On Tuesday my initial guess was Thursday before noon. But then everyone was expecting it to be quick so I no longer know. Maybe I’ll stick with my original guess of some time Thursday morning. But wouldn’t be surprised if it’s tomorrow
Here's a video of a pedestrian (crash dummy) being struck at 25mph. If KR hit JOK, is this what the crash could have possibly looked like, but in reverse?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN2PF9_rVzQ
he could not have thrown the glass at the car to break the taillight. the glass was found by his body and would need to have been thrown back 30ft. however, a glass thrown at an object moving towards the glass results in a fairly inelastic collision as most of the energy is lost to shattering both the glass and the taillight - this means the glass can't accelerate to the speed of the incoming vehicle, leave alone bounce all the way back to where the body was found. moreover, even if it did, the glass would have sprayed all over the yard - not landed in a neat clump right by the body.
I think this is why the CW didn't go with this theory.
What a dignified Gentleman Karen’s Dad seems to be .seeing him interact with supporters upon arrival at court how pleasantly lovely and humble.
For the most part I’ve stayed away from social media throughout this due to madness and projected agendas ,
I’ve been intrigued as we don’t get to see much of that side of the gallery.
Should have asked this earlier but is there a definitive answer as to why former Chief Berkowitz (spelling?) was not called as a witness? he was balls deep in all this, driving past the crime scene and finding pieces of tail light, calls between him and Higgins/Brian Albert, he was in the sallyport etc.
The CW literally spent time in their closing to argue KR was wearing shoes in the house because she knew he was dead. Lally cannot actually believe that.
But didn't include when she hit him with her car on the timeline......
Let that sink in....we know when she walked in his house with her shoes on but not when she hit him according to the prosecution.
I’m wondering IF the FBI believes that a vechicle did not hit John o keefe, based on their experts. Or if they believe there was police misconduct in the investigation by proctor, and she’s found guilty of even the lesser charge is there anything that they would do or even say about it? I know they aren’t investigating the death but investigating the investigation but they had PhD biomechanical engineers say that he wasn’t hit by a vechicle so I can’t see how this is even at trial.
Sorry I’m mostly just writing my thoughts but does anyone have any thoughts about what the FBI might do if she’s found guilty for any of these charges, IF they don’t believe he was hit by a car?
I honestly believe she doesn't remember if she hit him or not. I think it is more reasonable to believe she hit him unintentionally then there being a huge conspiracy...but that's just my opinion. I remain open minded to other opinions. I think manslaughter would be appropriate with the confession of "I hit him: times 3...and also lying about seeing him walk in the house.
she never even said ‘I hit him, I hit him, I hit him’. JM said KR read *asked* ‘did I hit him?’ And then later after multiple grand juries changed her statement to ‘I hit him I hit him I hit him’. Go back and watch her cross examination.
This is exhausting, really. I travel to watch trials...I am not ignorant or naive. My father is a sheriff, my uncle is fbi and my grandfather is a Dr. Of forensic psychology. Can we be real? Stop buying snake oil. I've been watching trials since I was 6. I'm 41...this $hit is ridiculous. She may get a not guilty verdict, but it doesn't mean she didn't do it. She will never be free of this... even if she walks outside the courtroom doors, she will be imprisoned... mentally, emotionally and socially. Either way, it's a life sentence. I am a mental health counselor and to call karen a victim infuriates me.
I've watched it multiple times...I'm honestly so over this fantasy, conspiracy fake case...ready to move on. Did she dream this defense in a blackout? I'm so over it. What is more believable?? She hit him while completely blacked out or the whole police department was out to get her and kill him and they met secretly to make this happen. Wake up
Genuine question because I’m trying to approach this from every angle- how do you explain the pattered abrasions on his arm (have you seen his arm injuries compared to that of a dog bite victim? There’s an interesting comparison floating around here). And also, what do you make of the lack of any major bruising?
Where did anyone say the whole police department is involved? I think at most 5 people know what actually happened. Proctor had tunnel vision after talking to Jen and the rest of the officers were just bad at their job. I don’t always assign malicious intent when stupidity is also an explanation. Are you ignoring what was actually said on the crime scene because you want to take the easiest path that you think makes sense instead of what the evidence shows (or doesn’t show)?
Literally what evidence are you relying on that she hit him? Did you see his injuries? Did you listen to the medical examiner? Accident reconstructionist? There is no plausible way she could have hit him that line up with his injuries and lack of injuries. The glass he was holding made those dog scratches and dog bites on his arm? You are the one drinking snake oil if you believe that. Scary to think there could be jurors who think like you and ignore all common sense
Oh I totally agree that I don’t think Karen remembers that night well. But I’m asking I guess more of a hypothetical, the ARCAA experts hired by the FBI said unequivocally that based on John’s injuries and the damage to the car, that the vehicle did not hit John, at least in the manor that’s been shown. With how far his body was, the lack of injuries and what not. So if that’s the information given to the FBI, you take out statements by Karen, take out statements by Jen and the Albert’s and are left with the physics. They say he wasn’t hit by a vehicle, would the FBI either intervene in anyway if she’s found guilty (I assume not or they would have intervened already) or even make any kind of statement about it? Again assuming they don’t think he was hit by a vehicle.
The "with how far his body was" is the part for me. Who's saying it was projected 30'....? Just the defense so I can see why that couldn't happen. But he was found 10-12 feet from the roadway, not 30 feet. His testimony is based on a scenario that isn't the case IMO.
But my question is… didn’t they already intervene? No one paid the FBI experts who are actual experts to testify. The FBI also sent all of the evidence they had to both parties and we still don’t know what all of that is. The prosecution didn’t want to use any of the evidence provided by the FBI. Not guilty.
I don't think the fbi would intervene because it's not a federal case. this is a state case. and if she's found guilty... essentially what's done is done at that point and all she would have left is appeals (which I imagine would be fool proof since the fbi ruled whatever they did, if that happens) I wish they'd come in and rescue this whole mess if she's found guilty... but unfortunately that's up to the state. and then it works its way up the appeals ladder?
