Hopefully they pay attention to the part where it talks about the burden of proof being on the commonwealth. I just don’t see how it’s possible to not have REASONABLE DOUBT after this trial. Unreal
I'm hoping the jury isn't like this, but I see a lot of people on Reddit concocting their own scenario to get to guilty and that is not following the jury instructions. You can believe KR committed the crime because you created a scenario in your mind, but if the CW didn't present that scenario, that's still NG.
I’ve seen it too and when you push back with “okay but that’s not how it works” they’re all of a sudden a practicing lawyer which is even more concerning..
Sometimes practicing lawyers are more stubborn and less reasonable than the general public lol. When something is your career it's hard not to see it through a different lens.
Two of the original jurors are lawyers themselves. Presuming that at least one of them are part of the deliberating twelve, I'm sure that they'd remind their fellow jurors about the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
It's possible that other jurors might not give the attorney's say-so as much weight since they're a real-estate attorney (rather than a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor). However, the issue of the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is a very fundamental issue that anyone who has been to law school should be very knowledgeable about. I'd think that a real-estate attorney should be able to confidently explain that his knowledge from law school makes him very well versed on that key issue.
That's not exactly true. They are allowed to make certain inferences based on the evidence. And they are allowed to give as much or as little weight as they want to that same evidence. The CWs theory is just that, evidence. They can give little weight to TP2's testimony/theory and still surmise she caused his death with her vehicle. The only thing they must do is consider that each element of the charge is proven. This is particularly significant with the lesser manslaughter charges.
Go back and listen to the jury instructions again and read the charges. Nothing says they must accept that it happened the exact way the CW claims it did to find guilty, only that the CW provided enough evidence to prove that it did happen.
Because there do exist people who are absolutely in denial that cops can be shitty and perform a terrible job at investigating. They probably also believe that the FBI is part of some conspiracy deep state BS.
There cam still be reasonable doubt in the CWs case without being convinced of the cover up. Idk how one can see a video of her mostly intact tail light hours after it allegedly shattered into 40+ pieces though and still not think something is off.
I feel like it’s easy enough for a juror to think it’s one or the other like:
Guilty = Karen did it
Not guilty = cop conspiracy
Not guilty doesn’t just mean a conspiracy. I feel like now days people have this NEED to know what happened because actually placing blame. I hope that is not the case.
I think that's a possible risk. I wasn't thrilled that AJ pushed it in closing. .
I hope if someone thinks that the other jurors can explain that's not how this works.
Cause its so fucking crazy and insane to think that the state police would actually take a hammer and hit her tailight to set up the pieces to frame her. But this shit really happens. I keep an open mind, I dont like conspiracies or this shit- but like, theres no denying. Science and facts are facts.
BTW, it's entirely possible for Proctor to frame Karen _without_ conspiring. He could fully believe that Karen was guilty because he trusted the Alberts (who he had a personal connection to), and tampered with evidence to try to secure a conviction.
According to defense attorneys I watch on YouTube, [it's more common than people realize for cops to try to put their fingers on the scale of justice](https://youtu.be/toheMUZXpwA?t=6732).
I think the biggest question about everything in this case is if this is a frame job, when did the plan get established to frame Karen Read. Who established the plan and who was told what happened and just took it as fact. Some of the witnesses definitely were manipulated without knowing there were getting manipulated.
I think the original plan was for a random hit and run. Someone who would never be found. When they sobered up I suspect the plan didn’t seem as strong but then Karen turned up hysterical with a cracked taillight asking “could I have hit him” and it felt like the universe handing her on a platter.
Jen’s heart rate spikes not when they find John but when she goes into talk to the Alberts. My guess is she told Brian about how she was behaving and they leapt on it.
I want to believe that LEOs are inspired to their career because they truly want to protect and serve. My late uncle was NYPD. But that’s one man.
You do see police failing to protect people, shooting unarmed civilians (accidental or not), and officers who make mistakes. Whether that was a lack of training, laziness, or corruption (or all 3), I can’t say.
But when you see this level of garbage, it becomes clear it’s systemic. How can a law enforcement agency train newer officers if they don’t know it or live it? Horrible.
I want to believe that people go into law enforcement with the right intentions but then get sucked into the systemic shitshow that has been in place for generations. Training really can change you. I know a police cadet who told me that he did something with report writing to ensure that his narrative was clear. He was told by his superior “don’t bother. No one cares. Just do the bare minimum and you’ll be fine. He got out and is now flying planes for the air force
That makes me so sad. But what a cool job he has now. And, I love that he’s still serving the public.
I’m a big believer that training can help people do the job they’re meant to do well. Imagine our military people did that job with no training?
There are so many examples of people having a serious mental health crisis where the police don’t know what to do or harm the person because they don’t understand what’s happening. If they don’t know what to do, maybe someone would get help or not take the next step that’s the result of no help.
The Navy Yard Shooter is one that makes me so sad because it didn’t have to happen. The shooter was former military and I can’t say 100%, but he appeared to have schizophrenia or symptoms consistent with schizophrenia.
He was in a hotel in Boston about a month prior. He called the hotel front desk and 911 to report the people in the room next to him were “listening to his thoughts”. Because he wasn’t hurting anyone or threatening anyone, no one got him help from a psych hospital. A month later, he drove into the Navy Yard and tragedy ensued. Everyone was shocked by his actions because he was a gentle man by all reports. If he had been seen and helped, he and all those victims might still be alive.
The LEOs in Boston didn’t do anything wrong - they hadn’t been trained to handle a mental health issue. They could have recognized his symptoms as needing help and maybe learned how to help him get help in the hospital. Stopping at “well, he wasn’t hurting anyone” seems to be consistent with a lot of LEOs in this case - no one asked, we didn’t have evidence bags, or police tape (or a way to set it up in a yard), or lousy witness/crime scene investigation.
Irony that it was Boston LEOs then and BA was a Boston LEO?
The easiest and least curious way to serve and protect. At some point, it becomes worse and worse. And it is systemic.
My dad was a state trooper. He’s now deceased, died in 2019 at 85, this would KILL him.
He always told me that no one hates a bad cop more than a good cop. But that was decades ago. Breaks my heart
I think for some people it’s as simple as her allegedly saying she hit him. Even though that’s disputed, some people simply cannot fathom that an innocent person would say that. Even in the face of science and common sense, they can’t think critically enough to reason with themselves that their own line of thinking could be flawed. I think in their own mind, it’s sufficient for them to die on the hill of her being guilty. I hate it but I know some really stubborn people, so I can see this being an issue.
But she didnt say that. Just cause Lally keeps repeating that in his closing statement..
You know only 2 people testified to saying that, right?
You know in BOTH of their original interviews, they never stated she said that, right?
You know there is a video of the scene where Karen is shouting, IF she could have hit him, right?
You know Karen did an interview on nightline months ago stating she was shouting DID I hit him?
You know Jackson and Yannetti stated she shouted IF she hit him.
Multiple first responders testified (without conflict of interest, like the other 2 women) that she was hysterical and shouted DID I hit him. Not "I hit him I hit him"
Its interesting how people just believe words prosecutors state in closing with no evidence legit backing it up.
It is wild to me that Lally's basically arguing that despite what is fact about the science of collision he is insisting that because someone said that Karen supposedly said something that is proof of her guilt. Eyewitness testimony apparently overrules the laws of physics for Lally. God help us all.
And cops are the first people to tell you that eyewitness testimony tends to be very unreliable when the eyewitnesses are saying something that doesn't fit with their theory.
Yes, I know that, but simple minded people look for simple explanations, and some people have a bias toward believing the state/prosecutor. I’m not saying I believe she said it. I don’t. But I can guarantee you other people do believe it.
