The fact that they didn’t return a “Not Guilty” verdict within the first two hours of deliberation is beyond terrifying… The prosecution didn’t come within a country-mile of proving a single charge ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. This outcome shatters any remaining faith I had in the US justice system, and confirms a troubling reality: there must undoubtedly be tens of thousands of patently innocent people locked up in American prisons for crimes they clearly did not commit.
@@laurenurban3942 Aren’t you both saying the same thing in a different way? There was so much reasonable doubt you could put a body through those holes.
@@bobbypingree8940 not a mark below the neck except that scratched up arm? No broken bones? It isn't possible to hit a body at 24moh, have it fly through the air over 30 feet and suffer not so much as a bruise never mind a broken bone.
@@alisondinneenwright8092 even *if* it was (which the states own medical examiner disputes), the prosecution didn't prove that bc they did such a shoddy job investigating.
This is a ethical and moral alternate juror. She didn't let emotions sway her thinking she just looked at what the prosecution put on. good for you lady, you can rest easy now knowing you are honest and trustworthy!
@@PerlaOC sure got your brain power how you ignore she in an alcoholic rage reckless driving wherein she backed out of that driveway at 24 mph not a iota of the consequences of her actions! Add the forensic evidence you got the elements from DNA and broken rear light etc IT'S CALLED INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER!!
Profanity-laced voicemails played for jury: "Guarino said Read made 53 phone calls to O'Keefe in the hours after 12:35 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022. He said she left eight messages on O'Keefe's voicemail, which were played for the jury. "John I am here with your (expletive) kids. Nobody knows where the (expletive) you are. You (expletive) pervert," Read said in one of the messages that O'Keefe received at 12:59 a.m. "It's 1 a.m. I am with your (expletive) niece and nephew. You (expletive) pervert. You're a (expletive) pervert," Read said in a message at 1:11 a.m. "John I am going home. I cannot believe (inaudible). I need to go home. You are (expletive) using me right now. You are (expletive) another girl. (Name redacted) is sleeping next to me. You are a (expletive) loser. (Expletive) yourself," Read said in a message at 1:18 a.m. www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-june-20-2024/61185407 --- “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him,” Norfolk prosecutor Adam Lally said Read exclaimed to paramedics when they responded to the discovery of officer John O’Keefe’s unresponsive body outside a Canton home during last weekend’s nor’easter.
Lally claimed a lot of things and blatantly lied. She wouldn't be leaving all those messages if she killed him but go you. She said Did I hit him. Huge difference.
How far would the prosecution go? As far as was possible. They could not get to all the jurors, but one or a few was enough. Hopefully the FBI will get to the bottom of all of this. I would imagine they are salivating at getting at this whole thing.
I've been saying this all along. Anybody that lives in Massachusetts should be incredibly concerned about this. This is scary stuff. Corruption is real.
@@cm1642 Thankfully we are far from the worst, but that is due to us hunting it down as citizens wherever we find it and having mechanisms to fight it. Lord help those that live in China or Russia.
Something is seriously wrong with our jury system. This should have been not guilty the first day. What twisted person could come up with guilty beyond reasonable doubt? This is nuts.
A person that was selected foreperson by the judge herself even before doing the lotto for alternates. How can she select a foreperson from the jury pool without knowing if he will be randomly picked as an alternate?
One or 2 that were intimidated by the real perps sitting in court, staring them down on closing arguments. That was full on jury intimidation, and should never have been allowed. As far as im concerned, that should have been cause for a mistrial. The other thought is just too scary to think about. We all have to remember the far reach those families and law authority have in Mass. If they are capable of cover ups and blatant lies in front of the world, what else would they not stop at?
I am NOT suprised she was one of the alternates. Bev knew who was team Read. She let this woman go the day before deliberations. All done by design. Thank you for your service.
...i think the prevailing theory is that the Judge violated the Law by choosing the Foreman _BEFORE_ randomly choose the Alternates: Because then, it prevents _HER_ choice from being dismissed by the Alternate Selection Process.
Totally agree , its how good old boy justice occurs and why she and the cops HATE Karens Lawyers. They dont play the game. Unspoken actions from extremely smart people. I am involved in a case in Alabama. I am the plaintiff and have discovered how they communicate with each other. Must be hard for some Judges having zero power and being a referee that they have to get power in unethical ways
The idea that a single juror listened to Prosecutor Lally's idiotic rambling case and thought Read was positively guilty astounds me Although, I'm glad all jurors involved stuck to their guns-- as is their duty. It's clear they made an honest effort and took their job seriously
I think it's dumb to make a Not Guilty vote be unanimous. If the majority of jurors are for not guilty it should be proof of reasonable doubt and a not guilty verdict given. It should only be unanimous for a guilty verdict.
I wonder if his overwhelming number of witnesses with their contradictory statements that made no sense added to his boring repetitive questioning just confused some of the less bright jurors
I’m so very happy that all the jurors stood their ground with their decision. That’s the best anyone could hope for in a jury trial. It tells us the jury system can still work. All too often jurors get persuaded to change their verdict. Probably because they want to go home and put the mess behind them.
They may be in for Rude awakening. But I’m willing to bet those that believe she is guilty will still believe she is guilty! There’s a small chance that when they learn the Feds are investigations this case it might change their minds. It might!
As we want to hear from the jurors what they had been saying in those same wks😊I'm disappointed I felt not guilty would of been appropriate but they are definitely respected by us they did what they thought was best just that KR future back on hold cuz their gonna go for another trial😮😮
I hope one of the jurors speaks out and tells us all what was the issue with the hung jury and how many were for and against conviction. I feel she is innocent and I want to know where it all went wrong in the deliberations as I'm sure the Defense and Prosecution would also.
it sounds like it's common practice for the judge to poll the jurors so the lawyers and the court have the feedback on what any potential hangups/concerns were. hopefully we will find out
This case is terrifying because if some jurors really thought the prosecution proved it's case, that means anyone can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit simply because some of our fellow citizens aren't able to employ common sense and logic when it matters. It really calls into question the efficacy of jury trials but it's so comforting to hear from an intelligent juror who understood the assignment. All it really takes to ensure justice is one juror who refuses to ignore the overwhelming evidence. I'm sure the other jurors were well meaning.... maybe they didn't understand what reasonable doubt was? Maybe they thought a not guilty verdict meant that they were agreeing that there was a cover up? Maybe they saw the pain the Okeefe family is in and thought they should convict an innocent woman as a way to comfort them? Maybe they were worried that the police would retaliate if they returned a not guilty verdict? Maybe someone intimidated them? Maybe the verdict form confused them?
