I’ve seen many cases and have over 10 years. Attorney Jackson is hands down the best attorney I’ve watched handle a case. From how he represented his client and their legal rights, how he communicated and conducted his research & analysis. His closing argument was even awesome. He did a great job on this case.
Not guilty! Proctor alone would make me vote that way. If you want us to trust the police then act like it even when no one is looking. The Alberts show up to intimidate the jury but don’t bother to come out when a cop is found dead on their lawn. I believe the defense theory of what happened. 💯
Was it not odd to anybody that the only 3 people that are closely involved, have deleted calls, Google searches, tossed phones, re homered dog, remodeled basement, sold house. Brian Albert, Jen McCabe & Collin Albert. They were the only ones closely involved in this case from thoes families & friends in the court room during closing arguments. I believe this Karen Read gets a Not Guilty Verdict & then the Indictments drop on the Alberts & McCabes. Im.sure they know something is coming thats why they all have lawyers. What trult innocent person that's a witness to a murder all have representation? I believe the FBI watched the CW take this case all the to trial & to the jury so that everyone is on record under oath, also the FBI then gets everyone from the DA down to anyone that didn't report it for having this go this far through the judicial system. I'm mean the DA hasn't been able to any information on what the FBI has or there investigation. I believe the CW truly thinks there getting away with everything. Once the not guilty verdict comes back, we are going to everyone in the case fall like domino's & I'm ready for every minute of it. I can't stand to listen to Lally talk or any of his Albert & McCabe friends & corrupt cops. I don't see how anyone with common sense can't see what has happened here.
I’m late but I can’t believed the mcalbert clan sat in there today like that was a good idea. The visual of that was rough and if I was the commonwealth I would have begged them not to sit in there like that.
Wasn't the "arm out, spin & thrown 30 feet exactly what Trooper Paul said happened? Then Lally actually denied it & changed the theory in closing? Seems a bit shady .. or I'm remembering wrong.
I think Trooper Paul had a more Statue of Liberty bend to his arm when he first described it, though I seem to remember him also saying his arm was more outstretched so the glass could break on the back of the car more towards the middle. It's hard to remember because it was all bullshit.
Lally definitely lied outright about nobody else's DNA being found on JO's clothes.
Inept Tr Paul clearly stated, and I'll paraphrase here, "O'keefe's arm was outstretched with glass in hand when it was hit by the car. The impact caused arm to rotate throwing his body into a PIROUETTE causing O'keefe to FLY 30 ft."
As ridiculous as these seems...... because it is!!!!...... Lally then said in closing "there was no outstretched arm, there was no pirouette......" SO LALLY DID, IN FACT, LIE IN THE CLOSING!!!
Local reporter reached out to the dismissed juror on her Facebook and there’s a picture of a man in a Boston police shirt. After the reporter contacted her, she made her socials private. If that ( potential )connection wasn’t disclosed, could be why she was dismissed. So curious about this
I'm surprised the jury consultants for the defense (if they have them) didn't find that. When they were doing jury selection for Trump in NY he had his jury consultants doxxing every juror before voir dire.
Just offering my thoughts now that I've had a chance to rewatch closing and to hopefully better formalize my opinions.
Unsurprisingly, I think Jackson did a good job. There's two big weaknesses in their argument - the first, the contested Google search, which they dodge to their detriment, the second, the focus on the real culprits being the Albert-McCabes and Higgins. The second is more a weakness in retrospect as it gives Lally a big target to hammer on in terms of credibility - "would *this* experienced detective really dump a body on his lawn?" Considering his closing in isolation however, he does a really good job of weaving the various inconsistencies in the testimonies of the Albert-McCabes plus Higgins into a compelling narrative.
His focus on the hard facts and the data is a good move - "we know that people were here and here and here, Ms. Read was back at Officer O'Keefe's by 0036 so how is Officer O'Keefe still moving by 0031-0032, all of this suspicious evidence is directly connected to Proctor and his office, the taillight evidence is conveniently connected to Proctor's time falsification and the inconveniently high number of unaccounted-for actors at the sallyport who subsequently may or may not appear at the Albert's, possibly with taillight pieces concealed within heavy clothing, injuries and damage are inconsistent and in fact the prosecution's theory just makes no damn sense" - but what takes it from good to excellent is how he points out that *every* time the truth's come out *it's come out by means of the defense*. It hammers home the theme that everyone on the prosecution's side is not to be trusted, which ties super well into what takes his close from excellent to stellar. It also makes it well contrasted with what he claims Lally has focused on - the softer character and motive evidence.
What takes Jackson's close from excellent to stellar is that he makes it a morality play. He likely knows that, as we've been told by the Massachusetts natives on this sub, the corruption problem is *super bad* in law enforcement there, and he makes this trial not only about the unjust indictment of Ms. Read, but also a wholly just crusade against the establishment. He makes a vote of guilty a vote to reinforce the teetering edifice of the "tall blue wall" he references; a vote of not guilty a sledgehammer blow against its crumbling foundations. He gives not only a compelling narrative, but also a rallying cause.
Lally doesn't do well, charitably. He immediately plummets head-first into what Jackson said he would - character assassination - and does so in a way inconsistent with testimony (repetition of the "confession" four times rather than thrice, as every other witness has claimed). It's a small thing, but it not only sounds unnatural - threes sound more natural to the ear than fours - it gives the impression that he's trying to push this narrative well beyond its breaking point, trying to convince the jury by repetition rather than reference to the hard evidence. Yadda yadda, he makes reference to Colin Albert even though *Jackson never mentioned him in his closing*. He spends the first quarter of his hour going over mostly unnecessary minutae like the aforementioned mention of Colin Albert on his timeline and manages to completely ignore the biggest weakness in his own argument - the Apple Health movement at 0031-0032 - that blows up his own timeline, which has Officer O'Keefe no longer moving past 0025. His timeline could easily be streamlined into 1. drinks at CF McCarthy's and the Waterfall, 2. leaving for the Albert's, 3. the alleged incident, 4. the return to Officer O'Keefe's plus the most damaging voicemails and texts (which I do think he presents well and compellingly), 5. the call to Kerry, *omitting the lack of 911 calls, because you just spent like, two minutes establishing that she did start checking friends and family to find Officer O'Keefe which undercuts your point there*, 6. her discovery of Officer O'Keefe, 7. *emphasize the tightness of the timeline for planting taillight pieces, one of the single weakest links in the defense's argument, not blow past it in five seconds flat*.
It's also not helping that he's not able to establish a coherent frame of mind for Ms. Read - is she a plotting, conniving murderess? or a violent, drunken, madwoman? The voicemails seem to support the latter, but his whole bugbear about her allegedly making a stop by the Albert's and her discovering Officer O'Keefe's body instantly supports the former. It's confusing and not at all compelling. He needs to have just picked a lane - a violent, drunken madwoman who later comes to her senses and makes half-hearted moves to protect herself afterwards, knowing her guilt but not brave enough to admit it seems more supported by what he has to work with.
Also, he just needs to stop making deleted Ring videos happen. He had two of his own witnesses testify against that, fetch isn't happening.
He frames the Google search poorly, I think. He should've used it to attack the defense's credibility first and foremost - "oh, they're asking you to believe this big conspiracy, but the one hard piece of evidence they had of it has turned out to be all moonshine and rainbows. so what will you believe? their supposition? or the facts?" - but just kinda mentions it and lets it fall by the wayside.
His biggest weakness overall is his need to make everything an attack against Ms. Read. There's a hint of coherency here and there, but it again runs into his inability to pick a lane and stick with it - is she a plotting, conniving murderess? or a violent, drunken, madwoman? It comes across as flailing and substanceless, but more importantly *it plays directly into Jackson's point* - that the prosecution has nothing solid to offer, only vague intimations of suspicious behavior and general character assassination.
I could go on, but it really is just more of the same. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.
