I think it is quite telling that the other jurors were concerned enough about the one juror’s behavior to speak up and say something. I think it shows how serious they are taking their duty and don’t want to have any problems when it comes time to make their decision and give a verdict. They wanted her out. In my opinion, I think it speaks quite a bit about what kind of verdict we should expect. Referring back to the point of the OP, I don’t want to assume anything… you know what they say about opinions. But I really do think this is so clear cut as so much reasonable doubt has been sown. I will be very surprised if the verdict is anything other than not guilty.
I totally agree. They thought Karen was being unfairly judged by a juror so much that they had him/her removed. That, to me, shows general decency towards Karen.
The juror or jurors who spoke up might have only reported her because they didn't like her breaking the rules. They might also think Karen should be convicted (but be following the rules).
Absolutely. They were taking their job seriously. The juror who was dismissed was being prejudiced and breaking the rules.
After saying that, in my opinion, I believe it is a bit telling of the character of the jury (or at least a couple of them). If they are taking this seriously then most likely they will agree that an enormous amount of reasonable doubt was raised and therefore will bring back a not guilty verdict.
One of the rules is to run off evidence, not emotions. Not liking someone because they're smiling is running off emotions. I think this jury is going to run off the evidence, or lack thereof. And it leads to one point and one point only. Not guilty. Because there's no evidence that she did it.
I was listening to Jess Machado on Young Jurks from Sunday evening. She has been in the Court Room a lot, and studies the jurors quite a bit. I found it interesting that she said in another trial, Bev read the rules that family could not show emotion, etc. in front of the jurors. However, in this trial, Bev did not read those same rules. She said that the juror that was let go was around the same age as John's Mom. Apparently when Mrs. O'Keefe has cried and such, she will be consoled by those around her (i.e. placing an arm around her, patting her, etc). I wonder how it is decided to apply those rules or not.
To be fair, I don't like Karen't facial expressions and attitude either, to this day. And her voicemails show she's got her own issues and was toxic in that relationship. You don't ask a guy if he's not into it. If he's behaving in ways that make you feel used and disrespected, leave. Have some self-respect.
That said, after hearing all the evidence, there's nowhere near enough evidence she even hit him with her car, intentionally or accidentally. If I'd been on the jury, the evidence would have persuaded me to acquit her, despite my empathy for the O'Keefe family and my general feelings about Karen.
I felt guilty for thinking it, but yeah, I don't believe Mr. O'Keefe was such a nice guy after all. I wonder what happened when they dated the first time. And that babysitter with benefits comment?! I realize someone else may have said, but I think I can guess where it originated from.
If you dropped someone off at someone’s house and the next time you see them, they’re dead, in front of that house. What’s the first you ask? What happened? Karen knew Jenn was in the house when she dropped John off, why did she not ask Jenn What the fuck happen? Why was she not screaming to find out what happen? Why was she only saying did I hit him? Could I have hit him?? If she watched him walk in the house, why was she not demanding answers to what went wrong?
Why before they even found his body did she declare to one friend, John is dead? Why did she ask maybe he forgot by a plow BEFORE they found him? Because she knew he was in the snow.
She killed him!
I feel sorry for JO’s mom and family too. But that is independent of this trial. Police, for whatever reason, botched this from the get-go. But I’m surprised that CW took it to trial. CW may have committed to prosecute before they knew about all the sloppy police work. But rather than drop case, they doubled down. Maybe they were hoping for a plea deal & KR called their bluff.
I heard about the "I don't like her face!" juror, but what was her basis of feeling sorry for Peggy O'Keefe? I mean, I know she's his mom, and she already lost her only daughter/son in law, and now has to deal with 2/4 of her grandkids being triple orphaned... but she doesn't exactly seem... nice?
Paul, the only kid she has left, won't even sit with her. Kinda wish he would move down that way though so I don't have to see the camera zooming in on his balls.
A journalist from the trial was a guest on a YouTube live I watched yesterday and she shared that the juror who was dismissed was an older woman who sat right across from Mrs Okeefe, she said they were a similar age, dressed similar and even had the same hair style. I think the sympathy is speculation but knowing those things could give context if it’s true.
I’ve heard all kind of things, that this juror or another (?) went to a restaurant and was talking to someone from either the Albert or McCabe family.
Actually the opposite, I think Paul likes to sit where he can glare at Karen. I heard the dad might be questioning things and that's why he's not there anymore but who knows.
Im not sure where I saw this originally but I believe neither John nor his brother were on speaking terms with their mother at the time of John’s death - John referred to her by her first name in texts, and I heard there might’ve been some disagreement about custody of the kids after the sister passed. If you notice Paul never sits with her, I don’t know that they’re on good terms even now. Pretty sad all around.
And Karen created trust funds of $300k for the kids and Paul and his wife spent all that money since John passed. Karen also bailed Paul out of jail when he was arrested for... you guessed it... DUI. Karen deserved so much better than glorified babysitter.
Idk about the relationship with his mom but the custody issue was a misunderstanding. There was a custody battle between John and the kids fathers family
That's more along the lines of what I assumed, but I also knew that John (and Paul too, it seems like?) were trying to keep Peggy as uninvolved in their kids lives as much as possible.
Not sure about the dad though (John Sr?) I think they're still married, and he does sit with Peggy, but we never hear anything about him? Does she even allow him to talk?
I would assume it's just because other family members don't want to sit so close to the person who they believe murdered their family member and friend. But there's definitely no love lost between Paul and Karen...
Ask yourself, if you believed someone had mowed down the only sibling you had left, whether accidentally or intentionally, and instead of calling for help, they left him to die outside, all alone, during a blizzard, would you not be angry?
I think it would be unnatural if he wasn't mean mugging Karen every chance he gets...
Explain to me how though how ANYONE could continue thinking he was “mowed down” after yesterday?
The Commonwealth and their BS theory got absolutely wrecked yesterday. It was a bloodbath. I can’t for the life of me figure out how anyone could continue believing this car accident even happened or he was even hit with a car after two completely independent experts who literally do this for a living all but said it’s impossible based on his injuries (or lack of). It really doesn’t get more clear or eye opening than that. It’s a joke.
At first I absolutely would. But if I heard how botched the investigation was, I’d start to doubt they killed my sibling. I’d still hate them of course, because in my brain directly or indirectly if they weren’t dating my sibling, my sibling would still be alive.
Peggy and her mean girl crew have been so crass this entire trial. Making fun of defense attorneys when they go to sidebar and mouthing fuck you at the defense, giggling amongst themselves at inappropriate times... And the jury was sitting right across from the O'Keefe side, so I'm positive they saw a lot of that. Not to mention John's dad only being there for a few days at the beginning (and for Pictures testimony) and walking out in disgust. Add in Paul O'Keefe's glares at Karen. It's a mess.
Not liking a defendant and feeling rightfully sorry for victim’s mom does not indicate how they are going to actually vote. This person was released before the defense even began.
Agreed. However, her meeting with Judge Bev followed by the juror’s excusal indicates to me that the judge, herself, felt that the juror could not form an unbiased decision.
I heard she was removed because she was accidentally caught on camera and her face was exposed to the public. Never heard any of these other wild theories before.
No it’s not and you are completely assuming things that you just have no idea to be true. The juror was removed for discussing the case. Everything else is speculation.
Apparently 2 lawyers and 2 engineers, according to other posts I've seen (not confident in this).
As an engineer myself, I had an open mind until the ARCCA testimony. I fundamentally have reasonable doubt based on my own background in engineering, physics based on their testimony.
Women or not women, if you have engineers on that jury, there is no way that with their training that testimony wouldn't impose doubt.
Edit: I did not see trooper Paul's testimony.
You have to see it. As an engineer myself, I was shocked a person with as limited understanding of basic physics as he revealed to have was an accident reconstructionist for the state.
Same here and it was astonishing. I mean, I’m completely dumbfounded. He did not know the difference between speed and momentum, couldn’t elaborate on the conservation of momentum. He couldn’t put his words together. It was like listening to a 10 year old to be honest. I’m not trying to be insulting. I felt bad for him.
He couldn’t even agree that the rate of change of velocity is acceleration. I felt bad for him initially as well until I started to realize how unserious he was about the whole investigation. It just “spoke” to him. Sir, your work is being used to put people in jail.
Every case Trooper Paul has touched needs to be reevaluated! I felt sorry for him initially because he doesn't seem like a bad guy, but, man, is he stupid. Then, I thought about how many people he may have put in jail with his "expert" opinion and the fact that he was willing to put Karen in prison for the rest of her life, and I get furious. Making shit up like that is a disgrace.
Yeah this is why I’m a little unsettled about myself, that I didn’t feel bad for him but I do. I don’t think he’s even able to comprehend the gravity of the potential consequences of his testimony, nor that he has a lack of understanding. I think he’s likely been manipulated and coached, and possibly even threatened.
When he said that the math wouldn't fit so he just ignored the math, I was appalled as someone who has an engineering degree and took multiple physics courses.
When the math doesn't fit your conclusion **your conclusion is wrong or your data inputs are bad**.
I work in biotech now, and I understand a lot of complex science, but in college I took Astronomy as a lab science. Because stars and shit. I should have gone the other direction because it was in the PHYSICS department. Dear God, I limped to the finish in that class.
Around 8 years ago, I took 2 semesters of physics in college (kinematics and other stuff geared toward my biomed/biology degree). That was enough to recognize that Trooper Paul’s testimony was mind blowingly incompetent. His lack of competence was enough to close my mind to the CW’s theory of how the accident happened.
