My husband, the love of my life, is a Vietnam vet who honorably served in the Navy. Thank you, my darling hubby! We have been married for 52 wonderful years!!
Jurors are the only judge of the facts. The opinions of others are irrelevant. But smart people understand that the vehicle expert confirmed that he never bothered to look at the vehicle data. But he did confirm that Karen Read could not have cracked her taillight and dented her SUV from backing into John O'Keefe's vehicle.
If the police did there job properly there would be justice for John. But this infestegation is a botch job. Made up there mind before a proper infestegation
@@elainefoster9375that’s very unfortunate with your sister, but this is not this case. When you see the videos of her driving on the city cameras I don’t see her going erratically or endangering anyone around… and if her fault was to drive above the legal alcohol levels, that doesn’t makes her a murder and also everyone on the entire group that was driving for that night should be punished for the same charge
@@elainefoster9375 my father was killed by a drunk driver and mother never fully recovered from her injuries. John death was not due to a drunk driver. Do Not go there! I know your pain.
The more I watch trials and listen to lawyers commentary the more I think that trials are theatre and the lawyer who can speak better and who is most convincing and likable wins which doesnt feel like justice to me.
I respectfully disagree! The more trials I watch, the more surprised I am how well juries seem to be able to look past the theatrics. When the evidence is solid, and casework credible and clean, I have yet to see theatrics override that in the trials I have personally watched. Of course, people have different standards for what is reliable evidence. I guess mine is probably pretty high. Most trials end in convictions, because prosecutors are not supposed to take cases to trial when they don’t have solid, convincing evidence. Most cases plead out before trial. The ones that go to trial are the ones that have evidence that can be viewed in different ways, or have critical law that can be interpreted in different ways as a decisive component of the legal analysis. And then 12 random people get to decide what the facts are, and how the law should be interpreted which I think is very cool. The drama and the theatrics are part of being human. And sometimes they do help to get to the truth. If a witness is lying, drama and theatrics can help shape the truth loose in cross examination. Finally, drama and theatrics are meant to make it clear to the Jerry which points are important. When you have someone like ADA Lally, who has no drama or theatrics at all, just blistering, incessant sarcasm, and a lot of mumbling, it makes it really hard to hear the good points he’s making! Public speaking skills require some theatrics to keep people’s attention, it is just part of the profession which developed so people wouldn’t settle their disputes with fists or guns. The system not perfect, it doesn’t always get to the truth, but in my opinion, it is very good, because it often does. There is no perfect justice, but it helps us approximate justice as best we can in a lot of cases. Notice not all 12 jurors were wooed by some of the best operators in the country. If they were, Karen would be walking free with a not guilty right now! And I think this jury is going to stay hung personally.
I agree. Sometimes the flair or style of the lawyer convinces the jury more. These are things that happen on an unconscious level. I think that is part of what happened in the Casey Anthony trial. Biaz was bigger in his personal space. He commanded the room. He was relatively good-looking. He was just so confident. And I’m not saying the other lawyers were bad but they just didn’t have that special thing. So I do agree I mean, hopefully the evidence always tells the story, but sometimes, the lawyers technique really matters
Prosecutors: as a potential future juror, I have great disdain when some ambiguous comment is taken as a "confession". It literally makes me think the prosecution case is weak if they're trying this. It's total "I shot the clerk". *Assuming* she actually said it, what does it mean? I need to hear a recording because, guess what, spoken English changes meaning based on tone and stress. It could mean "I hit him!" or "I hit him?" Big whopping difference. They tried this crap in Murdaugh. Prosecution eventually convinced me he did it, but they tried to use "I did them real bad" or whatever the heck he said as a "confession". It wasn't clear exactly what he even said, but assuming he said exactly that, what does it even mean? Was he accidentally "confessing" or was he regretting what his drug use or embezzling did to his family? Or did it mean something else entirely? Yeah, a prosecution adding in this crap means to me they think the jurors are stupid.
@@karinaz8756 What's so ridiculous is how many ways word stress alone can change a meaning. It's more clear with "I shot the clerk", so: As a statement: *I* shot the clerk -> Not someone else I SHOT the clerk -> used a gun I shot THE clerk -> only one clerk there I shot the CLERK -> only shot the clerk, nobody else As a question: *I* shot the clerk? -> you're saying I did it? I SHOT the clerk? -> I punched him, didn't shoot him I shot THE clerk? -> there were 2 clerks I shot I shot the CLERK? -> I thought I shot the shoplifter, not the clerk That's 8 possible meanings. And that's not them all. Sarcastic: "I shot the clerk? (Oh please)"
I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me they could’ve gone with the botched investigation instead of the conspiracy and still created enough reasonable doubt, but who knows ..maybe they thought it safer to pull on the “dissatisfied with govt” string?
@@georgewashington3555 They were intimidating, not other explanations. But don’t worry a hung jury it’s also good for Karen. Half of the witness would’ve arrested impossible to re trial.
Don’t understand how Al said that he had sympathy for Proctor because he was emotional over losing a fellow officer.. he was basically saying his behaviour was forgivable! It’s that kind of attitude that breeds Proctors!
No. He absolutely did NOT state OR infer that it was a forgivable action. He was explaining that Proctor was human, therefore prone to the many flaws and reactive emotions of human beings. The levels of circular reasoning/inductive fallacy happening with this case is just wild.
@@Liss484 it’s okay to disagree, 🫶I don’t even agree with my best and dearest friend 100% of the time on 100% of things, but we still can exchange thoughts and respect each other’s feelings on things. I do wish that the people who go in law enforcement would hold *themselves* to a higher standard…as opposed to the bad decisions/behavior we see in this genre.
Painful to listen to this. Doing myself a favor and jumping off now. Little insight guys, if this is a hung jury and they try it again it certainly does not favor the CW. If you watched the trial and knew the site you’d know that. Pay attention to the polling. The people here in MA now what happened. It’s not hard to figure out.
Most only watch to see Vinnie not hear him. They often get many simple facts wrong which is disheartening. If you want a good channel "lawyer you know" does great with this trial and it's not overly lawyery.
Well I was wrong… I vote guilty… however I really thought jurors would Aquit or Not Guilty for the unfortunate fact that they couldn’t proof without a reasonable doubt (in my opinion)
I almost forgot! 🕶😎 Jonesey..great idea to add a segment after Al’s for on this week for anything music or corny history. LOVE that idea. Name it something unique, ‘exemplum virtutis’ …encapsulating any and all tangents history, music, movies, legal, etc. We are here for it all ❤❤❤ great idea!
My brother got hit by a car going 20 and shattered his leg in so many spots. He was full of road rash and black and blues. You cannot seriously have a brain if you think that 6k pound suv hit him. Dont have a clue what happened but can see his injuries to know it wasn't from a car
It’s driving me wild that people don’t know this. It seems to basic to me and just based on his injuries and simple physics it couldn’t have happened from Karen’s car. It’s wild that we’ve heard from engineers hired by the feds who can confidently say this was not Karen and people still aren’t convinced. I’m really so sorry your brother went through that, I hope he is ok now and no long term issues.
I am so angry about that, it is misleading. Courttv is apparently referencing trooper proctor instead of the actual experts from the FBI crash daddy Dr Wolfe and Dr Rischler
I was on inv manslaughter jury-hung. 2 NG 10 G. Man kicked 100 # log off cliff onto public beach & land on girl’s head. I called DA, gave my jury notes. They retried, G verdict, DA called me said they used my notes for their closing argument.
As a juror you called the DA and gave them your notes? How exactly did you give them your notes? That is against the law, you should not be in possession of your jury notes.
Vinny, you know if they hang that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s another trial. In fact, one could argue it’s not likely for there to be another trial. Everyone knows this thing was a joke. Why would you say that. That’s why so many people commenting are so misinformed because they hear things like that. You have a responsibility to be better. Court TV has a responsibility to be better than they have been. Come on.
My sister was killed by a drunk woman who got away with it. She hit my sister while walking and left her to die and she got away with. Come on people karen did it. You want drunk karen in your neighborhood
Love you guys! As Yanetti said in the very early press conference "this was not intentional". It is sad that this has become the circus it is instead of one histrionic jealous out-of-control person not willing to accept responsibility and paying the consequences. Better to engage the media and pay obscene legal fees.