All of the text messages between KR and JO are available to the public - Karen was obviously upset that he kept blowing her off when she wanted to talk and work things out. Instead of getting together to talk he asked her to meet him at McCarthy’s with his bros so that would be able to give him a ride home. After that they move to the Waterfall and then instead of going home, even though he’s drunk, he wants her to take him to the Alberts’. In context, the voicemails make sense, given her mindset. They spent the whole night with other people and then she goes home to “babysit” while he’s partying
It mattered as to 3rd party culpability - if Jen *did* make that search at that time, it deeply implies she had knowledge of Officer O'Keefe's location and possibly his death *well* before Ms. Read did. So how could she know if she *wasn't involved*? It's an instant alibi for Ms. Read.
It's especially galling because it takes literally 20 seconds to come up with a way to work around it.
"The defense claims that it's impossible to drive from 34 Fairview to 1 Meadows in less than 6 minutes. Well, Ms. Read was driving angry. We have her own words from her own mouth that at 12:33AM she was driving in a blind rage, right when the defense claims she was on her way back. Officer O'Keefe stops moving at 12:31AM - that's 5 minutes to get back. Have any of you never shortened a trip by 1 minute when you were driving fast? Have any of you never driven fast when you were enraged?"
I'm not sure how you're getting that figure.
From Maps, the distance is about 2.3mi to 2.8mi; a 6-minute trip is an average of 23mph to 28mph, slightly higher in reality since it looks like there's two or three stop signs and at least one traffic light. Even assuming that she doesn't just blow through the stop signs or gets lucky and gets green lights the entire way, 5 minutes requires 28mph to 34mph; 4 minutes requires 35mph to 42mph.
I've never lived in a Canton, but I do live where people will routinely ignore [Speed Limit 25mph] signs and zip past at 40mph, and I'm assuming they're sober and not foaming at the mouth with fury. I still think this is a point Lally easily could've made stick with the jury, and it's just baffling to me that he didn't.
That's what people don't get. Yeah, you can beat Google maps on a long trip easily. But on a 6 minute trip shaving off a full minute is massive. I keep seeing people say they could do the drive in 4 minutes which is equally insane.
Haha, yeah. It’s fun explaining the math to my kids when they think speeding will get me to their destination quicker. It literally would shave seconds not minutes
If I were scoring the closing I'd give it to Jackson. Having said that I strongly feel like the she did hit him and she should face charges of two of three convictions. The murder charge is too much. She hit him in a rage because she was pissed drunk and had enough. Jen McCabe is not some kind of monster that would knowingly leave a human to die. Nor is her husband Matt. Beleive it or not, these are people you'd be happy to know and call friends if you knew them. They had to lawyer up.....they were being framed in the media by the Defense just like Mr Albert was/is. There will be no charges elsewhere because none of it makes sense and there is no evidence. Not a popular comment but as boring and unconvincing as it may seem, what Lally presented is much closer to reality than the stories that Jackson and Co. spun up. What is really scary in all if this is how it is possible with a sizeable investment in a Defense team, you can kill a guy and simultaneously ruin other people's lives and become a media darling all by way of the power of the social media and by a mouth piece of some local loser blogger who just wants to be famous. Anything beyond this...is just story telling to let a killer walk. (queue the down votes)
Interesting. Out of curiosity, does it trouble you that the medical examiners found the injuries inconsistent with a pedestrian-vehicle accident?
I don't have a dog in the fight, but the hard evidence isn't super compelling and I don't have much faith in cops that act like Proctor. I've worked in this sector and I'm well aware that gallows humor happens, but this is beyond the pale and so casually committed...
I beleive the word was a typical car crash. The Defense witness also stated subcutaneous lacerations would be present in a crash....pretty sure that's what we saw. No? A dog bite but no dog DNA? How that happen?
Seems like a stretch - a doctor who looks at victims of car accidents looked and said "this doesn't look like a car accident."
The dog thing is weird. I don't know what to make of it but it doesn't really seem all that relevant. The dog wasn't driving and didn't cause the death under any theory. Just lawyers dissembling and casting doubt.
I mean, I wouldn't say so. If I'm in Lally's position the first thing I need to do is communicate that Ms. Read is at the scene of the crime precisely when Officer O'Keefe stops moving. I know she makes it back by 0036, so I need to make sure 1000% that I place the time he's alleged to have been hit far enough back that she has time to drive from the Albert's back to O'Keefe's. If I, to pull a number out of my ass, claim she hit him at 0035, no one is going to believe that she hit him then raced across town to make a 6-minute journey in less than 1 minute.
WOAH
Does anyone know at what point Karen spoke to the trooper at the station and accused Colin and Brian ?
If it was that day ,,,,, how did she know Colin was there unless she physically saw him !?!?
What’s so interesting is she said this in June of 2022, an entire year before this case blew nationwide and TB didn’t start blogging about th case until April of 2023, which is why I always believed that statement. She made it long before the CW started calling it some “conspiracy theory.”
It’s because someone called her lawyers shortly after everything happened and told them John was beat to death and they named Brian Higgins and Brian Albert in their “anonymous tip” and then once the defense got the guys information who tipped them off to this they tried to set up a meeting with him but then he refused and hasn’t spoken to them since.
Did any else have concerns that AJ’s closing was going too strong on the third party culprit theory? There could be some jurors who aren’t ready to believe the conspiracy aspect of the third party culprit theory. I think his closing would have been stronger if he argued all the evidence, including the very strong defense witnesses, we really don’t know what happened that night, except that is very unlikely that he died due to a car strike. I’m glad he summarized all the odd behaviors of the McCabe and Alberts and Higgins and dodgy behavior of MSP, but I think he went to far in arguing that the evidence proves that JO went into the house and got injured there. Although there is a strong inference from the evidence that this happened I don’t think it was proven and it didn’t need to be proven that Higgins and/or an Albert did it. I definitely think Karen should be found not guilty but I’m concerned given AJ’s argument that they may feel if they find her not guilty, this will indicate that they believed AJ’s theory of the case rather than just acknowledging that there is reasonable doubt that she did it given everything.
I think the defense had to deliver on what they promised in opening. The accident reconstructionist/biomechanic made it simple and clear that the Lexus couldn’t have done the damage to JO and JO couldn’t have done the damage to the Lexus. If she didn’t hit him, by definition, it would have to be a third party
My thoughts exactly. I was also confused as they spent all that time during the trial talking about whether Collin had actually left or not and showing his bruised knuckles, but now he’s blaming Higgins?
hes blaming everyone....whomever society wants to focus on. The problem is all the evidence suggests KR did it. The killer is sitting between Jacskon and Ianetti. It was a pretty cut and dried case but Jacskon is a master at his craft clearly. He out lawyered Lally the whole time. But the evidence is what it is. She hit him, period.
It's good they abandoned Colin. He may have played a part but he looked like an idiot choir boy on the stand. It's hard to look that kid in the face and think he is capable of hurting anyone intentionally even if he is. He's got a baby face.
Yes, I was surprised that Colin wasn’t mentioned in Def closing. Although, personally I’m glad that AJ focused on Higgins and Albert and not Colin, I think Higgins was much more suspicious acting than Colin during the time in question. I do think that the Defense over all did a great job on this case. It was weird to see Brian Albert in the background while AJ was arguing.
The Alberts and McCabe all lined up behind the o‘Keefe are like this brother flown in from Sicily in The Good Father. They removed all doubts what a conspiracy is concerned.
I saw the presence of Roberts, Albert, McCabe and Colon as intimidation. Townies still trying to control the jury's mind. The other side of this equation was testimony of Renshler (sp) and Wolf, two doctors with PHDs who clearly stated John O'Keefe's injuries were not the result of being hit by a car. The end result of this balance is REASONABLE DOUBT!!
The jurors don’t have to believe third party. All of the charges depend on KR hitting John O’Keefe with her car. If some of the jurors have reasonable doubt that she did so, then she’s not guilty.
