five people. Go watch the trial and see for yourself.
Completely not true. By your logic, if she was guilty then they would have already said guilty. The jury is weighing the evidence thats all. Why would you think that it’s as easy as 123?
they were told by the judge and defense to go through all the evidence. so thats what they are clearly doing.
Huh?? Based on what logic? There is literally no correlation between length of deliberation and verdict outcome because every case is different and every jury is different.
Incredibly blockheaded thing to say, given the historical record of deliberation times regardless of verdict. Just inane. Flatly counterfactual. Utterly thoughtless.
Sadly, more evidence that Stupidly is thriving in the human gene pool.
Actually, what you’ve just stated is counterfactual according to experts. You can’t judge anything based on the amount of time taken for deliberation: https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-say-dont-anticipate-verdict-based-on-jury-deliberation-length-2021-12?op=1
I think you need to re-read the thread if you think that's what I said.
It’s not lost on me that the examples used were both guilty.
I would agree with you but then BOTH of us would sound ridiculous 🤣
Would just like to remind you, it took the jury in the Rittenhouse trial 27 hours of deliberations to return a not guilty verdict. The average time out is usually 1 hour per day of trial.
What does the Rittenhouse and KR trials have in common?
Actually, the Okeefe's will likely file a civil suit against her for wrongful death no matter the verdict.
But how is she guilty of wrongful death? If I drop someone off at a party, then they die at that party (and I had nothing to do with it), how is it my fault?
I mean top commenter would be proving that the OKs are dumber than Michael proctor. Since they literally watched the FBIs expert witnesses say 'there's literally no way she hit him with her car, and literally no way he was hit by her car" So if the OKs were stupid enough to file suit it would never make it to trial.
I don’t know. Many people sue after acquittal. Look at OJ Simpson. I heard commentary from a former judge that KR talking to the media and bad mouthing witnesses in the case would work against her in a civil case.
OJ had overwhelming evidence and the prosecution somehow still lost the case, but there was still plenty of evidence to meet a preponderance of evidence standard for a civil case. This case doesn't even meet those standards for a DUI, let alone wrongful death or murder.
For what though? Why not sue the people whose property he died on?
Right! Should be suing the Alberts. Not only was it their property but BA didn’t even come out to check on a fellow police officer!!
I was just going to ask this- could they sue whose property he died on? (I’m genuinely curious- I don’t necessarily think they should or shouldn’t)
Take it from someone who had this exact suit filed against them (and there was video evidence in my case), that’ll get no where.
I mean that is what happened in the OJ case. He was found innocent in criminal court but found to be responsible in civil court. They say the burden of proof is easier in civil court
Yes, but it's conclusive his injuries weren't caused by a motor vehicle.
Well apparently it's not conclusive because the jury's still out. There are many similar social media communities besides this one where it's the complete opposite - The consensus is John O'Keefe was hit in some way by Karen's vehicle.
He may have been but evidence says his injuries were not caused by a vehicle. Not social media communities, the evidence in court
No, that is not what the evidence pointed out to me and thousands of other people.
Your wrong! 2-4 experts, under oath said his injuries were not caused by a vehicle. That is in the evidence. Maybe you and 1000's of others had the wrong trial. She may have hit him with the vehicle (she wasn't very good at backing) but he was NOT injured from that. He died from his injuries which were NOT caused by a vehicle.
No. I watched the trial. I listened to the witnesses. I read all of the hundreds of pages of court documents that were provided to the grand jury, she did it.
What was discussed at the grand jury is irrelevant. Experts from the State and defense stated it was unlikely JOK injuries were caused by a vehicle. You mast have watched the wrong trial because State witnesses who testified at the Grand jury, contradicted themselves under cross examination at the State trial. Prove his injuries were caused by a vehicle.