~42 minutes into Brian Albert’s full testimony in the Karen Read trial from CBS Boston: Adam Lally asked him about the gate to the woods in the back of the property where the railroad track is. Why? Was he suggesting that John’s body could have been moved out the back and left there instead of out the front gate by the flagpole, the way the defense suggested? Both of these notions are wrong, in my opinion. Nobody talks about the third gate, next to the garage and driveway, where the Ford Edge was parked. It exists. I can see it on Zillow. I can see the hinges and the latch. There is a gate right at the top of the drive where I believe John vanished to pee when the dog was in the backyard. Nobody showed that third gate in pictures in court, and nobody talked about it. It is as if they didn’t want the jury to know it’s there. Nobody dragged a 200+ lb man across great expanses of yard. John was extremely intoxicated, 0.23% alcohol in vitreous fluid. I think he slipped on pool cement and cracked his head right behind that gate by the garage. I think he was found dead, and somebody put him in the Ford Edge and drove him to the property line at about 3:30 am to make it look like a plow accident. Leaving his body in the woods behind their property would have launched a huge investigation they didn’t want. Why is Lally asking Albert about the train schedules and the noise? Does he think John was yelling for help outside and the train drowned out the sound? If you need train schedules, maybe don’t ask the homeowner. 41:17 Lally: What abuts the back of the property? BA: Behind the back fence, there’s a railroad track, I believe it’s a commuter rail, behind the fence Lally: Is there any way to open the back of the fence to get to any wooded area? BA: Yes there’s a gate back there….. Lally: You mentioned the train tracks … how often do trains go by on Fairview Rd? BA: depends, 5-6 times a day Lally: how loud is it? Among other things, Brian Albert says the dog was outside for 2-3 minutes, then in the kitchen for a few minutes, then went upstairs and never went out again that night. It is not clear exactly when he let Chloe outside. He said “At some point”. It’s possible that Chloe found John already on the ground at 12:24 am or 12:32 am and tried to rouse him. It’s also possible that Chloe attacked who she perceived to be an intruder in her yard at 12:22 am and that she caused John’s fall or falls. Brian Albert said he took Brian Higgins upstairs for a few minutes to show Higgins photos and plaques in his son Jack’s room. He said Higgins left the party first at around 1:30 am and that he never saw where Higgins was parked. As I recall, Higgins testified he didn’t go upstairs or downstairs. Going up and down steps after the dog was out may be the elevation change registered on John’s phone. John’s phone could have been moving at 12:32 am, not John himself. It’s possible that one or two of them were able to hide what happened in the backyard from most of the people who were there. I doubt anyone hurt John on purpose, but it’s possible. They moved his body because they didn’t want an investigation. If they truly found him and his phone at 12:32 am, it is very odd they were confident he was dead and didn’t call 911. There is no evidence a vehicle hit the victim. There is no definitive evidence the victim was assaulted. There is evidence an animal, probably a large dog, attacked the victim before death, and there is no evidence a dog was in the front yard while the victim was alive. There is lots of evidence of corruption and a cover-up. The sally port video was intentionally altered because the video was reversed but the time-stamp was not. Too many butt dials and destruction of phones. Lots of evidence the victim had an alcohol problem. The defendant is unlikeable. That isn’t the same as guilty. And there is a real risk one or more jurors felt threatened.
Vinney even in deliberations they have not had full days. They have had about 20hrs by Friday, so your your theorem would be off. They only at 18 hrs and they do 7hrs a full day. Tuesday they only had 3 hrs they started after lunch. So Monday mid day would be the 4th day. I hope not guilty, but now i am thinking hung jury.
John was stepping out of the passenger seat with right arm and leg out. She moves car forward while he's stepping out, hits car frame of car. He falls and hits the ground, she moves car up and back again, as he gets up and she side swiped his body as he gets pushed to grass area. She moves car again and takes off mad. Explains the injuries.
Defense Strategy was ALWAYS get a Hung Jury. Her statements ON TAPE boxed in her Defense team strategy. They had to accept that John O'Keefe's death was AT THE HANDS of someone. They could not argue it may have been an accident that happened after she left. They had to go with her narrative. That has now essentially made the jury decide not on the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that they should use but rather a binary decision of who did it, Karen or cops. Since we did not get a 12 vote not guilty on the first full day of deliberation, I expect it will be a hung jury. Why? Because the Defense Team worked VERY hard over 4 days of jury selection. They knew that is where they needed to put the work in. They needed to find people that could believe, Lally's description not mine, fanciful theories of how the crime was committed. They needed people that would be angry at one individual enough to let a guilty person go free (it is called the Furman effect, for Mark Furman the LA detective that the defense team was able to convince a jury planted evidence in the OJ Simpson trial). They needed to find people that don't trust or maybe even hate law enforcement and the government. I think they have at least a few defense friendly jurors in the jury box. It was their job. They did it well. The problem for me is two fold: no justice for John and his family and the "in real time" viewing of our country turning into something that scares me a lot, many people willing to believe that a huge conspiracy occurred to convict a woman that was innocent instead of the more likely possibility that while drunk, she hit her boyfriend with her car and left him to freeze in the snow. This goes into something much deeper regarding social media today and how intelligent people can be manipulated into believing something that should not be believable in a normal society.
Oh com'on, There's more likely violence inside or outside the courtroom against Karen, than general violence outside from the crowd. That is, barring instigators trying to start problems
Nah Wunsch…he wasn’t upset! “Forget the filthy language” He already knew the true story from the time he got on scene. Those messages were after he already made up his mind that she did it without all of the evidence! Law enforcement is Disgrace in MA!
If the defense think their client is so NOT guilty, why would they want a hung jury??? The have to think everyone is voting not guilty, but I don't think so. I think Karen is guilty of all the lesser charges. DNA does not lie. She was the last one with John, her car has the damage regardless of all the ways people think it occurred. She was drinking heavily. She was arguing with him. She only slept a couple of hours and went out searching for him. She then called Jen and Kerry and knew exactly where his snow covered body was. End of story.
@@bonniemccrane6417 He threw the glass at the tail light, and she backed up fast which could have bumped him or caused him to back up and fall. Why would all these people want to make up a conspiracy?? What motive and no proof of a fight.
@@MichbeachloverTheir motive does not matter. It doesn’t have to be some huge conspiracy which does happen too but it’s literally a few people that have power and a very close connection in Proctor. The evidence proves that it is impossible that Karen hit John or that any car did. Anybody with medical knowledge such as myself knows this was definitely not damage caused from a car. All of those skull fractures are consistent with a beating and that large gash in the back of John’s head that caused another huge fracture was the final blow possibly also from a fall onto something very hard not grass. The bruise on the back of John’s hand looks like self defence, though he didn’t stand a chance whatever happened, happened so quickly. That bruise is the result of being hit by something smaller, in a concentrated area of the back of his hand not consistent with any part of a car imo. I also don’t think it is possible he was half out the car when this happened as his body from the neck down has no bruising or other injuries, and this also would not have caused multiple skull fractures. There is a lot of proof a fight was the cause. The ME said it was more likely Johns injuries were from being punched over a car hitting him. The CW’s own ME said Johns injuries are not typical of being hit by a car. Aligns exactly to all the defences experts. Also do you think the FBI hired engineers are lying for Karen? The CW had the option to put them on the stand but they strongly disagree with their theory. This is unheard of that these experts would be used for the defence.
The motive certainly matters. The medical examiner did not say they were caused from a beating or fight. I do have medical knowledge and investigated claims for a living for a long time. Although the investigation was not perfect and Proctor with his own personal feelings of Karen. The personal feelings have nothing to do with the actual case. There was no DNA from Proctor or other troopers. However, there was DNA from John. They also said that John threw the glass at Karen's tail light. Karen also backed up a a fast rate of speed 24mph in the snow and 62 feet. John is 6'3-4" and 200lbs and in shape. He was also intoxicated. Most drunk people do not get injured in MVA's because they are limber, but the sober person does because of bracing for impact. He could have just been bumped enough, no damage to the car or John and he went flying and hit the ground. Reminder, it was only 18 degrees out and the ground is frozen. Go fall on frozen ground and see if you can get cut. You most certainly will and might not know it because it is cold. Once thawed the blood and bruises come out. If I was a juror, I would vote guilty on all the lesser charges. She did not commit murder, but she did incapacitate him and he died in the cold covered in snow. The medical examiner also did not say there was any pulverizing, beating, or a defensive wound on the back of his hand. On cross there was an opening to get all the fighting knowledge out and prove it was that. Karen was arguing with John all day, drove drunk, backed up fast and had the dna on her car. That is the only evidence that has been shown.