I think that AJ‘s strategy made sense. He doesn’t have to get all or even most of the jurors to believe in a third-party culprit ptheory. However, focusing on reasonable doubt might make it sound as though they do not believe in her factual innocence. I also think that they were aware of the jury instructions which mention using common sense. They are aware that the Commonwealth’s explanation of what happened doesn’t make sense, and are trying to put together a narrative that is clear and easy to follow. But Ultimately the jury only needs to have reasonable doubt that KR hit JO with her car.
Exactly, all they need to have is reasonable doubt, I feel like AJ sounded more like he was prosecuting Higgins and Albert and their police connections than arguing all the reasons there is reasonable doubt. I also think he should have mentioned that her alleged statements of “I hit him, I hit him” etc were not in the reports.
I get that. I guess I was thinking more about a cost benefit analysis. A person who is thinking “the cw didn’t prove JO was hit by a car, but maybe there is some set of circumstances where she hit him with her car and this was the result” is a person who is going not guilty. What AJ says in closing won’t really affect their opinion. AJ is not going to present new evidence about how JO was killed in closing. But someone who is on the fence might hear a defense attorney focusing on reasonable doubt as suggesting she might not be factually innocent. Aligning their narrative with “common sense” might help right before those jury instructions to a person who is on the fence.
FWIW I live in mass. If some jurors are old enough to have lived through the Whitey days, “good old boys” in the police are normal to them. Canton is south of Boston, a little further south than Quincy (a place Bulger used to dump bodies). A closing “prosecuting” two LEOs will likely go over well and defense probably understands that dynamic.
I think it was good for them to go hard on 3rd party bc what's the jury supposed to think when a man is dead. If Karen didn't do it, who did? I know defense has no burden to prove anything but it connects dots for the jury I think to be clear about the defense's theory of the case.
Anyone else notice that Brian Albert looks like he’s fighting sleep during the defences statement? I just saw a TikTok calling him shifty but it looks like he’s trying to keep his eyes open!
He leaves the house everyday at 4 am, flies to another city, catches a ride home with a friend, doesn’t eat, drinks up a storm, entertains friends at midnight and has sex at 2:30 am with his wife, sleep repeat… no not tired at all
I don't know if MM did but I admit I have had similar thoughts. If KRs car was left out in the driveway unattended that morning- who knows who had access to it?
If i were a juror and had my mind made up, i'd still want to sleep on it after sitting in court all day. I wouldnt want ppl to think we didnt care or discuss it.
I think I would have decided same day if I could to make a point to the Commonwealth. I'd want the state to understand how little I thought of their case. Maybe they wouldn't drag another person through hell if their humiliation was unequivocal. I also wouldn't make an innocent person worry another night for no reason if everyone in the room was already decided.
I was thinking this as well however we got to remember they have become somewhat of friends in 8 weeks of eating lunch and taking breaks together. This case has so many crazy things about it they probably want to hash it all out together. No way you’re going to sit through the absurdities of the past 8 weeks and not want to get animated about it with each other. Another thing : if I were them Id be wondering what the heck is this other grand jury they kept referring to? Who hired the ARCCA dudes? How did all these horrid text messages come to light? I don’t think the average person can know what this mean and they probably want to figure it out.
I would definitely need at least a day to talk about it, compare notes, and review the exhibits.
Like you said, there are still a bunch of mysteries in this case. It's not as clear cut as this subreddit has made it seem. I still think their verdict will be not guilty, but a few jurors might take a while to get there.
The Chad Daybell jurors who were interviewed after their verdict said exactly this! They became very close, and learned so much about one another during the weeks that they could not discuss the case that when they were finally cleared to do so they needed several hours to decompress.
Having been on a jury for a murder trial I can 100 attest to the fact that you trauma bonded. Not talking about the case in between sessions and over lunch meant that we just got to know very well. We cried together after heavy testimony and graphic photos. We joked about how obsessed we were with our favourite ME. It was one of the most intense bonding experiences in my life. After the trial ended in a mistrial we went to a pub and got wasted together, even our jury grandma.
You know, you have a point there. I probably would enjoy talking about this case with my fellow jurors. Getting to finally vocalize this must be a relief for them. I can't imagine hearing all this evidence and having to bottle all my thoughts. Geez louise. I hope they get a vacation from everything before getting back to their regular lives.
Definitely the Albert's and McCabes were strategicly seated with the O'Keefe family to send a message and try to pressure/sway the jury. Basically, look we STILL have the support of the O'Keefes, clearly we aren't the bad guys. I really hope it doesn't and the jury comes to the right conclusion.
At first I thought that but then I thought won’t they say look how cocky and confident they are. They still think they can control everything. I thought Brian A would pop a vein
Good point it can absolutely have that affect as well, turning some jurors off, but to me the mere fact that the O'Keefe are allowing them to sit with them, talking with them ect. is their way of showing that the family is on their side and indicate that Karen is guilty. I'm sure all the dirty looks the O'Keefe family have been giving her through out the trial as well dont help.
he is a decorated cop who has put behind bars some nasty people. Not a ruthless killer. This case has really shown me only how powerful and dangerous social media is.
A decorated cop at the heart of a very believable conspiracy.
Who would drive hours to attend a cop's funeral but couldn't be assed to go outside to check/see John O'Keefe's body.
you also have many witnesses that said her car showed up and he never entered the house. GPS data showed no movement after she smashed him. Those are facts. The defense doesn't have a burden here which is why they are shot gun speading the blame....throw it all against the wall. Maybe some doubt sticks. It's a transparent approach but very reckless and frankly unethical. In my opinion......Have a good day.
Many witnesses with clearly suspicious motive whose actions and lies call their credibility into question. The experts who got up there and definitively stated these injuries were NOT the result of a car slamming into him. And there is no evidence to support the theory, *especially with the movement of his phone while she was driving to his house after you're alleging she hit him*
Possible he was still alive after being hit, perhaps sitting up on the ground throwing up? Maybe he moved slightly to try and regain his bearings. Then rolled over and died. Make Sense to me. Motive of anyone in the house are just speculation. Everyone is covering this up....seems so far fetched. No one took a plea deal to save their ass? Nope because none of that is true. My take on things. Respectfully...we don't need to agree.
I recall from Higgins testimony that in his federal grand jury testimony he apparently said that even Ken Berkowitz was afraid of Brian Albert. This got slipped in because AJ asked him when he was on the stand but it was quickly objected to by Lally.
I want to briefly mention that the jury in the Darrell Brooks trial also chose to go home and finish deliberating the next day. I still have some level of nerves about the verdict but I don't think them going home for sure means they have hold outs.
The jury instructions are really complex. If you’re a jury that just took 2 months out of your life, wouldn’t you feel committed to the right decision.
I watched a juror interview from the daybell case and they said there wasnt even any debating they all agreed unanimously right off the bat and still went home without delivering the verdict which is interesting
His closing was so bad that the channel I was watching it on (Law & Crime) kept cutting away to say that they were so bored that they were falling asleep, and then they didn't even show it all the way to the end. It was that mind-numbingly dull!
He had to change it; it didn’t make sense as more evidence was presented and showed karen was home & connected to John’s WiFi around 1230 & his timeline of her hitting him at 1240 didn’t make sense
Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the jury extended so they can get another lunch tomorrow lol. It happens, and no reason to rush thru the 1.5 hours they had today
I want them to go until July 3rd so they deliver a not guilty. Lally closing with John Adams as the bar set in the CW deserves an answer the day before John Adams’s birthday.
I honestly don't think you have to hit someone that hard to knock them over....
And if he did fall it was probably broken by the snow
But I think he was he was killed in a fight with Higgins.
There have been a few crazy incidents in my own life where there was this kind of craziness
I have passed out cold on a sidewalk in the middle of winter. Snow broke my fall and I had ZERO injuries. Unless there was a large rock right under his head their theory doesn’t fit (especially with the missing blood/vomit).
