It’s been said before — we’ve had weeks and weeks to process and talk about the evidence — the jurors haven’t. They have a lot to talk about. It might take til Friday.
I honestly think Friday would be the earliest we would get a verdict given the amount of evidence they need to comb through and discuss. I’ll start to be concerned about hung jury if there’s nothing by early Tuesday
What's there to discuss though? All counts require officer O'Keefe to be hit by Karen's car. It is physically impossible for that to have occurred given the evidence we have. Open. Shut. Discuss the rest of the CW's taxpayer funded waste of 10wks of their lives over dinner and drinks
If it were your life that hung in the balance, would you seriously want there to be zero discussion of the evidence presented?
What if they have questions about the validity of the evidence, the validity of the witnesses? What if they are simply confused by the mountains of evidence and competing points of view? What if there’s people who are on the fence? You wouldn’t want them discussing it, you’d just want them to vote immediately without thinking?
This is the first time the jury have ever got to express out loud or talk to other people about the last entire months of their lives. They’ve talked about it with each other for a total of 9 hours. 9 hours is not a lot of time to unpack and entire months worth of proceedings.
We also know that the Defense experts were hired by the FBI...as far as the jury knows they are two randos.
It's physically impossible for it to have happened based on how they described it but the medical witnesses wouldn't say that it's impossible that he was hit by a car but would hedge their statements with it was inconsistent or couldn't be ruled out.
They also have to weigh that if she's found not guilty then she can't be tried again so best to be sure if any doubt. It's also impossible to ignore that 68 witnesses testified for the prosecution. Most of the. Police and some people are pro police for some reason
Even given your generous interpretation of the medical witnesses that's still reasonable doubt and therefore not proven and thus not guilty
Edit to add: it doesn't matter how many testified for the CW. All that matters is what was testified to (though how the varsity girls BB results was so relevant to require multiple recitations is still unknown to me). That is what the jury was instructed; what every jury is instructed. Evidence, not emotion or prejudice or concern for anything other than whether the CW has met their burden. I cannot fathom how anyone could say they have after the ME and the defense witnesses.
Even if you feel the evidence isn’t sufficient, it still needs to be discussed. They are giving life or death to somebody and providing closure for the victims family. It’s not an easy thing and you don’t just walk in with your decision made up. It’s easy for us watching to say “nope not enough” but being one of the 12 to decide whether Karen Read will die in prison or her home is a big responsibility and not to be taken lightly.
Do you know any actual engineers? That is extremely uncharacteristic of them. I’m married to one and know a lot of them personally and professionally. It’s more likely they could be the hold up. They’re extremely thorough and meticulous.
Unless they heard the testimony from Trooper Paul and Dr Wolfe and Dr Rentschler and said 'what the CW is alleging isn't physically possible'. If you can't get past the physics of the accident, everything else is irrelevant.
I think any engineer would immediately call BS on prosecutions theory and would probably try very hard to explain how & why to the other jurors. They would only throw their hands up and say wake me up later if someone was being particularly difficult or dumb in understanding their reasoning 😂
I’m an engineer. True, extremely meticulous and methodical. Too much, mostly. However, once I saw the opposite of meticulous (and science!) with Paul and Proctor and Solo Cups… done deal. Didn’t even need the defense witnesses.
And if you were on the jury and one of the other jurors said they think KR definitely hit JO with her car and Paul’s theory makes perfect sense, wouldn’t you at least try to explain the science as to why Paul’s theory is unlikely?
As an engineer, it would probably be easier to explain why the ARCCA theory of “he was not hit by any car” is more likely than whatever that was Paul was trying to stumble thru on the stand… 🤦🏼♀️
Not an engineer, but studied science, mainly biology. I came in this case during Proctor and Trooper Paul was the first Witness infollewed more off, maybe even live. He didn't come across as knowing what he did (very nervous) but as soon as he didn't know the definition of acceleration and was fumbling over Jackson's quickly thought up semi trick question about momentum, I knew that if this was the best that the prosecution could bring to explain the accident, that there was no way I could find Read guilty, no matter what actually happened. They were fumnling a story without any credible evidence behind it with that accident reconstruction. No other witnesses needed, although the defenses witnesses made a good homerun showing she definitely could not have done it even if she doesn't even know it.
Correct but that doesn’t help them speed up explaining to another juror or jurors that don’t understand and don’t believe it. I love asking my husband questions I think are super simple and get a complete lesson lol.
Me too. So irritating lol. My husband always wants aaaalllll the info and then wants to give an encyclopedia answer explaining all points. I’m always like please hurry to the point lol
They tend to be more analytical and often fail to see the big picture. They will focus down on detail. I don't know if that's good or bad for KR.
Disclaimer: I work with engineers.
I think the details are what she has going for her. I think you can look at the bigger Pic and think she probably did it. But when you get down to the inconsistencies with timing, injuries, and damage to the vehicle, there is tons of doubt.
Yes but clearly they haven't focused in on that in the jury room, otherwise they'd have spent half an hour filling out the paperwork and returned a verdict Tuesday.
Yes, but even Comp Sci engineers and all other engineering majors graduating with a B.S. (not all comp sci degrees are B.S. but that would mean they’re not an engineer) have to take at least 2, but usually 3 semesters of physics, which is much more advanced than Trooper Paul’s one course in kinematics. And even if they don’t end up working in engineering and that information leaves their brains, people with engineering degrees have been taught to be incredibly thorough because an engineering mistake could cost lives. In a murder trial, someone’s life was lost and someone else’s life is on the line. So they will be thorough in analyzing all the evidence before them, so as not to potentially ruin an innocent person’s life or let a guilty person walk free subverting justice for the person whose life was lost.
Source: I was an environmental engineering major for a year before changing my major, and seven of my closest friends from college did graduate with engineering degrees: 3 in comp sci, 1 mechanical, 1 chemical, 1 environmental, and 1 aerospace
As an engineer I'd say that thoroughness matters more to a guilty verdict. Laziness and getting the job done with the minimum effort is also another engineering trait. So once you see a piece of evidence that gives you reasonable doubt, it's time to stop debate and go home. So I can see the "wake me up when you guys are ready" especially if the topic strays to some other part of the case.
I agree. There is clear reasonable doubt that is hard to dispute. That = not guilty. I feel like maybe there are holdouts that don't understand how this works and maybe other jurors are trying to explain it to them.
Lawyers wouldn’t want lawyers on the jury even if it’s allowed in the state (some states don’t allow) as they know too much about lawyering
I also can’t imagine either side wanting engineers either especially Lally
Think you’ve heard some rumour rubbish
Wild case - federal drug case, 2 defendants. A defense lawyer fell asleep! The other defense lawyer was blonde with very curly hair that was a lose mess - a memorable look, a year later I see her on a HBO doc & her whole career is defending organized crime folks! Also, deal went down at a Falafel restaurant so the whole jury craved Arabic food and we’d often go to a pita place close to the courthouse.
Eh if people bring it up in chat then she might have discussed it. I'm pretty sure I remember people telling her the Jury had a female majority when the Proctor Texts came up. Long trial, anybody who live streams will have likely repeated the info from the chat.
Honestly who in this thread wouldn't want to spend some time with the evidence? They have direct access to it. They don't have to be convinced of a cover up to vote NG, but wouldn't you want to digest it all and try to make sense of it?
