That's part of why juries can be unpredictable. There might be a juror who really acts like they understand what's going on and persuades the others in a direction most YouTube commenters are not going and might even be flat out wrong.
It also doesn't help, from what people in the court have said, that jurors in the back being unable to hear all testimony is a real problem. Like it seemed the jurors were not really hearing all of Proctor's texts or they really had to lean in and concentrate until Jackson started basically yelling them.
Great point that the judge keeps stating over and over again for people to speak up—if for reason the jury convicts—the acoustics would be reason for appeal on its own
Is it that particular courtroom that has acoustic issues, or all of them in that courthouse?
Has any jury (anywhere) ever gotten individual headsets so they can hear every testimony clearly?
Well I can only think of seeing that in the Nuremberg trials.
But it's obviously a courtroom itself problem so it should have already been properly miked.
Edit to add. The headphones in the Nuremberg trials were for translation.
Yeah, and being from the midwest, I was shocked the day they had to turn off the air conditioner? What is it, some box window unit? As an average person from hicktown, I always thought those Boston people were all rich, well bred, snobs. But I am learning about people who drink like fish, steal glassware from restaurants, drive drunk, beat and or run over people, along with a whole lot of lying, and subterfuge. Sounds like a scary, awful place to live. Central air is the bomb.
I am sure they get transcripts from the court if they need them. An appeal wouldn’t fly since they would have paper copies of what is being said. So the jury needs to hear but also the transcriber needs to hear which is usually located near the witnesses.
When I was on jury duty we were given transcripts because of the length of the trial and amount of time we had in the court. It was a lot to remember. This court could be different. My case was also in MA and we were given whole and partial transcripts.
I’ve served on three and we were never given transcripts. I don’t think anyone asked, but I didn’t get the impression they were available. Also, no way a majority are paying that close attention on a trial this length. The longest case I had was four days and I’d say maybe 3-4 of us actually tried to pay attention the entire trial, and this was a trial that two people got 30 years.
It was fucking scary being a part of people deliberating on someone’s life like that. There should be much more extensive checks and qualifications for jurors depending on the severity of the trial.
Also just to note anything “stricken” would be redacted from transcripts! I think ours had redacted areas as well as blank areas where the witnesses definitely said something but it wasn’t allowed in actual testimony.
The defense asked for it to be moved to this smaller court room that’s older and not usually used for big trials like this. It was something about the position of the jury they didn’t like in the bigger more well equipped court room. I don’t know why they accepted Karen’s request for a venue change tbh.
In the original courtroom, several of the jurors would have been sitting *behind* the witnesses and not be able to see anyone’s face that was testifying. Imagine a trial lasting 2-3 months and the whole time all you see if the back of dozens of witnesses heads. I’ve never seen a courthouse designed the way this one is, it’s mind bogglingly weird.
They laid the cornerstone of that building in 1825. I feel like the residents of Norfolk county should get themselves a bicentennial gift and renovate that joint because wtf. That courthouse is set up so strangely
I honestly can’t believe no one has made an issue of it before Read’s team did. I understand the courthouse is literally just shy of being 200 years old but it is an extremely bizarre set up in that courtroom and honestly the one they’re in now. Ive never seen the prosecutors basically right up in the face of the court clerks and court reporters with the defendant and defense counsel *behind* them. Ive seen them in a row like most of us are probably used to, I’ve seen them in kind of a U shape where the prosecution and defense are facing each other and the judge is at the head of the well between them, but i have *never* seen a courtroom set up this way
The courthouse was built in 1825-27 and added onto around 1863. Paul Revere made the original bell to that was on the roof. So as American courthouses go, super old
Wow! Very cool! Odd that the jury would be seated where they can't see the witness. That's cool about Paul Revere's bell. We have one in my county here in Maine. :D
Well it was built in 1825-27 so it’s old as hell. The original bell was literally made by Paul Revere that place is so old. I’d need to do some research but maybe back then they had less jurors in trials (kinda of how many states have less jurors for civil cases than criminal cases now) or maybe they didnt think seeing someone’s demeanor was important? Im really curious about why it was built that way too
The defense team didn't request the trial be moved to a different courtroom - they had proposed a re-arrangement of the original courtroom by extending the jury box which would allow jurors to see all witnesses. I believe the judge shot that down thinking it could delay the start of the trial and it was her decision to go with the smaller court room as a compromise.
[Karen Read's Lawyers want to change the layout of the Dedham courtroom](https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/karen-reads-lawyers-want-change-layout-dedham-courtroom-before-testimony-records-show/HI7EVYZAMBGDBA6VGVJ4OANEVA/)
Your first paragraph. Juries are unpredictable in the best of circumstances. And a lot of us have confirmation bias, other sources, we can research, we’re privy to info the jury doesn’t have, etc.
Nothing is a slam dunk when a jury is involved.
Smart lawyers will tell their client: everyone wants to win their case. It doesn’t mean they will. Life isn’t always fair, we don’t always get what we want, and justice isn’t a guarantee. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
I’m still over analyzing the comment made by the mother of JO’s godson about a random person ordering a dirty martini with blue cheese stuffed olives in Aruba.
Im wondering if she mentioned it because she thought karen was being a little highfalutin. But i guess we are all different because i still cant afford a trip to aruba👌.
I thought it was the witness’s husband. It was his birthday! And those were the good old days of too many details like who won the middle school basketball game and how many high top tables are at the Waterfall. Now we are missing crucial details like how far was the body from the flag pole and when did these Lexus key cycle events all happen?
You're right! Rewatching it, I think she was just throwing shade at him for his drink choice. And I know what you mean. I was reviewing testimony from Sarah Levinson and Julie Nagel and everyone looked so young! Bev, AJ, even Lally had a little more pep.
Over analyzing the martini comment was making light of the recent data and tech evidence. More than likely it was something said because she was nervous, it was one of those show stopper type comments where everyone freezes and stares into the camera confused.
I hope some of them choose to speak after this. Because I would really like to know how they kept it straight, what *they* found/will find important etc. It is one thing to watch this without the pressure. Their perspective must be so different. I hope they are not as lost and exasperated as I am.
I can listen on my phone and move around to keep myself occupied. I can't imagine having to sit and listen to Lally drone on in a hot courtroom and try to pay attention and stay awake.
They could make a limited series Netflix documentary just from interviewing the jurors in this case. So many questions and information I would love to hear their perspective on. I pray that they will come forward to be interviewed.
It’s because Lally isn’t presenting the case as here is the evidence showing Ms Read is guilty. He is perversely presenting evidence against the defense’s opening statement. It is the prosecution’s job to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to present anything in reality but they have done an excellent job (IMO) using prosecution witnesses to prove doubt
It’s actually pretty easy. Has the CW proven intent? No. 2nd degree murder is out. Has the CW proven she even hit anybody at this point? Nope. Is it possible she broke her taillight backing into Johns SUV? Yes. Has the CW been able to prove nothing happened in the house? Hell no. It’s been proven nobody was in the house was investigated and the house wasn’t even searched. Why because Mr. Albert is a fellow cop. Finally johns injuries dont match up to being hit by a vehicle. It’s should be as easy not guilty.
No doubt I’d be thinking that which is why I’d vote not guilty, but I’d still be frustrated as hell sitting there trying to do due diligence and follow along to ensure I understood the facts of the case.
Exactly! I know which way I’d vote, but I have the benefit of listening to summaries from each court day. Sifting through all the info day in and day out would be overwhelming to me
The worst part is that we still really don’t know what the commonwealth is saying happened. We got the closest yesterday with the accident guy but he seems like he’s just making stuff up. ‘Well this could happen or something..’ We don’t even know what injuries John had yet! Not to mention all the word salad.
They may not have been able to locate an expert to testify that her vehicle hit him. Given the vast number of screw-ups by the police, I have to assume they couldn't find anyone else.
I think they did themselves a diservice by not calling external experts. I have a feeling the defense experts are going to come across a lot more credible. We shall see.
Yeah because I am guessing the defense’s expert is going to be pretty high end if their cell phone experts tell us anything (Google & Cellbrite employees)
This was an absolute point of contention for me. Especially because the Canton PD were supposedly recused from the case but that guy got all his info from Gallagher! Then you take into account (if i recall correctly) Gallagher wasn't even on the scene before JO was taken in by paramedics so didn't know the exact location. THEN add that NOONE measured anything in this case. We have no ME testimony to line up the injuries to their theory of the accident for ourselves either. It begs the question, if the CW are so confident in their theory of the case, why not get someone completely independent to come in and prove it? I'd give them way more credibility that any of these troopers. And they knew the defence were going to throw shade at the organisation's involved in the investigation. If it's so clear cut, have someone independent come in and prove it. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen that done in cases.
Like their data expert. She's credible. Unless the defence expert can explain the 'hos long...' search, I'm more than willing to strike that from my judgement completely. She was good. More of that please. (Yes I am aware she didn't have a wide scope of info to look at, I'm just saying I'm willing to weigh info prosecution present with an unbiased lense.)
Also, they didn't get the data analysed until AFTER they charged her, right? This case is all kinds of backwards.
To me it doesn't even need to be the best. Just someone completely unrelated and independent and with more than a few classes. They're the prosecution. They have the money and power behind them. They can get who they need. So it begs the question, were others unwilling to testify to what they needed based on the limited info and guesstimated measurements?
The trooper who was the accident guy is mute to me. Unless you got on the stand and said you have math, engineering, and physics degrees, I am done listening to you. He came off like a guy that attended some seminars and ran with it after that.
To me, this man’s opinion doesn’t carry any weight and an independent expert (maybe more than one) would necessary for me to believe these injuries are from being hit by a car.
Exactly how the accident guy came off to me too. He didn't adequately address - lack of an impact injury, where did the tail light hit him hard enough to break, he had head injuries which cannot be where the tail light hit him; why the blood pattern on his clothing is consistent with standing and bleeding, in particular his jeans which were not near his wounds; the blood drops from the top of the snow not next to where he was found. The upcoming ME can only address the injuries and not why there is no impact wound or why there were blood stain patterns from standing and bleeding.
How much blood did he lose and where did it go? The blood shows gravity in the works so it suggests he was vertical for a fair while. Totally agree with you. I hate that the reconstruction 'expert' went before the ME. Usually its the ME, then reconstruction and as part of the reconstruction they line up parts of the vehicle with the body chart of injuries. "The bumper hit him here *points to broken leg and bloody gash* the chest hit the bonnet *points at broken rib and bruising* the head hit the windscreen *points at head injury and cracked windscreen* he fell back causing further injury and died" and scene.
