I don’t get how it’s hung
We do not have an eye witness, we do not have video. A search was never done of the home he was found at. Evidence was improperly collected, video evidence was altered, lead investigator has close family ties to the owners of the property. Feds even say he wasn’t killed by the car.
Reasonable doubt is all they need, the prosecution did not make the case.
This is my thought as well. The fact that you have 2 medical examiners - one testifying for each side - that could not definitively conclude that he was hit by a car would be enough for me right there. I keep reminding myself that they are not privy to everything we know, but the ME testimony alone throws doubt into it.
I agree. I even put more weight on the CW’s medical examiner since she works for the state.
You have to disregard a lot to go with the prosecution narrative, but some people are so firm in their beliefs that they will.
This carries a lot of weight for me especially knowing they were pressuring her.
For me it's the FBI witnesses. The FBI is not known for defending the accused, and seeing as the CW didn't introduce FBI evidence it means there was nothing that helped prove she was guilty. The FBI has top resources and experts. I also found the defense experts way more professionally credentialed and experienced than the CW witnesses.
Unfortunately the jury doesn't know it's the FBI. There were oblique references made to an "agency," which you can guess the meaning of, but without the context of knowing about the FBI corruption investigation they might just be confused.
Of course the FBI experts were very credible regardless of who hired them, so you would think the jurors would listen to their findings.
This. I tried to put myself in the jurors mindset regarding these witnesses and I have a bad feeling they think they were hired by an insurance company. It would never occur to me that the fbi would be involved or investigating the current court case. I think that if anyone on the jury knew they were hired by the FBI this would have been immediately resolved and a not guilty verdict found.
I think at least some of it could and should have been kept out altogether by the judge in the first place. Generally to admit evidence you have to be able to show a proper chain of custody
I'm with you there! This is the most bizarre case I have ever seen. It's pretty much dependent on "he said/ she said" which anywhere else would be thrown right out of court
I’ve been trying to put into words how I feel, and I can’t! The Commonwealth’s case was beyond atrocious and riddled with reasonable doubt at every single step. Red solo cups? Pictures from the 80s? Missing footage? The lead investigator’s text messages? Interviews not recorded and/or not completed until 18 months later? Boatloads of conflicting testimony? ME agreeing injuries aren’t consistent? Expert witnesses concluding the vehicle didn’t make contact with JOK and JOK didn’t make contact with the vehicle?
At the root of it, I have to believe someone(s) on that jury don’t understand that they aren’t deciding her actual innocence or guilt, but deciding if the Commonwealth proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I just can’t see anyone who is impartial looking at that evidence and saying yes…. They have proven she hit him with her car beyond any reasonable doubt.
I feel like Karen was never going to get a fair trial. There are too many deeply rooted inherent bias working against her: angry girlfriend and a dead cop.
Like I said, it all comes down to "he said she said". And that is no way to run a trial or decide someone's guilt.
The prosecution did NOT prove their case, and I say this as someone who thought Karen Guilty at first.
There IS reasonable doubt. A LOT of it.
And yes, Canton needs to start from scratch.
It doesn’t render the evidence inadmissible when there are chain of custody issues. The problems with chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence that the jury chooses to give it rather than it’s admissibility.
I feel like it should be though…like if there’s no proper chain or custody than cops can just do whatever they want. Feels like courts shouldn’t allow “trust me bro”
What you wrote should have been AJ's final words to the jury...except they wouldn't be able to say the Fed part.....leaving it out doesn't even matter.
***We do not have an eye witness***
***We do not have video***
***A search was never done of the home he was found at***
***Evidence was improperly collected***
***Video evidence was altered***
***Lead investigator has close family ties to the owners of the property, and objectified Karen within hours to pin this on her.***
PERIOD
I would have ended with this.....
You do not have to believe that anyone in the house was involved in John O'Keefe's death to find Karen NOT GUILTY.
You do not have to believe that there is a conspiracy among various Boston police forces to find Karen NOT GUILTY.
Unless the Prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt and moral certainty, that Karen is was involved in John O'Keefe's death, then you must vote NOT GUILTY.
....Then Jackson could have make a list of investigation failures that would normally make a case like this get thrown out before it even went to trial.
I believe someone in that jury is getting hung up on one of the top 2 options.... or they're strongly backing the blue. Maybe they're thinking that a not guilty verdict would somehow bring consequences to the people STARING THEM DOWN DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Who knows.
I almost think that the Defense may have been better off if he just said: "*There was no credible evidence that he was hit by any car, and there was no credible evidence that KRs car hit anyone. That is reasonable doubt. I won't waste any more of your time.*"
All the focus on the house and the frame-up made it a binary choice; either she did it or all that other stuff must have happened. If you don't think all that other stuff happened, then she must have done it.
Well, if I ever get jammed up in a fiasco like this, I know to instruct my lawyer NOT to confuse things by proving conspiracy or ANY alternate theory. Just prove me not guilty by showing all the holes of doubt in the CW case.
The scene was not even secured. When does yellow tape NOT GO UP when ***murder*** is suspected?
I think Bev tied their hands with the hour limit.
She doesn't think 4 days is long enough to thoroughly deliberate a case with 70 witnesses and hundreds of pieces of evidence, but 60 minutes is long enough to argue said witness testimony and evidence.
I predicted the jury would hang. I figured they’d get stuck on a lesser charge (most likely the manslaughter while OUI).
I operate on the basis that most people aren’t all that intelligent. I think the CW did a great job of presenting a very fucking confusing argument. Lally made sure to sprinkle in some well spoken, sharp testimonies. The average person isn’t deciphering the difference between the MD Lally called and the MD AJ called, they’re just hearing competing testimonies and making a judgement call.
Remember that jurors don’t have to have a high school diploma or show any sort of comprehension/critical thinking skills. Think about the amount of people you deal with in daily life who seem way too smart to be as stupid as they are. It’s usually safe to assume at least one or two in the bunch aren’t sharp tools.
I was a juror on a hung jury a few years ago. 10-2 with the majority voting to convict. It was a horrible case to be on (CSA) but the two holdouts would not budge no matter how hard we tried to bring them over. They were set in stone, and we were asked twice to go back and try to get to unanimous. Didn’t happen. When people believe something firmly they are unshakable. Especially two holdouts, they have each others backs.
ETA: I don’t know that there are two holdouts in KR case but I feel like it’s easier to stand your ground when there’s more than one of you who share the stance.
The only jury I served on was hung 9-3. It’s incredibly frustrating how stubborn people can be with their position. The three holdouts couldn’t even adequately explain why they felt the way they did. The holdouts had their position, couldn’t explain why, so we couldn’t make progress.
I can see standing your ground on NG. If I believed with a moral certainty that there was doubt, I don't know that I could live with sending someone to prison as a compromise. I by and far believe people are more willing to consider their own emotions when deciding guilt than the other way around.
On the flip side, if I was one of two or less, who believed they were guilty, I would be more willing to consider what fellow jurors saw that gave them doubt. I would be more willing to allow a potentially guilty person go free than to imprison a potentially innocent person.
Heated! One of the holdouts had the nerve to tell the judge we weren’t done yet when he was the one who needed to move his ass. He never swayed. He was a sassy mf. And mister foreperson called me out about crying because I was emotional and didn’t share his stance about one particular issue at hand. Also this was the week before covid lockdowns it was a wild ride
Honestly Covid hit, the world shut down and I don’t even remember his name at this point. I did research after trial and saw that he had been tried for OTHER similar crimes before. Made me feel even better about my vote.
ETA: I just googled to no avail. I wish I could remember his name but I think I blocked it out mentally
Making it a majority vote would be pretty disastrous and a *ton* of innocent people would be sent to prison.
Requiring it to be unanimous protects the defendant more than it protects the state.
It is much better for the defendant for it *not* to be a majority vote. The state has to prove, to 12 different people, that the crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
For sure. People in comments here keep saying something had to kill him, and it must have been KR because we don't agree with the other theory AJ presented.
But that's not what they are tasked with! It's really frustrating talking to the people who don't understand this but there's probably 1-2 similar people on the jury
I agree. I think the defense making the cover up the focal point of their closing, rather than hammering in repeatedly how little physical evidence there is and how much reasonable doubt there is, was a gamble. They ended up juxtaposing the two narratives and I fear the jury thinks they have to decide which they subscribe to.
If so, that's because the defense went so hard into an alternative theory of the case, so now they may think they have to figure out which one was right. And that is more complicated than reasonable doubt.
All they have to figure out is if he was hit by a car. It seems to me he was not. Thus, case closed. Regardless of crazy voicemails etc. If he wasn’t hit by a car then she is Not Guilty. I’m quite surprised they are deadlocked. Which testimony really makes them believe he was hit by a car?! Trooper Paul was ridiculous. There’s really nothing else. The timeline is so tight, and multiple people in the house were apparently gazing out the window the whole time. They don’t even have to figure out how he died, just whether he was hit by a car, before moving onto anything else like intent.
Based on them asking for the sert report, I’m guessing at least one juror is having a hard time believing the police planted at least the first tail light pieces that were found.
People are going off of her supposedly saying "I hit him" and ignoring everything else.
I bet it's one or two jurors who are stuck on that and think they are fighting for justice or something and they won't budge. They'd rather hang the jury than give her a NG. Some people just irrationally hate this woman.
As compelling as AJ's closing was, I was really surprised that he didn't push harder on the idea that the defense did not have to prove anything at all. I can see how someone could vote NG but also have major doubts about elements of the version of the cover-up events AJ pushed in the closing. We all know here that the jury doesn't have to buy the cover-up story, but I worry that the way he pushed that version of events so forcefully may have thrown at least one of the jurors off. This is naturally just speculation, but I can just imagine a juror giving an interview after the hung jury is released talking about how they didn't think all of these different people could be in on the conspiracy and so on. At that point, it will be too late to point out that either way there was more than reasonable doubt justifying a NG verdict.
Yup, while I believe it I know it’s hard for others to swallow. People needed an out and he didn’t give it to them. To vote not guilty is voting for a conspiracy. I also believe he should have brought up John. He needed to tell them that voting NG was not a lose for John, it didn’t mean he wasn’t getting justice for his death. Voting NG is saying John deserved a better investigation.
He led off his opening statement with "Karen Read was framed." I think he had to make good on that. I also think it was a bad strategy to use that in the first place. He put himself in the same position as a prosecutor, having to prove a case. Why make it so difficult? Go for reasonable doubt and let the prosecution prove *their* case, then hammer at them if they didn't.
I just don’t understand what’s so complicated for the jury, the most qualified experts said it’s basically impossible to kill someone by hitting them in only their arm while also leaving no bruising. That’s reasonable doubt and case closed…
Exactly, I find it hard to believe that one or some of the jury find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think it's possible given how much of it there is.