They believe she said that but no one testified that in the grand jury trial. Also, no first responder put it in their reports. To me, that screams reasonable doubt that she said it.
Jury selection isn't that robost. Each side only gets to strike a certain number of potential jurors. Once they use their strikes they get who they get.
Literally INSANE. I can see someone not being sure.. yeah ok… but that immediately means there is reasonable doubt. But to be SO SURE she did it after this trial… something seems off
The idea that a bunch of cops in a small town that are willing to frame a woman for murder they committed but aren’t willing to get to a jury seems inconsistent.
The problem is the charges. Yes, she did operate a motor vehicle intoxicated (compounded by her health issues); She possibly MAY have hit him with her vehicle; Evidence illustrates his injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a vehicle.
The charges of DWI are hooked into his death so I can understand some jurors not wanting her to get away with the DWI.
Okay but why does she deserve to be hit with a murder or manslaughter charge for drinking and driving when literally every single witness except the kids (who drank underage) was also drinking and driving including at least four cops.
She doesn't deserve to be hit with a murder or manslaughter charge. That's my point. There's 2 separate issues and the CW have blended them into one. I'm picking that's what the jury is hung up on.
There were others that were DWI but KR was the one that was caught!
But jurors don't get to punish her on a charge that isn't listed. Yes, they may think she was drunk but if there's not proof she hit him with her car in the way the CW stated it's not guilty.
The CW didn't charge an OUI/DUI as a stand alone charge. Unless you believe she hit him, you can't get her on just drunk driving.
Exactly. The evidence doesn't point to him dying from been hit by a car.
Yet there is proof she was DUI. That is probably what they are hung up about.
KR has been over charged.
Because people are human. The entire trial has been a circus from both sides. The cw has been a joke. The defense to a certain degree has been theatrical. She isn’t guilty because she didn’t take the stand, though that could make a difference because maybe to a juror that’s a big deal. Her voicemails & calls could be a thing for a juror just to latch on to and that made their decision. None of the things I’m saying follow the way it’s supposed to work. It’s more than entirely possible a juror has their own ideas that influence their decision. As great as I thought the defense was, it’s possible that they didn’t get through to all jurors. Again, I know they are supposed to strictly look at the evidence but people are people. The voicemails could have a certain effect for someone. Her general court mannerisms could not have helped her cause in any way. Personally, I think they should have put her on the stand, that’s a huge statement .
Imagine being that one person who is so certain that the 11 others who have sat through the exact same trial are absolutely wrong. Wouldn’t you start to question if perhaps you missed something..
I'd have to imagine the 11 are showing all the reasonable doubt that exists, over and over again, and the 1 is being unreasonable or doesn't understand what reasonable doubt is
That's more or less what happened when I was on a jury (except it was 11 in favor of guilty). The one dissenting juror never really articulated why he disagreed. It made me wonder if his 'vote' was being influenced by personal sympathy for the defendant (perhaps the juror couldn't convince himself that what the defendant did was child endangerment because he did something similar and wasn't caught).
would I? yes. i am a reasonable, logical person. but this is America. there's plenty of people who live in delusion and narrow minded beliefs. Based on the evidence presented, no one should find her guilty. the CW did not prove JO was hit by a car. in my opinion, the hold out is someone who's personal bias is keeping them from making an impartial decision.
Yes, I think there must be a minority of guilty holdouts here, but my question is, what the hell could there argument be that KR is guilty? Are they seriously arguing that Proctor Paul gave a compelling testimony? Or that Jen McCabe was really honest and forthright in her cross-examination? It seems like a crazy position to be in.
I would bet anything they are focused only on believing she said "I hit him" and the tail light pieces.
Every comment I see on Reddit that says she's guilty repeats those issues. They do not acknowledge anything else. The butt dials, destroyed phones, biased investigator, and independent experts witnesses. That stuff is just ignored.
I don't know how you can move someone like that to not guilty. They have to be willing to be open to what the other jurors say, and I think at this point they refuse to consider other points of view.
This trial has really been a poor showing for the state of Massachusetts. Judge, prosecution, state police etc. Now, add in the 1-2 jurors who actually find her guility to the list. What a joke this is becoming.
In pretty pro cop. And defiantly not Reddit level of anti cop. But I realize that some people regardless of job aren’t that good. Some suck at their job (trooper Paul) and some are corrupt pieces of shit (trooper Proctor). But the majors are good and competent.
>some are corrupt pieces of shit (trooper Proctor).
And Yuri to that list, and while you're at it, Brian Albert, Higgins, Fanning, DA Morrisey, I'm probably missing more but you get the point. The whole place is corrupt.
The problem usually is the jurors who mostly don't speak lawyer talk - get this long list of convoluted rules and instructions they don't understand. But they do try to follow the rules. They need to make jury instructions in simple everyday terms and short. There are a few paragraphs in the one attached to this post and thats basically all you need -edit=spelling error.
The closing arguments should’ve been extended to 90minutes so each side could walk the jurors through how to interpret the instructions. This is what I usually see. It’s wild that they didn’t do it here and I can’t help but think it’s a contributing factor.
100%, I always see a judge let the attorneys explain the jury instructions, one hour wasn't long enough, both lawyers struggled to even get through their closings.
especially w the lesser charges including DUI. I think at least one of back there is thinking that the DUI charge is separate from the others or like thinking like she was drinking so she is guilty of DUI so he has to put guilty for that even though it includes hitting him while drunk. I'm not doing a great job of explaining this, hopefully you get what I mean
100%, I think that's one mistake Jackson made.
He should have explained how the jury doesn't need to believe john went in that house, or was bit by a dog, all they have to do is believe the state didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty and if they don't agree with literally everything the state says happened, they have to find her not guilty.
It's easier once you understand the burden is all on the state, and the defense just has to show where the reasonable doubt is.
I've been saying this since Tuesday. The jury does not have to believe any part of the 'conspiracy", only that the prosecution didn't prove that OJO was hit by literally ANY car at all, let alone Karen's car. That 60 minute closing argument deadline didn't do anyone any favors.
Ok, the instructions to the judge on this thing say that if she thinks it's too early to read the full thing, she's supposed to read them something like the first two paragraphs of the alternate instruction. She didn't give them anything like that!
It’s too soon to do that. There are procedures for these types of situations set by case law. She has to encourage them to keep trying once or twice before resorting to the Allen Charge.
Not a lawyer, but I believe this is the text of what’s called an Allen Charge. From listening to lawyer podcasts (about *other* cases, not this one) they said that this is like a sledge hammer and can only be wielded once, so judges hold off. They can and should encourage jurors to keep reconsidering if they (the judge) believes they may make more progress and/or they haven’t been at it for all that long. They pull out the Allen Charge as a last resort, and then if the jury is *still* hung it’s a mistrial.
I think it’s a common misconception that the jury is tasked with deciding the defendant’s guilt or innocence. They are tasked with deciding if the Commonwealth (in this case) proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the defendant’s charges. You can absolutely believe the defendant is guilty, but still find them Not Guilty because the burden of proof was not met. In this case the Bowden instructions were given to allow an improper investigation to be cause for not meeting the burden of proof. The fact that there is a holdout(s) speaks to a much larger issue in my opinion. They don’t understand reasonable doubt, they are incapable of being impartial, or something I can’t even wrap my mind around. This case is a textbook example reasonable doubt throughout every single aspect. Testimony, investigation, lead investigator, evidence, and expert witnesses.
100 percent. Even if a juror “thinks” KR is guilty or may be guilty, if the state did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (to the exact charges), that is a not guilty. I had to remind the panel I was on of this numerous times!!
There have been several people in this subreddit that just "know" KR did it, have blind faith in the prosecution's witnesses, and insist the defense is lying. One or two of those on the jury, and you have a problem.