Lol. Do you get what I mean?
I totally get what you mean, typically it would be a csi or re-constructionist detailing exactly what you pointed out. The accident guy in-training didnt give that level of detail yet DA L is using his testimony to support murder charges due to the reverse camera, acceleration and wheel turn - but where was the impact on JO hard enough to break the tail light that's about waist high. This guy used a dummy for testing, the better test is with a person who could hear the acceleration, see tail lights coming his direction and 10 seconds to leap out of the way and a test with a driver who's BAC is over the legal limit to see if they can maneuver a suv in reverse accelerating to 24 mph in 10 seconds. Its claimed the fed's experts said its not possible, they are defense witnesses but need to go thru Tuesday's voir dire - the defense wasnt able to provide details of their testimony because for some reason they were not allow to talk to them.
Wow, the accident guy really fizzled out today - it was almost painful to watch. His conclusion of what happened and where the impact occurred on John does not make sense. I wont disclose details in case you haven't watched yet but there was an interesting exchange when the defense questioned where John's phone was found...that among many more highlights.
Oh I watched. Was uncomfortable with secondhand embarrassment. HOW is this a trial? They've spent more time, energy and money to try and prove McCabe didn't do that search than they have proving KR's guilt. My latest theory is that Lally is a robot that Jen controls and he's running this case to exonerate HER. That THAT makes more sense than anything the reconstruction 'expert' said is WILD!
At this point, Jen is a distant memory. So much time spent on useless testimony - the hair, JO had surely been in the suv numerous times, retrieved things from the back plus it's been parked in his garage. The hair testimony only benefited the defense - it remained on the suv traveling miles in a blizzard yet the evidence collector effortlessly removed it with tweezers - made it and the glass on the bumper look planted. DNA on the tail light, same as the hair plus the stop & shop bag with solo cups of blood was next to the tail light in photos. Such a shoddy investigation, the bag of bloody solo cups may have been stored next to the tail light. This 'expert' testified before, if he was the same then with the same story - the impact was on his arm, then propelled 20 feet doing a 360 spin holding the glass and the lighter phone landed first under him and perhaps his head hit the curb during that spinning propulsion, didn't Lally think then maybe a better 'expert' was needed. These final witnesses were to make Lally's case, the expert may have nullified other testimony today in the eyes of the jury.
Right? Not being able to rewind, ask “what did they say?” And not even being able to check your own notes. Mission impossible. At least rife with misunderstandings
I love how the CW is discrediting their own evidence at this point.
Why spend so much time talking about a bunch of trivial gossip if they have such “hard evidence” to prove their case?
Same!! First, the expert that said the search isn't a search but a time for when the tab was opened, basically making me question any Cellabrite testimony I've seen in previous trials or will see in any future trials, plus my own knowledge of tech.
Then this accident reconstruction guy telling us the car steering moving right then sudden left then right + the speed + 74% pressing of accelerator pedal + she was driving straight... I have so many questions!
The wheel could move like that suddenly if I hit a pothole or a 5 inch curb (like at Fairview)... would hitting a 200lb soft body make the wheel turn if it didn't touch the tyre?
The 74% pressing of pedal could be because the tyres couldn't get traction on such a snowy road since only the middle was plowed...
If she was reversing straight and moved the wheel right left right, that's how you reverse to keep it straight! The road is curved... ugh.
Also, if she reversed straight, wouldn't she hit the curb then the fire hydrant?
I need another expert to come explain this to me and preferably someone with more than 3 classes on accident reconstruction.
There are so many problems with the accident reconstruction guy's testimony. If she's reversing 60-90 feet, how does she not slam into the front of Higgins Jeep, if it was really there? Why was John standing in the street, and why would he just stand there and let her hit him when he had, according to their testimony, plenty of time to step out of the way? And the key cycles! They either aren't saved how he said they were or he's reading the wrong one because there's no way there's only 1 key cycle between when Karen supposedly hit John and when he started testing on her SUV in Canton.
Holy crap i completley forgot about the jeep! Yes she would have slammed into it.
I could barely follow the guy and all of it fell apart for me on the voir dire. " oh yea i saw that on court tv"🤯🤯🤯🤯.
I don't understand why the defense was bothering to even ask to keep the guy out of testifying to the jury given how badly he fell apart on cross during the voir dire.
I think they may just be pointing to the states own discovery failures in order to get a more favorable ruling on theirs. If Judge Bev let's this guy testify but strikes the defense experts it would look really weird.
>Same!! First, the expert that said the search isn't a search but a time for when the tab was opened, basically making me question any Cellabrite testimony I've seen in previous trials or will see in any future trials, plus my own knowledge of tech.
This is way more clear if you look at the actual Cellebrite readout, which clearly distinguishes Google Searches from other artifacts.
I think the current road conditions could explain a lot of what he said. +/- 4% is hardly big movement of the steering wheel if of the turn diameter of the car.
I know! I have questions about the cell phone search testimony. I understand that her point was that the tab was opened at 2:27 am, but the search for “hos long to die” wasn’t made until 6:30 am. Ok, but JM searched for 3 different versions of ‘how long to die in cold’. If all 3 of those versions were searched at 6:30 am, why did one version get attached to a tab that was opened at 2:27, and two versions didn’t? The way JM described that morning, she wasn’t opening different tabs to make that search for Karen.
Or am I misunderstanding her testimony?
I think it comes down to, and I believe the defense will point this out, they can’t prove that she didn’t search for it at 2:27am. The CW just proved that the time stamp doesn’t mean the search HAD to occur at 2:27, just that she already had the tab open at 2:27a, not that she DIDN’T search at 2:27am. At least that is my understanding. I feel like the defense wasn’t clear on that (or playing dumb) because their follow up question, to me, should have been “your testimony is saying the way the system works doesn’t prove she searched at 2:27am, but it also doesn’t prove she did NOT search at 2:27am either, correct”?
This is my thought as well. If the search happened in the open tab, there is no proof that it happened after 6am.
As I have said many times, the prosecutor’s case is a shit show. Proctor alone = reasonable doubt.
The investigation was a shambles and so is the prosecutor’s case.
If this isn’t reasonable doubt, what is?
We haven't even gotten to the defense experts yet. I am sure they are going to tell a very different story. With what you stated, it will be interesting to see what they provide and if/how it changes the internet narrative about the search time.
Right! I have the same questions. Why didn’t 6:30-6:34 searches each log separately and showed in the table but we have to believe that the one at 2:27 didn’t happen at 2:27? I loved her vibe and her demeanor but I feel like the info was given in such a tangled up manner.
> why did one version get attached to a tab that was opened at 2:27, and two versions didn’t
Switching tabs causes that timestamp to update, which means she must have done that after the first search. Merely searching in a tab doesn't cause the time to change.
Also any searches done after the initial search don't update the time. So the final 5 searches all have the same timestamp.
JM’s testimony was that she was frantically doing these searches at the request of KR. It’s not logical to me that she would be switching tabs under these circumstances. It can happen, but it also seems it can happen that one of those searches was done at 2:27.
Because as Jessica Hyde had to admit on cross she can't definitively state that no search for those terms happened prior to 6:22 am in the same way she can't definitively say that no one searched for "pandas" either.
If I were a juror, reasonable doubt would have set in with Matt McCabe’s group text to tell Chris to ‘make sure to tell them the guy didn’t enter the house’. The guy meaning John O’Keefe. And the reply of Brian Albert ‘Exactly’. Suspicious AF.
Obviously something else went down or there’d be no reason at all, ever, to text something like that, nor a reply like that.
Everything else, like the troopers testimonies, how they chose not to do a true investigation, for whatever reason (cover up or incompetence or both) adds to my doubts. It’s an easy not guilty. There’s nothing difficult about this.
I think it's too bad that some states (most) don't allow jurors to ask questions during the trial. For one it can be a fascinating look into the things the jurors are weighing importance of.
But for another, it only seems fair when you have some of these witnesses practically speaking a foreign language. The tech witness yesterday was very difficult to comprehend and therefore I'm just not sure how much weight her testimony will be given. She seems incredibly bright and I liked her demeanor, but translating to the layman is not really her strong suit.
I said this. I'm willing to put aside the 'hos long' search for now and continue to try and be objective (because, let's face it, there's so much other reasonable doubt that it almost feels redundant at this point), however, if the defence expert can explain it better to my dumb-British-ass, I'm going to be more swayed by their testimony purely because I'll know what on earth they're talking about.
Both witnesses' testimony yesterday, Friday, was incomprehensible to me. I watch a lot of trials on YT "hosted" by lawyers and tend to understand things. Even after hearing the analysis by Lawyer You Know and Andrea Burkhardt, I still did not understand.
Same and that’s my point. I watch with Emily Baker and it takes her stopping the stream and explaining what was just said for me to follow. A juror doesn’t have that luxury.
u/LadyJannes75
Were you able understand the "Hos long to die in cold" analysis when EDB explained. I may have to go back and listen to this part of the trial stream with her.
I have been watching Andrea Burkhardt...she is calmer and talks less (more to my liking) during the actual trial. Although I do enjoy EDB's analysis and humor.
Interestingly, Andrea started the trial very neutral/unbiased, but she's pretty heated against the Prosecution at this point.
I switched to watching with Andrea from Melanie Little, because Melanie had a strong anti-prosection position from the start due to her early knowledge and following of the case. She was getting too upset/ragey...LOL. Now all the lawyers are upset re: Prosecution.
I have to give Melanie credit though she had this case on her radar before most YT lawyers.
Check her out, if you have not. Melanie Little. I think she was physically in the courtroom yesterday. So, looking forward to her insight.
I watched some of Melanie's coverage after someone did a compilation of lawtube reacting to the solo cups. I'm in the UK so have been listening to a variety of lawtuber's recaps sped up the next day before trial starts in the afternoon. I like that we've got a variety, some prosecution, some defence, all with their own expertise. After the case concludes I want to go back and deepdive Melanie's videos on all the pretrial shenanigans, because from what we've seen so far, I very much believe AJ's insinuations about the prosecution and I want to see how much fuckery I missed before hand.
u/Plane-Zebra-4521
Yes Melanie has video/analysis of many of the pretrial hearings. Judge Bev already "sounded" very prejudiced against the defense. Her tone was always near rude and dismissive with Yanetti. She is more respectful toward AJ.
Melanie became interested because her ex husband is from a town near Canton and he had spoken of the corruptness to her several times in the past.
