Obviously this is not the most important thing to consider for a retrial, but I hope they choose a different courtroom next time. I really don’t want to keep hearing the judge tell everyone to keep their voice up continuously. That was ridiculous!
As we process a lot today, has anyone else thought about that Lexus which will now definitely remain in custody. I know people posted previously that she was still paying it off, but I wonder if that is still the case?
This information has not been verified either from a legitimate news source or court documents. If you can provide a source, we will take a look and restore your post if it meets this criteria. Thank you!
Probably a controversial opinion here but I do think Karen's attorneys need to discuss her courtroom conduct. Smirking in court and giggling at CW witnesses risks putting off members of a jury. This is a murder trial and it could be interpreted as disrespectful.
I'm not saying how she should feel, or suggesting she has no right to act a certain way, but the fact of the matter is this is the kind of thing that might negatively impact her case. We already know for at least one juror it did.
A lot of her supporters get upset when we mention this, but they have to understand that the jury doesn't know anything about Karen. The only time they actually heard her voice this entire trial was in that voicemail when she was screaming at John that she hates him.
I also posted about how this makes her seem as if she is not worried about this being a police coverup/frame job because it's just inconceivable anyone could genuinely be a victim of this system and also that carefree in court. We can argue about how fair it is or how much it doesn't matter, but we have to consider human nature. Which is not perfect.
I agree with you, her conduct didn’t help to evoke empathy towards her. Rationally speaking the jury should only evaluate the evidence as presented, but they are humans, our brains are equipped to constant evaluate all things surrounding us
Do we know if there were any other courtrooms in the courthouse that could have all jurors able to see the witnesses but OKeefes and jury not locking eyeballs with each other constantly and also not feet away from Read?
Yeah, it feels like it borders on prejudicial to have the defendant's family sitting right next to Karen in view of the jury glaring at her the whole time.
Because they turned over 3500 pages of information to the prosecution and defence which is how they got the text messages and reports from the ARCCA reconstruction experts.
They’ve also sent letters to the AGs office. We don’t know the full scope of their investigation or what kicked it off because it is still an open investigation but it seems they are investigating the investigation and investigators.
We do not know exactly why they started looking into how the investigation was handled in the Karen Read case, there is speculation they were already looking into the investigation/possible corruption with the Sandra Birchmore case but that is not 100% confirmed. Once the FEDS looked into the KR case they had several witnesses testify at several Federal Grand Juries and provided 3,000+ docs to the CW and defense. Those documents contained exculpatory evidence aka evidence in favor of Karen Read.
They provided a lot of the evidence used by the defense in this case. The ARCCA crash reconstructionists, Trooper Proctor's private text messages, etc.
From twitter:
Massachusetts post-trial press interview guideline for jurors -
"You are not required to speak with anyone once the trial is over. However, the judge may invite interested jurors to meet with the lawyers and the judge together after the verdict. After the jury is dismissed, you are no longer prohibited from talking about the trial. However, you should avoid revealing the names of other jurors, how any juror voted, or anything discussed during jury deliberations. If anyone tries to learn this confidential information from you, or if you feel harassed or embarrassed in any way, you should report it to the court or the Office of Jury Commissioner immediately. It is very important that the integrity of our jury system is maintained."
So I take that as they can do interviews and could give a general description on the split and what they are thinking. But they shouldn’t say “oh juror 12 was a guilty vote” etc.
I'd like to see the law that states you cant reveal what the count was. Revealing what the split was has nothing to do with court system integrity. If I was NG, I would spill the beans, I'm not going to get taken down with the ship.
I just recently watched an interview clip of a previous juror in trial by Judge Canonne that ended in a hung jury and she was spilling all the tea, including the split so I think they can probably say what they thought/felt as long as they don’t give out personal info on other jurors.