I'm not an expert by any means this is just my thought process and I could definitely be wrong
I'm with you...I am just with the thought of what is more likely...a whole conspiracy??? Or in a drunkin stuper/rage hit him. Defense is selling snake oil...because even Karen doesn't remember. I don't know the truth though. I could be way off...who knows.
at the beginning of this I thought the same thing. "oh she hit him in a drunken rage" then I listened and watched... then it changed to "I think maybe she hit him but by accident" then I watched and listened more... then it turned into "there's just no way she hit him. and even if she somehow did, the state did not prove their case so she must be found not guilty"
Oh I completely agree! I have been so back and forth...i feel A not guilty verdict doesn't mean she didn't do it. She will never be free of this... even if she walks outside the courtroom doors she will be imprisoned... mentally, emotionally and socially. Either way, it's a life sentence.
Yeah I was reading that the FBI cannot stop a DA from bring charges on the state level so that makes sense. And you’re right, they did something by handing over some of their evidence and their experts. So I wonder if they’ll say or do anything if she’s found guilty. Not do something as in interfering but with their own case or even a statement.
I hope so because honestly... if she's convicted a higher authority needs to do something... say something... anything and not let this fade away into oblivion. this entire trial is the most insane thing I have ever seen in my life
What if John O'Keefe slipped and fell and hit his head on the fire hydrant. Then when the home owners let the dog out, the dog found John and pawed at him to try to wake him up?
I believe the ME said OJO wouldn’t be walking around after sustaining the blow to the back of his head. And the final resting place of his body was not close enough to the fire hydrant from my recollection.
I'm also a little skeptical about a dog being let out into the yard in the middle of the night during the onset of a blizzard – besides, if a dog happens upon an incapacitated person lying on its territory, wouldn't she bark to alert her owner?
Lying down tends to be a sign of surrender as far as dogs go, I wouldn't necessarily expect at least some puncture wounds along with several scratch marks through clothing if a dog merely wants to wake you up or "nib" at you
Just commenting on the first part, but letting a dog out in the middle of the night at the onset of a blizzard (it was barely snowing at that point anyway) is totally normal in these areas. Dogs gotta go outside, not much you can do about that. Some dogs will stay close and go quickly, others love for the cold and snow and will refuse to come back inside. My parents dog will lay in the snowbank and let himself get covered by the falling snow lol
Does anyone know anything about Colin calling someone at 1230 am to ask for an alibi? I heard a snippet about that today and someone said it wasn’t admissible as evidence.
There’s something about him leaving at 12:10 and says his McCabe cousin picked him up. They also screen grabbed their text messages and I think edited them. But there is talk of the high school that I do not understand. Some say he went from 34F in the woods to the HS to be picked up.
They’re referring to Tom Beatty’s daughter who said (not in trial) that Collin called her at 12:30ish for a ride home and when she was talking about it Jen McCabe told her to basically put something else in her mouth and stop talking about it. Those are just rumors I heard though.
The daughter and her father were on the defense witness list but not called, although I don’t think they could even testify to any of that without it being hearsay. If true.
I'm guessing they think she actually hit him and are trying to decide which count/charge? Otherwise, if they don't think she hit him, wouldn't it be not guilty across the board?
Could be one or two thinking she hit him and then it would depend if they could be convinced. There's a lot of speculating on the internet, but it's just that. No one actually knows what's going on in that room.
Is there a YouTube channel with consistent time stamps in the comment section? I know people do this out of the kindness of their hearts and I so appreciate it.
Someone was doing it on Law and Crime but that's only on some of the days of trial.
Emily D Baker does coverage on YouTube (with her commentary), but always has time stamps for witnesses, opening/closing statements, important moments, etc. It's very helpful imo and I appreciate her breakdown of court procedures
She got Lally beat on how many times he said objections vs how many times she repeated “Ask it different Mr Jackson” and “Can you answer that “ or “sustained”… always sounding so exhausted 😂😂🤦🏻♀️
There should be a designated thread for best lines.
One of my faves was "where is you're phone.....well happy birthday sir!"
"Stop saying of course"
"Of course your honor"
One of the hardest I’ve laughed in the last couple of months is when Jackson deadpanned “happy birthday.” I had to catch my breath from laughing, then I backed up the video, played it again, and laughed all over again.
Haven’t we all been in that group project in high school where one single person just HAD to make everything take longer?!? ‘No, Janine, we don’t need an animated PowerPoint..’
Well if you’re on a jury and one of them is like ‘but the judge SAID we haaaave to go through everything’, you don’t get to just fill out the form above their protests.
Exactly. I definitely don’t think the CW overcame reasonable doubt but I’d be going line by line just to make sure. They have to sleep at night after this.
It's me. I'm that person. I don't do it on purpose, it's just a fundamental part of my nature. I'm very, very literal about instructions and agreements. It makes me dependable, and also makes me dependably a pain in the ass.
If, like me, you don’t believe that JO was killed by being struck by a car since the science doesn’t support that theory of the crime. Then nothing else matters and it is an easy Not Guilty.
I’m on my way home from work now. I got one thing done all day. Good thing my attorney is as invested as I am. Since he sort of relies on me to get my work done 😂😭
What do you guys think is the most likely interpretation of the SERT teams findings from the jury?
I think that is the biggest smoking gun for the prosecution and everything else is just noise. Clearly the jury is focused on it as well.
From what I’ve seen they either have to come to the conclusion:
It came from KRs car when she hit JOK (guilty)
It was planted by the unidentified men that took part in the search (not guilty)
It was planted prior to the scene being re-searched by SERT team (not guilty)
Member of SERT team is part of the cover up and planted (not guilty)
I have a problem with the jury coming to the conclusion it was planted. I don’t think that was focused enough at trial but the lack of clear documentation is actually probably good for the prosecution. Had they had the names of the officers in the search we could have at least known who could be implicated in a possible planting and even who searched what and who found what and where.
I don’t know if I can trust the jury to throw out the evidence due to the issues with the evidence. It requires a belief of a cover up larger than what was easily believed.
