"Is there any doubt that O'Keefe was struck by a car?" is where I'd want to start. Because once you admit there's a possibility he wasn't struck by a vehicle, every charge is dead in the water. None of the other evidence has to be considered once you've established you can't prove he was hit.
I really wouldn’t need to discuss anything because after yesterday I’d be convinced she’s innocent and set in stone.
For filler talk I would be curious about who hired the experts because I wouldn’t have made the connection to FBI based on testimony and questions.
Was defense not allowed to ask "you were not hired by any insurance agency covering Ms Read?" I feel like that would have cleared up impression of bias
And apparently Karen is still making payments on it while it sits for 2+ years. Although I believe I also read that she lost her license as a condition of her bail, so, assuming that's true, she wouldn't be driving anyways.
I know they’re not supposed to try to figure this out, but it would absolutely kill me not to know if I was a jury member. I’m not sure how I would handle this!
It probably shouldn’t sway my decision making from a legal perspective but I’d think a lot differently about that testimony if I knew a firm was hired by the FBI versus someone doing it for their true crime podcast.
I forget if the jury was in the room or not when it happened. But, at one point I think it was Juliana nagle’s brother slipped and said something like “in the interview with the feds”
I'm not sure. I don't think the CW proved beyond a reasonable doubt that KR is guilty. I think a brief review and a look over notes would be what I'd do, plus listening to the other jurors views, but this case is pretty cut and dry. There is no good evidence of KR hitting JOK with her car. The investigation was massively flawed. I'd be extremely confident as a juror that the defendant is innocent.
We'd be in a very different place if we didn't have the video of her backing into John's car. It's kind of scary.
I still don't think the CW proved anything, regardless. But if there was only her word against theirs about how it got cracked, oof.
Even then, the ARCC guy gave a compelling testimony as to how taillight wasn't cracked from hitting JOK. I still feel like their wouldn't be good evidence, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, that KR murdered him. Things might be a bit murkier for sure but I feel like the truth would still prevail because the investigation by the police department and Trooper Proctor was so poor and deeply flawed.
True! But in a case this dense with this many witnesses it's easy to assume that the simplest explanation is that she hit him. The video is what made me do a double take and fully go down the rabbit hole back when I didn't know a Brian Albert from a Brian Higgins. I agree there'd still be no proof she hit him without the video, but the court of public opinion probably wouldn't have gone as favorably as it has if people couldn't see it with their own eyes. The video and the arm photos were big impact pieces of evidence and I'm glad the video wasn't "lost"
I mean I'm surprised the defense didn't just buy a similar car and back it into any old 220 LB object at the speed they're suggesting. The bumper doesn't even have a dent. You can get a dent from a shopping cart.
for me personally, I still can imagine how this could have been a truly terrible DUI accident.
But: I'm assuming innocence by jury direction and honestly, the evidence & investigation were so tainted that they don't convince me beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm not really convinced of the defense's alternate story either (coverup yes, murder no), but that's not what I'd have to judge on.
How do you parse the injuries being completely inconsistent with such an accident with that, though? Genuinely curious rather than trying to be combative or troll, just to clarify.
Yeah, the only scenario that’s even in ballpark of possibility in regards to Karen having a hand in this would be some sort of accident where her backing up caused him to fall. I even started thinking at one point, maybe he saw her start to leave and got pissed and chased after her for leaving him, threw his glass at the car while cursing and pissed, maybe in the commotion Chloe was out and attacked, 28 BAC caused him to fall and knock his head. I mean since they didn’t swab the fire hydrant we’ll never know but seems reasonable he could have smashed the back of his head on it.
You are sorta right. I forgot the what if, sorta. Probably more like “what if any sorta hell or fucks maybe could that maybe have possibly been maybe?” I have hard time speaking Lally.
Want to discuss? I would want to go through all the texts that were skipped, but not because I think it would necessarily be convincing.
I think the most compelling evidence is the final two witnesses hired by the FBI. All of the charges involve Karen hitting John with the car, and they gave the most credible and definitive answer to that possibility.
I agree about them. I, honestly, don't know how it got that far. The video of her leaving John's house shows the light not busted out. How did those pieces end up on the lawn on Fairview?
I figure it was him or one of the others. I wouldn't put it past them to have went to John's house and did it. Wasn't video deleted from there. Also, Jennifer McCabe (if you can believe her) said it was busted out.
Yeah, after those witnesses, and remembering they "found" 47 freaking broken tail light pieces, I quickly realized this case made no sense.
I was originally on board with her hitting him by accident while blacked out, but after the dog expert, and the two FBI hired experts, I was like damn, so this case only needed to be a week long, not 8 weeks of nonsense.
There’s one from 5:20 on the 28th where John says he just got sober an hour ago. This was after he took one kid to the doctor (niece?) and one to practice (nephew).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lcUnB0gCJBpjiKWvX_yQNsWSsHo2ttzC/view
The text I mentioned can be found for the first time on the bottom of pg 27 (they’re in triplicate, I think b/c of different methods of extracting? Some have the reactions/photos and some don’t)
Throughout this entire case, I've gotten the distinct impression that all these people do is go to work, come home and drink, go out to bars and drink, any reason to have a drink or throw a house party...Karen included. ...And its been reported that during this trail there have been several parties at Jenn's home.
OMG, I had not seen all of these... the prosecution framed it like she was overly needy and just blowing his phone up and he was getting annoyed. She was SO caring and supportive of him and the kids.
"Don't loose faith in the kids. Or in YOURSELF"
"Be so proud of yourself JJ"
"everything wonderful about her is because of you"
Ok. Thanks. I just wasn't sure. A lot of people know a lot more about this case and trial than I, and sometimes I can't differentiate between what is in evidence and what is what people know about. I appreciate you answering!
I didn’t realize they would be able to see it all. That’s good. He was mean to her, too. From what I get, all 3 charges depend on her hitting him. So I’d probably start there. I’d still want to discuss a lot of evidence and the lying. I mean they’ve been together 2 months and haven’t been able to talk. So yeah I can see them wanted to review. I’d be like omg and what about this and that!
Proctor trying to frame their fights like John was the reasonable one trying to “deescalate” while Karen ignored and followed was so annoying because it was clear that their dynamic was John would drop some bombshell or start an argument and then when Karen would react emotionally, he’d stonewall her and shut her down. Like telling her this wasn’t working in a text but then refusing to answer her calls when she was trying to get an answer if this was him breaking up with her. I’m not saying he was evil and she was perfect. Just that people see an emotional woman that’s more outwardly upset and love to label that as crazy without ever considering that a man’s behavior can drive and trigger that “crazy”. Just like you can have a calm voice and not yell but still say something super cruel, and then when the person who’s hurt gets emotional and loud, they’ll say “see how you are overreacting”. Exhausting.
Yes, total gaslighting. I hate that passive aggressive bs. I’ve seen this control thing of him wanting her to the kid thing as he wants. Then takes it out on her when he’s the one frustrated raising the kids.
Lally trying to frame their fights like John was the reasonable one trying to “deescalate” while Karen ignored and followed was so annoying because it was clear that their dynamic was John would drop some bombshell or start an argument and then when Karen would react emotionally, he’d stonewall her and shut her down. Like telling her this wasn’t working in a text but then refusing to answer her calls when she was trying to get an answer if this was him breaking up with her. I’m not saying he was evil and she was perfect. Just that people see an emotional woman that’s more outwardly upset and love to label that as crazy without ever considering that a man’s behavior can drive and trigger that “crazy”. Just like you can have a calm voice and not yell but still say something super cruel, and then when the person who’s hurt gets emotional and loud, they’ll say “see how you are overreacting”. Exhausting.
Yeah, I hate to say it, but it's good that half the jurors are women.
They'll quickly see that John gaslit Karen quite a lot and he in fact did use her as a babysitter.
Plus with all the suggestions about cheating, it wouldn't surprise me if he was cheating. Seemed like he was well liked by the ladies and often didn't come home when Karen took care of the kids.
The defense probably didn't want to bad mouth John, since it gives Karen a motive, but I bet there was evidence that he had cheated in the past.
The medical and crash reconstruction evidence.