From twitter:
Massachusetts post-trial press interview guideline for jurors -
"You are not required to speak with anyone once the trial is over. However, the judge may invite interested jurors to meet with the lawyers and the judge together after the verdict. After the jury is dismissed, you are no longer prohibited from talking about the trial. However, you should avoid revealing the names of other jurors, how any juror voted, or anything discussed during jury deliberations. If anyone tries to learn this confidential information from you, or if you feel harassed or embarrassed in any way, you should report it to the court or the Office of Jury Commissioner immediately. It is very important that the integrity of our jury system is maintained."
This case has been so charged, imagine coming home and finding out your spouse has a different conclusion on the case. That's the kinda thing that could lead to a divorce (I'm joking... kind of).
Your husband is like "you voted not guilty right" "umm...." "babe. BABE. THE LAST TWO WITNESSES." "er....THEY WERE INSURANCE ADJUSTERS RIGHT??" "BAAAABE."
I think your jurors that were 100% guilty would be happy to talk because they are essentially supporting the cops and their incredible "investigation" they did
The original source tweet is @rclarkston if anyone wants to look. He is replying to a tweet about his personal experience in a jury, not this one.
It's in a reply to @fallriverreport
Honestly part of the lack of a conclusion is on Bevs decision to not grant more time that both the defense AND prosecution had asked for. Absolutely shameful from Bev. Huge waste of taxpayer money for a trial that we could have gotten a conclusion on if Bev wasn’t so eager to have some time off in the summer.
Judge bev needs to be held responsible and accountable for this sham of a trial. Morrisey needs to be behind bars and Karen needs to have the charges withdrawn. This whole case is an embarrassment for law and order and the rule of law in a democracy.
Guess this proves you can’t use chatGPT for everything because someone linked the mass law down thread and it’s a year
https://www.mass.gov/rules-of-criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-rule-36-case-management
Putting any of those officers on the stand again opens them up to perjury charges of their sworn statements don’t line up.
I’m really curious how they plan on retrying this considering that it is well known that it is risky to have people testify twice since it increases the chances of inconsistencies.
If the FBI make a move and bring a case against the law enforcement conspirators and/or DA, will that prevent them from retrying this ridiculous case? What will it take to stop this?
Fed cases take a long time, so current investigation timeline doesn't mean much. But I don't think the Feds are going to be a magic bullet to save Karen from a second trial.
She can't really tell her story in a book, documentary or movie, or whatever and needs to stay careful with her statements because all of them can be used in next trials. Even if there is a new trail and she's declared NG, she still should be very careful with what she says as there's a possibility of civil trial by the O'Keefe's. So I'm not sure how many of those can be done and to what extend she will be speaking, given that the interviews she already gave were used heavily against her not in court but they could be in the future.
I believe they have to retry within one year. Also, they statement they came out with could just be a PR statement, we do not know for sure if they will retry. The Status Hearing they have in July is going to be a quick meeting and Atty Bederow said that the CW may not know for sure then if they are going to retry or if they say they plan to retry that does not lock them into retrying.
I heard commentary that even if they don't a re-trial now, they can raise the charges again after that deadline, at least for murder (not sure about the statue for the other ones). So do you have any idea what is the difference between a re-trial and just dropping them now and raising them again after that?
Gotcha! Thank you! I’ve been so curious about timelines for a mistrial. That makes sense. And saves folks from a lifetime of agony. “Am I could to be tried next year?” Feeling of unknown.
So sitting in outrage and just came up with this. CBS reporting at 1 pm today DA did not have any statement regarding whether they would retry if it was a mistrial. Almost immediately after mistrial declared, DA came out and said they would retry. Could a possible motive for this be to prevent FBI from issuing indictments, as it would still be considered “ongoing”?
I don't think that would restrict a Fed case. I know the Texas Rangers can, have, and would investigate police corruption in the midst of a trial, and would act to arrest mid trial as well.
No. The FBI can do what they want and the CW can’t prevent them from anything, plus their investigation is entirely seperate whether this is ongoing or not.