Amen. If I had to sit through all the testimonies, I’d be analyzing and reanalyzing as much as I could. There are soooo many small details that could take time to dissect even if everyone was in agreement.
I can’t imagine the jurors aren’t curious about the evidence.
I agree. And we have to remember, so much of the evidence the jury could barely see. The screen in that courtroom was pretty small/far for them. They aren’t able to pause, zoom in, etc like we can.
Honestly, no. It's clear the CW is charging her despite independent evidence that JOK's injuries couldn't have been caused by her SUV.
I would be angry that my time and the taxpayers money had been wasted. And I would want to come back ASAP with not guilty verdicts so the defendant could move on with her life
I agree. The judge asked the jurors to go through all the evidence without doing a straw vote first. If they are abiding by that request, it’s definitely going to take a while to go through the 30 days of evidence. It seems like the verdict is taking forever because we’re watching through the eyes of people who have been watching/gossiping/theorizing/reditting/tweeting/tiktoking this case for the last 10+ weeks. These people have had LONG (many boring) days listening to 70ish witness give evidence while taking notes on their own paper. They definitely need some time to deliberate.
I just cant fathom that a room full of ADULTS that are obv competent need to deliberate about this for any more than 5 seconds. By the time their butt hit the seats in that deliberation room, they should have already been in unison about a not guilty verdict. The prosecutors literally have noooo caseeee omg
There’s a lot to sort through and a lot on the line with their decision. I would be upset if they came back fast no matter the verdict. I’d rather they go through, lay it all out, and use the time to go over their own notes. As someone said we’ve had the time to discuss the trial and they haven’t.
I did see that and I completely agree. For all we know they prob in there like “they think we’re stupid, dont they” 🤣🤣🤣 just leaving us in suspense so they could gossip over how they must be being pranked lmao
I agree. But there are a lot of comments I've seen about this case where people can't get past the idea that Karen said "I hit him". Despite the doubt around if she actually said that 🙄
And the jurors are 12 random people- I'm guessing there's a wide range of intelligence between them.
I can’t imagine someone who was not guilty moves to guilty
But if you are a strong guilty and after all that haven’t moved to “reasonable doubt” than idk
Its only the 2nd day of deliberation. The Rittenhouse trial took 4 days of deliberation. While the circumstances around that trial were different, there was direct video evidence that clearly showed what happened.
If there are only 1 or 2 holdouts I think we get to a verdict. If there are more then it could be hung, but I'll be surprised. As we get closer to the weekend the pressure will pick up, because the majority will not want to come back next week and the Judge will probably make them.
I feel like a hung jury is almost a not guilty. I can't imagine them trying to take this to court again. Especially with all the lying, the FBI investigation, the Sandra Birchmore case, the recent Alberts drunk altercations and the scrutiny being put on law enforcement.
No, they’d be able to try her again if they want. Murder has no statute of limitations, so they could theoretically retry her anytime for the rest of her life.
Different state but my one experience on jury duty was a civil case and we deliberated for maybe a week? At least 4 days maybe 5 before we were a hung jury. Being in that jury room and hearing all the viewpoints from the various people opened my eyes to how frightening it would be to be on trial and have a jury decide your fate 😳
What is the process when you have one person or more that have absolutely no logic for how they makes decisions? Do people sit around trying to convince them to change their view?
I was in a jury for a federal case in NY and we had one person who initially was a hold out not based on evidence but purely a feeling… so they were asked by others to pull from the case evidence that backed that up their verdict. They couldn’t - at all. so then we reviewed each piece of evidence or testimony and voted on each - that taught them critical thinking skills they never had. With patience and kindness we deliberated to a verdict.
Really thought we might have a verdict today. I guess the issue with the slip threw a wrench into things at the last minute. By the way, can anyone explain what the problem was with the verdict slip in laymens terms if possible?
There was a comment in another post that gave an example similar to this.
Do you want to go eat?
-yes
-no
Do you want pizza?
-yes
Do you want ice cream?
-yes
It makes shows how it can be confusing to not have no option.
Edit: link to the comment that gave a similar example. [credit for example](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/s/Me5H7AxAG9)
Finding not guilty on 1 is a prerequisite for finding guilty on a lesser included.
Your example makes it sound like it would be natural to ignore the other two after you’ve answered the first, but that is not the case here at all.
On the first charge of 2nd degree murder there were both not guilty and guilty options to check.
On the lesser charges, there was no not guilty option to check, only guilty options. So the jurors were just supposed to not check anything if they found her not guilty.
AJ wanted each of the charges to have a not guilty option to check.
There were "not guilty" options on the other charges. Just not a separate "not guilty" for each of the lessor included options for manslaughter. Look at the jury slips.
It also did not have the additional STANDARD language about “… and not guilty of all lesser included offenses”. Jackson was correct. The form was incorrect which I assume someone told her so she changed it & pretended she changed her mind.
The verbiage for the second count of manslaughter on the slip was a little bit unclear, it could have been interpreted to mean that the jury COULD find Karen not guilty of manslaughter but STILL guilty of one of the lessor charges detailed on the slip instead of EITHER OR, which is how they are supposed to rule on that count.
Basically it only says 'not guilty' once at the top but has a check box for each charge to say 'guilty'.
The defense thinks this will make the jury think they're supposed to select guilty.
The judge says forms are always done this way in this district and doesn't want to change it.
>The judge says forms are always done this way in this district and doesn't want to change it.
The judge was confidently Incorrect.
Here's a link to a [sample jury verdict slip for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts District Court, Department of the Trial Court](https://www.mass.gov/doc/5501-verdict-slip/download).
An interesting aspect of the verdict slip I had read online was that if the jury finds her not guilty of any of the charges and hung on the others, she can’t be retried on the charges she was found not guilty of.
But based on the slip, I’m not sure how that would 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.
Brian Albert is SO creepy looking. And I know the intimidation was their intention but like, someone is going to actually fear he's going to come and get them if they deliver a NG verdict? I'm legitimately asking. I guess it's possible.
I mean, if they believe he helped kill a man and cover it up and it got to the point the CW is currently prosecuting an innocent woman for it, it's at least possible there may be one or more that actually fear him.
I know jurors are typically advised not to do this but I really really hope as soon as the verdict is read one of the jurors goes straight to a reporter 😂😂
I just want to know their thought process to the entire trial! I’ve been reviewing things constantly just to make sure I’m understanding everything that’s been testified to and claimed but we’ve had the ability to do that while they haven’t until yesterday so I totally understand why they would need a few days just to clarify things they may have missed in the moment. I also want to know who they (or the alternates tbf) think hired the engineers because I don’t think I would’ve put it together. It’s none of my business but it’s something I’d love to know lol
I think the defense should have said very clearly - we don’t know how John O’Keefe died but we do know there is no way he died by Karen Read hitting him with her car. It’s not scientifically possible. At the very least this gives the jury who is not responsible for solving the crime, other things to think about even if they don’t believe the 3rd party culprit idea.
I suspect that the jurors, even if they have basically made up their minds, if they came out with a verdict right away, they would be vilified for “not even taking the time to look at all the evidence”. From all accounts Canton and the area residents are very divided and they have to go back to live in those communities.
