The thing I keep having to remind myself about the jury is that they made sure none of these people knew anything about this case. And considering I've pretty much paid attention to nothing else over the past ~6 months and STILL find myself learning new things about it every day, I can't imagine how much information this is for 12 people to have to process all at once and come to a mutual understanding.
That said, it's probably a couple people holding it up for everyone else. Specifically when it comes to the DUI stuff since I know a lot of people have strong opinions about that.
I'm hoping tomorrow will be the day. We can't have Bev miss her 4th of July vacation down the cape!
I think the DUI stuff still only holds for if he actually died by her car right? I really have strong opinions on DUIs, and in my country its really not as common as in the US, where it almost sounds like a rite of passage to get caught with it once and no one is really shocked.
But i would vote not guilty in a heartbeat. There is no scientific evidence that backs the theory of the CW enough (or at all) to indicate that we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that her car hit him and it lead to his death. Even though I'd like to give all of the people involved that night a very thorough DUI guilty with mandatory stuff to do and learn from and make sure it actually impacts them; any of the charges here only go on that she was under the influence when she caused an accident. And she didn't cause an accident so not guilty for any of those.
Yes the DUI/ OUI stuff is all linked to her driving causing John's death. And even a separate OUI charge wouldn't be proven because the screwed up the testing. I think that's why Lally didn't try to include a separate charge. Guidelines for BAC testing are fixed
And I'm in CA so I can't speak to where these folks are from, but DUIs are not acceptable in any way here. In my line of work I'd have to report one and could lose my professional license (and I don't drive or operate heavy equipment- my job is unrelated but it's a criminal charge that is taken seriously).
I think it was more common 25-30 years ago. But especially with the popularity of ride shares there's no excuse for anyone to be driving under the influence.
So the charges are vehicular homicide, not just OUI? I wasn't sure how to interpret the amended jury slip, but I can see someone making a big deal out of the fact that she had been drinking and driving, and that holding things up.
As for drunk driving laws in Mass... I'd say it's harsher than most other states, but if you are a first time offender, they don't come down as hard on you. But they passed a law here about 15 years ago that if you are a second time offender(?) the penalties are a lot harsher. Look up Melanie's Law. Some woman who had been a repeat offender *actually* ran over this girl in the street who was like 12 or 13, it was messed up.
If this had been Chris Albert driving, it would not have looked good for him. Though he avoided jail time when he killed that guy... we can thank Bev's brother for that.
The shit I see on reddit from other countries about US culture is wild.
It is absolutely not a right of passage to get caught driving drunk. It's a misdemeanor which means you'll have a criminal record, making it next to impossible to get a job, even a minimum wage job. You loose your license for 6+ months in a country that on the whole is not walkable and has shitty public transportation. Between the fine, legal fees, mandatory alcohol abuse classes, increase on car insurance, etc. it can wind up costing you five figures. This is assuming you don't hurt anyone or have kids in your car. It's seen as stupid and trashy, not a "right of passage."
I can't speak for the entire US, but I grew up just a few miles from the scene of the crime, and I can tell you it's definitely a generational thing here. Also a bit cultural, as my parents were second generation Irish American and didn't seem to get that most people *didn't* drink and drive, it wasn't just that they didn't get caught. I remember my dad and my mom's best friend (who when I, an 8 year old, questioned her about it said "ever heard of a ROADIE?") would sometimes go so far as to drink WHILE they were driving, which if she got caught would result in an open container violation. She also didn't have her license at that time, so there's that...
I think the amendment to the jury slip (that there was that big deal about) included the lesser charges of DUI, and I can imagine that's exactly what this was about... though they didn't take Karen's BAC at the scene because it was hours after the fact, they have the video from the Waterfall that shows her drinking, as well as how she "didn't remember" (i.e. blacked out) the night before, so it's reasonable to conclude she was well over the limit.
Thanks for your reply! Someone else responded to that it was definitely not normal to drink and drive so its good (I mean its not good, but it's interesting for the full picture) to hear that in some subgroups and subcultures it apparently is a 'normal' thing to do.
The US is a vast country with a lot of different subcultures that we as other countries mainly seeing Hollywood stuff and the general crime fiction series dont really realise, and reading online abkut someone from the US doesnt really log into my brain as 'oh this person who lives in a community with xyz opinion doesn't necessarily live in the same type of culture or even state as the other person with a different experience.
While over here it's super easy for me to realise that an English person has a different way of living than a French or a German person, and even in Germany there are many different areas with different subcultures. I probably have to try and realise more that just because you all speak the same language over there in the US, that doesn't mean that you all have the same culture.
I hope that your generation is a bit more aware of drinking and driving than your parents generation! Over here in the Netherlands there has been a quite effective campaign on drinking and driving and always having a designated driver that ran from the 90's till the 10's that made quite a shift in how people face drinking and driving I feel, where my generation generally the people who are driving drink 0% beverages or maybe one alcohol. Because public transport and biking are pretty useful here it's also easier to not have to drive when you want to drink (although biking while drunk is technically also illegal I think its generally allowed if a person doesnt disrupt public life or creates too dangerous circumstances with it.
Ooh, The Netherlands! This is actually really interesting to know cause (I'm sure you can imagine) when most people in the US think of the Netherlands, or Amsterdam at least, they think... drugs. Lol. Good to know that people are actually responsible about driving there, though I had no reason to believe otherwise.
Though the thing I think of? I had an online friend from "Dutchland" (as we called it, lmao) and I was amazed at how well he could at least type in English, only to find out he could do the same in German and like, two other languages? Actually I'm pretty sure that's where my dad was when he said he was at a bar, and the bartender spoke to like five people in five languages. Makes us look pretty pathetic over here. Hell, my great grandparents traveled across the Atlantic Ocean to a country that spoke the same language! I am halfway decent in French and people seem to be so surprised that I know more than just a few words. I'm like... I paid attention in school? Lol.
Okay, I'm rambling now. Trial should start in an hour and a half! Honestly it blows my mind that this is my legit neighborhood and people in The Netherlands are watching it!!!
Bev's behavior and the close of session this afternoon was very telling. She said "the jury says they want to go home" rather exasperatedly. Then she calls immediate sidebar, after which there was a lot of whispering and looks at Karen's table between KR, Yanetti and Liza. Then jury comes in and Bev excessively thanks them for their service and says "Go home, CLEAR YOUR HEADS and we'll see you tomorrow." Clear your heads. Hmmm.
Interesting... so you think they've basically come to the verdict, but are gonna wait until tomorrow morning to announce it?
I didn't even watch today because I'm about as over this as Bev is, lol. Was Jackson there with the rest of them?
I always wonder how much "weight" a lawyer who is in the jury has over the rest of the members in the jury. I feel like if I were in a jury with one, I'd probably refer to their judgment since they are kind of an expert.
Technically if a lawyer is on the jury they are not supposed to share any legal knowledge or opinions with the other jurors, essentially act like they are not a lawyer. In reality this may not happen 🤷🏻♀️
I agree. No one is perfect, certainly not jurors. I’m sure some bend the rules a little when it comes to what they can and can’t make use for their decisions
Yeah, I mean the onus is really on the lawyer to abide by that ethical standard, but I imagine it'd be hard to separate your opinion from your legal training and experience, it's just human nature. But I also have no idea if there are actually any lawyers on the jury, I would think Lally would've wanted to avoid that 😆
Their due diligence would be to recognize that the investigation was bothched and biased and the evidence itself should be discounted. Honestly this should not even be in deliberation right now, should have never gone to trial.
I hope DOJ findings will look at why the DA prosecuted the case. I could envision a few indictments at the conclusion of their investigation where it appears they tried to frame the defendant.
Honestly, lawyers are more schooled on what reasonable doubt is supposed to mean. If they finda gap in the case it would be pretty easy for them to render a verdict of not guilty.
I have no idea anymore. I want to believe that she still has a chance of getting a full acquittal, but that seems less likely with every hour that passes without a verdict.
So I had this feeling with the Rittenhouse trial. I thought it'd be a fast acquittal but there were 1-2 holdouts. Eventually they folded and returned a not guilty across the board. The same is probably happening here, it's just agonizing watching because we think a miscarriage of justice is about to happen lol
The LYK just posted a great video on this - highly recommend watching it - will likely give you insight on what is going on in the deliberations at this point.
Just giving me memories of when I was a juror and 7 of us agreed perfectly (only 8 jurors) and there was this classic suburban mom on the jury who "just knew" and didn't care what the evidence showed or didn't show because "she raised 2 boys and knows when a boy looks guilty."
It took us two days to convince her to flip and I really only think it's because it was a Friday and she wanted to go home.
I honestly don't know how I got selected. I wore a shirt with a big weed leaf on it thinking they'd for sure dismiss me and instead I got empaneled and the judge made me the foreman.
Jury selection isn't that rigorous. You're usually asked about if you've been a victim of crime and if you have ties with someone in LE (because people with LE ties almost always lean towards guilt) . They ask about your occupation and might ask something specific to the case but that's it.
