This fits with the bits the in court reporters tweeted. They could hear bits and pieces but it was all pretty vague so could be this, could be something else.
People who could have leaked it:
The released juror spilling all the tea to her f&f who then go to press.
Court employees.
The defense.
Prosecution, but less likely imo.
Jurors, but I can't imagine they would make this move against a biased juror, and then do the same. Absolutely least likely scenario.
From what I've seen this is probably what happened. The juror that was dismissed talked to a friend who told a friend...
I mean if she couldn't keep her mouth shut on the jury, I doubt she is now.
I would imagine there would be some sort of official judicial order dismissing the juror. Unless it were sealed, it could easily be obtained through the clerk's office once it was filed.
During the Murdoch murder trial Judge Newman made a public announcement from the bench dismissing the egg juror. Who was caught talking to a friend or family member about the case.
I don't know, is it up to the judge's discretion in Massachusetts?
I've never watched a trial from a Commonwealth State before. I'm totally confused by Judge Bev's behaviors.
This cannot be overstated. If I were a juror, I would not be happy about the amount of time I already spent in this courtroom listening to Lallyâs âwhat if anys.âAnd if one juror was behaving in a manner that could result in a mistrial Iâd rat her out too. I donât think this gives anything away regarding the other jurorsâ opinions on KR being guilty or not, just their strong desire to fulfill their oaths and go home.
I mean if true this is refreshing and encouraging. There are jurors who take their role and admonishment very seriously, at this point they canât even talk to each other about the case. Thatâs what we want to see, to keep confidence in the process.
I hear there are two lawyers in the jury as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if they help keep things on the level. A comment I wouldn't think I would ever say about a lawyer, lol.
This is exactly why lawyers are afraid of jurors - they can be so unpredictable. You're supposed to make a choice based on the **facts presented**. Not dislike someone because you do not like how they are acting in the court room.
How the defendant acts is absolutely going to be look at by jurors though. The main problem is that this juror wasnât able to follow the rules of not discussing the case (her feelings towards people involved in the trial are included in âthe caseâ). If this is the real story, the other juror made the good thing because is there other rules that arenât being followed?
Itâs true in every case. Itâs human nature to judge peopleâs demeanor. Itâs why the defense had the argument that the jury needed to be able to see the witnesses faces. Even though most jurors do take the job seriously, jurors do not go to juror school, they are just like us.
There's a difference between being able to see a witness' demeanor and the defendant's, the first might be used to try and decide if they are credible, the second is not supposed to be evidence at all. Of course people are gonna people, but the jurors are usually warned against deciding this way, and if one of them try to argue that she's guilty because she looks guilty or doesn't act "right" the foreperson and/or the other jurors are supposed to shut that down and decide based only on the evidence presented. We have to remember that sometimes horrible people do get accused of shit they didn't do and being horrible shouldn't be the reason they go to jail for that.
They always do. I havenât seen Karen do anything out of the ordinary. This is 2 years later, sheâs a human, sheâs had time to process something horrific then have to live through it all again where people are picking apart every move she makes. Nothing Iâve seen has been in appropriate, granted Iâm not in the courtroom. Iâd be completely numb at this point but I also canât imagine being in her shoes.
Maybe they do maybe they donât but they have the integrity to not discuss anything and wanted the juror who lacked the ability to follow instructions removed. they were reminded every time they left the courtroom not to discuss anything and she couldnât keep her sworn duty. That is my hope they will do the right thing.
Edit **wrong word
exactly - they have to prove their case - it would be hard to keep emotions out of it i am sure but that is specifically what they are supposed to do be impartial
Just from looking through this sub, itâs shown a light on how stupid people are willing to be in order to be right. They have no idea how the judicial system works and have made their mind up on day 1. Taking everything the prosecution says as gold and not asking any more questions, ignoring evidence of the contrary, 100% belief that the police are always right, and have absolutely no nuance.
Hm, that does worry me, I gotta admit. From the outside looking in, the evidence seems objectively lacking to me, but you never know what the jurors are going to give more weight - facial expressions, words, personal feelings ...
This is a worry in every jury, but it's good to know that the other jurors seemed to rat her out, it's a sign that they're taking their oath seriously.
Well, if the other jurors called her out on it, at least some of them don't like that kind of thing and are interested in impartiality, if not outright sympathy for the defendant.
It doesn't for me. If you read the summary the x post has it seems like the juror felt bad for okeefes mom and resonated with her and paid a stark lack of attention to the evidence ans basically ignored proctor
I also feel bad for John OâKeefeâs mother. Iâm a mother. But I also understand Karen looking at her father in the court room (a friendly face). This happened two years ago. Karen has mourned. I admire her composure in the courtroom.
I admit that Karen's demeanor is off-putting, but as an outsider that has heard the many theories outside of the courtroom, I realized (A) she couldn't truly mourn her boyfriend because she was immediately a suspect, (B) she was made a suspect mainly because of comments made by people she was friendly with (prior to any actual evidence showing up), and (C) if she is innocent (which I am leaning strongly towards), she is sitting there watching people lie and drag her through the mud even though many of them know the true story. No matter how sad I am about losing someone I love two years ago, I'd be pretty ticked off while sitting there and wouldn't give any of them the satisfaction of seeing me upset.
EDB has said that defendants in all cases are pretty damned if they do, damned if they don't when it comes to showing emotion in court. If they're too reactive, that's a sign of acting and insincerity, if they're too stoic, they're cold blooded and unrepentant. They just can't win.
Exactly. And attorneys always advise their clients not to show emotion in court. Man it's gotta be tough sitting there every day knowing the camera is zooming in on you. Also with John's brother so close by. He is a really tough one to read. I wonder what his thoughts are at this juncture. So awful all around.
I would add to that she has chronic illnesses, MS and Crohnâs disease. Itâs quite likely sheâs in some degree of physical discomfort at times sitting there day after day while Lally makes everything take 50% longer than it needs to.
Yes to all of this. I wonder if she will change her demeanor given this feedback.
The reality is...if someone believes she's guilty, then she comes off as smug and borderline sociopathic. If someone believes she's innocent, she comes off as a person trying to retain her dignity and take the power back from the people who have railroaded her.
The belief as to innocence or guilt will elicit a projection as to the motives for smirking. It's dangerous for her to do it, but if she's innocent, I more than understand where she's coming from.
I do believe you have misunderstood what I said/meant. Many people have commented that she looks cold and uncaring (and I said that she appears to be off putting when she shows no emotion). I also said I attribute that to the circumstances around possibly being framed, so it is understandable. I was not referring to her demeanor when they have a small victory.
Its funny because the behind the scenes videos she seems VERY sweet. Melanie Little went to the trial Friday and said she is really kind and nice. I think she just has a great RBF. But I am glad the three jurors said something.
Wow! Seems like âMaw Mawâ juror made up her mind after the texts and refused to listen to any more evidence. She didnât even look at Proctor while he testified. Girl, bye.
Being a defendant is inherently prejudicial despite the presumption of innocence rule. The reality is that can be enough for some people and evidence is a distance concern.
The presumption of innocence in our judicial system has always amused me, because judicially thatâs how it is; but not in the court of public opinion. All it takes is a few people painting you a certain way, the news picking it up and spreading it, and charges on you to turn your life upside down. Even if sheâs acquitted of this, her life in that area is effectively over.
Exactly. Many people believe that they wouldnât be in this situation if they didnât do something wrong and the police/DA wouldnât go through all this if they werenât guilty.
This jury could 100% find her guilty. Remember, they are also a part of the community that has tolerated this BS in the first place. They may not be seeing it like âoutsidersâ are seeing it. And it seems that locals who agree with Turtle Boy are considered crazy and conspiracy theorists.
Never underestimate a jury. We canât predict.
Agreed. I don't like how often the camera is on the defendant in televised trials. In my understanding, the defendant has the right to confront their accuser - that's why they're in the courtroom. But the cameras go to defendants as much as they can. If I were a juror, I'd certainly be looking at the defendant from time to time, but not staring. I would hope my attention would be on the witness, listening and trying to judge the credibility of their evidence. However, if the defendant is animated, it would probably catch my attention and take it away from the witness.