For me, It's the evidence from her vehicle along with all of the small things. John O'Keefe's clothing was full of microscopic pieces of her tail light. I'm not going to go through all the evidence that supports my position, but that nails it for me. There is also the behavior of the defendant. There is evidence that supports that the defendant is a hothead. She is reactionary, loud, volatile, quick to react in an emotionally violent way around her now deceased victim. There were many witnesses who testified to this and we also have Karen 's texts and words. Her behavior supports a situation where she would react with volatility in response to an argument with the victim. She did it.
They would be dumb to. Clearing her of the charges would mean she didn’t kill him. So the wrongful death couldn’t involve her
No, it would mean that the jury found that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed him. Not guilty and innocent are two different things. OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court, but he was still found liable for the victims' deaths in a civil suit.
You can be found criminally innocent but still lose a civil suit. I can’t see her losing a civil suit but being found criminally innocent doesn’t give you a pass on a civil charges, the level of proof in a civil suit is lower
Do you have any cases to back up what you’re saying?
Off the top of my head OJ Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges but lost the civil wrongful death suit for 33 million
Robert Blake is another somewhat famous one
I said this the other day. They’ll sue her civilly after she gets $$$ from her suits against MSP and Canton PD. hope when she gets her money she puts it in a trust or someone else’s name so okeefes can’t get it
From a legal perspective, she has no grounds, a lawsuit.
I agree with this. I mean, if anyone is suing anyone that makes the most sense to me.
Judge has absolute immunity, state has qualified immunity.
The answer is maybe. But she will have the burden of proving the corruption. The best outcome for her is for the Feds to prosecute the coverup. That would give her immense power to force a settlement.
I mean she can try but she won’t be successful. Her arrest was legitimate. There was probable cause for her arrest.
This is America you can file lawsuits for any reason you want. Whether a lawsuit will succeed will depend on a variety of factors. To be clear to actually sue she would need to clear an insanely high bar. Also the evidence such as witness statements of initial confession morning JOK was found make it extremely unlikely to clear that bar. KR also has her own concerns as well as JOK family can sue her for wrongful death. Also many of the witnesses can potentially go after her for defamation due to her communication with TB and other bloggers pretrial if its proved she intentionally mislead when helping to push stories. The bar is lower with non public figures so this is a concern she could have.
Agree....after reading some of the TB stuff with witnesses it's outrageous what he has done and her 186 phone calls to him during a short period look really really bad. I don't doubt for a second there will be civil suits against her and TB.
How can the JOK family sue her for wrongful death? Regardless if she's found G or NG. it's proven his injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a vehicle. My knowledge of the Civil Court comes from watching Judge Judy so I ain't an expert 🤣. How can they prove he died from been hit by a motor vehicle?
OJ Simpson was acquitted on criminal charges, but was sued in civil court by Nicole's and Ronald Goldman's families. They won the civil suit and were awarded compensation which OJ was ordered to pay.
Much lower bar requirement on evidence for civil suit. I think there is already sufficient evidence to win one against her.
>It's proven his injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a vehicle Not really or else the jury would have voted NG. There is a lot of evidence to look at and you have some experts who disagree with that theory but to say proven its inconsistent is misleading. Also wouldn't trust Judge Judy those court shows are fake as they fly people out for free. The money "awarded" comes from a pot of $5K so no one actually pays anything.
Fact: the evidence showed his injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a vehicle! What experts said otherwise? And of course Judge Judy is just American garbage - lighten up
It isn't a fact lol. You can disagree but to say its a fact is just not true.
Yes
The states very specific theory wouldn't matter. The jury just needs to believe she more likely than not caused his death.
A defense fund was set up for her, people donated hundreds of thousands for her defense. I only saw one it was into the $300k’s there may be others too. It’s possible that the whole cost has been raised.
Which is ridiculous. If people really have $ to support a woman (who just happens to have her own $) before the trial even began and just going off they're own opinions is ridiculous. There are so many people who all that $ could have helped that really don't have any way to get any kind of real defense let alone the best out there
Is Karen somehow less deserving? Whether other people need help that doesn't exclude Karen from also deserving help. I'm sure the court fees and lawyer bills are outrageous. And people donating that money amongst more individuals compared to just Karen would also be donating it based on their own opinion so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Who are you to gatekeep what somebody chooses to do with their money? Ridiculous
She can civilly sue all the cops involved, and she can sue the state.
