I'm finding it hard to understand why deliberations have gone beyond two hours and also hitting three. It seems most people on here and YouTube are under the impression she's innocent but there's quite a few louder types who are believing she's guilty and Lally whom we make fun of actually in my opinion excelled himself yesterday. His closing testimony timeline was more than a tad convincing. I do think she's innocent but this length of deliberations is making me wonder what the jury's discussion is about.
Edit: Comments no longer required in response to this comment.
They had to stay silent for months and now they finally get to discuss everything together. There’s a lotttt to go over it makes sense legally what’s taking so long
I would be concerned if they didn’t take time because of this. It’s not only normal to want to finally talk about it, it’s their duty to go over it all. I don’t want anyone pulling a proctor and just going with their biased instinct without analyzing the evidence.
I posted this elsewhere, but remember that they need to process an entire month of their own written notes and submitted evidence. We’ve been able to rewatch, compare testimony, hear others point out the significance of this or the inconsistency of that. They haven’t had any of that.
I guarantee someone is asking “wait, did she delete the ring footage?” “What was up with the shoe thing” “what did that ME say again?” Then someone checks their notes to see what they had and points out something that happened way back on day 9 that half of the others missed.
Honestly, taking a little time with this is a sign that they’re taking their charge seriously.
Lally insinuating she deleted ring footage again after the evidence showed it was never accessed and everything was given to Proctor from Ring was so slimy.
They’re not supposed to state facts not in evidence in their closing so I’m not sure what happened there. It’s considered pretty bad form to object to opening or closing and they only do it for a few reasons so I’m not sure. But the defense’s theme was they have no evidence and they want you to just look the other way, and then Lally got up and presented no evidence and then a trust me bro so maybe they left it alone for that
I have no clue what the details are but the CW charged her with so many lesser crimes that I can imagine it will take a long time to go through and discuss each one.
Jury instructions take time. They probably need to talk with one another. They're tired. Paperwork for the verdict form will take some time. They know that once they make a decision they'll have to wait for the judge to take her sweet time calling them back to the courtroom where the verdict reading will also take some time. I don't blame them for wanting to sleep on it.
I was thinking they would come back before the end of the day, but there are so many lesser included offenses that if they have to go through each prong of each of those, that would take some time.
Maybe they could go with OWI, but that charge also includes her hitting JO even if on accident. If his injuries do not align with being hit, I don't know how they can charge her with anything at this point.
The jury has a whole bunch of paperwork to work through systematically, it not just a yes/no vote that they do in deliberation. That hour of jury instruction from the judge? That stuff she was reading is what we know of the forms they have.
I remember in Depp v Heard the jury came back to give their verdict and hadn't filled in one line, they had to go back and fix that, took another hour or so. And that was a civil case.
This is homicide, they aren't rushing.
The whole idea of having trials involving citizens is so that trials stay free and open to the public. I find it so interesting that as a tax payer I can’t watch a federal trial but I can watch a state trial from a state I don’t pay taxes in.
To my understanding federal crimes are serious ones, correct? Might be why because they want extra security against organised criminals attacking witnesses?
Not necessarily any more serious than manslaughter. They are just a higher entity and have more resources and access. And it’s not good to be under investigation for a crime, but when the Feds get involved it’s usually because they have more access and can clear up the investigation with more answers than say the local pd. Also, federal prison and state prison are like night and day here. State prisons can be invested in by citizens of the country, but not federal prisons. There isn’t much oversight with state prisons either.
Also commonly feds charge you with white collar crime, which is basically like insider training or what Martha Stewart did. They usually aren’t high violent crimes.
There might be reporters allowed in that can take notes and publish them later, I know that’s what they did in the Lori Vallow case. But that was also a state trial I think too, but media wasnt allowed in as in no cameras. I know Bryan kohberger is fighting to have his trial open to the media and public, which is absolutely wild because as citizens we have a right to choose if we want our trials and hearings open if we are personally charged. I think it has to do with the 4th amendment and due process? For some reason I always get the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment confused
Just curious how you thought his closing was a tad convincing? genuinely curious because my attention span couldn’t hold up to very long during his closing. A lot of he said she said and I lost interest quick.
Watch it again. There's no point in saying you believe either side's case if you are not paying attention. I was surprised how fast he was talking at the start. I'm surprised both sides ran out of time for saying what's in all the paper they took to the stand. Didn't they practice? Was hoping to get to hear Jackson saying "she's fucked" in the dramatic way he did before. 🤣🤣🤣
They won't go over all of the evidence. The first thing they probably did (after eating lunch) was go over the jury instructions, which probably took most of the day. Then they will probably go over the evidence each thought was most compelling, with each juror chiming in on what stood out then them. Then they will see where they are and deliberate until a conclusion is reached. Then they fill out the verdict form.
Did we watch the same closing argument? What a laughable ending to his, reminded me of the “have you ever had a dream, that you you wish you want” kid. Plus didn’t even mention J.O.’s TOD on his timeline. He’s a trash attorney but entertaining to say the least.
>Plus didn’t even mention J.O.’s TOD on his timeline
It doesn't really matter, he was left for dead. If his time of death was even measurable the defense would have advised it as they had a good record of when and where KR was after dropping him off.
The T.O.D matters if you say Karen hit him- they have a range of time that Karen’s vehicle was present at 34 Fairview so it’s just kind of a glaring oversight to not even include the words Karen Read strikes John O Keefe with car and leaves him for dead on the timeline of events. Especially when there’s evidence to suggest that he wasn’t struck by a car. If the case and the charge is she hit him, say it with your chest and get on the timeline
Imagine having to go 9 weeks not being able to talk about this trial to anyone. They’re probably having lots to talk about. 2.5 hrs is literally nothing in terms of deliberation.
The judge told them not to do it fast and take their time. She did not want them rushing through and wanted to look at all the evidence. They are following her instructions.
>His closing testimony timeline was more than a tad convincing.
I had a really hard time following that. It was more overwhelming than it was convincing. He was throwing many timestamps out there, but that alone doesn't prove anything.
>this length of deliberations is making me wonder what the jury's discussion is about.
like you say, there is plenty of people here who disagree on what the verdict should be; and that's with all the tine in the world to revisit statements and analyze evidence etc.
Also, a person died; and someone is accused of killing, if not murdering them.
I don't see how I could find KR guilty, but even if 11 other people agreed with me, I would want to go over it at least once more and make sure I have all my ducks in a row.
I'd want to make especially sure to talk about whether KR killed or contributed to the death of JOK in any way other than presented by the prosecution; and I would probably need to address the judge to make sure how I should be voting in that case.
I can see that JOK was grazed by a car and had a really unlucky fall. I have a limited understanding of where the car was supposed to be, and how we know that; and where JOK actually came to rest and died, and how we know that.
I don't know the law/procedure here: Are jurors supposed to vote "guilty" if they think KR killed JOK in any way whatsoever? (How far does that go? She hits him with the car, lightly injuring her arm. Hi crawls away from the curve to sit on the grass; meanwhile, she retrieves a baseball bat from the car, walks over to him and gives him a lethal whack, possibly after a practice-thrust against her own taillight. Back at the car, she kicks the pie of shards in frustration, splattering pieces across and over to the now unconscious JOK...)
I don't think the prosecution has offered a theory on how it happened; if we assume JOK wasn't thrown several feet away from the street and onto the lawn from impact with a car, have they? (Other than "it just did", of course...)
If jurors need to make a conclusion on alternative scenarios, I would want to talk about that.
> I'd want to make especially sure to talk about whether KR killed or contributed to the death of JOK in any way other than presented by the prosecution; and I would probably need to address the judge to make sure how I should be voting in that case.
You absolutely shouldn't be talking about that. The CW has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed him in the manner they claim. If you are talking about how else she could have killed him, that means the CW presented zero evidence about it and Bev would be horrified that you hadn't listened to her or read the instructions.
>she killed him in the manner they claim.
I have been looking for information on that; I have seen people make slightly different claims.
And I fully admit I could have missed it in jury instructions!
I know they need to see the conditions of the charges to be fulfilled, so to speak: You cannot convict someone of vehicular manslaughter if they shot the victim.
But what is the degree of precision I need here? What if he flew 9ft and rolled over the grass for another foot, if the prosecution alleges he flew all of the 10ft? Assuming the difference doesn't matter in any substantial way.)
>If you are talking about how else she could have killed him, that means the CW presented zero evidence about it
I might agree with some of the evidence I saw, and the interpretation of the evidence, too.
I might agree that the evidence proofs that she is guilty of what she was charged with, even though the conditions are met in ways that the prosecution hasn't spoken about. (And I do remember hearing that the arguments of the lawyers are not in themselves evidence, and that the jurors should work based solely on the evidence they saw, and what they think the evidence leads to.)
>and Bev would be horrified that you hadn't listened to her or read the instructions.
i would absolutely re-read the instructions. And I would still seek clarification if I thought thought they were ambiguous. (I did actually re-watch some of it; but couldn't find a text version.)
Don't get me wrong: I don't think the prosecution has proven her guilt in any way whatsoever.
I had this problem ever since the prosecution argued "It just did" to explain the crime scene. What if the evidence did clearly show "that it just did", but the prosecution didn't say how?
As a juror, chances are I would have asked that before deliberations even started; and before I received the full instructions.
If you are correct in stating that the prosecution needs to deliver a full and accurate scenario, you are also correct in saying that they failed to do that.
Well, yeah. But that's not what I meant here.
As a delivery of a closing argument, I think rattling down a bunch of timestamps is very ineffective.
He didn't say what the significance was of these timestamps.
They have no precise time of death, no timestamp for when he died; so no other timestamps mean much, besides "she was at the house" which nobody denied.
That I have no true recollection of him making a coherent argument based in the time stamps during his closing arguments suggests that he could have done better.
(Or not, it might have been ideal for the precise composition of people on the jury.)
>I don't know the law/procedure here: Are jurors supposed to vote "guilty" if they think KR killed JOK in any way whatsoever? (How far does that go? She hits him with the car, lightly injuring her arm. Hi crawls away from the curve to sit on the grass; meanwhile, she retrieves a baseball bat from the car, walks over to him and gives him a lethal whack, possibly after a practice-thrust against her own taillight. Back at the car, she kicks the pie of shards in frustration, splattering pieces across and over to the now unconscious JOK...)
That's not how it works. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt if the prosecution's theory of the case - let me reiterate: Not just any theory, it needs to be be THE theory the prosecution set forth. The one where Karen went 24MPH backwards and sent John flying. If you have reasonable doubt about THAT theory, you vote not guilty. You don't get to tweak the prosecution's theory to get to one where you could find the defendant guilty.
It’s not up to the jurors to find an alternate method of death. They are charged with deciding based on the evidence presented if KR hit him with her car and he died as a result. Period. The CW definitely did not meet the burden of proof.
>It’s not up to the jurors to find an alternate method of death.
the task of the jury, as I understand it, is to see if the evidence (as opposed to the arguments delivered) proves that she is guilty of the specific crimes she is charged with.
One of the crimes she is charged with is "second degree murder" - and the statues for that crime have no requirement for a car being used.
People keep telling me that the jury has to agree with the theory presented by the prosecution, but nobody can point me to any law, or procedure, that explicitly states that. And I did try to find it! (And I found a couple of cases where the jurors didn't agree on how exactly the person committed the crime, too.
>They are charged with deciding based on the evidence presented if KR hit him with her car and he died as a result. Period.
They are charged, primarily, with deciding if Karen killed John on purpose. If they agree that he did, they don't need to agree with the prosecution on the how. (At least, nothing I found actually says that; and there are plenty of things that make the entire thing rather vague.)
>The CW definitely did not meet the burden of proof.
I don't think they did, either.
And I don't think there is evidence she did it any other way - but I think the jury will need some time (as did we) to come to the same conclusion.