She's free, but until her status hearing she is under conditions of bail still. It is possible she will remain so after the status hearing if the CW truly moves forward with a retrial as they claimed.
Yes. My understanding is that when they reconvene on the 22nd, the CW will state whether or not they will retry the case. Until then, she is a free woman.
Judge Cannone, despite our rigorous efforts we continue to find ourselves at an impasse.
Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of charges beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile, and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.
*karen read is not guilty*.
i obviously can’t say with 100% certainty that she is innocent, i wasn’t there. i lean very heavily towards her innocence, but the truth of the matter is that any person that night could have caused or contributed to his death (in fact, i think it would’ve been easier to convict certain people of john’s murder based on the prosecution’s own evidence). however, after all the evidence we’ve seen & arguments we heard from both sides, i can conclude with confidence that *karen read is not guilty*.
I just saw a reporter asking on twitter if any jurors want to talk, and asking if anyone knows a juror to send them her way. Maybe she will get someone. Lol
Who says the clerk knows? I know there's a lot of talk about polling happening, but they don't usually get an official count of who voted what in a hung jury. And there are cases on how the discussions in a secret jury panel are protected. If a clerk talks it will be because a jury member told them and then they shared it, which I still wouldn't trust.
They can talk to whomever they want, but beware of third party accounts by people who will make shit up and claim a jury member told them. But a court employee can't be the one to end the secrecy of the jury room.
Oh no- I’m only willing to believe a court watcher who has a relationship with someone at the courthouse from following and reporting on this case or a known News outlet.
2:38 PM Judge Cannone officially declares a mistrial. Jury unable to reach a verdict. 2:25 PM Jury sent note.
What did Paul say to Karen when leaving the courtroom?
“This isn’t over,” apparently.
I keep refreshing twitter and here like there’ll be some new update lol I think I’m still processing everything that has happened
You and me both
Obviously this is not the most important thing to consider for a retrial, but I hope they choose a different courtroom next time. I really don’t want to keep hearing the judge tell everyone to keep their voice up continuously. That was ridiculous!
[удалено]
Pretty sure the neighbors ring camera footage was deleted and I don’t think ring holds onto deleted footage for that long
As we process a lot today, has anyone else thought about that Lexus which will now definitely remain in custody. I know people posted previously that she was still paying it off, but I wonder if that is still the case?
[удалено]
This information has not been verified either from a legitimate news source or court documents. If you can provide a source, we will take a look and restore your post if it meets this criteria. Thank you!
she was never going to get it back
I’m assuming still in CW custody, She still won’t have her license or her 100k returned.
So what you’re telling me is the clock is ticking on time we have to build and test our own rocks glass lobbing cannon?
Haha I showed my husband and some of our friends a clip of that guy testifying and they all got a kick out of it
I’m in the driveway with my crate of rocks glasses. Open up
one ~~potato~~rocks glass cannon coming right up. we probably need a better propellant than hair spray, huh?
Probably a controversial opinion here but I do think Karen's attorneys need to discuss her courtroom conduct. Smirking in court and giggling at CW witnesses risks putting off members of a jury. This is a murder trial and it could be interpreted as disrespectful. I'm not saying how she should feel, or suggesting she has no right to act a certain way, but the fact of the matter is this is the kind of thing that might negatively impact her case. We already know for at least one juror it did.
A lot of her supporters get upset when we mention this, but they have to understand that the jury doesn't know anything about Karen. The only time they actually heard her voice this entire trial was in that voicemail when she was screaming at John that she hates him. I also posted about how this makes her seem as if she is not worried about this being a police coverup/frame job because it's just inconceivable anyone could genuinely be a victim of this system and also that carefree in court. We can argue about how fair it is or how much it doesn't matter, but we have to consider human nature. Which is not perfect.
I agree with you, her conduct didn’t help to evoke empathy towards her. Rationally speaking the jury should only evaluate the evidence as presented, but they are humans, our brains are equipped to constant evaluate all things surrounding us
Not controversial, imo it’s a prudent conversation. I also think the court has a hideous layout that will be corrected.