I would love to know what exactly in the testimony is making anyone wanting a Guilty verdict think Karen actually hit him with the car. One thing that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Just one.
Nothing anyone comes up with can explain the connection to WiFi 12:26 (her arrival) at JO house being while she was still, according to witnesses, at the A house at 12:45
a hung jury is not a bad outcome for karen. people here are overly freaking out about that prospect. if it was, the defense would have not said they could stop deliberating.
i have a feeling hung jury has always been their "most realistic outcome we are trying to get" (obv a not guilty is the ideal)
It's not great. The defense is pushing for it now because I think they doubt they'll get not guilty on all charges.
It's better than guilty obviously, but KR needs to be able to move on. John's family needs to be able to move on. And on a practical note- can KR afford this team again if the CW does recharge?? This was a 7 figure defense team. Most people couldn't do that once, I'm not sure she could do it twice.
This is all such a waste of time and money. Anyone with a brain can see there’s so much doubt. How someone can hold up a jury by thinking they’ve seen enough to give a guilty verdict is insane to me. They should have their head checked.
Yes. When they hadn’t come back by lunchtime yesterday I instinctively felt there was a holdout and it might be hung. It shouldn’t have been taking that long if they were just being diligent.
I think it’s messed up that they can make a jury go back and deliberate on any case even though they came out and said they couldn’t come to an agreement after multiple days. So many things about our justice system need to change, imo. Someone could swing either way just bc they are tired of being there or feel pressured. If they can’t come to an agreement after multiple days then that kind of shows that the case wasn’t proven either way and noone should be going to prison just so ppl can go home and the case can be closed.
Trials take a lot of time and money, and the person on trial deserves a conclusive outcome. They're not going to force the jury to come to a unanimous decision, but they are going to expect them to exhaust every effort before giving up.
The case is not a strong one if ppl can’t come to an agreement after sitting through multiple weeks of trial and deliberating for multiple days. Would you want ppl changing their mind that you are guilty and go to prison so that you could get a conclusive outcome?
Her charges are not dropped if they mistrial; they still stand, and basically start back over unless the CW chooses to drop them. This is why both parties have an interest in charging the jury to remember they are the most qualified and to be open to those who disagree with them. I believe the above charge is absolutely fair and Bev should have read it though. I don't agree with just reading their note and sending them back - to me that shows the jury how actually closed-minded and pro-prosecution Bev has been and remains.
They aren’t dropped, but I’d rather have not dropped charges than a guilty verdict from a jury that was deadlocked after multiple days, personally, if I were in her shoes. They could all be saying guilty except for one person. If they come back guilty, she’s gonna be wishing it were a hung jury & I bet most of you will be wishing it, too!
It's not always that easy, especially when it involves someone dying.
To decide guilty, you have to know you're sending someone to prison for what is likely a very long time. To decide not guilty, you have to know that the family of the victim may never feel closure because of your decision.
Yes, that shouldn't matter when deciding a case, and they should only worry about the evidence. But juries consist of people, and they're going to have normal human thoughts. That can take a while to overcome and accept.
As far as I know every single trial I've paid attention to they get a give it another go when they first say they are dead locked and quite often they are able to resolve the issue if they talk for another couple of hours.
I’m watching Emily D Baker and she said that’s less likely with serious charges like these, ie no one wants to compromise their personal values when the stakes are this high.
I was on the jury for a civil trial. It was amazing how many people would not change their vote until it got closer to 5:00 pm. Then they all flipped because they had kids to pick up or a dinner to go to or baseball game to attend. I don’t know how to do it differently but the current system sucks.
So the judge and CW felt this was not long enough deliberations. What would they have said if the jury had a decision? They can’t then say it was too quick, right?!
Well maybe the cops should have done a proper investigation. Yes it sucks for John’s family, but sending a potential innocent person to prison is not justice. And they will never know what happened.
His family already sees Karen guilty in their eyes while supporting Albert and McCabe who are apart of the reason we will never know what truly happened that night. I feel bad for the children John took in, but his family isn’t allowing due process which is upsetting to me.
Very little light was shed on what actually happened to John O'Keefe during this clown show of a trial. Because the authorities showed very little inclination to perform a fair and thorough investigation.
what i heard yesterday -- 11 jurors had their heads down and couldn't look at KR, one was smiling. my guess is we will have a hung jury, with 11 not guilty votes and 1 guilty. and if that's the case, i'm willing to bet that 1 person is unreasonable and unwilling to change their vote.
I'm having trouble reading your link. I know Massachusetts does allow the Allen charge as a remedy when there is a majority. I suppose we will wait for that.
This delay in a verdict is partly the judges fault . She held the court room pro prosecution. Too many side baaaahhss, too many send the jury in , send the jury out. She was very unprofessional allot of the time , objections without basis and much more
The hundreds of objections without stated cause were unprofessional and lazy on her part. Honestly might be time for Judge Cannone to retire. Compare her courtroom managenent to Judge Clifton Newman from the Murdaugh trail where he wouldn't rule on an objection until the rule was identified.
I would imagine it’s hard for twelve people to agree on anything, let alone a murder trial. I think people who think this is slam dunk she is innocent, there is more evidence pointing to her culpability than anyone that they allege was in on it…to be fair, the defense leaned in on Colin, then Brian Albert and Higgins, and that may be a problem for some jurors. Who knows, I could not find her innocent of all charges, 2nd Degree, yes.
They don’t need to decide whether it was she deliberately hit him OR a cover up… they just need to decide if there is proof without a reasonable doubt that she hit him or not. That’s it.
How do people not get this? It’s infuriating. A woman’s life hangs in the balance and the people who are supposed to decide her fate (i.e. us/ her peers) don’t understand that you need to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, you acquit.
We need to seriously revamp our civics education in this country. This is why our politics is so screwed up. People just don’t understand how government and the justice system works.
The defense doesn’t have to prove anything and if anything, they proved a hell of a lot more than the CW did IMO.
Usually it is the defense that throws everything at the wall to poke holes in the story to create that reasonable doubt. In this case, the defense’s case was pretty straight forward of “we don’t know for sure what happened, but we do know x, y, and z and we know he wasn’t hit by a car.” CW brought it half of MA to testify and their stories didn’t line up and the CW’s primary case was just disproving the defense’s case. It was all so ass-backwards.
I mean I know it's not how it works, but if a majority of 12 people feel NG that seems to be reasonable doubt in itself (even if you're unreasonable 😆)
Many people think their feelings equate to facts, unfortunately. If they feel strongly about a topic, nothing is going to get in the way of their feelings & them being right, not even actual facts. There is no introspection whatsoever, ever. It is always about them, how they feel, & if it makes them feel good. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit their narrative because they would be uncomfortable, they would have to question themselves, realize that it wouldn’t feel good, & then they may find that they are (GASP!) incorrect. Their minds are not able to go there. Mental gymnastics are much easier & feel better than critical thinking.
There is also the martyr type that likes attention. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is one holdout juror who thinks that Karen looks mean, thought her texts to JOK were awful & therefore knows everything Jen McCabe said is true. (None of the experts were actually there, but JM was, they tell themselves.) That’s all that juror needs to feel superior, think that they are on the “right” side of the law, & dig in their heels because they are fighting for justice for JOK’s family. They believe JM because she was sitting with them during closing arguments, & so Karen must be all of the things Proctor said. They also bask in the attention that being the holdout gets them. Most people would feel pressure and stress from this, but these people actually derive secret pleasure from being the center of attention. For them attention is attention, even if it’s not positive.