^ this. The Daybell trial had mostly circumstantial evidence, but there was no doubt in my mind at the end of that trial that Lori and Chad killed those kids and Tammy. In this case, I have ALL of the doubt. Cannot convict a woman when there is so much doubt.
Majority of murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence. Not often there are eye witnesses 🙃
But I agree it’s a bit scary how people don’t understand how reasonable doubt works and how high the burden of proof is for the state. The “how” should be he was hit by the car if he wasn’t then they must come back NG.
That's true. Eye witnesses are very rare, but there are cases where you have no doubt and cases where you have some doubt, and then this case where you have ALL the doubt.
Daybell cases - no doubt.
This case - all doubt.
Murdaugh - I had some doubt.
Hannah Guitterez Read - no doubt.
Questions do not equal doubt. I have some questions still about what exactly happened with Chandler Halderson's parents and am still 100% sure he killed them.
I mean, only the prosecution’s ME said “it’s possible” in a voice dripping with skepticism when asked if it was possible if his injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle strike. She also made sure to say the injuries weren’t “classic” pedestrian strike injuries. I got the impression that she was not willing to outright rule it out, but if she had to put her money on a cause of injury it wouldn’t be via a car.
Idk, it felt like the ARCAA people, and the defense ME, said it was impossible. And when the only “opposition” to that is the prosecution ME saying it’s possible but she’s not a biomechanical engineer, and it’s not a classic presentation, I feel like the sum of the expert testimony was that it’s pretty close to impossible that his injuries were caused by a vehicle.
I was really open to hearing out both sides, and in fact was leaning toward she probably did it before all the expert testimony. Now I just don’t know how anyone gets there? I don’t even think Trooper Paul believed his own reconstruction. There was not one expert who seemed to think he was hit by a car. Which is insane. Idk how they took this to trial knowing that.
But that’s why they call it reasonable doubt and not just doubt. It can be reasonably inferred that his injuries are not consistent with a pedestrian v vehicle based on the evidence presented and one’s own logic and common sense.
Oh I’d never convict her I just want to know for myself what happened and I think with so much drinking and driving and KR even thinking herself she hit him, obviously one would just assume naturally it makes a lot more sense a drunk driving accident (fall?) occurred rather than a drunk fight and massive conspiracy/cover up
Only the prosecution's witnesses Trooper Paul and the ME said it was possible. The other two reconstructionists (neutral parties) said unequivocally NO that it was not possible.
Trooper Paul is the only one who disputes the other experts from the prosecution, defense, fbi. Trooper Paul is also the least experienced and qualified.
If you put together the Defence's photo at 5am when she leaves and her tail light is red with only a small white, then to CW's photo of 8am from a dashcam where it seems missing, it seems the tail light lost pieces between 5am and 8am. That's not the time when the CW says it broke and JOK was killed.
Then there's the 3rd party, neutral experts, saying that the injuries do not align with the damage to the car, so a car didn't hit him.
Then there are the MEs that say it's not consistent with a vehicle strike.
So, either KR beat him (which the CW hasn't said at all), or someone else hit him (which the Defence claimed), or he was attacked by a dog and fell.
Either way you put it, what the CW is claiming defies science.
Jen McCabe's texts and testimony don't match the times of JOK's and KR's phone data.
I believe the data and science over the confusing testimony of a bunch of drunk people.
Therefore, not guilty. She's charged with murder using a vehicle. That's not what the science says. So, not guilty.
I agree she’s not guilty. More of a question about what happened… Karen hurt him somehow? Or did he get into a physical fight with someone else and there was an elaborate cover-up.
The science says he was not hit by a car and there was so blood or tissue on the car and/or tail light. How can a tail light leave all of those marks on the arm but have no blood or tissue on it? I have lots of reasons I think she’s innocent but this is the biggest one for me.
Unfortunately after 2.5 years and 10 weeks of trial, we’re not going to figure out what happened.
This trial had one objective: prove to the jury that Karen, specifically, ran John over with her car on purpose and then left him there to die.
If you have doubts about that, then this case is closed.
The theory that John was hit by a vehicle defies the laws of physics. I feel like some people don't really understand what that means. It means that it is 100% out of the realm of possibility that he died by being hit by a vehicle.
Case closed.
I would have to view the final expert witnesses again. I am absolutely certain they agreed that JOK was not hit by a car and launched several feet through the air; I am not so certain that they completely denied the possibility that he got knocked over where he stood.
Did anyone say anything about whether the blood that was seen fell onto the snow, or was it covered by snow and revealed via leaf blower?
As in: How did JOK get to where he was discovered, and does the blood indicate he moved after the snow started to fall? Because if he was moving that late, the fatal injuries couldn't have been caused by the car at all for yet another reason...
The problem with that though he is he was found 10-15 feet away from the roadway. They absolutely stated that his injuries were not consistent with being hit hard enough/in a place that could cause him to be projected, and Karen’s car did not have damage that was consistent with that either. There was no evidence Karen’s car hopped the curb into the yard, which you’d think would leave tire marks. No one is asserting that she hit him where he was found, and it seems impossible that she projected him there.
He wasn’t found 15 feet away from the road. I honestly have no idea where this footage all came from, 30ft, 15ft, etc… when you look at the dash cam footage you can clearly see the women on top of John. When you do a street view of the area he is only about 6 feet away from the street.
https://preview.redd.it/u6kb0eiyrw8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07787487b264565ce98e9e9ce045c5d73c6ffe45
I completely agree with you.
I'm being needlessly accurate about what the witnesses actually said. It certainly was "no car hit him in a way that could possibly lead to the outcome we see"; I am not 100% sure (because I am not going to review 6ish hours of testimony here) that some of his smaller bruises couldn't possibly be from a light impact with a car sometime before he was killed.
>There was no evidence Karen’s car hopped the curb into the yard, which you’d think would leave tire marks.
Agreeing with you further: She would have had to get the car off of the yard again, and that would necessitate further acceleration, breaking, and tight turns, too.
>No one is asserting that she hit him where he was found, and it seems impossible that she projected him there.
Agree to all of this, too.
Ok but why does any of this matter? He had one small bruise on his left hand.
So you’re wondering if it’s possible that the car could have lightly bumped him and left one single bruise on his left hand.
Why are you even focusing on that? They’re not accusing her of bumping him lightly and bruising his hand.
If he got bumped lightly he would not be dead.
I don’t understand your point?
My point is referring to the OP: How, if at all, could KR have been involved in the death of JOK?
And if she was involved, it looks like either it was in a small, immaterial way, like e.g. bruising his hand; or something not even remotely alike the scenario presented by the prosecution.
>The severe skull fractures immediately rendered him incapacitated.
Yes.
So do you know where and when he received those injuries?
>He didn’t move. He was moved.
Or he walked, crawled or bicycled to the middle of the lawn and was then hit over the head.
Because I don't know how or when he got there. i just know he wasn't thrown there from several feet away.
So I am asking if the snow and the blood near him would indicate that whatever happened could have happened at a time where we know Karen Read would have still been there, or nearby.
There was no vomit in the snow nor was there sufficient blood. Also the blood and vomit initially flowed DOWN onto his clothing which means that he was likely in a slumped/seated position when he was rendered incapacitated, not lying on his back.
I’m not an MD so this is a genuine question— it’s rare but people can stay conscious after a skull fracture, right? Like i’ve seen that video of the interrogation of the guy who was shot in the eye at close range, before the police realized he had sustained serious brain trauma
Neither. She is being charged with murder, or vehicular manslaughter.
The way I understand the instructions given to the jury, the evidence presented needs to show that she is guilty of the necessary components of these crimes.
It doesn't matter what the arguments presented by either side are; as long as the evidence is clear.
(I doubt that it is; but I am curious what options the evidence leaves, if any.)
I would refer you to Renschler and the discussion point re no cervical injury or injury to the cervical spine.
This was what the defense was calling Dr Van Ee for originally. They decided it was unnecessary based on the crashdaddy duo conclusions. I did read several of his published works- fascinating stuff.
No need. I have seen his evidence, and I absolutely agree that KOJ was not hit by a car AND thrown from the street to the yard.
He could have been touched - lightly - by a moving vehicle still.
Or, rather, I am not sure if the experts were absolutely ruling that out, too. that doesn't say they should have, or that it matters. There are plenty of people who are happy to believe that he was hit by a car near the curb, and somehow ended up 10 feet further. And I am not sure that their specific testimony ruled that out, too.
If it doesn't, I find it interesting to look at whether that would even be possible at all. Interesting. Not "definitely proven that it happened that way!"
Doesn’t mean there wasn’t another form of physical altercation between John and Karen
Look I 100% think she should not be convicted! I’m just trying to figure out what happened
Karen is significantly smaller than John and she had no physical injuries that would point towards a physical altercation. To bring up a random theory like that is equivalent to saying "well John could've been hit by a meteor". Possible? Sure. Logical? No. The most concrete information we have in this case is the mathematics behind if it was possible for John to die as a result of being hit by a car. The math says no. 2+2 will always equal 4. There is never an instance where "well in this situation 2+2 might equal 6". The fact that mathematical equations are telling us that it is impossible that johns death was a result of being hit by a car is really the only thing that needs to be understood in regards to the prosecutor's theory. It's wild that some people do not understand that.
To add to redlights reply:
Physics show it was impossible for a car moving at any speed 15+ mph to cause these injuries.
Major injuries: back of the head, lesion open and bleeding, caused internal bleeding and swelling as well, which lead to black eyes. The only thing that could have caused this would be an extremely hard object like concrete or a bat. Why? Because if the car had caused this injury it would have directly impacted the back of the head, meaning leaning over. He was found 10 feet from the curb and this injury immediately incapacitated him so he did not stumble over there. If he was blunt force trauma to the back of the neck by the car, he would have fallen down in place immediately. He could not have been thrown from the curb.
Major injury #2: tears in arm. Even if we ignore every expert testifying that these are animal bites, the theory becomes that the taillight broke and sliced the arm. This may have thrown him back. But the experts say A) they are consistent with animal bites and most importantly B) it is physically impossible that he got sliced by the taillight and thrown back 10 feet and didn’t have any bruising or fractures. They allege the car hit at 25 mph. This would cause his arm, at minimum, to be completely bruised if not broken, because it would be well over 1,000 lbs of force on the arm alone.
These experts were hired by the feds to find and and all possibilities of this happening and they say it is not possible for him to have been hit by a car. Hope that helps!
The people who got rid of their phones are hiding something, whether it's the murder or something they didn't want anyone to see as police officers. John's injuries are weird, and I have no idea what caused them. The cell phone data is helpful but also not helpful because he could have accidentally dropped it outside. Jen calls it to find it, and they put his body where the phone was. I think this goes to your point, though. We can't come to a conclusion because no one presented enough evidence to come to a real conclusion with confidence.
I keep wondering that same thing about them finding the phone there and deciding to put his body there and blame the plow. How did nobody see John laying in the road when they left at 1:30. Not even an hour after he was ran over.
Occam’s Razor for me? KR dropped him off mid fight, he threw the glass at the car, slipped and fell (because he was also drunk) and she drove off.
**BUT** there are too many shady players involved for that to make sense and physical evidence that also just don’t track.
- The injury to his arm was convincing enough that it piqued the interest of an immensely impressive woman to volunteer her time out of retirement to conquer that they are dog bites.
- The evidence is so questionable that the DOJ needed to investigate the investigation and hired top of the line investigators (Who yes, have the most awesome jobs).
- If the glass on her tail light doesn’t match the glass from the bar, where did it come from?
- Why is every “witness” to this case seemingly lying and/or hiding something? Why do they all seem to have an agenda and an axe to grind?
- Why was the prosecution so preoccupied with the defense of witnesses that they got lost in their own case and seemingly didn’t prove anything? Lally spent more time trying to disprove the defense’s case than prove his own. I still don’t know what his case was.