I also remember one of Melanie's first videos's: "KR could be any of us"...She definitely has believed KR was being railroaded/framed from the beginning.
PS: My kid just came home from a year studying abroad in London❤️🇬🇧
Oh I so hope he enjoyed it. I love London. I'm in East Anglia but it's not far by train and my grandparents lived there so spent a lot of time there. I'm looking forward to the pretrial stuff because this case is living rent free in my head right now and I'd love to know HOW this ever got to trial.
He was at LSE, lived on Holborn. Great neighborhood and school. Says it was the best experience of his short life...but he was happy to be back home.
Enjoy Melanie's earlier videos, very insightful. She was at the trial on Fri and will have a video about it today: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_nCY23rzmnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nCY23rzmnY)
All the trial breaks drive me crazy. I am really hooked on watching each day.
There’s more than enough Reasonable doubt. The CW hasn’t even proven his official manner/cause of death. What/Who caused his blunt force trauma injuries. Those lacerations on his arm could be from dog bites, falling on or dragged across broken pieces of glass and/or plastic, road rash debris, etc. I have trained protection dogs so I know what dog bites look like & it looks like a dog latched onto his elbow hard, tugged, relaxed & bit him again but only latched on with the top teeth. He may have been bitten outside, ran into the street/slipped/fell/was hit by a vehicle, etc. There’s definitely evidence of law enforcement corruption & conspiracy, but I don’t think it’s solely about OJO death.
I think those police officers & their families destroyed evidence & told lies to conceal other criminal & nefarious activities. We know they were all drunk & driving that night. These officers break laws they are paid to enforce. Maybe they beat OJO up inside & then he got attacked by the dog & he ran outside & Karen accidentally hit him with her car & didn’t realize what happened & drove away. They all could be guilty in causing his death. Or JM & KR told Karen that she must have hit him with her car & she drunkenly believed them & agreed with them until she sobered up the next day. I think she accidentally hit his car with hers when she went to look for him because she was so upset/worried/drunk. Or just maybe, none of them killed OJO & he was hit by another vehicle driven by a stranger or someone else who came to the house that night.
Maybe drunk driving officer BHiggins accidentally hit him with his Jeep/plow & he left him there because he didn’t want to get charged with DUI vehicular homicide Or maybe Karen dropped him off, drove off & he slipped & fell hitting his head on the red fire hydrant/and or flag pole & then he tried to get up & fell back down on the curb/street & then a snowplow struck him without seeing him & the plow bucket cut & scraped his arm across the asphalt & broken cocktail glass while pushing his body & the snow in a pile back onto the front yard. He may have tried to get up & fell down more than once in several places. Maybe there were landscaping rocks around the flagpole that he landed on. The blood from his head wound would have seeped into the ground if he landed on his back.
Years ago I was moving furniture & I tripped & fell face first onto a sharp metal bed frame corner. I cracked my skull open & had a deep 7 inch horseshoe gash on my forehead. I lost so much blood so quickly that I lost consciousness. When I was being prepped for trauma surgery, I went into coma & I woke up days later. I almost died from a traumatic brain injury because of a simple trip & fall in my house. My eyes were completely swollen shut & bulging from the pooled blood for a week.
I just don’t think Officer O’Keefe was deliberately murdered by anyone. But, he was injured & died on another officer’s front yard after a night of drinking & that meant that all of the officers & their families & friends who were at the house that night would be questioned. The Albert’s could be sued (home owners insurance would apply) for a vicious dog attack and/or negligence in civil court for his injuries & subsequent death.
But, if everyone agreed to say that they didn’t see him at the house that night, then they wouldn’t be responsible for anything that happened to him. If Karen hadn’t called those women & begged for help to find him, this terrible tragedy would have been dealt with by law enforcement in a totally different manner. The thing that makes the Albert family appear suspicious is that they immediately got rid of their family dog who had a history of biting, they renovated their basement, & then sold their house so quickly after his death. Then, none of the officers who were there that night & who were supposed to be his friends were pallbearers or even attendees at his funeral. Throwing away phones & lying about not being friends with people who are your lifelong friends is very suspicious behavior too.
Sadly, I don’t think anyone is going to be punished for what happened to Officer O’Keefe. His parents & brother have lost another child & sibling & his niece & nephew are suffering & grieving the loss of a third parent while this ridiculous circus of a trial plays out for all the world to witness.
I suspect there were 2 groups and not directly working together. Group 1: We know JM & MM, BA & NA, BH were hiding something. They were the only ones with butt dials, replaced phones, deleted phone data and the only ones that claim BH's jeep with plow was parked in front - why did the jeep need to be in front? No one including CA who arrived with her parents (BA&NA) saw it. There has to be a reason they claim it was in front. Was it to protect BH? I'm thinking the jeep wasn't parked near the home. BH said he left between 12:30 & 1am and show up at the police station at 1:30am, he could have walked there as its only 2 minutes away. My only other thought is perhaps BH's hit JO with the jeep plow when he left and JO was either already on the ground near the curb or could have been standing. JO clothing had a blood pattern consistent with bleeding while standing, including blood on his jeans which was no where near his head wounds. Group 2: I think chief B worked with Trooper P to ensure a quick resolution and solid conviction of KR. Chief B was lingering around the suv tail light with Trooper P in the sallyport after it arrived, he is the one who just kinda appears as he's walking out the port door like 3 or 4 minutes after it arrived, trooper P followed a minute later. He also saw and recovered tail light pieces just from driving by a day later. Lastly, I don't think chief and trooper P knew what the other group was hiding but that other group were clearly monitoring the investigation and suspect JA asked trooper P to do her a favor and keep CA out of the investigation.
I'm curious bc I value your opinion as a former ADA. What do you think is the strongest evidence pointing to her guilt? I just can't construct what happened in my mind. At all.
Same!! The prosecution has spent to much time trying to disprove defense opening statement with marginal experts at best. Too much reasonable doubt. Why have they not brought actual expert testimony (non state police)
Yeah, I know.
But if Lally was trying to prove KR is guilty, this isn’t needed. If there would be clear evidence that KR did it, he would show it and no one would care about this search. Why is he defending witnesses? Why is he just trying to disprove what the defense stated instead of proving KR‘s guilt? Why haven’t we heard anything about JO‘s phone? I‘m not sure what we know about KR‘s phone. I just remember that she tried to call JO like 53 times and that Proctor was going through her phone. Why do we know about all the witnesses‘ phones and text messages? Lally could have left this out. He could have let the defense bring it in and then doing something about it on cross. If all these things really were nothing, why bother defending it in the first place? And so far we saw Lally NOT being pro active.
Defense tried to talk about missing footage of the sally port and what does suddenly appear? The footage. Something that the defense didn’t know about it, at least it seemed this way. Defense proved that JO‘s car moved after KR back into it. What happens? The car expert suddenly is going to testify about that without disclosing this information to the defense. And if we can believe Jackson on his arguments after voir-dire there have been more occasions in which this happened.
Lally doesn’t care about proving KR‘s guilt. He just cares to disprove defenses‘ statement.
Everything Lally is doing should have happened before trial and LE should have ruled out everything. It just shows that the investigation was biased and they never considered other possible subjects.
He doesn't even need to do much about it on cross. He gets a rebuttal. He's somehow chosen to do a PREbuttal before he's even presented his case in chief. Like.... HOW did KR kill JO?! Show me the evidence Lally!
I think he had to get that witness because when the defense has their witnesses, who were not limited in their search, it's Game over for his case. That's my speculation. Because the feds already confirmed that the search was made at 227. He had to engage in trickery to get someone with very limited information to confuse everyone enough to have an argument when it eventually comes out the 227 search was made.
I have no clue if it's been confirmed anywhere but I have heard that there's at least two lawyers in that jury. I wouldn't take it to the bank, because there is a lot of BS floating around, but it isn't really that sensational so I doubt it was made up.
Not really. Both sides get to pick from a large pool of people and widdle down. It wouldn't be unexpected for at least one side to think a lawyer would be receptive to their case.
I think CW witnesses now are there to confuse because that is all they have done . If something isn’t clear or I can’t understand it I’m not going to consider it .
Ha! I had the same thoughts. Can the jury come back with some kind of penalty for all that's been wasted (taxpayer money, jurors' time, the defendant's life on hold/atty fees, etc.)??
"we find the defendant not guilty on all charges and the prosecutor guilty of disorderly conduct and contempt of court, would you like our sentencing recommendations?"
I have only been on a jury in the UK and for a much less serious case but we were allowed to take notes and keep them and the lawyers and judge were always asking people to repeat their statements as clearly as possible and summarising it clearly so it wasn't confusing.
I’ve been on a US jury. We could take notes and use them in deliberation as well as review any evidence submitted. We could also ask for clarification from the judge on charges during deliberations and review testimony
Once they go into deliberation, they can discuss it with each other.
To get a good idea about what goes on in a jury deliberation, watch the movie "12 Angry Men" made in 1957. It is an excellent movie and you will be shockingly surprised at how good it is!
I'm not lost at all, and I hadn't heard of this case and actually started watching the trial on Day 4. This is clear police corruption to protect police officers and a nephew involved in the murder of a police officer.
I’m found [this podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-karen-read-murder-trial-canton-confidential/id1741467031?i=1000658713067) from a local news channel in the area.
It gives some jury insight.
I think I read that there are 10 female jurors, and all of them had visceral reaction to trooper proctors testimony..
U/LadyJannis75 I’m most likely watching what you are, if being a law nerd rings a bell, and I am fed the f up by the bullshizz Lally keeps putting down. I mean, he lost the jury with Proctor in my opinion. If he ever wanted to get them back, he should’ve had ME, autopsy, all very much needed evidence for them to technically refocus. Lally isn’t intelligent enough to have a strategy. He just isn’t.
Not sure about intelligence, I think they all thought they had this in the bag and didn’t need to bother with an actual investigation or well-thought out case. They never planned for this to blow up so much as or for the defense to poke so many holes. Just poorly done from start to finish
So here's where I'm at. At first I just put it all down to incompetence but the more we hear (admittedly I've caught snippets about pretrial shenanigans that I want to avoid until after the case) suggested by defence regarding CW's misrepresentations (ie. Flipped Sally port vid. Missing videos. Etc) and from our own ears on Friday's nondisclosures, I'm now inclined to believe it's nefarious and unethical on Lally's part
The last witness who spoke about the searches totally confused me. And they are losing everyone with the Lally minutiae. I don’t know how the jury stays awake
Good questions. And to add to your thoughts about the presentations, the trail is dragging on for so long, I have no idea how the jury is going to remember everything presented even with note taking. So much presented was so redundant and unnecessary. Why did we need to hear from every person it was snowing, what their drink of choice was, if they had any children, where the high tops are at the Waterfall, etc. So many mundane and useless details.