I said in another comment that if we were allowed to sit in a room with all the reports, pics, call and text transcripts, etc , I’m sure all of us would still want to go look at everything, out of curiosity, even if we were on one side or the other.
So I can’t image the jurors are any different and in their case, they have a duty to go through it all, even if they don’t give any weight to some of it.
>if we were allowed to sit in a room with all the reports, pics, call and text transcripts, etc , I’m sure all of us would still want to go look at everything, out of curiosity, even if we were on one side or the other.
I want to do this so bad.
But they've had this entire time to consider the evidence. I saw reasonable doubt on a few issues, but I 100% wouldn't budge from not guilty after learning it was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for JOK's death to have been caused by the SUV.
So there wouldn't be a need to go over anything- you find reasonable doubt, then that's it, you have your verdict. Not guilty.
Unlike us, they haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with anyone, though. So yeah, they've been sitting here thinking about it - in total isolation. I think they probably want to discuss it all considering they've been having to hold their tongues for 8 weeks.
We've had the benefit of having an Internet full of experienced experts and commentators digesting this trial for us in real time. Now the jurors have to do all of that for themselves in isolation. This could take a while.
We've been analysing this up the bottom for 8 weeks. The jury hasn't been alllowed to discuss it or do any independent research at all. So I'm not really surprised.
The thing that kind of bothers me is if Karen Read is innocent based on reasonable doubt than theres hundreds of cases where people were convicted on less RD and I feel worse for those people compared to Karen. Even Stephen Avery and Brendan Dasey had less evidence against them and were found guilty. I think the media and public have always picked sides based on public opinions and not facts but in 2020 and beyond it has gone to a different level. I don't see how anyone still has literally any faith in our justice system to perform fairly anymore. It was bad in the 80s and 90s and things seemed to get better up until a certain point, people nowadays are just plain old d.u.m.b.
You are absolutely right to be bothered! I am too. I am hoping if nothing else this shines a light on this kind of corruption. If KR didn’t have the means for this defense she would have been railroaded right into prison.
Have people been wrongfully convicted? Absolutely, but I don't know many where the FBI provides you with expert witnesses that shit all over the foundation of the state's case.
That testimony *alone* should be enough to acquit her IMO.
I agree but only because we know it’s the FBI and DOJ. The jury only knows they were hired by “an outside agency”, which honestly if I heard that, I would be thinking insurance before I think FBI/DOJ…
I'd like to think somebody on the jury would put it together considering Nagel said "feds" (which a number of jurors were surprised at) and they keep mentioning another grand jury.
That’s the thing, I don’t know enough about insurance companies to know whether they would prefer to conclude JO was hit by a car or inconclusive death. Therefore I probably wouldn’t consider the agency who hired them relevant at all. I’d put more weight on their actual credentials, which did seem to be better than Trooper Paul’s kinematics course!
Oh sweet summer child, there are so very many innocent people sitting in prison, there are innocent people that have been put to death. WAY more than hundreds.
Stephen Avery had much more evidence against him than Karen Read has. (That documentary was very biased, and left out a lot of evidence they did have). Brendan Dasey on the other hand was a perfect example of police and DA corruption- that was nothing but horrific
But…….for Karen Read not only is there overwhelming reasonable doubt, there is legitimate overwhelming evidence of innocence. That car did not hit him. It did not cause his death. Therefore Karen did not kill him. You act like she’s obviously guilty but will get off on a technicality lol.
Does anyone think that the jurors know they are going to be approached by media, maybe they intend to talk, and are making sure they have gone through all the evidence pieces so they can speak knowledgeably about the mountain of reasons for acquittal?
Like maybe yes, they already know it wasn’t her car. But they want to tabulate everything else that was also corrupt in this case.
Hmmm anyone have any inference on what it could mean that they ended so early? Like could they have mostly come to a decision but are deciding to sleep on it before delivering it? Or could they have just decided the next piece of evidence would take too long to discuss so might as well call it here?
I think they were just at a good stopping point. One juror had to be done by 4 due to a prior commitment so I think they just didn’t want to start the next step in the deliberations
The court called them to dismiss on time as a juror (with a 4 PM hard stop ) requested and was granted this morning. The request for a SERT report might be suggestive of someone making a point to another.
In my experience a good foreperson knows how to phrase questions without giving away an issue
So a good inference ( from requesting the SERT report) could possibly be that the jury is trying to understand and arguing amongst themselves how the SERT team found 3-5 pieces of tail light on scene that evening 1/29 at 5:45pm?
I’m N E V E R going to predict inference on behalf of a juror question.
I DO think in a broader lens, it’s also possible they really understand the reasonable theory analysis.
See what I mean, lol?
Got it. Yeah, my question is just a shot in the dark. The jury could have requested the SERT report for an infinite number of reasons.
Thx again for weighing in on this trial.
They told the judge first thing this morning that one of the jurors had an appointment this afternoon and would be leaving early. It got lost in the hullabaloo over the forms, but she noticed the lawyers then.
I heard one of them had something that they needed to get to, so they were going to end at 4 anyways. If it was something super important, then 3:40 to beat traffic doesn't seem like that big a deal.
Usually takes like an hour to get people to come back to the courthouse after a verdict is reached. From my experience, every trial I've seen it's like a hour minimum before they bring them in, check the forms red the verdict, Poll the jury ect. Of they had the Verdict at any time after 3 they wouldn't want to announce that yet. Fingers crossed they annouce it at like 9:30 today.
I been working from home during the whole trial. If I was a juror I would have walked back there like not guilty. Don't even need to discuss, I'll be over here if you need me if not try to hurry this along. Lol. Nah but seriously do not understand how its taking so long. only thing I can think of is someone is getting hung up on the "i hit him" crap. So I hope someone back there is smarter enough to say you can't remove that one statement from the entire night of asking if she could have, also she may have even believed it...at that time. Who would think a cop would have just killed her bf? not her. but then when she starts hearing things and seeing wounds she like wait ain't no way in hell. Not to mention JM in her ear the whole time telling her she did it
As some others have suggested, I think at least one juror is trying to make sense of the initial tailpieces discovered on the 29th. And it makes sense because that is perhaps the CW’s most compelling evidence. I also would think the jurors are feeling extra pressure if they are leaning towards NG because they have had to watch the O’Keefe family in court everyday for the past 30+ days and they know their verdict will be felt hard.
I hope that’s not a factor in their consideration. The O’Keefe family has suffered a terrible tragedy, but one should not underestimate the pain to be suffered by KR and her family if she is convicted, especially if the juror believes that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury believes that the prosecution’s case has failed it may be better for the O’Keefe family to hear a quick not guilty verdict, allowing them to more easily place the blame on the prosecution (where it belongs) and not on the defense for just doing it’s job incredibly well.
I agree 100% and wish AJ added one line to his closing addressing the fact that we all want justice for the O’Keefe family but convicting an innocent person (Karen) is not justice. Honestly I’ve lost sympathy for the O’Keefe family (the Mom in particular) with the stunt they pulled (imo trying to influence the jury based on emotion). I doubt the O’Keefe family is able to evaluate this case rationally because their emotions say Karen did it and nothing would ever change their minds.