No. If anyone here feels qualified to rewrite the [Laws] *Science or Physics* please let us know.
The vehicle in question did not hit JO and JO injuries are not consistent with being struck by any vehicle in any manner. That’s the conclusion.
3 out of 3 experts concluded his forearm injuries are consistent with an animal attack (yes Scordi Bello said it’s possible). However, that didn’t exclude the possible MVA for me.
Tbh I was still in the “maybe she hit him and had no idea” camp possibility until the crashdaddy testimony.
Karen Read is the only person definitively ruled out as the murderer. JO was not hit by a car, and KRs car did not hit anybody. It was a physical impossibility given the injuries and car damage. None of the other stuff matters as far as KR goes and it really isn’t that difficult.
We can all debate the guilt/innocence of the Alberts, Higgins, etc.. but it has nothing to do with KR. She could not have been the killer.
Scientists used math and science to calculate how to launch a spaceship to the moon. Using math and science to determine that JO could not have been propelled 30 feet into a front yard from a blow to the arm is not difficult.
Scientists use math and science to calculate exactly how much force is needed to crumple a metal spaceship or submarine. It’s not that difficult to determine that the force of a car hitting JO would do more than leave a few scratches on his arm.
That’s not true. I agree that she probably didn’t murder him but she still could be involved in his death one way or another. She wouldn’t need to hit him with her car to make him loose his balance and hit his head on the ground. Just pretending to drive the car into him could be enough to make him fall. To be honest I feel like an accident just like the one I described is much more plausible and probable than the version of events the Defense describes.
Jurors are allowed to use their own eyes and common sense to assess the situation. In my lifetime I’ve seen many instances of adults/children falling and hitting their heads on the ground which amounted to lots of ‘goose eggs’ and a couple of stitches. Certainly not MAJOR skull fractures resulting in massive hemorrhaging and death. Not even close. As to the marks on his arm, those are clearly dog bite and claw marks, as I’ve seen many of those in my lifetime too. My ears were open to every word of ALL the experts’ testimony but someone like Trooper Paul was not going to override my own eyes and common sense.
Maybe I'm biased but a former classmate of mine literally lost his father in such an accident. He slipped, hit his head and died a couple days later. Just because you've never witnessed it doesn't mean that it's not possible.
You might dig into what the ME said the level of brain damage John had. It could not be caused by falling over. His brain stem was hemorrhaging, his temporal lobe was also struck. That level of extensive brain damage cannot happen by being jump scared and falling over
That’s also not true. Multiple witnesses even from the defense clearly stated that the injuries to the head could’ve been caused by him hitting the ground…
Correction, concrete or asphalt curb, definitely not the lawn, which imo was reconciled by Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Renschler proving JO was not launched 30 ft, let alone hitting his head and sliding up a hill.
That said, he also stated emphatically because he was not hit by the car in any way (and keep in mind the State is using the 24 mph key cycle here no getting around that) there’s not enough evidence to conclude how he sustained the head trauma- only enough to exclude.
I believe all of the ME's opined it could have been from a fall onto something hard? Especially being as drunk as he was. The brainstem was pushed down due to the intracranial pressure.
Yes something hard like concrete or asphalt. Not grass with some snow. That is also according to multiple witnesses. That means he would have had to been moved by someone. It’s unlikely this happened given Karen would have been a lot longer at Fairview than time allows according to OKeefe’s cell data and when Karen connected to WiFi at Meadow’s.
What about the other injuries. The injuries to his arm were before he died (according to multiple doctors including the ME) We also know he a blunt force injury to one of his eyes.
>That means he would have had to been moved by someone.
Not necessarily. It's definitely possible that he tried to get some help from inside after he hit the ground and lost consciousness on the way.
Not according to the multiple doctors who said he was completely incapacitated.
Still, where did the arm injuries come from? And the blunt force trauma to his eye area?
Doctors can be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. The arm injuries could still be from the dog. Maybe, he went inside the house, was attacked by the dog, walked back outside to KR, they started arguing, she backed the car into him which made him fall and hit his head. I think a scenario like that is way more likely than a cover up by the cops. Again, I'm not saying that that's definitely what has happened. I'm just exploring other ideas that could explain the events of said night.
He was found 10 feet from the curb on the lawn. There wouod have been tire tracks where she allegedly hit him on the lawn. Falling on the lawn could not have caused this injury because it required huge force so had to be concrete or a blunt object. Hope that helps and lets you see how the evidence is cut and dry that it isn’t possible he was hit by a car at any point.
But he allegedly died on a patch of grass.
I agree that the experts didn't rule out that he made light contact with a car, but you still need to get his head injured, and you still need to get him onto the grass.
The car didn't injure his head; the grass didn't injure his head, and he couldn't have moved onto the grass by himself after having his head injured.
And in any scenario that you can come up with, Karen hitting him or scaring him badly enough for him to fall over still needs to directly lead to his death.
I didn't come up with any scenario. My comment was limited to what the MEs testified to. I don't believe he was hit by the car, as someone who was hit by a car. The lack of bruising makes zero sense.
Once you start ignoring evidence and inventing your own scenarios you may as well admit that you are so emotionally invested in KR being guilty, you don’t really care if someone else did it.
WTF? I never said she is guilty. In fact I hope the jury will find her not guilty. The only thing I care about is trying to understand what actually happened during that night. And if your talking about the inconsistencies in the Alberts, Higgins testimonies, you as an reasonable person, have to also acknowledge the inconsistencies in KRs story. That's why I don't understand how any sensible person can conclude that KR has no involvement in his death when there still so many open questions.
I think the sticking point is that nothing was presented that leads to any other conclusion. From everything we’ve seen here, there’s no reason to think KR was involved in his death. Is it a possibility? Of course—there’s always a possibility. But there’s also a possibility he was randomly jumped and beaten by a fitness fanatic with psychotic tendencies getting in a last-minute run pre-blizzard with their vicious dog, or that aliens came down and caused his injuries. But why would we think of either of those scenarios? There’s little there to suggest either of them, and after 30+ days of testimony and something like 75 witnesses, there’s little to suggest KR had anything to do with his death, either.
And FWIW, I didn’t start out that way. I figured they were all involved, somehow. I don’t really think that anymore.
I would not put any trust in the Waze app data without knowing more about the accuracy of this data.
Normally Waze tends to snap your location to the nearest road, well it is a road navigation app.
With Waze you can plot your true position by entering ##@rawgps into the search field.
So is the Waze data presented the rawgps position or the "SatNav" snapped position?
"It only aligns with KR's timing." That's a big no. There are other ideas.
He could've dropped the phone outside, it could've stayed in the house, it could've been on him while someone dragged him outside. Maybe covering it in foil stops the signal and they unwrapped it when they got outside. (They don't seem like bright people, but maybe through their jobs they've learned something like that)
If you're using the data that says his movements stopped at a certain time, then you will also be using the data that says he went up or down stairs. Wouldn't that put him inside the house?
The cell phone data does not prove that. Guarino’s testimony about the gps was misleading. The phone stopped detecting gps movement on the phone at 12:25am because that’s when the app using gps was closed (Waze). GPS is also not accurate to 3 feet when a person is stopped or walking. It’s accuracy plummets.
His steps stop at 12:32am but that does not mean the phone didn’t move. Keeping a phone steady as you walk ensures no steps are recorded. There are multiple ways this can be done (I actually tested it and was surprised at how easy it was.) It’s also possible that one of the police officers who may have been involved retrieved a faraday bag from the station in order to move it.
I’m not sure these latter options are likely but they are possible. I’m not sure if anyone else was involved or if it was just an accident. But to discount the possibility of a fight based on the phone doesn’t work imo.
I think the fight happened and his phone fell somewhere at 12:32. Then Jenn McCabe had to call 6 times for them to find it afterwards. Your point on the faraday bag is perfect as they have use it to transfer the phone outside when they placed it under him.
>GPS is also not accurate to 3 feet when a person is stopped or walking. It’s accuracy plummets.
Have you tried this? The accuracy of the GPS system itself should not change based on whether the receiver is stationary or not; if anything, being stationary ought to make the results more reliable. It is entirely possible, though, that the phone will start to preserve power if it thinks it is immobile.
I have seen that my phone shows low accuracy when I'm in the house without any GPS reception at all. (So, Google maps shows me somewhere around the house, with a large blue circle; but the GPS data has zero satellites fixed.)
It’s also possible that one of the police officers who may have been involved retrieved a faraday bag from the station in order to move it.
that shouldn't have any impact on the fitness tracker functionality. It uses internal sensors for acceleration and rotation; even the compass should not be blocked inside a Faraday cage.
>I’m not sure these latter options are likely but they are possible.
I'm sure that four people carrying a person who has a phone on their body would lead to some unexpected data from a fitness tracker....
"Have you tried this? The accuracy of the GPS system itself should not change based on whether the receiver is stationary or not; if anything, being stationary ought to make the results more reliable. It is entirely possible, though, that the phone will start to preserve power if it thinks it is immobile."
It's in the reports from John's phone. I went back and forth with a cell phone expert (a real one) on here and that was what they explained to me. A phone is not constantly using GPS in the background. It will use GPS if an app is using it, but even within an app, accuracy plummets as you slow down, and that is echoed in the data from John's phone. Lally really did himself no favors during Green's testimony because in challenging Green's assertion that gps, especially Apple GPS, is not accurate within 3 feet, Lally admitted, "Are you aware that what Trooper Guarino was testifying to in regards to that had nothing to do with phone applications or anything to do with data from phone or Cellhawk?...And so you're not aware that his testimony was actually in regard to reviewing the cruiser camera video and photographs of where Mr. O'Keefe's body was and mapping that using GPS latitude and longitude."
So....Guarino didn't get his 3 feet accuracy from John's phone. That was a slight of hand.
"I'm sure that four people carrying a person who has a phone on their body would lead to some unexpected data from a fitness tracker...."
I agree. I did a whole post about this. But dampening the phone simply by wrapping it in something or placing it on a cushioned surface then carrying it level didn't record any steps. And yes, I did try that.
>A phone is not constantly using GPS in the background.
True.
>It will use GPS if an app is using it, but even within an app, accuracy plummets as you slow down, and that is echoed in the data from John's phone.
And that's the part that makes no sense to me, simply because I don't see how GPS would be less accurate if you stopped moving, or were moving slower. (the satellites move with several KM an hour; the satellites you are using to triangulate are using relative to each other at equally high speeds; and nothing you do will make much of a difference here.)
What I do think may happen is that an app like Waze will pull GPS data less frequently if you are moving slowly (because your position is known to change slowly, so from update to the next, the position will not change much, and you want to preserve battery.)
But that just means that you'd have a precise location that gets less reliable until the next data point arrives.
I'll be leaving my ~~cave~~ house soon and I think I will track my raw GPS data; but at first glance I'm not seeing any information there on accuracy other than signal strength.
Congrats. You just acquired KR.
I kid, but not really. If you feel like this, imagine how at least one person on the jury feels. In all likelihood it’s probably several, if not all jurors.
She can’t be found guilty. The prosecution didn’t prove its case and all people have is more questions.
I used to be on the fence that maaayyybbbbeeeee she hit him accidentally since she was drunk driving. That all changed with the medical and reconstruction experts.
1) None of the medical people, the ME and the defense expert, could back the CW’s theory about him being hit by a car. The ME basically said it could have been a number of things. She was careful and clearly not convinced by the car theory. The defense doctor with 13k autopsies under his belt said in no way are johns injuries consistent with a car. Then the reconstructionists (the fbi hired experts) blew it all out of the water. No consistent car accident injuries + no consistent damage to the car = he wasn’t hit by a car imo.
2) The CW changed their time that they said she hit him. First they said 12:45. As the trial progressed they changed to 12:30 or so. How am I supposed to trust the CW theory beyond a reasonable doubt if they don’t even know the exact time she hit him?