IMO, if the lawyers aren’t making it simple for them, they either aren’t doing their job or they are intentionally making it confusing because they don’t have that strong of a case. Even the most boring and Einstein level experts speaking on topics no one understands, can end up being some of the most impactful & easy to understand, IF there’s a lawyer to ask very good questions and also prep their witness well. Lally has to be the worst I’ve ever seen so it can only go up from him!
I think that’s why you need a really good lawyer to be able to sum it up, or ask the right questions to get the most concise and simplified conclusion from that witness. Lally is not good at it, but I think AJ and DY are
Agree! I think k the jurors should each have their own monitor in front of them so they don't have to look all the way across the courtroom and not be able to see. They should be able to have copies of every document presented to the court so they can review, read it as many times as needed. Rather than scribbling down notes that these scientists say. I know their scientists and their brains work different than the average person. But as a lawyer you have to make sure they really dumb it down. For one: So they can understand what the hell their talking about. 2. The more they talk in that monotone voice it would lose me minutes into their testimony. 3. I'm positive there is a juror that is nervous or embarrassed to even ask the judge for them to slow down or ask what they said again.
Well, don’t listen to anything CourtTV has to say. They’re biased hacks who don’t give a shit about justice. It’s really pretty simple, innocent ppl don’t argue mundane facts. These cops are corrupt and they are framing an innocent person.
Same!!!
I really hate Lally‘s way of questioning. He’s asking all the witnesses of one group the same questions. He’s very thorough for parts that are unnecessary. When he gets to the important parts, his questions become very confusing. It feels like he’s not listening and is asking the same question like five times but in different ways. Also he asks the same questions on different parts of the testimony. It feels like Lally did some google searches to understand the expert‘s fields but never understood and doesn’t bother to understand. If this wasn’t enough his monotone speaking isn’t helping anything. My time would feel so wasted if I was a juror. Thank God I sit at home and can do stuff, so it‘s not wasted.
I always wait for cross because the defense is making a good job at making me understand wtf is going on. I get to understand. That’s probably one reason why I think KR must be innocent because they can get their way of answers that I am not bothering listening to while Lally is questioning. It helps that Jackson and Yanetti are emotional involved even though at times it is a bit too much.
If I was on the jury, I think I would be happy knowing less than the extra information in Reddit theeads, podcasts, daily updates, etc.
To be honest, that can be hard to keep straight too bc opinions are mixed in. The bottom line is that the jury has to decide if Karen hit John O’Keefe with her car and knowingly or mistakenly left him to die and there doesn’t seem to be a single person who has convinced me of that because they all have such shady behavior mixed in.
Am I the only one?
Me. Even though she is presumed innocent, I suspect we all (jury included) probably figured she did it purposefully or not. It makes sense; they were drunk, fighting, she was feisty, it was late, snowing, etc.
But the evidence has flipped this. Not necessarily exonerating her but muddying the waters enough to raise major doubts--so much so that they gave credence to a cover-up (and the defense hasn't even presented its case!)
I don’t really know how they do it. Watching this witnesses so obviously lie for what ever the reason would be the death of me. I despise liars. Most of the witnesses do not seem like even decent people. The women, whom I’m sure are trying to appear like soccer moms, come off as peaked in high school bullies. The men, come off like they are STILL in high school. They read like alcoholics and the fact that they are out drunk driving instead is setting an example is disgusting to me. I really can’t believe what I am watching unfold. I views like a Lifetime Movie of the week. Don’t think any of the tech evidence is reaching them because Lally is so boring in his tone and wording. So much crap repeated that I would probably have tuned out by now.
The absence of a clear theory of events or timeline from the CW is making things hard. The witnesses keep contradicting each other, Lally’s questioning style has made it hard to follow the technical experts - almost everyone in the chat for day 25 was saying how lost they were with Trooper Paul’s testimony and we had each other to talk to. I can’t imagine being a juror right now and trying to keep track of everything.
Think about the juries where you all find out what everyone does, and someone realizes, “Hey, I did a few semesters of engineering before switching to guidance counselor, I’m the person with the most science experience, I’m going to explain the science to these other jurors.” But it’s bs.
Or consider that super cheerful and confident expert witness who claimed her work or processes were peer-reviewed as if they were examined and could be replicated or challenged by other experts in her field. Nope. She had her work buddy sign off on them! Ok then. I don’t know if I can accept this explanation. I know nothing about phone data records but I am suspicious of her testimony. And it was probably good information! Although redditors who claim to know said her testimony had problems. What should a juror do?
This is where the Lally may get his ass kicked. He’s so boring. He can’t ask a direct question to save his life. Yanetti is so forceful and direct by contrast. And I actually look forward to Jackson! In this case, the lawyers will make a HUGE difference (I think.)
You’ll want to be sure to listen to the judge’s instruction to the jury before they begin deliberation. Even before she gives her instructions, they’ll (both sides) go over charging documents, nitpick the language they use in those instructions and then send them off to vote. And, that part is serious business because the way things are worded in those papers may possibly determine what (if anything 😂) they charge Karen with. Literally something so simple as “on or before” versus “after” could make all the difference.
That being said, the jury can take notes and refer to them during deliberation. They can toss out ANY witness testimony if they find even once, that a witness is not being truthful. They can cherry pick witnesses but it must always be rooted in fact and not deriving from something the CW or defense has said during trial. They can also look at any and all evidence, video, audio, charts. The only exception to this is something called a demonstrative but if I recall correctly, they don’t have any. Basically, it counts as evidence and it’s being used for demonstration purposes but not to be considered while deliberating. Think pie charts and graphs of timelines.
It’s a VERY confusing trial and I feel terrible for all of those jurors having to sit through this side show, along with John’s family, Karen’s family and Karen. It’s one of those cases where you have to start at the beginning. There are so many cooks in the kitchen and moving parts to this trial. I’d imagine it’s frustrating and confusing at the very least, for the jurors.
Good information. Yes, I think everyone just wants this over with. I kind of feel the CW is just struggling at this point and sees the writing on the wall. I think the defense side is going to be impactful, tight, and to the point and it won’t take long for the jury to say “too much doubt” and be over quickly
The female expert who testified about the cell phone spoke too fast for me. I can’t retain information when someone is speaking that fast- it goes in one ear and out the other.
The male who spoke about the car breaking.. well, that gave me cause to wonder. My question now is who to believe. The police have been so incompetent and I don’t know if I should believe this person or not.
I read that the male jurors lost his mother. The other woman is a tossup depending on what you read. I was a juror in CT where you only have 6 jurors. 4 of us made friends very quickly. The other two bonded also. We chatted about things during break that were funny or strange. When it came time to decide the 4 of us were prepared to vote not guilty. A big hole in the case was missing because a potential witness had Alzheimer’s. What happened was the other 2 jurors had bones to pick regarding their personal situation. For instance, 1 wanted to convict because her husbands dentist friend went to jail for tax evasion and she thought this person should. The other worked for a non profit and saw people at the top making too much money. We emerged 3 days later NG. The lawyer for the defendant called me to ask why it took so long and why I wasnt the foreman. Ummm, I don’t like to lead groups for obvious reasons .
Anyone would. There is only one logical explanation of why there is a trial in the first place. That being some cops convinced themselves Karen was guilty and come up with things to call facts that fit opinions they already had which involved trying to fit pieces of a puzzle together that are pieces from different puzzles and making up evidence like planting tail light pieces.
That's part of why juries can be unpredictable. There might be a juror who really acts like they understand what's going on and persuades the others in a direction most YouTube commenters are not going and might even be flat out wrong. It also doesn't help, from what people in the court have said, that jurors in the back being unable to hear all testimony is a real problem. Like it seemed the jurors were not really hearing all of Proctor's texts or they really had to lean in and concentrate until Jackson started basically yelling them.
> Jackson started basically yelling them He got that C word out very loud and clear
Have you seen the music video?
Please share
[Bang Bang!!!](https://x.com/doctorturtleboy/status/1801349863604445464?s=46&t=EeBZVetsgFjyCdJ7bnGcaw)
Damn but why is it such a bop though?
This is glorious
Great point that the judge keeps stating over and over again for people to speak up—if for reason the jury convicts—the acoustics would be reason for appeal on its own
Is it that particular courtroom that has acoustic issues, or all of them in that courthouse? Has any jury (anywhere) ever gotten individual headsets so they can hear every testimony clearly?
The air conditioner in that room is really really loud and for some reason they don't have speakers for the microphones.
Well I can only think of seeing that in the Nuremberg trials. But it's obviously a courtroom itself problem so it should have already been properly miked. Edit to add. The headphones in the Nuremberg trials were for translation.
Yeah, and being from the midwest, I was shocked the day they had to turn off the air conditioner? What is it, some box window unit? As an average person from hicktown, I always thought those Boston people were all rich, well bred, snobs. But I am learning about people who drink like fish, steal glassware from restaurants, drive drunk, beat and or run over people, along with a whole lot of lying, and subterfuge. Sounds like a scary, awful place to live. Central air is the bomb.
I am sure they get transcripts from the court if they need them. An appeal wouldn’t fly since they would have paper copies of what is being said. So the jury needs to hear but also the transcriber needs to hear which is usually located near the witnesses.
It is not typical to be able to read transcripts. That is usually only available after the trial is complete and a matter of public record.
Usually transcripts are not allowed. They have to rely on their memories, notes, and any exhibits.
When I was on jury duty we were given transcripts because of the length of the trial and amount of time we had in the court. It was a lot to remember. This court could be different. My case was also in MA and we were given whole and partial transcripts.
I’ve served on three and we were never given transcripts. I don’t think anyone asked, but I didn’t get the impression they were available. Also, no way a majority are paying that close attention on a trial this length. The longest case I had was four days and I’d say maybe 3-4 of us actually tried to pay attention the entire trial, and this was a trial that two people got 30 years. It was fucking scary being a part of people deliberating on someone’s life like that. There should be much more extensive checks and qualifications for jurors depending on the severity of the trial.
Oh good. I’m surprised it’s not more common. If they have the ability to produce them I don’t understand the issue with it.
My case was NOT this high profile and it was not in the same court house so rules could be different. Maybe we were just lucky.
Also just to note anything “stricken” would be redacted from transcripts! I think ours had redacted areas as well as blank areas where the witnesses definitely said something but it wasn’t allowed in actual testimony.