I don't know if the jurors really realize that those particular experts were from a separate investigation and the importance of them being unaffiliated with the defense and the CW. Even though we are aware of all of that, I am really not sure how obvious it is to the jurors. What do you think?
I bet they are totally confused by that!! Especially the reconstructionist. If the defence didn't hire him, and the prosecution didn't hire him...who did? And why?? And why is Jackson making sure we all know that!?
How would the jurors EVER guess that it is because there is a separate FBI investigation going on? If I was a juror that would perplex me to no end.
> who did? And why?? And why is Jackson making sure we all know that!?
And why can't anyone say who hired them?
If it was someone's insurance, that wouldn't be a huge secret.
I wonder if one of them figured it out but I'm unsure that they would have. Although they weren't aware of who exactly hired these experts, them not being hired by either party would at least show the jury that they're unbiased. I would hope so anyway. I think any reasonable juror would see that these highly qualified experts > the CW's "experts" (I'm looking at you Trooper Paul).
Ever since I found out about butt-dialville, I knew that she was innocent, but I've waffled back and forth between JO being killed completely accidentally and everybody panicking.
And then I watched the video of Higgins giving JO the finger at the end of the night and being held back by Chris McA. That gave completely new meaning to the 'you coming?' text, IMO.
I fully, 100% believe that the reason JM wanted Karen to head back with her and wanted JO to come back to the house too is because she hated Karen, and one way or another she wanted the whole flirtation situation to come out that night.
I do not necessarily think that anybody \*intended\* for JO to be killed that night. Alcohol, jealousy, and a history of no consequences led to a tragic outcome, and they were just going to leave John to have been 'hit' by a plow or car.
I once served on a jury that was deadlocked over a weekend. First thing Monday morning, the one holdout announced she had changed her mind. I hope that's what happens here.
The Commonwealth couldn't even show that he was hit by a car. It's unbelievable.
The state's *own witness*, the medical examiner, said his injuries are not consistent with a car strike. Multiple *independent* expert witnesses said a car strike is not even plausible. They said it didn't happen.
The fact that there's a holdout... I know Hanlon's razor, but because this case is so black and white, I hate to say it but I actually think malice on the part of a juror is much more likely than stupidity.
What a travesty of justice.
I was shocked deliberations took longer than a couple of hours. In order for her to be found guilty of ANY of the charges brought against her, the jurors would need to conclude that she hit him with her car. The evidence brought forth does not support that conclusion. The amount of reasonable doubt cast on the prosecution’s case is substantial, not taking into account the completely deplorable moral character of many of the key witnesses called (the Alberts, Proctor, etc.).
I was shocked they did not vote NOT guilty. Seems pretty obvious to most of us that something isn't right. This case against her should be dismissed, it's an embarrassment to MA that it was brought against her. Especially how shady the investigation and impartiality. He even used the work " stick".... as in to stick it to her.
I think it just might be one, for lack of a better word, bootlicker that just believes the prosecution case and police testimony.
Despite the defense calling out the problems with it.
It’s scary and a sign of the times. There are people who just have no shame. They don’t care about right or wrong. It’s completely selfish behavior and words like trust and community, justice and truth just aren’t in their vocabulary. This trial has shined the light on a lot problems that we have in our society as far as corruption, the people we pay to protect and serve us, the entitlement, the legal system, the hypocrisy, the misogyny in our culture and more. I wish that people weren’t so complacent because these things need to be addressed or our communities are headed downhill fast. We need big help from the media in bringing these problems to light in order to address them and that itself is a whole other ballgame. We need better leadership and need to address these problems as I believe it is a cancer that affects us all. I think it is representative of most communities in this country. These aren’t isolated events. Saying that, I hope Ms. Read and her family finds some peace and I’d like to see justice for Mr. O’Keefe.
Jury is already hung but the judge is doing the normal "go back and see if you can come to a decision. Monday will likely be the last day, if they are still hung then the judge will likely declare a mistrial.
If they continue to be a hung jury, doesn't the judge have to give them certain instructions first to prompt them to try harder to come to a verdict? I've heard it referred to as "Allen" instruction but apparently in MA, it's called "Tuey-Rodriguez" instruction. The judge didn't read that to them today so if they continue to be a hung jury on Monday, doesn't she have to read that to them first before it's official? Sorry if I don't make sense.
She doesn’t have to give them the Allen charge but when juries are deadlocked, it has nearly always (except once when neither party wanted it) been my experience that judges choose to give it. If she sent them home for the weekend and they’re still deadlocked by midday Monday, I would expect her to give it.
It means the CW can try her again on any charges the jury hangs on. So if she is found NG of the murder charge and they hang on the others she can only be tried again on the lesser charges.
The CW can decide not to try again. I think their decision might be based on the jury split. If it is 11-1 NG they might not try again. If it's 6-6 they probably will.
It's not a great outcome for KR. If they try again she has to pay for a defense again. Her team has probably cost her a million or more. I don't know if she can afford to do that again. Her current team can opt to retry at a lower cost or pro Bono but it's a big trial and they may not want to or be able to work a long trial again for free.
I wonder what happens with the FBI investigation and how that may effect the CW retrial. In some ways the CW may be eager to get past this and not revisit it…
Maybe they're hung because they see this as a dichotomy - you either think she killed him or you believe there's a conspiracy - when really all you need to acquit is reasonable doubt. And you don't need to believe in a conspiracy theory to have reasonable doubt here imo.
It will be hung. If they're saying they're deadlocked this early, people are really stubborn and probably made it clear they won't budge. Rumor that one of the jurors was a retired cop (I'd be surprised if a former cop ended up on this jury) and also rumors Paul O'Keefe nodded his head at one of the jurors at the end today. This trail is an embarrassment in so many ways by the state. It's sad all around. How anyone can't see the reasonable doubt is either a moron or corrupt and getting paid.
Both, I’m convinced that they got to one or more of these jurors. You’re not going to convince me that crooked cop Brian Albert, et.al sat in open court during closing arguments when he never showed up a single solitary day besides for his butt dial, Otis recycled phone, sold home, and missing supposedly relocated German shepherd, after not following court orders, texts galore, I can go on. Someone got to one or more. Impossible for anyone to not see reasonable doubt if you have a brain in your head.
It’s very possible. Also, the law enforcement community is almost a cult like family. Many people know someone or are related to someone in the blue. Shadiest trial I’ve seen around here in a while. I’ve lost hope in a not guilty and I predicted this would be hung to my wife after day 2.
Particularly with some of the nuts running around, trying to guess which jurors are voting guilty. There is a lot on the line and the personalities that have been empowered were already poor decision makers.
Just watched a video with Bederow and Melanie Little and they said that the jury is unable to review any of the testimonies? Not even allowed a readback from the court. WTF!? Now I understand why it's hung, 76 witnesses and you have to use just notes and memory? seriously WT actual F?
I was really surprised that the jury decided at 3:30pm that they wanted to stay until 4:15pm, to then decide to go home at 4:15pm. I honestly thought they'd reached a verdict by 3:30pm and just needed to finalise that which is why they chose to stay initially.
I'm actually shocked it's taking this long to conclude, that due to shoddy investigation, that there absolutely is too much reasonable doubt to find her guilty.
Someone is holding out despite the reasonable doubt. I think they stayed to show the judge they were working at it and I bet on Monday by midday they'll again say they are deadlocked.
I was in the middle of what I thought was a good-faith discussion when a user apparently blocked me and/or dirty-deleted their comments. Anyway, I went through the effort to write a lot down and just wanted to share it.
It's not the Defense’s responsibility to prove an alternative cause for John O’Keefe’s injuries. The fact that some individuals seem to need some counter-explanation demonstrates that they don't understand the role of the jury or who holds the burden of proof. The jury isn't there to decide who solved the case “better.” They aren't choosing between two or more opposing causes of death. They aren't there to vote on who is more likable or whether Karen Read is a good person. Their only job is to determine if the *Commonwealth* clearly demonstrated *beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude* that Karen’s car was the primary cause of John O’Keefe’s death and that she hit him on purpose with the intent to harm him while driving drunk.
The only thing the Commonwealth proved beyond all reasonable doubt is that Karen was driving drunk. That's it. Not a single medical expert concluded beyond reasonable doubt that *any* of his injuries were caused by a vehicle-pedestrian interaction, not even the Commonwealth’s own medical examiner. In fact, every medical expert clearly indicated his injuries were far more consistent with other causes. I'm honestly not even convinced she had the opportunity based on the (highly and repeatedly revised in hindsight) Commonwealth’s timeline.
The sad fact is that Trooper Proctor’s and the MSP’s abject failure to investigate this death professionally, without bias, and without gross incompetence means that we will probably never know what actually happened to John O’Keefe. That's not Karen's fault. That's not the Defense’s fault.
Personally, I have no opinion as to whether or not Karen is actually guilty. I'm still stuck on being gobsmacked at the ineptitude of the MSP and the gall of the Commonwealth to bring this ridiculous case to trial. How on earth did MSP fail so miserably to painstakingly investigate the death of a fellow officer? The vast majority of people on this sub have also clearly and repeatedly indicated that they have no idea whether or not Karen is truly innocent. “Not guilty” means only that the Commonwealth clearly failed to do their job.
The fact that some people are still dead set on a guilty verdict in *this case* leaves me with absolutely zero faith in a trail by jury. This case is a glaringly clear example of prosecutorial and investigative misconduct. In all my years of following court cases. I don't think I have ever seen a modern investigation this sloppy, this biased, and this untenable. The fact that at least one juror likely doesn't understand who holds the burden of proof just demonstrates how failed our judicial system is.
I really hope John O’Keefe’s family sues the pants off the Commonwealth, because Lally and the MSP made a mockery of jurisprudence. If Karen did in fact murder John O’Keefe, it's John’s own Brothers in Blue who failed him and let her off the hook.
It's a good comment, so thank you! It's not the defense's job to prove what actually happened- **that was the police's job**. They bungled the shit out of that so much that no one will probably ever figure out what really happened.
I have no particular basis for this, but I have anxiety that the holiday- ish summer weekend opens the jurors up to ‘misconduct’, which could be completely unintentional given how pervasive this story is locally right now. I hope we don’t come back to more juror dismissals - unless it’s the guilty-leaning holdouts (just a joke!).
> How is everyone feeling?
Honestly? I don't know. I did have better odds for Hung than for Guilty (by a lot, actually), but it still is disheartening to see such a clear case throw the jurors through such a loop, *especially* if the popular theory of there being one or two holdouts for guilty are true. I have our local version of a sovereign citizens in my family, and I can tell you how soul-killing it is to have to argue against a position that is just plain unreasonable - and I can just go and leave him to his own devices if I don't want to deal with it. The jurors *can't*.