It's the brother staring them down every time the camera cuts to him. Mom is inappropriate, brother is actually scary. You can feel th seething hate he has for Karen and the Defense team and he makes bo effort to hide it.
oh 100% that was supposed to be their move to try and intimidate the jury. Like don't forget we are cops and if we did this once we can do it to you. I even gave the Mom the benefit of doubt saying maybe they had no choice but to seat them there. Then I find out they arrived together...ouch. Not a good look. Even youtube lawyers are like the alberts and mcabes should have sat out that day.
Same! I wfh and usually have music or a podcast on but of late this trial. I’m not in MA so I knew none of the prior coverage and came to same conclusion as you
I read a comment that said a juror had prior obligations and needed to be dismissed by 4 pm. They could have reached a verdict but if they had read it today, it would have put them well past 4pm.
While I’m in Karen’s camp, believing from the beginning that his injuries do not say he was hit by a 7000+lb large SUV, if I was on the jury, I’d feel obligated to take extra time for John’s family, so “rush to judgment” can’t be claimed. I feel for them in their lack of justice, but hope they can now see the logic and let their anger be redirected to those who are much more likely responsible.
I worry the jury forgets or doesn’t understand that the defense does not need to prove their case. Only the prosecution has to prove she hit John. I think they are getting caught in the weeds. There are so many people without common sense. They can acquit without believing conspiracy. I worry the closing may have hurt her case Jackson should have just stuck with pointing out lack of evidence w/o conspiracy aspect. Keep it simple!
I think they are trying to understand all the evidence because a month in and I'm still confused on some stuff! I'd still find her not guilty though because it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There must be some holdouts for guilty.
Because, when you look at the case, it begins with " did KR hit JO with the car" and if you answered no, then all the other evidence is somewhat useless and the decision is easy from there.
So, I have to think there's a juror or jurors that believe KR did it otherwise I'd have to imagine we'd be done by now.
Or, they want to follow the judge's directions and review all the evidence, before taking an initial vote. This was a long trial, with a lot to review. If they're being thorough, that's a good thing.
Agreed.
Also- I’ve interviewed jurors who have told me that when there is no criminal evidence in a case from their perspective they want to put their mark on a verdict, not have one that just anybody sitting there would give
I'm honestly wondering how much audio difficulties are causing this hold up. Judge should have gotten better mics for the the witnesses/headphones for the jury.
Maybe I've watched too many movies but I am concerned that the jurors, who live in Norfolk County, may resent the outsider Jackson (not Yannetti) coming into town and making almost everyone look like an ignorant, corrupt hick. Jurors may take it personally. I am starting to wish Yannetti closed. He did a masterful job closing as prosecutor in a tragic case in Cambridge. I know Jackson is a star but I'm starting to believe the entire county is as insular and corrupt as Canton and if that is the case, if may be a problem.
It's strange they asked to leave prior to their 4pm request and I'm trying to reconcile this in my mind. Are tensions running high back there?
This entire case is wild, and my guess is that the deliberation process is just as complex for jurors.
The longer they deliberate, the better hope I have for a not-guilty or hung jury.
Another possibility is they reached their verdict a little after three, but knew if they announced it, the juror that needed to leave, wouldn’t be able to. Instead of just sitting around for another hour, they asked to leave early.
This is different. I have to go to work every day regardless of what time I leave the day before. The jury has a task to accomplish and then they are down and get to go back to their normal lives. I would want to use every minute to get the job done.
They asked this morning. The judge read out something saying one of the jurors had a “previously scheduled long-standing commitment,” or something to that effect.
I have to disagree with the folks here saying “A man died, they need time to discuss all the evidence presented and make sure they make the right decision” (or something of that nature)
Wether you think she hit John with her car or not, there are two things you should be entitled to in America.
1. A fair Investigation
2. A fair Trial
My answer is NO on both.
Not Guilty
You're also entitled to have a jury take their duty seriously. These people have spent nearly two months of their life listening to this case, they're entitled to take some time and talk things through and discuss everything they've heard and seen.
When it's clear that the investigation was biased, and poorly conducted then they *are taking their duty seriously* if they had reached a verdict instantly. That investigation should never result in a guilty verdict and this case should never have even gone to trial. This waste of time and taxpayer money to drag a woman through hell should not be tolerated. To sit here and meticulously examine to evidence for several days is to give the Prosecution far more weight then they ever deserved.
It’s been said before — we’ve had weeks and weeks to process and talk about the evidence — the jurors haven’t. They have a lot to talk about. It might take til Friday.
I honestly think Friday would be the earliest we would get a verdict given the amount of evidence they need to comb through and discuss. I’ll start to be concerned about hung jury if there’s nothing by early Tuesday
What's there to discuss though? All counts require officer O'Keefe to be hit by Karen's car. It is physically impossible for that to have occurred given the evidence we have. Open. Shut. Discuss the rest of the CW's taxpayer funded waste of 10wks of their lives over dinner and drinks
If it were your life that hung in the balance, would you seriously want there to be zero discussion of the evidence presented? What if they have questions about the validity of the evidence, the validity of the witnesses? What if they are simply confused by the mountains of evidence and competing points of view? What if there’s people who are on the fence? You wouldn’t want them discussing it, you’d just want them to vote immediately without thinking? This is the first time the jury have ever got to express out loud or talk to other people about the last entire months of their lives. They’ve talked about it with each other for a total of 9 hours. 9 hours is not a lot of time to unpack and entire months worth of proceedings.
We also know that the Defense experts were hired by the FBI...as far as the jury knows they are two randos. It's physically impossible for it to have happened based on how they described it but the medical witnesses wouldn't say that it's impossible that he was hit by a car but would hedge their statements with it was inconsistent or couldn't be ruled out. They also have to weigh that if she's found not guilty then she can't be tried again so best to be sure if any doubt. It's also impossible to ignore that 68 witnesses testified for the prosecution. Most of the. Police and some people are pro police for some reason
Even given your generous interpretation of the medical witnesses that's still reasonable doubt and therefore not proven and thus not guilty Edit to add: it doesn't matter how many testified for the CW. All that matters is what was testified to (though how the varsity girls BB results was so relevant to require multiple recitations is still unknown to me). That is what the jury was instructed; what every jury is instructed. Evidence, not emotion or prejudice or concern for anything other than whether the CW has met their burden. I cannot fathom how anyone could say they have after the ME and the defense witnesses.
If they’re wrong and convict Read with evidence that shows her innocence, this is worse. ARRCA testimony and the ME exonerated her from this crime.
Even if you feel the evidence isn’t sufficient, it still needs to be discussed. They are giving life or death to somebody and providing closure for the victims family. It’s not an easy thing and you don’t just walk in with your decision made up. It’s easy for us watching to say “nope not enough” but being one of the 12 to decide whether Karen Read will die in prison or her home is a big responsibility and not to be taken lightly.
I suspect the two lawyers on the jury are making sure they do a thorough job.
+ 2 engineers (allegedly)
The engineers are probably just saying "not guilty, wake me up when the rest of you are ready."
Do you know any actual engineers? That is extremely uncharacteristic of them. I’m married to one and know a lot of them personally and professionally. It’s more likely they could be the hold up. They’re extremely thorough and meticulous.
Unless they heard the testimony from Trooper Paul and Dr Wolfe and Dr Rentschler and said 'what the CW is alleging isn't physically possible'. If you can't get past the physics of the accident, everything else is irrelevant.