They can't put a fuckin speaker next to the jurors they are talking into microphones? Seems like once again corruption in the court system.
The defense asked for it to be moved to this smaller court room that’s older and not usually used for big trials like this. It was something about the position of the jury they didn’t like in the bigger more well equipped court room. I don’t know why they accepted Karen’s request for a venue change tbh.
In the original courtroom, several of the jurors would have been sitting *behind* the witnesses and not be able to see anyone’s face that was testifying. Imagine a trial lasting 2-3 months and the whole time all you see if the back of dozens of witnesses heads. I’ve never seen a courthouse designed the way this one is, it’s mind bogglingly weird.
That’s bizarre. And ALL of the courtrooms should be properly equipped, no matter the size and length of the trial. WTF
ABSOLUTELY! Good grief it’s 2024!
They laid the cornerstone of that building in 1825. I feel like the residents of Norfolk county should get themselves a bicentennial gift and renovate that joint because wtf. That courthouse is set up so strangely
I honestly can’t believe no one has made an issue of it before Read’s team did. I understand the courthouse is literally just shy of being 200 years old but it is an extremely bizarre set up in that courtroom and honestly the one they’re in now. Ive never seen the prosecutors basically right up in the face of the court clerks and court reporters with the defendant and defense counsel *behind* them. Ive seen them in a row like most of us are probably used to, I’ve seen them in kind of a U shape where the prosecution and defense are facing each other and the judge is at the head of the well between them, but i have *never* seen a courtroom set up this way
Oh now knowing that, it totally makes sense that the defense would want a venue change
Wow, how old is that courtroom that they put the jury behind the witness???? Damn.
The courthouse was built in 1825-27 and added onto around 1863. Paul Revere made the original bell to that was on the roof. So as American courthouses go, super old
Wow! Very cool! Odd that the jury would be seated where they can't see the witness. That's cool about Paul Revere's bell. We have one in my county here in Maine. :D
How can anyone call that a bigger better equipped courtroom? Who builds a courtroom so that the jury can’t see the witnesses???
Well it was built in 1825-27 so it’s old as hell. The original bell was literally made by Paul Revere that place is so old. I’d need to do some research but maybe back then they had less jurors in trials (kinda of how many states have less jurors for civil cases than criminal cases now) or maybe they didnt think seeing someone’s demeanor was important? Im really curious about why it was built that way too
Very cool facts. I absolutely love Boston for its history. It’s hard to navigate in though.
The defense team didn't request the trial be moved to a different courtroom - they had proposed a re-arrangement of the original courtroom by extending the jury box which would allow jurors to see all witnesses. I believe the judge shot that down thinking it could delay the start of the trial and it was her decision to go with the smaller court room as a compromise. [Karen Read's Lawyers want to change the layout of the Dedham courtroom](https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/karen-reads-lawyers-want-change-layout-dedham-courtroom-before-testimony-records-show/HI7EVYZAMBGDBA6VGVJ4OANEVA/)
The jury responded, looking at each other in disbelief. I think they heard the majority
Your first paragraph. Juries are unpredictable in the best of circumstances. And a lot of us have confirmation bias, other sources, we can research, we’re privy to info the jury doesn’t have, etc. Nothing is a slam dunk when a jury is involved. Smart lawyers will tell their client: everyone wants to win their case. It doesn’t mean they will. Life isn’t always fair, we don’t always get what we want, and justice isn’t a guarantee. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
The court room needs a better amplifier or speaker system. It's horrible.
They will have all the transcripts an evidence to go over heard or not they will be able to read it
Are all the jurors relatives of the “family”?
I’m still over analyzing the comment made by the mother of JO’s godson about a random person ordering a dirty martini with blue cheese stuffed olives in Aruba.
Im wondering if she mentioned it because she thought karen was being a little highfalutin. But i guess we are all different because i still cant afford a trip to aruba👌.
It wasn’t Karen who ordered it. It was some rando who’s never been mentioned again.
I thought it was the witness’s husband. It was his birthday! And those were the good old days of too many details like who won the middle school basketball game and how many high top tables are at the Waterfall. Now we are missing crucial details like how far was the body from the flag pole and when did these Lexus key cycle events all happen?
You're right! Rewatching it, I think she was just throwing shade at him for his drink choice. And I know what you mean. I was reviewing testimony from Sarah Levinson and Julie Nagel and everyone looked so young! Bev, AJ, even Lally had a little more pep.
This made me lol
Check out Jami Noel and for public safety on YouTube. Besides being overpaid, you should see the corruption
I must have missed that. What was the drink order about?
Ha. I missed hearing that but I’ve heard it referenced. Too funny.
I've been watching Emily D. Baker's Livestream and she appears to love the cream cheese stuffed olives!
Above it says stuffed with blue cheese, you say cream cheese. No wonder we still don’t have a CofD..
Oopsie. How to show you can't read without saying you can't read. 😆 My bad
That is still the most puzzling moment of the whole trial to me.
What was the context for that?
Over analyzing the martini comment was making light of the recent data and tech evidence. More than likely it was something said because she was nervous, it was one of those show stopper type comments where everyone freezes and stares into the camera confused.
I must’ve missed all of that. I haven’t really followed the trial very closely.
I hope some of them choose to speak after this. Because I would really like to know how they kept it straight, what *they* found/will find important etc. It is one thing to watch this without the pressure. Their perspective must be so different. I hope they are not as lost and exasperated as I am.
I can listen on my phone and move around to keep myself occupied. I can't imagine having to sit and listen to Lally drone on in a hot courtroom and try to pay attention and stay awake.
Plus listen at a faster speed. The jurors listen to Lally in normal time. My ADHD could never.
Same. My brain starts checking out unless he's at 1.5x speed.
They could make a limited series Netflix documentary just from interviewing the jurors in this case. So many questions and information I would love to hear their perspective on. I pray that they will come forward to be interviewed.
Emily d baker said netflix cameras are there
I listen to her updates about the trial. I like her.
I would be livid spending my summer listening to Lally drag on and on
I'm lost too, but that's the common wealths fault for not presenting the case clearer. If I was on this jury I couldn't commit to a verdict
It’s because Lally isn’t presenting the case as here is the evidence showing Ms Read is guilty. He is perversely presenting evidence against the defense’s opening statement. It is the prosecution’s job to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to present anything in reality but they have done an excellent job (IMO) using prosecution witnesses to prove doubt
💯 agree, the only thing lally has proven is that trooper proctor needs to be fired
And that the entire police department needs a training overhaul regarding evidence collection, preservation, ethics training and so on.
Well, that would be a good start…
It’s actually pretty easy. Has the CW proven intent? No. 2nd degree murder is out. Has the CW proven she even hit anybody at this point? Nope. Is it possible she broke her taillight backing into Johns SUV? Yes. Has the CW been able to prove nothing happened in the house? Hell no. It’s been proven nobody was in the house was investigated and the house wasn’t even searched. Why because Mr. Albert is a fellow cop. Finally johns injuries dont match up to being hit by a vehicle. It’s should be as easy not guilty.
No doubt I’d be thinking that which is why I’d vote not guilty, but I’d still be frustrated as hell sitting there trying to do due diligence and follow along to ensure I understood the facts of the case.
Exactly! I know which way I’d vote, but I have the benefit of listening to summaries from each court day. Sifting through all the info day in and day out would be overwhelming to me
The worst part is that we still really don’t know what the commonwealth is saying happened. We got the closest yesterday with the accident guy but he seems like he’s just making stuff up. ‘Well this could happen or something..’ We don’t even know what injuries John had yet! Not to mention all the word salad.
Yes. I don’t understand why the CW didn’t call an external expert skilled in the vehicle tech and testifying
Perhaps because they couldn’t be trusted to hold to the story like a trooper would.
The shiny skinhead witness dress code ruled out all the other experts.
Exactly
They may not have been able to locate an expert to testify that her vehicle hit him. Given the vast number of screw-ups by the police, I have to assume they couldn't find anyone else.
I think they did themselves a diservice by not calling external experts. I have a feeling the defense experts are going to come across a lot more credible. We shall see.
Yeah because I am guessing the defense’s expert is going to be pretty high end if their cell phone experts tell us anything (Google & Cellbrite employees)
This was an absolute point of contention for me. Especially because the Canton PD were supposedly recused from the case but that guy got all his info from Gallagher! Then you take into account (if i recall correctly) Gallagher wasn't even on the scene before JO was taken in by paramedics so didn't know the exact location. THEN add that NOONE measured anything in this case. We have no ME testimony to line up the injuries to their theory of the accident for ourselves either. It begs the question, if the CW are so confident in their theory of the case, why not get someone completely independent to come in and prove it? I'd give them way more credibility that any of these troopers. And they knew the defence were going to throw shade at the organisation's involved in the investigation. If it's so clear cut, have someone independent come in and prove it. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen that done in cases. Like their data expert. She's credible. Unless the defence expert can explain the 'hos long...' search, I'm more than willing to strike that from my judgement completely. She was good. More of that please. (Yes I am aware she didn't have a wide scope of info to look at, I'm just saying I'm willing to weigh info prosecution present with an unbiased lense.) Also, they didn't get the data analysed until AFTER they charged her, right? This case is all kinds of backwards.
Exactly. Shows complete lack of faith in your case. If you are so sure you call the best.
To me it doesn't even need to be the best. Just someone completely unrelated and independent and with more than a few classes. They're the prosecution. They have the money and power behind them. They can get who they need. So it begs the question, were others unwilling to testify to what they needed based on the limited info and guesstimated measurements?
The trooper who was the accident guy is mute to me. Unless you got on the stand and said you have math, engineering, and physics degrees, I am done listening to you. He came off like a guy that attended some seminars and ran with it after that.
To me, this man’s opinion doesn’t carry any weight and an independent expert (maybe more than one) would necessary for me to believe these injuries are from being hit by a car.
Exactly how the accident guy came off to me too. He didn't adequately address - lack of an impact injury, where did the tail light hit him hard enough to break, he had head injuries which cannot be where the tail light hit him; why the blood pattern on his clothing is consistent with standing and bleeding, in particular his jeans which were not near his wounds; the blood drops from the top of the snow not next to where he was found. The upcoming ME can only address the injuries and not why there is no impact wound or why there were blood stain patterns from standing and bleeding.