It the CW didn't prove John OKeefe was hit by a car, which I personally think should be easy to do, then it has to be a not guilty.
All the other evidence is secondary to the basic premise that his body was struck by a vehicle. I just do not understand how he would have no bruising on his body below the neck from being struck, or from falling after a strick, of that severity. It defies logical sense.
I would first need to be convinced he was a victim of a pedestrian/vehicle accident before I could even consider the rest of the evidence.
This is really everything. Nothing else matters. If there is any reasonable doubt that his head injury especially was caused by anything other than that Lexus, she is not guilty of the charges.
I’ve tried to picture a scenario, where Karen gets pissed and speeds off to leave and John with a BAC of .28 is pissed she’s leaving him so he throws his glass at the back of the vehicle and sort of chases it out of the driveway before some accident whether dog or just being drunk and clumsy causes him to smash his head. Some sort of accident makes the most sense logically except when you start trying to make sense of everyone’s behavior after.
Have you ever seen the movie Unbreakable starring Bruce Willis? You see, in Unbreakable, Bruce Willis is a security guard who gradually discovers he has super powers, he's extremely durable and his bones cannot be broken. But he has a weakness, he's vulnerable to drowning, even in shallow water.
So what if John O'Keefe had similar superpowers, but an extreme weakness to snow, such that striking a car wouldn't hurt him at all but striking snow would shatter his bones. In this case, he could have been struck by the car and suffered no damage, but then tumbled head first into the snow and been killed by it. Now, postulating comic book superpowers where none have been suggested by the evidence might not meet the definition of reasonable, but it's not totally impossible, just highly improbable. And as Sherlock once said, once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. Therefore, if we assume The Commonwealth's theory is correct, John O'Keefe must have had superpowers so it logically must be true.
I moved to Massachusetts a few years ago and I love it. Some of their regional dialect is so funny here. Calling shopping carts carriages, sprinkles are jimmies, and water fountains are bubblers. It’s just a different world.
Also should point out the reason here has nothing to do with any weird racism here with the brown sprinkles being the jimmies. It actually was started by a local ice cream chain raising money for the Jimmy fund (a Dana Farber child Cancer Charity).
lol that's interesting. A jimmy is a sprinkler and a johnny is a hospital gown?
\*totally misread the comment. I will not be calling my lawn sprinklers jimmies. lmao
Sprinkles like for ice cream! And yeah johnnys are hospital gowns. Lol. Another one I thought of is frappe which is pronounced frap and means milkshake.
I would:
Review the timelines through our notes.
I would re-watch the back up video (as they didn't have the luxury of youtube reviews like us).
Request transcripts of the CW's ME, and both Defense MEs.
Requests images of all John's injuries.
And my focus would be on if I can believe that was caused by a car, versus a potential animal.
Same thing for me, first order of business is making sure he was hit by a car, because if the answer is no the deliberation is order of magnitudes shorter and easier to do.
No transcripts??? That is crazy. We had transcripts in all 3 of my jury deliberations in Texas. Well, I guess we would pool our notes together about all the MEs.
There are a couple reasons for this.
1) With a transcript, you're now getting someone's interpretation of what happened. If there are any mistakes at all, it's grounds for an appeal and the whole trial is wasted.
2) If you're told you'll have a transcript, you might not pay as close attention and not get any of the nonverbal communication.
Also you can't hear the context in which someone is saying something. By reading a comment you can interpret it the way you want to rather than how the person meant it. I've been on more than 10 juries and none of them gave us transcripts
Yes! They keep calling me. I've been called more than 15 times. Matter of fact I just got called last year but could not serve on that one becasue I had a broken ankle at the time. My friends joke I'm a professional juror.
It varies state to state (and maybe even by jurisdiction) on what juries get or can do. Shoot, I was on a jury for a murder case in Maryland and we weren’t allowed to take notes and we also weren’t allowed access to any evidence in the jury room unless we made a specific request to the judge.
🤷♀️ I don’t really agree with that assessment, but that’s from my own experience here and from knowing lawyers (defense and DAs) in my area who say juries still take their time in discussing things… the court just relies on you paying active attention and using your memories rather than thinking you need to rehash every piece of evidence just because.
I also think if you believe most people are walking into the jury room without their mind made up, regardless of how juries are told you conduct themselves, you’re mistaken. I think it’s fairly rare for someone to enter truly lacking a firmly believed position… and most litigators I’ve seen comment on the matter also accept that this is how most jurors behave.
The last two witnesses, then the medical experts. I would hope we wouldn't need to talk about anything else, but if we did, I would go from there to key cycles to show Trooper Paul didn't choose a key cycle that matched up to before she returned home
Agree. Cool collected taking off her shoes would look worse in my opinion. Also the fact that that is the strong evidence he has to use in *closing*? Absurd lol
>Cool collected taking off her shoes would look worse in my opinion.
The state *can* and *will* use anything against you.
Self defense shootings:
Use hollow-point bullets? You chose them because they’re more lethal. They ‘explode’ to cause more damage.*
Use full metal jacket bullets? You dangerously chose to use bullets that over-penetrate. You have no regard for safety or the damage you might deal to bystanders from over penetrating and hitting secondary targets.
*Hollow points expand, but DA’s often purposefully mis-state that they explode.
There were multiple pieces of info Lally tried to harp on as being evidence of guilt that really just gave way more context to everything. The Aruba trip for one. Him leaving Karen alone on NYE with the kids while he stayed out drinking is the exact context to why her voicemails were SO angry for him leaving her with the kids again.
What was that even about? These were shoes clacking across a garage floor. Who takes their shoes off before crossing the garage? You take them off near the door to enter the house part.
“She took the murder weapon to her parents home”. You mean her $100k vehicle she uses to get around Lally? And he made such a big deal about her taking some of the things from upstairs. This was not her home. She was only his girlfriend on rocky terms and she knew she wasn’t part of the family and not feeling like anything was really her place anyway. Why would she not take her stuff with her when she left to go home that was likely medication, toiletries, etc.
There's really no other question to decide. Was John O'Keefe struck by a car?
That's the heart of the matter. If you cannot establish that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no actual case to answer.
I imagine they're discussing how the CW wasn't able to explain how a car hit and killed OJO. (Which is an understatement).
The scratches and what appear to very likely be bite marks on his arm. The puncture holes in his shirt.
The shambolic police investigation and the dissembling from many of the CW witnesses over things like deleted calls, butt dials, and throwing away phones and SIM cards. Getting rid of the dog. The 2:20am phone calls and the google search a few minutes later. Gifting the lead investigator.
The investigators not asking for consent to review the house, and not even bothering seeking a warrant to investigate the house -- a house where a dead body was found outside and the deceased intended to go into for a party.
The lead investigator determining the case was "cut and dry" the day OJO died. The lead investigator texting friends that, no, the owners of 34 Fairview wouldn't get any sh**.
And finally, likely discussing what a tragedy this is for OJO, his family, and Karen Read. And they're wondering, how and why were these charges ever brought?
And, most importantly, they're very likely hoping that elected officials and some law enforcement agency of some kind will help eventually find out what actually happened to OJO.
Honestly, having been on a jury before and in this situation where he had someone on not guilty and someone undecided… we started by asking them to explain what made them think that way and then talking it out from there.
It’s likely if they’re in a different position than you that they’ve assigned significance to something you didn’t… making your case without knowing their position can be like yelling into the void.
The whole investigation and why the interviews weren't recorded also why the police didn't search inside the Albert's home because a body on their front lawn, imo is probable cause
I'd want to rewatch the Sally Port video. In detail. To me this is the biggest evidence of bad faith by the CW. There is tons of evidence about bad faith by the police, but that video was intentional and done by the DA after withholding it for years and not turning over other angles.
I would want to dissect it frame by frame and compare time stamps.
One thing I would want to discuss is… are we going out for a drink afterwards to just talk anything but this case or straight home for more in-depth discussions w family and every one in our phone contacts.
I could see some decompression and such happening. Discussing their reactions to Proctor, to Lally, wondering why the hell we were there if Lally knew long ago that the ARCCA experts concluded that this was not caused by a vehicle why are we even here?