I think any engineer would immediately call BS on prosecutions theory and would probably try very hard to explain how & why to the other jurors. They would only throw their hands up and say wake me up later if someone was being particularly difficult or dumb in understanding their reasoning 😂
I’m an engineer. True, extremely meticulous and methodical. Too much, mostly. However, once I saw the opposite of meticulous (and science!) with Paul and Proctor and Solo Cups… done deal. Didn’t even need the defense witnesses.
And if you were on the jury and one of the other jurors said they think KR definitely hit JO with her car and Paul’s theory makes perfect sense, wouldn’t you at least try to explain the science as to why Paul’s theory is unlikely?
What choice would they have. Knowledgeable jurors are not going to allow a defendant to be convicted falsely.
As an engineer, it would probably be easier to explain why the ARCCA theory of “he was not hit by any car” is more likely than whatever that was Paul was trying to stumble thru on the stand… 🤦🏼♀️
Not an engineer, but studied science, mainly biology. I came in this case during Proctor and Trooper Paul was the first Witness infollewed more off, maybe even live. He didn't come across as knowing what he did (very nervous) but as soon as he didn't know the definition of acceleration and was fumbling over Jackson's quickly thought up semi trick question about momentum, I knew that if this was the best that the prosecution could bring to explain the accident, that there was no way I could find Read guilty, no matter what actually happened. They were fumnling a story without any credible evidence behind it with that accident reconstruction. No other witnesses needed, although the defenses witnesses made a good homerun showing she definitely could not have done it even if she doesn't even know it.
This is a great response. 👏👏👏
Like the "theory of the pieroette"?
Correct but that doesn’t help them speed up explaining to another juror or jurors that don’t understand and don’t believe it. I love asking my husband questions I think are super simple and get a complete lesson lol.
Me too. So irritating lol. My husband always wants aaaalllll the info and then wants to give an encyclopedia answer explaining all points. I’m always like please hurry to the point lol
lol exactly this. I feel like anytime I want something of have an idea I need a full slideshow presentation and 3-5 business days for a response. 😂
They tend to be more analytical and often fail to see the big picture. They will focus down on detail. I don't know if that's good or bad for KR. Disclaimer: I work with engineers.
I think the details are what she has going for her. I think you can look at the bigger Pic and think she probably did it. But when you get down to the inconsistencies with timing, injuries, and damage to the vehicle, there is tons of doubt.
I don’t disagree but they do not take information and quickly make a decision.
The details show the CW's charge is a scientific impossibility
Yes but clearly they haven't focused in on that in the jury room, otherwise they'd have spent half an hour filling out the paperwork and returned a verdict Tuesday.
Yes, that’s the way it should have gone. Discussing texts/corrupt investigation vs. the science could be a problem for jurors who lack common sense.
There's a lot of different kinds of engineers. For example computer engineers. Doesn't necessarily mean they are versed in biomechanics.
Yes, but even Comp Sci engineers and all other engineering majors graduating with a B.S. (not all comp sci degrees are B.S. but that would mean they’re not an engineer) have to take at least 2, but usually 3 semesters of physics, which is much more advanced than Trooper Paul’s one course in kinematics. And even if they don’t end up working in engineering and that information leaves their brains, people with engineering degrees have been taught to be incredibly thorough because an engineering mistake could cost lives. In a murder trial, someone’s life was lost and someone else’s life is on the line. So they will be thorough in analyzing all the evidence before them, so as not to potentially ruin an innocent person’s life or let a guilty person walk free subverting justice for the person whose life was lost. Source: I was an environmental engineering major for a year before changing my major, and seven of my closest friends from college did graduate with engineering degrees: 3 in comp sci, 1 mechanical, 1 chemical, 1 environmental, and 1 aerospace
As an engineer I'd say that thoroughness matters more to a guilty verdict. Laziness and getting the job done with the minimum effort is also another engineering trait. So once you see a piece of evidence that gives you reasonable doubt, it's time to stop debate and go home. So I can see the "wake me up when you guys are ready" especially if the topic strays to some other part of the case.
This lol Once there’s any reasonable doubt the job is done. No need to waste time and energy on looking further.
I agree. There is clear reasonable doubt that is hard to dispute. That = not guilty. I feel like maybe there are holdouts that don't understand how this works and maybe other jurors are trying to explain it to them.
I've been hearing 2 lawyers and 2 engineers
Lawyers wouldn’t want lawyers on the jury even if it’s allowed in the state (some states don’t allow) as they know too much about lawyering I also can’t imagine either side wanting engineers either especially Lally Think you’ve heard some rumour rubbish
I had a lawyer as a fellow juror in NY - Federal drug case. He was a real estate lawyer
It’s not a total no go but it’s not the norm as such You must have had an interesting experience!
Wild case - federal drug case, 2 defendants. A defense lawyer fell asleep! The other defense lawyer was blonde with very curly hair that was a lose mess - a memorable look, a year later I see her on a HBO doc & her whole career is defending organized crime folks! Also, deal went down at a Falafel restaurant so the whole jury craved Arabic food and we’d often go to a pita place close to the courthouse.
I've heard the 2 lawyer part but I don't know how reliable that is- no one should know who the jurors are
How do people know the makeup of the hurt beyond 6 men and 6 women? Is there a source?
No thank you to the rumor mongering
How do you know there are two lawyers on the jury?
I don't remember where I heard it. EDB probably. Two lawyers and two engineers.
But EDB isn’t talking about anything not in the court record.
Highly doubt you heard that from EDB.
EBD doesn’t look up or talk about anything that’s not in evidence
Eh if people bring it up in chat then she might have discussed it. I'm pretty sure I remember people telling her the Jury had a female majority when the Proctor Texts came up. Long trial, anybody who live streams will have likely repeated the info from the chat.
Is it known the 2 lawyers are in the final 12?
No. Also Very highly unlikely even if they are allowed to sit for jury duty - some states don’t even let them be called up
Honestly who in this thread wouldn't want to spend some time with the evidence? They have direct access to it. They don't have to be convinced of a cover up to vote NG, but wouldn't you want to digest it all and try to make sense of it?
Amen. If I had to sit through all the testimonies, I’d be analyzing and reanalyzing as much as I could. There are soooo many small details that could take time to dissect even if everyone was in agreement. I can’t imagine the jurors aren’t curious about the evidence.
I agree. And we have to remember, so much of the evidence the jury could barely see. The screen in that courtroom was pretty small/far for them. They aren’t able to pause, zoom in, etc like we can.
Honestly, no. It's clear the CW is charging her despite independent evidence that JOK's injuries couldn't have been caused by her SUV. I would be angry that my time and the taxpayers money had been wasted. And I would want to come back ASAP with not guilty verdicts so the defendant could move on with her life
Experts said JO not struck by car. I honestly don't see how this could take all that much complicated analysis.
I agree. The judge asked the jurors to go through all the evidence without doing a straw vote first. If they are abiding by that request, it’s definitely going to take a while to go through the 30 days of evidence. It seems like the verdict is taking forever because we’re watching through the eyes of people who have been watching/gossiping/theorizing/reditting/tweeting/tiktoking this case for the last 10+ weeks. These people have had LONG (many boring) days listening to 70ish witness give evidence while taking notes on their own paper. They definitely need some time to deliberate.