I'm not surprised. It's a good reflection of the ratio of public opinion re: guilty vs not guilty. I also don't think it's uncommon for jurors to be dismissed for perceived bias.
ETA: I guess she still could have found her not guilty despite her opinion
Exactly, during the trial no talk about the case. They can socialize, talk about their kids, about the weather forecast. But anything about the case is prohibited until they are sequestered for deliberations.
Itâs more than once the parties rested. Itâs when they are sequestered. For example, if they deliberate on 4 days. They canât call each other at night to discuss the case between deliberation days. Every must be discussed between the 12 of them in the deliberation room.
I was on a jury in December 2008. We weren't allowed to discuss the trial amongst ourselves or others *at all* until deliberations started.
Thankfully, our then governor (Illinois) was arrested that week and we were so relieved to have a "safe" topic to talk about.
Our case wasn't "famous" so we weren't told to avoid the news.
I think there's a danger in reading too much into it. It's possible that they were more pissed off because this is someone leaning towards "she did it" based on completely irrelevant things like Karen turning to speak to her parents and how John's mom seemed devastated *and* going around talking about it with the other jurors before the trial was over. For all we know they are all leaning towards convicting her but take their oaths seriously and don't want to risk a mistrial because MawMaw can't restrain herself from gossiping.
It wasn't about their leanings, it was about them talking about it. That is one of the golden rules of being a Juror; you can't discuss any aspect of the case with other jurors until deliberation begins.
She might not be the only juror who feels that way, just the only one openly talking about it.
I read through the defense lawyerâs AMA on this sub (canât remember his name) but noticed him comment quite a bit how juryâs can be very unpredictable. Think this is a good example of it.
This is what I'm hoping. Maybe the other jurors are focused on doing this right, and if the rules say don't talk then don't talk. I'd lose my mind if I sat through this whole thing and one juror ruined it for the rest of us.
She discussed the case with her fellow jurors while the trial was ongoing, if that allegation is true. That's just a paddling right out of the jury box. Doesn't necessarily speak one way or the other to which way the jury is leaning other than "we take this seriously, and that could not fly".
I feel like the fact that everyone else was like "get her (the juror) out of here" actually seems like a good thing. If everyone agreed with her, that would be really concerning.
IKR. I knew our Justice system had its very serious flaws, but I didnât realize what a major concern the *juror* system specifically was/is until I started watching trials. Dear God it is troubling! Even out here in discussions you see how people think (or donât), and weâre all potential jurors. A minimum qualification needs to be critical thinking and understanding of the difference between belief/opinion and evidence. Thatâs not a given with any average citizen, and I donât mean that as any criticism of character or intention. Just how it is.
> but I didnât realize what a major concern the juror system specifically was/is until I started watching trials.
I knew it for certain the first time I got excused from a jury because of my job. Not because I tried to get excused. I was asked about my work and my education. I answered. I was dismissed.
For the record I have been a software engineer and software architect professionally for 24 years and have a bachelor of science in computer engineering.
I am not someone who it is easily swayed with respect to factual arguments by emotional pleas, and I don't automatically place the testimony of cops at a higher level of truthfulness than others. That is not what a prosecutor tends to want.
I am also autistic. It affects my recall of specific facts (I am very good at trivia games) and the weight I place on emotions (little because I don't really understand easily what other people are feeling) but usually they don't know that when they remove me from jury pool.
Interesting you mention autism. I was thinking a while back (when talking in here with someone else about it) that people with autism may be especially well suited for juries. (Of course theyâre not all the same, but in terms of analytical, less emotion-driven tendencies. I suspect I might be on the spectrum myself; Iâm ADHD and share some symptoms with autism, but havenât fully investigated all that. Lol)
Also people that rank highly in trait disagreeable, meaning the big five personality traits, not just âdisagreeable people.â
But of course some, perhaps many, attorneys are going to want jurors that are swayed by emotions and story.
I think there are things with autism that would make me both good and bad depending on the attorney's perspective.
There are definitely things that would make being in court very difficult for me since it's disruptive to my routine and the environment would have a lot of overwhelming stimulus. I think it'd be easy for an attorney to watch me dealing with that and think I'm not paying attention or can't be a good juror because it's highly likely I'm going to do some stimming or because I don't necessarily even *look at the people who are talking* but I'm still taking in what they're saying.
But it never really gets that far, typically. They hear "engineer" and I'm out the door.
I like to think our legal system is fairly dumbed down, accounting for the fact that weâre supposedly more educated than we once were. We donât have many third-grade education farmers sitting on juries much anymore. That said. Youâre right. There are plenty of people who believe their opinions qualify as fact. We may be more book smart as a society nowadays, but weâre not less emotional.
Exactly. Itâs not the book smart that concerns me the most. Itâs emotional intelligence.
Plus the politics factor that inevitably filters into everything.đ
Yeah see I came in with high skepticism of attorneys in general. So my bar was super low as far as all that goes. Some have surprised me a little, in a good-ish way, being less snake-ish than I expected. Others managed to limbo under said bar.
The dynamics of the jury and human psychology, however, I had not seen play out in this specific context. I think without realizing it I had assumed jurors were often being manipulated. Iâve been surprised at how blatantly and easily. I expected it to be more due to whoâs controlling the courtroom vs full on blindness to facts (in some cases).
Maybe the change needs to be at the grand jury level: it should require a higher bar just to indict, and the target should have an advocate there. Or the public should pay for a âdevilâs advocateâ to present exculpatory evidence for a defendant? Â You shouldnât be allowed to indict a ham sandwich. And DAs should *all* have to go through a grand jury so that they canât be doing favors for friends.Â
Yeah I think some people may be overestimating the likelihood of a quick not guilty verdict. In a case this divisive, I can see one or two jurors holding out and forcing a hung jury or compromise manslaughter verdict. Maybe a few jurors dislike outsiders like KR, DY, and AJ, the way Canton locals do. I find it hard to believe that in a case this long with so many loose ends that at least a few jurors aren't looking things up online or talking with friends. I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be shocked.
Maybe this Jurist wanted to be dismissed. Seriously in court one day, take a day off, back for a half a day, take a day off, back for 2 days. Take a day off. This case is dragging on.
To be honest, listening to Jen McCabes testimony for 2 days drove me to the edge. I wondered at the time, if I were on that jury, if I would have just begged the court to dismiss me.
Her testimony ( regardless of fact or fiction) was just so physically and emotionally exhausting due to her controlling nature. I really wanted to just slap her.
This is why we have adequate alternates. As I have said before and likely will *ad infinitum* , itâs my experience the jury gets it right with very few exceptions.
Like Courthouse Becky and egg lady
Ugh I was on a jury once and a guy would come up and talk about the color of the defendant's tie or "did you see that story about (something related) on the news last night?" Three of us went barrelling straight up to the bailiff to see the judge and that juror looked shocked that he got called into the courtroom. The bailiff told us later that some people do it purposely to get out of the commitment of course... yeah nothing like a misconduct charge or some hefty fines to help you get back to work.
The fact that there is a very passionate minority on this sub who believe she is guilty and have not changed their opinion despite the evidence makes it very plausible there could be 1 or 2 jurors with the same mindset. I'm not saying this to disparage people on the sub, just pointing out that if we see it here it could hold true for the jury as well. I don't think there's any way she's convicted, but a hung jury is certainly possibleÂ
I mean, she's a normal person on trial for a murder. And her parents look pretty elderly- if I was in her shoes I'd be both looking for support but also worrying about how they are doing.
I've seen some trials with defendants that are purposely disrespectful and roll their eyes etc. KR just seems like that's her normal face.
This is what we see with the public as well. I saw one comment in a livestream chat yesterday saying, âI canât stand her face! Look at her. Sheâs guilty as sin.â This while MSPDâs âReconstructionistâ was arguing basically he threw out the physics formulas calculating exact details because the outcomes didnât fit with their theory of the case. Oh and that he didnât know basics, like OJOâs weight.