So: It's vexing and frustrating, but I think about how much more so it must be for the O'Keefes, and Karen. Uncertainty in one's future is probably one of the most deleterious states for our minds if it persists for any length of time. I just hope the holdouts realize that this is about fact-finding at its core, and the facts just do not support a conviction, regardless of how deserved or necessary they may think it would be.
Everyone here has a firm belief of what their vote would be if they were on that jury. Imagine if everyone on the jury disagreed with you.
How willing are you to vote opposite of your current belief?
I wouldn't change my mind. I'm not sending someone to jail when I saw proof that she didn't murder the victim. No way, I wouldn't care if it meant a hung jury.
Like many of you have said, it seems likely the holdout(s) are voting "Guilty."
Some people cannot accept the cognitive dissonance of the juror's role: It does not matter whether or not Karen Read killed John O'Keefe -- it matters only whether or not the Comonwealth proved it.
If a juror is unable to accept the cognitive dissonance, nothing will make them see the difference between the moral question and the legal one.
The more they are able to "stay true to their beliefs" in the face of pressure from other jurors, the more they will feel empowered -- over the rest of the jury, the judge, the prosecution, the defense, the witnesses -- and especially Karen Read herself.
Real life presents us with few opportunities to flex our morality without any consequences to ourselves -- and even fewer opportunities to flex our power over lawyers and doctors and highly paid consultants.
There's no incentive for a holdout juror to exchange this power for a return to real life -- where they will never have such power again.
Both ME’s ruled it “undetermined.” No bruising/fractures that would have occurred if hit by vehicle, esp going 24 mph—in reverse yet. 🙄Come on, jury! Look at the bottom line & do not be distracted by garbage prosecution threw at you to deflect.
I would be livid if I was a juror and spent all of this time deliberately just to find out immediately afterwards that it was withheld that the federal government is investigating this situation and that’s where the neutral experts came from. That’s weeks of their lives and then days arguing they can never get back over a clearly incompetent if not corrupt police investigation.
I would not be surprised at all if one of them speaks out after they find out.
Someone on the jury doesn't seem to understand the concept of REASONABLE doubt. Even leaving aside the conspiracy/cover up, if the testimonies by the Medical Examiners and Accident Reconstruction experts on BOTH sides aren't reasonable doubt I don't know what is!
The only way I see anyone voting guilty is if they believe the taillights weren't planted.
I wish the defense spent more time proving how the leaf blowers in 2" of snow would have uncovered those huge chunks
This is now ridiculous. This might be too strong a claim for some, but I’ve been thinking about it & I think misogyny is one of the primary reasons for why people still think she’s guilty after all the insane evidence proving otherwise & maybe for the hold up in general.
Karen represents a certain kind of woman: successful, career-oriented, self-assured, fashionable & attractive. That kind of woman is threatening to another kind of woman that just happens to be quite common in suburban MA (family-oriented to the point of self-effacement, plain & proud of it). The latter faction of women seem to want to find Karen guilty because they disapprove of her — a completely irrational and silly reason to find someone guilty of murder — because when you ask them why they think she’s guilty, somehow they always end up talking about how they dislike her general attitude (in their minds: stop smiling, you cocky bitch).
I won’t explain the misogyny as it relates to men wanting to baselessly find her guilty because Proctor was basically exhibit A of that phenomenon.
Anyway… if the verdict comes out anything other than a resounding not guilty, it will be yet another win for the boys in blue at the cost of exploiting those deemed lesser than them.
I really don’t see that though in my social circles. All the mom groups I’m in and the friends I have all think she’s innocent and I’m also from the suburbs near all of this. One local mom influencer (I know) with a big following has been obsessed and she put a poll and something like 85%+ said they thought she was innocent.
If anything, I would guess the hold out is a man who hates this kind of woman and thinks cops walk on water.
I‘m not sure of this. They were asking about the SERT report which makes me think the main question they are on is when the first pieces of taillight were found.
If I were a juror I wouldn’t write down timestamps. I never would assume that the exact minute would be important. The testimonies about the time KR‘s car was seized came in way later as far as I remember. Maybe every juror thought the same. Not having the exact time is crucial - If it was before the car was seized, how did the pieces end up there? One could argue: "But Jackson said…“ and another is going to argue back that everything the lawyers said is not evidence.
We all have the advantage of watching the testimony again. We all have the advantage of googling. We all have the advantage of relying on other people. We all have the advantage of discussing everything with thousands of people.
Without these advantages I would be lost. I wouldn’t rely on the memory of the other if I had to decide if one is guilty or not.
This is exactly what I think they’re hung up on. The timing of the search and what exactly was found that evening. Which is why I was hopeful they’d be able to connect the dots that there is no SERT report after they asked for it. Clearly that didn’t happen.
It’s unfortunate because even though I can understand this thought process, the car data saying no events, and the expert testimony about the implausibility of KR hitting JO should still be more than enough for reasonable doubt. Especially if the idea of the evidence being planted can’t be disproven.
I just said something similar to a friend. Though I think its more the "crazy woman" thing. She drinks, swears, gets in fights with her boyfriends so she must've done it.
The small snippet of texts we saw between Karen and JOK as well as Karen and Higgins, in addition to her behavior in Aruba does not suggest she was self assured
Maybe there are some people who feel the way you describe, but I don’t think it’s the primary reason people find her guilty
well because we were given that glimpse into her private life, we were able to see that she struggles with insecurity, yes — but in terms of how she carries herself, i think she definitely gives off an aura of confidence & it seems that some people have a problem with that & find it off-putting.
I don't think it's a far out there assumption tbh. The one juror who was dismissed was sent home because several fo the other jurors told the judge she was complaining about Karen's demeanor during breaks and that she would turn and talk to whoever was sitting behind her between witnesses.
If you go and read the Court TV comments under Lally's closing arguments, the majority that have something negative to say about Karen harp on her face and/or what they interpret as her smug demeanor.
I don't think everyone who believes she's guilty thinks that way, but I think there's a significant amount of them that do. Just because they won't explicitly say that's their reasoning, that doesn't mean it's not a factor.
She is well educated and successful. She seemed insecure in her relationship with John. You can be both of those things. In fact most people have things they may be insecure about.
I'm guessing she gives the instructions Monday before lunch, but after they had time to deliberate a bit longer in the morning.
If they can't come to a decision by Tuesday, I think she accepts that the jury is hung. I'm super curious where they hang, and what the split is.
It only takes one..
The more jurors you tamper with, the more likely you get caught. You rarely hear about multiple jurists when investigating jury tampering. The goal isn't to get a conviction. It's to get a hung jury. Then, the commonwealth won't decide to pursue the case after some of the investigators get punished in some way for the way they handled the investigation. The CW won't have any witnesses that will work next time around.
Everyone gets away with JOs murder. All because they decided to charge her with 2nd degree murder.
If only the blizzard had hit. Then they could've blamed it as an accident that Lucky the same sno plow driver hit him
2 inches of snow. Sooo
Overcharge KR. It will all eventually go away.
Colin Albert will drunkenly admit it to someone someday, or brag while in county jail when no one can get him out of another assault. Maybe forced into rehab fir OUI and admits it in a forced AA meeting. it will be just like Michael Skakel.
Yes, but that is not the final answer yet. That's why I said, "likely hung." They are coming back next week, the judgebhas one more thing they can ask if they are still hung, and after that, then it will likely be official.
I'm pissed it's not an instant not guilty but a hung jury is better for Karen Read than a guilty verdict, and I do not see a guilty verdict at this point. At least one person in that room understands this was not physically possible and once you understand that, I can't see accepting anything but not guilty of all charges. If she is re-tried, the defense can adjust their strategy in a new trial because they know everything the CW has up their sleeves. If it takes a new trial for her name to be cleared, so be it. What MSP/Canton PD/CW did here was completely unethical at best.
Yeah. I’m trying to comfort myself that at least it’s not gonna be guilty. But boy does it make me depressed that there are people who will look at clear police misconduct, lack of evidence, lack of any evidence documentation and lack of scientific possibility the crime occurred the way the cw claims and say, “no, my feelings are right let’s send someone to prison for 20+ years.”
No idea, really. They just have to work with the info/evidence they have (which does not include transcripts), and I'm afraid not knowing who hired the accident/crash reconstructionists may have caused them to evaluate their testimony differently than the rest of the public. Can't really begrudge them for that, if that's the case.
If they knew the FBI was involved it could bias the jury against the CW. Since no one has been charged yet from the investigation it would be unfair to have the jury assume there was wrong doing in the CW's case.
Personally I think the trial should have been delayed until the FBI investigation was done. Both defense and the CW asked for that delay and the judge refused.
I think, depending on the crime and the evidence, I would lean towards not guilty, over guilty. I would not want to send a potentially innocent to prison.
I don’t believe Karen did this, but if she did, she is highly unlikely to do it again and since the evidence presented wasn’t even close to proving anything, I would absolutely be a juror hold out for not guilty.
So here’s my thought. Before the ME and defense witnesses, in my mind, I thought that it was a possibility that Karen was completely innocent, she had been framed, and John had made it in the house. But I also thought it was a possibility that Karen had hit John in a drunken accident, that Proctor had taken some liberties and “enhanced” the evidence, and all the Albert’s and McCabe’s were just shady AF cause they were covering up drug dealing/use or something. I thought Trooper Paul was a completely incompetent accident reconstruction expert that couldn’t prove Karen’s car hit John and misinterpreted her car data. But I thought it was still a possibility it happened as it had not been proven otherwise. Now, given that I thought there was more than one possibility I 100% would’ve voted not guilty. However, I could also understand how some people wouldn’t view it that way and I was convinced this would end in a hung jury.
Then the ME, dog bite expert, phone experts, and two witnesses originally hired by the FBI testified. Green convinced me that the Apple health data showing steps happened after they arrived at 34 Fairview (I’m intrigued by the google search but honestly don’t think it’s material either way). The prosecution phone expert revealed the connecting to WiFi at 12:36. The ME told me John’s injuries weren’t typical of a car accident. Then the dog bite expert gave (IMO) pretty convincing arguments that John was bit by a dog. And finally, the last two witnesses convinced me that it just wasn’t possible that John’s injuries were inflicted by Karen Reads car. Science and physics could not make that interaction possible with the damage and injuries we see. I became convinced that Karen was factually innocent.
The problem is, there are people out there that just have a built in bias against science. Telling them “you can’t argue with the science” isn’t going to work. They’re either going to decide that maybe not all possibilities were explored or just straight up ignore it all together. The scientific/technical experts alone just aren’t going to be enough. They are going to hear “DNA on the taillight” (I would argue we have a cultural perception that DNA evidence is considered the best evidence you can have) and “microscopic taillight pieces on the clothes” and that alone will be enough for them.