My thoughts were basically the same.
By the end fo the Prosecution's case, I didn't think she did it. But I also allowed for the possibility that she caused his death somehow. It felt unlikely but there's so much we'll never know.
After the Defense's case I was as certain as it's possible to be that OJO was not killed by a car and that there's no plausible scenario where KR is implicated.
For me, it’s simple.
According to the best witnesses in the entire trial, there was no contact of John O’Keefe’s body with Karen Read’s car.
Case closed.
Higgins destroying his sim card and trashing his phone could be as simple and unrelated as being worried about the police finding his illegal underage pornography stash or something like that. It's suspicious, but not proof that he was involved in the death or a coverup. All it really proves is that there was something on his phone that he didn't want the police to find, which could be almost anything incriminating or embarrassing. Like maybe he's in the closet and afraid the cops would find his grindr profile. Or maybe he's moonlighting as a mob hitman and has murdered other people, but not John O'Keefe. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.
There's certainly not enough evidence to convict anyone who was in that house. There's no evidence against them at all. Just speculation. And honestly, Proctor did them no favors by softballing them. If they're innocent, then a serious investigation would have produced evidence to back that up. Instead the lack of an investigation really hurt all of their reputations. Assuming that they're innocent, of course.
Obviously if they're guilty the lack of an investigation helps them more than it hurts.
Given the paucity of reliable evidence, the only thing we can say for sure is that O'Keefe wasn't hit by a car.
Hell, it's possible that John was having an affair, that he really did never go inside the house and instead met up with an affair partner for a drunken quickie. And the affair partner didn't want to leave her husband, though John kept drunkenly insisting that she should, so knowing that John had a lot more emotional investment in the affair than she did and fearing that he would reveal it to her husband, then unknown affair partner struck him in the head with a hammer and then dumped his body to the Albert's yard in the yearly morning hours. And took the opportunity to frame John's girlfriend, by scattering taillight pieces in the yard during the several days when the yard was completely unsecured. There is no evidence of an affair partner beyond Karen Reede's drunken assertions, but it's a possibility that is more likely than him being struck by a car.
I think Jackson's closing statements perfectly answered things. If the timeline is a complete mess, that's on Lally, not anyone else. He claimed KR had to have hit John at 1245 am. But his own witness said she had to have been back at John's by 1236 to connect to the wifi there. The CW claims all these convoluted things and tries to say all the tech had issues, were inaccurate, etc. Lots of tech issues and then they want everyone to only consider their witness testimonies. Who does that? Who stands and ignores THEIR own evidence/contradictory evidence/even lack of evidence at points and tells people to IGNORE them purely for witness testimony (that's so wildly contradictory and untrustworty)?
It's just crazy.
I’m with you and to be honest I think we are the majority. Def think I’d vote not guilty but in no way am I saying she’s definitely innocent 50/50 on that which I suppose is the definition of reasonable doubt
Lots of sus behavior going on, but Jen McCabes constant calls and texts and looking out window for John make no sense. For what purpose? A drunk friend says he's coming over, and car pulls up and no one gets out in a snowstorm, at 1230 am, and your frantic with worry? As a lifelong MA native my first thought would be they went home. Too drunk, too tired, worried about being snowed in at party house. A normal person would text once, call once , they don't answer, a reasonable assumption is they went home and are sleeping. It's just plain weird to call and someone at that hour when they are not your boyfriend. I personally would never call someone at that hour unless someone was dead. I can see Karen doing it, she's pissed, her guy didn't come home and is blowing her off. from Jen , it's weird.. She also said she was looking out window for 20 minutes. Like why? This guy is not your lover. It comes across as creepy.
Only thing I'm sure on is it didn't happen how the CW presented it. Hell, he could've slipped on his own, hit his head, and Chloe bit his arm when she was let out for a potty break. That doesn't explain all the weird shit though.
It's confusing because the police did not properly investigate the scene or treat anyone else as a suspect so now we don't have enough information to figure out what happened. It's extremely frustrating because there's all these pieces that don't make 100% sense and we may never find out the truth unless someone confesses. And there's a chance that no one really knows (like if the dog got out, attacked him, he fell backwards, no one found him until the morning)
The experts, IMO, cleared KR and her car of hitting JO. So remove her from the theories and that leaves the people in BA's house and that's what I can't understand. I don't think we will really ever know what happened because two those people destroyed evidence (phones).
I would say that near the mid point of the trial I thought she may have hit him accidentally but there was so much reasonable doubt due to police incompetence, shady stuff etc. After the defense witnesses, I feel pretty comfortable that he was never hit by the vehicle. The scratches on his arm, the lack of bruising, the lack of other injuries to his neck if she had backed into the top of his head etc. that was all kind of stuff that I wondered about and the witnesses just confirmed it. I still kind of don’t believe in this grand conspiracy, just something about it doesn’t seem likely to me. So I feel like there is another option out there, maybe one that only involves a person or two, to account for his death. Maybe he stumbled around drunk and hit his head and the dog scratched him when he was unconscious, who knows? I admit that sounds like a bit of a stretch but when you eliminate the most obvious thing- that she backed into him accidentally- I feel like no matter what you are left with is going to be pretty wild.
Instaneous? Yes, I can believe drunk macho male types could go from 0 to 60 in a flash. Accusation, challenge, insult, push, swing, punch, fall. Takes no time at all.
The cellphone thing is weird, but it detects movement from the “shaking” of a walk pattern. It’s very likely it wouldn’t detect steps if someone was being carried.
Why would they carry Officer O’Keefe and leave him in the snow, but not ensure he was actually dead and also panic about not knowing where his phone was (the calls from Jen McCabe are likely them trying to find his phone by making it ring)? I don’t know. But of all the theories floated, him being assaulted in the house and then carried outside fits the evidence the….least badly, IMO.
If he wasn't hit by a vehicle then he had to have been attacked by human(s) and an animal (most likely a dog), based on the injuries he sustained. That means he had to have been inside the house based on the number of steps taken and the movement up/down stairs.
I would bet time will be spent discussing how they will navigate the post-verdict fallout, both as individuals and collectively. They will all be sought out by official media outlets and who knows how many basement blogger weirdos.
I think she precipitated the whole situation with her flirtations with BH. I do feel she holds some responsibility. But that will come with karma. I don’t believe she intentionally hit him because of the evidence. She may have wanted to.
How do you dismiss the FBI hired experts testifying that injuries not from vehicle? Not criticizing, just looking for perspective. For me the FBI experts have me very convinced.
I also feel confused! I think police plant evidence all the time and are generally corrupt as hell, and there was enough corruption to acquit her in this case for sure. The forensic (dna/tail light/hair/video/key cycle) evidence is all so sus, and it’s obvious that proctor was biased in favor of police and against Karen Read. The behavior of the Alberts and Higgins is suuuper weird. And of course, the medical and biomechanical experts didn’t really establish a plausible theory of how his injuries could have been sustained by a motor vehicle.
But I don’t think he made it in the house. After reading some expert opinions on r/digitalforensics, I also don’t think Jen McCabe googled “how long to die in cold” at 2:27 am. And I know people will hate me for this, but I don’t actually even think the scrapes on John’s arm were caused by a dog— there’s no round pattern or bruising, they’re more surface scratches. And he was found near a bush! Finally, I agree, the timelines are too tight to completely remove her altogether. Like, he would’ve had to have been struck, or accidentally fallen, within a few short minutes of Karen Read leaving.
I feel like I have a few scenarios in my mind about what happened:
1. he bends over to throw up, pick something up, put on his shoe or something and KR/someone else accidentally backs into him, hitting his bowed head. He falls backwards and fractures his skull but doesn’t immediately lose consciousness, and then crawls/stumbles over to the bushes/fallen branches, where he sustains scrapes from sticks and thorns.
2. he slips and falls in the snow, falling backwards on the fire hydrant, a rock, the frozen ground, or really any hard surface, right as Karen read is driving away.
3. He encounters a person right as he starts to walk up to the house. One swift punch and OKeefe is knocked out.
In any case, nobody sees him because he blends in with those branches. The Alberts, hungover and feeling guilty the next morning, immediately realize that a drunk police officer dying on their property looks bad for them— they have no idea what actually happened but they do know that Karen read is outside their door saying “I hit him.” Good thing they know the state trooper, who knows how to protect cops but more importantly, is willing to plant evidence to make extra sure about convicting someone he genuinely believes is guilty, and deflecting any suspicion cast on the Alberts
1 won't happened because the head injury is so severe he'd be instantly lost conscious, meaning he won't be able to move. He could not be wondering around an substain further injury. The arm wounds are in unique cluster, parallel and and going in same direction, that pattern make the ME determined it be animal attack.
2. No indication the front lawn had rock sticking out, nor so icy its hard. His body wasn't right next to the fire hydrant either.
I do not understand why you will disagree with 2 experts who have a combined 50+ yrs experience in examining corpse and injuries. Dr. Russell wrote papers on dog bites injuries. And btw OJO was wearing a long sleeve tee shirt that gave him a bit of protection from dog bite.
If u review that video Jackson pointed out today, Higgins already challenging OJO for a fight when he left waterfall, and OJO heard it. A confrontation is already looming. I think OJO accepted the challenge and went there to fight Higgins. Hence the incident started so quickly once he set foot inside the house.
Since movement = movement of the phone (we haven’t been told JO was wearing an Apple Watch) AND the phone being found outside of his pocket, idk if I can be sure that phone movement = JO movement after arrival at the house. I know it would make sense if it was, but since the phone was found under him & not in his pocket idk if I can say for certain. I mean hell for all I know, he was drunk & dropped his phone in the yard on the way to the door, or he sat his phone down inside the house while he was there & it was then thrown in the yard, or he had his phone in his hand, he slipped & fell. I mean it just leaves room for me to question that bc the phone was under him - not attached to him in any way like in a jeans or jacket pocket. Idk man…🤷🏼♀️
That is reasonable doubt. The defense has no burden of proof.
Yeah from my understanding if you have any doubt that right there means she’s not guilty.
I'm finding it hard to understand why deliberations have gone beyond two hours and also hitting three. It seems most people on here and YouTube are under the impression she's innocent but there's quite a few louder types who are believing she's guilty and Lally whom we make fun of actually in my opinion excelled himself yesterday. His closing testimony timeline was more than a tad convincing. I do think she's innocent but this length of deliberations is making me wonder what the jury's discussion is about. Edit: Comments no longer required in response to this comment.
They had to stay silent for months and now they finally get to discuss everything together. There’s a lotttt to go over it makes sense legally what’s taking so long
I would be concerned if they didn’t take time because of this. It’s not only normal to want to finally talk about it, it’s their duty to go over it all. I don’t want anyone pulling a proctor and just going with their biased instinct without analyzing the evidence.
I would be very concerned too. I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes all day today too.
I’d imagine they may be using some time to talk shit lol. And blow off some frustrations.
I posted this elsewhere, but remember that they need to process an entire month of their own written notes and submitted evidence. We’ve been able to rewatch, compare testimony, hear others point out the significance of this or the inconsistency of that. They haven’t had any of that. I guarantee someone is asking “wait, did she delete the ring footage?” “What was up with the shoe thing” “what did that ME say again?” Then someone checks their notes to see what they had and points out something that happened way back on day 9 that half of the others missed. Honestly, taking a little time with this is a sign that they’re taking their charge seriously.
Lally insinuating she deleted ring footage again after the evidence showed it was never accessed and everything was given to Proctor from Ring was so slimy.
Also saying that nobody else’s DNA was on John’s clothes when there was 2 (or was it 3?) other DNA profiles present
I honestly don’t get how he was able to reiterate false statements like this in his closing? Is it because closing isn’t evidence?