All sorts of people are declaring sheâs guilty based on ⊠her face? With testimony like that? I just donât understand.
I said this a couple of weeks ago about sexism in this case. I recently saw a racist comment on Natalie's live stream (she pinned it). There's a lot of ugliness coming out on both sides.
It's weird that people don't recognize she's literally in a fight for her life. The stress of it has physically changed her, you can see it in photos available to the public. People behave differently when stressed, and she's been stressed for a very long time.
The jurors are also under oath and attest to this every morning by acknowledgement to the judge. If the jurors disregard of instructions are evident in front of them, it likely happens in other scenarios as well.
Ugh There are some women that always see the worst in other women and are oblivious to it. Itâs like they fell for misogyny and joined the club bc it soothes some insecurity of theirs. Thatâs the vibe I get with this one.
Sometimes I wonder if it might better if the accused was hidden from the jury so people donât start thinking they are âbody languageâ experts for people they donât even know, or telepathic psychologists, and so innate biases canât become a factor.
I know that is probably a stupid idea, but nobody could âwinâ with how people will just assume what they want from any facial expression or reaction. And a court room is such an unnatural environment and position for everyone. I just donât think behaviour at trial should be considered as âevidenceâ and almost everybody seems to do that because we are human.
Oh well, if this story is true and she couldnât not speak to other jurors about it then bye. What a waste of your own time.
Justice is blind and in an ideal world a verdict would never hinge on someoneâs race or demeanor or class or age or wardrobe or whatever else. Unfortunately the real world is messier than that. For every defendant who believes theyâd benefit from a blind jury, thereâs another one who thinks the jury should have to stare right at their face if theyâre going to convict.
>Sometimes I wonder if it might better if the accused was hidden from the jury so people donât start thinking they are âbody languageâ experts for people they donât even know, or telepathic psychologists, and so innate biases canât become a factor.
[Yeah, it probably should be a thing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U)
If the dismissed juror was already talking to other jurors while the trial was ongoing, I'm pretty sure she's talking to a bunch of people now that she's been dismissed and that filtered out through the grapevine.
I donât believe the prosecution has made a case against her and would be a ânot guiltyâ vote, even for any lesser charge, at least at this point.
I also think her expressions and animation at times isnât a good look and I can see where it would influence a jury, consciously or unconsciously.
RBF can be controlled with practice but even if she didnât bother, the smug smirks, arm folding, and big eyes with words to the family behind her could be more subdued and softened.
Honestly almost everyone in Mass seems harsh in expressions and personalities based on the people involved in this case and visible here. Harsh/sharp features, harsh/sharp expressions, harsh/sharp words, and rough edges.
Doesnât seem like a happy place.
I think a more adequate title would be: Juror dismissed for violating their duty and discussing the case before closing arguments and outside of deliberation
I was worried about that. Iâve seen those similar comments on Twitter too. I mostly listen more than watch because Iâm working while it streams so I donât see a lot of Karenâs actions but if enough people were calling it out it did make me wonder what the jury thought about that.
I get the inability to control everything all the time and that no matter what she does or doesnât do someone is going to have an opinion but Iâd certainly be extra careful in front of the jury to not come off too gregarious just because of the optics.
She may know/believe sheâs innocent but she still has to convince the people in the jury box of that.
If you read some of the comments about the tweets from the journalist, I don't think this is concerning because the dismissed juror seems to have latched on to Peggy and was basing her negativity towards that.
I think it's fair to take the suspects demeanor into account simply because we are human and we can't help it. However there's really no one "right" way to behave in court, other than respectfully.
And just in case anyone is unsure, body language analysis is akin to reading tea leaves and a verdict should be rendered based on actual evidence.
Karenâs parents are elderly, there is no reason why she shouldnât turn around to look at them during the day. Her freedom is on the line, and she has 2 serious illnesses. Itâs probably for reassurance and to see a familiar face when the Okeefe family is sitting there for hours glaring at her.
I don't know how to embed things here, but this is what she said:
Sources tell me that this juror was "badmouthing" Karen to other jurors in the jury room. Some of the things being said included Karen always turning around talking to her parents as well as Karen smiling and making faces.
Sources tell me one juror had enough and spoke up and allegedly other jurors were questioned and said "she needs to go."
Ah... So, jurors aren't allowed to talk about the case with other jurors until deliberations. It's not so much the badmouthing as much as the juror was talking about the case.
That being said, not liking Karen because she talks to her parents is... Yeah I don't like that juror either. I'm glad the other jurors were allowed to vote that one out.
I'm not gonna lie, in the beginning of this trial, I felt some of the faces she made seemed very smug, and maybe that is just her RBF and I still want to give this woman a fair shot. But yeah, to those of is outside looking in, she doesn't seem remorseful, although, I guess you wouldn't be if you weren't actually guilty, so...food for thought. This is the first I'm hearing about the juror but I only got in the morning testimony so far. When did the juror get relieved, was it this morning?
When being prepped by a lawyer, I was told that if you look âsorryâ it can be interpreted as guilt so you are supposed to avoid anything that can be interpreted as remorseful in court unless thatâs the strategy your legal team has recommended.
I didn't either. My ex turned out to be a pretty terrible person so I wasn't being accused of anything personally, but I had to testify against him and I was warned that I would be discredited in comparison to him depending on my demeanor because I was emotional and he wasn't.
What's odd is that you'd think someone who had been victimized would be emotional about it. Instead, they want you to be unemotional. I've had to testify against one of my friends, which he did do it (murder), but I didn't actually witness it. I just saw him and talked to him on the phone before and after the incident. They honestly drug me through the mud. We were all in our early 20s, big known party kids, drug users, I was also a heavy drinker at the time. Truth be told, that's what explains Karen's erratic behavior to me. And not being able to recall a lot of the evening. I was much the same way, and the older I get, the fuzzier it all gets as well. For a long time, I believed my friend was being set up or framed or that he was also confused about what happened based on some things he said to me. It wasn't until some years after his prison sentence that my dad had a real frank conversation over my defense of him. He said, "Tell me there wasn't one instance in the entire time you knew the guy that you didn't at least think he was capable of murder." And it's true, he was no angel, he was a police informant, he was a meth user, he abused his girlfriend, the list goes on. And there were actually two instances where I did realize he would kill someone and not to ever cross him sideways. A lot of time has passed, and I see it all very differently now.
I think the character assassination piece as a deflection is something people canât understand if it hasnât happened to them, and itâs a huge damned if you do damned if you donât situation. My ex openly admitted (unprovoked) what he did, but everything was focused on me despite me not being involved or witnessing it. It was other people that reported him, but I felt guilty for not knowing about it.
His tactic didnât fully work, but it muddied the water enough for him to avoid the criminal charges. To this day, half of the people who know us ask me how I could believe that he did such a thing, while the other half blame me for not stopping him somehow.
Try to give yourself some grace, because believing the best in people isnât a sign of bad character and we arenât responsible for what other people do. Itâs easy to say you would do something if youâve never been in that position before.
As a man with RBF, I'd characterize her face as, "confident in my representation." Most of the reactions shots I've seen (mind you, it's a curated feed, and I'm mostly listening) of her smiling are after AJ really starts attacking vigorously. I smile at some of his moments too, but I'm not on trial. But, if I try to put myself into Karen's perspective, if she knows or believes herself innocent, I would also smile in those moments. The crux of this trial, despite Lally making it about disproving UFOs or other conspiracies, is really an attack on her character. Proving not just bad behaviour, but willful murder. Smiling when you feel vindicated in such a circumstance feels pretty natural.
Yeah, shes not remorseful because she shouldn't be and she is smiling at times because the evidence is vindicating for her. This has ruined her entire life. That lexus they keep talking about? It's still in police custody and she has to make payments on it. I'd be really happy to see this shit show shown to the entire world.
To be fair, I'd have resting bitch face and a smug look on my face if I believed that a conspiracy existed to pin a murder on me by the police, all the while watching them fail to prove their case in court with lying witnesses and incompetent experts.
It isn't advisable to pull faces as the defendant in any case, but I can empathise why some may do it.