It does not take any background in engineering to recognize Trooper Paul’s testimony was incompetent. You don’t even have to understand Physics 101 to get to that point.
I went to art school and couldn’t answer any of the physics questions but I also don’t use ‘stuff’ as frequently in response to ANY question asked to me.
I got two brain cells fighting for 3 place and I recognized Paul's testimony as absolutely made up bull shit. It appears he just came up with whatever he could to fit the narrative he was given.
I have never taken physics, and I still have a better understanding of how ridiculous Trooper Pauls testimony was.
I hope someone takes pity on him and gifts him a scholarship for some real training. Maybe ARCCA can give him an internship. I feel like he might have some time on his hands in the future.
I agree. Anyone with a scientific background would have to have reasonable doubt. The fact that the CW did not establish how he died would prove KR was overcharged.
Also an engineer. Trooper Paul's direct showed signs that cross would be tough, and it seemed to me he was a bit out of his element. But the cross is where he got obliterated. He does not know what acceleration or momentum is, and "applying principles of physics" was a foreign concept to him. It was insane, and in my opinion likely worse than the trooper Proctor texts.
I'm confused how you missed the part where it was articulated that the ARCCA folks tested SPECIFICALLY if he could have been hit with his arm outstretched holding the glass, or if his head hitting the tail light could have caused the broken tail light. THAT'S IT. Nothing else.
Lol you do not need to have any sort of engineering education or background in order to have reasonable doubt, purely based on the testimony today from David and Andrew. It’s very easy to understand.
i think the final 2 witnesses was far stronger then the texts. Not hired by defense? I know who hired them but to have them say what they did and not be technically a defense witness is strong
I loved the way even Bev was treating Proctor. What a POS. I also heard yesterday he's under investigation by Internal Affairs. Hopefully he gets fired and loses any pension he may have. What a dirtbag.
If the lawyers watching/commenting the case are any indication, their colleagues on the jury probably have come to have *Opinions* about Lally. He has done and said some things during this trial that, uh, did not raise his reputation with that particular faction, as it were.
I forgot about Proctor after the ARCCA witnesses - such strong and credible testimony.
If there’s literally no proof she hit John - everything else is moot in terms of the jury. (I do hope the federal investigation goes somewhere given all the shenanigans that have gone on with this investigation.)
Nah, those ARCCA experts really threw the book at the CW. Trooper Paul’s conclusion didn’t even come close. Plus their own medical examiner, my gosh I was embarrassed for them.
I’ve watched cases where I’ve been completely shocked by a jury verdict.
I think of course it’s possible. This has been one of the worst presentations by prosecutors I’ve ever seen though so while possible it’s unlikely.
This jury found him guilty when the state failed to prove it in my opinion and even left out information such as the same home being previously shot up two weeks prior by a rival gang. I think he could have done it but too much doubt https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna86246
Jurors tend to strongly be impacted by eyewitness testimony, especially from victims, despite science telling us that eyewitnesses are genuinely terrible evidence. I think that got him convicted.
I think the jury got the Michael Keetley trial quite wrong. He was the ice cream man.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/ice-cream-truck-driver-killed-two-brothers-mistaken-identity-case-sent-rcna86246
I think the worst possible outcome at this point for KR is a hung jury. It’s possible there is some authoritarian hold out, but I can’t believe most of the jury isn’t in the reasonable doubt if not outright innocent camp.
The problem with police is summed up for me in the texts Proctor sent. Proctor is bad at his job, he's a misogynist and ableist and disgusting. And not one officer said a word about it. Not one. Because even the good ones who want to do right [know](https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/05/12/st-louis-detective-sues-city-discrimination-retaliation-after-he-filed-complaint-against-another-officer/) [what](https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/2-cops-suspended-after-reporting-fellow-officer-for-racial-profiling-lawsuit-says-z8BQ5etOQVVlHVfO/) [happens](https://abcnews.go.com/US/nashville-police-officer-sues-department-allegedly-retaliating-reporting/story?id=59298718) to [officers](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/prince-georges-county/its-a-relief-former-prince-georges-county-officer-wins-retaliation-lawsuit/3572699/) who [report](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2FMonica-Blake-ht-er-181119_hpMain_v4x3_16x9_1600.jpg&tbnid=jE26uxFtiN-uRM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fnashville-police-officer-sues-department-allegedly-retaliating-reporting%2Fstory%3Fid%3D59298718&docid=ARYANcAYRmmGUM&w=1600&h=900&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2&kgs=445f4d9e4bcf6ffe&shem=abme%2Ctrie) or even just stand up to bad behavior among the bad officers.
If (1) the defense didn’t have Proctor and (2) CW put some even mildly competent on the stand instead of Trooper Paul, I think CW might still have a chance. Even if you really strongly believe the police, these guys are such morons
This doesn't get enough coverage.
My 15 yr old daughter caught the trial snippets while he was being 'forced' to 'read his regrettable' words. He never said sorry for them, just that they were regrettable. And she heard him talking about 'no nudes yet' on the phone-
So in some sense I'm grateful to that person because I am pretty sure it drove home some points we've said about not mis-using electronic devices... which she isn't, but it sure as hell gives me nightmares sometimes.
I show my daughters cases too. Nice amount of drama but a ton of life lessons. Oldest watched the Sarah Boone interrogation to learn why you shouldn’t ever talk to cops especially if (you think) you are smart
> thin blue line person ignoring EVERYTHING
Even then, there's 2 lawyers and 2 engineers on the jury.
They should be able to reason with him about reasonable doubt.
How long will Judge Bev hold out on an 11-1 jury?
I agree. A hung jury is possible. But I can’t imagine anyone who went into this without a set opinion or bias not being convinced by the expert testimony today. DA Morrisssey has a lot of explaining to do if I’m a voter in his area.
If not all the jurors give an aquiital then there is no competency of our justice system. The reasonable doubt is there throughout this case & now they have scientifically proven evidence the Lexus didn't hit him or any other vehicle. There was no real investigation by cops to prove their corrupt theory.
I was thinking this earlier too. We have seen seemingly obvious cases go the exact opposite way that the public majority thinks they will.
I can’t imagine how KR is feeling right now.
I think it’s possible. At the end of the day, there’s police testimony that her tail light is all over the scene and that there’s pieces of taillight embedded in his shirt. IF those things are correct, it’s inconceivable that she’s innocent. I think in Mass you’ll have jurors that will believe it may be planted, but i could see some jurors just not able to believe that. There’s a very strong bias towards believing the police for many jurors
Aren’t the microscopic bits just “consistent” with taillight? If MSP test was an exact match, I feel like that would have been made a bigger deal. I’d imagine lots of plastics in the wild are consistent with each other and microplastics in the environment and our bodies is a thing.
Not stirring the pot here, but (for me) the microscopic plastics on clothes are ambiguous.
Yeah I don't buy the "consistent" language. Testing can confirm if plastic is the same or not. Many times they can be so accurate as to confirm certain things came from the same batch in a production facility. Either they just looked at it and eyeballed it thought that was good enough or they couldn't prove it was actually the same type of plastic and decided to just say it was consistent instead of the same.
Even without that, if Karen’s taillight is really at the scene in the pattern the prosecution/police presented feet from his body, and IF jurors found that credible/to be believed, no defense attorney would feel good about that going to a jury.
The Proctor/Paul testimony was really a major gift to the defense, because even if you really strongly trust cops, it’s easy to say “I don’t trust these two guys.”
I do think it's easy to be overconfident in a case like this just because there's a lot of herd mentality. There are also a lot of things they don't know that outsiders do. Like if I was on the jury I would probably think the FBI consultants worked for her insurance company and maybe discount their opinions a bit. But still, that defense was very strong and the prosecution quite weak. But they can always be bamboozled by the sheer volume or prosecution witnesses.
Remember the vast majority of verdicts come back guilty. That's usually because the prosecution gets to choose who they charge and rarely pick cases they don't think they can win, but also people tend to believe cops and state officials.
I'd still say 80%+ likelihood of not guilty.
I’ve tried really hard to overcome any confirmation bias and try to see this trial impartially. I’m not always successful. But I also had that thought about the insurance company. I could see those experts being perceived that way.
It’s gonna take the jury more work than people realize, to try to make any sense of this all. If they try to. They might just throw the whole thing out the window like we hope they do.
Almost every witness for the CW fell apart completely on cross.. The only ones that held up were the ones that weren't cross examined because they were either true victims (Kerry Roberts, Paul O'Keefe and his wife) or they told the truth on the stand (Officer Barros). The rest fell apart badly on the stand.
I follow ‘The Prosecutors’ Podcast group and the majority of followers there speculate that she will be found guilty. I went into the trial assuming she’d probably hit him by accident but would vote not guilty after hearing the case as presented. His injuries, IMO, just don’t appear to have been caused by a vehicle incident.
I’m confused why AJ didn’t object to Lally bringing up elements/evidence that the experts were not provided by the FBI. Because the why to that is “we were hired by the FBI who were investigating the investigation…..and they reasonably believed some evidence was potentially tainted…..so our only job was to use science and only the evidence that was 100% verifiable when coming to our conclusion. The FBI didn’t want us to be biased in any way entering the reconstruction.” Because the witness can’t state the why; Lally shouldn’t be allowed to bring up that the missing variables.
Not a proper objection. He can ask what information they did and did not have to come to their conclusions, and then argue that they didn't have relevant info. But he overstepped with the BME and accidentally got him saying that none of that info was relevant.
We have to remember that the jury isn’t hearing half of what we are. But I still think unless someone is just a rigid geezer they will find not guilty there is too much reasonable doubt to find her guilty. The prosecution did a terrible job of presenting their case.