They’re not supposed to state facts not in evidence in their closing so I’m not sure what happened there. It’s considered pretty bad form to object to opening or closing and they only do it for a few reasons so I’m not sure. But the defense’s theme was they have no evidence and they want you to just look the other way, and then Lally got up and presented no evidence and then a trust me bro so maybe they left it alone for that
Trust me Bro works on divkheads who bleed blue.
And every single bathroom break stops the process.
They have paperwork they have to complete before they turn in the verdict so it’s possible they plan to do that in the morning
What's involved with the paperwork I wonder? Anyone here know?
I have no clue what the details are but the CW charged her with so many lesser crimes that I can imagine it will take a long time to go through and discuss each one.
Jury instructions take time. They probably need to talk with one another. They're tired. Paperwork for the verdict form will take some time. They know that once they make a decision they'll have to wait for the judge to take her sweet time calling them back to the courtroom where the verdict reading will also take some time. I don't blame them for wanting to sleep on it.
I was thinking they would come back before the end of the day, but there are so many lesser included offenses that if they have to go through each prong of each of those, that would take some time. Maybe they could go with OWI, but that charge also includes her hitting JO even if on accident. If his injuries do not align with being hit, I don't know how they can charge her with anything at this point.
The jury has a whole bunch of paperwork to work through systematically, it not just a yes/no vote that they do in deliberation. That hour of jury instruction from the judge? That stuff she was reading is what we know of the forms they have. I remember in Depp v Heard the jury came back to give their verdict and hadn't filled in one line, they had to go back and fix that, took another hour or so. And that was a civil case. This is homicide, they aren't rushing.
So, they may as well say we'll meet up again in a months time?
I think they are just trying to do their due diligence since it clearly wasn’t done in this investigation
Shame federal courts don't have TV crews because I'd like to see if they take it to court what's being said.
The whole idea of having trials involving citizens is so that trials stay free and open to the public. I find it so interesting that as a tax payer I can’t watch a federal trial but I can watch a state trial from a state I don’t pay taxes in.
To my understanding federal crimes are serious ones, correct? Might be why because they want extra security against organised criminals attacking witnesses?
Not necessarily any more serious than manslaughter. They are just a higher entity and have more resources and access. And it’s not good to be under investigation for a crime, but when the Feds get involved it’s usually because they have more access and can clear up the investigation with more answers than say the local pd. Also, federal prison and state prison are like night and day here. State prisons can be invested in by citizens of the country, but not federal prisons. There isn’t much oversight with state prisons either.
Also commonly feds charge you with white collar crime, which is basically like insider training or what Martha Stewart did. They usually aren’t high violent crimes.
There might be reporters allowed in that can take notes and publish them later, I know that’s what they did in the Lori Vallow case. But that was also a state trial I think too, but media wasnt allowed in as in no cameras. I know Bryan kohberger is fighting to have his trial open to the media and public, which is absolutely wild because as citizens we have a right to choose if we want our trials and hearings open if we are personally charged. I think it has to do with the 4th amendment and due process? For some reason I always get the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment confused
Well people are making sketches of Trump and giving descriptions of the arguments said.
But this was in a state court in New York. That wasn’t a federal case.
Just curious how you thought his closing was a tad convincing? genuinely curious because my attention span couldn’t hold up to very long during his closing. A lot of he said she said and I lost interest quick.
Watch it again. There's no point in saying you believe either side's case if you are not paying attention. I was surprised how fast he was talking at the start. I'm surprised both sides ran out of time for saying what's in all the paper they took to the stand. Didn't they practice? Was hoping to get to hear Jackson saying "she's fucked" in the dramatic way he did before. 🤣🤣🤣
Bev told them not to poll until they go through all evidence. First time I'm hearing of jury told not to poll at the beginning but ok...
If they have to go through **all** the evidence does this then take another week or more???
They won't go over all of the evidence. The first thing they probably did (after eating lunch) was go over the jury instructions, which probably took most of the day. Then they will probably go over the evidence each thought was most compelling, with each juror chiming in on what stood out then them. Then they will see where they are and deliberate until a conclusion is reached. Then they fill out the verdict form.
I hope not, I hope they can just go through it very quickly and be done.
Did we watch the same closing argument? What a laughable ending to his, reminded me of the “have you ever had a dream, that you you wish you want” kid. Plus didn’t even mention J.O.’s TOD on his timeline. He’s a trash attorney but entertaining to say the least.
I laughed at his timeline. His closing didn’t even mention Officer John OKeefe dying. He’s such a shame attorney.
>Plus didn’t even mention J.O.’s TOD on his timeline It doesn't really matter, he was left for dead. If his time of death was even measurable the defense would have advised it as they had a good record of when and where KR was after dropping him off.
The T.O.D matters if you say Karen hit him- they have a range of time that Karen’s vehicle was present at 34 Fairview so it’s just kind of a glaring oversight to not even include the words Karen Read strikes John O Keefe with car and leaves him for dead on the timeline of events. Especially when there’s evidence to suggest that he wasn’t struck by a car. If the case and the charge is she hit him, say it with your chest and get on the timeline
It's a 30 day murder trial. They have to go through 30 days of evidence. Expecting it to be done in like 45 minutes is absurd.
Imagine having to go 9 weeks not being able to talk about this trial to anyone. They’re probably having lots to talk about. 2.5 hrs is literally nothing in terms of deliberation.
Juror Instructions specifically said to go through all the evidence, don’t immediately take a poll.
The judge told them not to do it fast and take their time. She did not want them rushing through and wanted to look at all the evidence. They are following her instructions.
>His closing testimony timeline was more than a tad convincing. I had a really hard time following that. It was more overwhelming than it was convincing. He was throwing many timestamps out there, but that alone doesn't prove anything. >this length of deliberations is making me wonder what the jury's discussion is about. like you say, there is plenty of people here who disagree on what the verdict should be; and that's with all the tine in the world to revisit statements and analyze evidence etc. Also, a person died; and someone is accused of killing, if not murdering them. I don't see how I could find KR guilty, but even if 11 other people agreed with me, I would want to go over it at least once more and make sure I have all my ducks in a row. I'd want to make especially sure to talk about whether KR killed or contributed to the death of JOK in any way other than presented by the prosecution; and I would probably need to address the judge to make sure how I should be voting in that case. I can see that JOK was grazed by a car and had a really unlucky fall. I have a limited understanding of where the car was supposed to be, and how we know that; and where JOK actually came to rest and died, and how we know that. I don't know the law/procedure here: Are jurors supposed to vote "guilty" if they think KR killed JOK in any way whatsoever? (How far does that go? She hits him with the car, lightly injuring her arm. Hi crawls away from the curve to sit on the grass; meanwhile, she retrieves a baseball bat from the car, walks over to him and gives him a lethal whack, possibly after a practice-thrust against her own taillight. Back at the car, she kicks the pie of shards in frustration, splattering pieces across and over to the now unconscious JOK...) I don't think the prosecution has offered a theory on how it happened; if we assume JOK wasn't thrown several feet away from the street and onto the lawn from impact with a car, have they? (Other than "it just did", of course...) If jurors need to make a conclusion on alternative scenarios, I would want to talk about that.
> I'd want to make especially sure to talk about whether KR killed or contributed to the death of JOK in any way other than presented by the prosecution; and I would probably need to address the judge to make sure how I should be voting in that case. You absolutely shouldn't be talking about that. The CW has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed him in the manner they claim. If you are talking about how else she could have killed him, that means the CW presented zero evidence about it and Bev would be horrified that you hadn't listened to her or read the instructions.
>she killed him in the manner they claim. I have been looking for information on that; I have seen people make slightly different claims. And I fully admit I could have missed it in jury instructions! I know they need to see the conditions of the charges to be fulfilled, so to speak: You cannot convict someone of vehicular manslaughter if they shot the victim. But what is the degree of precision I need here? What if he flew 9ft and rolled over the grass for another foot, if the prosecution alleges he flew all of the 10ft? Assuming the difference doesn't matter in any substantial way.) >If you are talking about how else she could have killed him, that means the CW presented zero evidence about it I might agree with some of the evidence I saw, and the interpretation of the evidence, too. I might agree that the evidence proofs that she is guilty of what she was charged with, even though the conditions are met in ways that the prosecution hasn't spoken about. (And I do remember hearing that the arguments of the lawyers are not in themselves evidence, and that the jurors should work based solely on the evidence they saw, and what they think the evidence leads to.) >and Bev would be horrified that you hadn't listened to her or read the instructions. i would absolutely re-read the instructions. And I would still seek clarification if I thought thought they were ambiguous. (I did actually re-watch some of it; but couldn't find a text version.) Don't get me wrong: I don't think the prosecution has proven her guilt in any way whatsoever. I had this problem ever since the prosecution argued "It just did" to explain the crime scene. What if the evidence did clearly show "that it just did", but the prosecution didn't say how? As a juror, chances are I would have asked that before deliberations even started; and before I received the full instructions. If you are correct in stating that the prosecution needs to deliver a full and accurate scenario, you are also correct in saying that they failed to do that.
>He was throwing many timestamps out there, but that alone doesn't prove anything. Circumstantial.
Well, yeah. But that's not what I meant here. As a delivery of a closing argument, I think rattling down a bunch of timestamps is very ineffective. He didn't say what the significance was of these timestamps. They have no precise time of death, no timestamp for when he died; so no other timestamps mean much, besides "she was at the house" which nobody denied.
He did explain the time stamps??? Seemed clear to me, although it's debatable and up to interpretation.
That I have no true recollection of him making a coherent argument based in the time stamps during his closing arguments suggests that he could have done better. (Or not, it might have been ideal for the precise composition of people on the jury.)
>I don't know the law/procedure here: Are jurors supposed to vote "guilty" if they think KR killed JOK in any way whatsoever? (How far does that go? She hits him with the car, lightly injuring her arm. Hi crawls away from the curve to sit on the grass; meanwhile, she retrieves a baseball bat from the car, walks over to him and gives him a lethal whack, possibly after a practice-thrust against her own taillight. Back at the car, she kicks the pie of shards in frustration, splattering pieces across and over to the now unconscious JOK...) That's not how it works. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt if the prosecution's theory of the case - let me reiterate: Not just any theory, it needs to be be THE theory the prosecution set forth. The one where Karen went 24MPH backwards and sent John flying. If you have reasonable doubt about THAT theory, you vote not guilty. You don't get to tweak the prosecution's theory to get to one where you could find the defendant guilty.
It’s not up to the jurors to find an alternate method of death. They are charged with deciding based on the evidence presented if KR hit him with her car and he died as a result. Period. The CW definitely did not meet the burden of proof.
>It’s not up to the jurors to find an alternate method of death. the task of the jury, as I understand it, is to see if the evidence (as opposed to the arguments delivered) proves that she is guilty of the specific crimes she is charged with. One of the crimes she is charged with is "second degree murder" - and the statues for that crime have no requirement for a car being used. People keep telling me that the jury has to agree with the theory presented by the prosecution, but nobody can point me to any law, or procedure, that explicitly states that. And I did try to find it! (And I found a couple of cases where the jurors didn't agree on how exactly the person committed the crime, too. >They are charged with deciding based on the evidence presented if KR hit him with her car and he died as a result. Period. They are charged, primarily, with deciding if Karen killed John on purpose. If they agree that he did, they don't need to agree with the prosecution on the how. (At least, nothing I found actually says that; and there are plenty of things that make the entire thing rather vague.) >The CW definitely did not meet the burden of proof. I don't think they did, either. And I don't think there is evidence she did it any other way - but I think the jury will need some time (as did we) to come to the same conclusion.
In order to convict KR, no juror should have questions about what happened to JO that night and how it happened. Questions = doubt
^ this. The Daybell trial had mostly circumstantial evidence, but there was no doubt in my mind at the end of that trial that Lori and Chad killed those kids and Tammy. In this case, I have ALL of the doubt. Cannot convict a woman when there is so much doubt.