@@bonniemccrane6417 I heard their testimony and I heard those of the other witnesses as well. The FBI engineers did not rule out a bump to John to cause him to fly or land to the ground. John is also 6'3-4" tall, 200 lbs and in good shape. He was intoxicated himself and usually the drunk people in MVA's do not get impact injuries because they are limber compared to a sober person. Also the weather was snow and only 18 degrees. Go fall on a frozen ground at 18degrees and see if you don't get a scrape, or cut and if you hit your head a injury. Those injuries happen from force and they also said that John threw his glass at the tail light that caused it to break. They were arguing just as he got out of the car and had been since morning. Karen was mad, backed 24mph in the snow 62 feet with the gas pedal 75% down. If I was a juror Karen is guilty of all the lesser charges because of DNA but not murder.
I live in Florida now but lived in Foxboro ma my whole life the police departments in ma including the state police are well known as being corrupt. The jurors are smart and probably know they will be targeted by the police if they say not guilty. Hung jury keeps them safe
Unfortunately, I think you might be right. The real culprits had the nerve to show up during closing arguments. They came to intimate and apparently, it worked.
@roxannefrenandes9749- I have to disagree with you. Defense Strategy was ALWAYS get a Hung Jury. Her statements ON TAPE boxed in her Defense team strategy. They had to accept that John O'Keefe's death was AT THE HANDS of someone. They could not argue it may have been an accident that happened after she left. They had to go with her narrative. That has now essentially made the jury decide not on the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that they should use but rather a binary decision of who did it, Karen or cops. Since we did not get a 12 vote not guilty on the first full day of deliberation, I expect it will be a hung jury. Why? Because the Defense Team worked VERY hard over 4 days of jury selection. They knew that is where they needed to put the work in. They needed to find people that could believe, Lally's description not mine, fanciful theories of how the crime was committed. They needed people that would be angry at one individual enough to let a guilty person go free (it is called the Furman effect, for Mark Furman the LA detective that the defense team was able to convince a jury planted evidence in the OJ Simpson trial). They needed to find people that don't trust or maybe even hate law enforcement and the government. I think they have at least a few defense friendly jurors in the jury box. It was their job. They did it well. The problem for me is two fold: no justice for John and his family and the "in real time" viewing of our country turning into something that scares me a lot, many people willing to believe that a huge conspiracy occurred to convict a woman that was innocent instead of the more likely possibility that while drunk, she hit her boyfriend with her car and left him to freeze in the snow. This goes into something much deeper regarding social media today and how intelligent people can be manipulated into believing something that should not be believable in a normal society.
Well they are not smart because it would be a hung jury and I don’t think this will be retrial because some witnesses are probably going to have charges and won’t be available to testify. See sometimes live gives you a curb ball, like Forrest Gum said.
I saw that. That family sat there in the courtroom sitting directly across from the jury. Why that spot? Why there? The way they've been involved in this case? It wouldn't be out of the question that it was a deliberate choice.
@kellylove5517 Hi Kelly. What you are suggesting should never happen. I completely disagree with you and believe Ms Read is as guilty as one can be, *but* I am not about to take part in all H. E. L. L. breaking loose, as you call it. I may not agree, but I will accept that is the ruling of this jury and thank them for working through their *obvious* struggles and effort to come to a decision. To not be able to accept whatever the verdict is, shows the aggressiveness, the immaturity, the lack of restraint and how shameful some Karen fan’s exhibit their feelings and behavior. It’s as though they have been infected with *mob mentality* and literally feed off the bad energy from one another.
What woman? You talking about Jen McCabe? That witness??? You believe what she comes from her mouth? After the google search at 2:27 ? What a coincidence that Karen told her at 6:23 to do the same search that she did at 2:27 isn’t the most amazing coincidence???
@GenXGranny I'm glad someone else got it too 😅😁. Ong yes the man hands episode!! 😅. I love the tangents. I only discovered them recently and I just love their personalities . Such funny charming men.
@@Victoria12339 😂 the comment section might’ve blown up if it was the man hands reference! Lol. I used to have that poster of George Costanza posing on the chaise lounge in my garage (it just cracked me up every time) so glad you found us! Tangent Fridays are the best 💞
Vinnie what's wrong with that brother on the Murray case does he think he's going to a beauty show why is he constantly smelling his fingers out fixing his hair ? He's annoying terribly badly annoying
Fridays are always the 3 gentlemen’s “Tangent podcast”. We were lucky to have an extended show because of the verdict watch. I hope you will give the Tangent Podcast a chance after the trial…True crime/current case conversation with various tangents of talk on life, history, food, music, entertainment, fun, etc. (Usually on Friday afternoons, EST) Thanks for stopping by 💞
I don't understand how the judge can force them to go back to deliberate if the jury cannot make a unanimous decision? IMO the jury did their best and they need to be released from duty. Bev is essentially holding them hostage after they have already said they are a hung jury.
It has nothing to do with this Judge. It is extremely common that the presiding Judge over any trial, especially one that has been lengthy and a defendant is charged in a death, to send the jury back in to try to come to a unanimous decision when at first they say they can’t. They have sat through an entire ‘expensive’ trial being entrusted to do a job, not just so they can personal front row seats to watch. The Judge and both prosecution and defense councils have worked hard doing their jobs and now they each expect this jury to work just as hard to come to a decision. They said they could be the finder of facts and that should not be entered into lightly. As tough as that may seem, that’s what it comes down to. Although sometimes a hung jury is inevitable, it also happens that the jury does returns later with a unanimous verdict. This was disappointing, but not at all uncommon - some folks just got to gripe about anything....
@@snowwhite2524 CW, includes Judge Auntie Bev, needs Guilty verdict on something to justify bringing original charges. Remember they are under federal investigation.
So frustrating... The jurors didn't have to even consider whether there was a conspiracy or not. They just have to go by the science, and I can't imagine that any one of those 12 jurors would pick that idiot trooper Paul over the defense's last two experts. I'm worried that AJ wasn't clear enough about that in his closing. ETA: For those who believe Karen hit him with the car, intentional or not, how do they explain the shattering of the tail light and it scattering everywhere through time and space? Do they not believe in the basic laws of physics? I just can't get over that. I don't understand it.
Albert rambles too much. I can’t watch the live, need replay so I can ffwd Al - though I appreciate his take when he does finally come around to it, I LOVE LOVE Lore Lodges history lessons on his crime tubes, but with Albert my mind wanders.
You dont have to believe that to find her not guilty. The math and science from an independent party says he was not struck by the SUV. Not physically possible. Maybe he slipped and fell in the yard. idk. CW did not prove this. They have no chain of custody for anything except the glass. you must acquit IMO
hello from 🇨🇦……..at least the jury is taking their time to come to an innocent verdict!!! Free KR, and then start arresting the REAL criminals, yes, more than 1. Starting with the Albertsons!!! The house hold where it all happened.