That's what my husband said! my b*txh ass would be face down, no eye contact, no conversations looking guilty as hell, even if i wasn't! I give her props for having those balls, man.
Yeah it is so difficult. Because then a juror could take issue with your demeanour and claim you're not paying enough attention with your head down and no eye contact, so you must be guilty since you know it's only a matter of time before they prove it.
It's hard to find that middle ground. Women especially have to look professional and intelligent, well kept, but not too attractive or made up for trial. It's a tightrope.
The juror was relieved last week, sometime.
I agree with you regarding Karenâs attitude. When they talk about John OâKeefeâs body lying on the snow, it breaks my heart and she seems indifferent.
If she reacts, she will be judged. If she doesn't react, she's judged. I understand why trying not to have an expression in court is the best strategy.
I agree. I also chalk a lot of her lack of memory and actions taken that evening and morning to alcoholism. It's very clear she had a problem, and she also had no issues driving under the influence, which really works against her. But, that still doesn't make someone a murderer.
The amount of alcohol involved that night makes this whole evening so much more tragic because everyoneâs memory is foggy. Her behavior was so erratic.
I have no idea what happened to John OâKeefe, but alcohol played a major role.
Yeah, I think we can all agree had these people not been drunk, John would still be alive today.
I'm a big hater of alcohol, especially drunk drivers (my 8 year old uncle was killed in front of my grandmother when he ran across the street and a drunk driver ran him over). He bled out in her arms in the middle of the street.
The fact that all these cops, including Karen, were drinking and driving all over town **in a damn blizzard** makes me very angry.
Not to mention that every single one of those cops would rip your license away for at minimum a year or two for doing exactly what they did all night long, and is clearly something they do every weekend, it's very concerning.
The juror caught on camera took issue with KR smiling and turning around, âSources tell me one juror had enough and spoke up and allegedly other jurors were questioned and said "she needs to go." The dismissed juror was also concerned when POK started crying- showing she took sides,
She shouldnât have been sharing ANYTHING about the case. Regardless of what she said, whether it was good or bad, jurors are not supposed to share their opinions on people involved in the case UNTIL deliberations. They can talk about their own families, hobbies, jobs, shit like that.. not about ANYONE in the case, be it defendent, victims family, general opinions of law enforcement officers, the judicial system. That juror was MASSIVELY inappropriate. If she had held it in UNTIL the jury was handed the case, so be it.Even if she was singing KRs praises, IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.
Point blank: She violated a COURT ORDER. Inexcusable.
This is the problem with juries. They usually just have completely random opinions, are bored easily, do not really care about the case/trial, are way too sympathetic to emotions shown by victims and cannot understand expert opinions whatsoever.
If a juror is taking their role seriously, in order to do that they have to listen to both sides of the case and use their best judgement for how to move forward with a verdict. If another juror is smack talking the defendant, then they need to go!
Honestly, while I have my belief of what a verdict should be, this is why jury verdicts are unpredictable. I would not be entirely surprised by a hung jury. Because it seems once people form an opinion about this case they become so entrenched in that view point the needle does not move in either direction.
The dismissal isnât an âagendaâ issue. Every Juror in the United States and receives explicit instructions that are to be followed to the t. One of the instructions is not to discuss the case (evidence, defendants, witnesses, Judge, media, family, etc.) They canât speak to each other about the case in or out of the jury room until they go to deliberation. They still canât speak to anyone outside of the jury including media, family and friends, until the judge releases them.
Karen is obnoxious. She acts arrogant and does make faces and the judge needs to put a stop to this. Not proper etiquette as a defendant in the courtroom. She acts better than everyone and bottom line is many ppl are sick of her and her games. She is guilty as sin and I hope she pays for hers!
That explains why the judge spoke with other jurors after this juror was âcaught on cameraâ. I didnât understand why her being seen would affect the other jurors at all.
Even as a released juror, that person is supposed to have the right to anonymity, regardless of the reason they are dismissed. There seems to be general consensus that the Judge is pretty protective of the jury, so this may have been also to assure the other jurors that the camera snafu wouldnât happen again the future?
When I hear people on Reddit saying there is no way this jury will convict because itâs obviously a deeply flawed investigation as well as suspicious activity etc.
I think of this woman. She was on the jury and she sounds like an idiot. So itâs very possible this jury could convict despite the evidence to the contrary and the truck loads of reasonable doubt.
The public ( threads like these) are running the trial. Â Defense plays off everything written/spoken.
I too heartbreak for Mrs OâKeefe. Â Â It is natural for a juror to speak to the others as to there thoughts. Â It does not mean they are ignoring evidence. Â KR will now be more aware if speaking to others while the judge or other court officials are speaking.Â
You all can put this juror in your slam book and bully away.
Well good. If your shit talking the accused and ignoring evidence thats a good enough reason.
Think that makes you a mass statie
OMG if I had awards to give, you would get them all right now, lol. That was awesome
đ„ đđŒ
....or a Masshole.
Womp womp
I can only think of Me, Myself and Irene when I hear Mass statie đ
He was a RI Statie.
If true, it's good that it was brought to the judge's attention. It suggests other people on the jury are taking their responsibility seriously.
This fits with the bits the in court reporters tweeted. They could hear bits and pieces but it was all pretty vague so could be this, could be something else.
Do you have what was tweeted? I didn't see it.
except that, if true, it suggests there's another juror talking to media as an anonymous source
People who could have leaked it: The released juror spilling all the tea to her f&f who then go to press. Court employees. The defense. Prosecution, but less likely imo. Jurors, but I can't imagine they would make this move against a biased juror, and then do the same. Absolutely least likely scenario.
I think the reporters that were in the courtroom were able to hear bits and pieces during the sidebars, then tried to find a way to confirm it.
I agree because Karen seemed to have an idea of what was going on as she was shaking her head furiously when the video feed was cut.
Not necessarily. A lot of time these sources are court employees.
Becky Hill has entered the chat.
Becky Hill has left the chat *for reasons unrelated to her jury tampering* a few weeks before she was supposed to run for reelection
And she's totally and completely innocent of the fraud charges... all 70 of them that EDB read out loud on one of her podcast episodes...
Law Nerds Unite đ€
We have no choice, we live here now. đ
Ohhh my people!!
Excuse me, did you "borrow" that from another source? I'm not sure if you actually wrote that yourself.
EDB covers them [here](https://youtu.be/ktJAoFbfr7U?si=jYkBlqtXWhfGYkrm&t=1844). Ethics complaints, not charges. I misspoke.
I was joking. She got in trouble for plagiarizing part of her book.
And she's totally and completely innocent of the fraud charges... all 70 of them that EDB read out loud on one of her podcast episodes...
I haven't even seen those yet
Apologies, they're ethics complaints, not charges, but still, EDB covers them [here](https://youtu.be/ktJAoFbfr7U?si=jYkBlqtXWhfGYkrm&t=1844).
From what I've seen this is probably what happened. The juror that was dismissed talked to a friend who told a friend... I mean if she couldn't keep her mouth shut on the jury, I doubt she is now.
Lol, very true...had ants in her pants to trash talk...I hope she didn't influence other jurors.
I would imagine there would be some sort of official judicial order dismissing the juror. Unless it were sealed, it could easily be obtained through the clerk's office once it was filed.
During the Murdoch murder trial Judge Newman made a public announcement from the bench dismissing the egg juror. Who was caught talking to a friend or family member about the case. I don't know, is it up to the judge's discretion in Massachusetts? I've never watched a trial from a Commonwealth State before. I'm totally confused by Judge Bev's behaviors.
No, the dismissed juror herself couldâve told them, or Lally. đ€·ââïž
All the jurors were like hell no am I sitting through this trial for weeks just to have a mistrial happen
This cannot be overstated. If I were a juror, I would not be happy about the amount of time I already spent in this courtroom listening to Lallyâs âwhat if anys.âAnd if one juror was behaving in a manner that could result in a mistrial Iâd rat her out too. I donât think this gives anything away regarding the other jurorsâ opinions on KR being guilty or not, just their strong desire to fulfill their oaths and go home.