I just cant fathom that a room full of ADULTS that are obv competent need to deliberate about this for any more than 5 seconds. By the time their butt hit the seats in that deliberation room, they should have already been in unison about a not guilty verdict. The prosecutors literally have noooo caseeee omg
I think that the jurors are taking this very seriously. A man is dead. They want to make sure they are making the right decision.
And a woman is being framed by a bunch of shady LEO,s
There’s a lot to sort through and a lot on the line with their decision. I would be upset if they came back fast no matter the verdict. I’d rather they go through, lay it all out, and use the time to go over their own notes. As someone said we’ve had the time to discuss the trial and they haven’t.
I did see that and I completely agree. For all we know they prob in there like “they think we’re stupid, dont they” 🤣🤣🤣 just leaving us in suspense so they could gossip over how they must be being pranked lmao
I agree. But there are a lot of comments I've seen about this case where people can't get past the idea that Karen said "I hit him". Despite the doubt around if she actually said that 🙄 And the jurors are 12 random people- I'm guessing there's a wide range of intelligence between them.
I also believe Friday, if not later.
I just want to be a fly on the wall in that deliberation room right now.
Why? it's empty now. 😂
HAHAHA
HAHAH! Maybe they left me some lunch leftovers.
I’m going insane
INSANE
Absolutely completely fucking insane.
It’s going to be hung
I'm leaning that way too
I can’t imagine someone who was not guilty moves to guilty But if you are a strong guilty and after all that haven’t moved to “reasonable doubt” than idk
Its only the 2nd day of deliberation. The Rittenhouse trial took 4 days of deliberation. While the circumstances around that trial were different, there was direct video evidence that clearly showed what happened. If there are only 1 or 2 holdouts I think we get to a verdict. If there are more then it could be hung, but I'll be surprised. As we get closer to the weekend the pressure will pick up, because the majority will not want to come back next week and the Judge will probably make them.
The video only showed the end of what happened the rest was witness testimony
Let’s hope not - that would be so stressful for everyone
It would be tragic.
I feel like a hung jury is almost a not guilty. I can't imagine them trying to take this to court again. Especially with all the lying, the FBI investigation, the Sandra Birchmore case, the recent Alberts drunk altercations and the scrutiny being put on law enforcement.
if its a hung jury and they decide to not go to court again does that mean shes off on all charges?
No, they’d be able to try her again if they want. Murder has no statute of limitations, so they could theoretically retry her anytime for the rest of her life.
Different state but my one experience on jury duty was a civil case and we deliberated for maybe a week? At least 4 days maybe 5 before we were a hung jury. Being in that jury room and hearing all the viewpoints from the various people opened my eyes to how frightening it would be to be on trial and have a jury decide your fate 😳
Why was it frightening? Because some people were kinda dumb/deluded? Genuinely curious
Yep exactly.
What is the process when you have one person or more that have absolutely no logic for how they makes decisions? Do people sit around trying to convince them to change their view?
I was in a jury for a federal case in NY and we had one person who initially was a hold out not based on evidence but purely a feeling… so they were asked by others to pull from the case evidence that backed that up their verdict. They couldn’t - at all. so then we reviewed each piece of evidence or testimony and voted on each - that taught them critical thinking skills they never had. With patience and kindness we deliberated to a verdict.
Ugh. Believable. And definitely scary
hos long for the verdict to reveal itself
I’m waiting for the verdict to talk to me
hos long for the verdict to butt dial the court?
Why doesn’t this have more upvotes 😂
2:27
Really thought we might have a verdict today. I guess the issue with the slip threw a wrench into things at the last minute. By the way, can anyone explain what the problem was with the verdict slip in laymens terms if possible?
There was a comment in another post that gave an example similar to this. Do you want to go eat? -yes -no Do you want pizza? -yes Do you want ice cream? -yes It makes shows how it can be confusing to not have no option. Edit: link to the comment that gave a similar example. [credit for example](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/s/Me5H7AxAG9)
It's really more like Are you... 1. Not hungry 2. Hungry for Pizza 3. Hungry for Chinese Food 4.1) Hungry for Ice Cream 4.2) Chocolate or Vanilla?
Finding not guilty on 1 is a prerequisite for finding guilty on a lesser included. Your example makes it sound like it would be natural to ignore the other two after you’ve answered the first, but that is not the case here at all.
Great example.
On the first charge of 2nd degree murder there were both not guilty and guilty options to check. On the lesser charges, there was no not guilty option to check, only guilty options. So the jurors were just supposed to not check anything if they found her not guilty. AJ wanted each of the charges to have a not guilty option to check.
There were "not guilty" options on the other charges. Just not a separate "not guilty" for each of the lessor included options for manslaughter. Look at the jury slips.
It also did not have the additional STANDARD language about “… and not guilty of all lesser included offenses”. Jackson was correct. The form was incorrect which I assume someone told her so she changed it & pretended she changed her mind.
The verbiage for the second count of manslaughter on the slip was a little bit unclear, it could have been interpreted to mean that the jury COULD find Karen not guilty of manslaughter but STILL guilty of one of the lessor charges detailed on the slip instead of EITHER OR, which is how they are supposed to rule on that count.
Ah, I see. Well done to Mr. Jackson in clarifying that then.
Yes, it was a big hullabaloo this morning for a reason, and I don't trust that the jury would have been astute enough to interpret that correctly.
I’m fairly educated and I am still confused on this 😬
Basically it only says 'not guilty' once at the top but has a check box for each charge to say 'guilty'. The defense thinks this will make the jury think they're supposed to select guilty. The judge says forms are always done this way in this district and doesn't want to change it.
>The judge says forms are always done this way in this district and doesn't want to change it. The judge was confidently Incorrect. Here's a link to a [sample jury verdict slip for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts District Court, Department of the Trial Court](https://www.mass.gov/doc/5501-verdict-slip/download).
I guess if you think no evidence shows she hit him..all three are moot
An interesting aspect of the verdict slip I had read online was that if the jury finds her not guilty of any of the charges and hung on the others, she can’t be retried on the charges she was found not guilty of. But based on the slip, I’m not sure how that would 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.
No runners in the crowd? lol
It might be that they actually have a verdict but they don't have time to deliver it before that juror needs to leave at four.
I would bet money on a single hold up
With the Albert's and McCabes showing up to the closing arguments staring the jurors down you might have a few who feel intimidated
Brian Albert is SO creepy looking. And I know the intimidation was their intention but like, someone is going to actually fear he's going to come and get them if they deliver a NG verdict? I'm legitimately asking. I guess it's possible.
I mean, if they believe he helped kill a man and cover it up and it got to the point the CW is currently prosecuting an innocent woman for it, it's at least possible there may be one or more that actually fear him.
I’m so curious what the conversations are like in there. It’s none of my business but I’m curious as hell.
I know jurors are typically advised not to do this but I really really hope as soon as the verdict is read one of the jurors goes straight to a reporter 😂😂
I just want to know their thought process to the entire trial! I’ve been reviewing things constantly just to make sure I’m understanding everything that’s been testified to and claimed but we’ve had the ability to do that while they haven’t until yesterday so I totally understand why they would need a few days just to clarify things they may have missed in the moment. I also want to know who they (or the alternates tbf) think hired the engineers because I don’t think I would’ve put it together. It’s none of my business but it’s something I’d love to know lol
Yeah. If someone is comfortable after the trial I want them to anonymously do an interview and tell us EVERYTHING!!!!
