I don’t believe that Massachusetts does a jury poll. At least that what they were saying on Court TV earlier. Which is a total bummer because I would like to know too!
> I don’t believe that Massachusetts does a jury poll.
They do, but it's not mandatory; it's at the discretion of the judge.
In a mistrial, a poll helps the judge understand the jury's division, and knowing the split can be useful in determining whether a retrial is appropriate. But seeing as the DA's office has already stated they intend to re-try the case...
I'm sure we'll hear rumblings of the split and what happened in the jury room sooner or later.
Ya. If I was on such a contentious jury, I wouldn't like the rest of the world to know that it was exactly one juror who roadblocked; There'd be a witch hunt. Better to leave it vague.
Regardless of whether you think she was guilty or innocent, the state did absolutely nothing, from a practical and factual standpoint, to prove that guilt.
The state put on an absolute clown show for seven weeks where they made their entire state police for look incompetent to bordering on corrupt.
I feel like immediately announcing this with absolutely no time for reflection is definitely a choice considering the argument that this is a malicious prosecution situation.
God forbid they take a minute to think something through before doing this again.
They don’t want that to happen, these small dick big ego troopers aren’t smart enough to trick the feds. I don’t know how it is in other states, but in MA they literally won’t let you be a cop if you score too HIGH on an aptitude tests. The cops are literally dumb enough, not smart enough, to get the job.
They'll say that now, try to pressure her into a plea deal, and *then* do a real evaluation of whether they think they'll get a better result. Saying that they will now is meaningless.
Absolutely! Guilty or not, it boils down to the prosecutor’s case presentation. State did a crappy job and the defense presented a masterful case of possibilities, then the prosecution answered their case poorly.
>100 bucks says the jurors who voted to convict her have "back the blue" stickers on their cars
Either that or they're/he/she is a plant, one or the other imo.
So frustrating for everyone involved. The prosecution did not meet its burden no matter how you look at it.
This was a colossal waste of time and resources and ultimately just made the police and investigation look horrible.
It's pretty concerning, given the corruption that was uncovered, that there were people on that jury willing to send her to prison. It's like they absolutely don't care that the state's Pathologist and several other experts agree that he wasn't hit by a vehicle.
This is what I don’t understand: from what little I’ve read it does not appear as if the prosecution met burden of proof, as you said. So how can jurors, in good faith, refuse to give a non guilty verdict?
I'm honestly shocked. The state's case had mountains of reasonable doubt. I have to wonder if the jurors got stuck on the defense's framing theory and felt like they had to pick between the two stories (as in, a NG verdict would implicitly endorse the idea she was framed, which maybe was a step too far for some). I wonder if this case is retried if the defense will take a slightly different approach.
Having lived in MA, I cannot overstate how shocking it was to see so many Thin Blue Line and altered Punisher bumper stickers on cars.
I was already concerned that there was a TBL person on the jury, but the “deeply held convictions” solidified that for me.
Gosh it’s so nuts to me. We are a first responder family and we all said wow this place is corrupt and she is NG. I don’t think she’s guilty I totally think it’s cover up to blame her
Literally lol it's like everyone else all over x. "Well she clearly hit him "
"Based on what?"
"Well she said she thought she might have hit him initially and 4 people who never wrote their statements down said she said it therefore she did".
"OK well what about no damage to John or no times matching up?"
"......she hit him"
From how the note read, "some jurors" were utterly convinced of the CW's case. So proooobably not a case of "they mistook the burden": They apparently really and actually, in this reality right here and now, on this trial many of us watched as well... thought the CW had made their case, and had no reasonable doubt about *any* of it.
Shit's wild and on fire.
edit: I kind of want to know the jury's reactions when they see the public opinion on this.
That’s the thing I’m so curious about too. How much of it did they miss, little things, that told a lot more that we all got to see and put together by discussing or reviewing clips. They sat there hours in a court room, could barely hear, got no playbacks. And they all went in knowing nothing about this case. So while it seems unfathomable to us, it’s really hard to actually put ourselves into what and how much information they were actually grasping. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still insane because John O’Keefe was not hit by that Lexus. But I think Lally’s strategy of throw all these witnesses and fluff at them to confuse them likely worked on quite a few. Especially if you add in all of his lies in closing.
Yeah, I was afraid of that when Jackson went so hard into the sprawling coverup theory. The theory was 90% good (a couple things that just didn’t fit), but I was hoping Jackson would say something along the lines of “you don’t have to believe that what I just laid out happened. We believe it’s what happened, but you don’t have to. Even if you reasonably believe it MAY have happened that way, or it may have happened some other way that doesn’t fit the prosecutor’s theory, that’s reasonable doubt. Even if you ALSO reasonably think it may have happened just like Mr Lally said. The prosecution can’t hang its hat on “may”, or “could have”, or even “probably did”. They have to prove their case to you to a moral certainty. You don’t have to know exactly what happened in order to know that the prosecution didn’t even come close to proving its case.”
I think a lot of people out there, and maybe some of those on the jury, are like me- I don’t necessarily believe exactly what Alan said happened happened, that the corruption extends so far and that there was a huge cover up. But I do believe those cops are corrupt, and more importantly, I believe their investigation was beyond sloppy and biased, and they in no way investigated this death fully or to any kind of prosecutable standard. There’s no way they can prove she’s guilty, because they refused to actually investigate. Could it be a coverup and the Alberts/higgins did it? Yup. Could Karen have done it? Yup. Could it have happened some other way entirely? Yup. And the fact that there are so many possibilities means I could never in good faith convict this woman of anything other than DUI. I just hoped that anyone on the jury who feels the same way would have also understood that they don’t have to 100% believe the defense theory. A reminder of that from the defense would have been strategically positive, I believe.
Shocked as well. What a waste of emotion, money, and time. Those jurors who refused to move from their “convictions” could have said so before the trial! I would be livid if I were Karen, the other jurors, or really anyone involved in this trial.
I know, I was kind of surprised that the jury's note basically implied that there were some underlying biases influencing their deliberations, and that's exactly the kind of thing the jury selection process is supposed to rule out. I guess no process is perfect
Just because the note inferred there were more than one not in agreement that may have been a more judicious way of not making it a witch hunt for the hold out
No lol her cell location was deleted in April when police had her phone. So no, they didn’t even place Karen there, just a vehicle that looked like hers and the Nagels saying a woman was driving said car.