He has been relieved of all duties until investigation is done. The transfer was just out of DA office. People are taking that wrong way. Still may be terminated
I says transferred but most places say where he is transferring too. But my guess he’s getting transferred out the front door. Remember the Governor runs the State Police and she was furious about his text messages. So I’m sure she had sent directions to get rid of him. She publicly said him and texts make all LE look bad.
They didn't allow her juror on purpose. They saw she was taking notes and paying close attention. They did not want someone like that going into the deliberation room.
I hung a jury because a group of people let their emotions lead them allowing a persecutor to literally put a ring in their nose to lead them around. When I finally went before the judge and explained why they had failed to do their job of demonstrating that the innocent man on trial was not innocent. They never even showed him at the crime scene. A year later, they convicted his wife of killing him. It takes a strong person to do what is right. Too many people allow smoke and mirrors to lead them around. I really hate what they were put through. I cannot imagine what takes 9 weeks to show someone committed a crime. You have the evidence or you don't.
Every Single Trial that i've watched, the Prosecutor has _LIED_ during *_Opening Statements,_* got caught on *_Cross Examination,_* then actually had the audacity to repeat the same _LIE_ during *_Closing Arguments_* !!! ...What's worse is that _NOTHING_ every happened to them for blatantly _LYING_ like that !!! And I can imagine that some jurors will actually be fooled & misled by such _LIES_ !!!
...wait... So, maybe I mis-read you... Are you implying that the Wife originally setup the Defendant to "get rid of him" and when that didn't work, she _KILLED_ him (the defendant) ??? ...Or, you mean that she killed the victim that the Husband (defendant) was accused of killing ???
Who didnt see this coming from a mile away? All you have to do is read the comments section under any of the videos on this case and you can see there is a clear divide amongst people who are watching, in general. The divide may not be equal but it’s there! I tried to watch this trial from an unbiased pov. I don’t care for a Karen read but that’s not what I worried about. I just kept thinking if I was a juror and had to follow the instructions given to me, could I convict this woman? The answer is NO! It’s not that I buy into the coverup or conspiracy . It’s that the evidence in this case was just not enough for me to say she 100% without a reasonable doubt, backed her car into John okeefe, willingly and intentionally. The police completely botched this investigation from the second they stepped on the scene. That is a huge problem. The crime scene not being secured for hours. Huge problem. Evidence popping up, stories changing, phones being thrown away, huge problem. 3 experts saying injuries aren’t consistent with a pedestrian strike, HUGE PROBLEM! Trooper proctor blew this case and from there on out everything else was a mess! Shame on the MSP for failing John O’Keefe. He deserved better!
Truth...body tells the story...no bruises or major injuries = not hit by a car, nothing else matters. Sad part is they are going to try this case again.
Exactly! (Except four medical experts said his injuries weren't consistent with a car - ER doctor, Medical Examiner, and then the two witnesses hired by the FBI.)
@@Kodiak42 Im Australian. We don’t call it middle school. I’ve been around a long time. Common sense shows you what this case is. It’s a mirage from the defence and always was. There so called conspiracies were banged off one by one. The evidence points down a the road of killer Karen.
There was a dead man on the property with, obviously, bite marks on him and they didn't even investigate the one dog belonging to that property. She must be speaking from heaven to you though. I don't think she is around anymore.
Juror: "No one saw exactly what happened!" -- That's true for a lot of violent crimes and not the right summary of why you would find someone not guilty. I was hoping she would provide something a little more specific with respect to the actualy evidence presented.
I can understand the public being split about 70/30 as most polls suggest , but for these peoplewho have sat through every second of testimony and evidence how anyone could not say not guilty is baffling to me , either they didnt understand the evidence or someone got scared
Not likely going to be hearing from the public that feel her vehicle’s taillight was cracked hitting him … they don’t want to deal with the pro dog people
The problem is MSP and MA lawmakers will point to Proctor and say 'See, we got the bad apple...'. Then do nothing else about the entire system that is corrupt. Its NOT just him. ALL LE in MA are corrupt.
Much respect to this juror. Appreciate her speaking out and the precautions she took in doing so. I truly don't understand how anyone could honestly get beyond reasonable doubt based on the CW's case. The corruption laid out through the trial testimony was staggering, too.
Anybody that thought the prosecution proved their case is simply lacking in brains... I'm really fair person when you have two independent witnesses say not an accident..hello that is enough for doubt
Thank you! Fascinating! Thank you, juror #3 for speaking about this. It's a shame she didn't get to deliberate. I hope the other jurors also give statements or interviews. I would like to know what happened in that room and what was the split.
Juries are instructed to err on the side of caution, so that if there is any doubt about guilt, they should acquit, rather than risk convicting an innocent person. The principal is "It's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to wrongly convict one innocent person." How can anyone possibly find her guilty? The letter said due to "deeply held personal values etc." juries are supposed to follow the principal of law and the instructions given to them no their own personal beliefs, this is why Jury needs to be a job. the average layperson can't distinguish between deciding guilt and judging someone's moral character. when it comes to someone's life, it should be decided by knowledgeable, experienced and empathetic people who understand the principals of law.
I dont think the word VALUES appear9 see below0. Thier personal beliefs on what is reasonable or unreasonable does matter. How much weight they give to certain facts is also based on personal beliefs. If you want to create a professional juror based on certain criteria have at it. Once you make the criteria it might be difficult to say they are then your ' peers" Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs,
@@jeffnorris8848 wrong, jurors take an oath to faithfully and impartially follow the law as instructed by the court. The role of a juror is to apply the law as given by the judge to the facts of the case, without letting personal opinions or beliefs influence their decision. Judges instruct jurors to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court, and to disregard any external factors or personal beliefs that may be irrelevant to the case. individual principals and moral convictions should not override the legal framework that governs the case. In the United States, the legal system is based on the principle of "rule of law," which means that the law as written and interpreted by the courts should guide the decision-making process, rather than personal moral beliefs. If a juror's moral convictions are so strongly tied to the facts of the case that they cannot separate them. the juror should request to be dismissed.