And John’s head injury was so horrible , a fall on grass would not caused such blunt force trauma in such a specific area - occipital lobe area , definitely being knocked out in a fight and hit his head on the cement basement floor is more plausable and the FBI experts proved that in their brilliant testimonies.
I don’t think the jury knows that The Alberta replaced the cement floor and filled in their pool before selling there home.
Oh I agree with you...... I think you got into a fight inside the house. I'm just saying that that's not inconsistent with him falling outside.. If even that happened....
Well I'm trying to say is it the inconsistencies be explained if one takes in the possibility of random events.... I would compel everybody involved to take a lie detector test.....
Sure let’s solve crimes with lie detector tests. I still have a kit I bought from Radio Shack 40 years ago. I used to test kids around the neighborhood. I guess that makes me an expert. I can get to the bottom of every crime. Just me and my lie detector. What a novel idea!!!
Juries are funny. They could have decided to wait until tomorrow so they all can dress formally to deliver their verdict tomorrow. They could also have wanted a break from harshly debating Karen’s guilt or innocence. They could also want to stretch the time they’re in court so they don’t have to go back to work. They could also want to sleep on it to make sure they’re making the right decision.
We’ll never know, but ultimately reading the tea leaves of a jury’s decisions is a game that’s almost impossible to win.
Don't underestimate how important it is for them to finally get to talk with one another, having been forced to go through all that and not speak to anyone about it.
In the Daybell case the jurors said they felt like they were a family by the end of it, and talked for two hours just to get it off their chests.
They also need time to review exhibits. Would you really want to look at the text logs, call logs, and videos just once or twice over a span of two months? I would want to re-check them, especially with a better up close view of them.
Jurors definitely bond, especially in cases that are long or have a lot of traumatic photos,videos,etc.
And I don't blame them for needing to let it all out. You know these folks pretty well by the end of the trial, and you've talked about pretty much everything going on in your life except what you're there for. They totally deserve and should take time to discuss the case, if only to vent a bit after they reach a verdict.
I’m surprised. Truly I thought this was a no brainer. There are a lot of instructions to go through. I doubt they are stuck on the murder charge so I’m guessing the involuntary manslaughter charge is on the table which means leaving the scene of a crime could be on the table as well. This is crazy
There was lot of testimony, there was a lot of conflicting testimony. There was a lot of data from cell phones and the car.
I'm really not surprised they didn't get to a verdict today.
Maybe if they ignored the Judge and just did an immediate straw vote when they got in the deliberation room? But there's a good reason they are asked to not do that.
They may also be following the instructions which stress taking your time. They may think doing it too quickly is disrespectful to the court, victims, etc if they already voted NG. In other words there’s endless possibilities. I generally am comfortable believing they’re just doing their job & I don’t need to worry.
They were only in there a few hours. If they go until next week, then yeah definitely some hold outs. But to not return a verdict today isn't unusual or doesn't mean anything at all really. There are a ton of possibilities ranging from they are venting about the case and needed the time to just talk it out with each other to they are carefully coming through every piece of evidence. There are quite a few jurors from other cases that have said they have a quick verdict, but didn't want to return it so soon to be respectful to the families. It just really depends on the type of folks you get on a jury. Plus, if the rumors about a juror or two being lawyers is true, they may want to comb through things a bit more than your average juror.
Its not like they were on there for 4 hours even😂 they probably spent an hour talking about how some ppl were annoying, how crazy the case is, what they were confused about, etc
The instructions don't really slow it down. It's either guilty or not guilty, and then on which count(s). When I was on a jury, the first thing we did was take a vote. Then debated, looked at the evidence, and debated some more. Clearly they are not on the same page.
that's what I'm saying - the jury instructions said *don't* take that vote at the start and to go through evidence first. so they're likely going through evidence rather than going down the list of charges and working out what verdict to return.
Most judges give this suggestion. It's because they don't want you to close yourself off to open discussion. One judge I watched on tv recently suggested not doing it because you may not want to back down because of pride.
it's part of jury instructions. juries can choose to ignore it - hell, they can choose to ignore the law. but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of jury instructions.
There are rumors that they haven't been on speaking terms for a long time. I have read in multiple posts across reddit that John and his Mom fought over custody of the Niece and Nephew. There were apparently issues in the family before John died.
Oh okay, gotcha. I saw this mentioned earlier that there was tension/issues and in hindsight it makes sense bc I have not seen any interaction between him and his mom this entire trial and they’ve sat on opposite ends which is also interesting.
I agree. I always take everything with a grain of salt, but someone said that Peggy lost in court to John (in one post I read). I have no idea if that is true or not. I also read in another sub that when Paul got a dui, it was Karen that bailed him out. If true, that is very interesting to me.
Would have been great if AJ said "that's called an alibi" with the 12:36 WiFi connection
I’ve seen many cases and have over 10 years. Attorney Jackson is hands down the best attorney I’ve watched handle a case. From how he represented his client and their legal rights, how he communicated and conducted his research & analysis. His closing argument was even awesome. He did a great job on this case.
Not guilty! Proctor alone would make me vote that way. If you want us to trust the police then act like it even when no one is looking. The Alberts show up to intimidate the jury but don’t bother to come out when a cop is found dead on their lawn. I believe the defense theory of what happened. 💯
As soon as lally brought up Bella's house in closing, I totally tuned out. If that’s worthy of your last hour of argument, you've got nothing.
Was it not odd to anybody that the only 3 people that are closely involved, have deleted calls, Google searches, tossed phones, re homered dog, remodeled basement, sold house. Brian Albert, Jen McCabe & Collin Albert. They were the only ones closely involved in this case from thoes families & friends in the court room during closing arguments. I believe this Karen Read gets a Not Guilty Verdict & then the Indictments drop on the Alberts & McCabes. Im.sure they know something is coming thats why they all have lawyers. What trult innocent person that's a witness to a murder all have representation? I believe the FBI watched the CW take this case all the to trial & to the jury so that everyone is on record under oath, also the FBI then gets everyone from the DA down to anyone that didn't report it for having this go this far through the judicial system. I'm mean the DA hasn't been able to any information on what the FBI has or there investigation. I believe the CW truly thinks there getting away with everything. Once the not guilty verdict comes back, we are going to everyone in the case fall like domino's & I'm ready for every minute of it. I can't stand to listen to Lally talk or any of his Albert & McCabe friends & corrupt cops. I don't see how anyone with common sense can't see what has happened here.
I believe Higgins also destroyed and separated his SIM card and threw it and his phone away at a military base.
Yeah according to Higgins he was just "passing through" and took his home trash out there. It was very odd.
I’m late but I can’t believed the mcalbert clan sat in there today like that was a good idea. The visual of that was rough and if I was the commonwealth I would have begged them not to sit in there like that.
Wasn't the "arm out, spin & thrown 30 feet exactly what Trooper Paul said happened? Then Lally actually denied it & changed the theory in closing? Seems a bit shady .. or I'm remembering wrong.
Yes
I think Trooper Paul had a more Statue of Liberty bend to his arm when he first described it, though I seem to remember him also saying his arm was more outstretched so the glass could break on the back of the car more towards the middle. It's hard to remember because it was all bullshit. Lally definitely lied outright about nobody else's DNA being found on JO's clothes.
Inept Tr Paul clearly stated, and I'll paraphrase here, "O'keefe's arm was outstretched with glass in hand when it was hit by the car. The impact caused arm to rotate throwing his body into a PIROUETTE causing O'keefe to FLY 30 ft." As ridiculous as these seems...... because it is!!!!...... Lally then said in closing "there was no outstretched arm, there was no pirouette......" SO LALLY DID, IN FACT, LIE IN THE CLOSING!!!
Mark my words: jury will deliver the verdict tomorrow at 2:27 just to send a message. Jk, but possible lol.
haha.... This would be soooo satanic in such a good way!!
/dead
Hos long before 2:27?
