IT is a tragedy for ALL involved, the families and friends and people of Canton, it's PD, First Responders, Mass State Police, all those men and women in Emergency Services, Law Enforcement who have been so unjustly judged and unfairly maligned over the course of this investigation and trial process
Not Guilty. The man was beaten to death and attacked by a large dog…Stevie Wonder can see that. And the audacity of the lead suspect sit in there and intimidate the jury. Shame on the Commonwealth.
@@musicismysanctuary5813 .. I agree he was either beaten or the dog attacked and he fell backward on the stairs hit the back of his head and they carried him outside. If they would have called for help he may have lived. The house was never checked. They re-homed the dog immediately and moved within a couple of days…outrageous
Its not going the way everyone thought it people need to consider the consequences here if they get it wrong. This takes time not 5 minutes like most are thinking
Ive literally got a scar on my leg from a dog bite from years ago that looks just like his arm. Thats 100% dog bites. If you ever been bit from a dog, you know. There is no maybes to it.
I have one on my arm too and I can tell you I never got a bruise with it. I've also been hit by a car (at a much lower speed) and I was bruised from asshole to breakfast time so . . . .
2 medical examiners said he wasn’t hit by a vehicle. His arm injuries looked like dog bites and claws. 2 experts in reconstruction of accidents said vehicle did not hit him. So not guilty/innocent.. probable dog attacked knocked him dow the stairs and he hit his head. Someone moved him to the yard. Sad they didn’t call it in as an accident. He might have lived . Karen is innocent
@@jenniferdavis8313 actually the prosecution looked like buffoons. They are covering up the fact that someone in that house hurt him and let him die in the cold. No way she did it.
Me either. it is SO obvious that this little old lady with gray hair and wearing diapers who was the ONLY one in that group that wasn't MARRIED to a cop and who was about to be dumped by him, drank NINE drinks, got into that Lexus and RAN HIM DOWN. "Hell Hath No Fury like an Old Fart In Diapers who is DRUNK and being rejected by the man she wanted to MARRY to get his money, health insurance and pension, like all the OTHER women in that group". This whole groups of cops and their soccer mom wives are a bunch of misfits. But they ALL had financial security because they were MARRIED to cops. NOT KAREN, This was her LAST CHANCE in that club of misfits and she was being dumped . SHE RAN HIM DOWN, Evil old gray haired devil in diapers,
Maybe there's a person stuck on wanting to know who did it if not Karen....and they don't believe a cover-up would be as easy as it actually was to pull off. The 11 rational people are spending time going over the 5,000 reasons to acquit, and that takes time. Some people are quite irrational and stubborn.
@@EyeColorAnalyzerUnikaThe lunatics who hear factual, credible, sensible, common sense evidence that the car didnt strike a person, and John's injuries werent caused by a car, from the best experts in the nation used by the DOD and hired by the DOJ...and STILL refuse to accept their testimony as true - are serving on juries and putting innocent people in prison ALL over...ALL the time. WHY, then, is this our chosen justice system? Any of us could be imprisoned for something we didn't do because of those jackholes. There are countless accounts of this happening to people who were eventually exonerated upon further investigation. We cannot stand for this. I, for one, don't want these people on my jury if I'm ever falsely accused due to circumstantial evidence or police corruption. I don't want my freedom taken from me because of a few people's blind faith in law enforcement or critique of my facial expressions. Why would anyone decide to put a decision this important in the hands of a jury with NO prerequisite IQ, education, life experience, or open-mindedness? Why wouldn't they have to pass a thorough screening interview, mental health assessment, psychological evaluation, or emotional intelligence screening? It's absurd. KAREN READ IS ALL OF US.
@@ThatRedhedd t is SO obvious that this little old lady with gray hair and wearing diapers who was the ONLY one in that group that wasn't MARRIED to a cop and who was about to be dumped by him, drank NINE drinks, got into that Lexus and RAN HIM DOWN. "Hell Hath No Fury like an Old Fart In Diapers who is DRUNK and being rejected by the man she wanted to MARRY to get his money, health insurance and pension, like all the OTHER women in that group". This whole group of cops and their soccer mom wives are a bunch of misfits. But they ALL had financial security because they were MARRIED to cops. NOT KAREN, This was her LAST CHANCE in that club of misfits and she was being dumped . SHE RAN HIM DOWN, Evil old gray haired devil in diapers,
What is most disturbing is the treatment of a downed fellow officer..not EVEN trying to solve the case. No cooperation, got rid of the dog, sold the house, got rid of phones and data…the dishonesty is appalling. Lord Jesus. HELP!