Another Canuck here, who totally disagrees, lol. I think Ms Read is guilty as sin and I guess this showcases exactly what these jury members are dealing with and going through right now. Should they arrest and charge Chloe for her role too, coz let’s face it, I’ve heard as many accusations thrown at her as any other name that the Karen fan base has tossed out and believe have colluded in this massive conspiracy against her? I read someone’s comment last night that offered some levity on this case and that was, Karen fan’s are even looking a suspicious eye at Oscar the Grouch, because they now believe he hid pertinent evidence in his garbage can!! Can’t trust those Sesame Street muppets!! (thanks to whoever wrote that comment! ☺️)
The injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car nor are they consistent with being beat up nor are those injuries on his arm consistent with a dog bite-2 paralel straight lines next to each other that are shallow, inconsistent depths not consistent with dogs teeth, marks are only on one side of arm further it is on the side of the arm that would be protected-I mean inside of upper arm and not outside the arm which would be difficult to get those injuries there. Yes, I disagree with the 'experts' probably because I am one of them. 70 year old PhD+ female (monk icon and name I am Franciscan) with 40 years experience investigating suspicious deaths and injuries on a state and federal levels and as a former prof, I know exactly how the academic 'experts' work. Cause of death-blunt injury on back of the head, subdural hematoma causes most the injuries including bruises and fractured eye sockets. Then he is knocked out so unable to call for help he dies of hypothermia. Here, is what I think happened which is consistent with all the injuries and incorporates all the evidence including DNA on the car. Let's face it both these people were extremely drunk and drunks that are fighting are very loud. John gets out of the SUV and is so drunk that he does not wear a coat or jacket in 28° weather. He walks towards the back right of the car slips and falls on the ice and hits the back of his head on the protruding headlight and bumper. His phone is in his hand and flies. He falls backwards and hits the exact spot on the back of the head-base of skull-to cause that subdural hematoma and knocks him out. Karen feels and maybe hears a thud which is why she questioned whether she hit him and made 53 angry phone calls in a space of a couple of hours. Just like that blunt force trauma could have happened if he fell and hit something in the house, it is more probable that it happened outside at the back of the car. A 220 lb man at 6' would fall very hard. She did not hit him with the SUV, he hit the SUV which is an entirely different matter. Had he not been knocked out even with Karen as drunk as she was would certainly would have responded if she heard moaning and he had been knocked out. And the nagging feeling in the back of her mind explains all the angry phone calls and the later need to check on him. The issue that is not addressed by any of the 'experts' (and again I know exactly how college experts act and how they do their research-the grad students do most of it and they put their name to it) is the fact that being drunk impacts whether the body has injuries or not. I have seen people roll a truck a couple of times, hit trees, end up upsidedown, crash gated and come out with minor injuries when they are drunk. Ask any insurance adjuster and they will tell you this. Further, had a car wreck here on 12/9 and still having pieces of tail lights show up on my driveway that we're not there before. And doubt anyone is planting them. Furthereven the noise of 2 drunks arguing loudly outside the house could be heard by the people in the house and when John does not come in, they look outside and think they might see something but don't go outside to check-the research showing a group of people will not act-call 911-when they don't see anyone else do so goes back to the documentation of Kitty Genoves who was raped and murdered while the crowd watched on and does nothing. Finally look up how long it takes to die by hypothermia and results only apply to someone who is sober. So they dither around and never make the call or check outside (no footprints in the snow). Those are not dog bites but even despite the location, depth, patterns that indicate they are not are ignored and claim that they are, no dog/german shepherd flies thru the air. DNA would be all over the shirt especially if he bites the underarm which is well protected. It is inconceivable that 30+ people who do not know each other and don't even live in the same area conspired together to frame Karen Read especially given her status as a college prof. In small college towns, professors have a boatload of power. They are courted by other officials in the town, lots of objections if a college prof was 'framed' as is evidence in this case. So my conclusion is freak accident with drunk John slipping on the ice, falling backwards and hitting the back of the car on the protruding bumper and tail light and being knocked unconscious. No one called 911 because altho they had a nagging suspicion that he might be injured, they did not know and the behavior of everyone after the fact including Karen and everyone else is to 'cover up' for the fact that no one called 911. Freak accident followed by 'comedy of errors'. Karen should never have been charged and there is no beating to be covered up by 30 people. Still can't figure out the underarm injuries, but definitely not an animal with paws as there would be more than two parallel scratches and various depth wounds. End of story.
My husband, the love of my life, is a Vietnam vet who honorably served in the Navy. Thank you, my darling hubby! We have been married for 52 wonderful years!!
Sent out again?
@@JulianaDeLange-zy1ng 😂😂😂
Happiest of Anniversaries
Salute to your husband for his service and CONGRATULATIONS on 52 wonderful years!!! Regards, @legalweapon3
My parents have been married 56 years and my mom is DONE!
Defense doesnt have to prove anything, especially beyond a reasonable doubt.
Vinnie I continue to go back to the accident reconstruction experts and their confidence...reasonable doubt here.
Jurors are the only judge of the facts. The opinions of others are irrelevant. But smart people understand that the vehicle expert confirmed that he never bothered to look at the vehicle data. But he did confirm that Karen Read could not have cracked her taillight and dented her SUV from backing into John O'Keefe's vehicle.
If the police did there job properly there would be justice for John. But this infestegation is a botch job. Made up there mind before a proper infestegation
The defense does not need to prove who did it and if the jury don’t know then according to the jury instructions they have to find her not guilty.
If the judge doesn’t want to judge the case then why the hell didn’t she excuse herself in the first place?
You're a master at directing conversation to relevance.
She is not guilty!! I could write a book on the horrors of my jury duty experience!!
Yeah my sister was killed by drunk driver. You this drunk killer riding around your neighborhood. Karma is always around the corner
@@elainefoster9375that’s very unfortunate with your sister, but this is not this case. When you see the videos of her driving on the city cameras I don’t see her going erratically or endangering anyone around… and if her fault was to drive above the legal alcohol levels, that doesn’t makes her a murder and also everyone on the entire group that was driving for that night should be punished for the same charge
@@elainefoster9375 my father was killed by a drunk driver and mother never fully recovered from her injuries. John death was not due to a drunk driver. Do Not go there! I know your pain.
The more I watch trials and listen to lawyers commentary the more I think that trials are theatre and the lawyer who can speak better and who is most convincing and likable wins which doesnt feel like justice to me.
I respectfully disagree! The more trials I watch, the more surprised I am how well juries seem to be able to look past the theatrics. When the evidence is solid, and casework credible and clean, I have yet to see theatrics override that in the trials I have personally watched. Of course, people have different standards for what is reliable evidence. I guess mine is probably pretty high. Most trials end in convictions, because prosecutors are not supposed to take cases to trial when they don’t have solid, convincing evidence. Most cases plead out before trial. The ones that go to trial are the ones that have evidence that can be viewed in different ways, or have critical law that can be interpreted in different ways as a decisive component of the legal analysis. And then 12 random people get to decide what the facts are, and how the law should be interpreted which I think is very cool. The drama and the theatrics are part of being human. And sometimes they do help to get to the truth. If a witness is lying, drama and theatrics can help shape the truth loose in cross examination. Finally, drama and theatrics are meant to make it clear to the Jerry which points are important. When you have someone like ADA Lally, who has no drama or theatrics at all, just blistering, incessant sarcasm, and a lot of mumbling, it makes it really hard to hear the good points he’s making! Public speaking skills require some theatrics to keep people’s attention, it is just part of the profession which developed so people wouldn’t settle their disputes with fists or guns. The system not perfect, it doesn’t always get to the truth, but in my opinion, it is very good, because it often does. There is no perfect justice, but it helps us approximate justice as best we can in a lot of cases. Notice not all 12 jurors were wooed by some of the best operators in the country. If they were, Karen would be walking free with a not guilty right now! And I think this jury is going to stay hung personally.
I agree. Sometimes the flair or style of the lawyer convinces the jury more. These are things that happen on an unconscious level. I think that is part of what happened in the Casey Anthony trial. Biaz was bigger in his personal space. He commanded the room. He was relatively good-looking. He was just so confident. And I’m not saying the other lawyers were bad but they just didn’t have that special thing. So I do agree I mean, hopefully the evidence always tells the story, but sometimes, the lawyers technique really matters
Prosecutors: as a potential future juror, I have great disdain when some ambiguous comment is taken as a "confession". It literally makes me think the prosecution case is weak if they're trying this.
It's total "I shot the clerk". *Assuming* she actually said it, what does it mean? I need to hear a recording because, guess what, spoken English changes meaning based on tone and stress.
It could mean "I hit him!" or "I hit him?" Big whopping difference.
They tried this crap in Murdaugh. Prosecution eventually convinced me he did it, but they tried to use "I did them real bad" or whatever the heck he said as a "confession". It wasn't clear exactly what he even said, but assuming he said exactly that, what does it even mean?
Was he accidentally "confessing" or was he regretting what his drug use or embezzling did to his family? Or did it mean something else entirely?
Yeah, a prosecution adding in this crap means to me they think the jurors are stupid.