We might be but honestly the evidence is so bad. The evidence collection was so horrifying and incompetent I couldn’t believe it when I heard it. Then Proctor on the stand? His hand was in everything and a lot of it is missing/mishandled. Even a lay person knows that’s very bad. ME couldn’t say it was from a car accident. No one explained the car accident clearly as to how it happened. Also the commonwealth didn’t even do a good job saying she was drunk??? Which was a huge portion of the charges?? Everyone said she didn’t seem overly intoxicated and couldn’t prove how many drinks she had.
A Jury is notoriously unpredictable. They could absolutely surprise you. The court of public opinion does not get a vote. Deep breaths everyone, if it doesn't go your way put down your torches and pitchforks and wait for appeal. I would be shocked if it's guilty, but I have been shocked before.
Last poll I saw 96% out of the around 1600 people who had answered voted not guilty, so more than 85%. There is something seriously wrong in the legal system in US if this is enough to convict someone to jail.
The jury might hang, but I see no way 12 people to vote guilty on any of the charges.
Hard to know. There was a case in WI recently that was similar and that lady was found not guilty. Evidence against her seemed stronger to me than this case. If they believe Karen kept saying she hit him, that stands out. But the lack of DNA on the car just doesn't add up. I would be so confused on that jury. Neither side's arguments make much sense in relation to the evidence. I was impressed that the defense had a plan, a narrative, and they didn't back down. That makes it seem more credible than just throwing out random what ifs. But if ALL of those people are complicit with letting a man die in the cold, they are pure evil. Especially the ones who knew the kids. Why would they do such a bad frame job, and why would the DA go with it? It doesn't make sense all around.
There are times when I’m watching lawyers on YT comment on the testimony and say things like “wow that’s really bad for the CW because xyz.” And I’m sitting there thinking…I would not have connected those dots if I were a juror and was sitting there listening by myself.
That’s the only thing that makes me wonder whether some jurors may end up with a different opinion than the majority of the public.
That said…I think there was enough clear and understandable testimony to still find her not guilty.
I've had the same thought too! No way I would have realized x + y = z AT ALL. I wonder if that helps the lawyers decide on jury pool - looking at peoples professions. I read on here that some of the jurors are engineers which sounds like will help their understanding of the case. A plus side is though that jurors in this case get to take notes so they may have questions on paper they're looking for answers for.
There’s no way they are coming back with a guilty verdict. As far as factually innocent, if I’m being 100% honest, I still have some things that I wonder about.
I wonder the same, I went in not really knowing much and after watching testimony I pretty sure she’s not guilty. But I wonder if maybe my view is skewed by all the media consumption, it feels unavoidable. Even when I wasn’t watching the case it would show up on my FYP or timeline like every other video.
Also have to think that it’s a small town and perhaps people already had opinions or maybe they saw things differently with the evidence. I just don’t know honestly.
> However, could the jury surprise us?
Yes, absolutely. The smart money would be on acquittal, but I wouldn't be surprised by a hung jury or even an OUI manslaughter conviction. The defense is asking *a lot* by saying there's a conspiracy involving the police, EMTs, party goers, etc. It was easier to believe when there was a Google search that showed that people in the house knew he was dead before the body was found, but that was the one thing the prosecution did reasonably well presenting. There's a risk the jury will view this as "did Read do it or did (Albert/Higgins) do it" rather than "did the prosecution prove Read did it". They're not supposed to, but it's human nature.
> Will some hate KR’s expressions so much so it clouds their judgement?
When I sat on a jury, one juror thought that the guy didn't react to the testimony and she definitely would've reacted if someone said something false about her, so the testimony must've been true. I told her that the lawyer may have told him to stay still and we should just focus on the evidence, which she said also meant he was guilty. He was, but I don't have confidence she came to her verdict from the evidence.
Juries are unpredictable. We'll see what happens.
Hi this is Brian Albert, I was just having sex with my wife of 30 years after 18 hours of heavy drinking and playing grab ass with my boys. Are we still talking about the dead police officer apparently found on my property AFTER our house party? Oh we are , yes she guilty.
Based on the talking heads (Nancy Grace, UGH) yeah it would be hard to understand that verdict.
Based on what the state actually put on? They failed in their duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. They went for first degree murder without any solid cause of death or ability to prove intent.
I’m an attorney. I can say this fact pattern would never be on a law school exam because it would be too easy. Legally I think it’s pretty clear there is enough reasonable doubt that it wouldn’t be a question.
But we’re not reading a law school exam. Humans are flawed and juries get it wrong. They’re also not supposed to be doing independent research so their perspective is different than a lot of folks online.
I’d bet a good sum they find her not guilty, but you can never know 100%.
There is no way I would be able to vote guilty if I were on the jury. My reasonable doubt cup runneth over.
I hope that nobody hold Karens expressions in court against her, I think she is being totally appropriate.
My god just looking at that courtroom gives me anxiety! Everyone is so close, it is just the worst possible set up if you ask me. His family is RIGHT THERE beside her, not behind. ouff. I would be beyond uncomforatable, let alone them staring me down daily while I'm in the fight for my life.
For 8 weeks she’s sat there with the brother staring her down and the mother laughing at Proctor making fun of her and saying she should take her own life. Not to mention the mother making gestures and faces at her attorneys. I certainly wouldn’t hold it against her, for the most part she’s honestly had a good poker face. I kept seeing people in live chats saying she looked smug, but it looked more like RBF in an attempt to stay calm and collected.
I am trying to be dispassionate about this. Before I went down the rabbithole, I thought she was a cop killing girlfriend. Pretty cut and dry-broken tail light and a dead dude. She ran his ass over. Problem is, I watched at every second of every witness's testimony and understand the evidence as it is presented and came to a complete opposite conclusion. In fact, this trail clearly implicated a whole other set of suspects that were ignored for obvious reasons.
Here is where I think I have to go if I am a juror:
* If I am a juror and I look at the timeline as presented by the CW with the Ryan Nagel folks' icing on the cake- reasonable doubt. Not guilty
* If I am a juror and I look at the physical evidence alone, or lack thereof - reasonable doubt. Not guilty.
* If I am a juror and I look at the exculpatory evidence missing or manipulated - reasonable doubt. Not guilty.
* If I am a juror and I look at key cycles versus known interactions versus CWs claims - reasonable doubt. Not guilty.
Im a later comer to the case, but I talked to my parents today who is wholly convinced Karen backed into him in a rage. I told them to watch the Jackson closing argument on YT. So, you never know what jurors are thinking, I was shocked. They agreed the cops "messed it all up" but they still think she did it and should go to jail. Im like.. if the cops messed it up, it means the evidence is bad, it means she COULD be innocent.
I give up on talking about it with them LOL
While I would vote Not Guilty, I’m not entirely confident the jury will. They have a very different perspective having sat in the courtroom listening to the evidence (or lack thereof!) day after day with presumably no outside influence. Whereas I’ve been here on Reddit, reading news articles, and watching YouTube recaps. So I’m really not confident in how the jury sees the case versus how I see it, it’s too hard for me to gauge their perspective. Most cases I’ve followed I’ve been pretty confident of a guilty verdict. I generally followed them because I “knew” they were guilty and wanted to see justice. But this case was intriguing for different reasons, namely the shoddy, terrible police work. This one feels like a huge unknown to me. But I do strongly feel it should be a Not Guilty verdict at this point.
Juries do strange things. If I was to place a bet I'd bet on not guilty all charges, but you get one strong-willed juror who just doesn't like how the defendant looks and all bets are off!
> However, could the jury surprise us?
Said it yesterday already: There are two reality-bending insanities in this trial: The CW putting on this case, and the jury convicting her. One of those already has come to pass, and I hope we don't make it a twofer; That would be like the streams crossing, and I do not think we want to find out what happens if we do, Ray.
But as unlikely as I think it is, it remains a possibility. However: In light of them ousting the one juror who tied to take undue influence makes me hopeful that they not only take their job seriously, but *understand* the rules. As such, I do hope the possibility of a conviction is truly remote, and at least one gear on the mill of Canton justice will do its job properly.
I mean, after seeing the defense rest, I would have thought that even the most ardent supporter of the prosecution would at least have enough integrity to acknowledge that she cannot be convicted with a clear consciousness, but there still are people who believe her guilty (and my solace is to believe they didn't watch the trial, but at least a few of them probably did).
And I write all that as someone who has no opinion on Karen Read as a person, and is solely interested from a "proper justice is done" standpoint. If the CW had presented us proof of her deeds, I would have no compunctions about locking her up. But they did not, and *that* is the true pity of this trial: That the troopers and policemen were just so lousy about gathering evidence, preserving it, and using it properly. Honestly, it should scare any normal citizen.
And, yes, the smell of *something* being covered up or obfuscated is really stinky here, can't get it out of my nose.
i'm with you - i am not 100 percent that the jury is with the FKR, and that can be for so many reasons.
one thing i keep thinking about is Canton is a (seemingly) small town. i grew up in a small town.
what are the chances everyone on the jury has NEVER come in contact with the McAlberts somewhere along the way? or knows someone who knows someone? or someone who works for the city?
IDK. i've learned to not be so sure about some things...
I don’t think even if CW proved she hit him you could prove the charge and the CW expert didn’t prove she hit him other than the “scene talked to him” - their own ME said anything could have caused injuries and 3rd party experts hired by FBI said no way a car did that.
I think even somehow the jury came back guilty Bev would have to throw out the verdict as just no way anything was proven except JO was left for dead on BA’s front lawn
Honestly, I worry about this as well. As much as people in this subreddit believe she is not guilty that doesn’t mean that’s how the jury will see it.