Are you really that gullible? The digital evidence submitted in court places O'Keefe motionless in the area close to the dividing line between 32 and 34 Fairview the duration 12.32 and 6.15 when He was recovered. Karen Read's SUV recorded her reversing back over 60 ft at 24 mph hitting him. These pieces of independent indisputable evidence informs what happened to John O'Keefe-only Karen Read can tell us Why.
She takes temper tantrums and loses it. Plus, intoxication while driving and memory is not clear = DWI. No emotion in court when pic of Johns autopsy and to many giggles and smiles throughout the trial. we may never know the truth. If I was her, I would be scared as hell just to be in this whole situation. and the possibilities of "Who says?" and "What if"
As someone who has been on a high-stakes jury before, I don't think taking time is a bad thing. Good jurors want to make sure they have looked at and understood all the evidence before making a decision on someone's life. Remember, this was a 10 week trial with something like 80 witnesses. It was hot in the courthouse. It was hard to hear and hard to see. I'm sure they want to be thorough. I remember for us, the first few hours were simply getting out all our questions and thoughts because we had to keep it to ourselves for so long. Then you sleep on it and think of new things and change your mind. Some people see things differently so we talk it through. The paperwork is also a giant BEAST. The longest time spent was going through each count, making sure we completely understood what it meant and that we answered the counts properly. I really don't think taking time is ever a bad thing. If they were corrupt, they would come back immediately IMO.
I get that if you were leaning guilty. But this whole trial and every charge involved is dependent on her hitting him with her car and causing his death. I don't see how you get beyond a reasonable doubt unless you just ignore all of the expert testimony in this case. How do you say the car caused his death if you can't explain how the car caused his injuries?
Fantastic reply…..I agreed with everything you said - also I’ve been curious, do they really think jurors don’t discuss the case with their significant other? I I know they have to instruct the jury not to speak about the case with anyone or read anything on the case but that must be next to impossible right?
@shailaja6788couldn’t agree more….this obviously isn’t the 1st time this judge has had a case with these exact charges before. The verdict slip in her previous case(s) either had the not guilty option or not. If it did have it & she altered it specifically for this case than she should be disbarred
I realize your unfounded & scientifically impossible belief is likely due to your intellectual limitations & isn't your fault. How could Karen have hit John when none of the expected evidence of such a collision exists? Adam Lally & Co. - "She just did!"
This is RIDICULOUS!!! It shouldn't have even taken them five minutes to decide and five more minutes to mark the "not guilty" box(es). The corruption runs deep in Massachusetts!!!
As someone who has been on a high-stakes jury before and found the defendant NG, I don't think this is a bad thing. Good jurors want to make sure they have looked at and understood all the evidence before making a decision on someone's life. Remember, this was a 10 week trial with something like 80 witnesses. It was hot in the courthouse. It was hard to hear and hard to see. I'm sure they want to be thorough. I remember for us, the first few hours were simply getting out all our questions and thoughts because we had to keep it to ourselves for so long. Then you sleep on it and think of new things and change your mind. Some people see things differently so we talk it through. The paperwork is also a giant BEAST. The longest time spent was going through each count, making sure we completely understood what it meant and that we answered the counts properly. I really don't think taking time is ever a bad thing. If they were corrupt, they would come back immediately IMO.