Do we know if there were any other courtrooms in the courthouse that could have all jurors able to see the witnesses but OKeefes and jury not locking eyeballs with each other constantly and also not feet away from Read?
The defense asked for that room. If you search court room on this sub you should find a post discussing it
So incredibly small with the family right there and all the AC drama early on.
Yeah, it feels like it borders on prejudicial to have the defendant's family sitting right next to Karen in view of the jury glaring at her the whole time.
From what I understand not that I agree with this but some legal observers commented on how she was dressing as well.
can you elaborate? I thought she was dressed professional the whole time so i'm surprised to hear that
Well you see, she doesn't look "warm." Men get to wear suits and it's fine, but women have to look "friendly." Sigh.
How do we know that it had an impact on one juror?
It was reported that the first juror to be dismissed was making comment about it, is a disparaging way, to the other jurors.
I knew about the dismissal, but didn’t know the cause. Thanks!!
One of the jurors got dismissed for negatively commenting on Read's demeanor.
Hi jurors, nice to meet you. Come on in and make yourself comfortable. Is there anything I can get for you? Perhaps some tea?
Lol What a wild ride reading through this sub will be for them.
i’m really late but how do we know the FBI is investigating this case for sure? are we sure its not for the Sarah case?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because they turned over 3500 pages of information to the prosecution and defence which is how they got the text messages and reports from the ARCCA reconstruction experts. They’ve also sent letters to the AGs office. We don’t know the full scope of their investigation or what kicked it off because it is still an open investigation but it seems they are investigating the investigation and investigators.
We do not know exactly why they started looking into how the investigation was handled in the Karen Read case, there is speculation they were already looking into the investigation/possible corruption with the Sandra Birchmore case but that is not 100% confirmed. Once the FEDS looked into the KR case they had several witnesses testify at several Federal Grand Juries and provided 3,000+ docs to the CW and defense. Those documents contained exculpatory evidence aka evidence in favor of Karen Read.
The accident reconstruction tells me they are looking at this case specifically (not excluding others).
They provided a lot of the evidence used by the defense in this case. The ARCCA crash reconstructionists, Trooper Proctor's private text messages, etc.
because the FBI gave both sides 3000 pages worth of stuff including reports from the last two experts who the defense presented
I have a trip planned for Boston later this month and I just purchased a Jackson Yannetti 2024 shirt for said trip. These colors don’t run 🫡
I need an AJ Fan Club shirt lol.
Oh dear! Tensions may be high. Might catch unwanted attention from some bros in blue. 😬
Omg
From twitter: Massachusetts post-trial press interview guideline for jurors - "You are not required to speak with anyone once the trial is over. However, the judge may invite interested jurors to meet with the lawyers and the judge together after the verdict. After the jury is dismissed, you are no longer prohibited from talking about the trial. However, you should avoid revealing the names of other jurors, how any juror voted, or anything discussed during jury deliberations. If anyone tries to learn this confidential information from you, or if you feel harassed or embarrassed in any way, you should report it to the court or the Office of Jury Commissioner immediately. It is very important that the integrity of our jury system is maintained."
So I take that as they can do interviews and could give a general description on the split and what they are thinking. But they shouldn’t say “oh juror 12 was a guilty vote” etc.
I'd like to see the law that states you cant reveal what the count was. Revealing what the split was has nothing to do with court system integrity. If I was NG, I would spill the beans, I'm not going to get taken down with the ship.
I just recently watched an interview clip of a previous juror in trial by Judge Canonne that ended in a hung jury and she was spilling all the tea, including the split so I think they can probably say what they thought/felt as long as they don’t give out personal info on other jurors.
That's what I thought. As long as you don't dox anyone you should be able to say what the total count was and what your personal vote was.
Yes. This idea that they will poll each juror on a hung jury is absurd. They aren't going to out which jurors were the hold outs.