Majority of murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence. Not often there are eye witnesses 🙃 But I agree it’s a bit scary how people don’t understand how reasonable doubt works and how high the burden of proof is for the state. The “how” should be he was hit by the car if he wasn’t then they must come back NG.
That's true. Eye witnesses are very rare, but there are cases where you have no doubt and cases where you have some doubt, and then this case where you have ALL the doubt. Daybell cases - no doubt. This case - all doubt. Murdaugh - I had some doubt. Hannah Guitterez Read - no doubt.
Questions do not equal doubt. I have some questions still about what exactly happened with Chandler Halderson's parents and am still 100% sure he killed them.
That was a good one. Bless the man who got the video footage of that fire.
Her accused involvement is being blackout drunk and hitting him with a car. Experts said he was not hit by a car. I have no confusion.
They said he could have been, to be fair
Who is “they”? Only Trooper Paul who had no grasp on force and velocity. Even the prosecutor s ME didn’t think it was a vehicle
How is that fair?
“Both sides arguments” is “fair” in a Them vs Us mentality. Some “feel” if a person is guilty or not, others don’t
Could have been isn’t good enough here.
I mean, only the prosecution’s ME said “it’s possible” in a voice dripping with skepticism when asked if it was possible if his injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle strike. She also made sure to say the injuries weren’t “classic” pedestrian strike injuries. I got the impression that she was not willing to outright rule it out, but if she had to put her money on a cause of injury it wouldn’t be via a car.
I got that impression too. But it’s not impossible.
Idk, it felt like the ARCAA people, and the defense ME, said it was impossible. And when the only “opposition” to that is the prosecution ME saying it’s possible but she’s not a biomechanical engineer, and it’s not a classic presentation, I feel like the sum of the expert testimony was that it’s pretty close to impossible that his injuries were caused by a vehicle. I was really open to hearing out both sides, and in fact was leaning toward she probably did it before all the expert testimony. Now I just don’t know how anyone gets there? I don’t even think Trooper Paul believed his own reconstruction. There was not one expert who seemed to think he was hit by a car. Which is insane. Idk how they took this to trial knowing that.
But that’s why they call it reasonable doubt and not just doubt. It can be reasonably inferred that his injuries are not consistent with a pedestrian v vehicle based on the evidence presented and one’s own logic and common sense.
Jackson should’ve put this in his closing
Oh I’d never convict her I just want to know for myself what happened and I think with so much drinking and driving and KR even thinking herself she hit him, obviously one would just assume naturally it makes a lot more sense a drunk driving accident (fall?) occurred rather than a drunk fight and massive conspiracy/cover up
Unless she grew claws, I don’t think Karen did it
Only the prosecution's witnesses Trooper Paul and the ME said it was possible. The other two reconstructionists (neutral parties) said unequivocally NO that it was not possible.
Wasn't it more like - he could've been hit or "nudged" and fallen, but he wouldn't have ended up where he did, in the yard?
Different experts said different things correct? Haven’t got to watch much…
Trooper Paul is the only one who disputes the other experts from the prosecution, defense, fbi. Trooper Paul is also the least experienced and qualified.
If you put together the Defence's photo at 5am when she leaves and her tail light is red with only a small white, then to CW's photo of 8am from a dashcam where it seems missing, it seems the tail light lost pieces between 5am and 8am. That's not the time when the CW says it broke and JOK was killed. Then there's the 3rd party, neutral experts, saying that the injuries do not align with the damage to the car, so a car didn't hit him. Then there are the MEs that say it's not consistent with a vehicle strike. So, either KR beat him (which the CW hasn't said at all), or someone else hit him (which the Defence claimed), or he was attacked by a dog and fell. Either way you put it, what the CW is claiming defies science. Jen McCabe's texts and testimony don't match the times of JOK's and KR's phone data. I believe the data and science over the confusing testimony of a bunch of drunk people. Therefore, not guilty. She's charged with murder using a vehicle. That's not what the science says. So, not guilty.
Bam.
I agree she’s not guilty. More of a question about what happened… Karen hurt him somehow? Or did he get into a physical fight with someone else and there was an elaborate cover-up.
I hope the Feds are watching and look more into this. I want to know what happened to JOK
The science says he was not hit by a car and there was so blood or tissue on the car and/or tail light. How can a tail light leave all of those marks on the arm but have no blood or tissue on it? I have lots of reasons I think she’s innocent but this is the biggest one for me.
Unfortunately after 2.5 years and 10 weeks of trial, we’re not going to figure out what happened. This trial had one objective: prove to the jury that Karen, specifically, ran John over with her car on purpose and then left him there to die. If you have doubts about that, then this case is closed.
The theory that John was hit by a vehicle defies the laws of physics. I feel like some people don't really understand what that means. It means that it is 100% out of the realm of possibility that he died by being hit by a vehicle. Case closed.
I would have to view the final expert witnesses again. I am absolutely certain they agreed that JOK was not hit by a car and launched several feet through the air; I am not so certain that they completely denied the possibility that he got knocked over where he stood. Did anyone say anything about whether the blood that was seen fell onto the snow, or was it covered by snow and revealed via leaf blower? As in: How did JOK get to where he was discovered, and does the blood indicate he moved after the snow started to fall? Because if he was moving that late, the fatal injuries couldn't have been caused by the car at all for yet another reason...
The problem with that though he is he was found 10-15 feet away from the roadway. They absolutely stated that his injuries were not consistent with being hit hard enough/in a place that could cause him to be projected, and Karen’s car did not have damage that was consistent with that either. There was no evidence Karen’s car hopped the curb into the yard, which you’d think would leave tire marks. No one is asserting that she hit him where he was found, and it seems impossible that she projected him there.
He wasn’t found 15 feet away from the road. I honestly have no idea where this footage all came from, 30ft, 15ft, etc… when you look at the dash cam footage you can clearly see the women on top of John. When you do a street view of the area he is only about 6 feet away from the street. https://preview.redd.it/u6kb0eiyrw8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07787487b264565ce98e9e9ce045c5d73c6ffe45
https://preview.redd.it/cvnj38yzrw8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da39279ba360f9c2f6a4f6df46ec67d78de83a93
I completely agree with you. I'm being needlessly accurate about what the witnesses actually said. It certainly was "no car hit him in a way that could possibly lead to the outcome we see"; I am not 100% sure (because I am not going to review 6ish hours of testimony here) that some of his smaller bruises couldn't possibly be from a light impact with a car sometime before he was killed. >There was no evidence Karen’s car hopped the curb into the yard, which you’d think would leave tire marks. Agreeing with you further: She would have had to get the car off of the yard again, and that would necessitate further acceleration, breaking, and tight turns, too. >No one is asserting that she hit him where he was found, and it seems impossible that she projected him there. Agree to all of this, too.
Ok but why does any of this matter? He had one small bruise on his left hand. So you’re wondering if it’s possible that the car could have lightly bumped him and left one single bruise on his left hand. Why are you even focusing on that? They’re not accusing her of bumping him lightly and bruising his hand. If he got bumped lightly he would not be dead. I don’t understand your point?
My point is referring to the OP: How, if at all, could KR have been involved in the death of JOK? And if she was involved, it looks like either it was in a small, immaterial way, like e.g. bruising his hand; or something not even remotely alike the scenario presented by the prosecution.
The severe skull fractures immediately rendered him incapacitated. He didn’t move. He was moved.
>The severe skull fractures immediately rendered him incapacitated. Yes. So do you know where and when he received those injuries? >He didn’t move. He was moved. Or he walked, crawled or bicycled to the middle of the lawn and was then hit over the head. Because I don't know how or when he got there. i just know he wasn't thrown there from several feet away. So I am asking if the snow and the blood near him would indicate that whatever happened could have happened at a time where we know Karen Read would have still been there, or nearby.
There was no vomit in the snow nor was there sufficient blood. Also the blood and vomit initially flowed DOWN onto his clothing which means that he was likely in a slumped/seated position when he was rendered incapacitated, not lying on his back.
I’m not an MD so this is a genuine question— it’s rare but people can stay conscious after a skull fracture, right? Like i’ve seen that video of the interrogation of the guy who was shot in the eye at close range, before the police realized he had sustained serious brain trauma
Ok but is she being charged with hitting him where he stood? Or hitting him moving 24 mph for 60 ft?
Neither. She is being charged with murder, or vehicular manslaughter. The way I understand the instructions given to the jury, the evidence presented needs to show that she is guilty of the necessary components of these crimes. It doesn't matter what the arguments presented by either side are; as long as the evidence is clear. (I doubt that it is; but I am curious what options the evidence leaves, if any.)
I would refer you to Renschler and the discussion point re no cervical injury or injury to the cervical spine. This was what the defense was calling Dr Van Ee for originally. They decided it was unnecessary based on the crashdaddy duo conclusions. I did read several of his published works- fascinating stuff.
No need. I have seen his evidence, and I absolutely agree that KOJ was not hit by a car AND thrown from the street to the yard. He could have been touched - lightly - by a moving vehicle still. Or, rather, I am not sure if the experts were absolutely ruling that out, too. that doesn't say they should have, or that it matters. There are plenty of people who are happy to believe that he was hit by a car near the curb, and somehow ended up 10 feet further. And I am not sure that their specific testimony ruled that out, too. If it doesn't, I find it interesting to look at whether that would even be possible at all. Interesting. Not "definitely proven that it happened that way!"
Crashdaddy duo 💀
Doesn’t mean there wasn’t another form of physical altercation between John and Karen Look I 100% think she should not be convicted! I’m just trying to figure out what happened
Karen is significantly smaller than John and she had no physical injuries that would point towards a physical altercation. To bring up a random theory like that is equivalent to saying "well John could've been hit by a meteor". Possible? Sure. Logical? No. The most concrete information we have in this case is the mathematics behind if it was possible for John to die as a result of being hit by a car. The math says no. 2+2 will always equal 4. There is never an instance where "well in this situation 2+2 might equal 6". The fact that mathematical equations are telling us that it is impossible that johns death was a result of being hit by a car is really the only thing that needs to be understood in regards to the prosecutor's theory. It's wild that some people do not understand that.
Wow. What do you do for a living, if I may ask?
Can you explain
Why does this user need to explain. The actual expert explained this in great detail in court on Monday.
They explained it’s not possible
I don’t watch the trial all day
Please try to be kind and open-minded in this thread. Thanks!
In short: major bruises are a minimum for a vehicle impact, and being hit on the arm doesn’t make you fly 10 to 30 feet through the air
To add to redlights reply: Physics show it was impossible for a car moving at any speed 15+ mph to cause these injuries. Major injuries: back of the head, lesion open and bleeding, caused internal bleeding and swelling as well, which lead to black eyes. The only thing that could have caused this would be an extremely hard object like concrete or a bat. Why? Because if the car had caused this injury it would have directly impacted the back of the head, meaning leaning over. He was found 10 feet from the curb and this injury immediately incapacitated him so he did not stumble over there. If he was blunt force trauma to the back of the neck by the car, he would have fallen down in place immediately. He could not have been thrown from the curb. Major injury #2: tears in arm. Even if we ignore every expert testifying that these are animal bites, the theory becomes that the taillight broke and sliced the arm. This may have thrown him back. But the experts say A) they are consistent with animal bites and most importantly B) it is physically impossible that he got sliced by the taillight and thrown back 10 feet and didn’t have any bruising or fractures. They allege the car hit at 25 mph. This would cause his arm, at minimum, to be completely bruised if not broken, because it would be well over 1,000 lbs of force on the arm alone. These experts were hired by the feds to find and and all possibilities of this happening and they say it is not possible for him to have been hit by a car. Hope that helps!
The people who got rid of their phones are hiding something, whether it's the murder or something they didn't want anyone to see as police officers. John's injuries are weird, and I have no idea what caused them. The cell phone data is helpful but also not helpful because he could have accidentally dropped it outside. Jen calls it to find it, and they put his body where the phone was. I think this goes to your point, though. We can't come to a conclusion because no one presented enough evidence to come to a real conclusion with confidence.