@@logicandreason8090 You did say the word VALUES which is not found in the text I quoted. So who exactly was wrong?? IF you wish to find to create a jury without any ' moral convictions' and put yourself in front of it have at it. "A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with MORAL certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. "
@@jeffnorris8848 principals and values can mean the same thing. Duh. are you really arguing over Semantics? moral certainty in the context of reasonable doubt is about being convinced of the facts, whereas personal moral convictions are about individual beliefs and values.
@@logicandreason8090 principals and values CAN mean the same thing. I am pointing out your direct quote was inaccurate. ARe you suggesting that it was 'factual' inaccurate but " morally" correct? "moral certainty" does not use or involve morals???? Ultimately you are arguing for an amoral jury to be your peer. AS I have said if you think you can create one please list the criteria that you would want for those who sit in judgment of you.
Sounds like this alternate took her job very serious. I respect and appreciate her input. It was well thought out. She showed compassion for both sides of the families and she her comments from Proctor didn’t inflame her when it came to the case.( which it shouldn’t have done) Could we expect anything more from this juror? I don’t think so! Kudos to her for taking her position seriously and giving important feedback.
“ I deem you not guilty because I feel sorry for you.” is not the job of a jury. It is to interpret evidence and apply the law according the legal procedure of the jurisdiction you are in. Not every adult is capable of doing this.
Yes, that would be highly suspect: However, me personally, i think it's much more important to carefully study & evaluate the Body Language, Facial Expressions, Inflection & Tone of Voice of the Witness as well as to visual everything that they're saying & genuinely trying to understand everything as a whole: Doing this will help you determine "believability" as well as help catch any contradictions: Whereas, if you're too focused on your notes, you could miss all this crucial information, IMO.
@@adamsmall5598 You might be sorry you asked because it was the actual "Trial of the Century". 3 Inkster MI Police officers kidnapped and killed by a Mother and her 3 sons. 4 separate trials with 4 separate defendants with 4 different Lawyers. I would not have missed it for the world. I have 100 stories. 125 Policemen showed up in less than 30 minutes from all across MI. Wonder if they would do that for me hahaha.
@@user-tc2ud9fz3w 100 stories...and I would listen to every one of them. I have to definitely explore this "case" of madness/sadness. Thank you for sharing what I am certain is and was a mountain sized piece in your life that will stay with you all of your life. What we cannot "unhear" or "unsee", right.? ♡~
Is that important? Jobs do not pay you when you have jury duty, miss months of work no pay is probably have a panic attack also, not all of us can afford that.
@ar4203 It might be important. And it's incorrect that all jurors go without their salary. Public employees, for example, continue to get paid while doing jury duty.
@@goodegg1how could it be important?? The rest of us dont get paid so unless there is evidence she has a public position it seems reasonable to consider that jury duty (ecspecially in THIS CASE where they have had to be off SINCE APRIL- Literal MONTHS of unpaid leave) is an extremley stressful situation for regular people sho have families to support, and maybe consider that the fead & panic about this financial burden could reasonably upset someone
@ar4203 Yes it's important. Gives off the vibe that this is an activist juror, upset she couldn't try and sway the jury to her biased views, and after being put as an alternate started to wear pink like all the FKR activist outside were wearing.
Not coming up with a NOT GUILTY verdict after this circus it's scary as hell. There was no case and so a hung jury it's not enough but that's where we stand. Free Karen Read.
The jury is what you get when you teach children what to think instead of how to think. When they become adults they cannot see the clues of innocent or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Karen read should have been set free with a not guilty in my opinion.
I am probably going to get some heat for this BUT I feel some ppl got paid from the CW on that jury. The way they had the witnesses come in and sit for closing statements and how Lally insisted the jury keep deliberating 3 TIMES says something to me. This case was a PERFECT SYMBOL of what it means when the prosecution doesn't present its case or enough evidence however the defense did even though they do not have to. Im not on anyone's side but the right to Justice in the United States of America. There was something wrong with this case. Ive taken part of many trials and this case should have never been even indicted.
THANK YOU JUROR #3 FOR YOUR SERVICE AND ALL THE TIME YOU PUT INTO THIS CASE! I JUST WISH ALL THE JURORS WHERE AD INTELLIGENT AND HAD THE ABSOLUTE COMMON SENSE TO SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYZE IT PROPERLY AND COME UP WITH A NOT GUILTY VERDICT! YOU ARE A CLASS ACT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATED SERVICE!! ⚖️ 💕
This is crazy!!! It's so hard to believe that #KarenRead still has this hanging over her head until the Commonwealth decided to let her resume with her life. #FreeKarenRead
Sadly not a surprise, i regularly checked every livechat available and depsite a vast majority saying not guilty there was always a few who thought guilty. On average 90% thought not guilty so it wouldnt surprise me if the jury was 11/1 with a staunch pro guilt juror who wouldn't see reason
"Reasonable Doubt" that's the key to any trial for a juror to consider. Hopefully, a juror who was actually deliberating will come forward and let us know what went on the jury room. Fascinating stuff.
They knew her position. That is why she was pulled to be the alternate. What are the odds that she would have voted not guilty and didn’t make the final group to decide. Aunt Bev was so obviously bias and this just proves it more
She allegedly screamed that she hit him and asked if she could've hit him. Cops didn't arrest her at the scene...so she either didn't say that, or they understood she was in shock. They even sent her to the hospital for evaluation. She was frantic and hysterical. And four medical experts testified a car didn't hit John O'Keefe.
I don't think she did. I think she initially didn't even remember dropping him off and maybe supposed at the beginning, when she found him dead in the snow, that him lying there might have been her fault. But there is no evidence there was any pedestrian crash, not on her car, not on him. Instead there are bite marks on him which the DA seems to just ignore or explain away by a crash that hasn't been and can't be proven. With no matching damage or injuries it actually doesn't even matter what she says or ever said. She could confess all day long and still couldn't have done it.