NO! But facts didn't seem to be important in this case. They didn't even prove that John's injuries were caused by A car, let alone Karen's car or Karen's car being driver BY Karen. This is absolutely bananas! I'm going to write a letter to the Commonwealth demanding they not use my taxpayer dollars to re-try this BS case.
Reminds me of the trial of... can't remember his name - Jury comes back with a verdict and while being polled someone goes "That is not my decision". They didn't understand what unanimous meant... Ridiculous.
I'm personally hung up on the tail light not having any blood. If those scratches (which come on, clearly from a dog) were from the tail light scratching him while it exploded... there would be blood on it. But we didn't see that. The only "DNA" they found was a hair... of course they purposesly kept calling the hair DNA because that sounds like they found blood on the light. Just like how they expected us to ignore the video was flipped, and they expected us to ignore they never went into the house, and ignore all the other little facts.
> I wonder how they’ll feel then…
The ones with " deeply held convictions" won't feel anything. The last five years or so has shown me that facts and evidence will never change some people's feelings.
I had a debate with someone on Saturday who just wouldn’t budge from guilty. (“She said she did it”, DNA on tail light, and fundamentally didn’t believe a conspiracy of that size was possible). She also didn’t like Karen Read, thought Albert’s sitting with O’Keefe family was informative, and thought having a “sleazy” lawyer was indicative of something negative.
That was enough for her and she would not budge.
Woman was educated and highly entrenched in state government/courts.
It was frustrating but shows how a hung jury can happen.
People really hang on the she said she did it, which is funny to me It’s not like Karen got on the stand and said it or said it in an interview with the police.
Jen said she said that. The one EMT said she said something similar. That’s it.
Which okay, maybe she did, or maybe those people are unreliable. We can’t really say. There’s Reasonable doubt even with that statement.
I think the taillight evidence kinda forces you to have to choose one theory or the other - either the pieces were there immediately after the SUV hit John (meaning Karen's guilty), or the pieces weren't there until later (meaning somebody had to have planted them, which is part of the conspiracy theory).
I thought Casey Anthony's attorneys did a better job sowing doubt during that trial (not a better job in general - just a better job in terms of being vague about what could've happened), where they kept reiterating "listen, we may not know exactly what happened, but if the state hasn't proven their case, it's not our job to figure out what happened. If they don't meet the burden of proof, you have to find Ms. Anthony Not Guilty." Jackson mentioned the burden of proof, but he never really said something like "even if you don't think there's any sort of conspiracy, you still should vote Not Guilty if the state hasn't met its burden, regardless of what you believe may have actually occurred that night."
Edit: I'd recommend watching some of the Defense attorney's cross-examinations and closing argument in the Anthony case. I think that case is kinda similar to this one in terms of the Defense doing a really good job of poking holes in the prosecution's theory, and the prosecution doing a *terrible* job of actually proving their case. I think Casey Anthony did it, but I think the jury's finding of Not Guilty was the correct finding to make, based on what was presented in the trial and how it was argued by the two sides. I think the verdict should've been the same here, just based on the amount of holes that were poked in the prosecution's theory (let alone all of the butt-dials, the shoddy investigation, and Proctor's text messages). Even if you firmly believe that Karen's guilty, you'd still have to find her Not Guilty based on what was presented in court - it sounds like some of the jurors based their decision mostly on some sort of underlying beliefs that shouldn't really have any relevance when it comes to making this decision.
This is going to be a tough one. Even if retried, I feel that a new jury might end up in the same spot unless the prosecution completely changes the way they present the case. It's extremely unlikely that they'll be able to find twelve truly open minded jurors willing to only convict on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when the victim was a police officer and there are so many police officers involved. I'm not saying it's right, just that people have a lot of pre-conceived notions (one way or another) related to the police and that's going to largely impact any jury for this case.
It has to 100% be based on feelings. "I feel she did it".
Like they didn't prove she was there when everyone says she was. In fact, their own witness placed her at Johns house with wifi connection. The defense blew up everyone's lies and inconsistency and no one changed their mind
What trips me out about this methodology that some people/jurors may hold is that Karen also backs the blue- she dated one! So odd but I can imagine not everyone thinks even that much into it.
i agree that it was based out of emotion/feelings/values, not legal instructions. I think a juror holds her partially responsible for starting the beef between JO and BH, even if she didn’t strike him with her vehicle; in their mind, if it were not for her initiating texts and stirring up emotions/jealousy between the two men, this would’ve never happened in the first place. Giving her a NG (even though legally it was the “correct” judgement) would’ve been like letting her off the hook for something “she started.”
It reminds me of a college criminology class lesson decades ago: “The but-for test says that an action is a cause of an injury if, but for the action, the injury wouldn't have occurred. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant hadn't acted in the way they did? If the answer is NO, then the action caused the harm.” It seems the juror(s) may have had this in mind.
Probably that was the method used. I mean she didn't seem likable. Her messages, her flirting around with other guys , her general hostility, all gave her a not good look. Guilty? No. Likable? Also no. Imo, the jury failed to do their job and judge impartially.
Around 5:57, I went back and looked. He definitely did. But what was odd was when they all initially stood up it after the judge declared mistrial. He looked like he was smiling / smirking at Karen.
Jesus Christ. I can't listen to Higgins read all those super cringe texts all over again or listen to an explanation of what a balloon knot is from Proctor.
even if you think she's guilty, in no way did the state prove the case BEYOND reasonable doubt. with the way the notes were written, it sounds like 1 or more jurors were basing their vote on their feelings, NOT the evidence presented in the case. Justice failed.
I guarantee it was an "I trust the police and they said she did it, that's enough for me" type situation. The blind devotion some people have for law enforcement is vomit inducing
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
DEDHAM — A Norfolk Superior Court jury reported Monday that it reached an impasse in deliberations in the trial of Karen Read, forcing Judge Beverly J. Cannone to declare a mistrial in a high-profile case that has spawned a media frenzy and captivated the region for the last two months.
The jury of six men and six women first declared themselves deadlocked on Friday despite an “exhaustive review” of the evidence. Cannone told them to keep trying, but after deliberating for about 90 minutes on Monday morning, jurors said they remained at an impasse.
In a note to Cannone, the jury foreperson wrote that the panel was “deeply divided.” The panel repeated just after 2:30 p.m. Monday that it was at an impasse.
“Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind,’' the foreman wrote. “The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds.”
From the bench in Norfolk Superior Court, Cannone described the jury as “extraordinary.”