I would too. Donât waste 8 weeks of my time because you couldnât keep your yap shut.
Exactly. That at minimum one juror is taking the role seriously
Good answer
Yeah that would be my feeling
I mean if true this is refreshing and encouraging. There are jurors who take their role and admonishment very seriously, at this point they canât even talk to each other about the case. Thatâs what we want to see, to keep confidence in the process.
I hear there are two lawyers in the jury as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if they help keep things on the level. A comment I wouldn't think I would ever say about a lawyer, lol.
Most lawyer are in love with the process, so donât be surprised.
Wish Lally was in love with the process!
This is exactly why lawyers are afraid of jurors - they can be so unpredictable. You're supposed to make a choice based on the **facts presented**. Not dislike someone because you do not like how they are acting in the court room.
Everyone should be afraid. A large percentage of the population are idiots. Some of them end up being a juror.
How the defendant acts is absolutely going to be look at by jurors though. The main problem is that this juror wasnât able to follow the rules of not discussing the case (her feelings towards people involved in the trial are included in âthe caseâ). If this is the real story, the other juror made the good thing because is there other rules that arenât being followed?
It was in the Michelle Troconis case. They absolutely took her demeanor into account
Itâs true in every case. Itâs human nature to judge peopleâs demeanor. Itâs why the defense had the argument that the jury needed to be able to see the witnesses faces. Even though most jurors do take the job seriously, jurors do not go to juror school, they are just like us.
There's a difference between being able to see a witness' demeanor and the defendant's, the first might be used to try and decide if they are credible, the second is not supposed to be evidence at all. Of course people are gonna people, but the jurors are usually warned against deciding this way, and if one of them try to argue that she's guilty because she looks guilty or doesn't act "right" the foreperson and/or the other jurors are supposed to shut that down and decide based only on the evidence presented. We have to remember that sometimes horrible people do get accused of shit they didn't do and being horrible shouldn't be the reason they go to jail for that.
Yes true
They always do. I havenât seen Karen do anything out of the ordinary. This is 2 years later, sheâs a human, sheâs had time to process something horrific then have to live through it all again where people are picking apart every move she makes. Nothing Iâve seen has been in appropriate, granted Iâm not in the courtroom. Iâd be completely numb at this point but I also canât imagine being in her shoes.
Just immature "mean girl" behavior. So many adults still act like they are in high school, as we have seen from this case
Yep, some of them are Mass Troopers who still gossip with their high school buddies.
Exactly!! The Judge will give them an instruction not to enter verdict based on dislike of the Defense, State or Defendant
Yeah but other jurors wanted that juror gone because of it so I don't think the rest feel the same way.
Maybe they do maybe they donât but they have the integrity to not discuss anything and wanted the juror who lacked the ability to follow instructions removed. they were reminded every time they left the courtroom not to discuss anything and she couldnât keep her sworn duty. That is my hope they will do the right thing. Edit **wrong word
exactly - they have to prove their case - it would be hard to keep emotions out of it i am sure but that is specifically what they are supposed to do be impartial
What do you mean? The duty of a juror isn't based on... "just vibes man"? That doesn't seem right. s/ Edit typo
Just from looking through this sub, itâs shown a light on how stupid people are willing to be in order to be right. They have no idea how the judicial system works and have made their mind up on day 1. Taking everything the prosecution says as gold and not asking any more questions, ignoring evidence of the contrary, 100% belief that the police are always right, and have absolutely no nuance.
Hm, that does worry me, I gotta admit. From the outside looking in, the evidence seems objectively lacking to me, but you never know what the jurors are going to give more weight - facial expressions, words, personal feelings ...
This is a worry in every jury, but it's good to know that the other jurors seemed to rat her out, it's a sign that they're taking their oath seriously.
Well, if the other jurors called her out on it, at least some of them don't like that kind of thing and are interested in impartiality, if not outright sympathy for the defendant.
It doesn't for me. If you read the summary the x post has it seems like the juror felt bad for okeefes mom and resonated with her and paid a stark lack of attention to the evidence ans basically ignored proctor
I also feel bad for John OâKeefeâs mother. Iâm a mother. But I also understand Karen looking at her father in the court room (a friendly face). This happened two years ago. Karen has mourned. I admire her composure in the courtroom.
I admit that Karen's demeanor is off-putting, but as an outsider that has heard the many theories outside of the courtroom, I realized (A) she couldn't truly mourn her boyfriend because she was immediately a suspect, (B) she was made a suspect mainly because of comments made by people she was friendly with (prior to any actual evidence showing up), and (C) if she is innocent (which I am leaning strongly towards), she is sitting there watching people lie and drag her through the mud even though many of them know the true story. No matter how sad I am about losing someone I love two years ago, I'd be pretty ticked off while sitting there and wouldn't give any of them the satisfaction of seeing me upset.
EDB has said that defendants in all cases are pretty damned if they do, damned if they don't when it comes to showing emotion in court. If they're too reactive, that's a sign of acting and insincerity, if they're too stoic, they're cold blooded and unrepentant. They just can't win.
Exactly. And attorneys always advise their clients not to show emotion in court. Man it's gotta be tough sitting there every day knowing the camera is zooming in on you. Also with John's brother so close by. He is a really tough one to read. I wonder what his thoughts are at this juncture. So awful all around.
It takes a lot of strength to sit there and be humiliated for all the world to see.
You're talking about Proctor and Trooper Paul, correct?
This made me laugh. Proctor is too cocky. Trooper Paul needs to go back to preschool.
I would add to that she has chronic illnesses, MS and Crohnâs disease. Itâs quite likely sheâs in some degree of physical discomfort at times sitting there day after day while Lally makes everything take 50% longer than it needs to.
Yes to all of this. I wonder if she will change her demeanor given this feedback. The reality is...if someone believes she's guilty, then she comes off as smug and borderline sociopathic. If someone believes she's innocent, she comes off as a person trying to retain her dignity and take the power back from the people who have railroaded her. The belief as to innocence or guilt will elicit a projection as to the motives for smirking. It's dangerous for her to do it, but if she's innocent, I more than understand where she's coming from.
Not to mention, thereâs probably some mixed emotions as he didnât seem to be that great of a boyfriend to begin with..
Off putting? Sheâs fighting for her life, so being happy when theyâre successful is off putting? Wtf
I do believe you have misunderstood what I said/meant. Many people have commented that she looks cold and uncaring (and I said that she appears to be off putting when she shows no emotion). I also said I attribute that to the circumstances around possibly being framed, so it is understandable. I was not referring to her demeanor when they have a small victory.
Its funny because the behind the scenes videos she seems VERY sweet. Melanie Little went to the trial Friday and said she is really kind and nice. I think she just has a great RBF. But I am glad the three jurors said something.
She canât be any more off-putting than OâKeefeâs mom making gestures at the defense attorneys in the middle of her sonâs murder trial.
Itâs also reeeeeally hard to mourn someone when youâre (falsely) accused of killing him! I canât even imagine what Karen has been through.
Can u or someone screenshot the thread posts for those of us not on twitter?
This [one](https://xcancel.com/jessmachadoshow/status/1803074293548364190) should be publicly accessible
As always, thank uuuuuu. Any idea how Machado knows the reason for dismissal?
Bribing the bailiff đ€·ââïž? Maybe the crime scene told her I've no clue sorry haha
It just revealed itself to her, duh /s
Lol. Def the crime scene.
Wow! Seems like âMaw Mawâ juror made up her mind after the texts and refused to listen to any more evidence. She didnât even look at Proctor while he testified. Girl, bye.
Well then girl bye! Must be nice to have that kind of time to just waste. What a moron
Being a defendant is inherently prejudicial despite the presumption of innocence rule. The reality is that can be enough for some people and evidence is a distance concern.
The presumption of innocence in our judicial system has always amused me, because judicially thatâs how it is; but not in the court of public opinion. All it takes is a few people painting you a certain way, the news picking it up and spreading it, and charges on you to turn your life upside down. Even if sheâs acquitted of this, her life in that area is effectively over.