1 EMT who is friends with Caitlyn Albert is the only one who said that, Jen McCabe is the one who started that months later, read the initial reports from people at the scene that day, NOONE reported hearing her say that, no cops, no Alberts, no McCabes, no kerry roberts, no first responders that day. It wasnt until months later that it was injected into peoples stories.
If you have common sense, you definitely would’ve came back with a not guilty within an hour or less no doubt. For obvious reasons however everyone in their right mind knows that’s not how you collect evidence. Imagine someone getting convicted over the police using the neighbors cups and leaf blower from one of the officers garage and a grocery bag. This terrifying.
Auntie Bev read out the jury split in open court. “Some” for guilty vs “Others” for not guilty! I do not know where they find some people who for some reason are incapable of comprehending some simple things, some of which are some of the sciences some time! Am I making some sense some of the time?
Yes, we now know what the brother 's wife does for a living and how long she held her previous job, but still the prosecution maintains the bite marks on the victim "somehow " came from a headlight that only cracked hours later. Make it make sense.
I am very unhappy that Judge Beverly Cannone did NOT poll the jurors on whether they voted Not Guilty or Guilty. Taxpayer money is being spent on this trial. I only one or two jurors voted guilty, do the citizens of Canton really want to pay for another trial after what we heard in 9 weeks of testimony?
The minute they said she qas home and he was going up and down stairs at the house she dropped him off at, i knew she was innocent. Same with the tail light. Wasnt shattered at 5 am on video but they claim she hit him hours before
I just need to hear the logic from any juror that explains away the dog bite on a vehicular homicide victim's body. That's got to be flat earth level stuff.
The fact that they didn’t return a “Not Guilty” verdict within the first two hours of deliberation is beyond terrifying… The prosecution didn’t come within a country-mile of proving a single charge ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
This outcome shatters any remaining faith I had in the US justice system, and confirms a troubling reality: there must undoubtedly be tens of thousands of patently innocent people locked up in American prisons for crimes they clearly did not commit.
I couldn't agree more.
makes you wonder if the population is getting dumber , and just dont understand scientific testimony
We all know how accurate your statement already is. You couldn’t have said it any better!
Amen!!
It sickens me how true this is. 😢
Bingo the alternate juror says the CW DIDN'T prove their case against KR to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
There was reasonable doubt everywhere you looked.
@@laurenurban3942
Aren’t you both saying the same thing in a different way? There was so much reasonable doubt you could put a body through those holes.
so you reverse at 25mph ? sounds right to me ...
@@bobbypingree8940 Are you talking about the key cycle evidence?
@@bobbypingree8940 not a mark below the neck except that scratched up arm? No broken bones? It isn't possible to hit a body at 24moh, have it fly through the air over 30 feet and suffer not so much as a bruise never mind a broken bone.
Good to know there was at least one juror that understood the assignment. Too bad she was an alternate.
It was done on purpose
@@alisondinneenwright8092 even *if* it was (which the states own medical examiner disputes), the prosecution didn't prove that bc they did such a shoddy job investigating.
This is a ethical and moral alternate juror. She didn't let emotions sway her thinking she just looked at what the prosecution put on. good for you lady, you can rest easy now knowing you are honest and trustworthy!
YEAH DOING PUZZLES TOGETHER AND CELEBRATING BIRTHDAYS IS WHAT BEING A JUROR IS ALL ABOUT
karen read is innocent proctor is a criminal
💯 FACTS
K R INNOCENT
Free Proctor!
@@Jack-bc5xg😂😂😂 I love this just bc it's creative, courageous and funny. Better watch out tho. You're in for a ton of comments.
One swears the other kills. Ummm sorry but Karen is the devil.
This juror left me
Speechless with her words ❤What a beautiful and kind soul ❤
I agree with this.
Accurate assessment by the juror. Did not prove beyond reasonable doubt.
@@PerlaOC sure got your brain power how you ignore she in an alcoholic rage reckless driving wherein she backed out of that driveway at 24 mph not a iota of the consequences of her actions! Add the forensic evidence you got the elements from DNA and broken rear light etc IT'S CALLED INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER!!
Great information via the alternative juror. Thank you for your civic service ❤
I agree
There was no evidence to convict-
Profanity-laced voicemails played for jury: "Guarino said Read made 53 phone calls to O'Keefe in the hours after 12:35 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022. He said she left eight messages on O'Keefe's voicemail, which were played for the jury.
"John I am here with your (expletive) kids. Nobody knows where the (expletive) you are. You (expletive) pervert," Read said in one of the messages that O'Keefe received at 12:59 a.m.
"It's 1 a.m. I am with your (expletive) niece and nephew. You (expletive) pervert. You're a (expletive) pervert," Read said in a message at 1:11 a.m.
"John I am going home. I cannot believe (inaudible). I need to go home. You are (expletive) using me right now. You are (expletive) another girl. (Name redacted) is sleeping next to me. You are a (expletive) loser. (Expletive) yourself," Read said in a message at 1:18 a.m.
www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-june-20-2024/61185407
---
“I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, I hit him,” Norfolk prosecutor Adam Lally said Read exclaimed to paramedics when they responded to the discovery of officer John O’Keefe’s unresponsive body outside a Canton home during last weekend’s nor’easter.
Lally claimed a lot of things and blatantly lied. She wouldn't be leaving all those messages if she killed him but go you. She said Did I hit him. Huge difference.
This trial should scare the hell out of everyone. They framed an INNOCENT woman.
How far would the prosecution go? As far as was possible. They could not get to all the jurors, but one or a few was enough. Hopefully the FBI will get to the bottom of all of this. I would imagine they are salivating at getting at this whole thing.
Wouldn't be the first time this has happened in this country.
Absolutely shocking and terrifying
I've been saying this all along. Anybody that lives in Massachusetts should be incredibly concerned about this. This is scary stuff. Corruption is real.
@@cm1642 Thankfully we are far from the worst, but that is due to us hunting it down as citizens wherever we find it and having mechanisms to fight it. Lord help those that live in China or Russia.
Something is seriously wrong with our jury system. This should have been not guilty the first day. What twisted person could come up with guilty beyond reasonable doubt? This is nuts.