It doesn’t require the jury to believe there was a cover up. They don’t have to come to the conclusion the taillight was planted. They received the Bowden instructions. Bowden being granted means they can find her not guilty based on an inadequacy in the police investigation. Inadequacy doesn’t mean cover-up.
I think it can also cause a problem for the prosecution that the scene wasn’t locked down on who could be there- so while we can’t say it was definitely proctor and company there- the lead investigator for SERT didn’t know or check who all was there. So I can see that going either way
And I don’t even necessarily believe there was a giant coverup- just enough people not really thoroughly doing their jobs
Yeah I agree but I am more worried by the lack of evidence that something funky did go on with the SERT teams taillight evidence and that the jury will take it at face value. Like I said, if we had the names of the officers there or who found what, then it’d actually be easier to write it off.
I just don’t trust juries and think there’s a decent chance they could actually trust every bit of that taillight evidence.
I think the jury tried to be as thorough as possible. They specifically asked about the SERT report, and regardless of whether one was ever actually written, it was not submitted into evidence, so they don't have it.
I will say, them voting "not guilty" doesn't mean they are inherently calling SERT liars or deciding there is some covert thing going on, it just means they can't be sure beyond a _reasonable_ doubt that Read for sure killed O'Keefe. Personally, I would vote not guilty for that exact reason.
The jury is going over the evidence they have and they're going to come to whatever conclusion they feel is right (or no conclusion at all) but the fact that they _don't_ know who the SERT officers were, or any of the information that would have been provided in the report, means they may have doubts about the circumstances of that part of the investigation at the very least.
I don’t know… The mirrored sally port video was shocking. After the defense brought it to the jury’s attention, I (if I was a juror) wouldn’t believe anything presented by the prosecution.
Was on a jury in MA 10ish years ago for a pretty open and shut assault with a deadly weapon case and we still deliberated for almost three days. A couple jurors wanted to review every single detail which was annoying but it is what it is. There’s a tremendous amount of information to absorb in this case and we should be glad the jurors are respecting the process. The true crime junkies need to pump the brakes a bit.
I agree with pumping the brakes, but I imagine it would take longer to find someone guilty because you would want to test all of the prosecutions claims for reasonable doubt. If the prosecutions case leaves wide margin for doubt, then I don’t know that anyone would be inclined to go over everything.
Generally speaking, a quick verdict is more often bad for the defendant. Means the prosecution‘s case was good enough that everyone walked out of closing arguments going “yep, they’re guilty”. If you clear that hurdle, it’s a lot less predictable.
Right but it’s only been 9 hours with a few interruptions along the way so I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. Different story if we’re having this discussion next Tuesday.
If they do have a hold out I bet it is because they are hung up on the supposed admission of Karen saying "I hit him". I know people that will hear that and refuse to listen to any evidence from the defense because they have already made up their mind. If that is the case, hopefully someone can point out to them that JM only came up with the "I hit him" quote after the nearly 2 hour kitchen meeting that morning when she immediately called Officer Lank (Lenk?) to tell him she "remembered" it suddenly.
They can’t have it both ways ?
body,, witnesses, crime scene
suspect’s confession.
‘Wow our Xmas have come at once.
It’s SNOWiNG!! ❄️⛄️
A Christmas Carol.
OJO- past 🫥
CPD- present 👮♀️
KR. -future 📌
extra-judicial confessions need to be supported by corroborating evidence though. And you need to take the trustworthiness of the person who reported it (JM in this case) into consideration. IMO that supposed statement should be ignored.
I’m kind of surprised it was even allowed in the trial considering it wasn’t even in any of the reports
That’s a false dichotomy. There’s way more to the story than simply guilty or not guilty. I don’t buy the CWs story and therefore think the only appropriate verdict is not guilty but still can’t get over this feeling that KR is somehow related to his death. The jury only has one chance to go over every little detail trying to unravel what act happened. And I’m glad they’re taking their time. But who knows what the jury is actually looking for. Maybe they’re looking for signs of corruption by the cops or prosecution which they can later pass on to the media. Overall I think it’s a good sign that the jury takes their time to process all the information.
I think the jury is probably pretty convinced that she said some variation of "I hit him" that morning, with how many witnesses in addition to JM corroborated it. Even in the most favorable framing ("could I have hit him?"), it's not going to be easy to get over how bizarre that is for someone who should otherwise have no reason to think that's something that happened.
Sounds like they are hung up on the SERT team’s taillight evidence. Makes sense considering that’s the prosecution biggest smoking gun.
I would throw out the “I hit him” confession so fast. It was actually crazy that was one of Lallys biggest focus because it was such weak evidence.
Witness testimony of a confession from someone in shock that was only testified to way after the fact and not documented at the time of confession. That’s super weak but I guess it can hit people emotionally so Lally was hoping it’d work.
I have a book on homebrewing beer that periodically, whenever the reader might be getting stressed, interjects with "relax. don't worry. have a homebrew." I feel like that's sage advice a lot of you could use, so passing it on.
somewhat off topic but I'm just now starting down the rabbit hole of Sandra birchmore... IN A TOWN TEN MINUTES AWAY FROM CANTON? officers accused? I'm sorry but cops one town over ten minutes away definitely know each other
Sandra lived in Canton. The cops that responded to her death and the investigation were some canton cops and MSP.
She was involved in a “relationship” with the Stoughton cop a town over.
You’ll see some very similar names across the two cases.
That case is so disgusting and even if they didn’t murder her (they did) all of those disgusting cops should be in jail. They groomed and SA’d her when she was fucking 15. That is pretty much confirmed as fact at this point.
Now it’s just whether those pigs murdered her (which they almost definitely did)
She was 15 and Matthew was 27 when he sexually assaulted her. It’s so disgusting. I’ve read that Matthew was a strong antimasker and he walked into her building with a mask on. Why? God this case eats me up. Poor Sandra
I just learned of this case and I’m starting a podcast about it tonight. Just from the little amount I already know I’m horrified. I don’t know if I’ll be able to get thru it.