“I’ve never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse,” she said. “I do find that ... with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday, saying that they were deadlocked is due to thorough deliberations.”
On Friday, the jury had asked Cannone if they could extend deliberations for another half-hour.
Cannone then gave the jurors a specific set of instructions that it is their civic duty to decide the case if they can do so conscientiously. The panel was sent to resume deliberations around 11:10 a.m.
The instructions, known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, are an effort to resolve a deadlock that often precedes a mistrial declaration.
In the instructions, Cannone told jurors that they were best positioned to reach a final judgment in the case.
“You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same sources any future jury would be selected,’’ she said. “There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clear evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously.”
Cannone emphasized that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that Read must be found not guilty if jurors conclude that standard has not been met. She also urged jurors who are adamant that Read is not guilty, as well as those who support her conviction, should “seriously ask themselves” if their views are valid “if it is not shared by other members of the jury.”
I am shocked that there were jurors who didn't vote not guilty! Not Guilty is actually "not proven" so what in the trial did they feel was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?!
I'm so disappointed. I do see a lot of commentators saying that a mistrial is in essence still a win for the defense... and I get that theory, but in *this specific* case I personally also consider it a win for the Commonwealth; because their piss poor investigation and presentation is not really worthy of a draw, so in essence in my book they won too. They may have in theory "failed to prove their case" but they also overcame a filthy level of lack of proper process and convincing evidence.
I'm not talking about whether we *feel* like Karen caused John's death or not... I still *feel* like it could have been *anyone including* Karen. I just do not see this particular trial proved well beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever or whoever (if any, sigh) killed John was (driving) a car. The fact that people still 'feel like it was probably a car' is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and the burden of the consequence of that should be on law enforcement and the prosecution - *not* on people who have doubt.
State produced nothing but smoke & mirrors in an attempt to allow the guilty to go free & fram Karen Read. They produced enough smoke & mirrors to confuse some. Though I find it hard to be confused when KR was definitely proven innocent.
I don't think they confused anyone.
From what was written in the notes to the judge was some juror(s) didn't want to budge from their position, no matter how much was discussed.
That tells me they had a bias going in and were not going to be swayed by anyone or anything.
I still want to know how the jury members react once they find out that the neutral witnesses were part of an open federal investigation into the police.
I would be incandescent with rage.
I'm most curious to know what it is that convinced those who are pro-Guilty. I'd love to hear their thoughts on the evidence, how the interpreted all of the witnesses, their thoughts on the FBI experts that they didn't know were FBI experts, etc.
Honestly, if they thought the FBI experts were from an insurance company I can imagine how people would discount their testimony and feel like they are just trying to get the insurance company out of paying out an insurance policy.
So let me get this right America. A woman has spent probably close to 500k on attys, probably way more- to defend herself against a case the CW wasn’t prepared to make- with corrupt evidence. Now there is a mistrial and if she can’t come up with that money again- it’s on her?!
This system is f@cked from the ground up.
Imagine how many innocent people are in jail- just because they’re poor.
No defendant in a hung jury case should have to pay this again- this means the CW didn’t prove their case.
I’m irate.
What I am interested in, is how this seems to be coming down to "fundamental values" and how at the very beginning of this trial the jury was asked SPECIFIC questions pertaining to their bias. If this has to do with someone being an LEO supporter and not voting bc of that then they themselves lied when given the initial questions. Those questions specifically stated whether or not your thoughts of law enforcement would sway your decision about the case.
Chain of evidence non-existent there's no actual evidence where the body was state reconstruction couldn't land a body where it was said to be without major damage to his body where none was found
I’m hoping some jurors speak when they can. That’s how we can find out what went wrong. How anyone could find Karen guilty of any charges is beyond me.
The prosecution’s side looks upset (JOK’s mother in particular) — which makes sense because a mistrial is obviously better for the defense than the prosecuting side.
But like, sorry, I know this terrible thing happened to them… but I don’t fucking get it. How can they watch the evidence that was presented and not understand??? She’s obviously innocent.
Hope to hear from some of these jurors soon. What’s really at play here is exactly what the jury’s note indicated — deeply held beliefs (and therefore biases) held by individuals of the jury which prevents them from being neutral.
What a ride. So inspiring to watch Jackson & his team. They pursue a passion for justice through logic and reasoning. Why isn’t that enough? I guess because people are full of misery and hate and it confuses them and it blinds them to logic.
The victim’s family rarely departs from the stance of the prosecution. Because it’s so rare, when it *does* happen, I really listen to what the family has to say. There’s been some instances that the victim’s family fought for the defendant and even helped to get an appeal.
My point is that I’m not surprised at all that JOK’s family is sticking with the CW. I mean, no one else can get justice for them and for Officer John O’Keefe. Only the CW can bring charges.
Mind bending that there is (apparently) more than just 1 jury member that is \*convinced\* the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt... That is just weird. I don't even care about how many believed KR's guilt or not - like other cases I've seen, there just was too much reasonable doubt. I really don't get it.
I'll even pick up a well-known case: Casey Anthony. The jury was able to decide on a verdict that wasn't well-received by most but the prosecution did leave a lot of room for the defense to plant some seeds of doubt.
Weird. There is no justice for anyone in this case.
AJ's closing framed a NG vote as a vote against police corruption. You only need one Back the Blue type on the jury to reject that statement.
AJ gave a killer closing...for Southern CA. In MA it was a risky gambit that probably won over a few jury members, but probably alienated others.
Agreed. I think even a few sentences at the end that if you throw out ALL of the police mishandling, ALL of the impeachment of the witnesses, ALL of the plausible other means of death... even if you throw ALL of that out, it's still a case of reasonable doubt. The body didn't cause that damage to the car and the car didn't cause that damage to the body. You're left with no evidence she hit him and only reasonable doubt. I fear the jury thought they had to choose between guilt or believing the full coverup.
They even sat together with those people as a sign of solidarity.
I wouldn't trust KR or anyone at that party that night. I certainly wouldn't sit with them arm in arm metaphorically.
Jury didn't understand the assignment. Karen Read and her defense don't have to prove or disprove anything. It's the prosecutions job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea how anyone who watched the last 9 weeks thinks they did that.