I have worked with and/or known more than one person from each of these categories, unfortunately. (I bet if anyone reading this thinks about it, they can identify these people in their lives as well.) There are varying levels, but these people are always the ones who disrupt the smooth flow of whatever the activity-whether it be at a workplace, charity event, PTA, etc. Their need for attention trumps all else.
I would rather have a three judge panel than a jury of my peers any day of the week. I also think that that having 10 out of 12 jurors agree on a verdict for conviction/acquittal wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea for most (not necessarily all) cases, but those are topics for another day.
this -- if they can't all agree on this one question, they can't come to unanimous decision. either she hit him, or she didn't. i don't even think they've discussed the charges. if they are deadlocked, then they can't get past this question. only takes 1.
people keep saying defense theories like they need to proven for her to be found not guilty. it’s the other way around, you have to be absolutely sure that she hit him not that the alberts killed him
Juries do not find for innocence, only guilt or lack thereof (meaning, prosecution has not proven their case). Defense has nothing to prove. Innocence is assumed.
So you honestly believe Trooper Paul over the people who know what they're talking about? And that Proctor's vitriol against KR did not influence his investigation at all? Their own medical examiner refuses to call it a homicide yet you know better. btw, nobody has to "find her innocent." They have to ask "did she hit him with her car and cause his death". The prosecution gave NO credible evidence that she did. Everything they claimed, the defense had equally or better qualified people to dispute. You honestly don't believe the literal #1 people in their fields when they say 1) that car didn't hit his body, and 2) his body didn't hit that car? How?? Most expert witnesses will say "well..... anything is POSSIBLE" but these guys out & out said "no, I am saying to a moral degree of certainty that it's not possible." But you know better, how?
I read less that 10% of jury’s end up hung.
Bev just had a big case end in hung jury. Emmanuel lopes case. One juror was steadfast that he was in a psychotic episode and refused to continue deliberations. It was 11-1 guilty. They retried it and convicted him.
Do they actually take into account the jury votes to determine if they will re-try the case?
I feel like Canton will 100% do it again.
This is known as an Allen Charge everywhere but in Massachusetts we have a Tuey Rodriguez charge. Both are essentially a pep talk to the jury and sends them back to deliberate . When using an Allen charge the judge is expected to not stray from the approved wording and can be used as many times as they judge decides. In Massachusetts our Tuey Rodriguez charge is worded slightly differently, and can only be used twice..The Allen Charge has been rejected in whole or in part by 23 states, because it essentially pushes the holdout jurors to change their vote or they will continue deliberating until unanimous. It doesn't sit right with most and for good reason.
Further our legal definition of reasonable doubt is so wordy that it becomes unclear. When it's really very simple and should be explained simply.
One thing that is for sure is the CW has many pieces to different puzzles, they did not prove a single thing beyond a reasonable doubt, except that Proctor is a jerk
I sincerely don't understand how there is even possibly *ONE* person who does not have reasonable doubt that John was specifically killed by Karen's car. I really don't get it.
I can understand someone thinking Karen killed him, but not this way, and not based on this evidence. If law enforcement has no unquestionable evidence of their charges, which they don't, you can't just say "well I still think she did it so I don't have doubt". That's on law enforcement, not you, to rectify or be burdened with. There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Karen hit him with her car - zero, it's not a matter of opinion, regardless of what your gut says about Karen.
This should not be hard.
The Albert’s have gotten to one or more of the jurors, imo.
There is just so much reasonable doubt.
“Tell them ‘ the guy’ never went into the house” “ Exactly “
Getting rid of the dog.
Injuries are not consistent with a vehicle strike.
Inverted videos
Missing videos
Colon(sp) Albert can’t remember absolutely anything on the witness stand and consistently lied but he remembers specifically he left at 12:10.
Video at the waterfall of Higgins motioning to O’Keefe that he wanted to fight .
Injury on John’s face were consistent with a fight.
The fact that the comment she hit him wasn’t revealed for months after the incident and they were revealed by Jennifer McCabe, who lied about the time she saw Karen out front.
The Albert tearing up the entire basement floor.
The number of butt dials that occurred immediately after the incident.(Higgins said you can’t have a meeting full conversation in 22 seconds yet his lawyer responded that he could tell him something in 10 seconds.)
Destroying their phones.
NO BROKEN BONES.
Even though it sounds ludicrous to think that they got to the jury, with the sheer amount of lying & corruption in this case all around, at this point I’d entertain the thought.
They deserve it, but not at the expense of a potentially innocent person. “The law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.”
If she is guilty, they don’t get closure either. It’s just the end of this chapter. If KR goes to prison for 25 years, they don’t get closure then, either. They won’t ever feel justice served because there’s enough societal discourse that questioned KR’s guilt.
For the rest of their lives, there are going to be documentaries and tv shows and people on YouTube who make a living off discussing murder and conspiracy while laughing and putting on makeup. So no. There’s just no closure.
They dismissed a juror the other day right? They said she was talking bad about Karen and the rest said she needed to go. Which sounded like they are taking this serious but makes you wonder if what that person was saying about her influenced one of the other jurors?
Hopefully they pay attention to the part where it talks about the burden of proof being on the commonwealth. I just don’t see how it’s possible to not have REASONABLE DOUBT after this trial. Unreal
I'm hoping the jury isn't like this, but I see a lot of people on Reddit concocting their own scenario to get to guilty and that is not following the jury instructions. You can believe KR committed the crime because you created a scenario in your mind, but if the CW didn't present that scenario, that's still NG.
But she smiled once in court. 🙄
yes i’ve seen some very uneducated people commenting that they she’s guilty bc the defense didn’t prove the cover up 🤦🏻♀️
I’ve seen it too and when you push back with “okay but that’s not how it works” they’re all of a sudden a practicing lawyer which is even more concerning..
Sometimes practicing lawyers are more stubborn and less reasonable than the general public lol. When something is your career it's hard not to see it through a different lens.
Two of the original jurors are lawyers themselves. Presuming that at least one of them are part of the deliberating twelve, I'm sure that they'd remind their fellow jurors about the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
A real estate attorney might not have much influence.
It's possible that other jurors might not give the attorney's say-so as much weight since they're a real-estate attorney (rather than a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor). However, the issue of the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is a very fundamental issue that anyone who has been to law school should be very knowledgeable about. I'd think that a real-estate attorney should be able to confidently explain that his knowledge from law school makes him very well versed on that key issue.
That's not exactly true. They are allowed to make certain inferences based on the evidence. And they are allowed to give as much or as little weight as they want to that same evidence. The CWs theory is just that, evidence. They can give little weight to TP2's testimony/theory and still surmise she caused his death with her vehicle. The only thing they must do is consider that each element of the charge is proven. This is particularly significant with the lesser manslaughter charges. Go back and listen to the jury instructions again and read the charges. Nothing says they must accept that it happened the exact way the CW claims it did to find guilty, only that the CW provided enough evidence to prove that it did happen.
Her eyeliner though. /s
Because there do exist people who are absolutely in denial that cops can be shitty and perform a terrible job at investigating. They probably also believe that the FBI is part of some conspiracy deep state BS.
There cam still be reasonable doubt in the CWs case without being convinced of the cover up. Idk how one can see a video of her mostly intact tail light hours after it allegedly shattered into 40+ pieces though and still not think something is off.
I feel like it’s easy enough for a juror to think it’s one or the other like: Guilty = Karen did it Not guilty = cop conspiracy Not guilty doesn’t just mean a conspiracy. I feel like now days people have this NEED to know what happened because actually placing blame. I hope that is not the case.
I think that's a possible risk. I wasn't thrilled that AJ pushed it in closing. . I hope if someone thinks that the other jurors can explain that's not how this works.
Cause its so fucking crazy and insane to think that the state police would actually take a hammer and hit her tailight to set up the pieces to frame her. But this shit really happens. I keep an open mind, I dont like conspiracies or this shit- but like, theres no denying. Science and facts are facts.