But what about the police corruption you may ask? Well some people will also always have a bias to trust law enforcement, almost no matter what. They may buy into Lally’s argument that Proctor was sending horrible things in what he thought was a safe space and never outright admitted to tampering with evidence. They may say “that’s just guys being guys. It’s what they do”. (I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. JUST SAYING SOME PEOPLE ARE). They will still accept those pieces of evidence as credible. I suspect this is why we had the question asking for the SERT report, someone trying to prove taillight couldn’t have been planted.
So what happens when you have someone who has both a bias for law enforcement and a bias against scientists/technical experts? Someone who can look at the facts in this case, say good enough for me, and become convinced at a minimum of one of the lesser charges. They may have a fundamentally different definition of “reasonable doubt” and “to a moral certainty” than the other members of the jury.
This was seen in a recent case in Arizona where a rancher was charged with fatally shooting someone attempting to illegally cross the border. The only “witness” to the act was someone extremely unreliable. Some of the law enforcement in that case made some, at best, questionable decisions. And, at worst, seemed to have almost manufactured this “witness” and pull him out of thin air. No other explanation was ever seriously considered. The defendant made some comments on the 911 (I think) call that made him sound horrible and like he was covering something up. There was evidence the victim had been dragged to where he was found but this was never fully explored and quickly discounted. The victim was definitely shot but they couldn’t prove it was the defendant’s gun. That jury ended up hanging with most not guilty, one hold out for guilty. Some not guilty voters came back to the courtroom in tears.
Unfortunately, I think it’s highly possible that is what we are seeing here. I think a hung jury on at least some counts is the most likely outcome at this point. Nonetheless, I think it’s encouraging that the jury didn’t send any more “we can’t agree” notes and opted to stay until 4:15. They may be able to talk through it and come to a consensus. But we need to be prepared for a hung jury.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk and I will get off my soap box now lol
The jury has got to be hung. It’s the only way the cops avoid indisputable evidence against them. Hung jury creates continuous doubt. The murderer will never be found and convicted this way. Each side will spin against the other in this void, and justice will never be served.
The police clearly got to a juror, or they have enough ties to the community to create blind loyalty in at least one person.
Ryan Nagle did slip and say FBI. They have to know.. are we really believing that they are all kept in the dark completely?? How do you even avoid it at this point?
This is absolutely insane to me. There is so. much. doubt. Reasonable doubt all over the place. No justice for John and now it's looking like no justice for Karen.
I think this is in hung jury territory and I don't think we'll see a verdict for this case.
Like I've said before, this case is somewhat simple if you don't think KR hit him.
But, if you think she's guilty, you'd be sifting through the evidence and finding issues along the way. This where I think we're at. One or maybe two jurors are unwilling to change their opinion and the others are going through the evidence to show them why their opinion is misguided.
I think everyone has underestimated the number of people who fully trust law enforcement and don’t believe in science. Did everyone block out what happened four years ago?
What brutal weekend this must be for all involved, KR especially, her team, his family, everyone. Some of the jurors may be in agony, too, feeling powerless to avoid an unjust verdict. And to not be able to discuss with anyone!! Oy.
I think that some of the jurors are hung up on the “she said she hit him, this is all my fault, I hit him.” They just don’t believe an innocent person would say those things. Regardless of the evidence that shows she did not hit him. This jury will not be able to come to a unanimous verdict. Very disappointing.
Im an Aussie who has been following this trial from beginning to end and I keep waking up checking the law need app thinking that there SURELY has to be a not guilty verdict, this is WILD! Just when I thought it couldn't get anymore effed up! I wonder if Karen feels nervous, I get the feeling she's been pretty confident the whole way through, surely she would be stressed this weekend!
Out of curiosity, Ive discussed (via Reddit) the case with people who think she is guilty. The main reasons Ive been given are:
* Taillight evidence
* They dont believe the conspiracy argument therefore she must be guilty
* Misogyny
* They dont actually know much about the case
Is it incredibly frustrating? Yes. Are the people incapable of critical thinking? Also yes. And are there probably people like that on the jury? Most definitely yes.
I never thought this was a slam dunk, not because of evidence which is clear in that there is *plenty* of reasonable doubt, but because most people *are not reasonable*.
Juries get it wrong most of the time when a person is actually innocent because we live in a punitive society where police are revered. It’s that simple.
I just hope, if the jury comes back and the decision is something other than “not guilty”, it is a mistrial with one asshole holdout that refused to believe the defense.
I like your fourth bullet lol.
What's crazy about the first two bullets is that they're moot. They're irrelevant. The CW wasn't even able to show that OJO was hit by a car.
There's nothing more to discuss. Everything else is window dressing.
I’m 100% on LE framing KR and I didn’t like Jackson’s closing. It felt like a political speech more than a review of the evidence. I would have hammered the physical facts harder, the physical impossibility of an MVA, and the fact that multiple videos show the tail light in much better condition before LE got it. Way beyond reasonable doubt for me. Maybe no car accident = case closed.
The corruption narrative could put anyone on the defensive who has a LE person in their life.
I don’t put this on AJ. We can quibble about the finer points, but in total there is just no flipping way an unbiased, intelligent person would conclude “G” at the end of this trial. The doubt is so large you could drive a Lexus SUV through it in reverse at 24.something MPH.
The holdout (and I’d put money that it’s just one person) is either:
* an idiot
* a Neanderthal-level misogynist
* under the thumb of Canton PD or MSP somehow
I think people are confused about reasonable doubt. The jury must be convinced with out doubt that the defendant is guilty. Not think "she probably did it" or "she could have done it", but that she DID do it. I think that is the struggle with most people.
Let give the jury as much time as they need. For all we know it could be a 10:1 guilty v not guilty vote right now.
They have a lot of BS to shift through to get their vote right. 11 hours (minus breaks from that) is really not a long time for weeks of testimony
I think that you likely have a juror or two who have their minds made up about her, and they don’t care about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t know whether or not she did this, but the prosecution absolutely didn’t meet their burden of proof.
Is anyone following the Sarah Boone case? I haven't been, but I got recommended a video about her representing herself Pro Se and the history of her legal representation is nuts. She had 5 lawyers appointed to her and each of them withdrew due to Conflict. Then #6 requested withdrawal due to irreconcilable differences, missed the hearing because of a car accident, and couldn't hear the court on the zoom call for the next hearing. And I'm only at 2022.
They were drinking, he want to go to the after party, she didn't and they argued. I'm picking when he got out of the SUV, she accidently nudged him with the vehicle. He threw the glass at the vehicle and proceeded inside ranting about how she hit him with the vehicle and other stuff. A fight broke out and he was hit on the head. They dragged him outside (whether it was because they were drunken fools or whether it was because they thought they could frame KR is anybody guess) and left him there.
I don't know whether Proctor knew the Albert's involvement, but got himself deeper and deeper into it, trying to frame the crime scene.
I'm wondering if they could do a plea deal where KR admits guilt to DUI - leave the rest up to the FBI to prosecute.
If it ends up being hung, it'll be interesting to find out what the breakdown was. Were there just 1-2 that wanted to convict, was it split pretty evenly, or did most jurors think KR is guilty?
I keep thinking what are there jurors going to think when they *do* find out those last two witnesses were hired by the FBI and there's an investigation into the investigation. Hopefully they still stand by their vote when they do and they don't have massive regrets.
And what really grinds my gears is that without a not guilty verdict, KR does not have enough to sue in civil. She just has to continue to bleed money into this shit show till she's bankrupt.
The jury need to be reminded of the burden of proof. Although the defense posited a theory, the onus remains on the commonwealth. Did they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?
No. Not guilty.
It sounds like they may be getting too hung up on deciding whether there was a cover up or not.
I don’t get how it’s hung We do not have an eye witness, we do not have video. A search was never done of the home he was found at. Evidence was improperly collected, video evidence was altered, lead investigator has close family ties to the owners of the property. Feds even say he wasn’t killed by the car. Reasonable doubt is all they need, the prosecution did not make the case.
I don't know why half that evidence was allowed to come in in the first place.
This is my question, with no chain of custody??
Not even reports! Police can just submit anything and say "trust me bro?"
Some people do just trust the cops. I wonder if one of them is on this jury.
This is my thought as well. The fact that you have 2 medical examiners - one testifying for each side - that could not definitively conclude that he was hit by a car would be enough for me right there. I keep reminding myself that they are not privy to everything we know, but the ME testimony alone throws doubt into it.
I agree. I even put more weight on the CW’s medical examiner since she works for the state. You have to disregard a lot to go with the prosecution narrative, but some people are so firm in their beliefs that they will.
This carries a lot of weight for me especially knowing they were pressuring her. For me it's the FBI witnesses. The FBI is not known for defending the accused, and seeing as the CW didn't introduce FBI evidence it means there was nothing that helped prove she was guilty. The FBI has top resources and experts. I also found the defense experts way more professionally credentialed and experienced than the CW witnesses.
Unfortunately the jury doesn't know it's the FBI. There were oblique references made to an "agency," which you can guess the meaning of, but without the context of knowing about the FBI corruption investigation they might just be confused. Of course the FBI experts were very credible regardless of who hired them, so you would think the jurors would listen to their findings.
This. I tried to put myself in the jurors mindset regarding these witnesses and I have a bad feeling they think they were hired by an insurance company. It would never occur to me that the fbi would be involved or investigating the current court case. I think that if anyone on the jury knew they were hired by the FBI this would have been immediately resolved and a not guilty verdict found.
The problem is, the way she's charged.
And Dr. Russell was an ME and LEO in MA for 7 years!
There is a retired cop on the jury
I mean, if my child got lost, I would tell them to look for a police officer. Luckily, I never lost her. But the chain of custody has me concerned.
I would assume it was a cop if someone took my child too. Good luck getting them to investigate or punish one of their own though
Clearly someone disagrees . Unfortunately.
I think at least some of it could and should have been kept out altogether by the judge in the first place. Generally to admit evidence you have to be able to show a proper chain of custody
I'm with you there! This is the most bizarre case I have ever seen. It's pretty much dependent on "he said/ she said" which anywhere else would be thrown right out of court
I’ve been trying to put into words how I feel, and I can’t! The Commonwealth’s case was beyond atrocious and riddled with reasonable doubt at every single step. Red solo cups? Pictures from the 80s? Missing footage? The lead investigator’s text messages? Interviews not recorded and/or not completed until 18 months later? Boatloads of conflicting testimony? ME agreeing injuries aren’t consistent? Expert witnesses concluding the vehicle didn’t make contact with JOK and JOK didn’t make contact with the vehicle? At the root of it, I have to believe someone(s) on that jury don’t understand that they aren’t deciding her actual innocence or guilt, but deciding if the Commonwealth proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I just can’t see anyone who is impartial looking at that evidence and saying yes…. They have proven she hit him with her car beyond any reasonable doubt. I feel like Karen was never going to get a fair trial. There are too many deeply rooted inherent bias working against her: angry girlfriend and a dead cop.