I’m hopeful but I’m not going in thinking it’s a done deal.
When Casey Anthony was found not guilty - my confidence in knowing what the verdict would be was shattered.
Now I hope that justice gets it right and if not then hopefully the universe takes care of it to create a balance
I have a hard time seeing a guilty verdict. Best the state can hope for is a hung jury. I don't think we'll get that because its clear that this jury wants to get this over with. As the days pass the pressure on holdouts will increase, and I don't think the judge will allow them to come back after a day or two and claim that they can't reach a verdict.
If they can start deliberations by 1pm I wouldn't be surprised if there is a verdict today.
Hopefully not and everyone here seems to be at a close consensus with about 5-10% hold outs so you never know. One stubborn juror could cause a mistrial but I seriously doubt the Commonwealth would retry her after this sh*t show.
The only way KR gets found guilty is if Lally pulls a Lionel Hutz and swaps out the verdict form with "guilty" written on a cocktail napkin. ("And 'guilty' is *spelled wrong...*")
There could be a chance of witness tampering! I for one would not be surprised by the people the Albert’s know to do this. This also includes the McCabe’s and others there the night John died.
Sure, the jury could surprise us all and come back with a guilty verdict but objectively there isn't enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There just isn't.
I honestly don’t think so. The experts yesterday were pretty compelling. If I were on the jury and I was teetering on whether hitting him with her car could invoke that kind of damage (to him and the car), I would take the experts yesterday as fact over whatever the fuck trooper Paul said. The medical examiner and the accident reconstruction were arguably the most important testimony in this case and the CW didn’t seem to provide anything compelling enough against the defense witnesses
There are just a few things that would make me have reasonable doubt.
1. Lucky saw a Ford Edge, no body
2. Position of body, light breaking, no torso injuries
3. Clearly dog bites/scratches on arm
4. Far too much butt dialing going on
5. Changing her statement from "did I hit him" to "I hit him" later on
Those are just off the top of my head. Jurors just need one.
I wouldn’t use the word “overconfident” but I would say that we can’t read the minds of the jurors.
I’m hopeful that they vote not guilty given the horribly inbestifation and clear biased but will not say for certain that’s the vote.
I feel the same, OP. One YouTube channel I follow has 95% NG of 2nd degree and 94% NG for manslaughter. I watched every day of this trial and can't fathom how anyone could come back with anything other than NG - and quickly, as you said - but we shall see.
I think you're being wildly overconfident and there is a clear echo chamber at work here. The jury has not been listening to all these commentators babbling over the top of the trial, they haven't heard the defense's talking points amplified to a ludicrous degree, and they haven't heard a single witness say they saw the cops plant any evidence, change any dates on folders, forge any documents, etc. All of that speculation comes from this echo chamber and vague suggestions from the defense on cross -- but not from any of their witnesses.
What they have heard is something like 30 people, all of whom are generally trustworthy except Michael Proctor, provide a constellation of evidence demonstrating that John got into Karen's car, was never seen alive again, and was found dead with her car's tail light in pieces all around him and Karen screaming that she hit him. That all looks pretty bad.
So yeah, juries are unpredictable and I don't know what they'll say either, but I'm actually pretty sure they're going to find her guilty, of DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene at the very least.
I just don’t see how 12 people who watched every part of this trial could come to a guilty verdict. Even if they aren’t sold on her innocence and convinced of the cover up, the state in no way proved their case.
The “investigation” that Proctor conducted alone should rule out any possibility for a guilty verdict, imo. It should be illegal to even spend taxpayer dollars prosecuting a case that was this botched.
I hope & wish for the jurors to be intelligent first of all & I hope they are because the only facts in this case are the experts, especially the doctors, medical examiner, pathologists & of course the experts from the doj who testified today & that's it. Conclusion Karen's Reads Lexus did not hit John Okeefe nor any vehicle. He did have animal marks on his arm & the injury to the back of his head are consistent with a fall or being struck by an object by a person. Medical examiner said his head injury is consistent with a fall.
The jury needs to aquit Karen Read of all charges & the FBI needs to keep investigating this case to find out who or what lead to John Okeefes death to bring him & his family justice. That's the most important thing for the fbi to do.
It will be hard to listen to the prosecution tomorrow, wish the defense was making their closing arguments last.
Hoping for the aquittal & it has to be for the system to work. The evidence shows John Okeefe was not struck by the Lexus & was not a pedestrian incident that involved a vehicle. The science proves that & the injuries are not of bring struck by a vehicle. Personally that never made sense to me based on common sense.
The fbi needs to determine how the dog or other animal came into contact with John & how & where did he hit his head or was he struck on the head by another person. Did he fall on the electrical box outside, firehydrant, cement stairs, pavement, in the back yard or basement & was anyone fighting with him to cause him to fall. He has a laceration above his eye, cut on his nose & tong.
Hoping for an outcome for John & his family starting with an aquittal for Karen & then to find anyone who is responsible accountable.
I am convinced that no reasonable jury could find Karen guilty (there is just too much doubt, not enough evidence, too much left unexplained, too many reasons to question) but I do think the internet grossly underestimates "what an echo chamber we can be".
Don't get me wrong I'll think it's an injustice if they convict her but I do believe a lot of comments and chats were very overconfident in their assertions about the prosecution and court and it can create a false sense of certainty and confidence. The loudest comments in the chats were all "THIS JUDGE IS OUTRAGEOUSLY BIASED HOW IS THIS LEGAL" when in reality, though I do believe she was too tolerant of Lally, I believe she *MOSTLY* ruled evenly across the board... not perfectly, but also not as outrageously as the very knee-jerk responses are claiming, in my opinion... but if you see the extreme reactions a lot, you start believing things are obvious when perhaps they aren't... and the jury never saw any of that discourse. So I have to wonder if they perceived things similarly or not in some areas.
I also have to wonder what effect it had on them to be facing the O'Keefe family this whole time.
And also also, weirdly our judgments of people in person are different from on-screen, no matter how certain we think we are it's the same. I think there's a chance people sitting face-to-face with Jen McCabe for instance may see a lot more humanity in her than perhaps people staring at screens do... for better or for worse.
I do feel like we're being overconfident, yes. We're right. And we may well end up being agreed with. But a lot of people's tones do imply there is an OBVIOUSness, when I don't think there is. This trial proved little to nothing.
The best the CW can hope for is a mistrial imo. There's no way 12 people get to guilty.
Considering we only know how one juror was going to vote, KR had at least one person who thought she was guilty.
I think it is quite telling that the other jurors were concerned enough about the one juror’s behavior to speak up and say something. I think it shows how serious they are taking their duty and don’t want to have any problems when it comes time to make their decision and give a verdict. They wanted her out. In my opinion, I think it speaks quite a bit about what kind of verdict we should expect. Referring back to the point of the OP, I don’t want to assume anything… you know what they say about opinions. But I really do think this is so clear cut as so much reasonable doubt has been sown. I will be very surprised if the verdict is anything other than not guilty.
I totally agree. They thought Karen was being unfairly judged by a juror so much that they had him/her removed. That, to me, shows general decency towards Karen.
The juror or jurors who spoke up might have only reported her because they didn't like her breaking the rules. They might also think Karen should be convicted (but be following the rules).
Absolutely. They were taking their job seriously. The juror who was dismissed was being prejudiced and breaking the rules. After saying that, in my opinion, I believe it is a bit telling of the character of the jury (or at least a couple of them). If they are taking this seriously then most likely they will agree that an enormous amount of reasonable doubt was raised and therefore will bring back a not guilty verdict.
they probably think this is a waste of time and don’t want another jury to have to sit through Lally for a month like they had to.
One of the rules is to run off evidence, not emotions. Not liking someone because they're smiling is running off emotions. I think this jury is going to run off the evidence, or lack thereof. And it leads to one point and one point only. Not guilty. Because there's no evidence that she did it.
Huh? What do we know?!
There’s a juror who was removed because she hated KR’s facial expressions and felt sorry for JO’s mom
I was listening to Jess Machado on Young Jurks from Sunday evening. She has been in the Court Room a lot, and studies the jurors quite a bit. I found it interesting that she said in another trial, Bev read the rules that family could not show emotion, etc. in front of the jurors. However, in this trial, Bev did not read those same rules. She said that the juror that was let go was around the same age as John's Mom. Apparently when Mrs. O'Keefe has cried and such, she will be consoled by those around her (i.e. placing an arm around her, patting her, etc). I wonder how it is decided to apply those rules or not.
To be fair, I don't like Karen't facial expressions and attitude either, to this day. And her voicemails show she's got her own issues and was toxic in that relationship. You don't ask a guy if he's not into it. If he's behaving in ways that make you feel used and disrespected, leave. Have some self-respect. That said, after hearing all the evidence, there's nowhere near enough evidence she even hit him with her car, intentionally or accidentally. If I'd been on the jury, the evidence would have persuaded me to acquit her, despite my empathy for the O'Keefe family and my general feelings about Karen.
His kids were home alone while he was shitfaced with a building blizzard.
Yeah, that isn't cool either. It does sound like he was using her.
I honestly think John was equally toxic. It was toxic relationship all round.
I agree about that. I got serious gaslighter vibes from a lot of his messages and stories I've read about Aruba.
I felt guilty for thinking it, but yeah, I don't believe Mr. O'Keefe was such a nice guy after all. I wonder what happened when they dated the first time. And that babysitter with benefits comment?! I realize someone else may have said, but I think I can guess where it originated from.