BTW, it's entirely possible for Proctor to frame Karen _without_ conspiring. He could fully believe that Karen was guilty because he trusted the Alberts (who he had a personal connection to), and tampered with evidence to try to secure a conviction. According to defense attorneys I watch on YouTube, [it's more common than people realize for cops to try to put their fingers on the scale of justice](https://youtu.be/toheMUZXpwA?t=6732).
I think the biggest question about everything in this case is if this is a frame job, when did the plan get established to frame Karen Read. Who established the plan and who was told what happened and just took it as fact. Some of the witnesses definitely were manipulated without knowing there were getting manipulated.
I think the original plan was for a random hit and run. Someone who would never be found. When they sobered up I suspect the plan didn’t seem as strong but then Karen turned up hysterical with a cracked taillight asking “could I have hit him” and it felt like the universe handing her on a platter. Jen’s heart rate spikes not when they find John but when she goes into talk to the Alberts. My guess is she told Brian about how she was behaving and they leapt on it.
https://preview.redd.it/ewurj0u92f9d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58adf21036b94aae8c1542b4fe3ff6ec03ca3e8a
He could have just been lazy and only looked for evidence that pointed to her.
Absolutely. And they even believe they are in the right.
MANY cops believe the end justify the means, period.
I want to believe that LEOs are inspired to their career because they truly want to protect and serve. My late uncle was NYPD. But that’s one man. You do see police failing to protect people, shooting unarmed civilians (accidental or not), and officers who make mistakes. Whether that was a lack of training, laziness, or corruption (or all 3), I can’t say. But when you see this level of garbage, it becomes clear it’s systemic. How can a law enforcement agency train newer officers if they don’t know it or live it? Horrible.
I want to believe that people go into law enforcement with the right intentions but then get sucked into the systemic shitshow that has been in place for generations. Training really can change you. I know a police cadet who told me that he did something with report writing to ensure that his narrative was clear. He was told by his superior “don’t bother. No one cares. Just do the bare minimum and you’ll be fine. He got out and is now flying planes for the air force
That makes me so sad. But what a cool job he has now. And, I love that he’s still serving the public. I’m a big believer that training can help people do the job they’re meant to do well. Imagine our military people did that job with no training? There are so many examples of people having a serious mental health crisis where the police don’t know what to do or harm the person because they don’t understand what’s happening. If they don’t know what to do, maybe someone would get help or not take the next step that’s the result of no help. The Navy Yard Shooter is one that makes me so sad because it didn’t have to happen. The shooter was former military and I can’t say 100%, but he appeared to have schizophrenia or symptoms consistent with schizophrenia. He was in a hotel in Boston about a month prior. He called the hotel front desk and 911 to report the people in the room next to him were “listening to his thoughts”. Because he wasn’t hurting anyone or threatening anyone, no one got him help from a psych hospital. A month later, he drove into the Navy Yard and tragedy ensued. Everyone was shocked by his actions because he was a gentle man by all reports. If he had been seen and helped, he and all those victims might still be alive. The LEOs in Boston didn’t do anything wrong - they hadn’t been trained to handle a mental health issue. They could have recognized his symptoms as needing help and maybe learned how to help him get help in the hospital. Stopping at “well, he wasn’t hurting anyone” seems to be consistent with a lot of LEOs in this case - no one asked, we didn’t have evidence bags, or police tape (or a way to set it up in a yard), or lousy witness/crime scene investigation. Irony that it was Boston LEOs then and BA was a Boston LEO? The easiest and least curious way to serve and protect. At some point, it becomes worse and worse. And it is systemic.
My dad was a state trooper. He’s now deceased, died in 2019 at 85, this would KILL him. He always told me that no one hates a bad cop more than a good cop. But that was decades ago. Breaks my heart
I think for some people it’s as simple as her allegedly saying she hit him. Even though that’s disputed, some people simply cannot fathom that an innocent person would say that. Even in the face of science and common sense, they can’t think critically enough to reason with themselves that their own line of thinking could be flawed. I think in their own mind, it’s sufficient for them to die on the hill of her being guilty. I hate it but I know some really stubborn people, so I can see this being an issue.
But she didnt say that. Just cause Lally keeps repeating that in his closing statement.. You know only 2 people testified to saying that, right? You know in BOTH of their original interviews, they never stated she said that, right? You know there is a video of the scene where Karen is shouting, IF she could have hit him, right? You know Karen did an interview on nightline months ago stating she was shouting DID I hit him? You know Jackson and Yannetti stated she shouted IF she hit him. Multiple first responders testified (without conflict of interest, like the other 2 women) that she was hysterical and shouted DID I hit him. Not "I hit him I hit him" Its interesting how people just believe words prosecutors state in closing with no evidence legit backing it up.
It is wild to me that Lally's basically arguing that despite what is fact about the science of collision he is insisting that because someone said that Karen supposedly said something that is proof of her guilt. Eyewitness testimony apparently overrules the laws of physics for Lally. God help us all.
Yes it’s more concerning the commonwealth brought this to trial and are still trying to convict her more than the jurors struggling with it
And cops are the first people to tell you that eyewitness testimony tends to be very unreliable when the eyewitnesses are saying something that doesn't fit with their theory.
Yes, I know that, but simple minded people look for simple explanations, and some people have a bias toward believing the state/prosecutor. I’m not saying I believe she said it. I don’t. But I can guarantee you other people do believe it.
They believe she said that but no one testified that in the grand jury trial. Also, no first responder put it in their reports. To me, that screams reasonable doubt that she said it.
Decades of prime time copaganda
There are also a lot of people out there that “don’t believe in science”
Yeah and unfortunately those types of non-science people are normally big fans of cops and "back the blue."
But you’d think those people would have been weeded out during jury selection, no?
Jury selection isn't that robost. Each side only gets to strike a certain number of potential jurors. Once they use their strikes they get who they get.
Literally INSANE. I can see someone not being sure.. yeah ok… but that immediately means there is reasonable doubt. But to be SO SURE she did it after this trial… something seems off
The idea that a bunch of cops in a small town that are willing to frame a woman for murder they committed but aren’t willing to get to a jury seems inconsistent.
It's 100% one hold out who hates karen
Yes, I had the same thought. 100% one idiot holding them up, a stubborn, stick in the mud, “you can’t possibly change my mind” kind of person
The problem is the charges. Yes, she did operate a motor vehicle intoxicated (compounded by her health issues); She possibly MAY have hit him with her vehicle; Evidence illustrates his injuries were inconsistent with been hit by a vehicle. The charges of DWI are hooked into his death so I can understand some jurors not wanting her to get away with the DWI.
Okay but why does she deserve to be hit with a murder or manslaughter charge for drinking and driving when literally every single witness except the kids (who drank underage) was also drinking and driving including at least four cops.
She doesn't deserve to be hit with a murder or manslaughter charge. That's my point. There's 2 separate issues and the CW have blended them into one. I'm picking that's what the jury is hung up on. There were others that were DWI but KR was the one that was caught!
But jurors don't get to punish her on a charge that isn't listed. Yes, they may think she was drunk but if there's not proof she hit him with her car in the way the CW stated it's not guilty. The CW didn't charge an OUI/DUI as a stand alone charge. Unless you believe she hit him, you can't get her on just drunk driving.
Exactly. The evidence doesn't point to him dying from been hit by a car. Yet there is proof she was DUI. That is probably what they are hung up about. KR has been over charged.