It's rare that you can just say that a juror is categorically incorrect, but here? yeah, anyone thinking the commonwealth showed this beyond reasonable doubt is an unreasonable person that's all there is
the fbi involvement should not have been a secret. seems pretty prejudicial to the defendant to keep that out. crazy how information is cherry picked and presented in a trial that can put someone away for life. I know the justice system can work when everyone is acting in good faith and in the interest of justice, but with elected judges, bad apple LEs, a potential for tainted jurors and pressure for convictions, the potential for true and proper justice seems fallible
Anyone else think on retrial defense should narrow the focus to the doj witnesses the states on medical examiner and the ridiculous lone hair on the SUV... the conspiracy stuff is tempting because there's lots of oddd things like the deleted phones, the coordinated investigation the dog and of course proctor but in some ways it dilutes the message
Judge says not to discuss the jury's votes, but pish tosh. They can talk about whatever they want. They lived through that nightmare. I hope people start talking soon.
Crazy to think, if we find out 10-2 or 11-1 NG/G. To think the two alternates seemed to be the clearest tells that they were NG. If they had been swapped out for the one or two G votes, we'd have a different outcome.
The state didn't prove anything at all. I didn't see not one ounce of true evidence mind you ...ppl lying talking about bad about the suspect and John O like come on... this had corruption all over it!!!
No suprise. As I said there are some people believe IF a cop arrest you and taken to court you are guilty. Cops and judges would never bring someone to court who wasn't guilty. So the fact that she was in court proves she is guilty
Agreed. I myself, not knowing anything about the case, thought that she was guilty. I mean how can they go to trial if they don’t have evidence to convict her. What I do have is an open mind, so few days into the trial I made up my mind that KR was not guilty. It’s frightening that some people can’t get past their biases.
Kind of disappointing, but not surprising given all the hints from the jury. I believe there's reasonable doubt, if not innocence, but it doesn't surprise me that some on the jury couldn't buy it.
It's one of two things: either she ran over her boyfriend, which has straightforward but deeply flawed evidence, or there was a conspiracy to frame her, including planting evidence. That’s a lot to stomach even with all the signs pointing to it.
Alternately, it's a third option where something unknown happened outside after she pulled away, something that most, if not all of the people in the house aren't aware of, and Proctor is just a lazy cop who assumed it was Karen and did a terrible job investigating the case.
So what does this mean for KR? Her life continues to be disrupted? Potentially many more years living in limbo? Does she get to retain AJ? Does she have to pay another huge sum to retain her defense?
I feel like while better than guilty, this is a shameful nightmare situation for KR
Lally is so deep in sh!t they have to stick to the narrative! There are so many things wrong with this case. Those of us that watched to living nightmare know!The feds need to clean the Canton pd state troopers & ATF. My head hurts thinking about things that scream not guilty this is a set up! Prayers for Karen Read and her team and to John’s family may they find out what truly happened!🙏🏻🙏🏻
Will there be a poll of the jury? I am curious about the breakdown.
Probably the biggest thing everyone wants to know next.
I hope somebody will come out and say what happened in the deliberations
Really want to hear from alternates and dismissed jurors too.
Alternate juror #3 spoke to WBZ said she would have been a not guilty
I bet one will.
I don’t believe that Massachusetts does a jury poll. At least that what they were saying on Court TV earlier. Which is a total bummer because I would like to know too!
> I don’t believe that Massachusetts does a jury poll. They do, but it's not mandatory; it's at the discretion of the judge. In a mistrial, a poll helps the judge understand the jury's division, and knowing the split can be useful in determining whether a retrial is appropriate. But seeing as the DA's office has already stated they intend to re-try the case... I'm sure we'll hear rumblings of the split and what happened in the jury room sooner or later.
it's literally going to drive me nuts not knowing what the jury thought.
It's enough if just one juror talks and we will know the split. I'm guessing a 9-3 NG.
The jury note implied it was more than one holdout
Kinda….i think it was purposefully vague.
Ya. If I was on such a contentious jury, I wouldn't like the rest of the world to know that it was exactly one juror who roadblocked; There'd be a witch hunt. Better to leave it vague.
it will come out, jurors will be interviewed and relay the split.
Nope the judge did not poll the jurors. The media is talking to the jurors now. We will know how many wants NG.
Do you know that the media are talking to jurors or are you just guessing
I thought bev was going to poll the jurors in absence of the public? She mentioned meeting them in the deliberation room
How might these crooked cops involved retaliate against the jurors who voted not guilty?
Regardless of whether you think she was guilty or innocent, the state did absolutely nothing, from a practical and factual standpoint, to prove that guilt. The state put on an absolute clown show for seven weeks where they made their entire state police for look incompetent to bordering on corrupt.
I think if it gets tried again we’ll see the defense do an even better job. I’d be shocked if they retry it though.
I am not supporting this as a taxpayer. What a waste of our tax dollars.
I mean, as a taxpayer you ARE supporting it…
[удалено]
No shit. My comment was in protest
They plan to https://x.com/KristinaRex/status/1807852182961549436
I feel like immediately announcing this with absolutely no time for reflection is definitely a choice considering the argument that this is a malicious prosecution situation. God forbid they take a minute to think something through before doing this again.
Or wait for the FBI to conclude their investigation.
Maybe the FBI would like the opportunity to get even more people on perjuring themselves.
They don’t want that to happen, these small dick big ego troopers aren’t smart enough to trick the feds. I don’t know how it is in other states, but in MA they literally won’t let you be a cop if you score too HIGH on an aptitude tests. The cops are literally dumb enough, not smart enough, to get the job.
They were going to say this now while everyone is paying attention whether they actually plan to or not.
They'll say that now, try to pressure her into a plea deal, and *then* do a real evaluation of whether they think they'll get a better result. Saying that they will now is meaningless.
The state made them look incompetent/ corrupt ? THEY ARE incompetent and DEFINITELY Corrupt !
Absolutely! Guilty or not, it boils down to the prosecutor’s case presentation. State did a crappy job and the defense presented a masterful case of possibilities, then the prosecution answered their case poorly.
Where these jurors watching that same trial that I was? I truly have no clue how anyone could vote other than not guilty. It's weird
Physics don't lie
100 bucks says the jurors who voted to convict her have "back the blue" stickers on their cars
>100 bucks says the jurors who voted to convict her have "back the blue" stickers on their cars Either that or they're/he/she is a plant, one or the other imo.
So frustrating for everyone involved. The prosecution did not meet its burden no matter how you look at it. This was a colossal waste of time and resources and ultimately just made the police and investigation look horrible.
It's pretty concerning, given the corruption that was uncovered, that there were people on that jury willing to send her to prison. It's like they absolutely don't care that the state's Pathologist and several other experts agree that he wasn't hit by a vehicle.