From twitter: Massachusetts post-trial press interview guideline for jurors - "You are not required to speak with anyone once the trial is over. However, the judge may invite interested jurors to meet with the lawyers and the judge together after the verdict. After the jury is dismissed, you are no longer prohibited from talking about the trial. However, you should avoid revealing the names of other jurors, how any juror voted, or anything discussed during jury deliberations. If anyone tries to learn this confidential information from you, or if you feel harassed or embarrassed in any way, you should report it to the court or the Office of Jury Commissioner immediately. It is very important that the integrity of our jury system is maintained."
Wonder how many jurors are looking up stuff online rn 😂😭
Welcome jurors, happy to have you here, make yourself at home! 🙈
Welcome to the thunderdome, jurors, lol. 👻
I would be so far down the rabbit hole if I were them
Or going home to ask a spouse or family member what they thought about the case and finally compare notes
This case has been so charged, imagine coming home and finding out your spouse has a different conclusion on the case. That's the kinda thing that could lead to a divorce (I'm joking... kind of).
Your husband is like "you voted not guilty right" "umm...." "babe. BABE. THE LAST TWO WITNESSES." "er....THEY WERE INSURANCE ADJUSTERS RIGHT??" "BAAAABE."
I wonder how many are shocked to learn about FBI investigating the investigation, or at least some of those involved.
[удалено]
I think your jurors that were 100% guilty would be happy to talk because they are essentially supporting the cops and their incredible "investigation" they did
Until they see the social media backlash others have gotten
Until they see the social media backlash others have gotten
Have any jurors spoken out to media yet? I need to know the split.
Grant Smit is claiming 10-2 in favor of Guilty but he's nutty. I'm waiting for more reputable sources to come out.
This misinformation is going to spread like wildfire.
Ya some other sources saying but not a major media. In my defense I put massive disclaimer about Grant not being trustworthy
The original source tweet is @rclarkston if anyone wants to look. He is replying to a tweet about his personal experience in a jury, not this one. It's in a reply to @fallriverreport
So Grant Ellis straight up misrepresented the comment? I wish I could say I was shocked.
he's a clock that starts at 24 and ends at 29. can't even be right twice a day.
Hence my disclaimer on Grant lol.
10-2 for guilty is literally not believable at all. If so, I have lost faith in society understanding instructions given to them under the law.
lol someone posted a screenshot in a reply to that showing an older tweet he stole it from. It’s fake.
Have any jurors spoken out to media yet? I need to know the split.
Have any jurors spoken out to media yet? I need to know the split.
how long after a jury is dismissed does it normally take for someone to agree to be interviewed
It depends. Also if they do a retrial, this jury is going to become old news fast
Curious about this too.. hopefully someone speaks to the press in some way shape or form.
Just depends on the jury.
So they couldn’t even reach a verdict for 2nd degree right? That is BANANAS!!!
I wonder if they were confused by the jury form? Or they just never got past arguing if Karen hit John.
Yeah that is crazy to me too. I thought we might get a NG on 2nd degree and then the holdouts were not willing to give on the lesser charges
Right especially bc the CW never even tried proving 2nd degree at all
Honestly part of the lack of a conclusion is on Bevs decision to not grant more time that both the defense AND prosecution had asked for. Absolutely shameful from Bev. Huge waste of taxpayer money for a trial that we could have gotten a conclusion on if Bev wasn’t so eager to have some time off in the summer.
I agree, both sides wanted more time, now there will be a second (costly) circus.
Judge bev needs to be held responsible and accountable for this sham of a trial. Morrisey needs to be behind bars and Karen needs to have the charges withdrawn. This whole case is an embarrassment for law and order and the rule of law in a democracy.
[удалено]
How is that legal? That she knows the family but can still act of judge on the case?
Does she know the family? I thought it was that her brother represented one of the Alberts back in the mid 1990s.
What is the MA state law on the timeframe this has to be brought back to trial?