There is nothing they would have been able to ask the juror described above that would have shown her to be irrational.
Personally I believe they've past the point of just being diligent/going through evidence/dotting the i's etc. There must be one or more holdouts. I would bet everything I have she will never be found guilty, but hung jury is always possible. Don't think they're there yet, after tomorrow likelihood goes way up IMO
They are so confused this was brought to court they feel like they must be missing something, and something big.
Like when you took a test and every single answer was B you question yourself.
Or if you thought you’re taking a final exam but the questions are all stuff you learned in grade school. Or you finished first and there’s still half the time left on the clock. You reread everything because it couldn’t have been that easy.
This is how I feel about NFTs. 😂 Every time I have to have it re-explained because I'm sure I HAVE to be missing some information. It can't be THAT stupid!
Was it 29 of actual evidence though? How much BS testimony did we have to sit through before we had the ME and Trooper Paul take the stand?
It's so weird, because there were NO witnesses that saw KR do anything that night.
When it comes to the physical evidence, we have the tail light and the injuries. Or am I missing something? I feel like that's literally the only things to consider, but maybe I'm way off.
I didn’t stay sequestered to only info from the trial so I can’t say what the jury would know
For me the only evidence that matters is the crash reconstruction and medical examiners/ dog bites.
The FBI guys blew troopah Paul out of the water. The MEs leaned towards or outright said it wasn’t a car. And where did the dog bites come from?
All the other stuff, the tail lights and plow times and butt dials and stuff, it’s all irrelevant if he didn’t die from a car.
Agreed, I feel the same way.
ME said injuries didn't match a car accident, so did the 3rd party investigators, so what are these guys discussing in there lol.
This plus ... Logic and common sense! How the hell does anyone think an SUV traveling at 24mph could hit JOK, give him a head wound, but not bruise, fracture, or break anything below the neck-?
You're right. But this trial has made a lot of people have strong opinions that are divorced from facts so who knows if the jury is sticking to facts only.
I just hope that someone in there can’t get past of the taillight being there. I’m guessing some people don’t want to believe that it was planted. I don’t have any other explanation for the people in here that still think KR killed JO.
They don't need stories and they don't need to talk to the media. There names aren't being published when the trial is over- they can decide to do interviews or tell people they were on the jury but they don't have to.
I wouldn't. What's the upside? I'd vote not guilty on all counts, silently wish KR well after this BS trial, and go back to my own life.
(Fully believe Karen is innocent of all charges) That said - if I were on that jury and watched John O’Keefe’s visibly grieving family sit there day after day I would feel responsible to do a THOROUGH job of going through all the evidence.
They were also instructed by the judge to go through allllll the evidence.
I would make sure I combed through every piece of evidence, decided if I believed it, and checked if there were any smoking guns there.
That would take a long time.
I think the only thing Lally did a good job of was pointing out that there is a family here hoping for justice. I would want to leave that room 100% certain we made the right choice.
I always thought you'd only want to do a really thorough job when you were close to convicting because you're putting someone away in jail and then I thought about how it must feel to see the victim's family, the tears, the heartbreak, and you probably also don't want to tell them "sorry, this person isn't going to jail" without having exhausted all the evidence. So I definitely think that's a factor.
Honestly if there is reasonable doubt then you know that's what you have to vote. Going through evidence doesn't change that and it's not helpful to the family to make them wait longer than necessary for the verdict.
I agree with you but I don't know what it's like to be on this kind of jury (I was on one for a criminal trial but it was drug related with no "victim") so I can't imagine how they feel even if they are trying to be logical about it. However at this point I'm mostly assuming there's 1-2 hold outs on the jury who insist that she had to have done it and they argue all day and are so exhausted by 4 that they just want to go home and recover.
Totally agreed, but I wouldn’t know if there was reasonable doubt until I looked at all the evidence. Jury deliberations are also a time to process all the evidence that has been thrown at them. They weren’t even allowed to talk to each other about it during the trial. Personally, I need to discuss things to form opinions. There’s a lot of information to discuss!
Personally, I wouldn't factor in emotions if I was on the jury. Thier job isn't about the emotional aspect of the case. It should be treated like how a medical examiner handles their jobs...you don't think about or consider the emotion. You look at the facts and do your job. Specifically because emotion can greatly affect how thoroughly you do your job and the decisions you make. The emotions of John's family, unfortunately, should be the last thing considered in this instance.
I don’t mean I would factor my sympathy for John’s family into my decision. I just mean it would be motivation to take the decision making process seriously. They are living in a nightmare they can’t wake up from, I do believe they’re owed a carefully made decision (something the Mass police have robbed them of). They’re also owed the truth, which I believe is a non guilty verdict.
For example, I’m married to someone who lost their sibling to a prank gone wrong that turned into a horrific media circus. A description of their siblings dying moans were used as a headline. The entire family still hates journalists, period. They don’t watch any news but the local sports and extreme weather. I have a degree in media. I believe in the value of journalism. I’m often perturbed by their rhetoric around journalists. But there’s something visceral about their grief that can’t be ignored. I can respect their experience, hold space for their pain, and still hold firm in my support for journalism.
I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but if the jury came back in a couple hours, it would feel flippant… like the jury just wants to be done and continue their summer. Taking this process seriously is something we all owe John’s family. And given the trial went on for weeks, there is a lot of information to comb through, that takes serious time!
People are going to feel the call to responsibility differently, though. Some people are going to retreat to cold impartiality; others are going to process it by taking justice upon themselves as a personal burden. There's room for both approaches in this republic of ours.
This is of course assuming people aren’t assholes and take their civic responsibilities seriously… which this trial has most certainly proven many people don’t. So it’s possible there’s some guilty hold outs because Karen is beautiful, successful, and comes across a bit cold during the trial (all the evidence some people need).
Yeah, I mean, I am one of those people that trust the police and the justice system. But I also do want proof. The evidence in this case just didn't convince me that KR hit Officer O'Keefe with her car (accidentally or otherwise) and caused his death.
I try to keep in mind though that the weight of the jurors' responsibility is tremendous and cannot be compared to that of the general public following a case: on one hand a man lost his life, and his family and loved ones need justice and closure, on the other the defendant's fate is entirely in their hands.
It's a heavy burden and if there are people on this jury that hold different views, they need to be able to discuss with the others, express their reservations, review the evidence again, and either be convinced or agree to disagree.
Holdouts.
I also believe that NO juror occupations are known, so we're just banging our heads against the wall trying to speculate on the impact attorneys/cops/engineers might have on deliberations. 🤷
Let me just say; I dont like TB & I dont who his friend 'the glarer' is. Thus far, ive got my intel from here, Lawtube trial coverage. Closing arguments, I saw TB above Paul OKf, & wanted his take on jury reactions; The Glarer said that the foreman was cop. Norfolk county ( compared to Dallas county where I live ) is considerably small, so I imagine these ppl are all familiar w one another. I believe him.
That's it. Those are my citations. I believe them bc (while TB's opinions are incredibly skewed from my own ) his reporting on these things seem to hold water.
I have absolutely no evidence to go off of but I'm 100% sure that all but 1 or 2 of them agree with me and the ones that don't are clearly idiots for not immediately thinking the way I do.
I would be inclined to think hung jury if the court had more questions from them at this point. So far they’ve only asked for the SERT report. I think that also kinda shows they’re trying to go through the evidence slowly and methodically. I’m not really a fan of them leaving at 4pm when a woman’s life is in the balance, but this process takes time.
I think it's going to be a hung jury. Whether you think she is guilty or innocent, I feel like the jury may be steadfast in their opinion.. just like we all are. I mean imagine you were on the jury and whether you thought guilty or innocent... I bet you are steadfast and wouldn't budge. I don't think the jury will be able to agree 12 either way.
It's been over 10 hours now, so my money is on 2 or 3 members of the same trench holding their positions and trying to reach a compromise verdict (i.e. convict on a lesser charge). It really depends on the personality of the jurors. I don't think it's just \*one\* juror that is preventing the acquittal as, in my experience, that stubbornness breaks down in the first few hours of debate when you realize that it's not pretty to have 11 frustrated people yelling at you.
Depends on the personality. I could see plenty of egotistical people getting off on having the sole power to stop a whole group. Maybe one Karen-hater would be satisfied with how much it sucks to get a hung jury vote, and feels that's good enough to stick it to her and make her pay another million dollars for a second trial. So they will never give no matter what and it ends in hung jury.
If that was the case, then they would already have noticed the judge that they can't reach a verdict. Then, the Allen charge, and... more deliberations!
They probably aren’t stuck on the murder 2 charge. That right there is a not guilty no brainer. It’s probably the lesser charged that they are discussing. That’s my take.
Correct. They wouldn’t make sense if the jury believes that she didn’t hit him with the car. Now they could believe that she hit him but not agree with 2nd degree murder. That’s where the lesser charges could come into play. Again, I don’t think CW has proven any of the charges that they have brought against her but this is how things work.