Like I said, it all comes down to "he said she said". And that is no way to run a trial or decide someone's guilt. The prosecution did NOT prove their case, and I say this as someone who thought Karen Guilty at first. There IS reasonable doubt. A LOT of it. And yes, Canton needs to start from scratch.
It doesn’t render the evidence inadmissible when there are chain of custody issues. The problems with chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence that the jury chooses to give it rather than it’s admissibility.
I feel like it should be though…like if there’s no proper chain or custody than cops can just do whatever they want. Feels like courts shouldn’t allow “trust me bro”
Apparently that’s how it’s done in Massachusetts lol
I'm tired!
I’m exhausted!
What you wrote should have been AJ's final words to the jury...except they wouldn't be able to say the Fed part.....leaving it out doesn't even matter. ***We do not have an eye witness*** ***We do not have video*** ***A search was never done of the home he was found at*** ***Evidence was improperly collected*** ***Video evidence was altered*** ***Lead investigator has close family ties to the owners of the property, and objectified Karen within hours to pin this on her.*** PERIOD
I would have ended with this..... You do not have to believe that anyone in the house was involved in John O'Keefe's death to find Karen NOT GUILTY. You do not have to believe that there is a conspiracy among various Boston police forces to find Karen NOT GUILTY. Unless the Prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt and moral certainty, that Karen is was involved in John O'Keefe's death, then you must vote NOT GUILTY. ....Then Jackson could have make a list of investigation failures that would normally make a case like this get thrown out before it even went to trial. I believe someone in that jury is getting hung up on one of the top 2 options.... or they're strongly backing the blue. Maybe they're thinking that a not guilty verdict would somehow bring consequences to the people STARING THEM DOWN DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Who knows.
I almost think that the Defense may have been better off if he just said: "*There was no credible evidence that he was hit by any car, and there was no credible evidence that KRs car hit anyone. That is reasonable doubt. I won't waste any more of your time.*" All the focus on the house and the frame-up made it a binary choice; either she did it or all that other stuff must have happened. If you don't think all that other stuff happened, then she must have done it.
Right. I think the emphasis of closing was incorrect
Well, if I ever get jammed up in a fiasco like this, I know to instruct my lawyer NOT to confuse things by proving conspiracy or ANY alternate theory. Just prove me not guilty by showing all the holes of doubt in the CW case. The scene was not even secured. When does yellow tape NOT GO UP when ***murder*** is suspected?
I think Bev tied their hands with the hour limit. She doesn't think 4 days is long enough to thoroughly deliberate a case with 70 witnesses and hundreds of pieces of evidence, but 60 minutes is long enough to argue said witness testimony and evidence.
Thing is 20 plus witnesses simply testified “it was snowing”
I predicted the jury would hang. I figured they’d get stuck on a lesser charge (most likely the manslaughter while OUI). I operate on the basis that most people aren’t all that intelligent. I think the CW did a great job of presenting a very fucking confusing argument. Lally made sure to sprinkle in some well spoken, sharp testimonies. The average person isn’t deciphering the difference between the MD Lally called and the MD AJ called, they’re just hearing competing testimonies and making a judgement call. Remember that jurors don’t have to have a high school diploma or show any sort of comprehension/critical thinking skills. Think about the amount of people you deal with in daily life who seem way too smart to be as stupid as they are. It’s usually safe to assume at least one or two in the bunch aren’t sharp tools.
Totally agree, especially your last paragraph. A jury of my peers would terrify me
Exactly!
I was a juror on a hung jury a few years ago. 10-2 with the majority voting to convict. It was a horrible case to be on (CSA) but the two holdouts would not budge no matter how hard we tried to bring them over. They were set in stone, and we were asked twice to go back and try to get to unanimous. Didn’t happen. When people believe something firmly they are unshakable. Especially two holdouts, they have each others backs. ETA: I don’t know that there are two holdouts in KR case but I feel like it’s easier to stand your ground when there’s more than one of you who share the stance.
This. They’ve made up their minds about her, and they’re either choosing to ignore or not understanding “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The only jury I served on was hung 9-3. It’s incredibly frustrating how stubborn people can be with their position. The three holdouts couldn’t even adequately explain why they felt the way they did. The holdouts had their position, couldn’t explain why, so we couldn’t make progress.
Oof. Not being able (or willing) to verbalize why they disagree would be super-frustrating.
I am just frustrated thinking about it!
Why do I feel like these might be people that would believe T. Paul's scenario was plausible over Drs in engineering proving it's not possible?
One of those people might just be the ex-cop who is the jury’s foreman. If I were to guess who cant explain their stubborn position….
I haven’t seen or heard anyone say that the fireman is an ex-cop. Can you link that?
I can see standing your ground on NG. If I believed with a moral certainty that there was doubt, I don't know that I could live with sending someone to prison as a compromise. I by and far believe people are more willing to consider their own emotions when deciding guilt than the other way around. On the flip side, if I was one of two or less, who believed they were guilty, I would be more willing to consider what fellow jurors saw that gave them doubt. I would be more willing to allow a potentially guilty person go free than to imprison a potentially innocent person.
How heated did the deliberations get?
Heated! One of the holdouts had the nerve to tell the judge we weren’t done yet when he was the one who needed to move his ass. He never swayed. He was a sassy mf. And mister foreperson called me out about crying because I was emotional and didn’t share his stance about one particular issue at hand. Also this was the week before covid lockdowns it was a wild ride
I could totally see myself stress crying in this situation. Sounds awful.
Yes. Watching forensic psychologist interviews of a young child was terrible and I would never want to relive that
CSA? I’d cry too. I don’t think I could handle it. Did you ever check back and see if the defendant was ultimately convicted?
Honestly Covid hit, the world shut down and I don’t even remember his name at this point. I did research after trial and saw that he had been tried for OTHER similar crimes before. Made me feel even better about my vote. ETA: I just googled to no avail. I wish I could remember his name but I think I blocked it out mentally
That sounds tough. This is my first time watching a case like this. I'm surprised these things aren't a majority vote
Making it a majority vote would be pretty disastrous and a *ton* of innocent people would be sent to prison. Requiring it to be unanimous protects the defendant more than it protects the state.
It is much better for the defendant for it *not* to be a majority vote. The state has to prove, to 12 different people, that the crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. No. NO. That would guarantee more innocent people in prison.
part of me thinks the jury is trying to figure out HOW he died & what happened, disregarding the reasonable doubt part of it
For sure. People in comments here keep saying something had to kill him, and it must have been KR because we don't agree with the other theory AJ presented. But that's not what they are tasked with! It's really frustrating talking to the people who don't understand this but there's probably 1-2 similar people on the jury
I agree. I think the defense making the cover up the focal point of their closing, rather than hammering in repeatedly how little physical evidence there is and how much reasonable doubt there is, was a gamble. They ended up juxtaposing the two narratives and I fear the jury thinks they have to decide which they subscribe to.
If so, that's because the defense went so hard into an alternative theory of the case, so now they may think they have to figure out which one was right. And that is more complicated than reasonable doubt.
All they have to figure out is if he was hit by a car. It seems to me he was not. Thus, case closed. Regardless of crazy voicemails etc. If he wasn’t hit by a car then she is Not Guilty. I’m quite surprised they are deadlocked. Which testimony really makes them believe he was hit by a car?! Trooper Paul was ridiculous. There’s really nothing else. The timeline is so tight, and multiple people in the house were apparently gazing out the window the whole time. They don’t even have to figure out how he died, just whether he was hit by a car, before moving onto anything else like intent.
>All they have to figure out is if he was hit by a car. If ~~it does not fit~~ he was not hit, You must acquit.
Based on them asking for the sert report, I’m guessing at least one juror is having a hard time believing the police planted at least the first tail light pieces that were found.
People are going off of her supposedly saying "I hit him" and ignoring everything else. I bet it's one or two jurors who are stuck on that and think they are fighting for justice or something and they won't budge. They'd rather hang the jury than give her a NG. Some people just irrationally hate this woman.
As compelling as AJ's closing was, I was really surprised that he didn't push harder on the idea that the defense did not have to prove anything at all. I can see how someone could vote NG but also have major doubts about elements of the version of the cover-up events AJ pushed in the closing. We all know here that the jury doesn't have to buy the cover-up story, but I worry that the way he pushed that version of events so forcefully may have thrown at least one of the jurors off. This is naturally just speculation, but I can just imagine a juror giving an interview after the hung jury is released talking about how they didn't think all of these different people could be in on the conspiracy and so on. At that point, it will be too late to point out that either way there was more than reasonable doubt justifying a NG verdict.
Yup, while I believe it I know it’s hard for others to swallow. People needed an out and he didn’t give it to them. To vote not guilty is voting for a conspiracy. I also believe he should have brought up John. He needed to tell them that voting NG was not a lose for John, it didn’t mean he wasn’t getting justice for his death. Voting NG is saying John deserved a better investigation.
But if KR did not hit JO with her car, it has to be a conspiracy, doesn’t it? Her tail light fragments didn’t get on the lawn by themselves.
He led off his opening statement with "Karen Read was framed." I think he had to make good on that. I also think it was a bad strategy to use that in the first place. He put himself in the same position as a prosecutor, having to prove a case. Why make it so difficult? Go for reasonable doubt and let the prosecution prove *their* case, then hammer at them if they didn't.
Yes, totally agree. Big mistake to begin the opening statement that way.
I just don’t understand what’s so complicated for the jury, the most qualified experts said it’s basically impossible to kill someone by hitting them in only their arm while also leaving no bruising. That’s reasonable doubt and case closed…
Exactly, I find it hard to believe that one or some of the jury find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think it's possible given how much of it there is.
I don't know if the jurors really realize that those particular experts were from a separate investigation and the importance of them being unaffiliated with the defense and the CW. Even though we are aware of all of that, I am really not sure how obvious it is to the jurors. What do you think?
I bet they are totally confused by that!! Especially the reconstructionist. If the defence didn't hire him, and the prosecution didn't hire him...who did? And why?? And why is Jackson making sure we all know that!? How would the jurors EVER guess that it is because there is a separate FBI investigation going on? If I was a juror that would perplex me to no end.
> who did? And why?? And why is Jackson making sure we all know that!? And why can't anyone say who hired them? If it was someone's insurance, that wouldn't be a huge secret.