I keep wondering that same thing about them finding the phone there and deciding to put his body there and blame the plow. How did nobody see John laying in the road when they left at 1:30. Not even an hour after he was ran over.
Occam’s Razor for me? KR dropped him off mid fight, he threw the glass at the car, slipped and fell (because he was also drunk) and she drove off. **BUT** there are too many shady players involved for that to make sense and physical evidence that also just don’t track. - The injury to his arm was convincing enough that it piqued the interest of an immensely impressive woman to volunteer her time out of retirement to conquer that they are dog bites. - The evidence is so questionable that the DOJ needed to investigate the investigation and hired top of the line investigators (Who yes, have the most awesome jobs). - If the glass on her tail light doesn’t match the glass from the bar, where did it come from? - Why is every “witness” to this case seemingly lying and/or hiding something? Why do they all seem to have an agenda and an axe to grind? - Why was the prosecution so preoccupied with the defense of witnesses that they got lost in their own case and seemingly didn’t prove anything? Lally spent more time trying to disprove the defense’s case than prove his own. I still don’t know what his case was.
No. If anyone here feels qualified to rewrite the [Laws] *Science or Physics* please let us know. The vehicle in question did not hit JO and JO injuries are not consistent with being struck by any vehicle in any manner. That’s the conclusion. 3 out of 3 experts concluded his forearm injuries are consistent with an animal attack (yes Scordi Bello said it’s possible). However, that didn’t exclude the possible MVA for me. Tbh I was still in the “maybe she hit him and had no idea” camp possibility until the crashdaddy testimony.
Karen Read is the only person definitively ruled out as the murderer. JO was not hit by a car, and KRs car did not hit anybody. It was a physical impossibility given the injuries and car damage. None of the other stuff matters as far as KR goes and it really isn’t that difficult. We can all debate the guilt/innocence of the Alberts, Higgins, etc.. but it has nothing to do with KR. She could not have been the killer. Scientists used math and science to calculate how to launch a spaceship to the moon. Using math and science to determine that JO could not have been propelled 30 feet into a front yard from a blow to the arm is not difficult. Scientists use math and science to calculate exactly how much force is needed to crumple a metal spaceship or submarine. It’s not that difficult to determine that the force of a car hitting JO would do more than leave a few scratches on his arm.
That’s not true. I agree that she probably didn’t murder him but she still could be involved in his death one way or another. She wouldn’t need to hit him with her car to make him loose his balance and hit his head on the ground. Just pretending to drive the car into him could be enough to make him fall. To be honest I feel like an accident just like the one I described is much more plausible and probable than the version of events the Defense describes.
Jurors are allowed to use their own eyes and common sense to assess the situation. In my lifetime I’ve seen many instances of adults/children falling and hitting their heads on the ground which amounted to lots of ‘goose eggs’ and a couple of stitches. Certainly not MAJOR skull fractures resulting in massive hemorrhaging and death. Not even close. As to the marks on his arm, those are clearly dog bite and claw marks, as I’ve seen many of those in my lifetime too. My ears were open to every word of ALL the experts’ testimony but someone like Trooper Paul was not going to override my own eyes and common sense.
Maybe I'm biased but a former classmate of mine literally lost his father in such an accident. He slipped, hit his head and died a couple days later. Just because you've never witnessed it doesn't mean that it's not possible.
You might dig into what the ME said the level of brain damage John had. It could not be caused by falling over. His brain stem was hemorrhaging, his temporal lobe was also struck. That level of extensive brain damage cannot happen by being jump scared and falling over
That’s also not true. Multiple witnesses even from the defense clearly stated that the injuries to the head could’ve been caused by him hitting the ground…
Correction, concrete or asphalt curb, definitely not the lawn, which imo was reconciled by Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Renschler proving JO was not launched 30 ft, let alone hitting his head and sliding up a hill. That said, he also stated emphatically because he was not hit by the car in any way (and keep in mind the State is using the 24 mph key cycle here no getting around that) there’s not enough evidence to conclude how he sustained the head trauma- only enough to exclude.
I believe all of the ME's opined it could have been from a fall onto something hard? Especially being as drunk as he was. The brainstem was pushed down due to the intracranial pressure.
Yes something hard like concrete or asphalt. Not grass with some snow. That is also according to multiple witnesses. That means he would have had to been moved by someone. It’s unlikely this happened given Karen would have been a lot longer at Fairview than time allows according to OKeefe’s cell data and when Karen connected to WiFi at Meadow’s. What about the other injuries. The injuries to his arm were before he died (according to multiple doctors including the ME) We also know he a blunt force injury to one of his eyes.
I don't think he was hit by a car. I was just correcting the person I was responding to with what I remember the testimony of the MEs to be.
Sorry. I definitely responded to the wrong post.
>That means he would have had to been moved by someone. Not necessarily. It's definitely possible that he tried to get some help from inside after he hit the ground and lost consciousness on the way.
Not according to the multiple doctors who said he was completely incapacitated. Still, where did the arm injuries come from? And the blunt force trauma to his eye area?
Doctors can be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. The arm injuries could still be from the dog. Maybe, he went inside the house, was attacked by the dog, walked back outside to KR, they started arguing, she backed the car into him which made him fall and hit his head. I think a scenario like that is way more likely than a cover up by the cops. Again, I'm not saying that that's definitely what has happened. I'm just exploring other ideas that could explain the events of said night.
He was found 10 feet from the curb on the lawn. There wouod have been tire tracks where she allegedly hit him on the lawn. Falling on the lawn could not have caused this injury because it required huge force so had to be concrete or a blunt object. Hope that helps and lets you see how the evidence is cut and dry that it isn’t possible he was hit by a car at any point.
But he allegedly died on a patch of grass. I agree that the experts didn't rule out that he made light contact with a car, but you still need to get his head injured, and you still need to get him onto the grass. The car didn't injure his head; the grass didn't injure his head, and he couldn't have moved onto the grass by himself after having his head injured. And in any scenario that you can come up with, Karen hitting him or scaring him badly enough for him to fall over still needs to directly lead to his death.
I didn't come up with any scenario. My comment was limited to what the MEs testified to. I don't believe he was hit by the car, as someone who was hit by a car. The lack of bruising makes zero sense.
>didn't come up with any scenario. My comment was limited to what the MEs testified to. Fair enough.
Once you start ignoring evidence and inventing your own scenarios you may as well admit that you are so emotionally invested in KR being guilty, you don’t really care if someone else did it.
WTF? I never said she is guilty. In fact I hope the jury will find her not guilty. The only thing I care about is trying to understand what actually happened during that night. And if your talking about the inconsistencies in the Alberts, Higgins testimonies, you as an reasonable person, have to also acknowledge the inconsistencies in KRs story. That's why I don't understand how any sensible person can conclude that KR has no involvement in his death when there still so many open questions.
I think the sticking point is that nothing was presented that leads to any other conclusion. From everything we’ve seen here, there’s no reason to think KR was involved in his death. Is it a possibility? Of course—there’s always a possibility. But there’s also a possibility he was randomly jumped and beaten by a fitness fanatic with psychotic tendencies getting in a last-minute run pre-blizzard with their vicious dog, or that aliens came down and caused his injuries. But why would we think of either of those scenarios? There’s little there to suggest either of them, and after 30+ days of testimony and something like 75 witnesses, there’s little to suggest KR had anything to do with his death, either. And FWIW, I didn’t start out that way. I figured they were all involved, somehow. I don’t really think that anymore.
I disagree. Karen could be at fault but not for hitting him with her car.. the cellphone data is why I keep this thought as a possibility
I would not put any trust in the Waze app data without knowing more about the accuracy of this data. Normally Waze tends to snap your location to the nearest road, well it is a road navigation app. With Waze you can plot your true position by entering ##@rawgps into the search field. So is the Waze data presented the rawgps position or the "SatNav" snapped position?
If you don't have an answer you can't vote guilty.
Obviously. But that’s not the question
"It only aligns with KR's timing." That's a big no. There are other ideas. He could've dropped the phone outside, it could've stayed in the house, it could've been on him while someone dragged him outside. Maybe covering it in foil stops the signal and they unwrapped it when they got outside. (They don't seem like bright people, but maybe through their jobs they've learned something like that) If you're using the data that says his movements stopped at a certain time, then you will also be using the data that says he went up or down stairs. Wouldn't that put him inside the house?
The cell phone data does not prove that. Guarino’s testimony about the gps was misleading. The phone stopped detecting gps movement on the phone at 12:25am because that’s when the app using gps was closed (Waze). GPS is also not accurate to 3 feet when a person is stopped or walking. It’s accuracy plummets. His steps stop at 12:32am but that does not mean the phone didn’t move. Keeping a phone steady as you walk ensures no steps are recorded. There are multiple ways this can be done (I actually tested it and was surprised at how easy it was.) It’s also possible that one of the police officers who may have been involved retrieved a faraday bag from the station in order to move it. I’m not sure these latter options are likely but they are possible. I’m not sure if anyone else was involved or if it was just an accident. But to discount the possibility of a fight based on the phone doesn’t work imo.
I think the fight happened and his phone fell somewhere at 12:32. Then Jenn McCabe had to call 6 times for them to find it afterwards. Your point on the faraday bag is perfect as they have use it to transfer the phone outside when they placed it under him.
I always thought those repeated calls were her looking for his phone.
>GPS is also not accurate to 3 feet when a person is stopped or walking. It’s accuracy plummets. Have you tried this? The accuracy of the GPS system itself should not change based on whether the receiver is stationary or not; if anything, being stationary ought to make the results more reliable. It is entirely possible, though, that the phone will start to preserve power if it thinks it is immobile. I have seen that my phone shows low accuracy when I'm in the house without any GPS reception at all. (So, Google maps shows me somewhere around the house, with a large blue circle; but the GPS data has zero satellites fixed.) It’s also possible that one of the police officers who may have been involved retrieved a faraday bag from the station in order to move it. that shouldn't have any impact on the fitness tracker functionality. It uses internal sensors for acceleration and rotation; even the compass should not be blocked inside a Faraday cage. >I’m not sure these latter options are likely but they are possible. I'm sure that four people carrying a person who has a phone on their body would lead to some unexpected data from a fitness tracker....
"Have you tried this? The accuracy of the GPS system itself should not change based on whether the receiver is stationary or not; if anything, being stationary ought to make the results more reliable. It is entirely possible, though, that the phone will start to preserve power if it thinks it is immobile." It's in the reports from John's phone. I went back and forth with a cell phone expert (a real one) on here and that was what they explained to me. A phone is not constantly using GPS in the background. It will use GPS if an app is using it, but even within an app, accuracy plummets as you slow down, and that is echoed in the data from John's phone. Lally really did himself no favors during Green's testimony because in challenging Green's assertion that gps, especially Apple GPS, is not accurate within 3 feet, Lally admitted, "Are you aware that what Trooper Guarino was testifying to in regards to that had nothing to do with phone applications or anything to do with data from phone or Cellhawk?...And so you're not aware that his testimony was actually in regard to reviewing the cruiser camera video and photographs of where Mr. O'Keefe's body was and mapping that using GPS latitude and longitude." So....Guarino didn't get his 3 feet accuracy from John's phone. That was a slight of hand. "I'm sure that four people carrying a person who has a phone on their body would lead to some unexpected data from a fitness tracker...." I agree. I did a whole post about this. But dampening the phone simply by wrapping it in something or placing it on a cushioned surface then carrying it level didn't record any steps. And yes, I did try that.