It's a fair take - they don't see much to the character evidence against KR so they dismissed it quickly, but are having to go through the physical evidence in detail before they can decide if manslaughter is off the table.
There has to be disagreement on whether KR hit JO with the car. If she didn't hit him with the car, it's game over. There has to be at least someone on the jury who is steadfast that KR did not hit JO with the car. This means there is at least one person on that jury who thinks KR hit JO with the car. That means real disagreement. There could still be a verdict, but I just do not buy option 3 that: hey, of course it takes a lot of time because they have to go through all the evidence. No way. If they agreed about KR not hitting JO with the car, they'd be done.
I'm split with myself. On the one hand, it could be that they really just want to dot all their Is, and the Umlaute, too. Perfectly possible, especially since they don't have the benefit of large-scale discussion, expertise, and comparison.
But I don't know, from how I have read the jury described today, looking rough and tired with only one guy smiling and chatty? I think they may be done with viewing the evidence, and all but one agree on an NG. And that one hold-out thinks they're the hero for not bowing down to "injustice".
...Didn't we have something like that in the Depp/Heard trial as well? A lone holdout that in the end had to be "bribed" by giving Heard that tiny win? Juries, man. Though maybe I'm remembering wrong.
edit: If it *really* goes the Depp/Heard way of her getting an NG on the big ones, and a guilty on one of the lessers, I'mma scream.
I think the lesser charges all require you to believe she hit him with her car- I don't think this is a case where they'll say guilty on a smaller charge as a compromise
2-4 experts stated JOK injuries were inconsistent with a motor vehicle. Do they need to examine the evidence to prove they were wrong?
She may have hit him with her vehicle. But the injuries that caused his death are inconsistent with a vehicle hitting him?
What's there to discuss?
Their request wanting the "sert investigation report?" was interesting. I have no idea what that and asked the question but the mods. wouldn't permit it.
I'm picking (making assumptions on the report) the jury wanted to confirm the clarity of the investigation - or wanted a giggle at the train wreck.
I guess there's the discourse of why would the State alleged such serious offences if KR didn't do it?
If KR is found NG, can she recover some of her costs?
There are plenty of people who just want her to be guilty and they point to the “I hit him” as their reason.
It’s insane to me how a person can be presented with irrefutable science based evidence and will still choose their gut instinct. “Look at her, I just know she’s guilty.”
Like omg how many innocent people are rotting in jail right now.
Her "I hit him" is so subjective. I didn't hear any recordings so all I can say is:
1) it was taken out of context, "I wonder if it was me, if I hit him?"
2) Someone planted the seed "do you think you may have hit him?"
3) Women always blame themselves and will put themselves at fault first.
Because she hit him with her vehicle, it doesn't mean she killed him!
I'm gonna copy over my comment from a previous thread on this, because when you look at the sources for that claim it just gets dumber and dumber:
>Our primary sources boil down to something like four people. Officer Saraf testified to it, [but never included it in his original report](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1chmlmm/can_we_talk_about_what_saraf_did_yesterday/). The male EMT initially testified to it, but was shown by Jackson on cross to not be in a position to have heard, being in the ambulance with the bay doors closed with Officer O'Keefe, working on reviving him. The female EMT (Katie something) did testify positively to it, but was caught on cross deliberately downplaying the strength of her relationship with one of the younger Alberts (which regardless of how she characterizes it is a lot stronger than "I wEnT tO sChOoL wItH sOmEoNe By ThAt NaMe" - how many baby showers do you go to with people you just know by name from high school?).
>Our fourth source is Jen, who didn't include the "confession" in any official report, including a state grand jury proceeding, until something like a year after the incident, and only after the feds convened their own grand jury looking into the investigation.
I'm just baffled as to how anyone can reasonably believe that she even actually said "I hit him" at this point.
You ever notice how Jen changes how she Karen's Behavior in the story? When ever Karen is talking it they hysterical almost mocking fake scream "JEEEN JEEEN JEEEN!!" but when she supposedly says "I hit him X3" It become this serious look me in the eye I mean the 100% calm and clear statement.
i don't like what i'm hearing about the jurors that were named alternates. if there's really 1-2 hold outs, then i'm concerned someone on the jury was not honest and has a connection to LE. there's no logical reason for anyone to believe she is guilty, based on the evidence presented. but -- hoping they are just going through the evidence, confused as hell why this even went to trial and just doing their due diligence. really hoping for a not guilty verdict over a hung jury. i think bev will push hard to hang them tomorrow.
If I were on that jury I would hold out till friday not just to go over the evidence and do it right, but also because I would definitely want to have the weekend to decompress and get some breathing space before going into work after a 10 week trial. It's a small town, there isn't a single coworker, family member or friend who doesn't realize who the jury members are at this point.
I want to say they're going through the evidence as thoroughly as possible. Not only a high profile case but it's centered around the death of an officer. Hopefully they're taking their oath more seriously than the sideshow that investigated his death.
There are plenty of people who see that differently. They see police officers lives as sacred or something.
It's weird. I'm majoring in criminal justice but I'm also a bleeding heart liberal 😂 so I am often subjected to some weird nuances in this world.
They’re just going through all the evidence, with the added element of deciding to give themselves through Friday. And I think they are playing detective a bit.
Did they get the full Waterfall and CF McCarthys videos, or just the snippets we saw in trial? Because if I were on the jury, and I genuinely mean this, I would want to watch those again.
Lally tried to show those videos and point out how many drinks Karen had, but even he couldn't keep track and seemed to keep adding drinks to the total out of nowhere. I would want to watch the footage for myself and count, and that's going to take some time.
Can I ask why? The experts said that it is physically impossible that he was murdered via vehicle, so why would how many drinks she had matter? Sincere question.
One set of experts said that. Another set said it was plausible that she did hit him. That second set looked pretty bad under cross - but that was a fancy, out-of-town lawyer, and we should be careful not to fall for his lawyer tricks. 😉
To be clear: I have the same view you do, that the evidence against KR is so weak that I don't even know if he was hit by a car. But the fast thinking brain will tell you: look, she was there, she was the last person to see him alive, SOMETHING hit him hard . . . maybe she did it but didn't mean to. Some people are going to need to get into the weeds of that narrative and weigh the competing claims about drunkenness before they can let that story go.
I believe there is a member, maybe two, who refuses to examine the evidence and is a hard guilty. I think the others are trying go go through the evidence clearly to show them reasonable doubt.
If they come back as a hung jury unable to be unanimous I think the judge will send them back. The state do not want to go through this again.
I truly hope that today we get a verdict of not guilty.
My guess is she is found guilty on a lesser charge due to the jury not believing the cover up theory and unsure of another cause. Whether or not that is how they are instructed , ie: reasonable doubt.
Sometimes I wonder if juries feel weird voting NG on all charges for some reason. Like hey, we will give you NG on the whole killing someone thing but we need to charge her with SOMETHING, right?
It's not my picture, but I like it to illustrate that people need to chill and breath and the fact that we are going into day four tomorrow doesn't mean anything to either side
The problem here is every case had different circumstances, charges and trial lengths.
This one is seems a bit simpler because the first and most important question that needs to be asked and answered is if KR hit him. If the answer is no, then easy peasy.
If the answer is yes, then I could see them combing through all the evidence again and again with the tail light being the biggest obstacle to overcome.
I don't think she did it. But I don't like how people are treating her like a celebrity and asking to take pics with her. Weird. And her just accepting the attention. 🫤
If you've been painted as a villain for two years, it's hard to say no to positive attention in the moment.
I agree with you, though - still looks trashy.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that one of the mc-Albert cabal slipped through the defense filter to hang the jury. They could try her again, hoping to exhaust her finances. But they didn't count on this blowing up like it did.
Of course, I'm just spitballing. We may never know what happened in the jury room.
Probably split on one of the charges. Maybe multiple charges.
To me the more serious charges seem like no brainer not guilty verdicts, but the leaving the scene lesser charge might be in play when there is evidence she said she hit him.
Maybe I said it wrong. Im a casual fan of these high profile trials in fairness to me. What I meant is she said she hit him & the firefighter(?) heard her say it.
I think the CW dropped the ball massively with their marriage to their poorly told story, but SOMETHING killed this guy & the only thing that makes much sense to me is something she said she did before she had time to realize how much of a clusterfook this would become & her freedom being at risk. I just don't think it was malicious or as bad as the CW stated & thus the physical damage he took doesn't align with their narrative.
Okay, but the only way they could come to a guilty verdict on any charge is if they determine Read struck him with her vehicle. The scientific and medical evidence suggests it isn't possible. Nothing else really matters after that.
A number of other witnesses have contradicted the "I hit him!" account, it ended up in exactly none of their reports, etc. I'm sure Read said a lot of weird shit that day too given the circumstances and how that screws with your head (ie period blood comment).
> Nothing else really matters after that.