This is there entire case and the words didn’t make it into a police report. The words of a frantic scared drunk woman are not a confession
@@karinaz8756 What's so ridiculous is how many ways word stress alone can change a meaning. It's more clear with "I shot the clerk", so:
As a statement:
*I* shot the clerk -> Not someone else
I SHOT the clerk -> used a gun
I shot THE clerk -> only one clerk there
I shot the CLERK -> only shot the clerk, nobody else
As a question:
*I* shot the clerk? -> you're saying I did it?
I SHOT the clerk? -> I punched him, didn't shoot him
I shot THE clerk? -> there were 2 clerks I shot
I shot the CLERK? -> I thought I shot the shoplifter, not the clerk
That's 8 possible meanings. And that's not them all.
Sarcastic: "I shot the clerk? (Oh please)"
Vinny! You should add an option in your poll. -complete incompetence and hubris on the part of the investigators. That would likely be 100%
I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me they could’ve gone with the botched investigation instead of the conspiracy and still created enough reasonable doubt, but who knows ..maybe they thought it safer to pull on the “dissatisfied with govt” string?
The jury can’t come to a unanimous verdict
MC Alberts Mole on the jury? Is that why Albert was starring at the jury that one day? Pressing on someone?
The jury is as polarized as us.
@@georgewashington3555 They were intimidating, not other explanations. But don’t worry a hung jury it’s also good for Karen. Half of the witness would’ve arrested impossible to re trial.
Don’t understand how Al said that he had sympathy for Proctor because he was emotional over losing a fellow officer.. he was basically saying his behaviour was forgivable! It’s that kind of attitude that breeds Proctors!
No. He absolutely did NOT state OR infer that it was a forgivable action. He was explaining that Proctor was human, therefore prone to the many flaws and reactive emotions of human beings. The levels of circular reasoning/inductive fallacy happening with this case is just wild.
@@GenXGranny hmmm. Disagree
@@Liss484 it’s okay to disagree, 🫶I don’t even agree with my best and dearest friend 100% of the time on 100% of things, but we still can exchange thoughts and respect each other’s feelings on things. I do wish that the people who go in law enforcement would hold *themselves* to a higher standard…as opposed to the bad decisions/behavior we see in this genre.
KR is innocent.
Vinny. Always enjoy listening to your opinions.. Great attempt on Boston Accent 👍🏼👍🏼
Painful to listen to this. Doing myself a favor and jumping off now. Little insight guys, if this is a hung jury and they try it again it certainly does not favor the CW. If you watched the trial and knew the site you’d know that. Pay attention to the polling. The people here in MA now what happened. It’s not hard to figure out.
Most only watch to see Vinnie not hear him. They often get many simple facts wrong which is disheartening. If you want a good channel "lawyer you know" does great with this trial and it's not overly lawyery.
Not guilty
I think the one hour closing limit can contribute to a hung jury.
Well I was wrong… I vote guilty… however I really thought jurors would Aquit or Not Guilty for the unfortunate fact that they couldn’t proof without a reasonable doubt (in my opinion)
Based on?
@@HalfHammerr based on the fact they didn’t investigate properly… many errors made by Proctor
@@melb2258 and how does that explanation point to guilty?
Also, Proctor Committed perjury on the stand, so many of them . 1 was he didn't even know the Alberts, but yet many pictures of him with their family
Watching from Namibia 🇳🇦 Africa.
Give my regards to the Skeleton coast! Regards, @legalweapon3
I almost forgot! 🕶😎 Jonesey..great idea to add a segment after Al’s for on this week for anything music or corny history. LOVE that idea. Name it something unique, ‘exemplum virtutis’ …encapsulating any and all tangents history, music, movies, legal, etc. We are here for it all ❤❤❤ great idea!
My brother got hit by a car going 20 and shattered his leg in so many spots. He was full of road rash and black and blues. You cannot seriously have a brain if you think that 6k pound suv hit him. Dont have a clue what happened but can see his injuries to know it wasn't from a car
It’s driving me wild that people don’t know this. It seems to basic to me and just based on his injuries and simple physics it couldn’t have happened from Karen’s car. It’s wild that we’ve heard from engineers hired by the feds who can confidently say this was not Karen and people still aren’t convinced.
I’m really so sorry your brother went through that, I hope he is ok now and no long term issues.
Vinnie why is court tube saying that the government expert said this was a pedestrian accident?? That’s not what they said.
I am so angry about that, it is misleading. Courttv is apparently referencing trooper proctor instead of the actual experts from the FBI crash daddy Dr Wolfe and Dr Rischler
There is so much reasonable doubt that I don't understand how they can even be back there still
I agree the closing should be longer. If the jury is only allowed to rely on memory than closing should be at least two hours.
I was on inv manslaughter jury-hung. 2 NG 10 G. Man kicked 100 # log off cliff onto public beach & land on girl’s head. I called DA, gave my jury notes. They retried, G verdict, DA called me said they used my notes for their closing argument.
As a juror you called the DA and gave them your notes? How exactly did you give them your notes? That is against the law, you should not be in possession of your jury notes.
Vinny, you know if they hang that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s another trial. In fact, one could argue it’s not likely for there to be another trial. Everyone knows this thing was a joke. Why would you say that. That’s why so many people commenting are so misinformed because they hear things like that. You have a responsibility to be better. Court TV has a responsibility to be better than they have been. Come on.
I used to watch Courttv daily but have pretty much stopped. Julie Grant is a prejudiced joke.
Couldn’t agree more. Laughable and insulting to those who have paid close attention throughout the case. Completely irresponsible of her and court tv.
My sister was killed by a drunk woman who got away with it. She hit my sister while walking and left her to die and she got away with. Come on people karen did it. You want drunk karen in your neighborhood
This is why I think the jury is locked over the 2 degree charge she hit him and called everyone except 911
Sorry for your loss 🙏🏼 and the added pain of No justice 💔
Love you guys! As Yanetti said in the very early press conference "this was not intentional". It is sad that this has become the circus it is instead of one histrionic jealous out-of-control person not willing to accept responsibility and paying the consequences. Better to engage the media and pay obscene legal fees.
And we love you! Regards, @legalweapon3
What’s this got to do with Karen Reed?
There's history and herstory- together they make a tangent- Regards, @legalweapon3
~42 minutes into Brian Albert’s full testimony in the Karen Read trial from CBS Boston: Adam Lally asked him about the gate to the woods in the back of the property where the railroad track is. Why? Was he suggesting that John’s body could have been moved out the back and left there instead of out the front gate by the flagpole, the way the defense suggested? Both of these notions are wrong, in my opinion. Nobody talks about the third gate, next to the garage and driveway, where the Ford Edge was parked. It exists. I can see it on Zillow. I can see the hinges and the latch. There is a gate right at the top of the drive where I believe John vanished to pee when the dog was in the backyard. Nobody showed that third gate in pictures in court, and nobody talked about it. It is as if they didn’t want the jury to know it’s there.
Nobody dragged a 200+ lb man across great expanses of yard. John was extremely intoxicated, 0.23% alcohol in vitreous fluid. I think he slipped on pool cement and cracked his head right behind that gate by the garage. I think he was found dead, and somebody put him in the Ford Edge and drove him to the property line at about 3:30 am to make it look like a plow accident. Leaving his body in the woods behind their property would have launched a huge investigation they didn’t want. Why is Lally asking Albert about the train schedules and the noise? Does he think John was yelling for help outside and the train drowned out the sound? If you need train schedules, maybe don’t ask the homeowner.
41:17
Lally: What abuts the back of the property?
BA: Behind the back fence, there’s a railroad track, I believe it’s a commuter rail, behind the fence
Lally: Is there any way to open the back of the fence to get to any wooded area?
BA: Yes there’s a gate back there…..
Lally: You mentioned the train tracks … how often do trains go by on Fairview Rd?
BA: depends, 5-6 times a day
Lally: how loud is it?
Among other things, Brian Albert says the dog was outside for 2-3 minutes, then in the kitchen for a few minutes, then went upstairs and never went out again that night. It is not clear exactly when he let Chloe outside. He said “At some point”. It’s possible that Chloe found John already on the ground at 12:24 am or 12:32 am and tried to rouse him. It’s also possible that Chloe attacked who she perceived to be an intruder in her yard at 12:22 am and that she caused John’s fall or falls.