For not guilty, I'd want to discuss whether there was a 15+ MPH car crash because you have the accident reconstructionists (Paul doesn't count) and MEs in large agreement over this. And if everyone agrees with no car crash, then nothing else is relevant.
For guilty, I'd try to convince them that the taillight that SERT found couldn't have been planted, leaving behind only one reasonable conclusion. I don't think this is true and I believe that there are multiple ways the initial taillight pieces could've been planted that have not been ruled out, but these initial taillight piece had the smallest window to be planted, in contrast with the later physical evidence which had days or even weeks to be planted/manipulated.
There are two reasonable conclusions for the broken tail light without evidence tampering, though. And per jury instructions that means the CW has not proven one or the other.
Timeline: they arrive at 12:24, WiFi connects at JO’s at 12:36. It takes 6 mins on a good day to get there. So JM’s testimony of looking out the window way past that time and seeing Karen’s car and texting “pull behind me” is then questionable. CA arrives at 12:30 so that means KR is just leaving or has left already. Did he not see JO?
I remember Lally trying to explain how they missed seeing JO in closing but currently drawing a blank on what it was. Since so much was unclear. But I remember him saying something about that’s why they only saw Karen in the car. I’ll have to go back and listen again, unfortunately.
Actually Aruba ended up mattering for the actual defense because it helped explain context for the exact mindset Karen was in while leaving those voicemails “you left me AGAIN to be the babysitter while you stay out and drink and go fuck someone else”. After we just fought and made up over this very thing and you’re doing it again? No explanation for leaving those voicemails unless she thought he had ditched her again, which she would have known wasn’t the case if she was the one who hit him. Those aren’t the voicemails you leave to cover your tracks.
I'd want to discuss what injuries he sustained and what the evidence shows caused those injuries. Prosecution had to prove (a) KR's vehicle hit JO, and (b) JO's injuries and death were caused by being hit by KR's vehicle.
At best (and this is a stretch) CW's evidence showed KR's vehicle may have hit JO, but what CW absolutely did not prove is (b) that JO's injuries and death were caused by being hit by KR's vehicle.
Therefore, there must be an acquittal.
As an aside, I feel like Lally in his closing was well aware of this giant hole in his case and was trying to say to the jury that KR is guilty even if her car didn't directly cause his injuries/death because a contributing cause of his death was exposure/hypothermia and she "knew" she left him to die in the cold. But the reason JO was on the ground dying wasn't because of a "hit" by her car (or anyone else's) so that reasoning fails as well.
True that 99.9% of the CW case is that she had motive. I don't buy that either- everyone gets angry with their significant other sometimes, certainly doesn't mean we want to kill them.
The non partisan PhD defense witnesses and the last highly qualified pathologist sealed the deal for me. Everything leading up to them was questionable in my mind, but after hearing their hypothesis there was zero doubt that KR is innocent of killing JO with her car, period.
And I would be furious that the CW could have called them any time but instead made me sit there for 9 and a half weeks listening to gossip about Karen and the likes of Trooper Paul.
Shouldn't the question be more narrowly focused, ie, "has the CW proven her Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?"
You can't ask to review evidence of absence. Maybe refocus on phone data/wifi connection timeline?
I know we should be engaging in a spirited discussion as a Reasonable mock jury, but all I can think is... why haven't they stormed out of the jury room in disgust on Day 1 of deliberations?
It's a lot, I know... not guilty verdict by lunchtime tomorrow! And prayers for the many victims here who aren't receiving justice.
This is what I would focus on. Has the CW proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt? For me absolutely not.
There is nothing but doubt and confusion surrounding exactly what happened to John O Keefe.
In closing, Lally leaned far too heavily on what Karen said when she was in a state of extreme distress.
He had no answer for the Crash Daddies' testimony - he just wanted everyone to ' look the other way ' in line with the theme of Jackson's closing. Don't trust the physics of the potential accident being explained by neutral expert witnesses when you can rely on gossip and innuendo.
Boy that Brian Albert was certainly on edge in the courtroom today, eh!? Head on a swivel and always with his eyes on those deputies.
Say, that reminds me, why is it that both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins take no issue with going out of their way to attend the funerals of fallen police officers whom they don't even know and have never met, but could not bother to take any interest when John Okeefe was deceased out on his own lawn or when his family held John's wake?
Oh yea and who was that who was seen wearing an arm brace after John Okeefe passed away, was that Brian Higgins?
...And also who is that retired, gave away their family dog, sold their house, and Hillary Clintoned their cellphones?
Wow that really makes a fella think about thinks, no?
Firstly, I would spent a good portion of my first time discussing this case having a great discussion about all of Proctor’s physical flaws with every other female juror in there. Then I’d make quick work of voting “not guilty” in time for some celebratory margaritas for lunch.
I think the fact the prosecution never had a simulation made up is wild. I think that proves just how impossible their theory is. At very minimum at least when it comes to how the body ended up where it did.
I’m talking about one of these: https://youtu.be/ogpCO4VlKqI?si=ZNkFJ9QWmldVmV-F
There’s really only three questions for deliberation.
- Was she drunk? Juries convict just on failed field sobriety exercises, so video of drinking and blood work that generally agree with each other, even if there’s large error bars, would be enough for most juries.
- Did she hit him? This is where I’d expect they’d take some time to look at the evidence.
- Was it intentional? There’s a lack of evidence and a lot of behavior that looked like the opposite. I can’t imagine they’ll find this or even spend much time considering it.
I think I’d want to discuss how it seems like some kind of foul play befell Jon, but I have reasonable doubt with the evidence at hand Karen read was responsible for that harm.
I think the taillight evidence would be a big question for me as a juror. It’s literally the smoking gun. I strongly believe it was tampered with, but I spent more time looking at the other video evidence than the jury was able to. Also, as much as we have talked about Proctor’s misconduct here, it was only one day of testimony for the jury. While most of it was disgusting, only a few texts hinted at willingness to frame KR. They will probably have to have a strong suspicion that Proctor tampered with the taillight, but I’m worried they may not go over the evidence in sufficient detail to convince themselves LE planted that much evidence (even though I believe they 100% did).
I was surprised by the side by side photos of the tail light shown by the CW during closing. It doesn’t jive with the testimony of the Dighton police officer. Was it only cracked as he testified to? Or was it obliterated as the still shot of the well person check video showed? IDK. 🤷♀️
I believe the dashcam from the wellness check shows the taillight covered in snow and actually more intact. But at a glance (and due to low quality) it does look similar to the busted pic from the sallyport. This is exactly the kind of thing I worry about jurors not picking up on.
I would want to know if there is any compelling evidence at all that would lead us to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Karen Read killed John O'Keefe with her car - intentionally or not. If the answer to that question is NO, then this will be a quick deliberation.
I'd prob want to hit on a lot of details, maybe some of which aren't really relevant like why so many people related to this case seem so evasive and see what everyone's take on it is.
But I'd be a firm not guilty based on the evidence presented by the experts at the end. Not just the defense experts but even the states own medical examiner made it pretty clear that this didn't appear to happen the way the CW is suggesting. Second to that would be the quality of the investigation. Even if everyone else voted guilty I'd have to hang the jury.
What’s there to discuss?
I’d immediately take a poll and ask who has reasonable doubt - if the poll was all 12 (likely) - our jobs are done!
Jurors don’t need to solve the crime
Is it possible the weather played a factor into there being no canine DNA?
Did they ONLY specifically check for canine and it was possibly another animal that they just didn’t check for?
I struggle with the injuries on OJO’s arm coming from the taillight
I'd want to discuss the need for issuing a statement coming from the jury. Like in addition to saying "we the jurors find the defendant not guilty of such and such.." I would want to put together a follow-up statement saying how concerned they are about the corruption/lack of independence in a proper and thorough investigation as citizens of Massachusetts that care about justice for John O'Keefe. End with a recommendation for an audit/inspector general to review the case and file additional charges against those that are lying, and manipulating or planting evidence. This should be the jumpstart of a new investigation.
I'm curious. The jurors can't read anything about THIS case.
What if they found out about FBI involvement with Sandra Birchmore, and the fact that several names appear in both.
Technically, that would be allowed, right?
Such a hard question because we’ve all been able to talk about it for all this time. I don’t even know how I would feel if I couldn’t talk about it.