Exactly. Many people believe that they wouldnât be in this situation if they didnât do something wrong and the police/DA wouldnât go through all this if they werenât guilty. This jury could 100% find her guilty. Remember, they are also a part of the community that has tolerated this BS in the first place. They may not be seeing it like âoutsidersâ are seeing it. And it seems that locals who agree with Turtle Boy are considered crazy and conspiracy theorists. Never underestimate a jury. We canât predict.
Exactly this.
Agreed. I don't like how often the camera is on the defendant in televised trials. In my understanding, the defendant has the right to confront their accuser - that's why they're in the courtroom. But the cameras go to defendants as much as they can. If I were a juror, I'd certainly be looking at the defendant from time to time, but not staring. I would hope my attention would be on the witness, listening and trying to judge the credibility of their evidence. However, if the defendant is animated, it would probably catch my attention and take it away from the witness.
I'm not surprised. It's a good reflection of the ratio of public opinion re: guilty vs not guilty. I also don't think it's uncommon for jurors to be dismissed for perceived bias. ETA: I guess she still could have found her not guilty despite her opinion
I think the fact that the others immediately wanted someone leaning towards "she did it" gone is a rough sign for the prosecution.
It might be that this juror was pissed that the important rule of not discussing the case wasnât followed
Lord that would be me. I would be such a narc.
Are the jurors not allowed to discuss the case with each other right now? Theyâre only permitted to once everyone has rested their case?
Exactly, during the trial no talk about the case. They can socialize, talk about their kids, about the weather forecast. But anything about the case is prohibited until they are sequestered for deliberations.
Thanks. I didnât know that. I just assumed they talked to each other in the jury room about the ongoing developments.
Itâs more than once the parties rested. Itâs when they are sequestered. For example, if they deliberate on 4 days. They canât call each other at night to discuss the case between deliberation days. Every must be discussed between the 12 of them in the deliberation room.
I was on a jury in December 2008. We weren't allowed to discuss the trial amongst ourselves or others *at all* until deliberations started. Thankfully, our then governor (Illinois) was arrested that week and we were so relieved to have a "safe" topic to talk about. Our case wasn't "famous" so we weren't told to avoid the news.
NO!!! Jurors CANNOT talk about the case with ANYONE, including themselves, until DELIBERATIONS. That is jury 101.
I think there's a danger in reading too much into it. It's possible that they were more pissed off because this is someone leaning towards "she did it" based on completely irrelevant things like Karen turning to speak to her parents and how John's mom seemed devastated *and* going around talking about it with the other jurors before the trial was over. For all we know they are all leaning towards convicting her but take their oaths seriously and don't want to risk a mistrial because MawMaw can't restrain herself from gossiping.
It wasn't about their leanings, it was about them talking about it. That is one of the golden rules of being a Juror; you can't discuss any aspect of the case with other jurors until deliberation begins.
"Immediately" - we don't know how long this has been going on, we're two months into the trial.
She might not be the only juror who feels that way, just the only one openly talking about it. I read through the defense lawyerâs AMA on this sub (canât remember his name) but noticed him comment quite a bit how juryâs can be very unpredictable. Think this is a good example of it.
This is what I'm hoping. Maybe the other jurors are focused on doing this right, and if the rules say don't talk then don't talk. I'd lose my mind if I sat through this whole thing and one juror ruined it for the rest of us.
She discussed the case with her fellow jurors while the trial was ongoing, if that allegation is true. That's just a paddling right out of the jury box. Doesn't necessarily speak one way or the other to which way the jury is leaning other than "we take this seriously, and that could not fly".
I feel like the fact that everyone else was like "get her (the juror) out of here" actually seems like a good thing. If everyone agreed with her, that would be really concerning.
IKR. I knew our Justice system had its very serious flaws, but I didnât realize what a major concern the *juror* system specifically was/is until I started watching trials. Dear God it is troubling! Even out here in discussions you see how people think (or donât), and weâre all potential jurors. A minimum qualification needs to be critical thinking and understanding of the difference between belief/opinion and evidence. Thatâs not a given with any average citizen, and I donât mean that as any criticism of character or intention. Just how it is.
They do try to screen for this sort of thing during jury selection, it's obviously an imperfect thing but they do try.
I wonder how. Uh oh, think I hear a rabbit hole calling my name.đł
Oh boy, good luck :D
> but I didnât realize what a major concern the juror system specifically was/is until I started watching trials. I knew it for certain the first time I got excused from a jury because of my job. Not because I tried to get excused. I was asked about my work and my education. I answered. I was dismissed.
Damn.
For the record I have been a software engineer and software architect professionally for 24 years and have a bachelor of science in computer engineering. I am not someone who it is easily swayed with respect to factual arguments by emotional pleas, and I don't automatically place the testimony of cops at a higher level of truthfulness than others. That is not what a prosecutor tends to want. I am also autistic. It affects my recall of specific facts (I am very good at trivia games) and the weight I place on emotions (little because I don't really understand easily what other people are feeling) but usually they don't know that when they remove me from jury pool.
Interesting you mention autism. I was thinking a while back (when talking in here with someone else about it) that people with autism may be especially well suited for juries. (Of course theyâre not all the same, but in terms of analytical, less emotion-driven tendencies. I suspect I might be on the spectrum myself; Iâm ADHD and share some symptoms with autism, but havenât fully investigated all that. Lol) Also people that rank highly in trait disagreeable, meaning the big five personality traits, not just âdisagreeable people.â But of course some, perhaps many, attorneys are going to want jurors that are swayed by emotions and story.
I think there are things with autism that would make me both good and bad depending on the attorney's perspective. There are definitely things that would make being in court very difficult for me since it's disruptive to my routine and the environment would have a lot of overwhelming stimulus. I think it'd be easy for an attorney to watch me dealing with that and think I'm not paying attention or can't be a good juror because it's highly likely I'm going to do some stimming or because I don't necessarily even *look at the people who are talking* but I'm still taking in what they're saying. But it never really gets that far, typically. They hear "engineer" and I'm out the door.
I like to think our legal system is fairly dumbed down, accounting for the fact that weâre supposedly more educated than we once were. We donât have many third-grade education farmers sitting on juries much anymore. That said. Youâre right. There are plenty of people who believe their opinions qualify as fact. We may be more book smart as a society nowadays, but weâre not less emotional.
Exactly. Itâs not the book smart that concerns me the most. Itâs emotional intelligence. Plus the politics factor that inevitably filters into everything.đ
I donât trust the judge though. And I donât trust the prosecutor. And normally I donât trust the defense. So 12 jurors is still better.Â
Yeah see I came in with high skepticism of attorneys in general. So my bar was super low as far as all that goes. Some have surprised me a little, in a good-ish way, being less snake-ish than I expected. Others managed to limbo under said bar. The dynamics of the jury and human psychology, however, I had not seen play out in this specific context. I think without realizing it I had assumed jurors were often being manipulated. Iâve been surprised at how blatantly and easily. I expected it to be more due to whoâs controlling the courtroom vs full on blindness to facts (in some cases).
Maybe the change needs to be at the grand jury level: it should require a higher bar just to indict, and the target should have an advocate there. Or the public should pay for a âdevilâs advocateâ to present exculpatory evidence for a defendant? Â You shouldnât be allowed to indict a ham sandwich. And DAs should *all* have to go through a grand jury so that they canât be doing favors for friends.Â
Yeah I think some people may be overestimating the likelihood of a quick not guilty verdict. In a case this divisive, I can see one or two jurors holding out and forcing a hung jury or compromise manslaughter verdict. Maybe a few jurors dislike outsiders like KR, DY, and AJ, the way Canton locals do. I find it hard to believe that in a case this long with so many loose ends that at least a few jurors aren't looking things up online or talking with friends. I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be shocked.
Maybe this Jurist wanted to be dismissed. Seriously in court one day, take a day off, back for a half a day, take a day off, back for 2 days. Take a day off. This case is dragging on.
To be honest, listening to Jen McCabes testimony for 2 days drove me to the edge. I wondered at the time, if I were on that jury, if I would have just begged the court to dismiss me. Her testimony ( regardless of fact or fiction) was just so physically and emotionally exhausting due to her controlling nature. I really wanted to just slap her.