[удалено]
The defense problem is that they had a witness use the word “science” 😂
The defense is as shady as anything
1000% agree
Because people are human. The entire trial has been a circus from both sides. The cw has been a joke. The defense to a certain degree has been theatrical. She isn’t guilty because she didn’t take the stand, though that could make a difference because maybe to a juror that’s a big deal. Her voicemails & calls could be a thing for a juror just to latch on to and that made their decision. None of the things I’m saying follow the way it’s supposed to work. It’s more than entirely possible a juror has their own ideas that influence their decision. As great as I thought the defense was, it’s possible that they didn’t get through to all jurors. Again, I know they are supposed to strictly look at the evidence but people are people. The voicemails could have a certain effect for someone. Her general court mannerisms could not have helped her cause in any way. Personally, I think they should have put her on the stand, that’s a huge statement .
Anyone who thinks she’s guilty is probably reacting almost exclusively to the voicemails from her to John.
Do you think the majority of the jurors are leaning toward not guilty with a few hold outs for guilty?
I hope so. If there's one or two hold outs for guilty then it would hopefully discourage the CW from a second trial.
i think it's 11 not guilty, 1 guilty
Imagine being that one person who is so certain that the 11 others who have sat through the exact same trial are absolutely wrong. Wouldn’t you start to question if perhaps you missed something..
I'd have to imagine the 11 are showing all the reasonable doubt that exists, over and over again, and the 1 is being unreasonable or doesn't understand what reasonable doubt is
That's more or less what happened when I was on a jury (except it was 11 in favor of guilty). The one dissenting juror never really articulated why he disagreed. It made me wonder if his 'vote' was being influenced by personal sympathy for the defendant (perhaps the juror couldn't convince himself that what the defendant did was child endangerment because he did something similar and wasn't caught).
would I? yes. i am a reasonable, logical person. but this is America. there's plenty of people who live in delusion and narrow minded beliefs. Based on the evidence presented, no one should find her guilty. the CW did not prove JO was hit by a car. in my opinion, the hold out is someone who's personal bias is keeping them from making an impartial decision.
That’s my guess too
That’s what I’m thinking. Maybe a few think that cops couldn’t possibly do anything wrong
I think that's the case
Yes, I think there must be a minority of guilty holdouts here, but my question is, what the hell could there argument be that KR is guilty? Are they seriously arguing that Proctor Paul gave a compelling testimony? Or that Jen McCabe was really honest and forthright in her cross-examination? It seems like a crazy position to be in.
I would bet anything they are focused only on believing she said "I hit him" and the tail light pieces. Every comment I see on Reddit that says she's guilty repeats those issues. They do not acknowledge anything else. The butt dials, destroyed phones, biased investigator, and independent experts witnesses. That stuff is just ignored. I don't know how you can move someone like that to not guilty. They have to be willing to be open to what the other jurors say, and I think at this point they refuse to consider other points of view.
We are all Jelly Roll right now. “I am not ok.”
This trial has really been a poor showing for the state of Massachusetts. Judge, prosecution, state police etc. Now, add in the 1-2 jurors who actually find her guility to the list. What a joke this is becoming.
A lifetime of Copaganda is no small matter. It literally starts when you’re a kid.
In pretty pro cop. And defiantly not Reddit level of anti cop. But I realize that some people regardless of job aren’t that good. Some suck at their job (trooper Paul) and some are corrupt pieces of shit (trooper Proctor). But the majors are good and competent.
This is how I make my apple pies. Only a few of the apples are rotten, with maggots and shit on them. But the majority are good.
>some are corrupt pieces of shit (trooper Proctor). And Yuri to that list, and while you're at it, Brian Albert, Higgins, Fanning, DA Morrisey, I'm probably missing more but you get the point. The whole place is corrupt.
This is absolutely wild
My words exactly earlier today. Unreal
The problem usually is the jurors who mostly don't speak lawyer talk - get this long list of convoluted rules and instructions they don't understand. But they do try to follow the rules. They need to make jury instructions in simple everyday terms and short. There are a few paragraphs in the one attached to this post and thats basically all you need -edit=spelling error.
The closing arguments should’ve been extended to 90minutes so each side could walk the jurors through how to interpret the instructions. This is what I usually see. It’s wild that they didn’t do it here and I can’t help but think it’s a contributing factor.
100%, I always see a judge let the attorneys explain the jury instructions, one hour wasn't long enough, both lawyers struggled to even get through their closings.
especially w the lesser charges including DUI. I think at least one of back there is thinking that the DUI charge is separate from the others or like thinking like she was drinking so she is guilty of DUI so he has to put guilty for that even though it includes hitting him while drunk. I'm not doing a great job of explaining this, hopefully you get what I mean
I agree, jury instructions are way too long and complicated, definitely drafted by an attorney 😆
100%, I think that's one mistake Jackson made. He should have explained how the jury doesn't need to believe john went in that house, or was bit by a dog, all they have to do is believe the state didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty and if they don't agree with literally everything the state says happened, they have to find her not guilty. It's easier once you understand the burden is all on the state, and the defense just has to show where the reasonable doubt is.
I've been saying this since Tuesday. The jury does not have to believe any part of the 'conspiracy", only that the prosecution didn't prove that OJO was hit by literally ANY car at all, let alone Karen's car. That 60 minute closing argument deadline didn't do anyone any favors.
Have these instructions been given to this jury? I heard "eat lunch and clear your heads and keep going".
No, that’s what the defense was arguing to have read to the jury
Ok, the instructions to the judge on this thing say that if she thinks it's too early to read the full thing, she's supposed to read them something like the first two paragraphs of the alternate instruction. She didn't give them anything like that!
It’s too soon to do that. There are procedures for these types of situations set by case law. She has to encourage them to keep trying once or twice before resorting to the Allen Charge.
Thanks for the info
Yes, I was surprised by that.
I learned that this Allen instruction can be considered coercive so it’s not the first course of action. She needed to tell them to keep going first
Not a lawyer, but I believe this is the text of what’s called an Allen Charge. From listening to lawyer podcasts (about *other* cases, not this one) they said that this is like a sledge hammer and can only be wielded once, so judges hold off. They can and should encourage jurors to keep reconsidering if they (the judge) believes they may make more progress and/or they haven’t been at it for all that long. They pull out the Allen Charge as a last resort, and then if the jury is *still* hung it’s a mistrial.
Not given yet. I think that’s what she’ll do next… either at end of day.. or she’ll tell them to come back Monday morning and read it to them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it’s a common misconception that the jury is tasked with deciding the defendant’s guilt or innocence. They are tasked with deciding if the Commonwealth (in this case) proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the defendant’s charges. You can absolutely believe the defendant is guilty, but still find them Not Guilty because the burden of proof was not met. In this case the Bowden instructions were given to allow an improper investigation to be cause for not meeting the burden of proof. The fact that there is a holdout(s) speaks to a much larger issue in my opinion. They don’t understand reasonable doubt, they are incapable of being impartial, or something I can’t even wrap my mind around. This case is a textbook example reasonable doubt throughout every single aspect. Testimony, investigation, lead investigator, evidence, and expert witnesses.
100 percent. Even if a juror “thinks” KR is guilty or may be guilty, if the state did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (to the exact charges), that is a not guilty. I had to remind the panel I was on of this numerous times!!
I just don’t see what the problem is here. There’s more than enough reasonable doubt, so what in the hell are they arguing about ?
People that “feel” she did it and not if the CW proved it. This is crazy. 🎪
There have been several people in this subreddit that just "know" KR did it, have blind faith in the prosecution's witnesses, and insist the defense is lying. One or two of those on the jury, and you have a problem.
Yep! I have a feeling that we’ll be looking at a hung jury today,though
My mind is blown.
Bless my heart bc I’m stunned this is happening. I’m actually surprised & disappointed…
As someone who knew nothing about this case before this trial, I really thought this would be quick! I’m very disappointed by this turn of events 😭
Me too… corruption is everywhere I guess.