Brian Albert said he took Brian Higgins upstairs for a few minutes to show Higgins photos and plaques in his son Jack’s room. He said Higgins left the party first at around 1:30 am and that he never saw where Higgins was parked. As I recall, Higgins testified he didn’t go upstairs or downstairs. Going up and down steps after the dog was out may be the elevation change registered on John’s phone. John’s phone could have been moving at 12:32 am, not John himself. It’s possible that one or two of them were able to hide what happened in the backyard from most of the people who were there. I doubt anyone hurt John on purpose, but it’s possible. They moved his body because they didn’t want an investigation. If they truly found him and his phone at 12:32 am, it is very odd they were confident he was dead and didn’t call 911.
There is no evidence a vehicle hit the victim. There is no definitive evidence the victim was assaulted. There is evidence an animal, probably a large dog, attacked the victim before death, and there is no evidence a dog was in the front yard while the victim was alive. There is lots of evidence of corruption and a cover-up. The sally port video was intentionally altered because the video was reversed but the time-stamp was not. Too many butt dials and destruction of phones. Lots of evidence the victim had an alcohol problem.
The defendant is unlikeable. That isn’t the same as guilty. And there is a real risk one or more jurors felt threatened.
Vinney even in deliberations they have not had full days. They have had about 20hrs by Friday, so your your theorem would be off. They only at 18 hrs and they do 7hrs a full day. Tuesday they only had 3 hrs they started after lunch. So Monday mid day would be the 4th day. I hope not guilty, but now i am thinking hung jury.
John was stepping out of the passenger seat with right arm and leg out. She moves car forward while he's stepping out, hits car frame of car. He falls and hits the ground, she moves car up and back again, as he gets up and she side swiped his body as he gets pushed to grass area. She moves car again and takes off mad. Explains the injuries.
Agree and this would be 2 degree and what the jury is probably stuck on
Vinnie should turn the Politan Theorem into a cellphone App.
Not guilty…..what about the marks on his arm…..that sealed it for me
Defense Strategy was ALWAYS get a Hung Jury. Her statements ON TAPE boxed in her Defense team strategy. They had to accept that John O'Keefe's death was AT THE HANDS of someone. They could not argue it may have been an accident that happened after she left. They had to go with her narrative. That has now essentially made the jury decide not on the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that they should use but rather a binary decision of who did it, Karen or cops.
Since we did not get a 12 vote not guilty on the first full day of deliberation, I expect it will be a hung jury. Why? Because the Defense Team worked VERY hard over 4 days of jury selection. They knew that is where they needed to put the work in. They needed to find people that could believe, Lally's description not mine, fanciful theories of how the crime was committed. They needed people that would be angry at one individual enough to let a guilty person go free (it is called the Furman effect, for Mark Furman the LA detective that the defense team was able to convince a jury planted evidence in the OJ Simpson trial). They needed to find people that don't trust or maybe even hate law enforcement and the government. I think they have at least a few defense friendly jurors in the jury box. It was their job. They did it well. The problem for me is two fold: no justice for John and his family and the "in real time" viewing of our country turning into something that scares me a lot, many people willing to believe that a huge conspiracy occurred to convict a woman that was innocent instead of the more likely possibility that while drunk, she hit her boyfriend with her car and left him to freeze in the snow.
This goes into something much deeper regarding social media today and how intelligent people can be manipulated into believing something that should not be believable in a normal society.
Can he talk about this trial please
To be a person in history, one must be a student of history-- and show is called Tangent for Heaven's sake--Regards, @legalweapon3
@@legalweapon3 ok but we’re all waiting for a verdict.. I was not informed of the format and should have just left earlier.
Hoping for a guilty verdict
V.P. ❤❤❤❤❤❤ Those eyes!!!!
The scenes outside the courtroom reminds me of A time to kill book/movie.
I love your channel Vinnie, and Court TV...
Hung jury? Unbelievable!
Hello Vinnie I’m Piper from the great white north I so enjoy your show
How's it goin', eh? Send my love to Bob and Doug McKenzie - Regards and coo, coo, coo, coo, coo, coo, coo, cooooo @legalweapon3
Oh com'on, There's more likely violence inside or outside the courtroom against Karen, than general violence outside from the crowd.
That is, barring instigators trying to start problems
Nah I’m in western mass and it’s all we talk about
413!!
The two women in the back nodded when judge said to continue. Probably atleast 2 at odds with rest of the the jury.
Shut up.
Tattoo face 😂😂😂 I love you Vinnie ❤
The jurors were dressed up because they thought they would get the judge to declare a mistrial and they could go home
Nah Wunsch…he wasn’t upset! “Forget the filthy language” He already knew the true story from the time he got on scene. Those messages were after he already made up his mind that she did it without all of the evidence! Law enforcement is Disgrace in MA!
LE is like that everywhere, unfortunately. Just fyi.
If the defense think their client is so NOT guilty, why would they want a hung jury??? The have to think everyone is voting not guilty, but I don't think so. I think Karen is guilty of all the lesser charges. DNA does not lie. She was the last one with John, her car has the damage regardless of all the ways people think it occurred. She was drinking heavily. She was arguing with him. She only slept a couple of hours and went out searching for him. She then called Jen and Kerry and knew exactly where his snow covered body was. End of story.
The FBI engineers, you know the PhD guys, said John was not hit by Karens or any other vehicle. Her BAC by the extrapolation isn’t valid by FDA.
@@bonniemccrane6417 He threw the glass at the tail light, and she backed up fast which could have bumped him or caused him to back up and fall. Why would all these people want to make up a conspiracy?? What motive and no proof of a fight.
@@MichbeachloverTheir motive does not matter. It doesn’t have to be some huge conspiracy which does happen too but it’s literally a few people that have power and a very close connection in Proctor. The evidence proves that it is impossible that Karen hit John or that any car did. Anybody with medical knowledge such as myself knows this was definitely not damage caused from a car. All of those skull fractures are consistent with a beating and that large gash in the back of John’s head that caused another huge fracture was the final blow possibly also from a fall onto something very hard not grass. The bruise on the back of John’s hand looks like self defence, though he didn’t stand a chance whatever happened, happened so quickly. That bruise is the result of being hit by something smaller, in a concentrated area of the back of his hand not consistent with any part of a car imo. I also don’t think it is possible he was half out the car when this happened as his body from the neck down has no bruising or other injuries, and this also would not have caused multiple skull fractures.
There is a lot of proof a fight was the cause. The ME said it was more likely Johns injuries were from being punched over a car hitting him. The CW’s own ME said Johns injuries are not typical of being hit by a car. Aligns exactly to all the defences experts. Also do you think the FBI hired engineers are lying for Karen? The CW had the option to put them on the stand but they strongly disagree with their theory. This is unheard of that these experts would be used for the defence.
The motive certainly matters. The medical examiner did not say they were caused from a beating or fight. I do have medical knowledge and investigated claims for a living for a long time. Although the investigation was not perfect and Proctor with his own personal feelings of Karen. The personal feelings have nothing to do with the actual case. There was no DNA from Proctor or other troopers. However, there was DNA from John. They also said that John threw the glass at Karen's tail light. Karen also backed up a a fast rate of speed 24mph in the snow and 62 feet. John is 6'3-4" and 200lbs and in shape. He was also intoxicated. Most drunk people do not get injured in MVA's because they are limber, but the sober person does because of bracing for impact. He could have just been bumped enough, no damage to the car or John and he went flying and hit the ground. Reminder, it was only 18 degrees out and the ground is frozen. Go fall on frozen ground and see if you can get cut. You most certainly will and might not know it because it is cold. Once thawed the blood and bruises come out. If I was a juror, I would vote guilty on all the lesser charges. She did not commit murder, but she did incapacitate him and he died in the cold covered in snow. The medical examiner also did not say there was any pulverizing, beating, or a defensive wound on the back of his hand. On cross there was an opening to get all the fighting knowledge out and prove it was that. Karen was arguing with John all day, drove drunk, backed up fast and had the dna on her car. That is the only evidence that has been shown.