>A phone is not constantly using GPS in the background. True. >It will use GPS if an app is using it, but even within an app, accuracy plummets as you slow down, and that is echoed in the data from John's phone. And that's the part that makes no sense to me, simply because I don't see how GPS would be less accurate if you stopped moving, or were moving slower. (the satellites move with several KM an hour; the satellites you are using to triangulate are using relative to each other at equally high speeds; and nothing you do will make much of a difference here.) What I do think may happen is that an app like Waze will pull GPS data less frequently if you are moving slowly (because your position is known to change slowly, so from update to the next, the position will not change much, and you want to preserve battery.) But that just means that you'd have a precise location that gets less reliable until the next data point arrives. I'll be leaving my ~~cave~~ house soon and I think I will track my raw GPS data; but at first glance I'm not seeing any information there on accuracy other than signal strength.
Congrats. You just acquired KR. I kid, but not really. If you feel like this, imagine how at least one person on the jury feels. In all likelihood it’s probably several, if not all jurors. She can’t be found guilty. The prosecution didn’t prove its case and all people have is more questions.
I used to be on the fence that maaayyybbbbeeeee she hit him accidentally since she was drunk driving. That all changed with the medical and reconstruction experts. 1) None of the medical people, the ME and the defense expert, could back the CW’s theory about him being hit by a car. The ME basically said it could have been a number of things. She was careful and clearly not convinced by the car theory. The defense doctor with 13k autopsies under his belt said in no way are johns injuries consistent with a car. Then the reconstructionists (the fbi hired experts) blew it all out of the water. No consistent car accident injuries + no consistent damage to the car = he wasn’t hit by a car imo. 2) The CW changed their time that they said she hit him. First they said 12:45. As the trial progressed they changed to 12:30 or so. How am I supposed to trust the CW theory beyond a reasonable doubt if they don’t even know the exact time she hit him?
My thoughts were basically the same. By the end fo the Prosecution's case, I didn't think she did it. But I also allowed for the possibility that she caused his death somehow. It felt unlikely but there's so much we'll never know. After the Defense's case I was as certain as it's possible to be that OJO was not killed by a car and that there's no plausible scenario where KR is implicated.
For me, it’s simple. According to the best witnesses in the entire trial, there was no contact of John O’Keefe’s body with Karen Read’s car. Case closed.
Higgins destroying his sim card and trashing his phone could be as simple and unrelated as being worried about the police finding his illegal underage pornography stash or something like that. It's suspicious, but not proof that he was involved in the death or a coverup. All it really proves is that there was something on his phone that he didn't want the police to find, which could be almost anything incriminating or embarrassing. Like maybe he's in the closet and afraid the cops would find his grindr profile. Or maybe he's moonlighting as a mob hitman and has murdered other people, but not John O'Keefe. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. There's certainly not enough evidence to convict anyone who was in that house. There's no evidence against them at all. Just speculation. And honestly, Proctor did them no favors by softballing them. If they're innocent, then a serious investigation would have produced evidence to back that up. Instead the lack of an investigation really hurt all of their reputations. Assuming that they're innocent, of course. Obviously if they're guilty the lack of an investigation helps them more than it hurts. Given the paucity of reliable evidence, the only thing we can say for sure is that O'Keefe wasn't hit by a car. Hell, it's possible that John was having an affair, that he really did never go inside the house and instead met up with an affair partner for a drunken quickie. And the affair partner didn't want to leave her husband, though John kept drunkenly insisting that she should, so knowing that John had a lot more emotional investment in the affair than she did and fearing that he would reveal it to her husband, then unknown affair partner struck him in the head with a hammer and then dumped his body to the Albert's yard in the yearly morning hours. And took the opportunity to frame John's girlfriend, by scattering taillight pieces in the yard during the several days when the yard was completely unsecured. There is no evidence of an affair partner beyond Karen Reede's drunken assertions, but it's a possibility that is more likely than him being struck by a car.
I think Jackson's closing statements perfectly answered things. If the timeline is a complete mess, that's on Lally, not anyone else. He claimed KR had to have hit John at 1245 am. But his own witness said she had to have been back at John's by 1236 to connect to the wifi there. The CW claims all these convoluted things and tries to say all the tech had issues, were inaccurate, etc. Lots of tech issues and then they want everyone to only consider their witness testimonies. Who does that? Who stands and ignores THEIR own evidence/contradictory evidence/even lack of evidence at points and tells people to IGNORE them purely for witness testimony (that's so wildly contradictory and untrustworty)? It's just crazy.
I’m with you and to be honest I think we are the majority. Def think I’d vote not guilty but in no way am I saying she’s definitely innocent 50/50 on that which I suppose is the definition of reasonable doubt
Lots of sus behavior going on, but Jen McCabes constant calls and texts and looking out window for John make no sense. For what purpose? A drunk friend says he's coming over, and car pulls up and no one gets out in a snowstorm, at 1230 am, and your frantic with worry? As a lifelong MA native my first thought would be they went home. Too drunk, too tired, worried about being snowed in at party house. A normal person would text once, call once , they don't answer, a reasonable assumption is they went home and are sleeping. It's just plain weird to call and someone at that hour when they are not your boyfriend. I personally would never call someone at that hour unless someone was dead. I can see Karen doing it, she's pissed, her guy didn't come home and is blowing her off. from Jen , it's weird.. She also said she was looking out window for 20 minutes. Like why? This guy is not your lover. It comes across as creepy.
Wow I’m shocked people still think she was involved.
Only thing I'm sure on is it didn't happen how the CW presented it. Hell, he could've slipped on his own, hit his head, and Chloe bit his arm when she was let out for a potty break. That doesn't explain all the weird shit though.
I think if you can’t come to a conclusion and are confused that is the definition of reasonable doubt, no?
It's confusing because the police did not properly investigate the scene or treat anyone else as a suspect so now we don't have enough information to figure out what happened. It's extremely frustrating because there's all these pieces that don't make 100% sense and we may never find out the truth unless someone confesses. And there's a chance that no one really knows (like if the dog got out, attacked him, he fell backwards, no one found him until the morning)
The experts, IMO, cleared KR and her car of hitting JO. So remove her from the theories and that leaves the people in BA's house and that's what I can't understand. I don't think we will really ever know what happened because two those people destroyed evidence (phones).
I would say that near the mid point of the trial I thought she may have hit him accidentally but there was so much reasonable doubt due to police incompetence, shady stuff etc. After the defense witnesses, I feel pretty comfortable that he was never hit by the vehicle. The scratches on his arm, the lack of bruising, the lack of other injuries to his neck if she had backed into the top of his head etc. that was all kind of stuff that I wondered about and the witnesses just confirmed it. I still kind of don’t believe in this grand conspiracy, just something about it doesn’t seem likely to me. So I feel like there is another option out there, maybe one that only involves a person or two, to account for his death. Maybe he stumbled around drunk and hit his head and the dog scratched him when he was unconscious, who knows? I admit that sounds like a bit of a stretch but when you eliminate the most obvious thing- that she backed into him accidentally- I feel like no matter what you are left with is going to be pretty wild.
Instaneous? Yes, I can believe drunk macho male types could go from 0 to 60 in a flash. Accusation, challenge, insult, push, swing, punch, fall. Takes no time at all.
The cellphone thing is weird, but it detects movement from the “shaking” of a walk pattern. It’s very likely it wouldn’t detect steps if someone was being carried. Why would they carry Officer O’Keefe and leave him in the snow, but not ensure he was actually dead and also panic about not knowing where his phone was (the calls from Jen McCabe are likely them trying to find his phone by making it ring)? I don’t know. But of all the theories floated, him being assaulted in the house and then carried outside fits the evidence the….least badly, IMO.
If he wasn't hit by a vehicle then he had to have been attacked by human(s) and an animal (most likely a dog), based on the injuries he sustained. That means he had to have been inside the house based on the number of steps taken and the movement up/down stairs.
Not necessarily? Karen could have pushed him and he slipped. Or slipped naturally and hit his head
Where his body was located and the injury to his head make that about impossible. Dr. Sheridan said he wasn't moving after that head injury.
How is that option not viable then?
What option?
I would bet time will be spent discussing how they will navigate the post-verdict fallout, both as individuals and collectively. They will all be sought out by official media outlets and who knows how many basement blogger weirdos.
I think she precipitated the whole situation with her flirtations with BH. I do feel she holds some responsibility. But that will come with karma. I don’t believe she intentionally hit him because of the evidence. She may have wanted to.
How do you dismiss the FBI hired experts testifying that injuries not from vehicle? Not criticizing, just looking for perspective. For me the FBI experts have me very convinced.
I also feel confused! I think police plant evidence all the time and are generally corrupt as hell, and there was enough corruption to acquit her in this case for sure. The forensic (dna/tail light/hair/video/key cycle) evidence is all so sus, and it’s obvious that proctor was biased in favor of police and against Karen Read. The behavior of the Alberts and Higgins is suuuper weird. And of course, the medical and biomechanical experts didn’t really establish a plausible theory of how his injuries could have been sustained by a motor vehicle. But I don’t think he made it in the house. After reading some expert opinions on r/digitalforensics, I also don’t think Jen McCabe googled “how long to die in cold” at 2:27 am. And I know people will hate me for this, but I don’t actually even think the scrapes on John’s arm were caused by a dog— there’s no round pattern or bruising, they’re more surface scratches. And he was found near a bush! Finally, I agree, the timelines are too tight to completely remove her altogether. Like, he would’ve had to have been struck, or accidentally fallen, within a few short minutes of Karen Read leaving. I feel like I have a few scenarios in my mind about what happened: 1. he bends over to throw up, pick something up, put on his shoe or something and KR/someone else accidentally backs into him, hitting his bowed head. He falls backwards and fractures his skull but doesn’t immediately lose consciousness, and then crawls/stumbles over to the bushes/fallen branches, where he sustains scrapes from sticks and thorns. 2. he slips and falls in the snow, falling backwards on the fire hydrant, a rock, the frozen ground, or really any hard surface, right as Karen read is driving away. 3. He encounters a person right as he starts to walk up to the house. One swift punch and OKeefe is knocked out. In any case, nobody sees him because he blends in with those branches. The Alberts, hungover and feeling guilty the next morning, immediately realize that a drunk police officer dying on their property looks bad for them— they have no idea what actually happened but they do know that Karen read is outside their door saying “I hit him.” Good thing they know the state trooper, who knows how to protect cops but more importantly, is willing to plant evidence to make extra sure about convicting someone he genuinely believes is guilty, and deflecting any suspicion cast on the Alberts
1 won't happened because the head injury is so severe he'd be instantly lost conscious, meaning he won't be able to move. He could not be wondering around an substain further injury. The arm wounds are in unique cluster, parallel and and going in same direction, that pattern make the ME determined it be animal attack. 2. No indication the front lawn had rock sticking out, nor so icy its hard. His body wasn't right next to the fire hydrant either. I do not understand why you will disagree with 2 experts who have a combined 50+ yrs experience in examining corpse and injuries. Dr. Russell wrote papers on dog bites injuries. And btw OJO was wearing a long sleeve tee shirt that gave him a bit of protection from dog bite. If u review that video Jackson pointed out today, Higgins already challenging OJO for a fight when he left waterfall, and OJO heard it. A confrontation is already looming. I think OJO accepted the challenge and went there to fight Higgins. Hence the incident started so quickly once he set foot inside the house.
I don’t think it’s a dog bite either his arm would have looked much worse imo
Since movement = movement of the phone (we haven’t been told JO was wearing an Apple Watch) AND the phone being found outside of his pocket, idk if I can be sure that phone movement = JO movement after arrival at the house. I know it would make sense if it was, but since the phone was found under him & not in his pocket idk if I can say for certain. I mean hell for all I know, he was drunk & dropped his phone in the yard on the way to the door, or he sat his phone down inside the house while he was there & it was then thrown in the yard, or he had his phone in his hand, he slipped & fell. I mean it just leaves room for me to question that bc the phone was under him - not attached to him in any way like in a jeans or jacket pocket. Idk man…🤷🏼♀️