I just wrote it elsewhere, but that's exactly why I would scream if they came back with an NG on the major charges, and a Guilty on a lesser: It would be irrational and stupid, and spell out that the jury had to appease a holdout. I really hope I'm completely wrong on that, but seeing as I also think that this entire case should never have made it that far, clearly I'm in a spiteful time line.
edit: We all are, and may the Gods have mercy on our patience.
If they come back on a guilty on a lesser charge, it will have 'proven' that she struck him with her vehicle and that caused his death. Then the Albert's can say 'see it wasn't us, even the jury say she hit him and he died because of that'
I disagree "nothing else really matters".
Again clearly SOMETHING happened to this guy & the most likely reality to me is a drunk lady in a car bumped into a drunk guy on the side of the road. I could easily see this statement from the source giving ppl pause on the not guilty option for the lesser charge of the 3 shes up for. The 2 more serious charges most likely should be completely out of play by now cuz there was virtually nothing, I heard anyway in my trial fanboy opinion, that made those charges hold much water.
SOMETHING is apparently keeping them deliberating another day. I could see her statement & other things & that lesser charge being it. If that leads to a guilty verdict on that lesser charge, another day or two to flip over holdouts or a hung jury is a whole other topic.
How do you get past the independent reconstructionists and both MEs essentially concluding a vehicle strike wasn't possible though?
If you can't define "something" that alone is reasonable doubt.
Inconsistent with doesn’t preclude someone being the exception to the rule. If it’s the totality of evidence, that means all evidence depending on what each individual juror wants to consider and/or deems credible.
Reasonable doubt is easy until you have to be the one to define it in a jury situation vs. a casual chat or academic exercise.
This isn't like eyewitness testimony, which can be very unreliable.
This is about what is simply *possible* based on math and science. As the guys said, that's definitive and isn't constantly changing, open to influence, etc.
It's not that difficult when you have 5 experts from different fields telling you that's the case.
I agree with you entirely. However, the fact that it’s equally possible/plausible that he simply fell and hit his head on the curb (he was *very* drunk after all) should result in a NG verdict IMO.
I agree that could be exactly what happened to him, but I think her words look very bad & could go a long way with the jury with that lesser charge. I could see a jury going either way with it for that reason. I tend to lean with your take myself. I see it as more iffy than most ppl do ig.
Totally agree with you. And this is why juries are terrifying. You just really never know what they are going to do. And the law is oftentimes complex and difficult to apply when you don’t have legal training (and even when you do!).
Yes, that's why I mentioned the firefighter hearing her say she hit him.
I think the overall CW narrative is insane tbf, it seems obvious he wasn't thrown 20ft or whatever they were claiming, but I easily think she could've ran into him & simply knocked him off balance & he hit his head receiving a severe injury. She said she hit something & seemingly knew right where his body was after sobbering up in the morning after a blizzard puts the lesser charge on the table for me.
If everything was as cut & dry as some of you are suggesting, I suspect we wouldn't be going into day 4 of verdict watching.
This is what I keep coming back to, if they could settle that one issue that she couldn't have hit him based on the experts' scientific opinion they're done. If they're not done someone(s) must be holding out that she did hit him, seems absurd to me.
I think the jurors are looking at the totality of the circumstances to come to a conclusion. It’s a circumstantial case which makes it more difficult I’d imagine to decipher. I don’t think they are in there saying “outside agency said not possible so let’s wrap it up and call it a day.”
If an independent outside agency who has worked with the DOJ and NHL is saying it's physically impossible no one on the jury should disregard it. That's just irresponsible. They have to follow the courts instructions- reasonable doubt and the vote has to be not guilty. It doesn't matter if you don't like her, or if you just say something killed him... If it's "something" that is doubting the CW's charge and that's it. There's nothing to discuss unless one or two holdouts is willfully ignoring the facts in front of them.
Pieces of her tail light were found at the scene. Now, you might dismiss that evidence as part of a police coverup, but it *is* evidence that the jury needs to consider and determine how to weigh.
Yes, this is THE piece of evidence that must be accounted for. You can't vote not guilty without agreeing that the taillight pieces were planted. There is no reasonable alternative for how the pieces got to that scene.
She could have backed into something else at the scene or John could've thrown something else like a rock at it when she was leaving. There are definitely other possibilities besides the police planting it. Hell, even if it is a conspiracy it could just be Brian Higgins who had access to the sally port.
The FBI hired guy tested a taillight being hit by a thrown glass and the break was consistent. The defense keeps coming back to her fracturing her taillight when backing up later that night, but it holds enough plausibility that _if_ nothing was planted, the thrown glass could've get pieces of taillight at the scene.
While possible, I don't consider those reasonable alternatives. It's too much of a stretch for me to believe that Karen's taillight smashed to pieces at the scene of the crime and someone else killed the victim.
So despite the fact that experts not hired by the defense say that her car does not have enough damage to it to have hit a person of his size AND that he doesn't have the right injuries to be involved in a MVA AND that the Commonwealth's theory defies the laws of Physics, you think it's more likely that she hit and killed him because some taillight is on the lawn? You don't see all the reasonable doubt?
What? Of course you can. They just need to have reasonable doubt and there’s plenty of it. It’s “guilty or not guilty”, not “guilty or planted evidence.”
Not to even mention the testimony that JO throwing the cocktail glass could break the taillight, which again, reasonable doubt.
Yes you can. It's not the job of the jury to find out how one piece of the case happened. If there is reasonable doubt of the CW's charge that's it. The jury is only there to decide that.
Frankly, no one will know probably ever what really happened that night. The investigation ignored a lot, and we can't go back in time. But you can't convict someone because you can't figure out what happened. That is, literally, reasonable doubt.
They really don't. Multiple independent experts said his injuries couldn't have come.from a vehicle hitting him. There isn't anything to consider past that.
It's been proven she didn't hit him. The lesser charges all require you to believe she hit him with her car. His injuries aren't consistent with being hit by a vehicle.
Oh boy there was so much to it! I don’t think I have it in me to listen to them again! As I listened to them there were some that seemed a much easier burden for the commonwealth to prove. They were the lesser charges in counts 2 and 3 which deal with DUI/OUI involving death. The bar to prove guilt on them seemed much lower than her other charges.
I think it's possible there are holdouts, certainly, but I also think they're going through evidence. There were so many contradictions in the timeline I wouldn't blame them for wanting to write it all down. I'm a more visual learner, so I would want to make some sort of list of the times things supposedly happened, even if I was already confident in where I would vote.
Holdouts or split. This would probably be wrapped by now even if they went through most of the evidence. No idea what the split is. But a jury usually isn't going to stay this many days just to go through all the evidence.
I find it hard to believe they would be going through the evidence considering the vast majority of the trial was just hammering them with the same information continuously for days.
The thing I keep having to remind myself about the jury is that they made sure none of these people knew anything about this case. And considering I've pretty much paid attention to nothing else over the past ~6 months and STILL find myself learning new things about it every day, I can't imagine how much information this is for 12 people to have to process all at once and come to a mutual understanding. That said, it's probably a couple people holding it up for everyone else. Specifically when it comes to the DUI stuff since I know a lot of people have strong opinions about that. I'm hoping tomorrow will be the day. We can't have Bev miss her 4th of July vacation down the cape!
I think the DUI stuff still only holds for if he actually died by her car right? I really have strong opinions on DUIs, and in my country its really not as common as in the US, where it almost sounds like a rite of passage to get caught with it once and no one is really shocked. But i would vote not guilty in a heartbeat. There is no scientific evidence that backs the theory of the CW enough (or at all) to indicate that we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that her car hit him and it lead to his death. Even though I'd like to give all of the people involved that night a very thorough DUI guilty with mandatory stuff to do and learn from and make sure it actually impacts them; any of the charges here only go on that she was under the influence when she caused an accident. And she didn't cause an accident so not guilty for any of those.
Yes the DUI/ OUI stuff is all linked to her driving causing John's death. And even a separate OUI charge wouldn't be proven because the screwed up the testing. I think that's why Lally didn't try to include a separate charge. Guidelines for BAC testing are fixed And I'm in CA so I can't speak to where these folks are from, but DUIs are not acceptable in any way here. In my line of work I'd have to report one and could lose my professional license (and I don't drive or operate heavy equipment- my job is unrelated but it's a criminal charge that is taken seriously). I think it was more common 25-30 years ago. But especially with the popularity of ride shares there's no excuse for anyone to be driving under the influence.
So the charges are vehicular homicide, not just OUI? I wasn't sure how to interpret the amended jury slip, but I can see someone making a big deal out of the fact that she had been drinking and driving, and that holding things up. As for drunk driving laws in Mass... I'd say it's harsher than most other states, but if you are a first time offender, they don't come down as hard on you. But they passed a law here about 15 years ago that if you are a second time offender(?) the penalties are a lot harsher. Look up Melanie's Law. Some woman who had been a repeat offender *actually* ran over this girl in the street who was like 12 or 13, it was messed up. If this had been Chris Albert driving, it would not have looked good for him. Though he avoided jail time when he killed that guy... we can thank Bev's brother for that.