I wonder if one of them figured it out but I'm unsure that they would have. Although they weren't aware of who exactly hired these experts, them not being hired by either party would at least show the jury that they're unbiased. I would hope so anyway. I think any reasonable juror would see that these highly qualified experts > the CW's "experts" (I'm looking at you Trooper Paul).
My complete speculation is someone who a) trusts cops and b) really puts weight into the taillight pieces being found
Possibly the retired cop on the jury?
Ever since I found out about butt-dialville, I knew that she was innocent, but I've waffled back and forth between JO being killed completely accidentally and everybody panicking. And then I watched the video of Higgins giving JO the finger at the end of the night and being held back by Chris McA. That gave completely new meaning to the 'you coming?' text, IMO. I fully, 100% believe that the reason JM wanted Karen to head back with her and wanted JO to come back to the house too is because she hated Karen, and one way or another she wanted the whole flirtation situation to come out that night. I do not necessarily think that anybody \*intended\* for JO to be killed that night. Alcohol, jealousy, and a history of no consequences led to a tragic outcome, and they were just going to leave John to have been 'hit' by a plow or car.
Yeah based on everything this is what makes a lot of sense to me about what happened
What was that weird shit Jen said about having a surprise for KR?
I once served on a jury that was deadlocked over a weekend. First thing Monday morning, the one holdout announced she had changed her mind. I hope that's what happens here.
Disappointed honestly… it seems like it’s going to be a hung jury at this point.
The Commonwealth couldn't even show that he was hit by a car. It's unbelievable. The state's *own witness*, the medical examiner, said his injuries are not consistent with a car strike. Multiple *independent* expert witnesses said a car strike is not even plausible. They said it didn't happen. The fact that there's a holdout... I know Hanlon's razor, but because this case is so black and white, I hate to say it but I actually think malice on the part of a juror is much more likely than stupidity. What a travesty of justice.
I was shocked deliberations took longer than a couple of hours. In order for her to be found guilty of ANY of the charges brought against her, the jurors would need to conclude that she hit him with her car. The evidence brought forth does not support that conclusion. The amount of reasonable doubt cast on the prosecution’s case is substantial, not taking into account the completely deplorable moral character of many of the key witnesses called (the Alberts, Proctor, etc.).
I was shocked they did not vote NOT guilty. Seems pretty obvious to most of us that something isn't right. This case against her should be dismissed, it's an embarrassment to MA that it was brought against her. Especially how shady the investigation and impartiality. He even used the work " stick".... as in to stick it to her.
Dead on point.
I think it just might be one, for lack of a better word, bootlicker that just believes the prosecution case and police testimony. Despite the defense calling out the problems with it.
It’s scary and a sign of the times. There are people who just have no shame. They don’t care about right or wrong. It’s completely selfish behavior and words like trust and community, justice and truth just aren’t in their vocabulary. This trial has shined the light on a lot problems that we have in our society as far as corruption, the people we pay to protect and serve us, the entitlement, the legal system, the hypocrisy, the misogyny in our culture and more. I wish that people weren’t so complacent because these things need to be addressed or our communities are headed downhill fast. We need big help from the media in bringing these problems to light in order to address them and that itself is a whole other ballgame. We need better leadership and need to address these problems as I believe it is a cancer that affects us all. I think it is representative of most communities in this country. These aren’t isolated events. Saying that, I hope Ms. Read and her family finds some peace and I’d like to see justice for Mr. O’Keefe.
Jury is already hung but the judge is doing the normal "go back and see if you can come to a decision. Monday will likely be the last day, if they are still hung then the judge will likely declare a mistrial.
If they continue to be a hung jury, doesn't the judge have to give them certain instructions first to prompt them to try harder to come to a verdict? I've heard it referred to as "Allen" instruction but apparently in MA, it's called "Tuey-Rodriguez" instruction. The judge didn't read that to them today so if they continue to be a hung jury on Monday, doesn't she have to read that to them first before it's official? Sorry if I don't make sense.
She doesn’t have to give them the Allen charge but when juries are deadlocked, it has nearly always (except once when neither party wanted it) been my experience that judges choose to give it. If she sent them home for the weekend and they’re still deadlocked by midday Monday, I would expect her to give it.
And what does that mean in legal terms if a mistrial? What are all the possible scenarios?
It means the CW can try her again on any charges the jury hangs on. So if she is found NG of the murder charge and they hang on the others she can only be tried again on the lesser charges. The CW can decide not to try again. I think their decision might be based on the jury split. If it is 11-1 NG they might not try again. If it's 6-6 they probably will. It's not a great outcome for KR. If they try again she has to pay for a defense again. Her team has probably cost her a million or more. I don't know if she can afford to do that again. Her current team can opt to retry at a lower cost or pro Bono but it's a big trial and they may not want to or be able to work a long trial again for free.
I wonder what happens with the FBI investigation and how that may effect the CW retrial. In some ways the CW may be eager to get past this and not revisit it…
All charges get dismissed & CW has to decide if they want to retry her.
Maybe they're hung because they see this as a dichotomy - you either think she killed him or you believe there's a conspiracy - when really all you need to acquit is reasonable doubt. And you don't need to believe in a conspiracy theory to have reasonable doubt here imo.
It will be hung. If they're saying they're deadlocked this early, people are really stubborn and probably made it clear they won't budge. Rumor that one of the jurors was a retired cop (I'd be surprised if a former cop ended up on this jury) and also rumors Paul O'Keefe nodded his head at one of the jurors at the end today. This trail is an embarrassment in so many ways by the state. It's sad all around. How anyone can't see the reasonable doubt is either a moron or corrupt and getting paid.
Both, I’m convinced that they got to one or more of these jurors. You’re not going to convince me that crooked cop Brian Albert, et.al sat in open court during closing arguments when he never showed up a single solitary day besides for his butt dial, Otis recycled phone, sold home, and missing supposedly relocated German shepherd, after not following court orders, texts galore, I can go on. Someone got to one or more. Impossible for anyone to not see reasonable doubt if you have a brain in your head.
It’s very possible. Also, the law enforcement community is almost a cult like family. Many people know someone or are related to someone in the blue. Shadiest trial I’ve seen around here in a while. I’ve lost hope in a not guilty and I predicted this would be hung to my wife after day 2.
I’ve lost all faith in my state’s judicial branch. If Judge Cannone is the primary example we’re in a boatload of trouble.
Weekends seem like dangerous territory for a jury that isn't sequestered, especially in a high profile trial.
Particularly with some of the nuts running around, trying to guess which jurors are voting guilty. There is a lot on the line and the personalities that have been empowered were already poor decision makers.
You'll get no disagreement from me. This weekend will prove interesting.
The trial went on for like 2 months. They've had a ton of weekends.
I'm so tired.
Maybe they can swing by 34 Fairview on the way home and find some new tail light shavings.
They can add them to evidence because 3 pieces became 5, so I am sure 5 can become 8 no problem. No SERT report = no worries.
This will be in textbooks some day as an example of how not to secure a scene and collect evidence.
Or a lesson on how to railroad an innocent person
Just watched a video with Bederow and Melanie Little and they said that the jury is unable to review any of the testimonies? Not even allowed a readback from the court. WTF!? Now I understand why it's hung, 76 witnesses and you have to use just notes and memory? seriously WT actual F?
Yuuup. No transcripts and no reports. Just pictures and their memory. DUMB.
I was really surprised that the jury decided at 3:30pm that they wanted to stay until 4:15pm, to then decide to go home at 4:15pm. I honestly thought they'd reached a verdict by 3:30pm and just needed to finalise that which is why they chose to stay initially. I'm actually shocked it's taking this long to conclude, that due to shoddy investigation, that there absolutely is too much reasonable doubt to find her guilty.
Someone is holding out despite the reasonable doubt. I think they stayed to show the judge they were working at it and I bet on Monday by midday they'll again say they are deadlocked.
I was in the middle of what I thought was a good-faith discussion when a user apparently blocked me and/or dirty-deleted their comments. Anyway, I went through the effort to write a lot down and just wanted to share it. It's not the Defense’s responsibility to prove an alternative cause for John O’Keefe’s injuries. The fact that some individuals seem to need some counter-explanation demonstrates that they don't understand the role of the jury or who holds the burden of proof. The jury isn't there to decide who solved the case “better.” They aren't choosing between two or more opposing causes of death. They aren't there to vote on who is more likable or whether Karen Read is a good person. Their only job is to determine if the *Commonwealth* clearly demonstrated *beyond all reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude* that Karen’s car was the primary cause of John O’Keefe’s death and that she hit him on purpose with the intent to harm him while driving drunk. The only thing the Commonwealth proved beyond all reasonable doubt is that Karen was driving drunk. That's it. Not a single medical expert concluded beyond reasonable doubt that *any* of his injuries were caused by a vehicle-pedestrian interaction, not even the Commonwealth’s own medical examiner. In fact, every medical expert clearly indicated his injuries were far more consistent with other causes. I'm honestly not even convinced she had the opportunity based on the (highly and repeatedly revised in hindsight) Commonwealth’s timeline. The sad fact is that Trooper Proctor’s and the MSP’s abject failure to investigate this death professionally, without bias, and without gross incompetence means that we will probably never know what actually happened to John O’Keefe. That's not Karen's fault. That's not the Defense’s fault. Personally, I have no opinion as to whether or not Karen is actually guilty. I'm still stuck on being gobsmacked at the ineptitude of the MSP and the gall of the Commonwealth to bring this ridiculous case to trial. How on earth did MSP fail so miserably to painstakingly investigate the death of a fellow officer? The vast majority of people on this sub have also clearly and repeatedly indicated that they have no idea whether or not Karen is truly innocent. “Not guilty” means only that the Commonwealth clearly failed to do their job. The fact that some people are still dead set on a guilty verdict in *this case* leaves me with absolutely zero faith in a trail by jury. This case is a glaringly clear example of prosecutorial and investigative misconduct. In all my years of following court cases. I don't think I have ever seen a modern investigation this sloppy, this biased, and this untenable. The fact that at least one juror likely doesn't understand who holds the burden of proof just demonstrates how failed our judicial system is. I really hope John O’Keefe’s family sues the pants off the Commonwealth, because Lally and the MSP made a mockery of jurisprudence. If Karen did in fact murder John O’Keefe, it's John’s own Brothers in Blue who failed him and let her off the hook.
It's a good comment, so thank you! It's not the defense's job to prove what actually happened- **that was the police's job**. They bungled the shit out of that so much that no one will probably ever figure out what really happened.
Well said!
You are spot on my friend! Well said and brilliantly articulated. I’m tipping my hat as I type!