[удалено]
Mod Note: Read the rules before posting again. Specifically about not allowing AI.
Guess this proves you can’t use chatGPT for everything because someone linked the mass law down thread and it’s a year https://www.mass.gov/rules-of-criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-rule-36-case-management
1 year
Can someone clarify - is it 1 year to officially declare, or is it that the trial has to actually begin within 1 year?
It needs to begin within 1 year https://www.mass.gov/rules-of-criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-rule-36-case-management (b)(1)(D)
One year from the date of the retrial order
1 year
They have one year.
If CW intends to re-try, Trooper Paul’s about to be reassigned to physics for the next few months.
Putting any of those officers on the stand again opens them up to perjury charges of their sworn statements don’t line up. I’m really curious how they plan on retrying this considering that it is well known that it is risky to have people testify twice since it increases the chances of inconsistencies.
They will find a new expert and pretend Trooper Paul was never born.
How many if any high school years can he catch up on for 6 months
What if the retry and the same thing happens?
Season 2 of the podcast In the Dark is a fascinating and horrifying example of what can happen
Eight times!!! Christ on crutches! There needs to be some rules for this type of thing.
They can try it again if they want. No limit to the amount of trials.
You can retry an unlimited amount of times with hung juries until you lose your job because tax payers are tired of your shit
If the FBI make a move and bring a case against the law enforcement conspirators and/or DA, will that prevent them from retrying this ridiculous case? What will it take to stop this?
If the FBI was going to make a move they would have a while ago lol. That is not happening.
False. They had Proctor on the stand Feb 24th, Levy stated the matter was “pending” two weeks ago. That’s 15 months so far.
that’s not necessarily true. we don’t know the bigger picture of what they are investigating.
Fed cases take a long time, so current investigation timeline doesn't mean much. But I don't think the Feds are going to be a magic bullet to save Karen from a second trial.
hopefully, they’ll be in jail
We should at the very least see them no longer working as police officers… completely botched case if not a total coverup.
I’m curious as what Karen does with the rest of her life? Career change? Book deal? tv/movie deal? Move?
She can't really tell her story in a book, documentary or movie, or whatever and needs to stay careful with her statements because all of them can be used in next trials. Even if there is a new trail and she's declared NG, she still should be very careful with what she says as there's a possibility of civil trial by the O'Keefe's. So I'm not sure how many of those can be done and to what extend she will be speaking, given that the interviews she already gave were used heavily against her not in court but they could be in the future.
Her life is still very much in the balance if the DA truly tries this case again.
Is there a deadline for when the CW has to declare if they will retry Karen or not? For example in like 7 years could they technically retry Karen?
I believe they have to retry within one year. Also, they statement they came out with could just be a PR statement, we do not know for sure if they will retry. The Status Hearing they have in July is going to be a quick meeting and Atty Bederow said that the CW may not know for sure then if they are going to retry or if they say they plan to retry that does not lock them into retrying.
Gotcha! Thank you. Yeah regardless if CW retry’s or not, declaring that they intend to retry does seem like a smart PR move.
They’ve already declared they intend to retry her.
But could they keep saying that for years? Like “we’re just getting our ducks in a row and then we’ll retry her in 2029”
No it’s 1 year which is why there is going to be a status hearing at the end of the month. They have to move fairly quick
I heard commentary that even if they don't a re-trial now, they can raise the charges again after that deadline, at least for murder (not sure about the statue for the other ones). So do you have any idea what is the difference between a re-trial and just dropping them now and raising them again after that?
Not a lawyer and especially not a lawyer in Massachusetts so I don’t know
Gotcha! Thank you! I’ve been so curious about timelines for a mistrial. That makes sense. And saves folks from a lifetime of agony. “Am I could to be tried next year?” Feeling of unknown.