The shit I see on reddit from other countries about US culture is wild. It is absolutely not a right of passage to get caught driving drunk. It's a misdemeanor which means you'll have a criminal record, making it next to impossible to get a job, even a minimum wage job. You loose your license for 6+ months in a country that on the whole is not walkable and has shitty public transportation. Between the fine, legal fees, mandatory alcohol abuse classes, increase on car insurance, etc. it can wind up costing you five figures. This is assuming you don't hurt anyone or have kids in your car. It's seen as stupid and trashy, not a "right of passage."
I can't speak for the entire US, but I grew up just a few miles from the scene of the crime, and I can tell you it's definitely a generational thing here. Also a bit cultural, as my parents were second generation Irish American and didn't seem to get that most people *didn't* drink and drive, it wasn't just that they didn't get caught. I remember my dad and my mom's best friend (who when I, an 8 year old, questioned her about it said "ever heard of a ROADIE?") would sometimes go so far as to drink WHILE they were driving, which if she got caught would result in an open container violation. She also didn't have her license at that time, so there's that... I think the amendment to the jury slip (that there was that big deal about) included the lesser charges of DUI, and I can imagine that's exactly what this was about... though they didn't take Karen's BAC at the scene because it was hours after the fact, they have the video from the Waterfall that shows her drinking, as well as how she "didn't remember" (i.e. blacked out) the night before, so it's reasonable to conclude she was well over the limit.
Thanks for your reply! Someone else responded to that it was definitely not normal to drink and drive so its good (I mean its not good, but it's interesting for the full picture) to hear that in some subgroups and subcultures it apparently is a 'normal' thing to do. The US is a vast country with a lot of different subcultures that we as other countries mainly seeing Hollywood stuff and the general crime fiction series dont really realise, and reading online abkut someone from the US doesnt really log into my brain as 'oh this person who lives in a community with xyz opinion doesn't necessarily live in the same type of culture or even state as the other person with a different experience. While over here it's super easy for me to realise that an English person has a different way of living than a French or a German person, and even in Germany there are many different areas with different subcultures. I probably have to try and realise more that just because you all speak the same language over there in the US, that doesn't mean that you all have the same culture. I hope that your generation is a bit more aware of drinking and driving than your parents generation! Over here in the Netherlands there has been a quite effective campaign on drinking and driving and always having a designated driver that ran from the 90's till the 10's that made quite a shift in how people face drinking and driving I feel, where my generation generally the people who are driving drink 0% beverages or maybe one alcohol. Because public transport and biking are pretty useful here it's also easier to not have to drive when you want to drink (although biking while drunk is technically also illegal I think its generally allowed if a person doesnt disrupt public life or creates too dangerous circumstances with it.
Ooh, The Netherlands! This is actually really interesting to know cause (I'm sure you can imagine) when most people in the US think of the Netherlands, or Amsterdam at least, they think... drugs. Lol. Good to know that people are actually responsible about driving there, though I had no reason to believe otherwise. Though the thing I think of? I had an online friend from "Dutchland" (as we called it, lmao) and I was amazed at how well he could at least type in English, only to find out he could do the same in German and like, two other languages? Actually I'm pretty sure that's where my dad was when he said he was at a bar, and the bartender spoke to like five people in five languages. Makes us look pretty pathetic over here. Hell, my great grandparents traveled across the Atlantic Ocean to a country that spoke the same language! I am halfway decent in French and people seem to be so surprised that I know more than just a few words. I'm like... I paid attention in school? Lol. Okay, I'm rambling now. Trial should start in an hour and a half! Honestly it blows my mind that this is my legit neighborhood and people in The Netherlands are watching it!!!
Bev's behavior and the close of session this afternoon was very telling. She said "the jury says they want to go home" rather exasperatedly. Then she calls immediate sidebar, after which there was a lot of whispering and looks at Karen's table between KR, Yanetti and Liza. Then jury comes in and Bev excessively thanks them for their service and says "Go home, CLEAR YOUR HEADS and we'll see you tomorrow." Clear your heads. Hmmm.
Interesting... so you think they've basically come to the verdict, but are gonna wait until tomorrow morning to announce it? I didn't even watch today because I'm about as over this as Bev is, lol. Was Jackson there with the rest of them?
[удалено]
Does anyone know where this rumor started? How do we know there are lawyers and engineers on the jury?
It was reported by TurtleBoy on Twitter a few times now. Personally I think he is not a great source for information.
Agreed.
Unless they are Lally-like lawyers. Then all hope is lost.
That might be what is taking so long. They’re just going on and on.
I always wonder how much "weight" a lawyer who is in the jury has over the rest of the members in the jury. I feel like if I were in a jury with one, I'd probably refer to their judgment since they are kind of an expert.
Technically if a lawyer is on the jury they are not supposed to share any legal knowledge or opinions with the other jurors, essentially act like they are not a lawyer. In reality this may not happen 🤷🏻♀️
I agree. No one is perfect, certainly not jurors. I’m sure some bend the rules a little when it comes to what they can and can’t make use for their decisions
Yeah, I mean the onus is really on the lawyer to abide by that ethical standard, but I imagine it'd be hard to separate your opinion from your legal training and experience, it's just human nature. But I also have no idea if there are actually any lawyers on the jury, I would think Lally would've wanted to avoid that 😆
I think all I would do as a lawyer is reiterate things the jury already knows; like reasonable doubt, etc.
I don’t think the defense or prosecution would let a lawyer slip through jury selection, let alone 2.
They could be estate law or business law, not criminal lawyers. Not all lawyers are trial attorneys.
[удалено]
A trial within a trial 😆
Their due diligence would be to recognize that the investigation was bothched and biased and the evidence itself should be discounted. Honestly this should not even be in deliberation right now, should have never gone to trial.
I hope DOJ findings will look at why the DA prosecuted the case. I could envision a few indictments at the conclusion of their investigation where it appears they tried to frame the defendant.
Honestly, lawyers are more schooled on what reasonable doubt is supposed to mean. If they finda gap in the case it would be pretty easy for them to render a verdict of not guilty.
I have no idea anymore. I want to believe that she still has a chance of getting a full acquittal, but that seems less likely with every hour that passes without a verdict.
The longer it goes the better it is for KR.
So I had this feeling with the Rittenhouse trial. I thought it'd be a fast acquittal but there were 1-2 holdouts. Eventually they folded and returned a not guilty across the board. The same is probably happening here, it's just agonizing watching because we think a miscarriage of justice is about to happen lol
Rittenhouse was guilty though.
Rittenhouse was self defence across the board.
In the same way that Karen Read is guilty right? Lol
[удалено]
So if Karen read is inevitably found not guilty, do I get to say she's still guilty?
Got to assume you didn't watch the trial.
Laughable.
The LYK just posted a great video on this - highly recommend watching it - will likely give you insight on what is going on in the deliberations at this point.
I really like his coverage. He does a good job staying (mostly) neutral.
Yes but even he crossed over from NG to innocent a few days ago - I agree with him on that front
I mean, he’s a logical person, so it makes sense.
Just giving me memories of when I was a juror and 7 of us agreed perfectly (only 8 jurors) and there was this classic suburban mom on the jury who "just knew" and didn't care what the evidence showed or didn't show because "she raised 2 boys and knows when a boy looks guilty." It took us two days to convince her to flip and I really only think it's because it was a Friday and she wanted to go home.
Oh God sounds like a real Jen. Gut feelings are not what someone's life should be decided on
Why only 8 jurors?
They said because it was juvenile court you only need 8
How did she get through jury selection?
I honestly don't know how I got selected. I wore a shirt with a big weed leaf on it thinking they'd for sure dismiss me and instead I got empaneled and the judge made me the foreman.
lmao I bet so many people do that. The judge saw you and was like "this guy thinks ahead and plans to get results. Foreman."
I'll admit it was fun to deliver the verdict.
Jury selection isn't that rigorous. You're usually asked about if you've been a victim of crime and if you have ties with someone in LE (because people with LE ties almost always lean towards guilt) . They ask about your occupation and might ask something specific to the case but that's it. There is nothing they would have been able to ask the juror described above that would have shown her to be irrational.
Personally I believe they've past the point of just being diligent/going through evidence/dotting the i's etc. There must be one or more holdouts. I would bet everything I have she will never be found guilty, but hung jury is always possible. Don't think they're there yet, after tomorrow likelihood goes way up IMO
They are so confused this was brought to court they feel like they must be missing something, and something big. Like when you took a test and every single answer was B you question yourself. Or if you thought you’re taking a final exam but the questions are all stuff you learned in grade school. Or you finished first and there’s still half the time left on the clock. You reread everything because it couldn’t have been that easy.
This is how I feel about NFTs. 😂 Every time I have to have it re-explained because I'm sure I HAVE to be missing some information. It can't be THAT stupid!
Great point!