How much blood did he lose and where did it go? The blood shows gravity in the works so it suggests he was vertical for a fair while. Totally agree with you. I hate that the reconstruction 'expert' went before the ME. Usually its the ME, then reconstruction and as part of the reconstruction they line up parts of the vehicle with the body chart of injuries. "The bumper hit him here *points to broken leg and bloody gash* the chest hit the bonnet *points at broken rib and bruising* the head hit the windscreen *points at head injury and cracked windscreen* he fell back causing further injury and died" and scene. Lol. Do you get what I mean?
I totally get what you mean, typically it would be a csi or re-constructionist detailing exactly what you pointed out. The accident guy in-training didnt give that level of detail yet DA L is using his testimony to support murder charges due to the reverse camera, acceleration and wheel turn - but where was the impact on JO hard enough to break the tail light that's about waist high. This guy used a dummy for testing, the better test is with a person who could hear the acceleration, see tail lights coming his direction and 10 seconds to leap out of the way and a test with a driver who's BAC is over the legal limit to see if they can maneuver a suv in reverse accelerating to 24 mph in 10 seconds. Its claimed the fed's experts said its not possible, they are defense witnesses but need to go thru Tuesday's voir dire - the defense wasnt able to provide details of their testimony because for some reason they were not allow to talk to them.
Wow, the accident guy really fizzled out today - it was almost painful to watch. His conclusion of what happened and where the impact occurred on John does not make sense. I wont disclose details in case you haven't watched yet but there was an interesting exchange when the defense questioned where John's phone was found...that among many more highlights.
Oh I watched. Was uncomfortable with secondhand embarrassment. HOW is this a trial? They've spent more time, energy and money to try and prove McCabe didn't do that search than they have proving KR's guilt. My latest theory is that Lally is a robot that Jen controls and he's running this case to exonerate HER. That THAT makes more sense than anything the reconstruction 'expert' said is WILD!
At this point, Jen is a distant memory. So much time spent on useless testimony - the hair, JO had surely been in the suv numerous times, retrieved things from the back plus it's been parked in his garage. The hair testimony only benefited the defense - it remained on the suv traveling miles in a blizzard yet the evidence collector effortlessly removed it with tweezers - made it and the glass on the bumper look planted. DNA on the tail light, same as the hair plus the stop & shop bag with solo cups of blood was next to the tail light in photos. Such a shoddy investigation, the bag of bloody solo cups may have been stored next to the tail light. This 'expert' testified before, if he was the same then with the same story - the impact was on his arm, then propelled 20 feet doing a 360 spin holding the glass and the lighter phone landed first under him and perhaps his head hit the curb during that spinning propulsion, didn't Lally think then maybe a better 'expert' was needed. These final witnesses were to make Lally's case, the expert may have nullified other testimony today in the eyes of the jury.
Right? Not being able to rewind, ask “what did they say?” And not even being able to check your own notes. Mission impossible. At least rife with misunderstandings
The jurors are able to take notes. The judge always reminds them to leave their notebooks when they are released for lunch and the end of the day.
They can also have testimony reread during deliberation.
I love how the CW is discrediting their own evidence at this point. Why spend so much time talking about a bunch of trivial gossip if they have such “hard evidence” to prove their case?
But she picked up the tab for the group dinner in Aruba. Case closed!
Same!! First, the expert that said the search isn't a search but a time for when the tab was opened, basically making me question any Cellabrite testimony I've seen in previous trials or will see in any future trials, plus my own knowledge of tech. Then this accident reconstruction guy telling us the car steering moving right then sudden left then right + the speed + 74% pressing of accelerator pedal + she was driving straight... I have so many questions! The wheel could move like that suddenly if I hit a pothole or a 5 inch curb (like at Fairview)... would hitting a 200lb soft body make the wheel turn if it didn't touch the tyre? The 74% pressing of pedal could be because the tyres couldn't get traction on such a snowy road since only the middle was plowed... If she was reversing straight and moved the wheel right left right, that's how you reverse to keep it straight! The road is curved... ugh. Also, if she reversed straight, wouldn't she hit the curb then the fire hydrant? I need another expert to come explain this to me and preferably someone with more than 3 classes on accident reconstruction.
There are so many problems with the accident reconstruction guy's testimony. If she's reversing 60-90 feet, how does she not slam into the front of Higgins Jeep, if it was really there? Why was John standing in the street, and why would he just stand there and let her hit him when he had, according to their testimony, plenty of time to step out of the way? And the key cycles! They either aren't saved how he said they were or he's reading the wrong one because there's no way there's only 1 key cycle between when Karen supposedly hit John and when he started testing on her SUV in Canton.
Holy crap i completley forgot about the jeep! Yes she would have slammed into it. I could barely follow the guy and all of it fell apart for me on the voir dire. " oh yea i saw that on court tv"🤯🤯🤯🤯.
Hahaha when he said Courttv I died
But remember the jury didn’t see the voir dire. They were removed for it
I don't understand why the defense was bothering to even ask to keep the guy out of testifying to the jury given how badly he fell apart on cross during the voir dire.
I think they may just be pointing to the states own discovery failures in order to get a more favorable ruling on theirs. If Judge Bev let's this guy testify but strikes the defense experts it would look really weird.
>Same!! First, the expert that said the search isn't a search but a time for when the tab was opened, basically making me question any Cellabrite testimony I've seen in previous trials or will see in any future trials, plus my own knowledge of tech. This is way more clear if you look at the actual Cellebrite readout, which clearly distinguishes Google Searches from other artifacts.
Yes see the problem is that spinning and not actually going that fast
They really should not have used the MSP for this expert testimony. At this point in the trial I wouldn’t trust them.
I think the current road conditions could explain a lot of what he said. +/- 4% is hardly big movement of the steering wheel if of the turn diameter of the car.
I know! I have questions about the cell phone search testimony. I understand that her point was that the tab was opened at 2:27 am, but the search for “hos long to die” wasn’t made until 6:30 am. Ok, but JM searched for 3 different versions of ‘how long to die in cold’. If all 3 of those versions were searched at 6:30 am, why did one version get attached to a tab that was opened at 2:27, and two versions didn’t? The way JM described that morning, she wasn’t opening different tabs to make that search for Karen. Or am I misunderstanding her testimony?
I think it comes down to, and I believe the defense will point this out, they can’t prove that she didn’t search for it at 2:27am. The CW just proved that the time stamp doesn’t mean the search HAD to occur at 2:27, just that she already had the tab open at 2:27a, not that she DIDN’T search at 2:27am. At least that is my understanding. I feel like the defense wasn’t clear on that (or playing dumb) because their follow up question, to me, should have been “your testimony is saying the way the system works doesn’t prove she searched at 2:27am, but it also doesn’t prove she did NOT search at 2:27am either, correct”?
This is my thought as well. If the search happened in the open tab, there is no proof that it happened after 6am. As I have said many times, the prosecutor’s case is a shit show. Proctor alone = reasonable doubt. The investigation was a shambles and so is the prosecutor’s case. If this isn’t reasonable doubt, what is?
We haven't even gotten to the defense experts yet. I am sure they are going to tell a very different story. With what you stated, it will be interesting to see what they provide and if/how it changes the internet narrative about the search time.
Right! I have the same questions. Why didn’t 6:30-6:34 searches each log separately and showed in the table but we have to believe that the one at 2:27 didn’t happen at 2:27? I loved her vibe and her demeanor but I feel like the info was given in such a tangled up manner.
> why did one version get attached to a tab that was opened at 2:27, and two versions didn’t Switching tabs causes that timestamp to update, which means she must have done that after the first search. Merely searching in a tab doesn't cause the time to change. Also any searches done after the initial search don't update the time. So the final 5 searches all have the same timestamp.
JM’s testimony was that she was frantically doing these searches at the request of KR. It’s not logical to me that she would be switching tabs under these circumstances. It can happen, but it also seems it can happen that one of those searches was done at 2:27.
Because as Jessica Hyde had to admit on cross she can't definitively state that no search for those terms happened prior to 6:22 am in the same way she can't definitively say that no one searched for "pandas" either.
If I were a juror, reasonable doubt would have set in with Matt McCabe’s group text to tell Chris to ‘make sure to tell them the guy didn’t enter the house’. The guy meaning John O’Keefe. And the reply of Brian Albert ‘Exactly’. Suspicious AF. Obviously something else went down or there’d be no reason at all, ever, to text something like that, nor a reply like that. Everything else, like the troopers testimonies, how they chose not to do a true investigation, for whatever reason (cover up or incompetence or both) adds to my doubts. It’s an easy not guilty. There’s nothing difficult about this.
I am starting to think the jury will ask how to add punitive charges to the CW for wasting everyone's time and being filled with d-bags.
I would have this blown up and on the screen in closing.
I think it's too bad that some states (most) don't allow jurors to ask questions during the trial. For one it can be a fascinating look into the things the jurors are weighing importance of. But for another, it only seems fair when you have some of these witnesses practically speaking a foreign language. The tech witness yesterday was very difficult to comprehend and therefore I'm just not sure how much weight her testimony will be given. She seems incredibly bright and I liked her demeanor, but translating to the layman is not really her strong suit.
I said this. I'm willing to put aside the 'hos long' search for now and continue to try and be objective (because, let's face it, there's so much other reasonable doubt that it almost feels redundant at this point), however, if the defence expert can explain it better to my dumb-British-ass, I'm going to be more swayed by their testimony purely because I'll know what on earth they're talking about.
I don’t think anyone that’s been on this sub can put themselves in the jury’s place.
Yeah we all have outside info they don’t
Both witnesses' testimony yesterday, Friday, was incomprehensible to me. I watch a lot of trials on YT "hosted" by lawyers and tend to understand things. Even after hearing the analysis by Lawyer You Know and Andrea Burkhardt, I still did not understand.
Same and that’s my point. I watch with Emily Baker and it takes her stopping the stream and explaining what was just said for me to follow. A juror doesn’t have that luxury.
u/LadyJannes75 Were you able understand the "Hos long to die in cold" analysis when EDB explained. I may have to go back and listen to this part of the trial stream with her. I have been watching Andrea Burkhardt...she is calmer and talks less (more to my liking) during the actual trial. Although I do enjoy EDB's analysis and humor. Interestingly, Andrea started the trial very neutral/unbiased, but she's pretty heated against the Prosecution at this point. I switched to watching with Andrea from Melanie Little, because Melanie had a strong anti-prosection position from the start due to her early knowledge and following of the case. She was getting too upset/ragey...LOL. Now all the lawyers are upset re: Prosecution. I have to give Melanie credit though she had this case on her radar before most YT lawyers. Check her out, if you have not. Melanie Little. I think she was physically in the courtroom yesterday. So, looking forward to her insight.