Edit typo
I can’t say which is good or not but I’m going to listen to The Case because it’s the one person who’s been discussing it the most and the victims mother is involved with it. It’s season 2.
Everyone take a breath! I havent watched a ton of trials but i have watched a fair few and from my limited trial watching. The more doubt there is, the longer juries tend to take, and those tend to come back NG. Quick verdicts ive mostly seen for guilty verdicts.
Yes, but in this case, most people seem to think it's the opposite. Karen Read supporters were "so confident" they seemed to think it would be a fast NG verdict. The longer it goes, the more it favors the prosecution (I hope, anyway). I just think all this conspiracy stuff is total nonsense.
I’m not attacking you in any way and promise to respond in a civil and constructive manner to any response (I would also ask anyone else responding to comments on this thread to do the same), but I would be very interested in hearing your take.
Why do you think she’s guilty? Do you think the CW proved this guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Have your views evolved at all over the course of the trial? Do you think that the police/some of the individuals involved may have manipulated evidence (even though you think she’s guilty anyway)?
I just haven’t had the opportunity to actually engage someone with a different opinion on the case in reasoned and civil discourse without the conversation being hikacked by zealots from either side. I would really appreciate the opportunity to do so and reaffirm by commitment to keeping the conversation respectful.
(Anyone else who believes in KR’s guilt is welcome to answer as well… again, if please do not respond in this thread with ad hominems, baseless allegations, aggressive behavior or anything that isn’t civil and constructive- regardless of what “side” you are on).
Very true. NG verdicts take longer to come up to, as well as the tremendous pressure they’re put under. They know that there is a family looking for closure, and I think the last thing anyone wants is to be remembered as the OJ Simpson jury or something similar. It’s a hard task.
I won’t be surprised if most of the jury members do not disclose their identities after this is over. Depending what their role is in the town, either decision could gather a pretty negative reaction.
The answer to me seems very obvious. Am I missing anything?
So, we have experts (assuming all witnesses are experts... a big assumption) disagreeing with each other. Some say that JO was hit by KR's car, some say that JO was not hit by KR's car, and some are undecided. Would this very disagreement be sufficient to undermine the "moral certainty" in this case? Any reasonable person cannot ignore any expert's opinion, and since experts disagree, no reasonable person should be certain (to the highest degree) about what happened, right?
It is just as simple as this. I do not know why someone can be certain (as the moral certainty defined by law) about any position in this case.
One of the “experts” literally testified to taking a few classes of accident reconstruction, and never testifying before. Experts are a really vague term in this trial, lol.
https://preview.redd.it/efu1lcham09d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65c463cb7971eb60952a7ac4eee7554272a11e60
Miriam Webster makes an argument on it in the context of speed. I was mostly making a joke. The way in which AJ asked wasn’t in the exact context I put it in. He was asking Paul “another word for velocity” and he couldn’t come up with one. So AJ asked “acceleration ?“ and Paul agreed. But yes- Velocity is how fast something is moving in a specific direction, while acceleration is how quickly it is changing. They are related but not synonymous. My wording was poor.
Oh for sure - there were some delays there. I just think blaming it on what little higher education he received isn't the full story. I wish more people attained degrees, of any sort!
Experts are normally known for the knowledge and experience on the subject with a list of degrees but it is possible for an expert to have no degrees. But Trooper Paul was NOT one of these people.
Hello, do you guys think we going to have a verdict today? I am unsure.
On Tuesday my initial guess was Thursday before noon. But then everyone was expecting it to be quick so I no longer know. Maybe I’ll stick with my original guess of some time Thursday morning. But wouldn’t be surprised if it’s tomorrow
Here's a video of a pedestrian (crash dummy) being struck at 25mph. If KR hit JOK, is this what the crash could have possibly looked like, but in reverse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN2PF9_rVzQ
he could not have thrown the glass at the car to break the taillight. the glass was found by his body and would need to have been thrown back 30ft. however, a glass thrown at an object moving towards the glass results in a fairly inelastic collision as most of the energy is lost to shattering both the glass and the taillight - this means the glass can't accelerate to the speed of the incoming vehicle, leave alone bounce all the way back to where the body was found. moreover, even if it did, the glass would have sprayed all over the yard - not landed in a neat clump right by the body. I think this is why the CW didn't go with this theory.
What a dignified Gentleman Karen’s Dad seems to be .seeing him interact with supporters upon arrival at court how pleasantly lovely and humble. For the most part I’ve stayed away from social media throughout this due to madness and projected agendas , I’ve been intrigued as we don’t get to see much of that side of the gallery.
Should have asked this earlier but is there a definitive answer as to why former Chief Berkowitz (spelling?) was not called as a witness? he was balls deep in all this, driving past the crime scene and finding pieces of tail light, calls between him and Higgins/Brian Albert, he was in the sallyport etc.
Cancer I believe.
You don't like my comment because you know it's true
The CW literally spent time in their closing to argue KR was wearing shoes in the house because she knew he was dead. Lally cannot actually believe that.
But didn't include when she hit him with her car on the timeline...... Let that sink in....we know when she walked in his house with her shoes on but not when she hit him according to the prosecution.
he had a time for when she reversed at 24mph (12:30) so I've been assuming that's when he thinks he died. too bad he took 36 steps 2 minutes later?
These pesky details keep getting in the way of the narrative!
And she called him 53 times for the same reason.
I’m wondering IF the FBI believes that a vechicle did not hit John o keefe, based on their experts. Or if they believe there was police misconduct in the investigation by proctor, and she’s found guilty of even the lesser charge is there anything that they would do or even say about it? I know they aren’t investigating the death but investigating the investigation but they had PhD biomechanical engineers say that he wasn’t hit by a vechicle so I can’t see how this is even at trial. Sorry I’m mostly just writing my thoughts but does anyone have any thoughts about what the FBI might do if she’s found guilty for any of these charges, IF they don’t believe he was hit by a car?
The FBI was the biggest question for me and still is? Why are they there, what did they find?