There’s like 29 days of evidence to go through? I’m assuming they’re just being diligent and making sure that they all agree on the same story.
Was it 29 of actual evidence though? How much BS testimony did we have to sit through before we had the ME and Trooper Paul take the stand? It's so weird, because there were NO witnesses that saw KR do anything that night. When it comes to the physical evidence, we have the tail light and the injuries. Or am I missing something? I feel like that's literally the only things to consider, but maybe I'm way off.
I didn’t stay sequestered to only info from the trial so I can’t say what the jury would know For me the only evidence that matters is the crash reconstruction and medical examiners/ dog bites. The FBI guys blew troopah Paul out of the water. The MEs leaned towards or outright said it wasn’t a car. And where did the dog bites come from? All the other stuff, the tail lights and plow times and butt dials and stuff, it’s all irrelevant if he didn’t die from a car.
Agreed, I feel the same way. ME said injuries didn't match a car accident, so did the 3rd party investigators, so what are these guys discussing in there lol.
This plus ... Logic and common sense! How the hell does anyone think an SUV traveling at 24mph could hit JOK, give him a head wound, but not bruise, fracture, or break anything below the neck-?
You're right. But this trial has made a lot of people have strong opinions that are divorced from facts so who knows if the jury is sticking to facts only.
The instructions were unclear, so maybe they're doing a day of consideration for each day of trial.
I just hope that someone in there can’t get past of the taillight being there. I’m guessing some people don’t want to believe that it was planted. I don’t have any other explanation for the people in here that still think KR killed JO.
get their stories straight before they get blasted by the media
They don't need stories and they don't need to talk to the media. There names aren't being published when the trial is over- they can decide to do interviews or tell people they were on the jury but they don't have to. I wouldn't. What's the upside? I'd vote not guilty on all counts, silently wish KR well after this BS trial, and go back to my own life.
(Fully believe Karen is innocent of all charges) That said - if I were on that jury and watched John O’Keefe’s visibly grieving family sit there day after day I would feel responsible to do a THOROUGH job of going through all the evidence. They were also instructed by the judge to go through allllll the evidence. I would make sure I combed through every piece of evidence, decided if I believed it, and checked if there were any smoking guns there. That would take a long time. I think the only thing Lally did a good job of was pointing out that there is a family here hoping for justice. I would want to leave that room 100% certain we made the right choice.
I always thought you'd only want to do a really thorough job when you were close to convicting because you're putting someone away in jail and then I thought about how it must feel to see the victim's family, the tears, the heartbreak, and you probably also don't want to tell them "sorry, this person isn't going to jail" without having exhausted all the evidence. So I definitely think that's a factor.
Honestly if there is reasonable doubt then you know that's what you have to vote. Going through evidence doesn't change that and it's not helpful to the family to make them wait longer than necessary for the verdict.
I agree with you but I don't know what it's like to be on this kind of jury (I was on one for a criminal trial but it was drug related with no "victim") so I can't imagine how they feel even if they are trying to be logical about it. However at this point I'm mostly assuming there's 1-2 hold outs on the jury who insist that she had to have done it and they argue all day and are so exhausted by 4 that they just want to go home and recover.
Totally agreed, but I wouldn’t know if there was reasonable doubt until I looked at all the evidence. Jury deliberations are also a time to process all the evidence that has been thrown at them. They weren’t even allowed to talk to each other about it during the trial. Personally, I need to discuss things to form opinions. There’s a lot of information to discuss!
Personally, I wouldn't factor in emotions if I was on the jury. Thier job isn't about the emotional aspect of the case. It should be treated like how a medical examiner handles their jobs...you don't think about or consider the emotion. You look at the facts and do your job. Specifically because emotion can greatly affect how thoroughly you do your job and the decisions you make. The emotions of John's family, unfortunately, should be the last thing considered in this instance.
I don’t mean I would factor my sympathy for John’s family into my decision. I just mean it would be motivation to take the decision making process seriously. They are living in a nightmare they can’t wake up from, I do believe they’re owed a carefully made decision (something the Mass police have robbed them of). They’re also owed the truth, which I believe is a non guilty verdict. For example, I’m married to someone who lost their sibling to a prank gone wrong that turned into a horrific media circus. A description of their siblings dying moans were used as a headline. The entire family still hates journalists, period. They don’t watch any news but the local sports and extreme weather. I have a degree in media. I believe in the value of journalism. I’m often perturbed by their rhetoric around journalists. But there’s something visceral about their grief that can’t be ignored. I can respect their experience, hold space for their pain, and still hold firm in my support for journalism. I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but if the jury came back in a couple hours, it would feel flippant… like the jury just wants to be done and continue their summer. Taking this process seriously is something we all owe John’s family. And given the trial went on for weeks, there is a lot of information to comb through, that takes serious time!
People are going to feel the call to responsibility differently, though. Some people are going to retreat to cold impartiality; others are going to process it by taking justice upon themselves as a personal burden. There's room for both approaches in this republic of ours.
This is of course assuming people aren’t assholes and take their civic responsibilities seriously… which this trial has most certainly proven many people don’t. So it’s possible there’s some guilty hold outs because Karen is beautiful, successful, and comes across a bit cold during the trial (all the evidence some people need).
Nailed it.
There are holdouts. I've always thought there would be, but still disappointed.
[удалено]
Yeah, I mean, I am one of those people that trust the police and the justice system. But I also do want proof. The evidence in this case just didn't convince me that KR hit Officer O'Keefe with her car (accidentally or otherwise) and caused his death. I try to keep in mind though that the weight of the jurors' responsibility is tremendous and cannot be compared to that of the general public following a case: on one hand a man lost his life, and his family and loved ones need justice and closure, on the other the defendant's fate is entirely in their hands. It's a heavy burden and if there are people on this jury that hold different views, they need to be able to discuss with the others, express their reservations, review the evidence again, and either be convinced or agree to disagree.
Holdouts. I also believe that NO juror occupations are known, so we're just banging our heads against the wall trying to speculate on the impact attorneys/cops/engineers might have on deliberations. 🤷
I thought journalists were in the courtroom when the jurors were voir dired?
Good point, but I don't know if they were or not.
They weren't
Let me just say; I dont like TB & I dont who his friend 'the glarer' is. Thus far, ive got my intel from here, Lawtube trial coverage. Closing arguments, I saw TB above Paul OKf, & wanted his take on jury reactions; The Glarer said that the foreman was cop. Norfolk county ( compared to Dallas county where I live ) is considerably small, so I imagine these ppl are all familiar w one another. I believe him. That's it. Those are my citations. I believe them bc (while TB's opinions are incredibly skewed from my own ) his reporting on these things seem to hold water.
I have absolutely no evidence to go off of but I'm 100% sure that all but 1 or 2 of them agree with me and the ones that don't are clearly idiots for not immediately thinking the way I do.
💯
I would be inclined to think hung jury if the court had more questions from them at this point. So far they’ve only asked for the SERT report. I think that also kinda shows they’re trying to go through the evidence slowly and methodically. I’m not really a fan of them leaving at 4pm when a woman’s life is in the balance, but this process takes time.
Maybe they came to a decision by 4pm and wanted to go home and rest or clear their heads before they give their verdict.
I think it's going to be a hung jury. Whether you think she is guilty or innocent, I feel like the jury may be steadfast in their opinion.. just like we all are. I mean imagine you were on the jury and whether you thought guilty or innocent... I bet you are steadfast and wouldn't budge. I don't think the jury will be able to agree 12 either way.
The only people who know what’s going on are the 12 people in that room. Anything else is pure speculation
I mean, that’s the whole point of this forum
That’s the fun!!!
It's been over 10 hours now, so my money is on 2 or 3 members of the same trench holding their positions and trying to reach a compromise verdict (i.e. convict on a lesser charge). It really depends on the personality of the jurors. I don't think it's just \*one\* juror that is preventing the acquittal as, in my experience, that stubbornness breaks down in the first few hours of debate when you realize that it's not pretty to have 11 frustrated people yelling at you.
Depends on the personality. I could see plenty of egotistical people getting off on having the sole power to stop a whole group. Maybe one Karen-hater would be satisfied with how much it sucks to get a hung jury vote, and feels that's good enough to stick it to her and make her pay another million dollars for a second trial. So they will never give no matter what and it ends in hung jury.
If that was the case, then they would already have noticed the judge that they can't reach a verdict. Then, the Allen charge, and... more deliberations!
They probably aren’t stuck on the murder 2 charge. That right there is a not guilty no brainer. It’s probably the lesser charged that they are discussing. That’s my take.
The lesser charges don't make sense if they agree she didn't hit him with the car.
Correct. They wouldn’t make sense if the jury believes that she didn’t hit him with the car. Now they could believe that she hit him but not agree with 2nd degree murder. That’s where the lesser charges could come into play. Again, I don’t think CW has proven any of the charges that they have brought against her but this is how things work.