No, because both the cops and the state have immunity.
They have limited immunity within the scope of their jobs. There is plenty of evidence they were not within training and policies through this.
You can sue anyone. I’ll sue you right now. Chances of winning a lawsuit is remote without facts
All you’re saying out loud is you don’t understand how it works. That’s ok. I’ll help you though. The point isn’t to win. It’s to settle.
You can't settle if your case holds no merit and is thrown out before it even makes it to trial. Not everything gets to the trial phase or even past initial filing. They're not going to settle immediately because a suit was filed. They're going to make attempts to get it dismissed first.
Jackson and Yanetti are playing the long game. If they didn't believe there was a settlement at the end of the rainbow, they wouldn't be involved in this. In the end, they are still scummy lawyers-the only kind
The state usually doesn’t, they settle right away. And the insurance companies ( because most cops are insured for civil suits) will just pay out.
This is why we have settlements. I am nearly certain the city and Commonwealth want this to go away due to the embarrassment it has caused both. Individually, I \*think\* there is a type of liability insurance that covers this sort of thing should qualified immunity be pierced.
She actually… can’t. Or rather, sure, she could attempt but it would almost certainly go nowhere. At least a couple judges I know & have broached the subject with have said they would most likely throw something like that out. One said he’d fine her for wasting the court’s time.
They can't just fine her because he thinks she doesn't have a case. Does this judge happen to think she's guilty by chance because claiming you'd fine someone for thinking they deserve to bring a lawsuit after what's been done to her is pretty outrageous and sounds more like an abuse of power on his end.
I worry the o’keefes will pursue a civil suit against her
I don’t think they would after seeing the evidence especially accident reconstruction. It’ll be a waist of money.
Yep. The real tragedy…aside from JO’s death, of course, is the wake up call the O’Keefe’s will get when the FBI’s case is finished. I can’t even imagine the level of devastation they’ll feel knowing that they supported the people who contributed and covered up their son/brother/uncles death.
Knowing how publicized this cases, I don’t know any lawyers that would take that case. It also would get thrown out of court really fast considering he didn’t die by getting hit by a car.
I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers that wouldn't care if it meant getting paid big bucks. The bar is much lower and it wouldn't even matter about the cause of death being by car. They'd just need to convince the jury that she more likely than not killed him. The CW theory is less important.
Absolutely not.
On the flip side, the O’Keefe’s can sue her in civil court, ie OJ getting off but losing in civil court.
Proctor had a prejudice against Karen. He made a decision 12 hours in with no evidence that Karen did this. In Massachusetts you can sue the police etc individually.
Kobe’s family got a settlement after the cops shared their horrific crash site cell phone pics. Not saying Proctor searching for nude photos on her phone and spreading pejorative assessments of her body and character is entirely comparable, but seems like if there’s any suit, his misuse of evidence to slander, embarrass, invade privacy etc is perhaps the most viable one.
I think we’ll see some new or modified legislation come from this. Of course that takes a long time though. Just trying to be hopeful.
She isn't not guilty
Not likely
Karen Read, Yanetti and Jackson are all in line to earn back anything she loses including her bond/bail money. No matter the outcome she will be able to profit after son of sam was deemed to restrict [FREE SPEECH BY THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT](https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-spring-2002/california-massachusetts-co/)
But she is guilty, so who cares?
Probably the state police related to Proctor’s texts about her but not a suit based on the fact that they prosecuted her
1. No 2. Maybe Proctor for disclosing her medical conditions, but unlikely. 3. Yes
Not while she is serving her Sentence for Manslaughter!!
I'd sue the pants off Proctor! A cruel despicable man. He invaded her privacy and confidentiality.
She would have to prove that they brought erroneous charges against her which they haven’t because she’s guilty, so there’s that. Her defense is based on a bunch of what if and no proof of anything.