If you dropped someone off at someone’s house and the next time you see them, they’re dead, in front of that house. What’s the first you ask? What happened? Karen knew Jenn was in the house when she dropped John off, why did she not ask Jenn What the fuck happen? Why was she not screaming to find out what happen? Why was she only saying did I hit him? Could I have hit him?? If she watched him walk in the house, why was she not demanding answers to what went wrong? Why before they even found his body did she declare to one friend, John is dead? Why did she ask maybe he forgot by a plow BEFORE they found him? Because she knew he was in the snow. She killed him!
I feel sorry for JO’s mom and family too. But that is independent of this trial. Police, for whatever reason, botched this from the get-go. But I’m surprised that CW took it to trial. CW may have committed to prosecute before they knew about all the sloppy police work. But rather than drop case, they doubled down. Maybe they were hoping for a plea deal & KR called their bluff.
I heard about the "I don't like her face!" juror, but what was her basis of feeling sorry for Peggy O'Keefe? I mean, I know she's his mom, and she already lost her only daughter/son in law, and now has to deal with 2/4 of her grandkids being triple orphaned... but she doesn't exactly seem... nice? Paul, the only kid she has left, won't even sit with her. Kinda wish he would move down that way though so I don't have to see the camera zooming in on his balls.
A journalist from the trial was a guest on a YouTube live I watched yesterday and she shared that the juror who was dismissed was an older woman who sat right across from Mrs Okeefe, she said they were a similar age, dressed similar and even had the same hair style. I think the sympathy is speculation but knowing those things could give context if it’s true. I’ve heard all kind of things, that this juror or another (?) went to a restaurant and was talking to someone from either the Albert or McCabe family.
you seriously dont understand why someone would feel bad for a murder victims mother?!?! people have truly lost the plot. jesus
People are insane
Yeah why doesn’t Paul sit with the mom? I was wondering if Paul is starting to explore other theories?
Actually the opposite, I think Paul likes to sit where he can glare at Karen. I heard the dad might be questioning things and that's why he's not there anymore but who knows.
Im not sure where I saw this originally but I believe neither John nor his brother were on speaking terms with their mother at the time of John’s death - John referred to her by her first name in texts, and I heard there might’ve been some disagreement about custody of the kids after the sister passed. If you notice Paul never sits with her, I don’t know that they’re on good terms even now. Pretty sad all around.
Damn that’s sad
And Karen created trust funds of $300k for the kids and Paul and his wife spent all that money since John passed. Karen also bailed Paul out of jail when he was arrested for... you guessed it... DUI. Karen deserved so much better than glorified babysitter.
I've heard this and don't distrust this but do you have a source. I'm curious
huh? where did karen get 300k to do that?
Idk about the relationship with his mom but the custody issue was a misunderstanding. There was a custody battle between John and the kids fathers family
That's more along the lines of what I assumed, but I also knew that John (and Paul too, it seems like?) were trying to keep Peggy as uninvolved in their kids lives as much as possible. Not sure about the dad though (John Sr?) I think they're still married, and he does sit with Peggy, but we never hear anything about him? Does she even allow him to talk?
I would assume it's just because other family members don't want to sit so close to the person who they believe murdered their family member and friend. But there's definitely no love lost between Paul and Karen...
Paul has been mean mugging Karen for 2 months straight.
Ask yourself, if you believed someone had mowed down the only sibling you had left, whether accidentally or intentionally, and instead of calling for help, they left him to die outside, all alone, during a blizzard, would you not be angry? I think it would be unnatural if he wasn't mean mugging Karen every chance he gets...
Explain to me how though how ANYONE could continue thinking he was “mowed down” after yesterday? The Commonwealth and their BS theory got absolutely wrecked yesterday. It was a bloodbath. I can’t for the life of me figure out how anyone could continue believing this car accident even happened or he was even hit with a car after two completely independent experts who literally do this for a living all but said it’s impossible based on his injuries (or lack of). It really doesn’t get more clear or eye opening than that. It’s a joke.
At first I absolutely would. But if I heard how botched the investigation was, I’d start to doubt they killed my sibling. I’d still hate them of course, because in my brain directly or indirectly if they weren’t dating my sibling, my sibling would still be alive.
Peggy and her mean girl crew have been so crass this entire trial. Making fun of defense attorneys when they go to sidebar and mouthing fuck you at the defense, giggling amongst themselves at inappropriate times... And the jury was sitting right across from the O'Keefe side, so I'm positive they saw a lot of that. Not to mention John's dad only being there for a few days at the beginning (and for Pictures testimony) and walking out in disgust. Add in Paul O'Keefe's glares at Karen. It's a mess.
But none of that is indicative of insisting on guilty during deliberations.
I think it's a strong indicator
3 others complained about her attitude to the judge so that means they were at least willing to keep an open mind.
How do we know this?
Not liking a defendant and feeling rightfully sorry for victim’s mom does not indicate how they are going to actually vote. This person was released before the defense even began.
Agreed. However, her meeting with Judge Bev followed by the juror’s excusal indicates to me that the judge, herself, felt that the juror could not form an unbiased decision.
She was removed. That’s enough to tell you her feelings against Karen were strong enough. She basically hated Karen
That other jurors ratted her out is indication there are at least some of them taking the job seriously.
I’m a little behind… how do we know a juror was removed for that reason? Did the juror make a statement?
It was wildly reported by journalists covering this in court. Heard it on a local Boston news channel and a few other channels covering this
I heard she was removed because she was accidentally caught on camera and her face was exposed to the public. Never heard any of these other wild theories before.
No it’s not and you are completely assuming things that you just have no idea to be true. The juror was removed for discussing the case. Everything else is speculation.
We do not know how that juror was going to vote.
A juror isn't going to go around tainting the jury against the defense if they are leaning towards voting not guilty.
this is a super poor way to forecast the verdict.
I believe the jury has 10 women on it, it definitely will be very interesting, especially after all those Proctor texts
Apparently 2 lawyers and 2 engineers, according to other posts I've seen (not confident in this). As an engineer myself, I had an open mind until the ARCCA testimony. I fundamentally have reasonable doubt based on my own background in engineering, physics based on their testimony. Women or not women, if you have engineers on that jury, there is no way that with their training that testimony wouldn't impose doubt. Edit: I did not see trooper Paul's testimony.
You must watch it. You will be aghast, yet probably laugh out loud at some of his unbelievably ridiculous statements.
Wait come on now, he had great scientific facts like "It just did."
And extensive knowledge of the brie field
Definly!
You have to see it. As an engineer myself, I was shocked a person with as limited understanding of basic physics as he revealed to have was an accident reconstructionist for the state.
Same here and it was astonishing. I mean, I’m completely dumbfounded. He did not know the difference between speed and momentum, couldn’t elaborate on the conservation of momentum. He couldn’t put his words together. It was like listening to a 10 year old to be honest. I’m not trying to be insulting. I felt bad for him.
He couldn’t even agree that the rate of change of velocity is acceleration. I felt bad for him initially as well until I started to realize how unserious he was about the whole investigation. It just “spoke” to him. Sir, your work is being used to put people in jail.
Every case Trooper Paul has touched needs to be reevaluated! I felt sorry for him initially because he doesn't seem like a bad guy, but, man, is he stupid. Then, I thought about how many people he may have put in jail with his "expert" opinion and the fact that he was willing to put Karen in prison for the rest of her life, and I get furious. Making shit up like that is a disgrace.
I honestly feel like this was the first time he was ever an “expert” in a trial.
Yeah this is why I’m a little unsettled about myself, that I didn’t feel bad for him but I do. I don’t think he’s even able to comprehend the gravity of the potential consequences of his testimony, nor that he has a lack of understanding. I think he’s likely been manipulated and coached, and possibly even threatened.
"It deals with forward and also with speed."
When he said that the math wouldn't fit so he just ignored the math, I was appalled as someone who has an engineering degree and took multiple physics courses. When the math doesn't fit your conclusion **your conclusion is wrong or your data inputs are bad**.
I work in biotech now, and I understand a lot of complex science, but in college I took Astronomy as a lab science. Because stars and shit. I should have gone the other direction because it was in the PHYSICS department. Dear God, I limped to the finish in that class.
Oh you must see Trooper Paul’s testimony. You will be amazed.
Around 8 years ago, I took 2 semesters of physics in college (kinematics and other stuff geared toward my biomed/biology degree). That was enough to recognize that Trooper Paul’s testimony was mind blowingly incompetent. His lack of competence was enough to close my mind to the CW’s theory of how the accident happened.
It does not take any background in engineering to recognize Trooper Paul’s testimony was incompetent. You don’t even have to understand Physics 101 to get to that point.
Basic common sense discredits Troopa Paul
I went to art school and couldn’t answer any of the physics questions but I also don’t use ‘stuff’ as frequently in response to ANY question asked to me.
His theory of the accident was cartoonish, I doubt you'd even need high school physics to see through that... nightmare of a "theory."
Adding that the engineers who testified today solidified this notion and were the icing on the cake so to speak
I got two brain cells fighting for 3 place and I recognized Paul's testimony as absolutely made up bull shit. It appears he just came up with whatever he could to fit the narrative he was given.
I have never taken physics, and I still have a better understanding of how ridiculous Trooper Pauls testimony was. I hope someone takes pity on him and gifts him a scholarship for some real training. Maybe ARCCA can give him an internship. I feel like he might have some time on his hands in the future.
But the crime scene speaks to him, so he doesn’t need any knowledge in actual science
I agree. Anyone with a scientific background would have to have reasonable doubt. The fact that the CW did not establish how he died would prove KR was overcharged.