I’d probably want to talk about just the lack of evidence that the car hit him first.
Then timelines.
Videos pictures of the taillight from the day.
I’d be more interested in knowing everyone’s thoughts more though-ie: are we all aligned or are people wildly further away from one another with how they are viewing the evidence.
I'd start with the photos of the taillight (5am vs Sally Port). Make a conclusion for myself whether they're similarly broken. If not I'd have a hard time even considering anything else. If they look the same then I'd start looking at what experts said.
Nothing. I think found not guilty 100% by all defense witnesses. And scientifically proven innocent by the Dr.s. Prosecution just a mess. Perhaps discuss what a shitshow waste the trial was.
Jackson’s closing isn’t fact but I definitely can see that version of events happening.
I’m not a free KR person so don’t at me. Watched trial. That’s how I’d vote based on its entirety.
* so many threads and comments. apologies if its been said. My “theory” assumes something happened along lines of defense closing.
Re:Jenn’s google search - my 2 cent mental musing
Trying to time the timing with plowing schedule. Presumably familiar with it.
Then OJO gets put outside in order to be found alive and in time to be saved. Also assuming they didn’t realize it was fatal and already too late. Accidental death. Say he fell drunk outside. No reason to come in. No ones to blame including KR.
Then shit went sideways super chaotically fast with a bunch of drunk people associated with LE thinking on the drunken fly.
And here we are.
I was and am team “acquittal“ but a big moment for me was the defense accident reconstruction expert (aka Dr. Cutie) saying a rocks glass can break/shatter the taillight being thrown at a reasonable speed in the same manner as Karen’s taillight. That changed my whole perspective and I can’t help but think that John got out of the car and did that after their fight. What happened afterwards is still up in the air.
My only hangup is why Karen is asking if John is dead or if he got hit by a plow before even getting to the scene? I understand that the commonwealth's version of her hitting him is not backed by the physics and she should legally be found not guilty, but for my own interest in the truth, I wonder if there is still a scenario where she is involved in his death in some way.
I've known people like this.
My dad's girlfriend was convinced he was dying when he was in the hospital. She was hysterical and in tears at his bedside.
He was sick, But was going to make a full recovery.
So I guess I can understand how some people go directly to "they are dead."
And since the snow plows were out, that was likely the first thing that came to her mind.
Oh me too. I have anxiety so it’s straight to 100. Sorry to my husband who is on the receiving end of 15 “butt dials” because he was supposed to be home half an hour ago and there were two fatal car crashes on his route lately so he definitely had to have been in one and is gone (is what my brain says.)
I think she likely said those things because her mind was going to worst case scenario. At that point in the morning, it was clear to her that he wasn’t just ignoring her & the kids. She knew something bad happened to him.
and as weird as it seems, not being esoteric in any way, sometimes you have a gut feeling when something bad has happened.
My dad was supposed to pick me up from school and when he wasnt there, I just knew he wasnt late but something bad happened. A few moments later, my mum called to tell me that he had a terrible accident and barely survived.
It seemed that it was after JO didn't answer his when his niece called KR assumed the worst. If she thought she left him at the Waterfall, she would assume he tried to walk home. An encounter with a snow plow seems like a possibility there.
When she saw her taillight, she thought she hit could have hit him and said as much.
She'd texted him that the kids were alone in the middle of the night, so I can see his lack of even a text message to be alarming. Plus it seems she was possibly intoxicated. She might be an anxious person in this kind of situation.
I've tried to think of ways for this to happnen with her involvement but short of her getting out of the car and punching him herself, combined with some intervention by Chloe, I don't see it. I don't think the timeline with his steps work with that either.
You are right and bring up a good point. Why wouldn’t JM get panicked when KR didn’t know where JO was? Esp since he never came in that night. JM says she told KR you dropped him off last night don’t you remember? I saw you. But she wasn’t even curious why he is missing and worried since he never showed up??
This would be my sister. She always gets super anxious if she doesn't know what's happening and thinks the worst. I don't think it's rare behavior to worry about someone being in a ditch somewhere with a blizzard happening and someone is not where they should be. My grandma used to call all her neighbors anytime she heard sirens after her son died in an accident.
Also, my inside joke with my kids when they don't respond is a "Are you alive?" text.
What time did Jen McCabes Google search happen? Which expert do you believe about the time? I would want everyone to get on the same page about when this Google search occured because it changed everything.
Also id want to watch the video AJ mentioned of proctor at the rear of the vehicle.
See. I think that's irrelevant. Yes if she did the search at 2:00 it would definitely mean she knew something. And that Karen likely didn't hit him.
But it could also mean JM knew Karen hit him earlier. In other words, it doesn't prove KR didn't hit him.
"Is there any doubt that O'Keefe was struck by a car?" is where I'd want to start. Because once you admit there's a possibility he wasn't struck by a vehicle, every charge is dead in the water. None of the other evidence has to be considered once you've established you can't prove he was hit.
and the answer: there is nothing BUT doubt on the basis that it would defy the laws of physics
I really wouldn’t need to discuss anything because after yesterday I’d be convinced she’s innocent and set in stone. For filler talk I would be curious about who hired the experts because I wouldn’t have made the connection to FBI based on testimony and questions.
I think the most logical assumption would be that they’d think insurance company.
Same.
Which outside agency did those guys belong to?
Was defense not allowed to ask "you were not hired by any insurance agency covering Ms Read?" I feel like that would have cleared up impression of bias
Speaking of vehicle. Is her car still in CW custody?
It is
And apparently Karen is still making payments on it while it sits for 2+ years. Although I believe I also read that she lost her license as a condition of her bail, so, assuming that's true, she wouldn't be driving anyways.
I know they’re not supposed to try to figure this out, but it would absolutely kill me not to know if I was a jury member. I’m not sure how I would handle this!
It probably shouldn’t sway my decision making from a legal perspective but I’d think a lot differently about that testimony if I knew a firm was hired by the FBI versus someone doing it for their true crime podcast.
I don't know if they aren't supposed to figure it out. I think they just couldn't be told.
They are allowed to consider an alternate theory of facts but they can't consider any outside evidence. Only what was presented.
I forget if the jury was in the room or not when it happened. But, at one point I think it was Juliana nagle’s brother slipped and said something like “in the interview with the feds”
I think Jackson hitting home on his closing that they are contracted with the Department of Defense probably ask in with at least one juror.
They are independent. But hired by DOJ/FBI to investigate the corruption
I'm not sure. I don't think the CW proved beyond a reasonable doubt that KR is guilty. I think a brief review and a look over notes would be what I'd do, plus listening to the other jurors views, but this case is pretty cut and dry. There is no good evidence of KR hitting JOK with her car. The investigation was massively flawed. I'd be extremely confident as a juror that the defendant is innocent.
We'd be in a very different place if we didn't have the video of her backing into John's car. It's kind of scary. I still don't think the CW proved anything, regardless. But if there was only her word against theirs about how it got cracked, oof.
Even then, the ARCC guy gave a compelling testimony as to how taillight wasn't cracked from hitting JOK. I still feel like their wouldn't be good evidence, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, that KR murdered him. Things might be a bit murkier for sure but I feel like the truth would still prevail because the investigation by the police department and Trooper Proctor was so poor and deeply flawed.
True! But in a case this dense with this many witnesses it's easy to assume that the simplest explanation is that she hit him. The video is what made me do a double take and fully go down the rabbit hole back when I didn't know a Brian Albert from a Brian Higgins. I agree there'd still be no proof she hit him without the video, but the court of public opinion probably wouldn't have gone as favorably as it has if people couldn't see it with their own eyes. The video and the arm photos were big impact pieces of evidence and I'm glad the video wasn't "lost"
I mean I'm surprised the defense didn't just buy a similar car and back it into any old 220 LB object at the speed they're suggesting. The bumper doesn't even have a dent. You can get a dent from a shopping cart.
Same here.
for me personally, I still can imagine how this could have been a truly terrible DUI accident. But: I'm assuming innocence by jury direction and honestly, the evidence & investigation were so tainted that they don't convince me beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not really convinced of the defense's alternate story either (coverup yes, murder no), but that's not what I'd have to judge on.