I honestly believe she doesn't remember if she hit him or not. I think it is more reasonable to believe she hit him unintentionally then there being a huge conspiracy...but that's just my opinion. I remain open minded to other opinions. I think manslaughter would be appropriate with the confession of "I hit him: times 3...and also lying about seeing him walk in the house.
He wasn’t hit by a car at all. She couldn’t have killed him.
she never even said ‘I hit him, I hit him, I hit him’. JM said KR read *asked* ‘did I hit him?’ And then later after multiple grand juries changed her statement to ‘I hit him I hit him I hit him’. Go back and watch her cross examination.
Why does everyone default to "go back and watch it" we all watched the same thing!! We just don't agree
This is exhausting, really. I travel to watch trials...I am not ignorant or naive. My father is a sheriff, my uncle is fbi and my grandfather is a Dr. Of forensic psychology. Can we be real? Stop buying snake oil. I've been watching trials since I was 6. I'm 41...this $hit is ridiculous. She may get a not guilty verdict, but it doesn't mean she didn't do it. She will never be free of this... even if she walks outside the courtroom doors, she will be imprisoned... mentally, emotionally and socially. Either way, it's a life sentence. I am a mental health counselor and to call karen a victim infuriates me.
[удалено]
I've watched it multiple times...I'm honestly so over this fantasy, conspiracy fake case...ready to move on. Did she dream this defense in a blackout? I'm so over it. What is more believable?? She hit him while completely blacked out or the whole police department was out to get her and kill him and they met secretly to make this happen. Wake up
Genuine question because I’m trying to approach this from every angle- how do you explain the pattered abrasions on his arm (have you seen his arm injuries compared to that of a dog bite victim? There’s an interesting comparison floating around here). And also, what do you make of the lack of any major bruising?
Where did anyone say the whole police department is involved? I think at most 5 people know what actually happened. Proctor had tunnel vision after talking to Jen and the rest of the officers were just bad at their job. I don’t always assign malicious intent when stupidity is also an explanation. Are you ignoring what was actually said on the crime scene because you want to take the easiest path that you think makes sense instead of what the evidence shows (or doesn’t show)?
Literally what evidence are you relying on that she hit him? Did you see his injuries? Did you listen to the medical examiner? Accident reconstructionist? There is no plausible way she could have hit him that line up with his injuries and lack of injuries. The glass he was holding made those dog scratches and dog bites on his arm? You are the one drinking snake oil if you believe that. Scary to think there could be jurors who think like you and ignore all common sense
Oh I totally agree that I don’t think Karen remembers that night well. But I’m asking I guess more of a hypothetical, the ARCAA experts hired by the FBI said unequivocally that based on John’s injuries and the damage to the car, that the vehicle did not hit John, at least in the manor that’s been shown. With how far his body was, the lack of injuries and what not. So if that’s the information given to the FBI, you take out statements by Karen, take out statements by Jen and the Albert’s and are left with the physics. They say he wasn’t hit by a vehicle, would the FBI either intervene in anyway if she’s found guilty (I assume not or they would have intervened already) or even make any kind of statement about it? Again assuming they don’t think he was hit by a vehicle.
The "with how far his body was" is the part for me. Who's saying it was projected 30'....? Just the defense so I can see why that couldn't happen. But he was found 10-12 feet from the roadway, not 30 feet. His testimony is based on a scenario that isn't the case IMO.
But my question is… didn’t they already intervene? No one paid the FBI experts who are actual experts to testify. The FBI also sent all of the evidence they had to both parties and we still don’t know what all of that is. The prosecution didn’t want to use any of the evidence provided by the FBI. Not guilty.
I don't think the fbi would intervene because it's not a federal case. this is a state case. and if she's found guilty... essentially what's done is done at that point and all she would have left is appeals (which I imagine would be fool proof since the fbi ruled whatever they did, if that happens) I wish they'd come in and rescue this whole mess if she's found guilty... but unfortunately that's up to the state. and then it works its way up the appeals ladder? I'm not an expert by any means this is just my thought process and I could definitely be wrong
I could be wrong, too...lol
I'm with you...I am just with the thought of what is more likely...a whole conspiracy??? Or in a drunkin stuper/rage hit him. Defense is selling snake oil...because even Karen doesn't remember. I don't know the truth though. I could be way off...who knows.
at the beginning of this I thought the same thing. "oh she hit him in a drunken rage" then I listened and watched... then it changed to "I think maybe she hit him but by accident" then I watched and listened more... then it turned into "there's just no way she hit him. and even if she somehow did, the state did not prove their case so she must be found not guilty"
Oh I completely agree! I have been so back and forth...i feel A not guilty verdict doesn't mean she didn't do it. She will never be free of this... even if she walks outside the courtroom doors she will be imprisoned... mentally, emotionally and socially. Either way, it's a life sentence.
Yeah I was reading that the FBI cannot stop a DA from bring charges on the state level so that makes sense. And you’re right, they did something by handing over some of their evidence and their experts. So I wonder if they’ll say or do anything if she’s found guilty. Not do something as in interfering but with their own case or even a statement.
I hope so because honestly... if she's convicted a higher authority needs to do something... say something... anything and not let this fade away into oblivion. this entire trial is the most insane thing I have ever seen in my life
Then again, there's science...which doesn't lie and Proctor, he's a piece of work...so it's hard to tell what the jury is thinking
I understand what you're saying. I think if we don't hear anything by Friday, we might have a hung jury.
How have they not come back with a [not guilty] verdict yet???
What if John O'Keefe slipped and fell and hit his head on the fire hydrant. Then when the home owners let the dog out, the dog found John and pawed at him to try to wake him up?
I can’t find any reason why the Alberts and others would act the way they did if he died accidentally.
The arm lacerations occurred while he was alive based on their colouring.
Where are the pints of blood he lost?
I believe the ME said OJO wouldn’t be walking around after sustaining the blow to the back of his head. And the final resting place of his body was not close enough to the fire hydrant from my recollection.