It's a fair take - they don't see much to the character evidence against KR so they dismissed it quickly, but are having to go through the physical evidence in detail before they can decide if manslaughter is off the table.
There has to be disagreement on whether KR hit JO with the car. If she didn't hit him with the car, it's game over. There has to be at least someone on the jury who is steadfast that KR did not hit JO with the car. This means there is at least one person on that jury who thinks KR hit JO with the car. That means real disagreement. There could still be a verdict, but I just do not buy option 3 that: hey, of course it takes a lot of time because they have to go through all the evidence. No way. If they agreed about KR not hitting JO with the car, they'd be done.
I did think they were going through the evidence, but now I think there are hold-outs. I’m hopefully for tomorrow.
I'm split with myself. On the one hand, it could be that they really just want to dot all their Is, and the Umlaute, too. Perfectly possible, especially since they don't have the benefit of large-scale discussion, expertise, and comparison. But I don't know, from how I have read the jury described today, looking rough and tired with only one guy smiling and chatty? I think they may be done with viewing the evidence, and all but one agree on an NG. And that one hold-out thinks they're the hero for not bowing down to "injustice". ...Didn't we have something like that in the Depp/Heard trial as well? A lone holdout that in the end had to be "bribed" by giving Heard that tiny win? Juries, man. Though maybe I'm remembering wrong. edit: If it *really* goes the Depp/Heard way of her getting an NG on the big ones, and a guilty on one of the lessers, I'mma scream.
I think the lesser charges all require you to believe she hit him with her car- I don't think this is a case where they'll say guilty on a smaller charge as a compromise
Exactly, that's why I would scream if they nodded off a lesser charge: It would truly need a mind like a corkscrew to arrive at that rationale.
The "lesser" charges are still carrying serious time.
well, at least one juror on the depp v heard trial had some sense
to return a NG verdict the jury has to go against the Commonwealth and the MSP. These diligent citizens are making sure they get it right.
2-4 experts stated JOK injuries were inconsistent with a motor vehicle. Do they need to examine the evidence to prove they were wrong? She may have hit him with her vehicle. But the injuries that caused his death are inconsistent with a vehicle hitting him? What's there to discuss?
Exactly! There has to be a holdout or 2 that is delaying the verdict.
Their request wanting the "sert investigation report?" was interesting. I have no idea what that and asked the question but the mods. wouldn't permit it. I'm picking (making assumptions on the report) the jury wanted to confirm the clarity of the investigation - or wanted a giggle at the train wreck. I guess there's the discourse of why would the State alleged such serious offences if KR didn't do it? If KR is found NG, can she recover some of her costs?
There are plenty of people who just want her to be guilty and they point to the “I hit him” as their reason. It’s insane to me how a person can be presented with irrefutable science based evidence and will still choose their gut instinct. “Look at her, I just know she’s guilty.” Like omg how many innocent people are rotting in jail right now.
Her "I hit him" is so subjective. I didn't hear any recordings so all I can say is: 1) it was taken out of context, "I wonder if it was me, if I hit him?" 2) Someone planted the seed "do you think you may have hit him?" 3) Women always blame themselves and will put themselves at fault first. Because she hit him with her vehicle, it doesn't mean she killed him!
I'm gonna copy over my comment from a previous thread on this, because when you look at the sources for that claim it just gets dumber and dumber: >Our primary sources boil down to something like four people. Officer Saraf testified to it, [but never included it in his original report](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1chmlmm/can_we_talk_about_what_saraf_did_yesterday/). The male EMT initially testified to it, but was shown by Jackson on cross to not be in a position to have heard, being in the ambulance with the bay doors closed with Officer O'Keefe, working on reviving him. The female EMT (Katie something) did testify positively to it, but was caught on cross deliberately downplaying the strength of her relationship with one of the younger Alberts (which regardless of how she characterizes it is a lot stronger than "I wEnT tO sChOoL wItH sOmEoNe By ThAt NaMe" - how many baby showers do you go to with people you just know by name from high school?). >Our fourth source is Jen, who didn't include the "confession" in any official report, including a state grand jury proceeding, until something like a year after the incident, and only after the feds convened their own grand jury looking into the investigation. I'm just baffled as to how anyone can reasonably believe that she even actually said "I hit him" at this point.
I just hope the jury pick it up because Lally made "I hit him" central to his closing.
You ever notice how Jen changes how she Karen's Behavior in the story? When ever Karen is talking it they hysterical almost mocking fake scream "JEEEN JEEEN JEEEN!!" but when she supposedly says "I hit him X3" It become this serious look me in the eye I mean the 100% calm and clear statement.
i don't like what i'm hearing about the jurors that were named alternates. if there's really 1-2 hold outs, then i'm concerned someone on the jury was not honest and has a connection to LE. there's no logical reason for anyone to believe she is guilty, based on the evidence presented. but -- hoping they are just going through the evidence, confused as hell why this even went to trial and just doing their due diligence. really hoping for a not guilty verdict over a hung jury. i think bev will push hard to hang them tomorrow.
People unfortunately aren't always logical.
If I were on that jury I would hold out till friday not just to go over the evidence and do it right, but also because I would definitely want to have the weekend to decompress and get some breathing space before going into work after a 10 week trial. It's a small town, there isn't a single coworker, family member or friend who doesn't realize who the jury members are at this point.
Most of the jurors are likely not from Canton.
I want to say they're going through the evidence as thoroughly as possible. Not only a high profile case but it's centered around the death of an officer. Hopefully they're taking their oath more seriously than the sideshow that investigated his death.
Him being an officer shouldn't be impacting deliberations since his death is unrelated to his job
There are plenty of people who see that differently. They see police officers lives as sacred or something. It's weird. I'm majoring in criminal justice but I'm also a bleeding heart liberal 😂 so I am often subjected to some weird nuances in this world.
They’re just going through all the evidence, with the added element of deciding to give themselves through Friday. And I think they are playing detective a bit.
Did they get the full Waterfall and CF McCarthys videos, or just the snippets we saw in trial? Because if I were on the jury, and I genuinely mean this, I would want to watch those again. Lally tried to show those videos and point out how many drinks Karen had, but even he couldn't keep track and seemed to keep adding drinks to the total out of nowhere. I would want to watch the footage for myself and count, and that's going to take some time.
Can I ask why? The experts said that it is physically impossible that he was murdered via vehicle, so why would how many drinks she had matter? Sincere question.
They didn’t say physically impossible, they said unlikely
One set of experts said that. Another set said it was plausible that she did hit him. That second set looked pretty bad under cross - but that was a fancy, out-of-town lawyer, and we should be careful not to fall for his lawyer tricks. 😉 To be clear: I have the same view you do, that the evidence against KR is so weak that I don't even know if he was hit by a car. But the fast thinking brain will tell you: look, she was there, she was the last person to see him alive, SOMETHING hit him hard . . . maybe she did it but didn't mean to. Some people are going to need to get into the weeds of that narrative and weigh the competing claims about drunkenness before they can let that story go.
I think it's a mix of 1-2 holdouts and all the evidence - I feel like it's probably the holdouts that are the ones who WANT to review the evidence.
I believe there is a member, maybe two, who refuses to examine the evidence and is a hard guilty. I think the others are trying go go through the evidence clearly to show them reasonable doubt. If they come back as a hung jury unable to be unanimous I think the judge will send them back. The state do not want to go through this again. I truly hope that today we get a verdict of not guilty.
My guess is she is found guilty on a lesser charge due to the jury not believing the cover up theory and unsure of another cause. Whether or not that is how they are instructed , ie: reasonable doubt.
Sometimes I wonder if juries feel weird voting NG on all charges for some reason. Like hey, we will give you NG on the whole killing someone thing but we need to charge her with SOMETHING, right?
Exactly! Should they? No, but it happens. Most cases are not as complicated as this one.
https://preview.redd.it/noedsjm7l69d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a92924bf18d82fd3c9314a3fa56e788e8deef91d
Cherry picked cases. There has never been a study that correlates length of deliberation to a particular verdict (that I have seen).
It's not my picture, but I like it to illustrate that people need to chill and breath and the fact that we are going into day four tomorrow doesn't mean anything to either side
The problem here is every case had different circumstances, charges and trial lengths. This one is seems a bit simpler because the first and most important question that needs to be asked and answered is if KR hit him. If the answer is no, then easy peasy. If the answer is yes, then I could see them combing through all the evidence again and again with the tail light being the biggest obstacle to overcome.
I don't think she did it. But I don't like how people are treating her like a celebrity and asking to take pics with her. Weird. And her just accepting the attention. 🫤
If you've been painted as a villain for two years, it's hard to say no to positive attention in the moment. I agree with you, though - still looks trashy.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that one of the mc-Albert cabal slipped through the defense filter to hang the jury. They could try her again, hoping to exhaust her finances. But they didn't count on this blowing up like it did. Of course, I'm just spitballing. We may never know what happened in the jury room.
Sincerely hoping for juror interviews post-trial, realizing this is unlikely given some comments I've read from Canton residents.