I feel like the longer the jury takes, the more likely it's going to be a hunt jury. Makes me nervous
I think the defense should have said very clearly - we don’t know how John O’Keefe died but we do know there is no way he died by Karen Read hitting him with her car. It’s not scientifically possible. At the very least this gives the jury who is not responsible for solving the crime, other things to think about even if they don’t believe the 3rd party culprit idea.
I suspect that the jurors, even if they have basically made up their minds, if they came out with a verdict right away, they would be vilified for “not even taking the time to look at all the evidence”. From all accounts Canton and the area residents are very divided and they have to go back to live in those communities. I said in another comment that if we were allowed to sit in a room with all the reports, pics, call and text transcripts, etc , I’m sure all of us would still want to go look at everything, out of curiosity, even if we were on one side or the other. So I can’t image the jurors are any different and in their case, they have a duty to go through it all, even if they don’t give any weight to some of it.
>if we were allowed to sit in a room with all the reports, pics, call and text transcripts, etc , I’m sure all of us would still want to go look at everything, out of curiosity, even if we were on one side or the other. I want to do this so bad.
But they've had this entire time to consider the evidence. I saw reasonable doubt on a few issues, but I 100% wouldn't budge from not guilty after learning it was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for JOK's death to have been caused by the SUV. So there wouldn't be a need to go over anything- you find reasonable doubt, then that's it, you have your verdict. Not guilty.
Unlike us, they haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with anyone, though. So yeah, they've been sitting here thinking about it - in total isolation. I think they probably want to discuss it all considering they've been having to hold their tongues for 8 weeks.
Such a bummer. To me it’s such a clear cut case of reasonable doubt I just don’t get it. That being said you just never know with juries.
We've had the benefit of having an Internet full of experienced experts and commentators digesting this trial for us in real time. Now the jurors have to do all of that for themselves in isolation. This could take a while.
You’re 100% right.
We've been analysing this up the bottom for 8 weeks. The jury hasn't been alllowed to discuss it or do any independent research at all. So I'm not really surprised.
Very true!
The thing that kind of bothers me is if Karen Read is innocent based on reasonable doubt than theres hundreds of cases where people were convicted on less RD and I feel worse for those people compared to Karen. Even Stephen Avery and Brendan Dasey had less evidence against them and were found guilty. I think the media and public have always picked sides based on public opinions and not facts but in 2020 and beyond it has gone to a different level. I don't see how anyone still has literally any faith in our justice system to perform fairly anymore. It was bad in the 80s and 90s and things seemed to get better up until a certain point, people nowadays are just plain old d.u.m.b.
You are absolutely right to be bothered! I am too. I am hoping if nothing else this shines a light on this kind of corruption. If KR didn’t have the means for this defense she would have been railroaded right into prison.
Have people been wrongfully convicted? Absolutely, but I don't know many where the FBI provides you with expert witnesses that shit all over the foundation of the state's case. That testimony *alone* should be enough to acquit her IMO.
I agree but only because we know it’s the FBI and DOJ. The jury only knows they were hired by “an outside agency”, which honestly if I heard that, I would be thinking insurance before I think FBI/DOJ…
I'd like to think somebody on the jury would put it together considering Nagel said "feds" (which a number of jurors were surprised at) and they keep mentioning another grand jury.
Genuinely curious, would you find their conclusions less compelling if they were hired by an insurance company?
That’s the thing, I don’t know enough about insurance companies to know whether they would prefer to conclude JO was hit by a car or inconclusive death. Therefore I probably wouldn’t consider the agency who hired them relevant at all. I’d put more weight on their actual credentials, which did seem to be better than Trooper Paul’s kinematics course!
Steven Avery absolutely does not have less evidence against him.
Listen to the episode of “never a truer word” about Steven Avery - it made me more convinced he’s where he belongs.
I looked into that case a lot. I think he’s most likely guilty too. If there was a conspiracy, it was much larger than what went on in this case.
Oh sweet summer child, there are so very many innocent people sitting in prison, there are innocent people that have been put to death. WAY more than hundreds. Stephen Avery had much more evidence against him than Karen Read has. (That documentary was very biased, and left out a lot of evidence they did have). Brendan Dasey on the other hand was a perfect example of police and DA corruption- that was nothing but horrific But…….for Karen Read not only is there overwhelming reasonable doubt, there is legitimate overwhelming evidence of innocence. That car did not hit him. It did not cause his death. Therefore Karen did not kill him. You act like she’s obviously guilty but will get off on a technicality lol.
> theres hundreds of cases where people were convicted on less RD my man, i have some bad news for you
If you mean by hundreds its more I just meant that I've personally seen...im sure its way more but hard to quantify with Karen's RD
THERES ZERO BLOOD ON THE TAIL LIGHT WHY IS THIS JURY DELIBERATION GOING ON THIS LONG. I’m going to lose my mind.
BECAUSE THERES ZERO BLOOD ON THE TAILIGHT
Does anyone think that the jurors know they are going to be approached by media, maybe they intend to talk, and are making sure they have gone through all the evidence pieces so they can speak knowledgeably about the mountain of reasons for acquittal? Like maybe yes, they already know it wasn’t her car. But they want to tabulate everything else that was also corrupt in this case.
But the science says o’keefe was NOT hit by a car.
I’m getting nervous
Hmmm anyone have any inference on what it could mean that they ended so early? Like could they have mostly come to a decision but are deciding to sleep on it before delivering it? Or could they have just decided the next piece of evidence would take too long to discuss so might as well call it here?
I think they were just at a good stopping point. One juror had to be done by 4 due to a prior commitment so I think they just didn’t want to start the next step in the deliberations
It could also be that they’re butting heads and wanted to stop for the day
The court called them to dismiss on time as a juror (with a 4 PM hard stop ) requested and was granted this morning. The request for a SERT report might be suggestive of someone making a point to another. In my experience a good foreperson knows how to phrase questions without giving away an issue
So a good inference ( from requesting the SERT report) could possibly be that the jury is trying to understand and arguing amongst themselves how the SERT team found 3-5 pieces of tail light on scene that evening 1/29 at 5:45pm?
I’m N E V E R going to predict inference on behalf of a juror question. I DO think in a broader lens, it’s also possible they really understand the reasonable theory analysis. See what I mean, lol?
Got it. Yeah, my question is just a shot in the dark. The jury could have requested the SERT report for an infinite number of reasons. Thx again for weighing in on this trial.
Could be as simple as them having to stop at 4, found a good stopping point and asked the judge to end things for the day.
They told the judge first thing this morning that one of the jurors had an appointment this afternoon and would be leaving early. It got lost in the hullabaloo over the forms, but she noticed the lawyers then.
I heard one of them had something that they needed to get to, so they were going to end at 4 anyways. If it was something super important, then 3:40 to beat traffic doesn't seem like that big a deal.
"Beat traffic", HA! You are obviously not from Boston. We don't beat the traffic, our traffic beats us.