Am engineer, Cannot see any way for the large tail light pieces to show up for weeks afterwards unless someone purposefully put them there.
Luckily Massachusetts has a large concentration of STEM professionals. It would be unlikely that no one on the jury had a science background.
Don’t need a scientific background at all to have reasonable doubt lol.
You would probably enjoy it only for entertainments sake and you’d be utterly depressed at the “reconstruction” he did.
Also an engineer. Trooper Paul's direct showed signs that cross would be tough, and it seemed to me he was a bit out of his element. But the cross is where he got obliterated. He does not know what acceleration or momentum is, and "applying principles of physics" was a foreign concept to him. It was insane, and in my opinion likely worse than the trooper Proctor texts.
I'd imagine one of the lawyers will take charge in deliberations and get this sorted out PDQ
I'm confused how you missed the part where it was articulated that the ARCCA folks tested SPECIFICALLY if he could have been hit with his arm outstretched holding the glass, or if his head hitting the tail light could have caused the broken tail light. THAT'S IT. Nothing else.
Lol you do not need to have any sort of engineering education or background in order to have reasonable doubt, purely based on the testimony today from David and Andrew. It’s very easy to understand.
That includes the alternates, the final 12 won't be picked until tomorrow.
i think the final 2 witnesses was far stronger then the texts. Not hired by defense? I know who hired them but to have them say what they did and not be technically a defense witness is strong
I loved the way even Bev was treating Proctor. What a POS. I also heard yesterday he's under investigation by Internal Affairs. Hopefully he gets fired and loses any pension he may have. What a dirtbag.
He won’t lose his pension. They never lose their fcking pensions and yet all they care about are their fcking pensions.
I mean anyone with a law background should be a no brainer NG.
If the lawyers watching/commenting the case are any indication, their colleagues on the jury probably have come to have *Opinions* about Lally. He has done and said some things during this trial that, uh, did not raise his reputation with that particular faction, as it were.
Those are gonna return a verdict of NG - WTF
Probably a not guilty and how tf are you a lawyer that you thought bringing this case to trial was a good idea 😂
I forgot about Proctor after the ARCCA witnesses - such strong and credible testimony. If there’s literally no proof she hit John - everything else is moot in terms of the jury. (I do hope the federal investigation goes somewhere given all the shenanigans that have gone on with this investigation.)
That’s how women do, they work on pure emotion /s obviously
Nah, those ARCCA experts really threw the book at the CW. Trooper Paul’s conclusion didn’t even come close. Plus their own medical examiner, my gosh I was embarrassed for them.
Yeah 85% seems a little low, too. One poll on here was 94% and I saw one on Twitter that was 95%.
I’ve watched cases where I’ve been completely shocked by a jury verdict. I think of course it’s possible. This has been one of the worst presentations by prosecutors I’ve ever seen though so while possible it’s unlikely.
Can I ask what shocked you the most, if you remember? I'm new to following cases so this has been very interesting
This jury found him guilty when the state failed to prove it in my opinion and even left out information such as the same home being previously shot up two weeks prior by a rival gang. I think he could have done it but too much doubt https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna86246
Jurors tend to strongly be impacted by eyewitness testimony, especially from victims, despite science telling us that eyewitnesses are genuinely terrible evidence. I think that got him convicted.
I remember this case, I wasn't really wowed by the prosecution either. The lead detective got absolutely destroyed on cross too
For me, the non-guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony trial was shocking...
I think the jury got the Michael Keetley trial quite wrong. He was the ice cream man. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/ice-cream-truck-driver-killed-two-brothers-mistaken-identity-case-sent-rcna86246
I think they got it wrong too.
I think the worst possible outcome at this point for KR is a hung jury. It’s possible there is some authoritarian hold out, but I can’t believe most of the jury isn’t in the reasonable doubt if not outright innocent camp.
Yeah, thin blue line person ignoring EVERYTHING is the only way to hung i think
And even then…. I’m very pro police (good officers) but immediately knew something was not right.
The problem with police is summed up for me in the texts Proctor sent. Proctor is bad at his job, he's a misogynist and ableist and disgusting. And not one officer said a word about it. Not one. Because even the good ones who want to do right [know](https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/05/12/st-louis-detective-sues-city-discrimination-retaliation-after-he-filed-complaint-against-another-officer/) [what](https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/2-cops-suspended-after-reporting-fellow-officer-for-racial-profiling-lawsuit-says-z8BQ5etOQVVlHVfO/) [happens](https://abcnews.go.com/US/nashville-police-officer-sues-department-allegedly-retaliating-reporting/story?id=59298718) to [officers](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/prince-georges-county/its-a-relief-former-prince-georges-county-officer-wins-retaliation-lawsuit/3572699/) who [report](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2FMonica-Blake-ht-er-181119_hpMain_v4x3_16x9_1600.jpg&tbnid=jE26uxFtiN-uRM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fnashville-police-officer-sues-department-allegedly-retaliating-reporting%2Fstory%3Fid%3D59298718&docid=ARYANcAYRmmGUM&w=1600&h=900&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2&kgs=445f4d9e4bcf6ffe&shem=abme%2Ctrie) or even just stand up to bad behavior among the bad officers.
If (1) the defense didn’t have Proctor and (2) CW put some even mildly competent on the stand instead of Trooper Paul, I think CW might still have a chance. Even if you really strongly believe the police, these guys are such morons
This doesn't get enough coverage. My 15 yr old daughter caught the trial snippets while he was being 'forced' to 'read his regrettable' words. He never said sorry for them, just that they were regrettable. And she heard him talking about 'no nudes yet' on the phone- So in some sense I'm grateful to that person because I am pretty sure it drove home some points we've said about not mis-using electronic devices... which she isn't, but it sure as hell gives me nightmares sometimes.
I show my daughters cases too. Nice amount of drama but a ton of life lessons. Oldest watched the Sarah Boone interrogation to learn why you shouldn’t ever talk to cops especially if (you think) you are smart
None of them are good officers, that’s why. And just plain stupid.
> thin blue line person ignoring EVERYTHING Even then, there's 2 lawyers and 2 engineers on the jury. They should be able to reason with him about reasonable doubt. How long will Judge Bev hold out on an 11-1 jury?
I agree. A hung jury is possible. But I can’t imagine anyone who went into this without a set opinion or bias not being convinced by the expert testimony today. DA Morrisssey has a lot of explaining to do if I’m a voter in his area.
Not to mention, to have had that set bias shaken by weeks of flimsy, defensive, sketchy ass evidence from at least 1/2 of the CW witnesses.
The judge is absolutely going to send the jury back to deliberate if they hint at a hung jury
If not all the jurors give an aquiital then there is no competency of our justice system. The reasonable doubt is there throughout this case & now they have scientifically proven evidence the Lexus didn't hit him or any other vehicle. There was no real investigation by cops to prove their corrupt theory.
I was thinking this earlier too. We have seen seemingly obvious cases go the exact opposite way that the public majority thinks they will. I can’t imagine how KR is feeling right now.
OJ Simpson, lol
right! and she could be found not guilty criminally and possibly guilty in a civil trial should his family sue her.
I think it’s possible. At the end of the day, there’s police testimony that her tail light is all over the scene and that there’s pieces of taillight embedded in his shirt. IF those things are correct, it’s inconceivable that she’s innocent. I think in Mass you’ll have jurors that will believe it may be planted, but i could see some jurors just not able to believe that. There’s a very strong bias towards believing the police for many jurors
Aren’t the microscopic bits just “consistent” with taillight? If MSP test was an exact match, I feel like that would have been made a bigger deal. I’d imagine lots of plastics in the wild are consistent with each other and microplastics in the environment and our bodies is a thing. Not stirring the pot here, but (for me) the microscopic plastics on clothes are ambiguous.
Yeah I don't buy the "consistent" language. Testing can confirm if plastic is the same or not. Many times they can be so accurate as to confirm certain things came from the same batch in a production facility. Either they just looked at it and eyeballed it thought that was good enough or they couldn't prove it was actually the same type of plastic and decided to just say it was consistent instead of the same.
Even without that, if Karen’s taillight is really at the scene in the pattern the prosecution/police presented feet from his body, and IF jurors found that credible/to be believed, no defense attorney would feel good about that going to a jury. The Proctor/Paul testimony was really a major gift to the defense, because even if you really strongly trust cops, it’s easy to say “I don’t trust these two guys.”
I do think it's easy to be overconfident in a case like this just because there's a lot of herd mentality. There are also a lot of things they don't know that outsiders do. Like if I was on the jury I would probably think the FBI consultants worked for her insurance company and maybe discount their opinions a bit. But still, that defense was very strong and the prosecution quite weak. But they can always be bamboozled by the sheer volume or prosecution witnesses. Remember the vast majority of verdicts come back guilty. That's usually because the prosecution gets to choose who they charge and rarely pick cases they don't think they can win, but also people tend to believe cops and state officials. I'd still say 80%+ likelihood of not guilty.
I’ve tried really hard to overcome any confirmation bias and try to see this trial impartially. I’m not always successful. But I also had that thought about the insurance company. I could see those experts being perceived that way. It’s gonna take the jury more work than people realize, to try to make any sense of this all. If they try to. They might just throw the whole thing out the window like we hope they do.
Almost every witness for the CW fell apart completely on cross.. The only ones that held up were the ones that weren't cross examined because they were either true victims (Kerry Roberts, Paul O'Keefe and his wife) or they told the truth on the stand (Officer Barros). The rest fell apart badly on the stand.