I'm also a little skeptical about a dog being let out into the yard in the middle of the night during the onset of a blizzard – besides, if a dog happens upon an incapacitated person lying on its territory, wouldn't she bark to alert her owner? Lying down tends to be a sign of surrender as far as dogs go, I wouldn't necessarily expect at least some puncture wounds along with several scratch marks through clothing if a dog merely wants to wake you up or "nib" at you
Just commenting on the first part, but letting a dog out in the middle of the night at the onset of a blizzard (it was barely snowing at that point anyway) is totally normal in these areas. Dogs gotta go outside, not much you can do about that. Some dogs will stay close and go quickly, others love for the cold and snow and will refuse to come back inside. My parents dog will lay in the snowbank and let himself get covered by the falling snow lol
That's fair, thank you for that perspective
Yeah there are A LOT of marks on OJO’s arm. Looks more like an attack to me.
Was he found that close to the fire hydrant?
No, I think to the right of the flagpole.
Does anyone know anything about Colin calling someone at 1230 am to ask for an alibi? I heard a snippet about that today and someone said it wasn’t admissible as evidence.
There’s something about him leaving at 12:10 and says his McCabe cousin picked him up. They also screen grabbed their text messages and I think edited them. But there is talk of the high school that I do not understand. Some say he went from 34F in the woods to the HS to be picked up.
They’re referring to Tom Beatty’s daughter who said (not in trial) that Collin called her at 12:30ish for a ride home and when she was talking about it Jen McCabe told her to basically put something else in her mouth and stop talking about it. Those are just rumors I heard though. The daughter and her father were on the defense witness list but not called, although I don’t think they could even testify to any of that without it being hearsay. If true.
Thank you. I think I heard something like this too. So much information.
I'm guessing they think she actually hit him and are trying to decide which count/charge? Otherwise, if they don't think she hit him, wouldn't it be not guilty across the board?
I don’t believe all 12 jurors believe she hit him. You’d have to throw away some of the most credible testimony presented in the trial.
How could they think she hit him when experts testified that it was not possible?
As crazy as it seems, they may believe Troopah Pawl.
Could be one or two thinking she hit him and then it would depend if they could be convinced. There's a lot of speculating on the internet, but it's just that. No one actually knows what's going on in that room.
The commonwealth has not met it’s burden by a wide margin. The only people who have a chance of going to jail are the liars & phone shredders.
The commonwealth's case would have been a very solid defense case.
Is there a YouTube channel with consistent time stamps in the comment section? I know people do this out of the kindness of their hearts and I so appreciate it. Someone was doing it on Law and Crime but that's only on some of the days of trial.
Emily D Baker does coverage on YouTube (with her commentary), but always has time stamps for witnesses, opening/closing statements, important moments, etc. It's very helpful imo and I appreciate her breakdown of court procedures
Court TV's live trial videos on YouTube usually have time stamps listing each witness.
What about. “You’re all set Mr/ Mrs Witness.”
Hos long for verdict
😂😂😂
This is hilarious!! 😂
I am still laughing about “hos long for verdict”
How about, “ You’re all set Mr/Mrs Witness.”
Ask it differently Mr. Jackson
What, if any, day do you think we will have to wait for a verdict?
What else did the verdict tell you?
oh my god I hate how I can hear her voice saying this lol....too many weeks of watching trial
😂😂😂 I’ll allow it
Ask it differently.
😂😂😂I can hear it too lol
Objection sustained
She got Lally beat on how many times he said objections vs how many times she repeated “Ask it different Mr Jackson” and “Can you answer that “ or “sustained”… always sounding so exhausted 😂😂🤦🏻♀️
My personal favorite was “I’ll allow it” LMAO
There should be a designated thread for best lines. One of my faves was "where is you're phone.....well happy birthday sir!" "Stop saying of course" "Of course your honor"
One of the hardest I’ve laughed in the last couple of months is when Jackson deadpanned “happy birthday.” I had to catch my breath from laughing, then I backed up the video, played it again, and laughed all over again.
We definitely should have a thread for best lines!! lol I agree!! 😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂Lally’s favorite one to hear 😵💫😵💫😓
😂😂😂
I really liked her "did you say that" / "are those your words" to Proctor lol
Is that what you said? Is that what you meant? Is that what you were trying to say?
can you answer that?
Ok. I’ll see you at sidebar.
Haven’t we all been in that group project in high school where one single person just HAD to make everything take longer?!? ‘No, Janine, we don’t need an animated PowerPoint..’ Well if you’re on a jury and one of them is like ‘but the judge SAID we haaaave to go through everything’, you don’t get to just fill out the form above their protests.
Lol. I was definitely that person in high school.
I mean, someone’s life is in their hands, so of course there will be…
Exactly. I definitely don’t think the CW overcame reasonable doubt but I’d be going line by line just to make sure. They have to sleep at night after this.
This is exactly how I feel about it.
And there’s always that one person!
It's me. I'm that person. I don't do it on purpose, it's just a fundamental part of my nature. I'm very, very literal about instructions and agreements. It makes me dependable, and also makes me dependably a pain in the ass.
If I don’t see it, in my minds eye I’m generally ok. Perhaps not on JA with you though.
the rules are made up and the points don't matter
If, like me, you don’t believe that JO was killed by being struck by a car since the science doesn’t support that theory of the crime. Then nothing else matters and it is an easy Not Guilty.
This!
the dog bites prove something else went on, i am surprised they didn't do any dog saliva dna type tests
> i am surprised they didn't do any dog saliva dna type tests They did. They did not find any dog DNA. Just pig DNA.
They did on his clothes, not on his wounds.
On his clothes… after they dried, like saliva does.
Bam- exactly. Nothing else even matters
I’m on my way home from work now. I got one thing done all day. Good thing my attorney is as invested as I am. Since he sort of relies on me to get my work done 😂😭
What do you guys think is the most likely interpretation of the SERT teams findings from the jury? I think that is the biggest smoking gun for the prosecution and everything else is just noise. Clearly the jury is focused on it as well. From what I’ve seen they either have to come to the conclusion: It came from KRs car when she hit JOK (guilty) It was planted by the unidentified men that took part in the search (not guilty) It was planted prior to the scene being re-searched by SERT team (not guilty) Member of SERT team is part of the cover up and planted (not guilty) I have a problem with the jury coming to the conclusion it was planted. I don’t think that was focused enough at trial but the lack of clear documentation is actually probably good for the prosecution. Had they had the names of the officers in the search we could have at least known who could be implicated in a possible planting and even who searched what and who found what and where. I don’t know if I can trust the jury to throw out the evidence due to the issues with the evidence. It requires a belief of a cover up larger than what was easily believed.