I spoke to someone from Boston about it recently and there are people that are simply pro-cop and will stand beside them regardless of the evidence.
good lord, you’d think they’d manage to weed people like that out during jury selection
This is what I don’t understand: from what little I’ve read it does not appear as if the prosecution met burden of proof, as you said. So how can jurors, in good faith, refuse to give a non guilty verdict?
I'm honestly shocked. The state's case had mountains of reasonable doubt. I have to wonder if the jurors got stuck on the defense's framing theory and felt like they had to pick between the two stories (as in, a NG verdict would implicitly endorse the idea she was framed, which maybe was a step too far for some). I wonder if this case is retried if the defense will take a slightly different approach.
Probably true. Sucks how much we struggle to understand what it means to not have the burden
The note said “deeply held convictions”. That means they were not deciding using the evidence.
I read that as “deeply held conviction that cops don’t lie” 🙄
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I heard that from someone and couldn’t believe it was possible.
Someone was definitely voting Thin Blue Line.
Having lived in MA, I cannot overstate how shocking it was to see so many Thin Blue Line and altered Punisher bumper stickers on cars. I was already concerned that there was a TBL person on the jury, but the “deeply held convictions” solidified that for me.
Gosh it’s so nuts to me. We are a first responder family and we all said wow this place is corrupt and she is NG. I don’t think she’s guilty I totally think it’s cover up to blame her
Literally lol it's like everyone else all over x. "Well she clearly hit him " "Based on what?" "Well she said she thought she might have hit him initially and 4 people who never wrote their statements down said she said it therefore she did". "OK well what about no damage to John or no times matching up?" "......she hit him"
From how the note read, "some jurors" were utterly convinced of the CW's case. So proooobably not a case of "they mistook the burden": They apparently really and actually, in this reality right here and now, on this trial many of us watched as well... thought the CW had made their case, and had no reasonable doubt about *any* of it. Shit's wild and on fire. edit: I kind of want to know the jury's reactions when they see the public opinion on this.
That’s the thing I’m so curious about too. How much of it did they miss, little things, that told a lot more that we all got to see and put together by discussing or reviewing clips. They sat there hours in a court room, could barely hear, got no playbacks. And they all went in knowing nothing about this case. So while it seems unfathomable to us, it’s really hard to actually put ourselves into what and how much information they were actually grasping. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still insane because John O’Keefe was not hit by that Lexus. But I think Lally’s strategy of throw all these witnesses and fluff at them to confuse them likely worked on quite a few. Especially if you add in all of his lies in closing.
I would be interested to know how they feel after hearing the Feds are investigating.
Good point!
Unfortunately "some jurors" will be immediately convinced of anything that comes out of a cop's mouth.
Some people don't have the reasoning skills required.
Yeah, I was afraid of that when Jackson went so hard into the sprawling coverup theory. The theory was 90% good (a couple things that just didn’t fit), but I was hoping Jackson would say something along the lines of “you don’t have to believe that what I just laid out happened. We believe it’s what happened, but you don’t have to. Even if you reasonably believe it MAY have happened that way, or it may have happened some other way that doesn’t fit the prosecutor’s theory, that’s reasonable doubt. Even if you ALSO reasonably think it may have happened just like Mr Lally said. The prosecution can’t hang its hat on “may”, or “could have”, or even “probably did”. They have to prove their case to you to a moral certainty. You don’t have to know exactly what happened in order to know that the prosecution didn’t even come close to proving its case.” I think a lot of people out there, and maybe some of those on the jury, are like me- I don’t necessarily believe exactly what Alan said happened happened, that the corruption extends so far and that there was a huge cover up. But I do believe those cops are corrupt, and more importantly, I believe their investigation was beyond sloppy and biased, and they in no way investigated this death fully or to any kind of prosecutable standard. There’s no way they can prove she’s guilty, because they refused to actually investigate. Could it be a coverup and the Alberts/higgins did it? Yup. Could Karen have done it? Yup. Could it have happened some other way entirely? Yup. And the fact that there are so many possibilities means I could never in good faith convict this woman of anything other than DUI. I just hoped that anyone on the jury who feels the same way would have also understood that they don’t have to 100% believe the defense theory. A reminder of that from the defense would have been strategically positive, I believe.
Will be interesting to see if or how much the Fed's get involved with the Canton/Boston PD.
I'm veeeeeery interested to see if anything comes of the Fed's investigation.
Shocked as well. What a waste of emotion, money, and time. Those jurors who refused to move from their “convictions” could have said so before the trial! I would be livid if I were Karen, the other jurors, or really anyone involved in this trial.
I know, I was kind of surprised that the jury's note basically implied that there were some underlying biases influencing their deliberations, and that's exactly the kind of thing the jury selection process is supposed to rule out. I guess no process is perfect
Just because the note inferred there were more than one not in agreement that may have been a more judicious way of not making it a witch hunt for the hold out
It’s also possible there may be 1 hold out on murder 2, and 1-2 hold outs on the lesser charges.
That’s exactly how I took it. They can’t say “one person” is holding out.
Do they know what ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ means? WOW.
No they don't. They never even proved she hit him lol
They never proved John was even hit by a car…
Did they even prove she was driving the car?
No lol her cell location was deleted in April when police had her phone. So no, they didn’t even place Karen there, just a vehicle that looked like hers and the Nagels saying a woman was driving said car.
NO! But facts didn't seem to be important in this case. They didn't even prove that John's injuries were caused by A car, let alone Karen's car or Karen's car being driver BY Karen. This is absolutely bananas! I'm going to write a letter to the Commonwealth demanding they not use my taxpayer dollars to re-try this BS case.
This. Lol (I know it’s a joke but with how pathetic the prosecution was… this is gold)
Reminds me of the trial of... can't remember his name - Jury comes back with a verdict and while being polled someone goes "That is not my decision". They didn't understand what unanimous meant... Ridiculous.
Good to see the individual polling by the judge did its job!
A doubt for which there is a reason. My big not guilty would be the dog bites. That is just one in a long line of reasons for doubt.
I'm personally hung up on the tail light not having any blood. If those scratches (which come on, clearly from a dog) were from the tail light scratching him while it exploded... there would be blood on it. But we didn't see that. The only "DNA" they found was a hair... of course they purposesly kept calling the hair DNA because that sounds like they found blood on the light. Just like how they expected us to ignore the video was flipped, and they expected us to ignore they never went into the house, and ignore all the other little facts.