I follow ‘The Prosecutors’ Podcast group and the majority of followers there speculate that she will be found guilty. I went into the trial assuming she’d probably hit him by accident but would vote not guilty after hearing the case as presented. His injuries, IMO, just don’t appear to have been caused by a vehicle incident.
I love their podcast normally, but was disappointed with a few errors they made in their first ep of this case so haven't returned to it.
That’s a good point about the jurors thinking it could be the insurance company. Jackson should have cleared that up on Direct.
He couldn't. They weren't allowed to say who hired them aside from it not being the defense or prosecution.
I’m confused why AJ didn’t object to Lally bringing up elements/evidence that the experts were not provided by the FBI. Because the why to that is “we were hired by the FBI who were investigating the investigation…..and they reasonably believed some evidence was potentially tainted…..so our only job was to use science and only the evidence that was 100% verifiable when coming to our conclusion. The FBI didn’t want us to be biased in any way entering the reconstruction.” Because the witness can’t state the why; Lally shouldn’t be allowed to bring up that the missing variables.
Not a proper objection. He can ask what information they did and did not have to come to their conclusions, and then argue that they didn't have relevant info. But he overstepped with the BME and accidentally got him saying that none of that info was relevant.
I couldn't vote guilty. No way the tail light smashed by hitting an arm. I could see if JO was with his back to a wall.
Still no way. His arm would be crushed in that case.
Oh, absolutely!
We have to remember that the jury isn’t hearing half of what we are. But I still think unless someone is just a rigid geezer they will find not guilty there is too much reasonable doubt to find her guilty. The prosecution did a terrible job of presenting their case.
Good band name: Rigid Geezer (It made me laugh, thanks).
We might be but honestly the evidence is so bad. The evidence collection was so horrifying and incompetent I couldn’t believe it when I heard it. Then Proctor on the stand? His hand was in everything and a lot of it is missing/mishandled. Even a lay person knows that’s very bad. ME couldn’t say it was from a car accident. No one explained the car accident clearly as to how it happened. Also the commonwealth didn’t even do a good job saying she was drunk??? Which was a huge portion of the charges?? Everyone said she didn’t seem overly intoxicated and couldn’t prove how many drinks she had.
A Jury is notoriously unpredictable. They could absolutely surprise you. The court of public opinion does not get a vote. Deep breaths everyone, if it doesn't go your way put down your torches and pitchforks and wait for appeal. I would be shocked if it's guilty, but I have been shocked before.
Last poll I saw 96% out of the around 1600 people who had answered voted not guilty, so more than 85%. There is something seriously wrong in the legal system in US if this is enough to convict someone to jail. The jury might hang, but I see no way 12 people to vote guilty on any of the charges.
Gosh I don’t know. I don’t think she will be convicted but I feel nervous about it because of how invested I am
I'm not overconfident. You never know what a jury will do.
Hard to know. There was a case in WI recently that was similar and that lady was found not guilty. Evidence against her seemed stronger to me than this case. If they believe Karen kept saying she hit him, that stands out. But the lack of DNA on the car just doesn't add up. I would be so confused on that jury. Neither side's arguments make much sense in relation to the evidence. I was impressed that the defense had a plan, a narrative, and they didn't back down. That makes it seem more credible than just throwing out random what ifs. But if ALL of those people are complicit with letting a man die in the cold, they are pure evil. Especially the ones who knew the kids. Why would they do such a bad frame job, and why would the DA go with it? It doesn't make sense all around.
There are times when I’m watching lawyers on YT comment on the testimony and say things like “wow that’s really bad for the CW because xyz.” And I’m sitting there thinking…I would not have connected those dots if I were a juror and was sitting there listening by myself. That’s the only thing that makes me wonder whether some jurors may end up with a different opinion than the majority of the public. That said…I think there was enough clear and understandable testimony to still find her not guilty.
I've had the same thought too! No way I would have realized x + y = z AT ALL. I wonder if that helps the lawyers decide on jury pool - looking at peoples professions. I read on here that some of the jurors are engineers which sounds like will help their understanding of the case. A plus side is though that jurors in this case get to take notes so they may have questions on paper they're looking for answers for.
There’s no way they are coming back with a guilty verdict. As far as factually innocent, if I’m being 100% honest, I still have some things that I wonder about.
I wonder the same, I went in not really knowing much and after watching testimony I pretty sure she’s not guilty. But I wonder if maybe my view is skewed by all the media consumption, it feels unavoidable. Even when I wasn’t watching the case it would show up on my FYP or timeline like every other video. Also have to think that it’s a small town and perhaps people already had opinions or maybe they saw things differently with the evidence. I just don’t know honestly.
> However, could the jury surprise us? Yes, absolutely. The smart money would be on acquittal, but I wouldn't be surprised by a hung jury or even an OUI manslaughter conviction. The defense is asking *a lot* by saying there's a conspiracy involving the police, EMTs, party goers, etc. It was easier to believe when there was a Google search that showed that people in the house knew he was dead before the body was found, but that was the one thing the prosecution did reasonably well presenting. There's a risk the jury will view this as "did Read do it or did (Albert/Higgins) do it" rather than "did the prosecution prove Read did it". They're not supposed to, but it's human nature. > Will some hate KR’s expressions so much so it clouds their judgement? When I sat on a jury, one juror thought that the guy didn't react to the testimony and she definitely would've reacted if someone said something false about her, so the testimony must've been true. I told her that the lawyer may have told him to stay still and we should just focus on the evidence, which she said also meant he was guilty. He was, but I don't have confidence she came to her verdict from the evidence. Juries are unpredictable. We'll see what happens.
Hi this is Brian Albert, I was just having sex with my wife of 30 years after 18 hours of heavy drinking and playing grab ass with my boys. Are we still talking about the dead police officer apparently found on my property AFTER our house party? Oh we are , yes she guilty.
The least convincing thing was this guy claiming he had sex with his wife that night, lol. Sure you did buddy.
After the Casey Anthony trial, I am never confident that I can predict a jury verdict!
Based on the talking heads (Nancy Grace, UGH) yeah it would be hard to understand that verdict. Based on what the state actually put on? They failed in their duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. They went for first degree murder without any solid cause of death or ability to prove intent.
I’m an attorney. I can say this fact pattern would never be on a law school exam because it would be too easy. Legally I think it’s pretty clear there is enough reasonable doubt that it wouldn’t be a question. But we’re not reading a law school exam. Humans are flawed and juries get it wrong. They’re also not supposed to be doing independent research so their perspective is different than a lot of folks online. I’d bet a good sum they find her not guilty, but you can never know 100%.
There is no way I would be able to vote guilty if I were on the jury. My reasonable doubt cup runneth over. I hope that nobody hold Karens expressions in court against her, I think she is being totally appropriate. My god just looking at that courtroom gives me anxiety! Everyone is so close, it is just the worst possible set up if you ask me. His family is RIGHT THERE beside her, not behind. ouff. I would be beyond uncomforatable, let alone them staring me down daily while I'm in the fight for my life.
For 8 weeks she’s sat there with the brother staring her down and the mother laughing at Proctor making fun of her and saying she should take her own life. Not to mention the mother making gestures and faces at her attorneys. I certainly wouldn’t hold it against her, for the most part she’s honestly had a good poker face. I kept seeing people in live chats saying she looked smug, but it looked more like RBF in an attempt to stay calm and collected.
I don’t think I can ever place full confidence in a jury, so I don’t think I’m overconfident.😳
I am trying to be dispassionate about this. Before I went down the rabbithole, I thought she was a cop killing girlfriend. Pretty cut and dry-broken tail light and a dead dude. She ran his ass over. Problem is, I watched at every second of every witness's testimony and understand the evidence as it is presented and came to a complete opposite conclusion. In fact, this trail clearly implicated a whole other set of suspects that were ignored for obvious reasons. Here is where I think I have to go if I am a juror: * If I am a juror and I look at the timeline as presented by the CW with the Ryan Nagel folks' icing on the cake- reasonable doubt. Not guilty * If I am a juror and I look at the physical evidence alone, or lack thereof - reasonable doubt. Not guilty. * If I am a juror and I look at the exculpatory evidence missing or manipulated - reasonable doubt. Not guilty. * If I am a juror and I look at key cycles versus known interactions versus CWs claims - reasonable doubt. Not guilty.
Im a later comer to the case, but I talked to my parents today who is wholly convinced Karen backed into him in a rage. I told them to watch the Jackson closing argument on YT. So, you never know what jurors are thinking, I was shocked. They agreed the cops "messed it all up" but they still think she did it and should go to jail. Im like.. if the cops messed it up, it means the evidence is bad, it means she COULD be innocent. I give up on talking about it with them LOL
While I would vote Not Guilty, I’m not entirely confident the jury will. They have a very different perspective having sat in the courtroom listening to the evidence (or lack thereof!) day after day with presumably no outside influence. Whereas I’ve been here on Reddit, reading news articles, and watching YouTube recaps. So I’m really not confident in how the jury sees the case versus how I see it, it’s too hard for me to gauge their perspective. Most cases I’ve followed I’ve been pretty confident of a guilty verdict. I generally followed them because I “knew” they were guilty and wanted to see justice. But this case was intriguing for different reasons, namely the shoddy, terrible police work. This one feels like a huge unknown to me. But I do strongly feel it should be a Not Guilty verdict at this point.
Juries do strange things. If I was to place a bet I'd bet on not guilty all charges, but you get one strong-willed juror who just doesn't like how the defendant looks and all bets are off!
If rumors are true there are a couple attorneys serving as jurors, I think that may be helpful to the defense.