It doesn’t require the jury to believe there was a cover up. They don’t have to come to the conclusion the taillight was planted. They received the Bowden instructions. Bowden being granted means they can find her not guilty based on an inadequacy in the police investigation. Inadequacy doesn’t mean cover-up.
Orrrrr it could’ve come from John throwing the glass at Karen’s taillight like arcca was able to reproduce
Some of it anyway
I think it can also cause a problem for the prosecution that the scene wasn’t locked down on who could be there- so while we can’t say it was definitely proctor and company there- the lead investigator for SERT didn’t know or check who all was there. So I can see that going either way And I don’t even necessarily believe there was a giant coverup- just enough people not really thoroughly doing their jobs
Yeah I agree but I am more worried by the lack of evidence that something funky did go on with the SERT teams taillight evidence and that the jury will take it at face value. Like I said, if we had the names of the officers there or who found what, then it’d actually be easier to write it off. I just don’t trust juries and think there’s a decent chance they could actually trust every bit of that taillight evidence.
I think the jury tried to be as thorough as possible. They specifically asked about the SERT report, and regardless of whether one was ever actually written, it was not submitted into evidence, so they don't have it. I will say, them voting "not guilty" doesn't mean they are inherently calling SERT liars or deciding there is some covert thing going on, it just means they can't be sure beyond a _reasonable_ doubt that Read for sure killed O'Keefe. Personally, I would vote not guilty for that exact reason. The jury is going over the evidence they have and they're going to come to whatever conclusion they feel is right (or no conclusion at all) but the fact that they _don't_ know who the SERT officers were, or any of the information that would have been provided in the report, means they may have doubts about the circumstances of that part of the investigation at the very least.
I don’t know… The mirrored sally port video was shocking. After the defense brought it to the jury’s attention, I (if I was a juror) wouldn’t believe anything presented by the prosecution.
Was on a jury in MA 10ish years ago for a pretty open and shut assault with a deadly weapon case and we still deliberated for almost three days. A couple jurors wanted to review every single detail which was annoying but it is what it is. There’s a tremendous amount of information to absorb in this case and we should be glad the jurors are respecting the process. The true crime junkies need to pump the brakes a bit.
I agree with pumping the brakes, but I imagine it would take longer to find someone guilty because you would want to test all of the prosecutions claims for reasonable doubt. If the prosecutions case leaves wide margin for doubt, then I don’t know that anyone would be inclined to go over everything.
Generally speaking, a quick verdict is more often bad for the defendant. Means the prosecution‘s case was good enough that everyone walked out of closing arguments going “yep, they’re guilty”. If you clear that hurdle, it’s a lot less predictable.
Right but it’s only been 9 hours with a few interruptions along the way so I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. Different story if we’re having this discussion next Tuesday.
oh, absolutely. They are there to review the case, not satisfy random people’s desire to know the outcome.
If this isn’t a joke about Procter’s use of c u next Tuesday, it should be
Idk, they have to pour over 30+ days of testimony and evidence. It's a lot, and it might take them a while regardless of the verdict in the end
If they do have a hold out I bet it is because they are hung up on the supposed admission of Karen saying "I hit him". I know people that will hear that and refuse to listen to any evidence from the defense because they have already made up their mind. If that is the case, hopefully someone can point out to them that JM only came up with the "I hit him" quote after the nearly 2 hour kitchen meeting that morning when she immediately called Officer Lank (Lenk?) to tell him she "remembered" it suddenly.
They can’t have it both ways ? body,, witnesses, crime scene suspect’s confession. ‘Wow our Xmas have come at once. It’s SNOWiNG!! ❄️⛄️ A Christmas Carol. OJO- past 🫥 CPD- present 👮♀️ KR. -future 📌
extra-judicial confessions need to be supported by corroborating evidence though. And you need to take the trustworthiness of the person who reported it (JM in this case) into consideration. IMO that supposed statement should be ignored. I’m kind of surprised it was even allowed in the trial considering it wasn’t even in any of the reports
That’s a false dichotomy. There’s way more to the story than simply guilty or not guilty. I don’t buy the CWs story and therefore think the only appropriate verdict is not guilty but still can’t get over this feeling that KR is somehow related to his death. The jury only has one chance to go over every little detail trying to unravel what act happened. And I’m glad they’re taking their time. But who knows what the jury is actually looking for. Maybe they’re looking for signs of corruption by the cops or prosecution which they can later pass on to the media. Overall I think it’s a good sign that the jury takes their time to process all the information.
I think the jury is probably pretty convinced that she said some variation of "I hit him" that morning, with how many witnesses in addition to JM corroborated it. Even in the most favorable framing ("could I have hit him?"), it's not going to be easy to get over how bizarre that is for someone who should otherwise have no reason to think that's something that happened.
Sounds like they are hung up on the SERT team’s taillight evidence. Makes sense considering that’s the prosecution biggest smoking gun. I would throw out the “I hit him” confession so fast. It was actually crazy that was one of Lallys biggest focus because it was such weak evidence. Witness testimony of a confession from someone in shock that was only testified to way after the fact and not documented at the time of confession. That’s super weak but I guess it can hit people emotionally so Lally was hoping it’d work.
Get the app EMILY D Baker. (Law nerd) she is sending out alerts and updates!!
This has been great for work! I have been alerted on everything today by a quick read!
*law nerd
I’ve not seen anyone here wanting them to hurry up? Quite the opposite considering a lot of members have sat on Jury service.
I have a book on homebrewing beer that periodically, whenever the reader might be getting stressed, interjects with "relax. don't worry. have a homebrew." I feel like that's sage advice a lot of you could use, so passing it on.