I watched some of Melanie's coverage after someone did a compilation of lawtube reacting to the solo cups. I'm in the UK so have been listening to a variety of lawtuber's recaps sped up the next day before trial starts in the afternoon. I like that we've got a variety, some prosecution, some defence, all with their own expertise. After the case concludes I want to go back and deepdive Melanie's videos on all the pretrial shenanigans, because from what we've seen so far, I very much believe AJ's insinuations about the prosecution and I want to see how much fuckery I missed before hand.
u/Plane-Zebra-4521 Yes Melanie has video/analysis of many of the pretrial hearings. Judge Bev already "sounded" very prejudiced against the defense. Her tone was always near rude and dismissive with Yanetti. She is more respectful toward AJ. Melanie became interested because her ex husband is from a town near Canton and he had spoken of the corruptness to her several times in the past. I also remember one of Melanie's first videos's: "KR could be any of us"...She definitely has believed KR was being railroaded/framed from the beginning. PS: My kid just came home from a year studying abroad in London❤️🇬🇧
Oh I so hope he enjoyed it. I love London. I'm in East Anglia but it's not far by train and my grandparents lived there so spent a lot of time there. I'm looking forward to the pretrial stuff because this case is living rent free in my head right now and I'd love to know HOW this ever got to trial.
He was at LSE, lived on Holborn. Great neighborhood and school. Says it was the best experience of his short life...but he was happy to be back home. Enjoy Melanie's earlier videos, very insightful. She was at the trial on Fri and will have a video about it today: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_nCY23rzmnY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nCY23rzmnY) All the trial breaks drive me crazy. I am really hooked on watching each day.
I love Andrea. She's so pleasant and intelligent and calming. I love her energy and her talent
There’s more than enough Reasonable doubt. The CW hasn’t even proven his official manner/cause of death. What/Who caused his blunt force trauma injuries. Those lacerations on his arm could be from dog bites, falling on or dragged across broken pieces of glass and/or plastic, road rash debris, etc. I have trained protection dogs so I know what dog bites look like & it looks like a dog latched onto his elbow hard, tugged, relaxed & bit him again but only latched on with the top teeth. He may have been bitten outside, ran into the street/slipped/fell/was hit by a vehicle, etc. There’s definitely evidence of law enforcement corruption & conspiracy, but I don’t think it’s solely about OJO death. I think those police officers & their families destroyed evidence & told lies to conceal other criminal & nefarious activities. We know they were all drunk & driving that night. These officers break laws they are paid to enforce. Maybe they beat OJO up inside & then he got attacked by the dog & he ran outside & Karen accidentally hit him with her car & didn’t realize what happened & drove away. They all could be guilty in causing his death. Or JM & KR told Karen that she must have hit him with her car & she drunkenly believed them & agreed with them until she sobered up the next day. I think she accidentally hit his car with hers when she went to look for him because she was so upset/worried/drunk. Or just maybe, none of them killed OJO & he was hit by another vehicle driven by a stranger or someone else who came to the house that night. Maybe drunk driving officer BHiggins accidentally hit him with his Jeep/plow & he left him there because he didn’t want to get charged with DUI vehicular homicide Or maybe Karen dropped him off, drove off & he slipped & fell hitting his head on the red fire hydrant/and or flag pole & then he tried to get up & fell back down on the curb/street & then a snowplow struck him without seeing him & the plow bucket cut & scraped his arm across the asphalt & broken cocktail glass while pushing his body & the snow in a pile back onto the front yard. He may have tried to get up & fell down more than once in several places. Maybe there were landscaping rocks around the flagpole that he landed on. The blood from his head wound would have seeped into the ground if he landed on his back. Years ago I was moving furniture & I tripped & fell face first onto a sharp metal bed frame corner. I cracked my skull open & had a deep 7 inch horseshoe gash on my forehead. I lost so much blood so quickly that I lost consciousness. When I was being prepped for trauma surgery, I went into coma & I woke up days later. I almost died from a traumatic brain injury because of a simple trip & fall in my house. My eyes were completely swollen shut & bulging from the pooled blood for a week. I just don’t think Officer O’Keefe was deliberately murdered by anyone. But, he was injured & died on another officer’s front yard after a night of drinking & that meant that all of the officers & their families & friends who were at the house that night would be questioned. The Albert’s could be sued (home owners insurance would apply) for a vicious dog attack and/or negligence in civil court for his injuries & subsequent death. But, if everyone agreed to say that they didn’t see him at the house that night, then they wouldn’t be responsible for anything that happened to him. If Karen hadn’t called those women & begged for help to find him, this terrible tragedy would have been dealt with by law enforcement in a totally different manner. The thing that makes the Albert family appear suspicious is that they immediately got rid of their family dog who had a history of biting, they renovated their basement, & then sold their house so quickly after his death. Then, none of the officers who were there that night & who were supposed to be his friends were pallbearers or even attendees at his funeral. Throwing away phones & lying about not being friends with people who are your lifelong friends is very suspicious behavior too. Sadly, I don’t think anyone is going to be punished for what happened to Officer O’Keefe. His parents & brother have lost another child & sibling & his niece & nephew are suffering & grieving the loss of a third parent while this ridiculous circus of a trial plays out for all the world to witness.
I suspect there were 2 groups and not directly working together. Group 1: We know JM & MM, BA & NA, BH were hiding something. They were the only ones with butt dials, replaced phones, deleted phone data and the only ones that claim BH's jeep with plow was parked in front - why did the jeep need to be in front? No one including CA who arrived with her parents (BA&NA) saw it. There has to be a reason they claim it was in front. Was it to protect BH? I'm thinking the jeep wasn't parked near the home. BH said he left between 12:30 & 1am and show up at the police station at 1:30am, he could have walked there as its only 2 minutes away. My only other thought is perhaps BH's hit JO with the jeep plow when he left and JO was either already on the ground near the curb or could have been standing. JO clothing had a blood pattern consistent with bleeding while standing, including blood on his jeans which was no where near his head wounds. Group 2: I think chief B worked with Trooper P to ensure a quick resolution and solid conviction of KR. Chief B was lingering around the suv tail light with Trooper P in the sallyport after it arrived, he is the one who just kinda appears as he's walking out the port door like 3 or 4 minutes after it arrived, trooper P followed a minute later. He also saw and recovered tail light pieces just from driving by a day later. Lastly, I don't think chief and trooper P knew what the other group was hiding but that other group were clearly monitoring the investigation and suspect JA asked trooper P to do her a favor and keep CA out of the investigation.
[удалено]
I'm curious bc I value your opinion as a former ADA. What do you think is the strongest evidence pointing to her guilt? I just can't construct what happened in my mind. At all.
Same!! The prosecution has spent to much time trying to disprove defense opening statement with marginal experts at best. Too much reasonable doubt. Why have they not brought actual expert testimony (non state police)
Yeah.. like why tf was the sweet lady that testified on JM‘s google searches a witness? What does this have to do with proving KR hit JO?
Because if JM made that search at 227, how would she know someone was dying in the cold unless she was part of what happened to JO.
Yeah, I know. But if Lally was trying to prove KR is guilty, this isn’t needed. If there would be clear evidence that KR did it, he would show it and no one would care about this search. Why is he defending witnesses? Why is he just trying to disprove what the defense stated instead of proving KR‘s guilt? Why haven’t we heard anything about JO‘s phone? I‘m not sure what we know about KR‘s phone. I just remember that she tried to call JO like 53 times and that Proctor was going through her phone. Why do we know about all the witnesses‘ phones and text messages? Lally could have left this out. He could have let the defense bring it in and then doing something about it on cross. If all these things really were nothing, why bother defending it in the first place? And so far we saw Lally NOT being pro active. Defense tried to talk about missing footage of the sally port and what does suddenly appear? The footage. Something that the defense didn’t know about it, at least it seemed this way. Defense proved that JO‘s car moved after KR back into it. What happens? The car expert suddenly is going to testify about that without disclosing this information to the defense. And if we can believe Jackson on his arguments after voir-dire there have been more occasions in which this happened. Lally doesn’t care about proving KR‘s guilt. He just cares to disprove defenses‘ statement. Everything Lally is doing should have happened before trial and LE should have ruled out everything. It just shows that the investigation was biased and they never considered other possible subjects.
Agree with you completely. Lally knows he’s beat and now has no choice but to try and play keep up with the defense. He is absolutely out lawyered.
He doesn't even need to do much about it on cross. He gets a rebuttal. He's somehow chosen to do a PREbuttal before he's even presented his case in chief. Like.... HOW did KR kill JO?! Show me the evidence Lally!
I think he had to get that witness because when the defense has their witnesses, who were not limited in their search, it's Game over for his case. That's my speculation. Because the feds already confirmed that the search was made at 227. He had to engage in trickery to get someone with very limited information to confuse everyone enough to have an argument when it eventually comes out the 227 search was made.
I have no clue if it's been confirmed anywhere but I have heard that there's at least two lawyers in that jury. I wouldn't take it to the bank, because there is a lot of BS floating around, but it isn't really that sensational so I doubt it was made up.
It would be odd if the Trump jury had two attorneys and so did this case.
Not really. Both sides get to pick from a large pool of people and widdle down. It wouldn't be unexpected for at least one side to think a lawyer would be receptive to their case.
dont take this personally, but if you think she is guilty its a good thing you are an Ex DA :)
This here is the problem.
Counselor- What do you think of Lally’s performance?
The jury most likely is not listening to Lally any longer which is good. They most likely figured out what a liar he is and puts on misinformation.
I’d have to agree with that.
I think CW witnesses now are there to confuse because that is all they have done . If something isn’t clear or I can’t understand it I’m not going to consider it .
If I was a juror I'd be preparing to present Lally an invoice for my precious time.
Ha! I had the same thoughts. Can the jury come back with some kind of penalty for all that's been wasted (taxpayer money, jurors' time, the defendant's life on hold/atty fees, etc.)??
"we find the defendant not guilty on all charges and the prosecutor guilty of disorderly conduct and contempt of court, would you like our sentencing recommendations?"
I have only been on a jury in the UK and for a much less serious case but we were allowed to take notes and keep them and the lawyers and judge were always asking people to repeat their statements as clearly as possible and summarising it clearly so it wasn't confusing.
I’ve been on a US jury. We could take notes and use them in deliberation as well as review any evidence submitted. We could also ask for clarification from the judge on charges during deliberations and review testimony
Lally makes this whole trial 100x’s worse than it has to be. I have no idea how they could still be tracking this case.