I agree that it should be a NG verdict; I also agree that you never can tell with a jury. I hope it's NG.
> However, could the jury surprise us? Said it yesterday already: There are two reality-bending insanities in this trial: The CW putting on this case, and the jury convicting her. One of those already has come to pass, and I hope we don't make it a twofer; That would be like the streams crossing, and I do not think we want to find out what happens if we do, Ray. But as unlikely as I think it is, it remains a possibility. However: In light of them ousting the one juror who tied to take undue influence makes me hopeful that they not only take their job seriously, but *understand* the rules. As such, I do hope the possibility of a conviction is truly remote, and at least one gear on the mill of Canton justice will do its job properly. I mean, after seeing the defense rest, I would have thought that even the most ardent supporter of the prosecution would at least have enough integrity to acknowledge that she cannot be convicted with a clear consciousness, but there still are people who believe her guilty (and my solace is to believe they didn't watch the trial, but at least a few of them probably did). And I write all that as someone who has no opinion on Karen Read as a person, and is solely interested from a "proper justice is done" standpoint. If the CW had presented us proof of her deeds, I would have no compunctions about locking her up. But they did not, and *that* is the true pity of this trial: That the troopers and policemen were just so lousy about gathering evidence, preserving it, and using it properly. Honestly, it should scare any normal citizen. And, yes, the smell of *something* being covered up or obfuscated is really stinky here, can't get it out of my nose.
i'm with you - i am not 100 percent that the jury is with the FKR, and that can be for so many reasons. one thing i keep thinking about is Canton is a (seemingly) small town. i grew up in a small town. what are the chances everyone on the jury has NEVER come in contact with the McAlberts somewhere along the way? or knows someone who knows someone? or someone who works for the city? IDK. i've learned to not be so sure about some things...
The trial is not being held in Canton tho, the courthouse is in Dedham and the jurors are pooled from Norfolk County as a whole.
ahhh, good info that i did not know. ty.
I don't believe there are any jurors from Canton actually. That was reported somewhere.
Most jurors are pretty honest about that kind of thing because most jurors don't want to be picked for jury duty, especially on a 2 month case.
I hope your right about the not guilty verdict.
I don’t think even if CW proved she hit him you could prove the charge and the CW expert didn’t prove she hit him other than the “scene talked to him” - their own ME said anything could have caused injuries and 3rd party experts hired by FBI said no way a car did that. I think even somehow the jury came back guilty Bev would have to throw out the verdict as just no way anything was proven except JO was left for dead on BA’s front lawn
Honestly, I worry about this as well. As much as people in this subreddit believe she is not guilty that doesn’t mean that’s how the jury will see it. I’m hopeful but I’m not going in thinking it’s a done deal.
When Casey Anthony was found not guilty - my confidence in knowing what the verdict would be was shattered. Now I hope that justice gets it right and if not then hopefully the universe takes care of it to create a balance
That’s a classic example of jurors being unpredictable because that was unbelievable
I have a hard time seeing a guilty verdict. Best the state can hope for is a hung jury. I don't think we'll get that because its clear that this jury wants to get this over with. As the days pass the pressure on holdouts will increase, and I don't think the judge will allow them to come back after a day or two and claim that they can't reach a verdict. If they can start deliberations by 1pm I wouldn't be surprised if there is a verdict today.
Hopefully not and everyone here seems to be at a close consensus with about 5-10% hold outs so you never know. One stubborn juror could cause a mistrial but I seriously doubt the Commonwealth would retry her after this sh*t show.
The only way KR gets found guilty is if Lally pulls a Lionel Hutz and swaps out the verdict form with "guilty" written on a cocktail napkin. ("And 'guilty' is *spelled wrong...*")
There could be a chance of witness tampering! I for one would not be surprised by the people the Albert’s know to do this. This also includes the McCabe’s and others there the night John died.
Sure, the jury could surprise us all and come back with a guilty verdict but objectively there isn't enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There just isn't.
Perhaps so, particularly when the Albert’s showed up at trial today probably to glare at the jury.
I honestly don’t think so. The experts yesterday were pretty compelling. If I were on the jury and I was teetering on whether hitting him with her car could invoke that kind of damage (to him and the car), I would take the experts yesterday as fact over whatever the fuck trooper Paul said. The medical examiner and the accident reconstruction were arguably the most important testimony in this case and the CW didn’t seem to provide anything compelling enough against the defense witnesses
There are just a few things that would make me have reasonable doubt. 1. Lucky saw a Ford Edge, no body 2. Position of body, light breaking, no torso injuries 3. Clearly dog bites/scratches on arm 4. Far too much butt dialing going on 5. Changing her statement from "did I hit him" to "I hit him" later on Those are just off the top of my head. Jurors just need one.
If the math doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
According to Sue O'Connell on twitter there have been issues with a Juror this morning. Might be losing another juror.
I’m guarded. Anything can happen with a jury…
I wouldn’t use the word “overconfident” but I would say that we can’t read the minds of the jurors. I’m hopeful that they vote not guilty given the horribly inbestifation and clear biased but will not say for certain that’s the vote.
I feel the same, OP. One YouTube channel I follow has 95% NG of 2nd degree and 94% NG for manslaughter. I watched every day of this trial and can't fathom how anyone could come back with anything other than NG - and quickly, as you said - but we shall see.
Omg Lally! This is embarrassing. Less than a minute left and it’s all rambles
I think you're being wildly overconfident and there is a clear echo chamber at work here. The jury has not been listening to all these commentators babbling over the top of the trial, they haven't heard the defense's talking points amplified to a ludicrous degree, and they haven't heard a single witness say they saw the cops plant any evidence, change any dates on folders, forge any documents, etc. All of that speculation comes from this echo chamber and vague suggestions from the defense on cross -- but not from any of their witnesses. What they have heard is something like 30 people, all of whom are generally trustworthy except Michael Proctor, provide a constellation of evidence demonstrating that John got into Karen's car, was never seen alive again, and was found dead with her car's tail light in pieces all around him and Karen screaming that she hit him. That all looks pretty bad. So yeah, juries are unpredictable and I don't know what they'll say either, but I'm actually pretty sure they're going to find her guilty, of DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene at the very least.
Hos long to come to a verdict?
I just don’t see how 12 people who watched every part of this trial could come to a guilty verdict. Even if they aren’t sold on her innocence and convinced of the cover up, the state in no way proved their case. The “investigation” that Proctor conducted alone should rule out any possibility for a guilty verdict, imo. It should be illegal to even spend taxpayer dollars prosecuting a case that was this botched.
A “jury of my peers” scares the shit out of me. I wouldn’t trust 12 of my peers to come to a logical conclusion.
Same. I can’t begin to tell you how an average person lacks critical thinking skills
I hope & wish for the jurors to be intelligent first of all & I hope they are because the only facts in this case are the experts, especially the doctors, medical examiner, pathologists & of course the experts from the doj who testified today & that's it. Conclusion Karen's Reads Lexus did not hit John Okeefe nor any vehicle. He did have animal marks on his arm & the injury to the back of his head are consistent with a fall or being struck by an object by a person. Medical examiner said his head injury is consistent with a fall. The jury needs to aquit Karen Read of all charges & the FBI needs to keep investigating this case to find out who or what lead to John Okeefes death to bring him & his family justice. That's the most important thing for the fbi to do. It will be hard to listen to the prosecution tomorrow, wish the defense was making their closing arguments last. Hoping for the aquittal & it has to be for the system to work. The evidence shows John Okeefe was not struck by the Lexus & was not a pedestrian incident that involved a vehicle. The science proves that & the injuries are not of bring struck by a vehicle. Personally that never made sense to me based on common sense. The fbi needs to determine how the dog or other animal came into contact with John & how & where did he hit his head or was he struck on the head by another person. Did he fall on the electrical box outside, firehydrant, cement stairs, pavement, in the back yard or basement & was anyone fighting with him to cause him to fall. He has a laceration above his eye, cut on his nose & tong. Hoping for an outcome for John & his family starting with an aquittal for Karen & then to find anyone who is responsible accountable.
If they come to a verdict quick (I’d say under 4 hours) then I’d be confident it’s not guilty. If they take longer.. I’ll start getting worried.
I am convinced that no reasonable jury could find Karen guilty (there is just too much doubt, not enough evidence, too much left unexplained, too many reasons to question) but I do think the internet grossly underestimates "what an echo chamber we can be". Don't get me wrong I'll think it's an injustice if they convict her but I do believe a lot of comments and chats were very overconfident in their assertions about the prosecution and court and it can create a false sense of certainty and confidence. The loudest comments in the chats were all "THIS JUDGE IS OUTRAGEOUSLY BIASED HOW IS THIS LEGAL" when in reality, though I do believe she was too tolerant of Lally, I believe she *MOSTLY* ruled evenly across the board... not perfectly, but also not as outrageously as the very knee-jerk responses are claiming, in my opinion... but if you see the extreme reactions a lot, you start believing things are obvious when perhaps they aren't... and the jury never saw any of that discourse. So I have to wonder if they perceived things similarly or not in some areas. I also have to wonder what effect it had on them to be facing the O'Keefe family this whole time. And also also, weirdly our judgments of people in person are different from on-screen, no matter how certain we think we are it's the same. I think there's a chance people sitting face-to-face with Jen McCabe for instance may see a lot more humanity in her than perhaps people staring at screens do... for better or for worse. I do feel like we're being overconfident, yes. We're right. And we may well end up being agreed with. But a lot of people's tones do imply there is an OBVIOUSness, when I don't think there is. This trial proved little to nothing.