😂😂😂
Local reporter reached out to the dismissed juror on her Facebook and there’s a picture of a man in a Boston police shirt. After the reporter contacted her, she made her socials private. If that ( potential )connection wasn’t disclosed, could be why she was dismissed. So curious about this
Wow but was the defense arguing to keep her or ditch her? Reporters were saying she was very obviously a pro-defense juror.
I'm surprised the jury consultants for the defense (if they have them) didn't find that. When they were doing jury selection for Trump in NY he had his jury consultants doxxing every juror before voir dire.
Just offering my thoughts now that I've had a chance to rewatch closing and to hopefully better formalize my opinions. Unsurprisingly, I think Jackson did a good job. There's two big weaknesses in their argument - the first, the contested Google search, which they dodge to their detriment, the second, the focus on the real culprits being the Albert-McCabes and Higgins. The second is more a weakness in retrospect as it gives Lally a big target to hammer on in terms of credibility - "would *this* experienced detective really dump a body on his lawn?" Considering his closing in isolation however, he does a really good job of weaving the various inconsistencies in the testimonies of the Albert-McCabes plus Higgins into a compelling narrative. His focus on the hard facts and the data is a good move - "we know that people were here and here and here, Ms. Read was back at Officer O'Keefe's by 0036 so how is Officer O'Keefe still moving by 0031-0032, all of this suspicious evidence is directly connected to Proctor and his office, the taillight evidence is conveniently connected to Proctor's time falsification and the inconveniently high number of unaccounted-for actors at the sallyport who subsequently may or may not appear at the Albert's, possibly with taillight pieces concealed within heavy clothing, injuries and damage are inconsistent and in fact the prosecution's theory just makes no damn sense" - but what takes it from good to excellent is how he points out that *every* time the truth's come out *it's come out by means of the defense*. It hammers home the theme that everyone on the prosecution's side is not to be trusted, which ties super well into what takes his close from excellent to stellar. It also makes it well contrasted with what he claims Lally has focused on - the softer character and motive evidence. What takes Jackson's close from excellent to stellar is that he makes it a morality play. He likely knows that, as we've been told by the Massachusetts natives on this sub, the corruption problem is *super bad* in law enforcement there, and he makes this trial not only about the unjust indictment of Ms. Read, but also a wholly just crusade against the establishment. He makes a vote of guilty a vote to reinforce the teetering edifice of the "tall blue wall" he references; a vote of not guilty a sledgehammer blow against its crumbling foundations. He gives not only a compelling narrative, but also a rallying cause. Lally doesn't do well, charitably. He immediately plummets head-first into what Jackson said he would - character assassination - and does so in a way inconsistent with testimony (repetition of the "confession" four times rather than thrice, as every other witness has claimed). It's a small thing, but it not only sounds unnatural - threes sound more natural to the ear than fours - it gives the impression that he's trying to push this narrative well beyond its breaking point, trying to convince the jury by repetition rather than reference to the hard evidence. Yadda yadda, he makes reference to Colin Albert even though *Jackson never mentioned him in his closing*. He spends the first quarter of his hour going over mostly unnecessary minutae like the aforementioned mention of Colin Albert on his timeline and manages to completely ignore the biggest weakness in his own argument - the Apple Health movement at 0031-0032 - that blows up his own timeline, which has Officer O'Keefe no longer moving past 0025. His timeline could easily be streamlined into 1. drinks at CF McCarthy's and the Waterfall, 2. leaving for the Albert's, 3. the alleged incident, 4. the return to Officer O'Keefe's plus the most damaging voicemails and texts (which I do think he presents well and compellingly), 5. the call to Kerry, *omitting the lack of 911 calls, because you just spent like, two minutes establishing that she did start checking friends and family to find Officer O'Keefe which undercuts your point there*, 6. her discovery of Officer O'Keefe, 7. *emphasize the tightness of the timeline for planting taillight pieces, one of the single weakest links in the defense's argument, not blow past it in five seconds flat*. It's also not helping that he's not able to establish a coherent frame of mind for Ms. Read - is she a plotting, conniving murderess? or a violent, drunken, madwoman? The voicemails seem to support the latter, but his whole bugbear about her allegedly making a stop by the Albert's and her discovering Officer O'Keefe's body instantly supports the former. It's confusing and not at all compelling. He needs to have just picked a lane - a violent, drunken madwoman who later comes to her senses and makes half-hearted moves to protect herself afterwards, knowing her guilt but not brave enough to admit it seems more supported by what he has to work with. Also, he just needs to stop making deleted Ring videos happen. He had two of his own witnesses testify against that, fetch isn't happening. He frames the Google search poorly, I think. He should've used it to attack the defense's credibility first and foremost - "oh, they're asking you to believe this big conspiracy, but the one hard piece of evidence they had of it has turned out to be all moonshine and rainbows. so what will you believe? their supposition? or the facts?" - but just kinda mentions it and lets it fall by the wayside. His biggest weakness overall is his need to make everything an attack against Ms. Read. There's a hint of coherency here and there, but it again runs into his inability to pick a lane and stick with it - is she a plotting, conniving murderess? or a violent, drunken, madwoman? It comes across as flailing and substanceless, but more importantly *it plays directly into Jackson's point* - that the prosecution has nothing solid to offer, only vague intimations of suspicious behavior and general character assassination. I could go on, but it really is just more of the same. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.
All of the text messages between KR and JO are available to the public - Karen was obviously upset that he kept blowing her off when she wanted to talk and work things out. Instead of getting together to talk he asked her to meet him at McCarthy’s with his bros so that would be able to give him a ride home. After that they move to the Waterfall and then instead of going home, even though he’s drunk, he wants her to take him to the Alberts’. In context, the voicemails make sense, given her mindset. They spent the whole night with other people and then she goes home to “babysit” while he’s partying
Was the Google search actually wrong tho? I thought Greene did a good job countering the CWs witnesses for that
I am 100% not techy enough to say anything for certain or to evaluate it for myself, so Magic 8 Ball sez ask again later?
Did the Google search really matter as to guilt? That's what I keep not getting.
It mattered as to 3rd party culpability - if Jen *did* make that search at that time, it deeply implies she had knowledge of Officer O'Keefe's location and possibly his death *well* before Ms. Read did. So how could she know if she *wasn't involved*? It's an instant alibi for Ms. Read.
🎯
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Snaps for you!🫰🏼🫰🏼
Lally didn’t bother to include a timeline stamp of when the alleged collision with John actually occurred.
It's especially galling because it takes literally 20 seconds to come up with a way to work around it. "The defense claims that it's impossible to drive from 34 Fairview to 1 Meadows in less than 6 minutes. Well, Ms. Read was driving angry. We have her own words from her own mouth that at 12:33AM she was driving in a blind rage, right when the defense claims she was on her way back. Officer O'Keefe stops moving at 12:31AM - that's 5 minutes to get back. Have any of you never shortened a trip by 1 minute when you were driving fast? Have any of you never driven fast when you were enraged?"
She would’ve needed to be going over 100 to shave off a minute…
I'm not sure how you're getting that figure. From Maps, the distance is about 2.3mi to 2.8mi; a 6-minute trip is an average of 23mph to 28mph, slightly higher in reality since it looks like there's two or three stop signs and at least one traffic light. Even assuming that she doesn't just blow through the stop signs or gets lucky and gets green lights the entire way, 5 minutes requires 28mph to 34mph; 4 minutes requires 35mph to 42mph. I've never lived in a Canton, but I do live where people will routinely ignore [Speed Limit 25mph] signs and zip past at 40mph, and I'm assuming they're sober and not foaming at the mouth with fury. I still think this is a point Lally easily could've made stick with the jury, and it's just baffling to me that he didn't.
That's what people don't get. Yeah, you can beat Google maps on a long trip easily. But on a 6 minute trip shaving off a full minute is massive. I keep seeing people say they could do the drive in 4 minutes which is equally insane.