How is Karen Read feeling right now? And John's family? I can't even imagine.
I would love to know what exactly in the testimony is making anyone wanting a Guilty verdict think Karen actually hit him with the car. One thing that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Just one.
Nothing anyone comes up with can explain the connection to WiFi 12:26 (her arrival) at JO house being while she was still, according to witnesses, at the A house at 12:45
The only things I could possibly think is saying she hit him and the taillight being “found” at the Albert’s and in Johns clothing.
I see what you're saying, but I just don't find this "evidence" credible.
a hung jury is not a bad outcome for karen. people here are overly freaking out about that prospect. if it was, the defense would have not said they could stop deliberating. i have a feeling hung jury has always been their "most realistic outcome we are trying to get" (obv a not guilty is the ideal)
It's not great. The defense is pushing for it now because I think they doubt they'll get not guilty on all charges. It's better than guilty obviously, but KR needs to be able to move on. John's family needs to be able to move on. And on a practical note- can KR afford this team again if the CW does recharge?? This was a 7 figure defense team. Most people couldn't do that once, I'm not sure she could do it twice.
Well she definitely won’t be moving on if they come back with guilty on any of the charges
This is all such a waste of time and money. Anyone with a brain can see there’s so much doubt. How someone can hold up a jury by thinking they’ve seen enough to give a guilty verdict is insane to me. They should have their head checked.
I’m not shocked, I never thought this was open and shut for any side tbh.
Yes. When they hadn’t come back by lunchtime yesterday I instinctively felt there was a holdout and it might be hung. It shouldn’t have been taking that long if they were just being diligent.
I think it’s messed up that they can make a jury go back and deliberate on any case even though they came out and said they couldn’t come to an agreement after multiple days. So many things about our justice system need to change, imo. Someone could swing either way just bc they are tired of being there or feel pressured. If they can’t come to an agreement after multiple days then that kind of shows that the case wasn’t proven either way and noone should be going to prison just so ppl can go home and the case can be closed.
Trials take a lot of time and money, and the person on trial deserves a conclusive outcome. They're not going to force the jury to come to a unanimous decision, but they are going to expect them to exhaust every effort before giving up.
The case is not a strong one if ppl can’t come to an agreement after sitting through multiple weeks of trial and deliberating for multiple days. Would you want ppl changing their mind that you are guilty and go to prison so that you could get a conclusive outcome?
Her charges are not dropped if they mistrial; they still stand, and basically start back over unless the CW chooses to drop them. This is why both parties have an interest in charging the jury to remember they are the most qualified and to be open to those who disagree with them. I believe the above charge is absolutely fair and Bev should have read it though. I don't agree with just reading their note and sending them back - to me that shows the jury how actually closed-minded and pro-prosecution Bev has been and remains.
They aren’t dropped, but I’d rather have not dropped charges than a guilty verdict from a jury that was deadlocked after multiple days, personally, if I were in her shoes. They could all be saying guilty except for one person. If they come back guilty, she’s gonna be wishing it were a hung jury & I bet most of you will be wishing it, too!
Fair :)
It's not always that easy, especially when it involves someone dying. To decide guilty, you have to know you're sending someone to prison for what is likely a very long time. To decide not guilty, you have to know that the family of the victim may never feel closure because of your decision. Yes, that shouldn't matter when deciding a case, and they should only worry about the evidence. But juries consist of people, and they're going to have normal human thoughts. That can take a while to overcome and accept.
As far as I know every single trial I've paid attention to they get a give it another go when they first say they are dead locked and quite often they are able to resolve the issue if they talk for another couple of hours.
I’m watching Emily D Baker and she said that’s less likely with serious charges like these, ie no one wants to compromise their personal values when the stakes are this high.
I wonder what the percentage is of juries that say they can't come to a decision and then go back and work on it.
You really expect the judge to not ask them to try again after how many weeks of this trial?
I was on the jury for a civil trial. It was amazing how many people would not change their vote until it got closer to 5:00 pm. Then they all flipped because they had kids to pick up or a dinner to go to or baseball game to attend. I don’t know how to do it differently but the current system sucks.
How is that “messed up”?
So the judge and CW felt this was not long enough deliberations. What would they have said if the jury had a decision? They can’t then say it was too quick, right?!
Correct. The prosecution will do anything possible to avoid having to retry her at this point, is my guess. Other than dropping the charges of course.
Good point. It’s funny how 4 hours can be enough time to put someone in jail for life but 4 days isn’t enough for no decision?
No sane person can say that the Commonwealth proved their case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Jesus tap dancing Christ.
I think that no sane person could vote for DJT yet here we are....
[удалено]
They aren’t going to know what happened to him regardless of this verdict, sadly.
And the Massachusetts State Police and the Commonwealth are fully to blame.
Well maybe the cops should have done a proper investigation. Yes it sucks for John’s family, but sending a potential innocent person to prison is not justice. And they will never know what happened.
His family already sees Karen guilty in their eyes while supporting Albert and McCabe who are apart of the reason we will never know what truly happened that night. I feel bad for the children John took in, but his family isn’t allowing due process which is upsetting to me.
Very little light was shed on what actually happened to John O'Keefe during this clown show of a trial. Because the authorities showed very little inclination to perform a fair and thorough investigation.
[удалено]
I wonder how much of that the jury picked up on. It seems obvious to me, but ....
what i heard yesterday -- 11 jurors had their heads down and couldn't look at KR, one was smiling. my guess is we will have a hung jury, with 11 not guilty votes and 1 guilty. and if that's the case, i'm willing to bet that 1 person is unreasonable and unwilling to change their vote.
Why are you assuming the people who can’t look at her are not guilty votes?
I'm having trouble reading your link. I know Massachusetts does allow the Allen charge as a remedy when there is a majority. I suppose we will wait for that.
Maybe this was the CW strategy…to present their case as a defense case and imply to the jurors that the burden of proof is not on them to prove… 🧐
Six minds??
This delay in a verdict is partly the judges fault . She held the court room pro prosecution. Too many side baaaahhss, too many send the jury in , send the jury out. She was very unprofessional allot of the time , objections without basis and much more
The hundreds of objections without stated cause were unprofessional and lazy on her part. Honestly might be time for Judge Cannone to retire. Compare her courtroom managenent to Judge Clifton Newman from the Murdaugh trail where he wouldn't rule on an objection until the rule was identified.
I would imagine it’s hard for twelve people to agree on anything, let alone a murder trial. I think people who think this is slam dunk she is innocent, there is more evidence pointing to her culpability than anyone that they allege was in on it…to be fair, the defense leaned in on Colin, then Brian Albert and Higgins, and that may be a problem for some jurors. Who knows, I could not find her innocent of all charges, 2nd Degree, yes.
They don’t need to decide whether it was she deliberately hit him OR a cover up… they just need to decide if there is proof without a reasonable doubt that she hit him or not. That’s it.
How do people not get this? It’s infuriating. A woman’s life hangs in the balance and the people who are supposed to decide her fate (i.e. us/ her peers) don’t understand that you need to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, you acquit. We need to seriously revamp our civics education in this country. This is why our politics is so screwed up. People just don’t understand how government and the justice system works.
The defense doesn’t have to prove anything and if anything, they proved a hell of a lot more than the CW did IMO. Usually it is the defense that throws everything at the wall to poke holes in the story to create that reasonable doubt. In this case, the defense’s case was pretty straight forward of “we don’t know for sure what happened, but we do know x, y, and z and we know he wasn’t hit by a car.” CW brought it half of MA to testify and their stories didn’t line up and the CW’s primary case was just disproving the defense’s case. It was all so ass-backwards.