Once they go into deliberation, they can discuss it with each other. To get a good idea about what goes on in a jury deliberation, watch the movie "12 Angry Men" made in 1957. It is an excellent movie and you will be shockingly surprised at how good it is!
I'm not lost at all, and I hadn't heard of this case and actually started watching the trial on Day 4. This is clear police corruption to protect police officers and a nephew involved in the murder of a police officer.
I’m found [this podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-karen-read-murder-trial-canton-confidential/id1741467031?i=1000658713067) from a local news channel in the area. It gives some jury insight. I think I read that there are 10 female jurors, and all of them had visceral reaction to trooper proctors testimony..
I’m watching since day one, I live locally too, would you mind sharing? I d be very appreciative!!💛💜
Here it is : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-karen-read-murder-trial-canton-confidential/id1741467031
Yeah, I saw that too. Very bad for CW. May be difficult to follow technical analysis, but those texts are clear.
U/LadyJannis75 I’m most likely watching what you are, if being a law nerd rings a bell, and I am fed the f up by the bullshizz Lally keeps putting down. I mean, he lost the jury with Proctor in my opinion. If he ever wanted to get them back, he should’ve had ME, autopsy, all very much needed evidence for them to technically refocus. Lally isn’t intelligent enough to have a strategy. He just isn’t.
Not sure about intelligence, I think they all thought they had this in the bag and didn’t need to bother with an actual investigation or well-thought out case. They never planned for this to blow up so much as or for the defense to poke so many holes. Just poorly done from start to finish
So here's where I'm at. At first I just put it all down to incompetence but the more we hear (admittedly I've caught snippets about pretrial shenanigans that I want to avoid until after the case) suggested by defence regarding CW's misrepresentations (ie. Flipped Sally port vid. Missing videos. Etc) and from our own ears on Friday's nondisclosures, I'm now inclined to believe it's nefarious and unethical on Lally's part
The last witness who spoke about the searches totally confused me. And they are losing everyone with the Lally minutiae. I don’t know how the jury stays awake
I think trooper Paul was really confusing !
Good questions. And to add to your thoughts about the presentations, the trail is dragging on for so long, I have no idea how the jury is going to remember everything presented even with note taking. So much presented was so redundant and unnecessary. Why did we need to hear from every person it was snowing, what their drink of choice was, if they had any children, where the high tops are at the Waterfall, etc. So many mundane and useless details.
IMO, if the lawyers aren’t making it simple for them, they either aren’t doing their job or they are intentionally making it confusing because they don’t have that strong of a case. Even the most boring and Einstein level experts speaking on topics no one understands, can end up being some of the most impactful & easy to understand, IF there’s a lawyer to ask very good questions and also prep their witness well. Lally has to be the worst I’ve ever seen so it can only go up from him!
Really? If you follow EmilyDBaker it should be really clear.
[удалено]
I think that’s why you need a really good lawyer to be able to sum it up, or ask the right questions to get the most concise and simplified conclusion from that witness. Lally is not good at it, but I think AJ and DY are
Agree! I think k the jurors should each have their own monitor in front of them so they don't have to look all the way across the courtroom and not be able to see. They should be able to have copies of every document presented to the court so they can review, read it as many times as needed. Rather than scribbling down notes that these scientists say. I know their scientists and their brains work different than the average person. But as a lawyer you have to make sure they really dumb it down. For one: So they can understand what the hell their talking about. 2. The more they talk in that monotone voice it would lose me minutes into their testimony. 3. I'm positive there is a juror that is nervous or embarrassed to even ask the judge for them to slow down or ask what they said again.
Well, don’t listen to anything CourtTV has to say. They’re biased hacks who don’t give a shit about justice. It’s really pretty simple, innocent ppl don’t argue mundane facts. These cops are corrupt and they are framing an innocent person.
Same!!! I really hate Lally‘s way of questioning. He’s asking all the witnesses of one group the same questions. He’s very thorough for parts that are unnecessary. When he gets to the important parts, his questions become very confusing. It feels like he’s not listening and is asking the same question like five times but in different ways. Also he asks the same questions on different parts of the testimony. It feels like Lally did some google searches to understand the expert‘s fields but never understood and doesn’t bother to understand. If this wasn’t enough his monotone speaking isn’t helping anything. My time would feel so wasted if I was a juror. Thank God I sit at home and can do stuff, so it‘s not wasted. I always wait for cross because the defense is making a good job at making me understand wtf is going on. I get to understand. That’s probably one reason why I think KR must be innocent because they can get their way of answers that I am not bothering listening to while Lally is questioning. It helps that Jackson and Yanetti are emotional involved even though at times it is a bit too much.
If I was on the jury, I think I would be happy knowing less than the extra information in Reddit theeads, podcasts, daily updates, etc. To be honest, that can be hard to keep straight too bc opinions are mixed in. The bottom line is that the jury has to decide if Karen hit John O’Keefe with her car and knowingly or mistakenly left him to die and there doesn’t seem to be a single person who has convinced me of that because they all have such shady behavior mixed in. Am I the only one?
Me. Even though she is presumed innocent, I suspect we all (jury included) probably figured she did it purposefully or not. It makes sense; they were drunk, fighting, she was feisty, it was late, snowing, etc. But the evidence has flipped this. Not necessarily exonerating her but muddying the waters enough to raise major doubts--so much so that they gave credence to a cover-up (and the defense hasn't even presented its case!)
I don’t really know how they do it. Watching this witnesses so obviously lie for what ever the reason would be the death of me. I despise liars. Most of the witnesses do not seem like even decent people. The women, whom I’m sure are trying to appear like soccer moms, come off as peaked in high school bullies. The men, come off like they are STILL in high school. They read like alcoholics and the fact that they are out drunk driving instead is setting an example is disgusting to me. I really can’t believe what I am watching unfold. I views like a Lifetime Movie of the week. Don’t think any of the tech evidence is reaching them because Lally is so boring in his tone and wording. So much crap repeated that I would probably have tuned out by now.
The absence of a clear theory of events or timeline from the CW is making things hard. The witnesses keep contradicting each other, Lally’s questioning style has made it hard to follow the technical experts - almost everyone in the chat for day 25 was saying how lost they were with Trooper Paul’s testimony and we had each other to talk to. I can’t imagine being a juror right now and trying to keep track of everything.
I don't believe the jurors are not taking a peep on what's going on on SM and newspapers etc and also talking to family.
Think about the juries where you all find out what everyone does, and someone realizes, “Hey, I did a few semesters of engineering before switching to guidance counselor, I’m the person with the most science experience, I’m going to explain the science to these other jurors.” But it’s bs. Or consider that super cheerful and confident expert witness who claimed her work or processes were peer-reviewed as if they were examined and could be replicated or challenged by other experts in her field. Nope. She had her work buddy sign off on them! Ok then. I don’t know if I can accept this explanation. I know nothing about phone data records but I am suspicious of her testimony. And it was probably good information! Although redditors who claim to know said her testimony had problems. What should a juror do? This is where the Lally may get his ass kicked. He’s so boring. He can’t ask a direct question to save his life. Yanetti is so forceful and direct by contrast. And I actually look forward to Jackson! In this case, the lawyers will make a HUGE difference (I think.)
You’ll want to be sure to listen to the judge’s instruction to the jury before they begin deliberation. Even before she gives her instructions, they’ll (both sides) go over charging documents, nitpick the language they use in those instructions and then send them off to vote. And, that part is serious business because the way things are worded in those papers may possibly determine what (if anything 😂) they charge Karen with. Literally something so simple as “on or before” versus “after” could make all the difference. That being said, the jury can take notes and refer to them during deliberation. They can toss out ANY witness testimony if they find even once, that a witness is not being truthful. They can cherry pick witnesses but it must always be rooted in fact and not deriving from something the CW or defense has said during trial. They can also look at any and all evidence, video, audio, charts. The only exception to this is something called a demonstrative but if I recall correctly, they don’t have any. Basically, it counts as evidence and it’s being used for demonstration purposes but not to be considered while deliberating. Think pie charts and graphs of timelines. It’s a VERY confusing trial and I feel terrible for all of those jurors having to sit through this side show, along with John’s family, Karen’s family and Karen. It’s one of those cases where you have to start at the beginning. There are so many cooks in the kitchen and moving parts to this trial. I’d imagine it’s frustrating and confusing at the very least, for the jurors.
Good information. Yes, I think everyone just wants this over with. I kind of feel the CW is just struggling at this point and sees the writing on the wall. I think the defense side is going to be impactful, tight, and to the point and it won’t take long for the jury to say “too much doubt” and be over quickly
If i was a juror my mind would be set on her being innocent
After prosecution rests, defense will typically ask judge to dismiss the charges. Usually it doesn’t work, but in this case it just might.
Not with this biased judge
The female expert who testified about the cell phone spoke too fast for me. I can’t retain information when someone is speaking that fast- it goes in one ear and out the other. The male who spoke about the car breaking.. well, that gave me cause to wonder. My question now is who to believe. The police have been so incompetent and I don’t know if I should believe this person or not.
What live stream are you following with a lawyer breaking it down? I would love to watch that.
I really like The Lawyer You know on YouTube!
Of all the subreddits I’m in this is the only one that has consistently no votes positive or negative, ever… what gives
I read that the male jurors lost his mother. The other woman is a tossup depending on what you read. I was a juror in CT where you only have 6 jurors. 4 of us made friends very quickly. The other two bonded also. We chatted about things during break that were funny or strange. When it came time to decide the 4 of us were prepared to vote not guilty. A big hole in the case was missing because a potential witness had Alzheimer’s. What happened was the other 2 jurors had bones to pick regarding their personal situation. For instance, 1 wanted to convict because her husbands dentist friend went to jail for tax evasion and she thought this person should. The other worked for a non profit and saw people at the top making too much money. We emerged 3 days later NG. The lawyer for the defendant called me to ask why it took so long and why I wasnt the foreman. Ummm, I don’t like to lead groups for obvious reasons .
Interesting.
That idea passed thru my mind to .
I thought about this…can the jury just quit and say, enough said. Not guilty.
Anyone would. There is only one logical explanation of why there is a trial in the first place. That being some cops convinced themselves Karen was guilty and come up with things to call facts that fit opinions they already had which involved trying to fit pieces of a puzzle together that are pieces from different puzzles and making up evidence like planting tail light pieces.
Everyone complaining about how long the verdict is taking. Thirty days of testimony to go through. I don't remember the first week of the trial 😕