@@bonniemccrane6417 I heard their testimony and I heard those of the other witnesses as well. The FBI engineers did not rule out a bump to John to cause him to fly or land to the ground. John is also 6'3-4" tall, 200 lbs and in good shape. He was intoxicated himself and usually the drunk people in MVA's do not get impact injuries because they are limber compared to a sober person. Also the weather was snow and only 18 degrees. Go fall on a frozen ground at 18degrees and see if you don't get a scrape, or cut and if you hit your head a injury. Those injuries happen from force and they also said that John threw his glass at the tail light that caused it to break. They were arguing just as he got out of the car and had been since morning. Karen was mad, backed 24mph in the snow 62 feet with the gas pedal 75% down. If I was a juror Karen is guilty of all the lesser charges because of DNA but not murder.
Very simply, take this conspiracy away they panic , they had to back pedal, and they beat OJO in the home. To much reasonable doubt
I live in Florida now but lived in Foxboro ma my whole life the police departments in ma including the state police are well known as being corrupt. The jurors are smart and probably know they will be targeted by the police if they say not guilty. Hung jury keeps them safe
You make an excellent point.
Ok but the citizens are currently outraged and letting their voices heard in public forums.
Unfortunately, I think you might be right. The real culprits had the nerve to show up during closing arguments. They came to intimate and apparently, it worked.
I agree. I saw a Canton town meeting. 😳
@roxannefrenandes9749- I have to disagree with you. Defense Strategy was ALWAYS get a Hung Jury. Her statements ON TAPE boxed in her Defense team strategy. They had to accept that John O'Keefe's death was AT THE HANDS of someone. They could not argue it may have been an accident that happened after she left. They had to go with her narrative. That has now essentially made the jury decide not on the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that they should use but rather a binary decision of who did it, Karen or cops. Since we did not get a 12 vote not guilty on the first full day of deliberation, I expect it will be a hung jury. Why? Because the Defense Team worked VERY hard over 4 days of jury selection. They knew that is where they needed to put the work in. They needed to find people that could believe, Lally's description not mine, fanciful theories of how the crime was committed. They needed people that would be angry at one individual enough to let a guilty person go free (it is called the Furman effect, for Mark Furman the LA detective that the defense team was able to convince a jury planted evidence in the OJ Simpson trial). They needed to find people that don't trust or maybe even hate law enforcement and the government. I think they have at least a few defense friendly jurors in the jury box. It was their job. They did it well. The problem for me is two fold: no justice for John and his family and the "in real time" viewing of our country turning into something that scares me a lot, many people willing to believe that a huge conspiracy occurred to convict a woman that was innocent instead of the more likely possibility that while drunk, she hit her boyfriend with her car and left him to freeze in the snow.
This goes into something much deeper regarding social media today and how intelligent people can be manipulated into believing something that should not be believable in a normal society.
Perhaps the defense should have made more of the tail light. Why not ask Sgt Barros about EXACTLY what he saw. It all hinged on the tail light.
love your funky music, love to watch your podcast Vinnie Politan, Vinnie I believe, Karen is guilty, well see what happen take care
Based on?
lol YOU ARE the reason jurors scare tf out of innocent people
Based on what evidence? Did you even watch the trial
Alberts and McCabes are they pressing someone on the jury to vote Guilty>? Is that why they were starring at the jury ? MCabes Mole at work here. ?
Well they are not smart because it would be a hung jury and I don’t think this will be retrial because some witnesses are probably going to have charges and won’t be available to testify. See sometimes live gives you a curb ball, like Forrest Gum said.
I saw that. That family sat there in the courtroom sitting directly across from the jury. Why that spot? Why there?
The way they've been involved in this case? It wouldn't be out of the question that it was a deliberate choice.
That judge probably picked a cop to be the four person! She’s so bias
If she is found Guilty....all H.E.L.L. will break loose
I agree
@kellylove5517
Hi Kelly. What you are suggesting should never happen. I completely disagree with you and believe Ms Read is as guilty as one can be, *but* I am not about to take part in all H. E. L. L. breaking loose, as you call it. I may not agree, but I will accept that is the ruling of this jury and thank them for working through their *obvious* struggles and effort to come to a decision. To not be able to accept whatever the verdict is, shows the aggressiveness, the immaturity, the lack of restraint and how shameful some Karen fan’s exhibit their feelings and behavior. It’s as though they have been infected with *mob mentality* and literally feed off the bad energy from one another.
Not she won’t you want to bet?
John o keefe shall get justice ⚖️
Karen always has that pursed-lip look..
I'm so sorry Vinnie. Love your charisma, insight and relevant discussion, but those two are a snooze fest. 💤
Yawn as to your comments- sleep tight and don't let ignorance bite...loops, too late! Regards, @legalweapon3
@@legalweapon3 Haha, nice try.
The OJ case was 8 months long.
And they were sequestered the entire trial
The woman already Admitted to hitting him with her dam car. Why do all these strangers want her free???.
That’s what I’ve been saying !’ Why ? Do they know her ? What is it? Bc she sure isn’t a woman who’s done her community anything worthy
How? You know a car going tho at fast does WAY more damage to a person than what we saw. Like seriously, way more and you know that
I hit him? is not I hit him!
What woman? You talking about Jen McCabe? That witness??? You believe what she comes from her mouth? After the google search at 2:27 ? What a coincidence that Karen told her at 6:23 to do the same search that she did at 2:27 isn’t the most amazing coincidence???
The evidence before the court says otherwise.
I reallt like the first one for the new Vinnie and the Tangents true crime podcast tune? Just my opinion.
All hell will break loose
This guy with glasses Doesn't know what he's talking about.He's talking from both ends
Albert- loved hearing the Fairfield University shout out last time you were on. My daughter just finished her Freshman year at FU. Go Stags!
It was a great experience-- wishing her all the best--Regards, @legalweapon3
@@legalweapon3 Thank you!! Love the show and look forward to the next episode!
Loved the Seinfeld reference byw 😅
Imagine if it was the “man hands” reference? 😂 You never know what tangent of conversation is happening next! ❤
@GenXGranny I'm glad someone else got it too 😅😁. Ong yes the man hands episode!! 😅. I love the tangents. I only discovered them recently and I just love their personalities . Such funny charming men.
@@Victoria12339 😂 the comment section might’ve blown up if it was the man hands reference! Lol. I used to have that poster of George Costanza posing on the chaise lounge in my garage (it just cracked me up every time) so glad you found us! Tangent Fridays are the best 💞
@GenXGranny omg I'd love that pic of George 😅😅😅. Or the kramer portrait 😍. Such a great show. My all time favourite
Will the jury hang? Limit ....
Al looks like he is in pain listening to the Weezer groove haha
Do I look just like Buddy Holly? Regards, @legalweapon3
Jury ask a question they don’t have a verdict. Judge said go back and get a verdict. On turtle boy update
Vinny you are so handsome & I especially love when you try to sound like a Bostonian lol 😆 😂
#1 all the way!
Hopefully the Jury isn't as pertinacious as the social media Trial Watchers.
Absolutely
I love the history lessons!!!
And I love your love! Regards, @legalweapon3
Vinnie, Al and Jonesy, if Karen's found innocent do you think there will be a civil trial?
I think there's a good chance--interesting question is who would the defendants be?
No
@@legalweapon3 I think Karen since the O'Keefe family seems close to the Alberts and friends.
Vinnie what's wrong with that brother on the Murray case does he think he's going to a beauty show why is he constantly smelling his fingers out fixing his hair ? He's annoying terribly badly annoying
Song 1
Offshore books had odds in saddam Hussein trial and the search they had over/unders in it
Number one foe sure
How is this a v watch if you don’t show the court. 😂
The Options the Jury have is crap.
Why were the closings so short for such a long case
Thats was very odd they should be allowed to do their closings no matter how long it takes
FBI need to look into the jurer who is holding this not guilty verdict up. Right now is there a lump sum in bank account?
People are People 🤣😁..help me understand
Uhhh we’re here for verdict watch…..Al can talk bout the other stuff another time…..
Fridays are always the 3 gentlemen’s “Tangent podcast”. We were lucky to have an extended show because of the verdict watch. I hope you will give the Tangent Podcast a chance after the trial…True crime/current case conversation with various tangents of talk on life, history, food, music, entertainment, fun, etc. (Usually on Friday afternoons, EST) Thanks for stopping by 💞
Hung jury and had to go back to deliberate.