A person that was selected foreperson by the judge herself even before doing the lotto for alternates. How can she select a foreperson from the jury pool without knowing if he will be randomly picked as an alternate?
One or 2 that were intimidated by the real perps sitting in court, staring them down on closing arguments. That was full on jury intimidation, and should never have been allowed. As far as im concerned, that should have been cause for a mistrial. The other thought is just too scary to think about. We all have to remember the far reach those families and law authority have in Mass. If they are capable of cover ups and blatant lies in front of the world, what else would they not stop at?
You have too much free time and you crave drama and public noise. Get a life.
something is wrong that Karen did not take the stand?? Watch her ABC interview she did before tial and watch her lie
@@shecat1964 You American snowflakes and your psychological fragility...
1 or maybe 2 jurors need an education to understand REASONABLE DOUBT.
Critical thinking lacks in our community
Rather than perceptions and states of mind.
Scary thought but it could be a lot more than that.......
So does Lally
As well as plain common sense, John O'Keefe's injuries were not consistent with being hit by a vehicle......
What a rational, intelligent, compassionate and responsible woman.
Thank you for your service.
No reasonable juror could have thought Karen was guilty
But a smart one would. She’s guilty AF.
@brew1234567891 science and physics says she's innocent
@@brew1234567891 Explain.
@@Lawh he can't. it just feelings.
@@plutotech I wish they could come up and honestly say it themselves instead of all this gaslighting.
I am NOT suprised she was one of the alternates. Bev knew who was team Read. She let this woman go the day before deliberations. All done by design. Thank you for your service.
EXACTLY
...i think the prevailing theory is that the Judge violated the Law by choosing the Foreman _BEFORE_ randomly choose the Alternates: Because then, it prevents _HER_ choice from being dismissed by the Alternate Selection Process.
Totally agree , its how good old boy justice occurs and why she and the cops HATE Karens Lawyers. They dont play the game.
Unspoken actions from extremely smart people.
I am involved in a case in Alabama. I am the plaintiff and have discovered how they communicate with each other.
Must be hard for some Judges having zero power and being a referee that they have to get power in unethical ways
@@nikolaikalashnikov4253in Massachusetts they choose Juror #1. If they become the alternate it goes down the line. There's no conspiracy.
@@nikolaikalashnikov4253 I’m pretty sure she followed the law in Massachusetts.
The idea that a single juror listened to Prosecutor Lally's idiotic rambling case and thought Read was positively guilty astounds me
Although, I'm glad all jurors involved stuck to their guns-- as is their duty. It's clear they made an honest effort and took their job seriously
Because some people are used to "idiotic rambling" from years of public school.
Ex cop was on jury
I think it's dumb to make a Not Guilty vote be unanimous. If the majority of jurors are for not guilty it should be proof of reasonable doubt and a not guilty verdict given. It should only be unanimous for a guilty verdict.
I wonder if his overwhelming number of witnesses with their contradictory statements that made no sense added to his boring repetitive questioning just confused some of the less bright jurors
I’m so very happy that all the jurors stood their ground with their decision. That’s the best anyone could hope for in a jury trial. It tells us the jury system can still work. All too often jurors get persuaded to change their verdict. Probably because they want to go home and put the mess behind them.
I can't wait for these jurors to hear what we've all been hearing on the outside for weeks.
Yes!!! They will be shocked
They may be in for Rude awakening. But I’m willing to bet those that believe she is guilty will still believe she is guilty!
There’s a small chance that when they learn the Feds are investigations this case it might change their minds. It might!
And for 2 years
As we want to hear from the jurors what they had been saying in those same wks😊I'm disappointed I felt not guilty would of been appropriate but they are definitely respected by us they did what they thought was best just that KR future back on hold cuz their gonna go for another trial😮😮
I hope one of the jurors speaks out and tells us all what was the issue with the hung jury and how many were for and against conviction. I feel she is innocent and I want to know where it all went wrong in the deliberations as I'm sure the Defense and Prosecution would also.
They need to watch the juror's bank accounts and see if any "deposits" get made.
it sounds like it's common practice for the judge to poll the jurors so the lawyers and the court have the feedback on what any potential hangups/concerns were. hopefully we will find out
@@marygoff3332Yes! I hope the FBI is on top of all this nonsense.
@@marygoff3332Sitting in this trial the jury knew that the other side is corrupt, so they also knew that there is a payday for anyone who wants it.
@@marygoff3332It's my opinion that the Defense was the only ppl working behind the scenes.
This case is terrifying because if some jurors really thought the prosecution proved it's case, that means anyone can be convicted of a crime they didn't commit simply because some of our fellow citizens aren't able to employ common sense and logic when it matters. It really calls into question the efficacy of jury trials but it's so comforting to hear from an intelligent juror who understood the assignment. All it really takes to ensure justice is one juror who refuses to ignore the overwhelming evidence. I'm sure the other jurors were well meaning.... maybe they didn't understand what reasonable doubt was? Maybe they thought a not guilty verdict meant that they were agreeing that there was a cover up? Maybe they saw the pain the Okeefe family is in and thought they should convict an innocent woman as a way to comfort them? Maybe they were worried that the police would retaliate if they returned a not guilty verdict? Maybe someone intimidated them? Maybe the verdict form confused them?
Exactly, not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The world saw this & yet only a few on the jury did not. Makes you wonder why. 🤔
God bless juror #3. Wish she was picked & not an alternate.
I'm sickened that Proctor is getting transferred. In a just world he wouldn't be employed any longer and might even be facing charges.
He has been relieved of all duties until investigation is done. The transfer was just out of DA office. People are taking that wrong way. Still may be terminated
@@BobbyB21_ This puts my mind at ease somewhat. Thanks for clarifying.
We also don’t know yet exactly what the fbi investigation is going to turn up…
I says transferred but most places say where he is transferring too. But my guess he’s getting transferred out the front door. Remember the Governor runs the State Police and she was furious about his text messages. So I’m sure she had sent directions to get rid of him. She publicly said him and texts make all LE look bad.
The FEDS are still investigating him as of now.
Smart juror!💞
Congrats Jury 3... You are one of the best...hope you get to read this. Hello from the Philippines
Intelligence matters. Sure this juror saw the whole picture without bias. Good for her 😎
She did, it's very clear by her statement. Gives me hope for the justice system.