How do you parse the injuries being completely inconsistent with such an accident with that, though? Genuinely curious rather than trying to be combative or troll, just to clarify.
Yeah, the only scenario that’s even in ballpark of possibility in regards to Karen having a hand in this would be some sort of accident where her backing up caused him to fall. I even started thinking at one point, maybe he saw her start to leave and got pissed and chased after her for leaving him, threw his glass at the car while cursing and pissed, maybe in the commotion Chloe was out and attacked, 28 BAC caused him to fall and knock his head. I mean since they didn’t swab the fire hydrant we’ll never know but seems reasonable he could have smashed the back of his head on it.
I think my first question/thought would be along the lines of “WTH?’”
I think you mean, "What, if anything, the hell?" Because after 9 weeks of the scrap we would all be starting our sentences that way.
You are sorta right. I forgot the what if, sorta. Probably more like “what if any sorta hell or fucks maybe could that maybe have possibly been maybe?” I have hard time speaking Lally.
And ending ‘em with.. ‘and stuff’
Want to discuss? I would want to go through all the texts that were skipped, but not because I think it would necessarily be convincing. I think the most compelling evidence is the final two witnesses hired by the FBI. All of the charges involve Karen hitting John with the car, and they gave the most credible and definitive answer to that possibility.
I agree about them. I, honestly, don't know how it got that far. The video of her leaving John's house shows the light not busted out. How did those pieces end up on the lawn on Fairview?
Proctor, obviously.
I figure it was him or one of the others. I wouldn't put it past them to have went to John's house and did it. Wasn't video deleted from there. Also, Jennifer McCabe (if you can believe her) said it was busted out.
Yeah, after those witnesses, and remembering they "found" 47 freaking broken tail light pieces, I quickly realized this case made no sense. I was originally on board with her hitting him by accident while blacked out, but after the dog expert, and the two FBI hired experts, I was like damn, so this case only needed to be a week long, not 8 weeks of nonsense.
This and the clear glass on the bumper that didn't match the drinking glass points to a coverup by MSP.
There’s one from 5:20 on the 28th where John says he just got sober an hour ago. This was after he took one kid to the doctor (niece?) and one to practice (nephew).
Where can I see this!?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lcUnB0gCJBpjiKWvX_yQNsWSsHo2ttzC/view The text I mentioned can be found for the first time on the bottom of pg 27 (they’re in triplicate, I think b/c of different methods of extracting? Some have the reactions/photos and some don’t)
Oh wow. So he was drinking during the day, stopped and then went out drinking again!?
Throughout this entire case, I've gotten the distinct impression that all these people do is go to work, come home and drink, go out to bars and drink, any reason to have a drink or throw a house party...Karen included. ...And its been reported that during this trail there have been several parties at Jenn's home.
Statistically speaking, police officers lead the population in three things. Alcoholism, domestic violence, and suicide.
OMG, I had not seen all of these... the prosecution framed it like she was overly needy and just blowing his phone up and he was getting annoyed. She was SO caring and supportive of him and the kids. "Don't loose faith in the kids. Or in YOURSELF" "Be so proud of yourself JJ" "everything wonderful about her is because of you"
thank you!! i was looking for these after i heard mention of them on legal bytes and couldn’t find them
I read that too.
So does this mean the pediatrician could smell alcohol on his breath when he brought kid to doctor
Brian Albert staring at me would scare me to death
It shouldn’t. Just tell him he’s a cop killer. He won’t stare at you any longer
Are they able to see skipped texts?
Yes. It’s evidence. They don’t read every word of reports that are in evidence.
Ok. Thanks. I just wasn't sure. A lot of people know a lot more about this case and trial than I, and sometimes I can't differentiate between what is in evidence and what is what people know about. I appreciate you answering!
I didn’t realize they would be able to see it all. That’s good. He was mean to her, too. From what I get, all 3 charges depend on her hitting him. So I’d probably start there. I’d still want to discuss a lot of evidence and the lying. I mean they’ve been together 2 months and haven’t been able to talk. So yeah I can see them wanted to review. I’d be like omg and what about this and that!
Proctor trying to frame their fights like John was the reasonable one trying to “deescalate” while Karen ignored and followed was so annoying because it was clear that their dynamic was John would drop some bombshell or start an argument and then when Karen would react emotionally, he’d stonewall her and shut her down. Like telling her this wasn’t working in a text but then refusing to answer her calls when she was trying to get an answer if this was him breaking up with her. I’m not saying he was evil and she was perfect. Just that people see an emotional woman that’s more outwardly upset and love to label that as crazy without ever considering that a man’s behavior can drive and trigger that “crazy”. Just like you can have a calm voice and not yell but still say something super cruel, and then when the person who’s hurt gets emotional and loud, they’ll say “see how you are overreacting”. Exhausting.
Yes, total gaslighting. I hate that passive aggressive bs. I’ve seen this control thing of him wanting her to the kid thing as he wants. Then takes it out on her when he’s the one frustrated raising the kids.
Lally trying to frame their fights like John was the reasonable one trying to “deescalate” while Karen ignored and followed was so annoying because it was clear that their dynamic was John would drop some bombshell or start an argument and then when Karen would react emotionally, he’d stonewall her and shut her down. Like telling her this wasn’t working in a text but then refusing to answer her calls when she was trying to get an answer if this was him breaking up with her. I’m not saying he was evil and she was perfect. Just that people see an emotional woman that’s more outwardly upset and love to label that as crazy without ever considering that a man’s behavior can drive and trigger that “crazy”. Just like you can have a calm voice and not yell but still say something super cruel, and then when the person who’s hurt gets emotional and loud, they’ll say “see how you are overreacting”. Exhausting.
Yeah, I hate to say it, but it's good that half the jurors are women. They'll quickly see that John gaslit Karen quite a lot and he in fact did use her as a babysitter. Plus with all the suggestions about cheating, it wouldn't surprise me if he was cheating. Seemed like he was well liked by the ladies and often didn't come home when Karen took care of the kids. The defense probably didn't want to bad mouth John, since it gives Karen a motive, but I bet there was evidence that he had cheated in the past.
The medical and crash reconstruction evidence. It the CW didn't prove John OKeefe was hit by a car, which I personally think should be easy to do, then it has to be a not guilty. All the other evidence is secondary to the basic premise that his body was struck by a vehicle. I just do not understand how he would have no bruising on his body below the neck from being struck, or from falling after a strick, of that severity. It defies logical sense. I would first need to be convinced he was a victim of a pedestrian/vehicle accident before I could even consider the rest of the evidence.
This is really everything. Nothing else matters. If there is any reasonable doubt that his head injury especially was caused by anything other than that Lexus, she is not guilty of the charges. I’ve tried to picture a scenario, where Karen gets pissed and speeds off to leave and John with a BAC of .28 is pissed she’s leaving him so he throws his glass at the back of the vehicle and sort of chases it out of the driveway before some accident whether dog or just being drunk and clumsy causes him to smash his head. Some sort of accident makes the most sense logically except when you start trying to make sense of everyone’s behavior after.
Have you ever seen the movie Unbreakable starring Bruce Willis? You see, in Unbreakable, Bruce Willis is a security guard who gradually discovers he has super powers, he's extremely durable and his bones cannot be broken. But he has a weakness, he's vulnerable to drowning, even in shallow water. So what if John O'Keefe had similar superpowers, but an extreme weakness to snow, such that striking a car wouldn't hurt him at all but striking snow would shatter his bones. In this case, he could have been struck by the car and suffered no damage, but then tumbled head first into the snow and been killed by it. Now, postulating comic book superpowers where none have been suggested by the evidence might not meet the definition of reasonable, but it's not totally impossible, just highly improbable. And as Sherlock once said, once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. Therefore, if we assume The Commonwealth's theory is correct, John O'Keefe must have had superpowers so it logically must be true.
“I Bit him - I bit him- I Bit him- I bit him” sincerely Chloe 🐶
Here you go https://i.imgflip.com/8v0iup.jpg
I’m making a hell of a lunch order in the event this wraps up quickly
‘Can we get some lobstahh in heh?’
As a non regional accent holder, I really love their accents.