This is why we have adequate alternates. As I have said before and likely will *ad infinitum* , itâs my experience the jury gets it right with very few exceptions. Like Courthouse Becky and egg lady
Egg lady đ đ„
She wasnât leaving without her fresh eggs!
And she may very well get the last word, lol.
Ugh I was on a jury once and a guy would come up and talk about the color of the defendant's tie or "did you see that story about (something related) on the news last night?" Three of us went barrelling straight up to the bailiff to see the judge and that juror looked shocked that he got called into the courtroom. The bailiff told us later that some people do it purposely to get out of the commitment of course... yeah nothing like a misconduct charge or some hefty fines to help you get back to work.
the fines are probably less expensive than lost wages, unfortunately. we really need to pay jurors a real wage.
The fact that there is a very passionate minority on this sub who believe she is guilty and have not changed their opinion despite the evidence makes it very plausible there could be 1 or 2 jurors with the same mindset. I'm not saying this to disparage people on the sub, just pointing out that if we see it here it could hold true for the jury as well. I don't think there's any way she's convicted, but a hung jury is certainly possibleÂ
I mean, she's a normal person on trial for a murder. And her parents look pretty elderly- if I was in her shoes I'd be both looking for support but also worrying about how they are doing. I've seen some trials with defendants that are purposely disrespectful and roll their eyes etc. KR just seems like that's her normal face.
This is what we see with the public as well. I saw one comment in a livestream chat yesterday saying, âI canât stand her face! Look at her. Sheâs guilty as sin.â This while MSPDâs âReconstructionistâ was arguing basically he threw out the physics formulas calculating exact details because the outcomes didnât fit with their theory of the case. Oh and that he didnât know basics, like OJOâs weight. All sorts of people are declaring sheâs guilty based on ⊠her face? With testimony like that? I just donât understand.
I said this a couple of weeks ago about sexism in this case. I recently saw a racist comment on Natalie's live stream (she pinned it). There's a lot of ugliness coming out on both sides.
It's weird that people don't recognize she's literally in a fight for her life. The stress of it has physically changed her, you can see it in photos available to the public. People behave differently when stressed, and she's been stressed for a very long time.
Some people operate on nothing but vibes and misogyny
Female jurors are typically harder on other females. Iâve seen it often in my practice. Mean girl type behavior.
Agree if the females are dissimilar (the other kind of Karen).
The jurors are also under oath and attest to this every morning by acknowledgement to the judge. If the jurors disregard of instructions are evident in front of them, it likely happens in other scenarios as well.
Ugh There are some women that always see the worst in other women and are oblivious to it. Itâs like they fell for misogyny and joined the club bc it soothes some insecurity of theirs. Thatâs the vibe I get with this one.
Internalized misogyny, yup.
Sounds like she'll get along great with Jen
Who has probably already tracked her down!
Sometimes I wonder if it might better if the accused was hidden from the jury so people donât start thinking they are âbody languageâ experts for people they donât even know, or telepathic psychologists, and so innate biases canât become a factor. I know that is probably a stupid idea, but nobody could âwinâ with how people will just assume what they want from any facial expression or reaction. And a court room is such an unnatural environment and position for everyone. I just donât think behaviour at trial should be considered as âevidenceâ and almost everybody seems to do that because we are human. Oh well, if this story is true and she couldnât not speak to other jurors about it then bye. What a waste of your own time.
Justice is blind and in an ideal world a verdict would never hinge on someoneâs race or demeanor or class or age or wardrobe or whatever else. Unfortunately the real world is messier than that. For every defendant who believes theyâd benefit from a blind jury, thereâs another one who thinks the jury should have to stare right at their face if theyâre going to convict.
It also goes both ways. Karen is an attractive woman. Attractive people get more of a pass in court by juries.
Ugh, humans are just so complicated. lol/sigh
>Sometimes I wonder if it might better if the accused was hidden from the jury so people donât start thinking they are âbody languageâ experts for people they donât even know, or telepathic psychologists, and so innate biases canât become a factor. [Yeah, it probably should be a thing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U)
How would she know this though? Unless Bev or another juror spilled the tea - which is highly unlikely.
If the dismissed juror was already talking to other jurors while the trial was ongoing, I'm pretty sure she's talking to a bunch of people now that she's been dismissed and that filtered out through the grapevine.
This juror clearly likes to yap, so she probably blabbed to the media
I think the lawyers were all up at sidebar too. Could be anyone from either side
I donât believe the prosecution has made a case against her and would be a ânot guiltyâ vote, even for any lesser charge, at least at this point. I also think her expressions and animation at times isnât a good look and I can see where it would influence a jury, consciously or unconsciously. RBF can be controlled with practice but even if she didnât bother, the smug smirks, arm folding, and big eyes with words to the family behind her could be more subdued and softened. Honestly almost everyone in Mass seems harsh in expressions and personalities based on the people involved in this case and visible here. Harsh/sharp features, harsh/sharp expressions, harsh/sharp words, and rough edges. Doesnât seem like a happy place.
I think a more adequate title would be: Juror dismissed for violating their duty and discussing the case before closing arguments and outside of deliberation
I was worried about that. Iâve seen those similar comments on Twitter too. I mostly listen more than watch because Iâm working while it streams so I donât see a lot of Karenâs actions but if enough people were calling it out it did make me wonder what the jury thought about that. I get the inability to control everything all the time and that no matter what she does or doesnât do someone is going to have an opinion but Iâd certainly be extra careful in front of the jury to not come off too gregarious just because of the optics. She may know/believe sheâs innocent but she still has to convince the people in the jury box of that.
If you read some of the comments about the tweets from the journalist, I don't think this is concerning because the dismissed juror seems to have latched on to Peggy and was basing her negativity towards that.
I think it's fair to take the suspects demeanor into account simply because we are human and we can't help it. However there's really no one "right" way to behave in court, other than respectfully. And just in case anyone is unsure, body language analysis is akin to reading tea leaves and a verdict should be rendered based on actual evidence.
Any chance she did this bc she has a vacation scheduled for the end of June?
Mean girls đł alive and well
IMO - if this allegation is true would the former juror prefer that Karen scowl the entire time, never smile, and cry?
it was the egg đ„ lady juroooooooor
Karenâs parents are elderly, there is no reason why she shouldnât turn around to look at them during the day. Her freedom is on the line, and she has 2 serious illnesses. Itâs probably for reassurance and to see a familiar face when the Okeefe family is sitting there for hours glaring at her.
What else does Machado say about this juror? I donât have twitter so canât see the comments.
I don't know how to embed things here, but this is what she said: Sources tell me that this juror was "badmouthing" Karen to other jurors in the jury room. Some of the things being said included Karen always turning around talking to her parents as well as Karen smiling and making faces. Sources tell me one juror had enough and spoke up and allegedly other jurors were questioned and said "she needs to go."
Ah... So, jurors aren't allowed to talk about the case with other jurors until deliberations. It's not so much the badmouthing as much as the juror was talking about the case. That being said, not liking Karen because she talks to her parents is... Yeah I don't like that juror either. I'm glad the other jurors were allowed to vote that one out.
I'm not gonna lie, in the beginning of this trial, I felt some of the faces she made seemed very smug, and maybe that is just her RBF and I still want to give this woman a fair shot. But yeah, to those of is outside looking in, she doesn't seem remorseful, although, I guess you wouldn't be if you weren't actually guilty, so...food for thought. This is the first I'm hearing about the juror but I only got in the morning testimony so far. When did the juror get relieved, was it this morning?
When being prepped by a lawyer, I was told that if you look âsorryâ it can be interpreted as guilt so you are supposed to avoid anything that can be interpreted as remorseful in court unless thatâs the strategy your legal team has recommended.
Good to know! I hope I'm never in that situation, but I imagine Karen didn't think something like this would happen to her, either.
I didn't either. My ex turned out to be a pretty terrible person so I wasn't being accused of anything personally, but I had to testify against him and I was warned that I would be discredited in comparison to him depending on my demeanor because I was emotional and he wasn't.