They didn't allow her juror on purpose. They saw she was taking notes and paying close attention. They did not want someone like that going into the deliberation room.
The STATE stacked the jury
Did anyone educate the jury that if there is not enough evidence to prove guilt then it’s not guilty?????
No
obviously they were not focused on reasonable doubt.
Weren't there two lawyers on the jury?
I hung a jury because a group of people let their emotions lead them allowing a persecutor to literally put a ring in their nose to lead them around. When I finally went before the judge and explained why they had failed to do their job of demonstrating that the innocent man on trial was not innocent. They never even showed him at the crime scene.
A year later, they convicted his wife of killing him. It takes a strong person to do what is right. Too many people allow smoke and mirrors to lead them around.
I really hate what they were put through. I cannot imagine what takes 9 weeks to show someone committed a crime. You have the evidence or you don't.
Every Single Trial that i've watched, the Prosecutor has _LIED_ during *_Opening Statements,_* got caught on *_Cross Examination,_* then actually had the audacity to repeat the same _LIE_ during *_Closing Arguments_* !!! ...What's worse is that _NOTHING_ every happened to them for blatantly _LYING_ like that !!! And I can imagine that some jurors will actually be fooled & misled by such _LIES_ !!!
...wait... So, maybe I mis-read you... Are you implying that the Wife originally setup the Defendant to "get rid of him" and when that didn't work, she _KILLED_ him (the defendant) ??? ...Or, you mean that she killed the victim that the Husband (defendant) was accused of killing ???
@@nikolaikalashnikov4253 I think they meant to say that the victim's wife was the real killer; not the defendant. Not sure, but seems like it.
2:10 The right tail light in the back ground is cracked not shattered...If the Lexus didn't hit they should have acquit...
Like OJ and the glove, hmm leather shrinks when wet, but that's another story
None of that even matters, it was proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that a car did not cause his injuries and all the charges required a car.
Why does Bev get to pick the forman ? I don’t like it.
The jury should pick the foreman, regardless of what the judge says.
Judges generally just make the first juror who is picked the forman. They don't really pick
In Massachusetts juror #1 is picked. If they're the alternate it goes down the line.
@@DrKnowsMoreoops.... sorry I see you also posted that!
@@LazySusan. Your comment added clarity and confirmation to the to her comment, so no need to apologize. It was a positive contribution.
Not Guilty!
GUILTY!
Who didnt see this coming from a mile away? All you have to do is read the comments section under any of the videos on this case and you can see there is a clear divide amongst people who are watching, in general. The divide may not be equal but it’s there! I tried to watch this trial from an unbiased pov. I don’t care for a Karen read but that’s not what I worried about. I just kept thinking if I was a juror and had to follow the instructions given to me, could I convict this woman? The answer is NO! It’s not that I buy into the coverup or conspiracy . It’s that the evidence in this case was just not enough for me to say she 100% without a reasonable doubt, backed her car into John okeefe, willingly and intentionally. The police completely botched this investigation from the second they stepped on the scene. That is a huge problem. The crime scene not being secured for hours. Huge problem. Evidence popping up, stories changing, phones being thrown away, huge problem. 3 experts saying injuries aren’t consistent with a pedestrian strike, HUGE PROBLEM! Trooper proctor blew this case and from there on out everything else was a mess! Shame on the MSP for failing John O’Keefe. He deserved better!
Truth...body tells the story...no bruises or major injuries = not hit by a car, nothing else matters. Sad part is they are going to try this case again.
Exactly! (Except four medical experts said his injuries weren't consistent with a car - ER doctor, Medical Examiner, and then the two witnesses hired by the FBI.)
Karen Read is factually innocent!
Have fun donating to her defense fund.
@@Jack-bc5xg Have fun staying mad in a RUclips comment section.
She’s the opposite
@@stevenprice6957failure of common sense. Go back to middle school
@@Kodiak42 Im Australian. We don’t call it middle school. I’ve been around a long time. Common sense shows you what this case is. It’s a mirage from the defence and always was. There so called conspiracies were banged off one by one. The evidence points down a the road of killer Karen.
Breaking news: I have a quote coming in from Chloe the dog...whats that Chloe?
Chloe: "I bit him, I bit him, I bit him".
There was a dead man on the property with, obviously, bite marks on him and they didn't even investigate the one dog belonging to that property.
She must be speaking from heaven to you though. I don't think she is around anymore.
Juror: "No one saw exactly what happened!" -- That's true for a lot of violent crimes and not the right summary of why you would find someone not guilty. I was hoping she would provide something a little more specific with respect to the actualy evidence presented.
Clickbait. Why not put “alternate” in the title?
This is not in Boston it's in Canton,Ma .
This is going to cost this town millions !
I can understand the public being split about 70/30 as most polls suggest , but for these peoplewho have sat through every second of testimony and evidence how anyone could not say not guilty is baffling to me , either they didnt understand the evidence or someone got scared
I really want to hear from these jurors, specially the ones thinking guilty. It suck that we probably won't!
Not likely going to be hearing from the public that feel her vehicle’s taillight was cracked hitting him … they don’t want to deal with the pro dog people
Alternative juror… who really cares; we need to hear from an actual juror that was in the room during deliberations… that’s who we need to hear from
Yes exactly Crooked Bev could read jurors responses and got rid of any Team Read people. The most twisted Judge I have ever seen 😮😮😮
I love puzzling. And I love the fair response from this juror! Thank you!
Corruption 10000000000% NOT GUILTY !!!!
The problem is MSP and MA lawmakers will point to Proctor and say 'See, we got the bad apple...'. Then do nothing else about the entire system that is corrupt. Its NOT just him. ALL LE in MA are corrupt.
Much respect to this juror. Appreciate her speaking out and the precautions she took in doing so. I truly don't understand how anyone could honestly get beyond reasonable doubt based on the CW's case. The corruption laid out through the trial testimony was staggering, too.
She was right. No evidence and expert witnesses said he wasn’t hit by a car.
Anybody that thought the prosecution proved their case is simply lacking in brains... I'm really fair person when you have two independent witnesses say not an accident..hello that is enough for doubt
Even their own Medical Examiner said his injuries weren't consistent with a car (as well as the ER doctor).