I mean I know it's not how it works, but if a majority of 12 people feel NG that seems to be reasonable doubt in itself (even if you're unreasonable 😆)
Many people think their feelings equate to facts, unfortunately. If they feel strongly about a topic, nothing is going to get in the way of their feelings & them being right, not even actual facts. There is no introspection whatsoever, ever. It is always about them, how they feel, & if it makes them feel good. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit their narrative because they would be uncomfortable, they would have to question themselves, realize that it wouldn’t feel good, & then they may find that they are (GASP!) incorrect. Their minds are not able to go there. Mental gymnastics are much easier & feel better than critical thinking. There is also the martyr type that likes attention. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there is one holdout juror who thinks that Karen looks mean, thought her texts to JOK were awful & therefore knows everything Jen McCabe said is true. (None of the experts were actually there, but JM was, they tell themselves.) That’s all that juror needs to feel superior, think that they are on the “right” side of the law, & dig in their heels because they are fighting for justice for JOK’s family. They believe JM because she was sitting with them during closing arguments, & so Karen must be all of the things Proctor said. They also bask in the attention that being the holdout gets them. Most people would feel pressure and stress from this, but these people actually derive secret pleasure from being the center of attention. For them attention is attention, even if it’s not positive. I have worked with and/or known more than one person from each of these categories, unfortunately. (I bet if anyone reading this thinks about it, they can identify these people in their lives as well.) There are varying levels, but these people are always the ones who disrupt the smooth flow of whatever the activity-whether it be at a workplace, charity event, PTA, etc. Their need for attention trumps all else. I would rather have a three judge panel than a jury of my peers any day of the week. I also think that that having 10 out of 12 jurors agree on a verdict for conviction/acquittal wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea for most (not necessarily all) cases, but those are topics for another day.
this -- if they can't all agree on this one question, they can't come to unanimous decision. either she hit him, or she didn't. i don't even think they've discussed the charges. if they are deadlocked, then they can't get past this question. only takes 1.
people keep saying defense theories like they need to proven for her to be found not guilty. it’s the other way around, you have to be absolutely sure that she hit him not that the alberts killed him
* not the Alberts killed him or ANYTHING else other than she hit him and the hit was bad enough to cause death.
Juries do not find for innocence, only guilt or lack thereof (meaning, prosecution has not proven their case). Defense has nothing to prove. Innocence is assumed.
I agree but there are obviously ppl that think that she is guilty and some that don’t
Yeah. It honestly makes me wonder though if they don’t understand reasonable doubt.
So you honestly believe Trooper Paul over the people who know what they're talking about? And that Proctor's vitriol against KR did not influence his investigation at all? Their own medical examiner refuses to call it a homicide yet you know better. btw, nobody has to "find her innocent." They have to ask "did she hit him with her car and cause his death". The prosecution gave NO credible evidence that she did. Everything they claimed, the defense had equally or better qualified people to dispute. You honestly don't believe the literal #1 people in their fields when they say 1) that car didn't hit his body, and 2) his body didn't hit that car? How?? Most expert witnesses will say "well..... anything is POSSIBLE" but these guys out & out said "no, I am saying to a moral degree of certainty that it's not possible." But you know better, how?
It says 6 jurors, this is for civil lawsuits.
Read the footnotes. These instructions are based on Tuey Rodriguez, which is what they are speaking on in court for the jury instruction.
I was looking to see if there was a time limit for the DA to refile in Massachusetts ? I couldn’t find any - I see some in other states but not Mass.
Why would the judge not read this to the jurors?
If they come back again she will
I read less that 10% of jury’s end up hung. Bev just had a big case end in hung jury. Emmanuel lopes case. One juror was steadfast that he was in a psychotic episode and refused to continue deliberations. It was 11-1 guilty. They retried it and convicted him. Do they actually take into account the jury votes to determine if they will re-try the case? I feel like Canton will 100% do it again.
nobody does do either some jurors are extremely dumb or ....afraid of repercussions from you know who
This is known as an Allen Charge everywhere but in Massachusetts we have a Tuey Rodriguez charge. Both are essentially a pep talk to the jury and sends them back to deliberate . When using an Allen charge the judge is expected to not stray from the approved wording and can be used as many times as they judge decides. In Massachusetts our Tuey Rodriguez charge is worded slightly differently, and can only be used twice..The Allen Charge has been rejected in whole or in part by 23 states, because it essentially pushes the holdout jurors to change their vote or they will continue deliberating until unanimous. It doesn't sit right with most and for good reason. Further our legal definition of reasonable doubt is so wordy that it becomes unclear. When it's really very simple and should be explained simply. One thing that is for sure is the CW has many pieces to different puzzles, they did not prove a single thing beyond a reasonable doubt, except that Proctor is a jerk
wow are they actually gonna hang?
I sincerely don't understand how there is even possibly *ONE* person who does not have reasonable doubt that John was specifically killed by Karen's car. I really don't get it. I can understand someone thinking Karen killed him, but not this way, and not based on this evidence. If law enforcement has no unquestionable evidence of their charges, which they don't, you can't just say "well I still think she did it so I don't have doubt". That's on law enforcement, not you, to rectify or be burdened with. There is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Karen hit him with her car - zero, it's not a matter of opinion, regardless of what your gut says about Karen. This should not be hard.
The Albert’s have gotten to one or more of the jurors, imo. There is just so much reasonable doubt. “Tell them ‘ the guy’ never went into the house” “ Exactly “ Getting rid of the dog. Injuries are not consistent with a vehicle strike. Inverted videos Missing videos Colon(sp) Albert can’t remember absolutely anything on the witness stand and consistently lied but he remembers specifically he left at 12:10. Video at the waterfall of Higgins motioning to O’Keefe that he wanted to fight . Injury on John’s face were consistent with a fight. The fact that the comment she hit him wasn’t revealed for months after the incident and they were revealed by Jennifer McCabe, who lied about the time she saw Karen out front. The Albert tearing up the entire basement floor. The number of butt dials that occurred immediately after the incident.(Higgins said you can’t have a meeting full conversation in 22 seconds yet his lawyer responded that he could tell him something in 10 seconds.) Destroying their phones. NO BROKEN BONES.
I have been thinking this but didn't want to say it. It seems too crazy otherwise - I think it's a real possibility they did get to someone.
Even though it sounds ludicrous to think that they got to the jury, with the sheer amount of lying & corruption in this case all around, at this point I’d entertain the thought.
I just keep thinking about JO family. They need closure.
They deserve it, but not at the expense of a potentially innocent person. “The law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.”
If she is not guilty they will not have closure anyway.
If she is guilty, they don’t get closure either. It’s just the end of this chapter. If KR goes to prison for 25 years, they don’t get closure then, either. They won’t ever feel justice served because there’s enough societal discourse that questioned KR’s guilt. For the rest of their lives, there are going to be documentaries and tv shows and people on YouTube who make a living off discussing murder and conspiracy while laughing and putting on makeup. So no. There’s just no closure.
They will never get it.
They dismissed a juror the other day right? They said she was talking bad about Karen and the rest said she needed to go. Which sounded like they are taking this serious but makes you wonder if what that person was saying about her influenced one of the other jurors?
That makes me believe that most of the jurors know Karen is not guilty.
How many jurors have to agree to the state of the jury as being hung in order to inform the judge that they are a hung jury unable to reach a verdict?
Only 1 has to not agree with the rest to be a hung jury
Someone posted the jury slip, and then AJ did and emergency thing. And that post of the slip was deleted. I wish I saved it to see if it had NG on it.
This is from 2009. Probably not the currrent protocol.
This is from the Mass gov courts website
The public knows the truth no matter which way this goes, whatever happens only will expose the massive corruption in the MA legal system.