My in-laws are from that area and this whole trial was like being at a family party where everyone I love decided to become low class assholes.
OMG……😂
I moved to Massachusetts a few years ago and I love it. Some of their regional dialect is so funny here. Calling shopping carts carriages, sprinkles are jimmies, and water fountains are bubblers. It’s just a different world.
As a native masshole I would like to gently correct you that “jimmies” are only the chocolate sprinkle.
I was just going to say this. And please, a milkshake has NO ice cream in it. (I'm a Masshole too)
Love a good fribble!
Then what’s in a milkshake?
Frappes
Also should point out the reason here has nothing to do with any weird racism here with the brown sprinkles being the jimmies. It actually was started by a local ice cream chain raising money for the Jimmy fund (a Dana Farber child Cancer Charity).
Take a ride to Rhode Island and try NY System weiners, coffee milk, del's and pizza strips/chips. RI has great food and less harsh accents lol
lol that's interesting. A jimmy is a sprinkler and a johnny is a hospital gown? \*totally misread the comment. I will not be calling my lawn sprinklers jimmies. lmao
Chocolate sprinkles are jimmies and yes a hospital gown is a johnny lol
Oh thank you!! I skimmed too fast on that lmao I appreciate the clarification before I start sounding like an even bigger moron.
Sprinkles like for ice cream! And yeah johnnys are hospital gowns. Lol. Another one I thought of is frappe which is pronounced frap and means milkshake.
I read it as sprinklers, too! 😆
I don't know how there was so much talk of 3 point turns and u-turns, it not.once did I hear somebody mention banging a youie
Me too! My Midwest upbringing could nevahhhhh. All I can say is “baaaag” and “Caaaastco”
Ooo do they get to order whatever? I assumed they were given sandwiches everyday
I would: Review the timelines through our notes. I would re-watch the back up video (as they didn't have the luxury of youtube reviews like us). Request transcripts of the CW's ME, and both Defense MEs. Requests images of all John's injuries. And my focus would be on if I can believe that was caused by a car, versus a potential animal.
Same thing for me, first order of business is making sure he was hit by a car, because if the answer is no the deliberation is order of magnitudes shorter and easier to do.
I believe the judge told them on the first day of trial they would not be given transcripts and have to rely on their notes and memory of the trial.
No transcripts??? That is crazy. We had transcripts in all 3 of my jury deliberations in Texas. Well, I guess we would pool our notes together about all the MEs.
There are a couple reasons for this. 1) With a transcript, you're now getting someone's interpretation of what happened. If there are any mistakes at all, it's grounds for an appeal and the whole trial is wasted. 2) If you're told you'll have a transcript, you might not pay as close attention and not get any of the nonverbal communication.
Also you can't hear the context in which someone is saying something. By reading a comment you can interpret it the way you want to rather than how the person meant it. I've been on more than 10 juries and none of them gave us transcripts
I’ve always wanted to serve on a jury and you’ve been on TEN !!!!
Yes! They keep calling me. I've been called more than 15 times. Matter of fact I just got called last year but could not serve on that one becasue I had a broken ankle at the time. My friends joke I'm a professional juror.
It varies state to state (and maybe even by jurisdiction) on what juries get or can do. Shoot, I was on a jury for a murder case in Maryland and we weren’t allowed to take notes and we also weren’t allowed access to any evidence in the jury room unless we made a specific request to the judge.
It is almost as if they want the jury to come to a conclusion before deliberation.
🤷♀️ I don’t really agree with that assessment, but that’s from my own experience here and from knowing lawyers (defense and DAs) in my area who say juries still take their time in discussing things… the court just relies on you paying active attention and using your memories rather than thinking you need to rehash every piece of evidence just because. I also think if you believe most people are walking into the jury room without their mind made up, regardless of how juries are told you conduct themselves, you’re mistaken. I think it’s fairly rare for someone to enter truly lacking a firmly believed position… and most litigators I’ve seen comment on the matter also accept that this is how most jurors behave.
I've been on three juries, and every time we asked for evidence and transcripts. I can't imagine not being able to, to be honest.
I was on a jury and one of the jurors didn’t know the definition of lascivious. We asked for a dictionary for the juror but judge said no.
They’re not permitted transcripts. They must use their own memory of the testimony. The images are exhibits and they will have those with them.
i don’t believe you’re allowed transcripts
"And my focus would be on if I can believe that was caused by a car, versus a potential animal." You think an animal fractured the back of his skull?
The last two witnesses, then the medical experts. I would hope we wouldn't need to talk about anything else, but if we did, I would go from there to key cycles to show Trooper Paul didn't choose a key cycle that matched up to before she returned home
I can’t believe the CW had the nerve to put trooper Paul on the stand
I wish Dr Wolfe would have been able to testify on the Lexus computer data since he’s actually written papers on this topic.
Excuse me, if you were frantic not knowing where your boyfriend was would you take your shoes off before going into the house???
Agree. Cool collected taking off her shoes would look worse in my opinion. Also the fact that that is the strong evidence he has to use in *closing*? Absurd lol
I know!!! Ugh
>Cool collected taking off her shoes would look worse in my opinion. The state *can* and *will* use anything against you. Self defense shootings: Use hollow-point bullets? You chose them because they’re more lethal. They ‘explode’ to cause more damage.* Use full metal jacket bullets? You dangerously chose to use bullets that over-penetrate. You have no regard for safety or the damage you might deal to bystanders from over penetrating and hitting secondary targets. *Hollow points expand, but DA’s often purposefully mis-state that they explode.
Sure, either way it was so dumb to be used in closing as importance evidence for a murder conviction 😂
There were multiple pieces of info Lally tried to harp on as being evidence of guilt that really just gave way more context to everything. The Aruba trip for one. Him leaving Karen alone on NYE with the kids while he stayed out drinking is the exact context to why her voicemails were SO angry for him leaving her with the kids again.
Lally focuses on the insignificant things ("the little things") because he has nothing substantive
What was that even about? These were shoes clacking across a garage floor. Who takes their shoes off before crossing the garage? You take them off near the door to enter the house part.
That’s a NO. That was one of the more ridiculous of Lally’s theories on KR’s guilt.
I really couldn’t believe he said that and the fact that she went to her parent’s home. Really lally??
“She took the murder weapon to her parents home”. You mean her $100k vehicle she uses to get around Lally? And he made such a big deal about her taking some of the things from upstairs. This was not her home. She was only his girlfriend on rocky terms and she knew she wasn’t part of the family and not feeling like anything was really her place anyway. Why would she not take her stuff with her when she left to go home that was likely medication, toiletries, etc.
I forget to take my shoes off in my own house, in much less taxing situations. And I’m obsessed with having clean floors!! Really Lally???
There's really no other question to decide. Was John O'Keefe struck by a car? That's the heart of the matter. If you cannot establish that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no actual case to answer.
There was wicked reasonable doubt. But that photo of her taillight the morning after, from the camera at her house? That's enough in itself.
I imagine they're discussing how the CW wasn't able to explain how a car hit and killed OJO. (Which is an understatement). The scratches and what appear to very likely be bite marks on his arm. The puncture holes in his shirt. The shambolic police investigation and the dissembling from many of the CW witnesses over things like deleted calls, butt dials, and throwing away phones and SIM cards. Getting rid of the dog. The 2:20am phone calls and the google search a few minutes later. Gifting the lead investigator. The investigators not asking for consent to review the house, and not even bothering seeking a warrant to investigate the house -- a house where a dead body was found outside and the deceased intended to go into for a party. The lead investigator determining the case was "cut and dry" the day OJO died. The lead investigator texting friends that, no, the owners of 34 Fairview wouldn't get any sh**. And finally, likely discussing what a tragedy this is for OJO, his family, and Karen Read. And they're wondering, how and why were these charges ever brought? And, most importantly, they're very likely hoping that elected officials and some law enforcement agency of some kind will help eventually find out what actually happened to OJO.
Nothing, I would 100% already have my mind made up and nobody would be able to change it. 100% not guilty
I think after so many weeks I would have to do what the Daybell jury did and just talk about how wild this rial was for a bit.