Thanks so much for this info ❤
Thank you! Fascinating! Thank you, juror #3 for speaking about this. It's a shame she didn't get to deliberate. I hope the other jurors also give statements or interviews. I would like to know what happened in that room and what was the split.
Thanks for sharing
This woman would have been pro Karen and pro justice
Nice that the jurors had time to do puzzles.
Yeah and we watched a ceiling fan for days 🤣
Probably the alternates, who don't participate in deliberations.
During the trial there are a lot of breaks, and they may not speak about the case until deliberations. So, yeah, why not puzzles.
Juries are instructed to err on the side of caution, so that if there is any doubt about guilt, they should acquit, rather than risk convicting an innocent person. The principal is "It's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to wrongly convict one innocent person." How can anyone possibly find her guilty? The letter said due to "deeply held personal values etc." juries are supposed to follow the principal of law and the instructions given to them no their own personal beliefs, this is why Jury needs to be a job. the average layperson can't distinguish between deciding guilt and judging someone's moral character. when it comes to someone's life, it should be decided by knowledgeable, experienced and empathetic people who understand the principals of law.
I dont think the word VALUES appear9 see below0. Thier personal beliefs on what is reasonable or unreasonable does matter. How much weight they give to certain facts is also based on personal beliefs. If you want to create a professional juror based on certain criteria have at it.
Once you make the criteria it might be difficult to say they are then your ' peers"
Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs,
@@jeffnorris8848 wrong, jurors take an oath to faithfully and impartially follow the law as instructed by the court.
The role of a juror is to apply the law as given by the judge to the facts of the case, without letting personal opinions or beliefs influence their decision. Judges instruct jurors to base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court, and to disregard any external factors or personal beliefs that may be irrelevant to the case.
individual principals and moral convictions
should not override the legal framework that governs the case.
In the United States, the legal system is based on the principle of "rule of law," which means that the law as written and interpreted by the courts should guide the decision-making process, rather than personal moral beliefs. If a juror's moral convictions are so strongly tied to the facts of the case that they cannot separate them. the juror should request to be dismissed.
@@logicandreason8090 You did say the word VALUES which is not found in the text I quoted. So who exactly was wrong??
IF you wish to find to create a jury without any ' moral convictions' and put yourself in front of it have at it.
"A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with MORAL certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. "
@@jeffnorris8848 principals and values can mean the same thing. Duh. are you really arguing over Semantics? moral certainty in the context of reasonable doubt is about being convinced of the facts, whereas personal moral convictions are about individual beliefs and values.
@@logicandreason8090 principals and values CAN mean the same thing.
I am pointing out your direct quote was inaccurate. ARe you suggesting that it was 'factual' inaccurate but " morally" correct?
"moral certainty" does not use or involve morals????
Ultimately you are arguing for an amoral jury to be your peer. AS I have said if you think you can create one please list the criteria that you would want for those who sit in judgment of you.
Sounds like this alternate took her job very serious. I respect and appreciate her input. It was well thought out. She showed compassion for both sides of the families and she her comments from Proctor didn’t inflame her when it came to the case.( which it shouldn’t have done)
Could we expect anything more from this juror? I don’t think so!
Kudos to her for taking her position seriously and giving important feedback.
They did this on purpose - they made her an alternate on purpose
The STATE stacked the jury in favor of LE
alternates dont count. get a real juror, on camera
Great reporting Louisa Moller. 👍
“ I deem you not guilty because I feel sorry for you.” is not the job of a jury. It is to interpret evidence and apply the law according the legal procedure of the jurisdiction you are in.
Not every adult is capable of doing this.
Wish she was an actual juror. Sounds like she has a brain
She is Guilty
Still have to prove it.
Now I wonder if the other alternate was an avid note taker as well. If so, it will be harder to believe both being excluded was pure chance.
Yes, that would be highly suspect: However, me personally, i think it's much more important to carefully study & evaluate the Body Language, Facial Expressions, Inflection & Tone of Voice of the Witness as well as to visual everything that they're saying & genuinely trying to understand everything as a whole: Doing this will help you determine "believability" as well as help catch any contradictions: Whereas, if you're too focused on your notes, you could miss all this crucial information, IMO.
If one person came up with a guilty verdict to cause a mistrial, makes me suspicious
I was Juror #3 also. 1987 for 91 days.
What was your experience like? 91 days is a long trial, isn't it?
@@adamsmall5598 You might be sorry you asked because it was the actual "Trial of the Century". 3 Inkster MI Police officers kidnapped and killed by a Mother and her 3 sons. 4 separate trials with 4 separate defendants with 4 different Lawyers. I would not have missed it for the world. I have 100 stories. 125 Policemen showed up in less than 30 minutes from all across MI. Wonder if they would do that for me hahaha.
@@user-tc2ud9fz3w
100 stories...and I would listen to every one of them. I have to definitely explore this "case" of madness/sadness. Thank you for sharing what I am certain is and was a mountain sized piece in your life that will stay with you all of your life. What we cannot "unhear" or "unsee", right.? ♡~
Really worrying outcome..I mean reasonable doubt was met week one😢
This is the juror who wore a pink dress and cried the day after she was named an alternate?
Is that important? Jobs do not pay you when you have jury duty, miss months of work no pay is probably have a panic attack also, not all of us can afford that.
@ar4203 It might be important. And it's incorrect that all jurors go without their salary. Public employees, for example, continue to get paid while doing jury duty.
@@goodegg1how could it be important?? The rest of us dont get paid so unless there is evidence she has a public position it seems reasonable to consider that jury duty (ecspecially in THIS CASE where they have had to be off SINCE APRIL- Literal MONTHS of unpaid leave) is an extremley stressful situation for regular people sho have families to support, and maybe consider that the fead & panic about this financial burden could reasonably upset someone
@ar4203 Yes it's important. Gives off the vibe that this is an activist juror, upset she couldn't try and sway the jury to her biased views, and after being put as an alternate started to wear pink like all the FKR activist outside were wearing.
@@ar4203 Jurors without public positions get $50/day. It's not much, but it's not nothing.