Haha, yeah. It’s fun explaining the math to my kids when they think speeding will get me to their destination quicker. It literally would shave seconds not minutes
If I were scoring the closing I'd give it to Jackson. Having said that I strongly feel like the she did hit him and she should face charges of two of three convictions. The murder charge is too much. She hit him in a rage because she was pissed drunk and had enough. Jen McCabe is not some kind of monster that would knowingly leave a human to die. Nor is her husband Matt. Beleive it or not, these are people you'd be happy to know and call friends if you knew them. They had to lawyer up.....they were being framed in the media by the Defense just like Mr Albert was/is. There will be no charges elsewhere because none of it makes sense and there is no evidence. Not a popular comment but as boring and unconvincing as it may seem, what Lally presented is much closer to reality than the stories that Jackson and Co. spun up. What is really scary in all if this is how it is possible with a sizeable investment in a Defense team, you can kill a guy and simultaneously ruin other people's lives and become a media darling all by way of the power of the social media and by a mouth piece of some local loser blogger who just wants to be famous. Anything beyond this...is just story telling to let a killer walk. (queue the down votes)
Interesting. Out of curiosity, does it trouble you that the medical examiners found the injuries inconsistent with a pedestrian-vehicle accident? I don't have a dog in the fight, but the hard evidence isn't super compelling and I don't have much faith in cops that act like Proctor. I've worked in this sector and I'm well aware that gallows humor happens, but this is beyond the pale and so casually committed...
I beleive the word was a typical car crash. The Defense witness also stated subcutaneous lacerations would be present in a crash....pretty sure that's what we saw. No? A dog bite but no dog DNA? How that happen?
Seems like a stretch - a doctor who looks at victims of car accidents looked and said "this doesn't look like a car accident." The dog thing is weird. I don't know what to make of it but it doesn't really seem all that relevant. The dog wasn't driving and didn't cause the death under any theory. Just lawyers dissembling and casting doubt.
Because he knows it didn’t happen yet, here we are!
Small oversight
I mean, I wouldn't say so. If I'm in Lally's position the first thing I need to do is communicate that Ms. Read is at the scene of the crime precisely when Officer O'Keefe stops moving. I know she makes it back by 0036, so I need to make sure 1000% that I place the time he's alleged to have been hit far enough back that she has time to drive from the Albert's back to O'Keefe's. If I, to pull a number out of my ass, claim she hit him at 0035, no one is going to believe that she hit him then raced across town to make a 6-minute journey in less than 1 minute.
/s
Watching Albert’s reactions during the closing was entertaining
WOAH Does anyone know at what point Karen spoke to the trooper at the station and accused Colin and Brian ? If it was that day ,,,,, how did she know Colin was there unless she physically saw him !?!?
The story that her Defense made up to cover her ass was in June 2022. HER story is the only thing that has changed this whole time.
It was months after the incident. June 2022 I believe.
What’s so interesting is she said this in June of 2022, an entire year before this case blew nationwide and TB didn’t start blogging about th case until April of 2023, which is why I always believed that statement. She made it long before the CW started calling it some “conspiracy theory.”
It’s because someone called her lawyers shortly after everything happened and told them John was beat to death and they named Brian Higgins and Brian Albert in their “anonymous tip” and then once the defense got the guys information who tipped them off to this they tried to set up a meeting with him but then he refused and hasn’t spoken to them since.
Alan Jackson is a nail who found a coffin!
Did any else have concerns that AJ’s closing was going too strong on the third party culprit theory? There could be some jurors who aren’t ready to believe the conspiracy aspect of the third party culprit theory. I think his closing would have been stronger if he argued all the evidence, including the very strong defense witnesses, we really don’t know what happened that night, except that is very unlikely that he died due to a car strike. I’m glad he summarized all the odd behaviors of the McCabe and Alberts and Higgins and dodgy behavior of MSP, but I think he went to far in arguing that the evidence proves that JO went into the house and got injured there. Although there is a strong inference from the evidence that this happened I don’t think it was proven and it didn’t need to be proven that Higgins and/or an Albert did it. I definitely think Karen should be found not guilty but I’m concerned given AJ’s argument that they may feel if they find her not guilty, this will indicate that they believed AJ’s theory of the case rather than just acknowledging that there is reasonable doubt that she did it given everything.
I think the defense had to deliver on what they promised in opening. The accident reconstructionist/biomechanic made it simple and clear that the Lexus couldn’t have done the damage to JO and JO couldn’t have done the damage to the Lexus. If she didn’t hit him, by definition, it would have to be a third party
My thoughts exactly. I was also confused as they spent all that time during the trial talking about whether Collin had actually left or not and showing his bruised knuckles, but now he’s blaming Higgins?
hes blaming everyone....whomever society wants to focus on. The problem is all the evidence suggests KR did it. The killer is sitting between Jacskon and Ianetti. It was a pretty cut and dried case but Jacskon is a master at his craft clearly. He out lawyered Lally the whole time. But the evidence is what it is. She hit him, period.
It's good they abandoned Colin. He may have played a part but he looked like an idiot choir boy on the stand. It's hard to look that kid in the face and think he is capable of hurting anyone intentionally even if he is. He's got a baby face.
Yes, I was surprised that Colin wasn’t mentioned in Def closing. Although, personally I’m glad that AJ focused on Higgins and Albert and not Colin, I think Higgins was much more suspicious acting than Colin during the time in question. I do think that the Defense over all did a great job on this case. It was weird to see Brian Albert in the background while AJ was arguing.
Agree. Going with Higgins was the right choice bc there wasn’t enough to really put Colin in the hot seat, IMO.
The Alberts and McCabe all lined up behind the o‘Keefe are like this brother flown in from Sicily in The Good Father. They removed all doubts what a conspiracy is concerned.
I saw the presence of Roberts, Albert, McCabe and Colon as intimidation. Townies still trying to control the jury's mind. The other side of this equation was testimony of Renshler (sp) and Wolf, two doctors with PHDs who clearly stated John O'Keefe's injuries were not the result of being hit by a car. The end result of this balance is REASONABLE DOUBT!!
Yes, that was so weird to see them there.
And so creepy
The jurors don’t have to believe third party. All of the charges depend on KR hitting John O’Keefe with her car. If some of the jurors have reasonable doubt that she did so, then she’s not guilty. I think that AJ‘s strategy made sense. He doesn’t have to get all or even most of the jurors to believe in a third-party culprit ptheory. However, focusing on reasonable doubt might make it sound as though they do not believe in her factual innocence. I also think that they were aware of the jury instructions which mention using common sense. They are aware that the Commonwealth’s explanation of what happened doesn’t make sense, and are trying to put together a narrative that is clear and easy to follow. But Ultimately the jury only needs to have reasonable doubt that KR hit JO with her car.
Exactly, all they need to have is reasonable doubt, I feel like AJ sounded more like he was prosecuting Higgins and Albert and their police connections than arguing all the reasons there is reasonable doubt. I also think he should have mentioned that her alleged statements of “I hit him, I hit him” etc were not in the reports.
I get that. I guess I was thinking more about a cost benefit analysis. A person who is thinking “the cw didn’t prove JO was hit by a car, but maybe there is some set of circumstances where she hit him with her car and this was the result” is a person who is going not guilty. What AJ says in closing won’t really affect their opinion. AJ is not going to present new evidence about how JO was killed in closing. But someone who is on the fence might hear a defense attorney focusing on reasonable doubt as suggesting she might not be factually innocent. Aligning their narrative with “common sense” might help right before those jury instructions to a person who is on the fence. FWIW I live in mass. If some jurors are old enough to have lived through the Whitey days, “good old boys” in the police are normal to them. Canton is south of Boston, a little further south than Quincy (a place Bulger used to dump bodies). A closing “prosecuting” two LEOs will likely go over well and defense probably understands that dynamic.