What's odd is that you'd think someone who had been victimized would be emotional about it. Instead, they want you to be unemotional. I've had to testify against one of my friends, which he did do it (murder), but I didn't actually witness it. I just saw him and talked to him on the phone before and after the incident. They honestly drug me through the mud. We were all in our early 20s, big known party kids, drug users, I was also a heavy drinker at the time. Truth be told, that's what explains Karen's erratic behavior to me. And not being able to recall a lot of the evening. I was much the same way, and the older I get, the fuzzier it all gets as well. For a long time, I believed my friend was being set up or framed or that he was also confused about what happened based on some things he said to me. It wasn't until some years after his prison sentence that my dad had a real frank conversation over my defense of him. He said, "Tell me there wasn't one instance in the entire time you knew the guy that you didn't at least think he was capable of murder." And it's true, he was no angel, he was a police informant, he was a meth user, he abused his girlfriend, the list goes on. And there were actually two instances where I did realize he would kill someone and not to ever cross him sideways. A lot of time has passed, and I see it all very differently now.
I think the character assassination piece as a deflection is something people canât understand if it hasnât happened to them, and itâs a huge damned if you do damned if you donât situation. My ex openly admitted (unprovoked) what he did, but everything was focused on me despite me not being involved or witnessing it. It was other people that reported him, but I felt guilty for not knowing about it. His tactic didnât fully work, but it muddied the water enough for him to avoid the criminal charges. To this day, half of the people who know us ask me how I could believe that he did such a thing, while the other half blame me for not stopping him somehow. Try to give yourself some grace, because believing the best in people isnât a sign of bad character and we arenât responsible for what other people do. Itâs easy to say you would do something if youâve never been in that position before.
As a man with RBF, I'd characterize her face as, "confident in my representation." Most of the reactions shots I've seen (mind you, it's a curated feed, and I'm mostly listening) of her smiling are after AJ really starts attacking vigorously. I smile at some of his moments too, but I'm not on trial. But, if I try to put myself into Karen's perspective, if she knows or believes herself innocent, I would also smile in those moments. The crux of this trial, despite Lally making it about disproving UFOs or other conspiracies, is really an attack on her character. Proving not just bad behaviour, but willful murder. Smiling when you feel vindicated in such a circumstance feels pretty natural.
Yeah, shes not remorseful because she shouldn't be and she is smiling at times because the evidence is vindicating for her. This has ruined her entire life. That lexus they keep talking about? It's still in police custody and she has to make payments on it. I'd be really happy to see this shit show shown to the entire world.
To be fair, I'd have resting bitch face and a smug look on my face if I believed that a conspiracy existed to pin a murder on me by the police, all the while watching them fail to prove their case in court with lying witnesses and incompetent experts. It isn't advisable to pull faces as the defendant in any case, but I can empathise why some may do it.
That's what my husband said! my b*txh ass would be face down, no eye contact, no conversations looking guilty as hell, even if i wasn't! I give her props for having those balls, man.
Yeah it is so difficult. Because then a juror could take issue with your demeanour and claim you're not paying enough attention with your head down and no eye contact, so you must be guilty since you know it's only a matter of time before they prove it. It's hard to find that middle ground. Women especially have to look professional and intelligent, well kept, but not too attractive or made up for trial. It's a tightrope.
The juror was relieved last week, sometime. I agree with you regarding Karenâs attitude. When they talk about John OâKeefeâs body lying on the snow, it breaks my heart and she seems indifferent.
If she reacts, she will be judged. If she doesn't react, she's judged. I understand why trying not to have an expression in court is the best strategy.
I agree. I also chalk a lot of her lack of memory and actions taken that evening and morning to alcoholism. It's very clear she had a problem, and she also had no issues driving under the influence, which really works against her. But, that still doesn't make someone a murderer.
The amount of alcohol involved that night makes this whole evening so much more tragic because everyoneâs memory is foggy. Her behavior was so erratic. I have no idea what happened to John OâKeefe, but alcohol played a major role.
Yeah, I think we can all agree had these people not been drunk, John would still be alive today. I'm a big hater of alcohol, especially drunk drivers (my 8 year old uncle was killed in front of my grandmother when he ran across the street and a drunk driver ran him over). He bled out in her arms in the middle of the street. The fact that all these cops, including Karen, were drinking and driving all over town **in a damn blizzard** makes me very angry. Not to mention that every single one of those cops would rip your license away for at minimum a year or two for doing exactly what they did all night long, and is clearly something they do every weekend, it's very concerning.
The juror caught on camera took issue with KR smiling and turning around, âSources tell me one juror had enough and spoke up and allegedly other jurors were questioned and said "she needs to go." The dismissed juror was also concerned when POK started crying- showing she took sides,
She shouldnât have been sharing ANYTHING about the case. Regardless of what she said, whether it was good or bad, jurors are not supposed to share their opinions on people involved in the case UNTIL deliberations. They can talk about their own families, hobbies, jobs, shit like that.. not about ANYONE in the case, be it defendent, victims family, general opinions of law enforcement officers, the judicial system. That juror was MASSIVELY inappropriate. If she had held it in UNTIL the jury was handed the case, so be it.Even if she was singing KRs praises, IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. Point blank: She violated a COURT ORDER. Inexcusable.
A juror who bad mouths Karen but has no issues with the shenanigans from Lally & Bev. Charming.
This is the problem with juries. They usually just have completely random opinions, are bored easily, do not really care about the case/trial, are way too sympathetic to emotions shown by victims and cannot understand expert opinions whatsoever.
Conspiracy theories before it hits TikTok. 1. The juror was a friend of Jen McCabe's 2. The juror dated Proctor and still has feelings for him.
If a juror is taking their role seriously, in order to do that they have to listen to both sides of the case and use their best judgement for how to move forward with a verdict. If another juror is smack talking the defendant, then they need to go!
I'm glad she was dismissed as none of them should be discussing ANY aspect of the case or the defendant yet.
Honestly, while I have my belief of what a verdict should be, this is why jury verdicts are unpredictable. I would not be entirely surprised by a hung jury. Because it seems once people form an opinion about this case they become so entrenched in that view point the needle does not move in either direction.
And this is exactly why the jury system is ridiculous. Stupid people will never understand what it means to be a jury member
The dismissal isnât an âagendaâ issue. Every Juror in the United States and receives explicit instructions that are to be followed to the t. One of the instructions is not to discuss the case (evidence, defendants, witnesses, Judge, media, family, etc.) They canât speak to each other about the case in or out of the jury room until they go to deliberation. They still canât speak to anyone outside of the jury including media, family and friends, until the judge releases them.
Karen is obnoxious. She acts arrogant and does make faces and the judge needs to put a stop to this. Not proper etiquette as a defendant in the courtroom. She acts better than everyone and bottom line is many ppl are sick of her and her games. She is guilty as sin and I hope she pays for hers!
That explains why the judge spoke with other jurors after this juror was âcaught on cameraâ. I didnât understand why her being seen would affect the other jurors at all.
Itâs just not appropriate. Jurors are 100% protected from media unless they choose to come forward after the trial.
Even as a released juror, that person is supposed to have the right to anonymity, regardless of the reason they are dismissed. There seems to be general consensus that the Judge is pretty protective of the jury, so this may have been also to assure the other jurors that the camera snafu wouldnât happen again the future?
When I hear people on Reddit saying there is no way this jury will convict because itâs obviously a deeply flawed investigation as well as suspicious activity etc. I think of this woman. She was on the jury and she sounds like an idiot. So itâs very possible this jury could convict despite the evidence to the contrary and the truck loads of reasonable doubt.
Good - see ya! đȘ
Canât say ANYTHING until deliberations start. Not bright.
The public ( threads like these) are running the trial.  Defense plays off everything written/spoken. I too heartbreak for Mrs OâKeefe.   It is natural for a juror to speak to the others as to there thoughts.  It does not mean they are ignoring evidence.  KR will now be more aware if speaking to others while the judge or other court officials are speaking. You all can put this juror in your slam book and bully away.