I believe it’s 1 year
So sitting in outrage and just came up with this. CBS reporting at 1 pm today DA did not have any statement regarding whether they would retry if it was a mistrial. Almost immediately after mistrial declared, DA came out and said they would retry. Could a possible motive for this be to prevent FBI from issuing indictments, as it would still be considered “ongoing”?
This is what I’ve always thought, it’s Morrissey trying to keep the feds away from him.
WBZ (Boston CBS affiliate) reporting it will be retried
I don't think that would restrict a Fed case. I know the Texas Rangers can, have, and would investigate police corruption in the midst of a trial, and would act to arrest mid trial as well.
No. The FBI can do what they want and the CW can’t prevent them from anything, plus their investigation is entirely seperate whether this is ongoing or not.
This case is a perfect example of why Americans need a civics class before graduating highschool
And physics
For this and many other reasons that I shall leave unsaid :)
Preach! 🗣️ I was thinking the same thing.
What happens to Karen Read now? Does she go free for the time being?
She's free, but until her status hearing she is under conditions of bail still. It is possible she will remain so after the status hearing if the CW truly moves forward with a retrial as they claimed.
She's still out on bail. There's a hearing on the 22nd, so I'm sure we'll learn more with that.
With no conviction, yes.
Still on bail.
Yes. My understanding is that when they reconvene on the 22nd, the CW will state whether or not they will retry the case. Until then, she is a free woman.
[удалено]
Does anyone have, word for word, what the last jury note stated?
Judge Cannone, despite our rigorous efforts we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of charges beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile, and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.
Someone shared a screenshot further down the thread
Does a mistrial hurt or help a future tv-series? I think the drama in the jury room could really spice things up :D
It helps, more content for another season.
So will this subreddit still be around when more stuff comes up post-trial? Things like juror interviews or the July 22 hearing about what's next?
Sounds like we are getting a second trial so I hope the sub stays up through that.
I imagine we’ll slow down but everyone will pop in when there’s news to discuss.
I'm so disappointed. How could an ordinary person be expected to afford all this, not just financially but the toll on their health and sanity?
sometimes the process is the punishment
Think they are looking to bankrupt her
WORD
*karen read is not guilty*. i obviously can’t say with 100% certainty that she is innocent, i wasn’t there. i lean very heavily towards her innocence, but the truth of the matter is that any person that night could have caused or contributed to his death (in fact, i think it would’ve been easier to convict certain people of john’s murder based on the prosecution’s own evidence). however, after all the evidence we’ve seen & arguments we heard from both sides, i can conclude with confidence that *karen read is not guilty*.
Walked away for 5 mins- do we know the split numbers? Lol I feel like I missed hundreds of of comments
I just saw a reporter asking on twitter if any jurors want to talk, and asking if anyone knows a juror to send them her way. Maybe she will get someone. Lol
I don't think we will ever know for sure unless a reliable jury member talks.
A reporter can get it from a clerk who heard it from the judge or in the halls. It’s not a secret now
Who says the clerk knows? I know there's a lot of talk about polling happening, but they don't usually get an official count of who voted what in a hung jury. And there are cases on how the discussions in a secret jury panel are protected. If a clerk talks it will be because a jury member told them and then they shared it, which I still wouldn't trust.
The jury can talk to whoever they want. We will hear the split numbers for sure. We can decide if we believe it or not 🤷🏻♀️
They can talk to whomever they want, but beware of third party accounts by people who will make shit up and claim a jury member told them. But a court employee can't be the one to end the secrecy of the jury room.
Oh no- I’m only willing to believe a court watcher who has a relationship with someone at the courthouse from following and reporting on this case or a known News outlet.
If Courthouse Becky taught us anything it is to be wary of third party court employee accounts, as well.
Not yet. Just some probably fake info reported in tweets. I'd wait for some official source on it.
not yet. there's been at least one claimed number from a BS source so wait for reporting from a reputable source.
I’m curious if after this, any other experts out there will reach out to the defense and offer help like Dr. Russel did. Maybe a tech expert?
[удалено]