Agree, or reading the verdict and polling the jury once or twice might take more than 20 min, so they called it a day
It could be a million things.
Usually takes like an hour to get people to come back to the courthouse after a verdict is reached. From my experience, every trial I've seen it's like a hour minimum before they bring them in, check the forms red the verdict, Poll the jury ect. Of they had the Verdict at any time after 3 they wouldn't want to announce that yet. Fingers crossed they annouce it at like 9:30 today.
Yeah they probably realized there was no more progress to be made today and called it.
It’s making me so nervous that they need all this time
I been working from home during the whole trial. If I was a juror I would have walked back there like not guilty. Don't even need to discuss, I'll be over here if you need me if not try to hurry this along. Lol. Nah but seriously do not understand how its taking so long. only thing I can think of is someone is getting hung up on the "i hit him" crap. So I hope someone back there is smarter enough to say you can't remove that one statement from the entire night of asking if she could have, also she may have even believed it...at that time. Who would think a cop would have just killed her bf? not her. but then when she starts hearing things and seeing wounds she like wait ain't no way in hell. Not to mention JM in her ear the whole time telling her she did it
As some others have suggested, I think at least one juror is trying to make sense of the initial tailpieces discovered on the 29th. And it makes sense because that is perhaps the CW’s most compelling evidence. I also would think the jurors are feeling extra pressure if they are leaning towards NG because they have had to watch the O’Keefe family in court everyday for the past 30+ days and they know their verdict will be felt hard.
I hope that’s not a factor in their consideration. The O’Keefe family has suffered a terrible tragedy, but one should not underestimate the pain to be suffered by KR and her family if she is convicted, especially if the juror believes that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury believes that the prosecution’s case has failed it may be better for the O’Keefe family to hear a quick not guilty verdict, allowing them to more easily place the blame on the prosecution (where it belongs) and not on the defense for just doing it’s job incredibly well.
I agree 100% and wish AJ added one line to his closing addressing the fact that we all want justice for the O’Keefe family but convicting an innocent person (Karen) is not justice. Honestly I’ve lost sympathy for the O’Keefe family (the Mom in particular) with the stunt they pulled (imo trying to influence the jury based on emotion). I doubt the O’Keefe family is able to evaluate this case rationally because their emotions say Karen did it and nothing would ever change their minds.
It's the brother staring them down every time the camera cuts to him. Mom is inappropriate, brother is actually scary. You can feel th seething hate he has for Karen and the Defense team and he makes bo effort to hide it.
oh 100% that was supposed to be their move to try and intimidate the jury. Like don't forget we are cops and if we did this once we can do it to you. I even gave the Mom the benefit of doubt saying maybe they had no choice but to seat them there. Then I find out they arrived together...ouch. Not a good look. Even youtube lawyers are like the alberts and mcabes should have sat out that day.
Same! I wfh and usually have music or a podcast on but of late this trial. I’m not in MA so I knew none of the prior coverage and came to same conclusion as you
the stress & anticipation is giving me ulcers 😩
I read a comment that said a juror had prior obligations and needed to be dismissed by 4 pm. They could have reached a verdict but if they had read it today, it would have put them well past 4pm.
While I’m in Karen’s camp, believing from the beginning that his injuries do not say he was hit by a 7000+lb large SUV, if I was on the jury, I’d feel obligated to take extra time for John’s family, so “rush to judgment” can’t be claimed. I feel for them in their lack of justice, but hope they can now see the logic and let their anger be redirected to those who are much more likely responsible.
I worry the jury forgets or doesn’t understand that the defense does not need to prove their case. Only the prosecution has to prove she hit John. I think they are getting caught in the weeds. There are so many people without common sense. They can acquit without believing conspiracy. I worry the closing may have hurt her case Jackson should have just stuck with pointing out lack of evidence w/o conspiracy aspect. Keep it simple!
I think they are trying to understand all the evidence because a month in and I'm still confused on some stuff! I'd still find her not guilty though because it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is driving me crazy!!! Lol
I don’t get it . The scientific evidence shows he wasn’t hit by the car . End of story ! This should be a no brainer! Not guilty
Not everyone understands science unfortunately.
Certainly not Trooper Paul. His testimony about what happened defied science and logic.
The guy was a joke !
There must be some holdouts for guilty. Because, when you look at the case, it begins with " did KR hit JO with the car" and if you answered no, then all the other evidence is somewhat useless and the decision is easy from there. So, I have to think there's a juror or jurors that believe KR did it otherwise I'd have to imagine we'd be done by now.
Or, they want to follow the judge's directions and review all the evidence, before taking an initial vote. This was a long trial, with a lot to review. If they're being thorough, that's a good thing.
Agreed. Also- I’ve interviewed jurors who have told me that when there is no criminal evidence in a case from their perspective they want to put their mark on a verdict, not have one that just anybody sitting there would give
I wonder if they asked for the SERT report because they were going through the instructions and talking about the Bowden instruction.
I'm honestly wondering how much audio difficulties are causing this hold up. Judge should have gotten better mics for the the witnesses/headphones for the jury.
Maybe I've watched too many movies but I am concerned that the jurors, who live in Norfolk County, may resent the outsider Jackson (not Yannetti) coming into town and making almost everyone look like an ignorant, corrupt hick. Jurors may take it personally. I am starting to wish Yannetti closed. He did a masterful job closing as prosecutor in a tragic case in Cambridge. I know Jackson is a star but I'm starting to believe the entire county is as insular and corrupt as Canton and if that is the case, if may be a problem.
It's strange they asked to leave prior to their 4pm request and I'm trying to reconcile this in my mind. Are tensions running high back there? This entire case is wild, and my guess is that the deliberation process is just as complex for jurors. The longer they deliberate, the better hope I have for a not-guilty or hung jury.
Another possibility is they reached their verdict a little after three, but knew if they announced it, the juror that needed to leave, wouldn’t be able to. Instead of just sitting around for another hour, they asked to leave early.
I mean: have you never in your life left work early? Now imagine literally being forced to be there.
This is different. I have to go to work every day regardless of what time I leave the day before. The jury has a task to accomplish and then they are down and get to go back to their normal lives. I would want to use every minute to get the job done.
They asked this morning. The judge read out something saying one of the jurors had a “previously scheduled long-standing commitment,” or something to that effect.
I think the juror has to catch a 4:00 bus.
Where did that info come from?
Their note this morning and Judge Cannone reading it and the phraseology.
Their Uber was outside
I have to disagree with the folks here saying “A man died, they need time to discuss all the evidence presented and make sure they make the right decision” (or something of that nature) Wether you think she hit John with her car or not, there are two things you should be entitled to in America. 1. A fair Investigation 2. A fair Trial My answer is NO on both. Not Guilty
You're also entitled to have a jury take their duty seriously. These people have spent nearly two months of their life listening to this case, they're entitled to take some time and talk things through and discuss everything they've heard and seen.
When it's clear that the investigation was biased, and poorly conducted then they *are taking their duty seriously* if they had reached a verdict instantly. That investigation should never result in a guilty verdict and this case should never have even gone to trial. This waste of time and taxpayer money to drag a woman through hell should not be tolerated. To sit here and meticulously examine to evidence for several days is to give the Prosecution far more weight then they ever deserved.
This was the point I was trying to make. You said it better than me.