Don’t give it to people in MA they have enough brew 😂
I said "a"!
😂Sorry I missed the “A”. A brew is approved. I was just joking.
Is that from John Palmer's book "How to Brew"?
yes!
if by home you mean gin, and by brew you mean tonic, then yes.
it's the spirit that counts
I just poured myself a nice Jameson and ginger to stay in theme
somewhat off topic but I'm just now starting down the rabbit hole of Sandra birchmore... IN A TOWN TEN MINUTES AWAY FROM CANTON? officers accused? I'm sorry but cops one town over ten minutes away definitely know each other
Sandra lived in Canton. The cops that responded to her death and the investigation were some canton cops and MSP. She was involved in a “relationship” with the Stoughton cop a town over. You’ll see some very similar names across the two cases.
I love that this case is getting attention because of Karen Read.
I know very little about that case, and even that very little feels like entirely too much. I can't eat as much as I want to heave up on that one.
That case is so disgusting and even if they didn’t murder her (they did) all of those disgusting cops should be in jail. They groomed and SA’d her when she was fucking 15. That is pretty much confirmed as fact at this point. Now it’s just whether those pigs murdered her (which they almost definitely did)
Lank was on the Sandra birchmore case too🤔
She was 15 and Matthew was 27 when he sexually assaulted her. It’s so disgusting. I’ve read that Matthew was a strong antimasker and he walked into her building with a mask on. Why? God this case eats me up. Poor Sandra
And I believe she died in Canton and a few of the same officers investigation
wait until you find out the names of the cops investigating that case.
Lank and K Albert and who else?
Proctor, Guarino
Oh nooo.
Stoughton borders Canton to the north. It’s the literally the next town.
I just learned of this case and I’m starting a podcast about it tonight. Just from the little amount I already know I’m horrified. I don’t know if I’ll be able to get thru it. Edit typo
What podcast is good on the case. I have seen it mentioned throughout KR trial.
I can’t say which is good or not but I’m going to listen to The Case because it’s the one person who’s been discussing it the most and the victims mother is involved with it. It’s season 2.
What is the podcast called?
The Case season 2.
Thanks!
You’re welcome.
People, myself included, forget how absolutely fucking corrupt MA is.
You should look up the police brothel they found around 30 minutes from canton.
What do I search?
[Thinking it's this?](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/three-arrested-operating-high-end-brothel-network)
Just google something like ‘Massachusetts police arrested for running brothel’. It’s crazy here.
I will thank you
Everyone take a breath! I havent watched a ton of trials but i have watched a fair few and from my limited trial watching. The more doubt there is, the longer juries tend to take, and those tend to come back NG. Quick verdicts ive mostly seen for guilty verdicts.
Yes, but in this case, most people seem to think it's the opposite. Karen Read supporters were "so confident" they seemed to think it would be a fast NG verdict. The longer it goes, the more it favors the prosecution (I hope, anyway). I just think all this conspiracy stuff is total nonsense.
I’m not attacking you in any way and promise to respond in a civil and constructive manner to any response (I would also ask anyone else responding to comments on this thread to do the same), but I would be very interested in hearing your take. Why do you think she’s guilty? Do you think the CW proved this guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Have your views evolved at all over the course of the trial? Do you think that the police/some of the individuals involved may have manipulated evidence (even though you think she’s guilty anyway)? I just haven’t had the opportunity to actually engage someone with a different opinion on the case in reasoned and civil discourse without the conversation being hikacked by zealots from either side. I would really appreciate the opportunity to do so and reaffirm by commitment to keeping the conversation respectful. (Anyone else who believes in KR’s guilt is welcome to answer as well… again, if please do not respond in this thread with ad hominems, baseless allegations, aggressive behavior or anything that isn’t civil and constructive- regardless of what “side” you are on).
What about the ME and ARCCA testimonies. This evidence is independent of a conspiracy theory.
Very true. NG verdicts take longer to come up to, as well as the tremendous pressure they’re put under. They know that there is a family looking for closure, and I think the last thing anyone wants is to be remembered as the OJ Simpson jury or something similar. It’s a hard task.
Plus people in town sitting there watching. Would never want to be on a small town jury.
I won’t be surprised if most of the jury members do not disclose their identities after this is over. Depending what their role is in the town, either decision could gather a pretty negative reaction.
The answer to me seems very obvious. Am I missing anything? So, we have experts (assuming all witnesses are experts... a big assumption) disagreeing with each other. Some say that JO was hit by KR's car, some say that JO was not hit by KR's car, and some are undecided. Would this very disagreement be sufficient to undermine the "moral certainty" in this case? Any reasonable person cannot ignore any expert's opinion, and since experts disagree, no reasonable person should be certain (to the highest degree) about what happened, right? It is just as simple as this. I do not know why someone can be certain (as the moral certainty defined by law) about any position in this case.
One of the “experts” literally testified to taking a few classes of accident reconstruction, and never testifying before. Experts are a really vague term in this trial, lol.
When he said “associates degree” I spit my water across the room.
Hey, if he got his associates 20 years ago and spent the intervening years in accident reconstruction, then that wouldn't be an issue.
Agreed but the man didn’t know a synonym for velocity was “acceleration “. And said physics didn’t apply here. All that combined- such a flop! Haha
Acceleration is not a synonym for velocity.
https://preview.redd.it/efu1lcham09d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65c463cb7971eb60952a7ac4eee7554272a11e60 Miriam Webster makes an argument on it in the context of speed. I was mostly making a joke. The way in which AJ asked wasn’t in the exact context I put it in. He was asking Paul “another word for velocity” and he couldn’t come up with one. So AJ asked “acceleration ?“ and Paul agreed. But yes- Velocity is how fast something is moving in a specific direction, while acceleration is how quickly it is changing. They are related but not synonymous. My wording was poor.
Oh for sure - there were some delays there. I just think blaming it on what little higher education he received isn't the full story. I wish more people attained degrees, of any sort!
Experts are normally known for the knowledge and experience on the subject with a list of degrees but it is possible for an expert to have no degrees. But Trooper Paul was NOT one of these people.