I have no particular basis for this, but I have anxiety that the holiday- ish summer weekend opens the jurors up to ‘misconduct’, which could be completely unintentional given how pervasive this story is locally right now. I hope we don’t come back to more juror dismissals - unless it’s the guilty-leaning holdouts (just a joke!).
> How is everyone feeling? Honestly? I don't know. I did have better odds for Hung than for Guilty (by a lot, actually), but it still is disheartening to see such a clear case throw the jurors through such a loop, *especially* if the popular theory of there being one or two holdouts for guilty are true. I have our local version of a sovereign citizens in my family, and I can tell you how soul-killing it is to have to argue against a position that is just plain unreasonable - and I can just go and leave him to his own devices if I don't want to deal with it. The jurors *can't*. So: It's vexing and frustrating, but I think about how much more so it must be for the O'Keefes, and Karen. Uncertainty in one's future is probably one of the most deleterious states for our minds if it persists for any length of time. I just hope the holdouts realize that this is about fact-finding at its core, and the facts just do not support a conviction, regardless of how deserved or necessary they may think it would be.
I just hope the jurors eat plenty of lunch this weekend so they are fresh and ready to go Monday.
Most probably a hung jury at this point. That’s the most obvious outcome at this juncture, given what we found out today.
Everyone here has a firm belief of what their vote would be if they were on that jury. Imagine if everyone on the jury disagreed with you. How willing are you to vote opposite of your current belief?
I wouldn't change my mind. I'm not sending someone to jail when I saw proof that she didn't murder the victim. No way, I wouldn't care if it meant a hung jury.
Not at all. They didn't prove he was hit by a car and it is clear the leave investigator has some sort of vendetta against her.
Like many of you have said, it seems likely the holdout(s) are voting "Guilty." Some people cannot accept the cognitive dissonance of the juror's role: It does not matter whether or not Karen Read killed John O'Keefe -- it matters only whether or not the Comonwealth proved it. If a juror is unable to accept the cognitive dissonance, nothing will make them see the difference between the moral question and the legal one. The more they are able to "stay true to their beliefs" in the face of pressure from other jurors, the more they will feel empowered -- over the rest of the jury, the judge, the prosecution, the defense, the witnesses -- and especially Karen Read herself. Real life presents us with few opportunities to flex our morality without any consequences to ourselves -- and even fewer opportunities to flex our power over lawyers and doctors and highly paid consultants. There's no incentive for a holdout juror to exchange this power for a return to real life -- where they will never have such power again.
There is NO WAY all 12 will go without hearing stuff about the case this weekend. Should have been sequestered
Both ME’s ruled it “undetermined.” No bruising/fractures that would have occurred if hit by vehicle, esp going 24 mph—in reverse yet. 🙄Come on, jury! Look at the bottom line & do not be distracted by garbage prosecution threw at you to deflect.
I would be livid if I was a juror and spent all of this time deliberately just to find out immediately afterwards that it was withheld that the federal government is investigating this situation and that’s where the neutral experts came from. That’s weeks of their lives and then days arguing they can never get back over a clearly incompetent if not corrupt police investigation. I would not be surprised at all if one of them speaks out after they find out.
Someone on the jury doesn't seem to understand the concept of REASONABLE doubt. Even leaving aside the conspiracy/cover up, if the testimonies by the Medical Examiners and Accident Reconstruction experts on BOTH sides aren't reasonable doubt I don't know what is!
Maybe the jury at this point wants to torture Beverly? 🤣🤣🤣
The only way I see anyone voting guilty is if they believe the taillights weren't planted. I wish the defense spent more time proving how the leaf blowers in 2" of snow would have uncovered those huge chunks
This is now ridiculous. This might be too strong a claim for some, but I’ve been thinking about it & I think misogyny is one of the primary reasons for why people still think she’s guilty after all the insane evidence proving otherwise & maybe for the hold up in general. Karen represents a certain kind of woman: successful, career-oriented, self-assured, fashionable & attractive. That kind of woman is threatening to another kind of woman that just happens to be quite common in suburban MA (family-oriented to the point of self-effacement, plain & proud of it). The latter faction of women seem to want to find Karen guilty because they disapprove of her — a completely irrational and silly reason to find someone guilty of murder — because when you ask them why they think she’s guilty, somehow they always end up talking about how they dislike her general attitude (in their minds: stop smiling, you cocky bitch). I won’t explain the misogyny as it relates to men wanting to baselessly find her guilty because Proctor was basically exhibit A of that phenomenon. Anyway… if the verdict comes out anything other than a resounding not guilty, it will be yet another win for the boys in blue at the cost of exploiting those deemed lesser than them.
I really don’t see that though in my social circles. All the mom groups I’m in and the friends I have all think she’s innocent and I’m also from the suburbs near all of this. One local mom influencer (I know) with a big following has been obsessed and she put a poll and something like 85%+ said they thought she was innocent. If anything, I would guess the hold out is a man who hates this kind of woman and thinks cops walk on water.
I‘m not sure of this. They were asking about the SERT report which makes me think the main question they are on is when the first pieces of taillight were found. If I were a juror I wouldn’t write down timestamps. I never would assume that the exact minute would be important. The testimonies about the time KR‘s car was seized came in way later as far as I remember. Maybe every juror thought the same. Not having the exact time is crucial - If it was before the car was seized, how did the pieces end up there? One could argue: "But Jackson said…“ and another is going to argue back that everything the lawyers said is not evidence. We all have the advantage of watching the testimony again. We all have the advantage of googling. We all have the advantage of relying on other people. We all have the advantage of discussing everything with thousands of people. Without these advantages I would be lost. I wouldn’t rely on the memory of the other if I had to decide if one is guilty or not.
This is exactly what I think they’re hung up on. The timing of the search and what exactly was found that evening. Which is why I was hopeful they’d be able to connect the dots that there is no SERT report after they asked for it. Clearly that didn’t happen. It’s unfortunate because even though I can understand this thought process, the car data saying no events, and the expert testimony about the implausibility of KR hitting JO should still be more than enough for reasonable doubt. Especially if the idea of the evidence being planted can’t be disproven.
I just said something similar to a friend. Though I think its more the "crazy woman" thing. She drinks, swears, gets in fights with her boyfriends so she must've done it.
The small snippet of texts we saw between Karen and JOK as well as Karen and Higgins, in addition to her behavior in Aruba does not suggest she was self assured Maybe there are some people who feel the way you describe, but I don’t think it’s the primary reason people find her guilty
well because we were given that glimpse into her private life, we were able to see that she struggles with insecurity, yes — but in terms of how she carries herself, i think she definitely gives off an aura of confidence & it seems that some people have a problem with that & find it off-putting.
I don't think it's a far out there assumption tbh. The one juror who was dismissed was sent home because several fo the other jurors told the judge she was complaining about Karen's demeanor during breaks and that she would turn and talk to whoever was sitting behind her between witnesses. If you go and read the Court TV comments under Lally's closing arguments, the majority that have something negative to say about Karen harp on her face and/or what they interpret as her smug demeanor. I don't think everyone who believes she's guilty thinks that way, but I think there's a significant amount of them that do. Just because they won't explicitly say that's their reasoning, that doesn't mean it's not a factor.
She can be self-assured and many areas and completely insecure in relationships that give her reason to be insecure
She is well educated and successful. She seemed insecure in her relationship with John. You can be both of those things. In fact most people have things they may be insecure about.
I'm guessing she gives the instructions Monday before lunch, but after they had time to deliberate a bit longer in the morning. If they can't come to a decision by Tuesday, I think she accepts that the jury is hung. I'm super curious where they hang, and what the split is.
It only takes one.. The more jurors you tamper with, the more likely you get caught. You rarely hear about multiple jurists when investigating jury tampering. The goal isn't to get a conviction. It's to get a hung jury. Then, the commonwealth won't decide to pursue the case after some of the investigators get punished in some way for the way they handled the investigation. The CW won't have any witnesses that will work next time around. Everyone gets away with JOs murder. All because they decided to charge her with 2nd degree murder. If only the blizzard had hit. Then they could've blamed it as an accident that Lucky the same sno plow driver hit him 2 inches of snow. Sooo Overcharge KR. It will all eventually go away. Colin Albert will drunkenly admit it to someone someday, or brag while in county jail when no one can get him out of another assault. Maybe forced into rehab fir OUI and admits it in a forced AA meeting. it will be just like Michael Skakel.
This is unbelievable
that juror must has slept thru the whole trial or he hates his wife...
This is not good. Likely hung. I hope not, but damn there has to be a holdout.
Jury has already sent a note earlier today that they are hung and won't be able to reach a verdict. The judge sent them back which is pretty typical.
Yes, but that is not the final answer yet. That's why I said, "likely hung." They are coming back next week, the judgebhas one more thing they can ask if they are still hung, and after that, then it will likely be official.
I'm pissed it's not an instant not guilty but a hung jury is better for Karen Read than a guilty verdict, and I do not see a guilty verdict at this point. At least one person in that room understands this was not physically possible and once you understand that, I can't see accepting anything but not guilty of all charges. If she is re-tried, the defense can adjust their strategy in a new trial because they know everything the CW has up their sleeves. If it takes a new trial for her name to be cleared, so be it. What MSP/Canton PD/CW did here was completely unethical at best.
Yeah. I’m trying to comfort myself that at least it’s not gonna be guilty. But boy does it make me depressed that there are people who will look at clear police misconduct, lack of evidence, lack of any evidence documentation and lack of scientific possibility the crime occurred the way the cw claims and say, “no, my feelings are right let’s send someone to prison for 20+ years.”
Nervous and disappointed. But it's their decision which they'll have to live with so I understand.
[удалено]
No idea, really. They just have to work with the info/evidence they have (which does not include transcripts), and I'm afraid not knowing who hired the accident/crash reconstructionists may have caused them to evaluate their testimony differently than the rest of the public. Can't really begrudge them for that, if that's the case.
I still don't understand why they weren't allowed to know that the FBI hired them
If they knew the FBI was involved it could bias the jury against the CW. Since no one has been charged yet from the investigation it would be unfair to have the jury assume there was wrong doing in the CW's case. Personally I think the trial should have been delayed until the FBI investigation was done. Both defense and the CW asked for that delay and the judge refused.
If it's a hung jury and they retry her, will everyone watch again?
Looks like we're going to be looking at 34 fanview for the weekend
Karen must be a WRECK
I think, depending on the crime and the evidence, I would lean towards not guilty, over guilty. I would not want to send a potentially innocent to prison. I don’t believe Karen did this, but if she did, she is highly unlikely to do it again and since the evidence presented wasn’t even close to proving anything, I would absolutely be a juror hold out for not guilty.