Not coming up with a NOT GUILTY verdict after this circus it's scary as hell.
There was no case and so a hung jury it's not enough but that's where we stand.
Free Karen Read.
It's really interesting, Thank you
Some of the jurors were compromised without doubt! 😮😢
Talk to a juror who deliberated? The others don't seem to understand what reasonable doubt it...
WTH is wrong with this jury. It was obvious that KR is Not Guilty. Ridiculous.
There was a hold out. A flat Earther who doesn't believe in science
The STATE stacked the jury in favor of LE.
Proctor has been rehomed like the dog.
…..I bet he ends up working at the Am sets pizza store once he is officially fired
Great reporting. Nice job.
Thank you Nicky - I have learned to stop being a victim just recently and my life is so much better. Love you always
The jury is what you get when you teach children what to think instead of how to think. When they become adults they cannot see the clues of innocent or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Karen read should have been set free with a not guilty in my opinion.
Juror No3❤️👍
I am probably going to get some heat for this BUT I feel some ppl got paid from the CW on that jury. The way they had the witnesses come in and sit for closing statements and how Lally insisted the jury keep deliberating 3 TIMES says something to me. This case was a PERFECT SYMBOL of what it means when the prosecution doesn't present its case or enough evidence however the defense did even though they do not have to. Im not on anyone's side but the right to Justice in the United States of America. There was something wrong with this case. Ive taken part of many trials and this case should have never been even indicted.
THANK YOU JUROR #3 FOR YOUR SERVICE AND ALL THE TIME YOU PUT INTO THIS CASE! I JUST WISH ALL THE JURORS WHERE AD INTELLIGENT AND HAD THE ABSOLUTE COMMON SENSE TO SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYZE IT PROPERLY AND COME UP WITH A NOT GUILTY VERDICT! YOU ARE A CLASS ACT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATED SERVICE!! ⚖️ 💕
Judge should of stepped down,she knew the cops family !
This is crazy!!! It's so hard to believe that #KarenRead still has this hanging over her head until the Commonwealth decided to let her resume with her life. #FreeKarenRead
Can't wait for the re-trial. She was guilty.
Two words for you: No Evidence.
Sadly not a surprise, i regularly checked every livechat available and depsite a vast majority saying not guilty there was always a few who thought guilty. On average 90% thought not guilty so it wouldnt surprise me if the jury was 11/1 with a staunch pro guilt juror who wouldn't see reason
"Reasonable Doubt" that's the key to any trial for a juror to consider. Hopefully, a juror who was actually deliberating will come forward and let us know what went on the jury room. Fascinating stuff.
They knew her position. That is why she was pulled to be the alternate. What are the odds that she would have voted not guilty and didn’t make the final group to decide. Aunt Bev was so obviously bias and this just proves it more
I hope the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is LISTENING. Useless to recharge. Save your careers and find out who really did this.
She's guilty ,she admitted hitting him.
She allegedly screamed that she hit him and asked if she could've hit him. Cops didn't arrest her at the scene...so she either didn't say that, or they understood she was in shock. They even sent her to the hospital for evaluation. She was frantic and hysterical. And four medical experts testified a car didn't hit John O'Keefe.
I don't think she did. I think she initially didn't even remember dropping him off and maybe supposed at the beginning, when she found him dead in the snow, that him lying there might have been her fault.
But there is no evidence there was any pedestrian crash, not on her car, not on him.
Instead there are bite marks on him which the DA seems to just ignore or explain away by a crash that hasn't been and can't be proven.
With no matching damage or injuries it actually doesn't even matter what she says or ever said. She could confess all day long and still couldn't have done it.
1 EMT who is friends with Caitlyn Albert is the only one who said that, Jen McCabe is the one who started that months later, read the initial reports from people at the scene that day, NOONE reported hearing her say that, no cops, no Alberts, no McCabes, no kerry roberts, no first responders that day. It wasnt until months later that it was injected into peoples stories.
Not interested in an alternates opinion.
Much respect to juror #3.
If you have common sense, you definitely would’ve came back with a not guilty within an hour or less no doubt. For obvious reasons however everyone in their right mind knows that’s not how you collect evidence. Imagine someone getting convicted over the police using the neighbors cups and leaf blower from one of the officers garage and a grocery bag. This terrifying.
Auntie Bev read out the jury split in open court. “Some” for guilty vs “Others” for not guilty! I do not know where they find some people who for some reason are incapable of comprehending some simple things, some of which are some of the sciences some time! Am I making some sense some of the time?
There had to be some real dummies on that jury ….or they knew people 🤦♀️
💯 %
It boiled down to did Karen hit John with her vehicle. The entire trial got sidetracked with testimony the commonwealth never should have introduced.
Yes, we now know what the brother 's wife does for a living and how long she held her previous job, but still the prosecution maintains the bite marks on the victim "somehow " came from a headlight that only cracked hours later. Make it make sense.
guaranteed the ex cop juror was the only hold out.
The STATE stacked the jury in favor of LE
I am very unhappy that Judge Beverly Cannone did NOT poll the jurors on whether they voted Not Guilty or Guilty. Taxpayer money is being spent on this trial. I only one or two jurors voted guilty, do the citizens of Canton really want to pay for another trial after what we heard in 9 weeks of testimony?
Is it legal for her to talk to the media?
Yes after it is over if one of the jury members which to disclose anything to the media they can,its there choice!
Yes. If she had been in the jury room, she could even talk about every aspect of the deliberations. There are no restrictions.
Yes!!!
Why would it be illegal?
No the jurors are allowed to talk to the media after the trial.
The minute they said she qas home and he was going up and down stairs at the house she dropped him off at, i knew she was innocent. Same with the tail light. Wasnt shattered at 5 am on video but they claim she hit him hours before
seems there may have been some “friends” of friends of cops.
That's all she got from that juror? Great reporter, not!
I just need to hear the logic from any juror that explains away the dog bite on a vehicular homicide victim's body. That's got to be flat earth level stuff.
Here we go the first paid Juror #3 .
Reasonable doubt. Next
Was it her or #4? The judge said she left for "personal reasons", if it was her, too bad you didnt ask her what the reason was for her removal.
She earned her A+
From US!!
And from JUSTICE!!!!