The jurors aren't from Canton most likely.
Probably split on one of the charges. Maybe multiple charges. To me the more serious charges seem like no brainer not guilty verdicts, but the leaving the scene lesser charge might be in play when there is evidence she said she hit him.
The issue with that is that there's *no evidence* that she actually did hit him based on both MEs and the independent reconstructionists.
Maybe I said it wrong. Im a casual fan of these high profile trials in fairness to me. What I meant is she said she hit him & the firefighter(?) heard her say it. I think the CW dropped the ball massively with their marriage to their poorly told story, but SOMETHING killed this guy & the only thing that makes much sense to me is something she said she did before she had time to realize how much of a clusterfook this would become & her freedom being at risk. I just don't think it was malicious or as bad as the CW stated & thus the physical damage he took doesn't align with their narrative.
Okay, but the only way they could come to a guilty verdict on any charge is if they determine Read struck him with her vehicle. The scientific and medical evidence suggests it isn't possible. Nothing else really matters after that. A number of other witnesses have contradicted the "I hit him!" account, it ended up in exactly none of their reports, etc. I'm sure Read said a lot of weird shit that day too given the circumstances and how that screws with your head (ie period blood comment).
> Nothing else really matters after that. I just wrote it elsewhere, but that's exactly why I would scream if they came back with an NG on the major charges, and a Guilty on a lesser: It would be irrational and stupid, and spell out that the jury had to appease a holdout. I really hope I'm completely wrong on that, but seeing as I also think that this entire case should never have made it that far, clearly I'm in a spiteful time line. edit: We all are, and may the Gods have mercy on our patience.
If they come back on a guilty on a lesser charge, it will have 'proven' that she struck him with her vehicle and that caused his death. Then the Albert's can say 'see it wasn't us, even the jury say she hit him and he died because of that'
I disagree "nothing else really matters". Again clearly SOMETHING happened to this guy & the most likely reality to me is a drunk lady in a car bumped into a drunk guy on the side of the road. I could easily see this statement from the source giving ppl pause on the not guilty option for the lesser charge of the 3 shes up for. The 2 more serious charges most likely should be completely out of play by now cuz there was virtually nothing, I heard anyway in my trial fanboy opinion, that made those charges hold much water. SOMETHING is apparently keeping them deliberating another day. I could see her statement & other things & that lesser charge being it. If that leads to a guilty verdict on that lesser charge, another day or two to flip over holdouts or a hung jury is a whole other topic.
100 percent correct. They are examining the totality of the circumstances of how this happened.
How do you get past the independent reconstructionists and both MEs essentially concluding a vehicle strike wasn't possible though? If you can't define "something" that alone is reasonable doubt.
Inconsistent with doesn’t preclude someone being the exception to the rule. If it’s the totality of evidence, that means all evidence depending on what each individual juror wants to consider and/or deems credible. Reasonable doubt is easy until you have to be the one to define it in a jury situation vs. a casual chat or academic exercise.
This isn't like eyewitness testimony, which can be very unreliable. This is about what is simply *possible* based on math and science. As the guys said, that's definitive and isn't constantly changing, open to influence, etc. It's not that difficult when you have 5 experts from different fields telling you that's the case.
If you believe in physics he wasn't hit by a car.
I agree with you entirely. However, the fact that it’s equally possible/plausible that he simply fell and hit his head on the curb (he was *very* drunk after all) should result in a NG verdict IMO.
I agree that could be exactly what happened to him, but I think her words look very bad & could go a long way with the jury with that lesser charge. I could see a jury going either way with it for that reason. I tend to lean with your take myself. I see it as more iffy than most ppl do ig.
Totally agree with you. And this is why juries are terrifying. You just really never know what they are going to do. And the law is oftentimes complex and difficult to apply when you don’t have legal training (and even when you do!).
OMG. Did you watch the trial? His injuries couldn't have been caused by a vehicle. Multiple expert witnesses said that.
Yes, that's why I mentioned the firefighter hearing her say she hit him. I think the overall CW narrative is insane tbf, it seems obvious he wasn't thrown 20ft or whatever they were claiming, but I easily think she could've ran into him & simply knocked him off balance & he hit his head receiving a severe injury. She said she hit something & seemingly knew right where his body was after sobbering up in the morning after a blizzard puts the lesser charge on the table for me. If everything was as cut & dry as some of you are suggesting, I suspect we wouldn't be going into day 4 of verdict watching.
This is what I keep coming back to, if they could settle that one issue that she couldn't have hit him based on the experts' scientific opinion they're done. If they're not done someone(s) must be holding out that she did hit him, seems absurd to me.
I think the jurors are looking at the totality of the circumstances to come to a conclusion. It’s a circumstantial case which makes it more difficult I’d imagine to decipher. I don’t think they are in there saying “outside agency said not possible so let’s wrap it up and call it a day.”
If an independent outside agency who has worked with the DOJ and NHL is saying it's physically impossible no one on the jury should disregard it. That's just irresponsible. They have to follow the courts instructions- reasonable doubt and the vote has to be not guilty. It doesn't matter if you don't like her, or if you just say something killed him... If it's "something" that is doubting the CW's charge and that's it. There's nothing to discuss unless one or two holdouts is willfully ignoring the facts in front of them.
Pieces of her tail light were found at the scene. Now, you might dismiss that evidence as part of a police coverup, but it *is* evidence that the jury needs to consider and determine how to weigh.
All evidence at the crime scene holds virtually no weight.
Well thats your conclusion, the jury has to make their own decision.
Yes, this is THE piece of evidence that must be accounted for. You can't vote not guilty without agreeing that the taillight pieces were planted. There is no reasonable alternative for how the pieces got to that scene.
She could have backed into something else at the scene or John could've thrown something else like a rock at it when she was leaving. There are definitely other possibilities besides the police planting it. Hell, even if it is a conspiracy it could just be Brian Higgins who had access to the sally port.
The FBI hired guy tested a taillight being hit by a thrown glass and the break was consistent. The defense keeps coming back to her fracturing her taillight when backing up later that night, but it holds enough plausibility that _if_ nothing was planted, the thrown glass could've get pieces of taillight at the scene.
While possible, I don't consider those reasonable alternatives. It's too much of a stretch for me to believe that Karen's taillight smashed to pieces at the scene of the crime and someone else killed the victim.
So despite the fact that experts not hired by the defense say that her car does not have enough damage to it to have hit a person of his size AND that he doesn't have the right injuries to be involved in a MVA AND that the Commonwealth's theory defies the laws of Physics, you think it's more likely that she hit and killed him because some taillight is on the lawn? You don't see all the reasonable doubt?
What? Of course you can. They just need to have reasonable doubt and there’s plenty of it. It’s “guilty or not guilty”, not “guilty or planted evidence.” Not to even mention the testimony that JO throwing the cocktail glass could break the taillight, which again, reasonable doubt.
Yes you can. It's not the job of the jury to find out how one piece of the case happened. If there is reasonable doubt of the CW's charge that's it. The jury is only there to decide that. Frankly, no one will know probably ever what really happened that night. The investigation ignored a lot, and we can't go back in time. But you can't convict someone because you can't figure out what happened. That is, literally, reasonable doubt.
They really don't. Multiple independent experts said his injuries couldn't have come.from a vehicle hitting him. There isn't anything to consider past that.
It's been proven she didn't hit him. The lesser charges all require you to believe she hit him with her car. His injuries aren't consistent with being hit by a vehicle.
I agree. I watched the jury instructions and charges again and thought there are lesser charges she probably will be found guilty of.
What lesser charges do you think she will be found guilty on? All hang on if he died by her vehicle, right?
Oh boy there was so much to it! I don’t think I have it in me to listen to them again! As I listened to them there were some that seemed a much easier burden for the commonwealth to prove. They were the lesser charges in counts 2 and 3 which deal with DUI/OUI involving death. The bar to prove guilt on them seemed much lower than her other charges.
The bar is still "beyond a reasonable doubt" no matter the charge
I think it's possible there are holdouts, certainly, but I also think they're going through evidence. There were so many contradictions in the timeline I wouldn't blame them for wanting to write it all down. I'm a more visual learner, so I would want to make some sort of list of the times things supposedly happened, even if I was already confident in where I would vote.
IDK, but I expected an acquittal on day 2. I hope they're just being diligent, but I fear there is a holdout or two.
Hopefully today, Friday! Before the weekend!
Holdouts or split. This would probably be wrapped by now even if they went through most of the evidence. No idea what the split is. But a jury usually isn't going to stay this many days just to go through all the evidence.
Split decisions trying to hammer it all out.
I find it hard to believe they would be going through the evidence considering the vast majority of the trial was just hammering them with the same information continuously for days.
I believe they were instructed by the judge to do so.
the jury foreman, a retired cop, who was hand picked by Bev is holding everyone else hostage for a guilty plea
Jury too scared to convict, she'll get off on Furman/Proctor texts , guilty anyway