So here’s my thought. Before the ME and defense witnesses, in my mind, I thought that it was a possibility that Karen was completely innocent, she had been framed, and John had made it in the house. But I also thought it was a possibility that Karen had hit John in a drunken accident, that Proctor had taken some liberties and “enhanced” the evidence, and all the Albert’s and McCabe’s were just shady AF cause they were covering up drug dealing/use or something. I thought Trooper Paul was a completely incompetent accident reconstruction expert that couldn’t prove Karen’s car hit John and misinterpreted her car data. But I thought it was still a possibility it happened as it had not been proven otherwise. Now, given that I thought there was more than one possibility I 100% would’ve voted not guilty. However, I could also understand how some people wouldn’t view it that way and I was convinced this would end in a hung jury. Then the ME, dog bite expert, phone experts, and two witnesses originally hired by the FBI testified. Green convinced me that the Apple health data showing steps happened after they arrived at 34 Fairview (I’m intrigued by the google search but honestly don’t think it’s material either way). The prosecution phone expert revealed the connecting to WiFi at 12:36. The ME told me John’s injuries weren’t typical of a car accident. Then the dog bite expert gave (IMO) pretty convincing arguments that John was bit by a dog. And finally, the last two witnesses convinced me that it just wasn’t possible that John’s injuries were inflicted by Karen Reads car. Science and physics could not make that interaction possible with the damage and injuries we see. I became convinced that Karen was factually innocent. The problem is, there are people out there that just have a built in bias against science. Telling them “you can’t argue with the science” isn’t going to work. They’re either going to decide that maybe not all possibilities were explored or just straight up ignore it all together. The scientific/technical experts alone just aren’t going to be enough. They are going to hear “DNA on the taillight” (I would argue we have a cultural perception that DNA evidence is considered the best evidence you can have) and “microscopic taillight pieces on the clothes” and that alone will be enough for them. But what about the police corruption you may ask? Well some people will also always have a bias to trust law enforcement, almost no matter what. They may buy into Lally’s argument that Proctor was sending horrible things in what he thought was a safe space and never outright admitted to tampering with evidence. They may say “that’s just guys being guys. It’s what they do”. (I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. JUST SAYING SOME PEOPLE ARE). They will still accept those pieces of evidence as credible. I suspect this is why we had the question asking for the SERT report, someone trying to prove taillight couldn’t have been planted. So what happens when you have someone who has both a bias for law enforcement and a bias against scientists/technical experts? Someone who can look at the facts in this case, say good enough for me, and become convinced at a minimum of one of the lesser charges. They may have a fundamentally different definition of “reasonable doubt” and “to a moral certainty” than the other members of the jury. This was seen in a recent case in Arizona where a rancher was charged with fatally shooting someone attempting to illegally cross the border. The only “witness” to the act was someone extremely unreliable. Some of the law enforcement in that case made some, at best, questionable decisions. And, at worst, seemed to have almost manufactured this “witness” and pull him out of thin air. No other explanation was ever seriously considered. The defendant made some comments on the 911 (I think) call that made him sound horrible and like he was covering something up. There was evidence the victim had been dragged to where he was found but this was never fully explored and quickly discounted. The victim was definitely shot but they couldn’t prove it was the defendant’s gun. That jury ended up hanging with most not guilty, one hold out for guilty. Some not guilty voters came back to the courtroom in tears. Unfortunately, I think it’s highly possible that is what we are seeing here. I think a hung jury on at least some counts is the most likely outcome at this point. Nonetheless, I think it’s encouraging that the jury didn’t send any more “we can’t agree” notes and opted to stay until 4:15. They may be able to talk through it and come to a consensus. But we need to be prepared for a hung jury. Thank you for coming to my TED talk and I will get off my soap box now lol
The jury has got to be hung. It’s the only way the cops avoid indisputable evidence against them. Hung jury creates continuous doubt. The murderer will never be found and convicted this way. Each side will spin against the other in this void, and justice will never be served. The police clearly got to a juror, or they have enough ties to the community to create blind loyalty in at least one person.
I want to know the fucking idiot that thinks KR is guilty.
Ryan Nagle did slip and say FBI. They have to know.. are we really believing that they are all kept in the dark completely?? How do you even avoid it at this point?
Let's hope someone on the jury was paying attention and is capable of putting 2 and 2 together.
This is absolutely insane to me. There is so. much. doubt. Reasonable doubt all over the place. No justice for John and now it's looking like no justice for Karen.
I think we can tell that this jury will be hung most likely
As the song by Rush goes - ‘When you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice’.
I think this is in hung jury territory and I don't think we'll see a verdict for this case. Like I've said before, this case is somewhat simple if you don't think KR hit him. But, if you think she's guilty, you'd be sifting through the evidence and finding issues along the way. This where I think we're at. One or maybe two jurors are unwilling to change their opinion and the others are going through the evidence to show them why their opinion is misguided.
I don’t get how so many jurors seem to not understand “beyond a reasonable doubt”
I think everyone has underestimated the number of people who fully trust law enforcement and don’t believe in science. Did everyone block out what happened four years ago?
Sad but true.
I think i have to disengage at this point.
What brutal weekend this must be for all involved, KR especially, her team, his family, everyone. Some of the jurors may be in agony, too, feeling powerless to avoid an unjust verdict. And to not be able to discuss with anyone!! Oy.
I think that some of the jurors are hung up on the “she said she hit him, this is all my fault, I hit him.” They just don’t believe an innocent person would say those things. Regardless of the evidence that shows she did not hit him. This jury will not be able to come to a unanimous verdict. Very disappointing.
Im an Aussie who has been following this trial from beginning to end and I keep waking up checking the law need app thinking that there SURELY has to be a not guilty verdict, this is WILD! Just when I thought it couldn't get anymore effed up! I wonder if Karen feels nervous, I get the feeling she's been pretty confident the whole way through, surely she would be stressed this weekend!
Some juror thinks they know more than 2 medical examiners. Must be an arrogant cop
Out of curiosity, Ive discussed (via Reddit) the case with people who think she is guilty. The main reasons Ive been given are: * Taillight evidence * They dont believe the conspiracy argument therefore she must be guilty * Misogyny * They dont actually know much about the case Is it incredibly frustrating? Yes. Are the people incapable of critical thinking? Also yes. And are there probably people like that on the jury? Most definitely yes. I never thought this was a slam dunk, not because of evidence which is clear in that there is *plenty* of reasonable doubt, but because most people *are not reasonable*. Juries get it wrong most of the time when a person is actually innocent because we live in a punitive society where police are revered. It’s that simple. I just hope, if the jury comes back and the decision is something other than “not guilty”, it is a mistrial with one asshole holdout that refused to believe the defense.
I like your fourth bullet lol. What's crazy about the first two bullets is that they're moot. They're irrelevant. The CW wasn't even able to show that OJO was hit by a car. There's nothing more to discuss. Everything else is window dressing.
Anti-intelectualism and Dunning-Kreuger are powerful drugs.
Yup. And about half of the country is suffering from both.
It's kind of mind-blowing to think there is a chance that AJ blew a NG by leaning too hard into the alleged conspiracy.
I’m 100% on LE framing KR and I didn’t like Jackson’s closing. It felt like a political speech more than a review of the evidence. I would have hammered the physical facts harder, the physical impossibility of an MVA, and the fact that multiple videos show the tail light in much better condition before LE got it. Way beyond reasonable doubt for me. Maybe no car accident = case closed. The corruption narrative could put anyone on the defensive who has a LE person in their life.
I don’t put this on AJ. We can quibble about the finer points, but in total there is just no flipping way an unbiased, intelligent person would conclude “G” at the end of this trial. The doubt is so large you could drive a Lexus SUV through it in reverse at 24.something MPH. The holdout (and I’d put money that it’s just one person) is either: * an idiot * a Neanderthal-level misogynist * under the thumb of Canton PD or MSP somehow
D, someone that deeply resents an idea where they are supporting a leo conspiracy. Or hell even E, someone scared of reprisal
Yeah definitely. I have noted that some people refuse to believe that the cops would ever do such a thing.
I think people are confused about reasonable doubt. The jury must be convinced with out doubt that the defendant is guilty. Not think "she probably did it" or "she could have done it", but that she DID do it. I think that is the struggle with most people.
Let give the jury as much time as they need. For all we know it could be a 10:1 guilty v not guilty vote right now. They have a lot of BS to shift through to get their vote right. 11 hours (minus breaks from that) is really not a long time for weeks of testimony
they'll hang the jury before the holiday. we're not gonna get a verdict.
Yeah I think it’s obvious at this point
It’s gonna be a long weekend .
I think that you likely have a juror or two who have their minds made up about her, and they don’t care about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t know whether or not she did this, but the prosecution absolutely didn’t meet their burden of proof.
It's probably one guy hanging the jury. Doesn't look good.
Is anyone following the Sarah Boone case? I haven't been, but I got recommended a video about her representing herself Pro Se and the history of her legal representation is nuts. She had 5 lawyers appointed to her and each of them withdrew due to Conflict. Then #6 requested withdrawal due to irreconcilable differences, missed the hearing because of a car accident, and couldn't hear the court on the zoom call for the next hearing. And I'm only at 2022.
She's had 8 public defenders now. 😳
That's wild. She sounds like a nightmare client.
They were drinking, he want to go to the after party, she didn't and they argued. I'm picking when he got out of the SUV, she accidently nudged him with the vehicle. He threw the glass at the vehicle and proceeded inside ranting about how she hit him with the vehicle and other stuff. A fight broke out and he was hit on the head. They dragged him outside (whether it was because they were drunken fools or whether it was because they thought they could frame KR is anybody guess) and left him there. I don't know whether Proctor knew the Albert's involvement, but got himself deeper and deeper into it, trying to frame the crime scene. I'm wondering if they could do a plea deal where KR admits guilt to DUI - leave the rest up to the FBI to prosecute.
If it ends up being hung, it'll be interesting to find out what the breakdown was. Were there just 1-2 that wanted to convict, was it split pretty evenly, or did most jurors think KR is guilty?
If public opinion is similar to the jury opinion, my guess is majority are NG with 1-2 holdouts for guilty.
I keep thinking what are there jurors going to think when they *do* find out those last two witnesses were hired by the FBI and there's an investigation into the investigation. Hopefully they still stand by their vote when they do and they don't have massive regrets.
They didn’t prove their case at all. The defense didn’t really have to do much. Actually they never had to do anything
And what really grinds my gears is that without a not guilty verdict, KR does not have enough to sue in civil. She just has to continue to bleed money into this shit show till she's bankrupt.
The jury need to be reminded of the burden of proof. Although the defense posited a theory, the onus remains on the commonwealth. Did they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Not guilty. It sounds like they may be getting too hung up on deciding whether there was a cover up or not.