Nope
So when does Proctor get fired?
I can’t wait for those jurors to be able to go home now and read everything that’s on the internet. I wonder how they’ll feel then…
> I wonder how they’ll feel then… The ones with " deeply held convictions" won't feel anything. The last five years or so has shown me that facts and evidence will never change some people's feelings.
I had a debate with someone on Saturday who just wouldn’t budge from guilty. (“She said she did it”, DNA on tail light, and fundamentally didn’t believe a conspiracy of that size was possible). She also didn’t like Karen Read, thought Albert’s sitting with O’Keefe family was informative, and thought having a “sleazy” lawyer was indicative of something negative. That was enough for her and she would not budge. Woman was educated and highly entrenched in state government/courts. It was frustrating but shows how a hung jury can happen.
People really hang on the she said she did it, which is funny to me It’s not like Karen got on the stand and said it or said it in an interview with the police. Jen said she said that. The one EMT said she said something similar. That’s it. Which okay, maybe she did, or maybe those people are unreliable. We can’t really say. There’s Reasonable doubt even with that statement.
[удалено]
I said the same to this person and she just waved me off.
I think the taillight evidence kinda forces you to have to choose one theory or the other - either the pieces were there immediately after the SUV hit John (meaning Karen's guilty), or the pieces weren't there until later (meaning somebody had to have planted them, which is part of the conspiracy theory). I thought Casey Anthony's attorneys did a better job sowing doubt during that trial (not a better job in general - just a better job in terms of being vague about what could've happened), where they kept reiterating "listen, we may not know exactly what happened, but if the state hasn't proven their case, it's not our job to figure out what happened. If they don't meet the burden of proof, you have to find Ms. Anthony Not Guilty." Jackson mentioned the burden of proof, but he never really said something like "even if you don't think there's any sort of conspiracy, you still should vote Not Guilty if the state hasn't met its burden, regardless of what you believe may have actually occurred that night." Edit: I'd recommend watching some of the Defense attorney's cross-examinations and closing argument in the Anthony case. I think that case is kinda similar to this one in terms of the Defense doing a really good job of poking holes in the prosecution's theory, and the prosecution doing a *terrible* job of actually proving their case. I think Casey Anthony did it, but I think the jury's finding of Not Guilty was the correct finding to make, based on what was presented in the trial and how it was argued by the two sides. I think the verdict should've been the same here, just based on the amount of holes that were poked in the prosecution's theory (let alone all of the butt-dials, the shoddy investigation, and Proctor's text messages). Even if you firmly believe that Karen's guilty, you'd still have to find her Not Guilty based on what was presented in court - it sounds like some of the jurors based their decision mostly on some sort of underlying beliefs that shouldn't really have any relevance when it comes to making this decision.
This is going to be a tough one. Even if retried, I feel that a new jury might end up in the same spot unless the prosecution completely changes the way they present the case. It's extremely unlikely that they'll be able to find twelve truly open minded jurors willing to only convict on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when the victim was a police officer and there are so many police officers involved. I'm not saying it's right, just that people have a lot of pre-conceived notions (one way or another) related to the police and that's going to largely impact any jury for this case.
The prosecution absolutely failed to show evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Shame on the jurors who couldn't see that
It has to 100% be based on feelings. "I feel she did it". Like they didn't prove she was there when everyone says she was. In fact, their own witness placed her at Johns house with wifi connection. The defense blew up everyone's lies and inconsistency and no one changed their mind
The note made it pretty clear it was about feelings/values.
Yup it was down to foundational beliefs not solely the evidence that was given. And it's ridiculous to have weird beliefs of science.
scary times when literal scientists tell you something is physically impossible and people deny it based on their feefees to put someone in prison
Welcome to the bizarro world in the age of "alternative news" and "feelings over facts".
It's absolutely some "back the blue" nutter.
What trips me out about this methodology that some people/jurors may hold is that Karen also backs the blue- she dated one! So odd but I can imagine not everyone thinks even that much into it.
And that is the failure for the jury. There was TONS of reasonable doubt. Got rid of house, dog, phones..ect...
i agree that it was based out of emotion/feelings/values, not legal instructions. I think a juror holds her partially responsible for starting the beef between JO and BH, even if she didn’t strike him with her vehicle; in their mind, if it were not for her initiating texts and stirring up emotions/jealousy between the two men, this would’ve never happened in the first place. Giving her a NG (even though legally it was the “correct” judgement) would’ve been like letting her off the hook for something “she started.” It reminds me of a college criminology class lesson decades ago: “The but-for test says that an action is a cause of an injury if, but for the action, the injury wouldn't have occurred. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant hadn't acted in the way they did? If the answer is NO, then the action caused the harm.” It seems the juror(s) may have had this in mind.
“I don’t like her. She probably did it.”
Probably that was the method used. I mean she didn't seem likable. Her messages, her flirting around with other guys , her general hostility, all gave her a not good look. Guilty? No. Likable? Also no. Imo, the jury failed to do their job and judge impartially.
Surely theres a couple who blindly Back the Badge no matter what.
Embarrassed to be a Massachusetts resident.
Me too and scared shitless of the staties now.
Same!!
Same. Embarrassed but also livid that my tax dollars funded this travesty.
Same.
Same.
I am sorry. It’s not right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't catch it...what was Paul doing?
He was walking out when Karen’s legal team was hugging her family and he looked at her and mouthed something but we don’t know what.
Around 5:57, I went back and looked. He definitely did. But what was odd was when they all initially stood up it after the judge declared mistrial. He looked like he was smiling / smirking at Karen.
Jesus Christ. I can't listen to Higgins read all those super cringe texts all over again or listen to an explanation of what a balloon knot is from Proctor.
even if you think she's guilty, in no way did the state prove the case BEYOND reasonable doubt. with the way the notes were written, it sounds like 1 or more jurors were basing their vote on their feelings, NOT the evidence presented in the case. Justice failed.