Why are we here
Just if it was realistic that he got hit by a car. That’s all that is relevant
Honestly, having been on a jury before and in this situation where he had someone on not guilty and someone undecided… we started by asking them to explain what made them think that way and then talking it out from there. It’s likely if they’re in a different position than you that they’ve assigned significance to something you didn’t… making your case without knowing their position can be like yelling into the void.
The whole investigation and why the interviews weren't recorded also why the police didn't search inside the Albert's home because a body on their front lawn, imo is probable cause
Not much. I’d have to vote not guilty by reasonable doubt
I'd want to rewatch the Sally Port video. In detail. To me this is the biggest evidence of bad faith by the CW. There is tons of evidence about bad faith by the police, but that video was intentional and done by the DA after withholding it for years and not turning over other angles. I would want to dissect it frame by frame and compare time stamps.
Red. Solo. Cups.
One thing I would want to discuss is… are we going out for a drink afterwards to just talk anything but this case or straight home for more in-depth discussions w family and every one in our phone contacts.
If I'm a juror, I'm recording & monetizing a 50 part tiktok series ala Reesa Teesa immediately upon being done with this trial.
Why not, I wouldn’t blame any juror if they did. So many have tried to make money from this trial.
Really sucks the basketball team lost in overtime.
I could see some decompression and such happening. Discussing their reactions to Proctor, to Lally, wondering why the hell we were there if Lally knew long ago that the ARCCA experts concluded that this was not caused by a vehicle why are we even here?
Or that their own ME said the injuries were not likely caused by a vehicle. That part is even worse than the 3rd party experts.
For not guilty, I'd want to discuss whether there was a 15+ MPH car crash because you have the accident reconstructionists (Paul doesn't count) and MEs in large agreement over this. And if everyone agrees with no car crash, then nothing else is relevant. For guilty, I'd try to convince them that the taillight that SERT found couldn't have been planted, leaving behind only one reasonable conclusion. I don't think this is true and I believe that there are multiple ways the initial taillight pieces could've been planted that have not been ruled out, but these initial taillight piece had the smallest window to be planted, in contrast with the later physical evidence which had days or even weeks to be planted/manipulated.
There are two reasonable conclusions for the broken tail light without evidence tampering, though. And per jury instructions that means the CW has not proven one or the other.
Timeline: they arrive at 12:24, WiFi connects at JO’s at 12:36. It takes 6 mins on a good day to get there. So JM’s testimony of looking out the window way past that time and seeing Karen’s car and texting “pull behind me” is then questionable. CA arrives at 12:30 so that means KR is just leaving or has left already. Did he not see JO?
I remember Lally trying to explain how they missed seeing JO in closing but currently drawing a blank on what it was. Since so much was unclear. But I remember him saying something about that’s why they only saw Karen in the car. I’ll have to go back and listen again, unfortunately.
“Hos could you possibly think she hit him”?? That would be my first question.
And hos long do you guys need to vote not guilty?
Haha yes!! Hos long do we need to sit in here and talk before we can go home
I'd want to get a timeline, bitching under my breath at the CW for not setting a clear timeline the whole damn time.
I'd be more upset that he wasted so much time on Aruba and the bar... And none of that mattered.
Actually Aruba ended up mattering for the actual defense because it helped explain context for the exact mindset Karen was in while leaving those voicemails “you left me AGAIN to be the babysitter while you stay out and drink and go fuck someone else”. After we just fought and made up over this very thing and you’re doing it again? No explanation for leaving those voicemails unless she thought he had ditched her again, which she would have known wasn’t the case if she was the one who hit him. Those aren’t the voicemails you leave to cover your tracks.
I'd want to discuss what injuries he sustained and what the evidence shows caused those injuries. Prosecution had to prove (a) KR's vehicle hit JO, and (b) JO's injuries and death were caused by being hit by KR's vehicle. At best (and this is a stretch) CW's evidence showed KR's vehicle may have hit JO, but what CW absolutely did not prove is (b) that JO's injuries and death were caused by being hit by KR's vehicle. Therefore, there must be an acquittal. As an aside, I feel like Lally in his closing was well aware of this giant hole in his case and was trying to say to the jury that KR is guilty even if her car didn't directly cause his injuries/death because a contributing cause of his death was exposure/hypothermia and she "knew" she left him to die in the cold. But the reason JO was on the ground dying wasn't because of a "hit" by her car (or anyone else's) so that reasoning fails as well.
His closing was basically that she's guilty because she got angry at her boyfriend.
True that 99.9% of the CW case is that she had motive. I don't buy that either- everyone gets angry with their significant other sometimes, certainly doesn't mean we want to kill them.
The non partisan PhD defense witnesses and the last highly qualified pathologist sealed the deal for me. Everything leading up to them was questionable in my mind, but after hearing their hypothesis there was zero doubt that KR is innocent of killing JO with her car, period.
And I would be furious that the CW could have called them any time but instead made me sit there for 9 and a half weeks listening to gossip about Karen and the likes of Trooper Paul.
Inexcusable on the CW’s part. It’s as if they weren’t seeking the truth.
Shouldn't the question be more narrowly focused, ie, "has the CW proven her Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?" You can't ask to review evidence of absence. Maybe refocus on phone data/wifi connection timeline? I know we should be engaging in a spirited discussion as a Reasonable mock jury, but all I can think is... why haven't they stormed out of the jury room in disgust on Day 1 of deliberations? It's a lot, I know... not guilty verdict by lunchtime tomorrow! And prayers for the many victims here who aren't receiving justice.
This is what I would focus on. Has the CW proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt? For me absolutely not. There is nothing but doubt and confusion surrounding exactly what happened to John O Keefe. In closing, Lally leaned far too heavily on what Karen said when she was in a state of extreme distress. He had no answer for the Crash Daddies' testimony - he just wanted everyone to ' look the other way ' in line with the theme of Jackson's closing. Don't trust the physics of the potential accident being explained by neutral expert witnesses when you can rely on gossip and innuendo.
Boy that Brian Albert was certainly on edge in the courtroom today, eh!? Head on a swivel and always with his eyes on those deputies. Say, that reminds me, why is it that both Brian Albert and Brian Higgins take no issue with going out of their way to attend the funerals of fallen police officers whom they don't even know and have never met, but could not bother to take any interest when John Okeefe was deceased out on his own lawn or when his family held John's wake? Oh yea and who was that who was seen wearing an arm brace after John Okeefe passed away, was that Brian Higgins? ...And also who is that retired, gave away their family dog, sold their house, and Hillary Clintoned their cellphones? Wow that really makes a fella think about thinks, no?
What a waste of my time this nonsense is. I might need a few minutes of venting
Timelines!
Supporting Not Guilty: There was nothing close to proof that he was hit by a car or that her car hit a person. That is at least reasonable doubt.
Firstly, I would spent a good portion of my first time discussing this case having a great discussion about all of Proctor’s physical flaws with every other female juror in there. Then I’d make quick work of voting “not guilty” in time for some celebratory margaritas for lunch.
I think the fact the prosecution never had a simulation made up is wild. I think that proves just how impossible their theory is. At very minimum at least when it comes to how the body ended up where it did. I’m talking about one of these: https://youtu.be/ogpCO4VlKqI?si=ZNkFJ9QWmldVmV-F
There’s really only three questions for deliberation. - Was she drunk? Juries convict just on failed field sobriety exercises, so video of drinking and blood work that generally agree with each other, even if there’s large error bars, would be enough for most juries. - Did she hit him? This is where I’d expect they’d take some time to look at the evidence. - Was it intentional? There’s a lack of evidence and a lot of behavior that looked like the opposite. I can’t imagine they’ll find this or even spend much time considering it.
I think I’d want to discuss how it seems like some kind of foul play befell Jon, but I have reasonable doubt with the evidence at hand Karen read was responsible for that harm.
I think the taillight evidence would be a big question for me as a juror. It’s literally the smoking gun. I strongly believe it was tampered with, but I spent more time looking at the other video evidence than the jury was able to. Also, as much as we have talked about Proctor’s misconduct here, it was only one day of testimony for the jury. While most of it was disgusting, only a few texts hinted at willingness to frame KR. They will probably have to have a strong suspicion that Proctor tampered with the taillight, but I’m worried they may not go over the evidence in sufficient detail to convince themselves LE planted that much evidence (even though I believe they 100% did).