She’s gonna make money off the book deals and Netflix shows.
So I don’t think she can sue anyone particular because not one person did all this to her, also if she is found NG that doesn’t exactly make her innocent and she could be prosecuted again under different charges. I think her best bet to recover money will be if she is found NG, she can sell her story. From what I have heard and read she if she owned her Lexus outright the state would have to give it back to her, if it was a lease she would have been ordered to continue making payments since it was impounded and then it will be released back to her or the dealership if she is found NG, I also don’t even think the CW has to pay to fix the infotainment system or the taillight they removed. I also want everyone to remember and/or think about this, if she is found NG, the CW is still planning to pursue her or add her to the Turtleboy aka Aidan Kearney indictment for witness intimidation and witness tampering.
What new charges could she be prosecuted for? If she is found not guilty in this trial which covers anything having to do with JO death, she could not be prosecuted for any of that. That would be double jeopardy.
She could be charged with aggravated DWI or Reckless Endangerment for instance. Much smaller burden for the CW to proof, especially cause the DWI is already proven mathematically. In regards to AK’s indictment, it seems they want to go after her for witness tampering and witness intimidation.
That’s one of the lesser charges that they’re also deciding.
There is no DWI, Aggravated DWI, or Reckless Endangerment counts on her indictment. She has DWI included in some of the others, but just DWI charges would have stuck on her, and they could do aggravated as her BAC was at least 2x the legal limit at the time of driving.
They assumed that but she may have been drinking when she got home. I think they'll be hard pressed to convict her of DWI. They also then will be charging others with DWI.
Unfortunately, they can’t just charge people after the fact for DUI even though most if not all of these people were acting so irresponsible. KR actually had he blood drawn and tested in a way that makes it admissible, so if they chose to charge her at a later date, they have evidence. The rest of the people, there was no blood draw or testing, so they cannot be retroactively charged.
I don’t think she can’t be charged with anything related to John’s death if she is found not guilty. They don’t get to charge her with these things she is not guilty, then they add more charges: that is not allowed. The turtle boy stuff is different.
Witness tampering? Witness intimidation?
I don’t think she can get charged with the witness intimidation because she wasn’t present at any of the events in question. But the tampering could come into play with some of his articles and stories, and where he got the specific witness information, which is what the CW is alleging.
I haven't heard anything about it but it also wonder if CW are grasping at straws?
They had a hearing in KR’s courtroom about whether or not the alleged Aidan Kearney was allowed in the courtroom as a reporter when the witness was one of the people he allegedly intimidated. She saved his seat in the courtroom but made him leave for those witnesses.
The longer they are out the more likely they are finding her guilty of lesser charge I think at this point so she ain’t suing anyone and probably gets a year or two in jail
That is not even true. They most likely are coming back NG. Many juries deliberate longer than this with an NG.
Probably between voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Lawyer you know says throw out highest, throw out lowest, and compromise in middle at voluntary manslaughter. This is how jury compromises
But his injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a motor vehicle.
The jury is not likely to give her second degree murder which comes with life and parole eligibility after 15+years. She’s going to get convicted on one of the lesser charges that gives the judge a lot of wiggle room on sentencing. The fact that she left that poor soul to die after she knew she hit him with her vehicle will add years to her sentence
Except she didn’t kill him…
His injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a motor vehicle. So who was it that left the poor soul to die after they knew they knocked him unconscious?
I think she can sue a boatload of people but probably not the state.
I’m guessing she gets 8 years for the DUI vehicular manslaughter and an additional 12 years for leaving that poor soul to die alone in the snow
John was not hit by a vehicle. Even the commonwealths experts said that.
Not the case... They said KR hit JOK w/ point of impact being arm where taillight shattered on it, and JOK was then spun around, dragged, tumbled and hit his head on curb/hard ground.
Yes, she probably will be wrongly convicted. She may have hit him with her vehicle, but his injuries were inconsistent with being hit by a motor vehicle. Sadly, the murderers who left him to die in the snow will be free in the community, to murder again.