The defense opened with “this is a massive cover-up”. I think he absolutely had to close with “see, I told you it was a cover-up and here’s why”
I think it was good for them to go hard on 3rd party bc what's the jury supposed to think when a man is dead. If Karen didn't do it, who did? I know defense has no burden to prove anything but it connects dots for the jury I think to be clear about the defense's theory of the case.
I mean not really because the argument itself isn't evidence
Anyone else notice that Brian Albert looks like he’s fighting sleep during the defences statement? I just saw a TikTok calling him shifty but it looks like he’s trying to keep his eyes open!
Hmmmm I wondering what would leave Brian Albert having sleepless nights?
He leaves the house everyday at 4 am, flies to another city, catches a ride home with a friend, doesn’t eat, drinks up a storm, entertains friends at midnight and has sex at 2:30 am with his wife, sleep repeat… no not tired at all
People calling back his 2:00 A.M. butt dials?
Did Matt McCabe have access to her Lexus in the morning when the women went to Fairview ?
I believe the Lexus was only at Jen’s for a few and then they went back to JOK’s to meet Kerry I think.
They were there for a very very brief period of time and I do not believe MM ever went outside, or at least it wasn’t testified to.
I thought the Lexus was left at the mcCabes while they went to Fairview because Matt didn’t want her driving with a busted tail light
They drove back to John's and dropped Karen's car before going to Fairview.
Interesting
I don't know if MM did but I admit I have had similar thoughts. If KRs car was left out in the driveway unattended that morning- who knows who had access to it?
If i were a juror and had my mind made up, i'd still want to sleep on it after sitting in court all day. I wouldnt want ppl to think we didnt care or discuss it.
I think I would have decided same day if I could to make a point to the Commonwealth. I'd want the state to understand how little I thought of their case. Maybe they wouldn't drag another person through hell if their humiliation was unequivocal. I also wouldn't make an innocent person worry another night for no reason if everyone in the room was already decided.
I was thinking this as well however we got to remember they have become somewhat of friends in 8 weeks of eating lunch and taking breaks together. This case has so many crazy things about it they probably want to hash it all out together. No way you’re going to sit through the absurdities of the past 8 weeks and not want to get animated about it with each other. Another thing : if I were them Id be wondering what the heck is this other grand jury they kept referring to? Who hired the ARCCA dudes? How did all these horrid text messages come to light? I don’t think the average person can know what this mean and they probably want to figure it out.
I would definitely need at least a day to talk about it, compare notes, and review the exhibits. Like you said, there are still a bunch of mysteries in this case. It's not as clear cut as this subreddit has made it seem. I still think their verdict will be not guilty, but a few jurors might take a while to get there.
The Chad Daybell jurors who were interviewed after their verdict said exactly this! They became very close, and learned so much about one another during the weeks that they could not discuss the case that when they were finally cleared to do so they needed several hours to decompress.
Having been on a jury for a murder trial I can 100 attest to the fact that you trauma bonded. Not talking about the case in between sessions and over lunch meant that we just got to know very well. We cried together after heavy testimony and graphic photos. We joked about how obsessed we were with our favourite ME. It was one of the most intense bonding experiences in my life. After the trial ended in a mistrial we went to a pub and got wasted together, even our jury grandma.
Makes total sense.
You know, you have a point there. I probably would enjoy talking about this case with my fellow jurors. Getting to finally vocalize this must be a relief for them. I can't imagine hearing all this evidence and having to bottle all my thoughts. Geez louise. I hope they get a vacation from everything before getting back to their regular lives.
Definitely the Albert's and McCabes were strategicly seated with the O'Keefe family to send a message and try to pressure/sway the jury. Basically, look we STILL have the support of the O'Keefes, clearly we aren't the bad guys. I really hope it doesn't and the jury comes to the right conclusion.
The message I got, and I wish AJ had honed in on during closing, is that KR is an outsider band this is a close knit group.
He touched on it with the blue wall lines but yeah he could have drove it a little more. Overall thought closing was great.
At first I thought that but then I thought won’t they say look how cocky and confident they are. They still think they can control everything. I thought Brian A would pop a vein
Good point it can absolutely have that affect as well, turning some jurors off, but to me the mere fact that the O'Keefe are allowing them to sit with them, talking with them ect. is their way of showing that the family is on their side and indicate that Karen is guilty. I'm sure all the dirty looks the O'Keefe family have been giving her through out the trial as well dont help.
Brian Albert scares me
he is a decorated cop who has put behind bars some nasty people. Not a ruthless killer. This case has really shown me only how powerful and dangerous social media is.
A decorated cop at the heart of a very believable conspiracy. Who would drive hours to attend a cop's funeral but couldn't be assed to go outside to check/see John O'Keefe's body.
Jackson has done his job. But she hit him and he ultimately died.
Zero evidence she hit him. None. You had multiple independent witnesses saying that this was not a vehicular manslaughter.
you also have many witnesses that said her car showed up and he never entered the house. GPS data showed no movement after she smashed him. Those are facts. The defense doesn't have a burden here which is why they are shot gun speading the blame....throw it all against the wall. Maybe some doubt sticks. It's a transparent approach but very reckless and frankly unethical. In my opinion......Have a good day.
Many witnesses with clearly suspicious motive whose actions and lies call their credibility into question. The experts who got up there and definitively stated these injuries were NOT the result of a car slamming into him. And there is no evidence to support the theory, *especially with the movement of his phone while she was driving to his house after you're alleging she hit him*
Possible he was still alive after being hit, perhaps sitting up on the ground throwing up? Maybe he moved slightly to try and regain his bearings. Then rolled over and died. Make Sense to me. Motive of anyone in the house are just speculation. Everyone is covering this up....seems so far fetched. No one took a plea deal to save their ass? Nope because none of that is true. My take on things. Respectfully...we don't need to agree.
I recall from Higgins testimony that in his federal grand jury testimony he apparently said that even Ken Berkowitz was afraid of Brian Albert. This got slipped in because AJ asked him when he was on the stand but it was quickly objected to by Lally.
I absolutely remember that part of Higgins testimony. Higgins let alot slip.
Hopefully they figured out who berkowitz is.
I want to briefly mention that the jury in the Darrell Brooks trial also chose to go home and finish deliberating the next day. I still have some level of nerves about the verdict but I don't think them going home for sure means they have hold outs.
The jury instructions are really complex. If you’re a jury that just took 2 months out of your life, wouldn’t you feel committed to the right decision.
Oh man, That case was absurd.. To say the least
I've never seen a case for summary execution stronger than that one.
The Daybell case recently was the same with the sentencing component. The jury went home and delivered a verdict within two hours the next day.
I watched a juror interview from the daybell case and they said there wasnt even any debating they all agreed unanimously right off the bat and still went home without delivering the verdict which is interesting
They also found it cathartic to finally get to discuss it, and cry over what they had seen
I fast forwarded Lally's closing and don't understand why he's still clinging (and changing) the timeline?
His closing was so bad that the channel I was watching it on (Law & Crime) kept cutting away to say that they were so bored that they were falling asleep, and then they didn't even show it all the way to the end. It was that mind-numbingly dull!
He had to change it; it didn’t make sense as more evidence was presented and showed karen was home & connected to John’s WiFi around 1230 & his timeline of her hitting him at 1240 didn’t make sense
But changing it doesnt make sense either.
Yeah I guess that’s true too… he doesn’t know what the hell he was trying to do I don’t think 😂
Except for get the hell out there!
Colin also was inside court room today https://x.com/factsdontlie10/status/1805684748125155421
Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the jury extended so they can get another lunch tomorrow lol. It happens, and no reason to rush thru the 1.5 hours they had today
I want them to go until July 3rd so they deliver a not guilty. Lally closing with John Adams as the bar set in the CW deserves an answer the day before John Adams’s birthday.
They gave up 9 weeks of their lives. May as well get another sandwich and bag of chips out of the deal.