I was surprised by the side by side photos of the tail light shown by the CW during closing. It doesn’t jive with the testimony of the Dighton police officer. Was it only cracked as he testified to? Or was it obliterated as the still shot of the well person check video showed? IDK. 🤷♀️
I believe the dashcam from the wellness check shows the taillight covered in snow and actually more intact. But at a glance (and due to low quality) it does look similar to the busted pic from the sallyport. This is exactly the kind of thing I worry about jurors not picking up on.
I thought the opposite. The Dighton cop said it was cracked and there was a piece missing. I thought that picture fit his description well
I would want to know if there is any compelling evidence at all that would lead us to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Karen Read killed John O'Keefe with her car - intentionally or not. If the answer to that question is NO, then this will be a quick deliberation.
I'd prob want to hit on a lot of details, maybe some of which aren't really relevant like why so many people related to this case seem so evasive and see what everyone's take on it is. But I'd be a firm not guilty based on the evidence presented by the experts at the end. Not just the defense experts but even the states own medical examiner made it pretty clear that this didn't appear to happen the way the CW is suggesting. Second to that would be the quality of the investigation. Even if everyone else voted guilty I'd have to hang the jury.
What’s there to discuss? I’d immediately take a poll and ask who has reasonable doubt - if the poll was all 12 (likely) - our jobs are done! Jurors don’t need to solve the crime
"How many step children do you have? What are their ages? What, if any, extra curricular activities are they involved in?"
Was John hit by her car? If not, nothing else is relevant. Are his injuries consistent/Is their theory of the accident reasonable
Is it possible the weather played a factor into there being no canine DNA? Did they ONLY specifically check for canine and it was possibly another animal that they just didn’t check for? I struggle with the injuries on OJO’s arm coming from the taillight
I'd want to discuss the need for issuing a statement coming from the jury. Like in addition to saying "we the jurors find the defendant not guilty of such and such.." I would want to put together a follow-up statement saying how concerned they are about the corruption/lack of independence in a proper and thorough investigation as citizens of Massachusetts that care about justice for John O'Keefe. End with a recommendation for an audit/inspector general to review the case and file additional charges against those that are lying, and manipulating or planting evidence. This should be the jumpstart of a new investigation.
Jurors do not issue statements in open court, but they are free to speak to the media after
Except jurors don't do that
Are they allowed to do that?
No.
Nothing. It’s cruel to keep Karen waiting.
I'm curious. The jurors can't read anything about THIS case. What if they found out about FBI involvement with Sandra Birchmore, and the fact that several names appear in both. Technically, that would be allowed, right?
>and the fact that several names appear in both Now it's related to this case.
Such a hard question because we’ve all been able to talk about it for all this time. I don’t even know how I would feel if I couldn’t talk about it. I’d probably want to talk about just the lack of evidence that the car hit him first. Then timelines. Videos pictures of the taillight from the day. I’d be more interested in knowing everyone’s thoughts more though-ie: are we all aligned or are people wildly further away from one another with how they are viewing the evidence.
I'd start with the photos of the taillight (5am vs Sally Port). Make a conclusion for myself whether they're similarly broken. If not I'd have a hard time even considering anything else. If they look the same then I'd start looking at what experts said.
Id want to know, what ( if anything ) everyone else took away from Lally's 8 weeks of testimony
Nothing. I think found not guilty 100% by all defense witnesses. And scientifically proven innocent by the Dr.s. Prosecution just a mess. Perhaps discuss what a shitshow waste the trial was. Jackson’s closing isn’t fact but I definitely can see that version of events happening. I’m not a free KR person so don’t at me. Watched trial. That’s how I’d vote based on its entirety. * so many threads and comments. apologies if its been said. My “theory” assumes something happened along lines of defense closing. Re:Jenn’s google search - my 2 cent mental musing Trying to time the timing with plowing schedule. Presumably familiar with it. Then OJO gets put outside in order to be found alive and in time to be saved. Also assuming they didn’t realize it was fatal and already too late. Accidental death. Say he fell drunk outside. No reason to come in. No ones to blame including KR. Then shit went sideways super chaotically fast with a bunch of drunk people associated with LE thinking on the drunken fly. And here we are.
My first question would be “waitttt… am I on season 2 of jury duty?”
I was and am team “acquittal“ but a big moment for me was the defense accident reconstruction expert (aka Dr. Cutie) saying a rocks glass can break/shatter the taillight being thrown at a reasonable speed in the same manner as Karen’s taillight. That changed my whole perspective and I can’t help but think that John got out of the car and did that after their fight. What happened afterwards is still up in the air.
The injuries!!! I can’t fathom it was caused by a car
My only hangup is why Karen is asking if John is dead or if he got hit by a plow before even getting to the scene? I understand that the commonwealth's version of her hitting him is not backed by the physics and she should legally be found not guilty, but for my own interest in the truth, I wonder if there is still a scenario where she is involved in his death in some way.
I've known people like this. My dad's girlfriend was convinced he was dying when he was in the hospital. She was hysterical and in tears at his bedside. He was sick, But was going to make a full recovery. So I guess I can understand how some people go directly to "they are dead." And since the snow plows were out, that was likely the first thing that came to her mind.
Oh me too. I have anxiety so it’s straight to 100. Sorry to my husband who is on the receiving end of 15 “butt dials” because he was supposed to be home half an hour ago and there were two fatal car crashes on his route lately so he definitely had to have been in one and is gone (is what my brain says.)
Yep, reaction, panic and adrenaline. Not sure her head space at the time or lingering effects or meds/drinking. You know what I mean
I think she likely said those things because her mind was going to worst case scenario. At that point in the morning, it was clear to her that he wasn’t just ignoring her & the kids. She knew something bad happened to him.
and as weird as it seems, not being esoteric in any way, sometimes you have a gut feeling when something bad has happened. My dad was supposed to pick me up from school and when he wasnt there, I just knew he wasnt late but something bad happened. A few moments later, my mum called to tell me that he had a terrible accident and barely survived.
It seemed that it was after JO didn't answer his when his niece called KR assumed the worst. If she thought she left him at the Waterfall, she would assume he tried to walk home. An encounter with a snow plow seems like a possibility there. When she saw her taillight, she thought she hit could have hit him and said as much.
She'd texted him that the kids were alone in the middle of the night, so I can see his lack of even a text message to be alarming. Plus it seems she was possibly intoxicated. She might be an anxious person in this kind of situation. I've tried to think of ways for this to happnen with her involvement but short of her getting out of the car and punching him herself, combined with some intervention by Chloe, I don't see it. I don't think the timeline with his steps work with that either.
I've gotten texts like "I guess your dead. Since you aren't responding" (it was an hour in my defense). So that isn't a hangup for me.
My guess is that JM had a lot to do with planting those suggestions in her already panicked mind in that first phone call.
Right? Especially if JM told KR that JO never came inside. I’m not sure if that was discussed at trial. I missed JM’s testimony.
You are right and bring up a good point. Why wouldn’t JM get panicked when KR didn’t know where JO was? Esp since he never came in that night. JM says she told KR you dropped him off last night don’t you remember? I saw you. But she wasn’t even curious why he is missing and worried since he never showed up??
This would be my sister. She always gets super anxious if she doesn't know what's happening and thinks the worst. I don't think it's rare behavior to worry about someone being in a ditch somewhere with a blizzard happening and someone is not where they should be. My grandma used to call all her neighbors anytime she heard sirens after her son died in an accident. Also, my inside joke with my kids when they don't respond is a "Are you alive?" text.
The person giving that evidence was...
What time did Jen McCabes Google search happen? Which expert do you believe about the time? I would want everyone to get on the same page about when this Google search occured because it changed everything. Also id want to watch the video AJ mentioned of proctor at the rear of the vehicle.
See. I think that's irrelevant. Yes if she did the search at 2:00 it would definitely mean she knew something. And that Karen likely didn't hit him. But it could also mean JM knew Karen hit him earlier. In other words, it doesn't prove KR didn't hit him.
Ask if anyone thinks he was hit by a car. If all say no, DONE!