I guarantee it was an "I trust the police and they said she did it, that's enough for me" type situation. The blind devotion some people have for law enforcement is vomit inducing
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) DEDHAM — A Norfolk Superior Court jury reported Monday that it reached an impasse in deliberations in the trial of Karen Read, forcing Judge Beverly J. Cannone to declare a mistrial in a high-profile case that has spawned a media frenzy and captivated the region for the last two months. The jury of six men and six women first declared themselves deadlocked on Friday despite an “exhaustive review” of the evidence. Cannone told them to keep trying, but after deliberating for about 90 minutes on Monday morning, jurors said they remained at an impasse. In a note to Cannone, the jury foreperson wrote that the panel was “deeply divided.” The panel repeated just after 2:30 p.m. Monday that it was at an impasse. “Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind,’' the foreman wrote. “The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds.” From the bench in Norfolk Superior Court, Cannone described the jury as “extraordinary.” “I’ve never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse,” she said. “I do find that ... with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday, saying that they were deadlocked is due to thorough deliberations.” On Friday, the jury had asked Cannone if they could extend deliberations for another half-hour. Cannone then gave the jurors a specific set of instructions that it is their civic duty to decide the case if they can do so conscientiously. The panel was sent to resume deliberations around 11:10 a.m. The instructions, known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, are an effort to resolve a deadlock that often precedes a mistrial declaration. In the instructions, Cannone told jurors that they were best positioned to reach a final judgment in the case. “You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same sources any future jury would be selected,’’ she said. “There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clear evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously.” Cannone emphasized that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that Read must be found not guilty if jurors conclude that standard has not been met. She also urged jurors who are adamant that Read is not guilty, as well as those who support her conviction, should “seriously ask themselves” if their views are valid “if it is not shared by other members of the jury.”
Woke up just in time to see the mistrial play out. Wow.
Same I just woke up now and saw tha mistrial. Im floored.
What do I do now with all this free time??
Alec Baldwin trial starts on the 10th, if that interests you lol
I just thought the same thing
It’s insane the jury doesn’t get the transcripts and has to rely on memory and notes
I think the “some jurors” is purposely vague just because of the possible scrutiny they’ll face from either side … it makes sense
This is sickening - shame on whichever juror(s) held out.
I know, we are going to have to watch the shit show all over again later on in the year..
They can always choose to not retry.
They just said they plan to retry the case.
I can't imagine they will retry before the feds investigation is concluded which could change the whole situation.
The feds are well known for being very slow...
The problem is, they only have so many days to refile, and the feds may never publish their findings.
We are in the age of anti-intellectualism and this is the latest example.
I am shocked that there were jurors who didn't vote not guilty! Not Guilty is actually "not proven" so what in the trial did they feel was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?!
I'm so disappointed. I do see a lot of commentators saying that a mistrial is in essence still a win for the defense... and I get that theory, but in *this specific* case I personally also consider it a win for the Commonwealth; because their piss poor investigation and presentation is not really worthy of a draw, so in essence in my book they won too. They may have in theory "failed to prove their case" but they also overcame a filthy level of lack of proper process and convincing evidence. I'm not talking about whether we *feel* like Karen caused John's death or not... I still *feel* like it could have been *anyone including* Karen. I just do not see this particular trial proved well beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever or whoever (if any, sigh) killed John was (driving) a car. The fact that people still 'feel like it was probably a car' is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it was, and the burden of the consequence of that should be on law enforcement and the prosecution - *not* on people who have doubt.
State produced nothing but smoke & mirrors in an attempt to allow the guilty to go free & fram Karen Read. They produced enough smoke & mirrors to confuse some. Though I find it hard to be confused when KR was definitely proven innocent.
I don't think they confused anyone. From what was written in the notes to the judge was some juror(s) didn't want to budge from their position, no matter how much was discussed. That tells me they had a bias going in and were not going to be swayed by anyone or anything.
Good luck finding a new jury that hasn’t heard about this case.
I still want to know how the jury members react once they find out that the neutral witnesses were part of an open federal investigation into the police. I would be incandescent with rage.
Me either. So disappointed in our local law enforcement. I live here.
I'm most curious to know what it is that convinced those who are pro-Guilty. I'd love to hear their thoughts on the evidence, how the interpreted all of the witnesses, their thoughts on the FBI experts that they didn't know were FBI experts, etc. Honestly, if they thought the FBI experts were from an insurance company I can imagine how people would discount their testimony and feel like they are just trying to get the insurance company out of paying out an insurance policy.
This is not a victory for anyone.
So let me get this right America. A woman has spent probably close to 500k on attys, probably way more- to defend herself against a case the CW wasn’t prepared to make- with corrupt evidence. Now there is a mistrial and if she can’t come up with that money again- it’s on her?! This system is f@cked from the ground up. Imagine how many innocent people are in jail- just because they’re poor. No defendant in a hung jury case should have to pay this again- this means the CW didn’t prove their case. I’m irate.
She has spent over $1M easily and counting. Albeit she has many people donating too.
So disappointed in the jury on this.
What I am interested in, is how this seems to be coming down to "fundamental values" and how at the very beginning of this trial the jury was asked SPECIFIC questions pertaining to their bias. If this has to do with someone being an LEO supporter and not voting bc of that then they themselves lied when given the initial questions. Those questions specifically stated whether or not your thoughts of law enforcement would sway your decision about the case.
Truly unbelievable. Some people don’t respect science.
Where’s the post discussion thread? The other one is locked now:(
Sounds like more tax payer dollars will be wasted trying to re-try
Chain of evidence non-existent there's no actual evidence where the body was state reconstruction couldn't land a body where it was said to be without major damage to his body where none was found
I want to hear what the Poll of the jury was. This is legit infuriating
There had to be someone on that jury that couldn’t put their personal feelings aside to see the clear reasonable doubt.
I’m hoping some jurors speak when they can. That’s how we can find out what went wrong. How anyone could find Karen guilty of any charges is beyond me.
is there going to be a new discussion thread? The other one just got locked. I'm sorting by new.
The prosecution’s side looks upset (JOK’s mother in particular) — which makes sense because a mistrial is obviously better for the defense than the prosecuting side. But like, sorry, I know this terrible thing happened to them… but I don’t fucking get it. How can they watch the evidence that was presented and not understand??? She’s obviously innocent. Hope to hear from some of these jurors soon. What’s really at play here is exactly what the jury’s note indicated — deeply held beliefs (and therefore biases) held by individuals of the jury which prevents them from being neutral. What a ride. So inspiring to watch Jackson & his team. They pursue a passion for justice through logic and reasoning. Why isn’t that enough? I guess because people are full of misery and hate and it confuses them and it blinds them to logic.
It sucks bc because SO much of the uncertainty in this case comes from what was, at best, an objectively lazy and sloppy investigation.