I’m sure the jury is ready to move on with their lives. Much of the testimony was unsavory!
I don't understand how the judge can force them to go back to deliberate if the jury cannot make a unanimous decision? IMO the jury did their best and they need to be released from duty. Bev is essentially holding them hostage after they have already said they are a hung jury.
@@snowwhite2524 it’s like she’s forcing them to make a decision. I’m guessing they’ve been at a stalemate for quite a while.
It has nothing to do with this Judge. It is extremely common that the presiding Judge over any trial, especially one that has been lengthy and a defendant is charged in a death, to send the jury back in to try to come to a unanimous decision when at first they say they can’t. They have sat through an entire ‘expensive’ trial being entrusted to do a job, not just so they can personal front row seats to watch. The Judge and both prosecution and defense councils have worked hard doing their jobs and now they each expect this jury to work just as hard to come to a decision. They said they could be the finder of facts and that should not be entered into lightly. As tough as that may seem, that’s what it comes down to. Although sometimes a hung jury is inevitable, it also happens that the jury does returns later with a unanimous verdict. This was disappointing, but not at all uncommon - some folks just got to gripe about anything....
@@snowwhite2524 CW, includes Judge Auntie Bev, needs Guilty verdict on something to justify bringing original charges. Remember they are under federal investigation.
So frustrating... The jurors didn't have to even consider whether there was a conspiracy or not. They just have to go by the science, and I can't imagine that any one of those 12 jurors would pick that idiot trooper Paul over the defense's last two experts. I'm worried that AJ wasn't clear enough about that in his closing. ETA: For those who believe Karen hit him with the car, intentional or not, how do they explain the shattering of the tail light and it scattering everywhere through time and space? Do they not believe in the basic laws of physics? I just can't get over that. I don't understand it.
See you on monday!!
Albert rambles too much. I can’t watch the live, need replay so I can ffwd Al - though I appreciate his take when he does finally come around to it,
I LOVE LOVE Lore Lodges history lessons on his crime tubes, but with Albert my mind wanders.
I'm just touching on subjects for informational purposes only-- if there are topics you want me to cover, let me know--Regards, @legalweapon3
They already had lunch. Where y'all been. Jeez
Karen hit him, accident, the rest I haven't watched enough. Very to believe Boston Police would carry out such a crime.
LOL! 50 years of stinking Boston police corruption - you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
That’s why you are wrong you should watch it all. To get the whole picture!
You dont have to believe that to find her not guilty. The math and science from an independent party says he was not struck by the SUV. Not physically possible. Maybe he slipped and fell in the yard. idk. CW did not prove this. They have no chain of custody for anything except the glass. you must acquit IMO
Where is the evidence
❓❓Vinny, being from Boston myself, I detect a slight MA accent. Are you from Boston❓❓
Jersey boy--through and through--Regards, @legalweapon3
How do you get around the scientific evidence presented …specifically the last 2 witnesses…🧐🧐🧐
The Commonwealth of MA gives the following instructions to a jury regarding expert witnesses: www.mass.gov/doc/3640-expert-witness/download
Okay Al Cosmo😅 1:14:39
Locker room talk
hello from 🇨🇦……..at least the jury is taking their time to come to an innocent verdict!!! Free KR, and then start arresting the REAL criminals, yes, more than 1. Starting with the Albertsons!!! The house hold where it all happened.
y 26:57 28:07 y😮uuiyyu
Another Canuck here, who totally disagrees, lol. I think Ms Read is guilty as sin and I guess this showcases exactly what these jury members are dealing with and going through right now. Should they arrest and charge Chloe for her role too, coz let’s face it, I’ve heard as many accusations thrown at her as any other name that the Karen fan base has tossed out and believe have colluded in this massive conspiracy against her? I read someone’s comment last night that offered some levity on this case and that was, Karen fan’s are even looking a suspicious eye at Oscar the Grouch, because they now believe he hid pertinent evidence in his garbage can!! Can’t trust those Sesame Street muppets!! (thanks to whoever wrote that comment! ☺️)
Who has a party invites the victim and when ambulances and police show u in the morning don't come out to see what's going on? WHo? The Alberts.
The injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car nor are they consistent with being beat up nor are those injuries on his arm consistent with a dog bite-2 paralel straight lines next to each other that are shallow, inconsistent depths not consistent with dogs teeth, marks are only on one side of arm further it is on the side of the arm that would be protected-I mean inside of upper arm and not outside the arm which would be difficult to get those injuries there.
Yes, I disagree with the 'experts' probably because I am one of them. 70 year old PhD+ female (monk icon and name I am Franciscan) with 40 years experience investigating suspicious deaths and injuries on a state and federal levels and as a former prof, I know exactly how the academic 'experts' work.
Cause of death-blunt injury on back of the head, subdural hematoma causes most the injuries including bruises and fractured eye sockets. Then he is knocked out so unable to call for help he dies of hypothermia.
Here, is what I think happened which is consistent with all the injuries and incorporates all the evidence including DNA on the car. Let's face it both these people were extremely drunk and drunks that are fighting are very loud. John gets out of the SUV and is so drunk that he does not wear a coat or jacket in 28° weather. He walks towards the back right of the car slips and falls on the ice and hits the back of his head on the protruding headlight and bumper. His phone is in his hand and flies. He falls backwards and hits the exact spot on the back of the head-base of skull-to cause that subdural hematoma and knocks him out. Karen feels and maybe hears a thud which is why she questioned whether she hit him and made 53 angry phone calls in a space of a couple of hours. Just like that blunt force trauma could have happened if he fell and hit something in the house, it is more probable that it happened outside at the back of the car. A 220 lb man at 6' would fall very hard. She did not hit him with the SUV, he hit the SUV which is an entirely different matter. Had he not been knocked out even with Karen as drunk as she was would certainly would have responded if she heard moaning and he had been knocked out. And the nagging feeling in the back of her mind explains all the angry phone calls and the later need to check on him.
The issue that is not addressed by any of the 'experts' (and again I know exactly how college experts act and how they do their research-the grad students do most of it and they put their name to it) is the fact that being drunk impacts whether the body has injuries or not. I have seen people roll a truck a couple of times, hit trees, end up upsidedown, crash gated and come out with minor injuries when they are drunk. Ask any insurance adjuster and they will tell you this. Further, had a car wreck here on 12/9 and still having pieces of tail lights show up on my driveway that we're not there before. And doubt anyone is planting them.
Furthereven the noise of 2 drunks arguing loudly outside the house could be heard by the people in the house and when John does not come in, they look outside and think they might see something but don't go outside to check-the research showing a group of people will not act-call 911-when they don't see anyone else do so goes back to the documentation of Kitty Genoves who was raped and murdered while the crowd watched on and does nothing. Finally look up how long it takes to die by hypothermia and results only apply to someone who is sober. So they dither around and never make the call or check outside (no footprints in the snow).
Those are not dog bites but even despite the location, depth, patterns that indicate they are not are ignored and claim that they are, no dog/german shepherd flies thru the air. DNA would be all over the shirt especially if he bites the underarm which is well protected.
It is inconceivable that 30+ people who do not know each other and don't even live in the same area conspired together to frame Karen Read especially given her status as a college prof. In small college towns, professors have a boatload of power. They are courted by other officials in the town, lots of objections if a college prof was 'framed' as is evidence in this case.
So my conclusion is freak accident with drunk John slipping on the ice, falling backwards and hitting the back of the car on the protruding bumper and tail light and being knocked unconscious. No one called 911 because altho they had a nagging suspicion that he might be injured, they did not know and the behavior of everyone after the fact including Karen and everyone else is to 'cover up' for the fact that no one called 911. Freak accident followed by 'comedy of errors'.
Karen should never have been charged and there is no beating to be covered up by 30 people.
Still can't figure out the underarm injuries, but definitely not an animal with paws as there would be more than two parallel scratches and various depth wounds.
End of story.
Hey Vinnie , Al, Jonsey
Hey, hey to you! Regards, @legalweapon3
❤🎉❤🎉❤
❤
❤
Gotta disagree with you Vinnie about the one hour limit on closing arguments. A travesty. Catastrophic for the defense.