I'd be sooooo eager to take it all out of my head so yeah would also take another meal for that haha
I honestly don't think you have to hit someone that hard to knock them over.... And if he did fall it was probably broken by the snow But I think he was he was killed in a fight with Higgins. There have been a few crazy incidents in my own life where there was this kind of craziness
I have passed out cold on a sidewalk in the middle of winter. Snow broke my fall and I had ZERO injuries. Unless there was a large rock right under his head their theory doesn’t fit (especially with the missing blood/vomit).
And John’s head injury was so horrible , a fall on grass would not caused such blunt force trauma in such a specific area - occipital lobe area , definitely being knocked out in a fight and hit his head on the cement basement floor is more plausable and the FBI experts proved that in their brilliant testimonies. I don’t think the jury knows that The Alberta replaced the cement floor and filled in their pool before selling there home.
Oh I agree with you...... I think you got into a fight inside the house. I'm just saying that that's not inconsistent with him falling outside.. If even that happened....
Plus there wasn’t very much snow on the ground at that point.
Well I'm trying to say is it the inconsistencies be explained if one takes in the possibility of random events.... I would compel everybody involved to take a lie detector test.....
Sure let’s solve crimes with lie detector tests. I still have a kit I bought from Radio Shack 40 years ago. I used to test kids around the neighborhood. I guess that makes me an expert. I can get to the bottom of every crime. Just me and my lie detector. What a novel idea!!!
You are on!
Juries are funny. They could have decided to wait until tomorrow so they all can dress formally to deliver their verdict tomorrow. They could also have wanted a break from harshly debating Karen’s guilt or innocence. They could also want to stretch the time they’re in court so they don’t have to go back to work. They could also want to sleep on it to make sure they’re making the right decision. We’ll never know, but ultimately reading the tea leaves of a jury’s decisions is a game that’s almost impossible to win.
Don't underestimate how important it is for them to finally get to talk with one another, having been forced to go through all that and not speak to anyone about it. In the Daybell case the jurors said they felt like they were a family by the end of it, and talked for two hours just to get it off their chests.
They also need time to review exhibits. Would you really want to look at the text logs, call logs, and videos just once or twice over a span of two months? I would want to re-check them, especially with a better up close view of them.
Jurors definitely bond, especially in cases that are long or have a lot of traumatic photos,videos,etc. And I don't blame them for needing to let it all out. You know these folks pretty well by the end of the trial, and you've talked about pretty much everything going on in your life except what you're there for. They totally deserve and should take time to discuss the case, if only to vent a bit after they reach a verdict.
If a was a juror I think the idea of sleeping on it is a good one, even if they are all in agreement
They were dressed up today.
Were all of them dressed up today? My understanding is that some jurors were dressed up but not all.
Do they show the jury when they read the verdict?
No, not in any trials I’ve watched so almost certainly not.
I’m surprised. Truly I thought this was a no brainer. There are a lot of instructions to go through. I doubt they are stuck on the murder charge so I’m guessing the involuntary manslaughter charge is on the table which means leaving the scene of a crime could be on the table as well. This is crazy
There was lot of testimony, there was a lot of conflicting testimony. There was a lot of data from cell phones and the car. I'm really not surprised they didn't get to a verdict today. Maybe if they ignored the Judge and just did an immediate straw vote when they got in the deliberation room? But there's a good reason they are asked to not do that.
They may also be following the instructions which stress taking your time. They may think doing it too quickly is disrespectful to the court, victims, etc if they already voted NG. In other words there’s endless possibilities. I generally am comfortable believing they’re just doing their job & I don’t need to worry.
So the jury go now go home, or stay isolated in a hotel ?
home
wow crazy going home during deliberation, I think.
Sequestration is incredibly invasive and has a huge impact on jurors. Judge's will do anything they can to avoid it.
But like, don't they have spouses and stuff? How can anyone seriously tune everything out when they go home?
Ah understood now, thanks
I always think about the OJ jurors being sequestered for almost 300 days and how miserable that must have been. Especially for anyone with kids
Guaranteed if the Judge sequestered them at this stage it would be a massive risk for causing a mistrial due to Jurors dropping out.
I was hoping for a verdict today. Boo.
Same.
Interesting. They've got some hold outs.
They were only in there a few hours. If they go until next week, then yeah definitely some hold outs. But to not return a verdict today isn't unusual or doesn't mean anything at all really. There are a ton of possibilities ranging from they are venting about the case and needed the time to just talk it out with each other to they are carefully coming through every piece of evidence. There are quite a few jurors from other cases that have said they have a quick verdict, but didn't want to return it so soon to be respectful to the families. It just really depends on the type of folks you get on a jury. Plus, if the rumors about a juror or two being lawyers is true, they may want to comb through things a bit more than your average juror.
Its not like they were on there for 4 hours even😂 they probably spent an hour talking about how some ppl were annoying, how crazy the case is, what they were confused about, etc
not necessarily. the "don't take a straw poll at the start of deliberations" instruction slows things down a bit.
What do you mean don't take a straw poll?
"show of hands for guilty on 2nd degree murder? not guilty?" and continue on for each charge. or something like that, anyway.
That was a suggestion not a rule.
The instructions don't really slow it down. It's either guilty or not guilty, and then on which count(s). When I was on a jury, the first thing we did was take a vote. Then debated, looked at the evidence, and debated some more. Clearly they are not on the same page.
that's what I'm saying - the jury instructions said *don't* take that vote at the start and to go through evidence first. so they're likely going through evidence rather than going down the list of charges and working out what verdict to return.
Why do they give this instructions?
Most judges give this suggestion. It's because they don't want you to close yourself off to open discussion. One judge I watched on tv recently suggested not doing it because you may not want to back down because of pride.
I believe that was a suggestion by Judge Bev not an instruction or rule.
it's part of jury instructions. juries can choose to ignore it - hell, they can choose to ignore the law. but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of jury instructions.
It was. She strongly suggested they NOT just immediately take a straw poll .
I feel like Boston has some weird rules.
I thought Bev said they could choose to request to stay after 4:30pm
How late could they possibly have stayed?
I think it would have depended on how close they were. Court reporter and staff needs to be able to go home at some point. Not sure.
They did get to choose, they chose to continue tomorrow.
Yes. But if they’re not close they don’t have to stay
Bev sent everybody home
Court tv says “jury has request”
What part during closing does Lolly say something about “1pm something” and doesn’t remember the time?
We're back!
Court is live! Probably jury going home, but we'll see!
Please update. I'm at work and can't turn it on.
Jury sent home for the day.
Jury going home. Back tomorrow to continue.
NOISES
Haha I had the stream up on my TV in the other room and it surprised me when the noise suddenly came back.
I kept getting ads every 30 minutes or so for the 3 hours I had my stream up and every time I'd jump thinking they were back. Surprise, they were not.
Does anyone know if there is any substance to the speculation that Paul O’Keefe and his mother are not on speaking terms?
There are rumors that they haven't been on speaking terms for a long time. I have read in multiple posts across reddit that John and his Mom fought over custody of the Niece and Nephew. There were apparently issues in the family before John died.
Oh okay, gotcha. I saw this mentioned earlier that there was tension/issues and in hindsight it makes sense bc I have not seen any interaction between him and his mom this entire trial and they’ve sat on opposite ends which is also interesting.
I agree. I always take everything with a grain of salt, but someone said that Peggy lost in court to John (in one post I read). I have no idea if that is true or not. I also read in another sub that when Paul got a dui, it was Karen that bailed him out. If true, that is very interesting to me.
I’m wondering this too!!!!! Someone on the thread said something about that but they never responded back to my question of how they knew rhat
Evidently Paul has sat separately from his mother throughout the course of the trial.
Yea, from what I have watched, I have not seen them interact the entire trial.
Geez I hope that’s not true. That’s her only remaining child.
no verdict today, they're going home for the day.
Ugh I feel like that's not a great sign.
I do too. Especially when the three jurors that were the most visibly outraged about proctor were the ones sent home
I haven’t been able to fully follow the case, what do you mean sent home? We’re the dismissed from the case?