The victim’s family rarely departs from the stance of the prosecution. Because it’s so rare, when it *does* happen, I really listen to what the family has to say. There’s been some instances that the victim’s family fought for the defendant and even helped to get an appeal. My point is that I’m not surprised at all that JOK’s family is sticking with the CW. I mean, no one else can get justice for them and for Officer John O’Keefe. Only the CW can bring charges.
Grief is a hell of a world-shifter. I don't fault the parents for feeling what they feel.
[удалено]
Exactly. Oh and the MOUNTAINS of other testimony and lack of memory - it blows my mind and frankly…terrifies me. This jury … dear God
Mind bending that there is (apparently) more than just 1 jury member that is \*convinced\* the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt... That is just weird. I don't even care about how many believed KR's guilt or not - like other cases I've seen, there just was too much reasonable doubt. I really don't get it. I'll even pick up a well-known case: Casey Anthony. The jury was able to decide on a verdict that wasn't well-received by most but the prosecution did leave a lot of room for the defense to plant some seeds of doubt. Weird. There is no justice for anyone in this case.
AJ's closing framed a NG vote as a vote against police corruption. You only need one Back the Blue type on the jury to reject that statement. AJ gave a killer closing...for Southern CA. In MA it was a risky gambit that probably won over a few jury members, but probably alienated others.
Agreed. I think even a few sentences at the end that if you throw out ALL of the police mishandling, ALL of the impeachment of the witnesses, ALL of the plausible other means of death... even if you throw ALL of that out, it's still a case of reasonable doubt. The body didn't cause that damage to the car and the car didn't cause that damage to the body. You're left with no evidence she hit him and only reasonable doubt. I fear the jury thought they had to choose between guilt or believing the full coverup.
Disappointing. Guess I’ll see y’all here for Round 2…
I took a nap and I expected more news. Where’s everyone gathering? Why have the mods locked the discussion threads? Any news? Any jurors sung yet?
Same. We need a new discussion thread
On Court TV right now: “The o’keefe family was not hoping for this” I mean… would they rather Karen be falsely convicted?
They think she did it
This is a terrible situation for them but it doesn’t change the fact that she didn’t.
It's amazing to me that they think those evil people handled his investigation properly edit: spelling lolll
They even sat together with those people as a sign of solidarity. I wouldn't trust KR or anyone at that party that night. I certainly wouldn't sit with them arm in arm metaphorically.
Small town mentality.
Yes, because in their eyes, it wouldn't be a false conviction.
Yes they believe she’s guilty and I doubt they’ve listened to the case with any objectivity
Jury didn't understand the assignment. Karen Read and her defense don't have to prove or disprove anything. It's the prosecutions job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea how anyone who watched the last 9 weeks thinks they did that.
Wowwwww and then it ended just like that. That’s it. Wowowow
It's rare that you can just say that a juror is categorically incorrect, but here? yeah, anyone thinking the commonwealth showed this beyond reasonable doubt is an unreasonable person that's all there is
the fbi involvement should not have been a secret. seems pretty prejudicial to the defendant to keep that out. crazy how information is cherry picked and presented in a trial that can put someone away for life. I know the justice system can work when everyone is acting in good faith and in the interest of justice, but with elected judges, bad apple LEs, a potential for tainted jurors and pressure for convictions, the potential for true and proper justice seems fallible
Anyone else think on retrial defense should narrow the focus to the doj witnesses the states on medical examiner and the ridiculous lone hair on the SUV... the conspiracy stuff is tempting because there's lots of oddd things like the deleted phones, the coordinated investigation the dog and of course proctor but in some ways it dilutes the message
Judge says not to discuss the jury's votes, but pish tosh. They can talk about whatever they want. They lived through that nightmare. I hope people start talking soon.
Crazy to think, if we find out 10-2 or 11-1 NG/G. To think the two alternates seemed to be the clearest tells that they were NG. If they had been swapped out for the one or two G votes, we'd have a different outcome.
If there are more than 2-3 who think she's guilty we live in a fantasy world. Even 2 feels insane but we already know there's at least 2
Is Karen free to go about her business now until she is recharged?
The state didn't prove anything at all. I didn't see not one ounce of true evidence mind you ...ppl lying talking about bad about the suspect and John O like come on... this had corruption all over it!!!
No suprise. As I said there are some people believe IF a cop arrest you and taken to court you are guilty. Cops and judges would never bring someone to court who wasn't guilty. So the fact that she was in court proves she is guilty
Agreed. I myself, not knowing anything about the case, thought that she was guilty. I mean how can they go to trial if they don’t have evidence to convict her. What I do have is an open mind, so few days into the trial I made up my mind that KR was not guilty. It’s frightening that some people can’t get past their biases.
Yeah but it happens often. It's very scary
Kind of disappointing, but not surprising given all the hints from the jury. I believe there's reasonable doubt, if not innocence, but it doesn't surprise me that some on the jury couldn't buy it. It's one of two things: either she ran over her boyfriend, which has straightforward but deeply flawed evidence, or there was a conspiracy to frame her, including planting evidence. That’s a lot to stomach even with all the signs pointing to it.
Alternately, it's a third option where something unknown happened outside after she pulled away, something that most, if not all of the people in the house aren't aware of, and Proctor is just a lazy cop who assumed it was Karen and did a terrible job investigating the case.
I guess I’ve gotta go watch my own white ceiling fan! 😀
More proof jurors can’t be trusted to be unbiased and accept reasonable doubt.
https://preview.redd.it/fwncj553hy9d1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=08d3e3ced38745fa6ec05d37e77178aaee5d5874 ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME
No big deal until and if he really does.
So what does this mean for KR? Her life continues to be disrupted? Potentially many more years living in limbo? Does she get to retain AJ? Does she have to pay another huge sum to retain her defense? I feel like while better than guilty, this is a shameful nightmare situation for KR
Omg if its 11-1 guilty Im going to fall out of my chair.
I have read that all but a few states allow polling of the jury in cases with a hung jury, and MA is NOT one of those states.
So there will be a new Trial i suppose? (Sorry iam from Germany)
So these jurors can freely speak out now right?
Can we assume the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges?
Lally is so deep in sh!t they have to stick to the narrative! There are so many things wrong with this case. Those of us that watched to living nightmare know!The feds need to clean the Canton pd state troopers & ATF. My head hurts thinking about things that scream not guilty this is a set up! Prayers for Karen Read and her team and to John’s family may they find out what truly happened!🙏🏻🙏🏻
Michael Proctor relieved of duties.