Thanks toThe Innocence Project, hundreds of wrongfully convicted people have been exonerated after spending YEARS in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Cops are OFTEN corrupt, and the "Blue Wall of Silence" has been reported on in every American city for years. They protect each other, or they lose their jobs. The truth is cops don't want their wrongdoings made public because citizens would lose faith in them, and their reputution would be trash if we knew about all the corruption. So, they've been covering bad acts up, rather than exposing them or punishing them, which only served as a "corruption incubator." Qualified Immunity means zero accountability. The "Blue Wall of Silence" has been reported on in every American city for years. There are plentiful articles & podcasts by investigative journalists exposing it. Cops must fall in line & cover for each other, or they're sabotaged & set up to lose their jobs. It's disgusting & frightening, so most citizens prefer to deny it & pretend it's just a "few bad apples," but a primarily honest institution. However, any review of authority & positions of leadership throughout history proves that power leads to corruption - it is the human condition.
I realize your unfounded & scientifically impossible belief is likely due to your intellectual limitations & isn't your fault. How could Karen have hit John when none of the expected evidence of such a collision exists? Adam Lally & Co. - "She just did!"
There’s absolutely NO evidence that suggests JO’s body was struck by a vehicle. Unbiased professionals (sought after by the FBI, not the state) including a highly accredited medical examiner and two forensic crash experts completely debunked this theory. So please, tell me your reasoning behind this opinion? I’m genuinely curious.
This judge is disgusting ... She has Manipulated this case in the way that the form she gave the Jury has all guilty verdicts and the top one not guilty.... Chief justice should be involved.....
I ask where would this be if not for A Jackson..he caught this as well as the Sally Port video..are the Feds watching-Chief Justice..someone needs to step in here..
Justice for who? The perpetrator or the actual victim of her crime? The man She ran down and left gravely injured to die a horrible, cruel untimely and wholly un necessary death because she was angry and upset. Go figure. Those of you who support Karen, electing to ignore the evidence and the facts are complicit with Karen Read in the death of John O'Keefe.
Guilty. And that smirk on her face..🥴glad the judge called her out ….poor O’Keefe family…imagine looking at her every day with her smirky face…RIP JOHN ….
It's totally ok if the jury doesn't "buy the conspiracy." The defense doesn't need an explanation as to _why_ Karen's Not Guilty. The Not Guilty plea alone is all they need to submit. Karen is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. So, if there was no cover-up or conspiracy, she's _still innocent_ until proven guilty. We have factual scientific evidence proving Karen's vehicle never hit John, and that's enough to acquit her - even without a satisfactory alternate theory about who k***ed him.
I realize your unfounded & scientifically impossible belief is likely due to your intellectual limitations & isn't your fault. How could Karen have hit John when none of the expected evidence of such a collision exists? Adam Lally & Co. - "She just did!"
Man..I betcha Officer John O’Keefe was one the neighborhood loved to see this nice Man…every kid was so feeling bad when they didn’t see Him ❤️I’m pretty sure
One of the Albert brothers testified they had a mean name for JO because he used to yell & throw stuff at his kids for walking on his lawn. I think he was a grump. He was mean to KR.
So you mean to tell me that she may walk free after being drunk and leaving the scene? Yes the cops are shady but there’s no way they framed this. That would be waaay too much work. I’d love to see her smiling arrogant face if she’s found guilty of all charges!
AJ makes you laugh one minutes he’s unjustifably aggressive with the judge the next minute he’s slimy sucking up to her like a school boy in class. Embarrassing.
Not quilty. Its not even close the whole trial was a sham. The car shows intact brake light at 5 am picture when she should have hit him hours before. What more do you need lol.
You guys need to watch it on TV or get different glasses. Her light was broken on the video. As a matter of fact this is not even an argument the defense made. They agreed it was already broken, but said she broke it by hitting his car. To add to that, if you watch the video the day the defense spoke about it, you can see that the lawyer quickly ask them to remove it before the car moves because it was zoomed in. And they didn't want anyone to see that there was obviously no plastic or debris on the snow.
How did he not sustain any bruising or injuries below the neck? I'll listen if you have a reasonable explanation that 2 MEs and expert biomechanical and mechanical engineers don't.
If I was falsely accused of murdering my boyfriend and being framed for the murder, the last thing I would be doing in court is smirking, laughing, eye rolling, etc.
So what ! People have different ways of expressing nervousness. Some people can be truly innocent but they express themselves in a strange unusual way.That is ridiculous to say that they are guilty because they smirked or rolled their eyes.
She cant win. Half of you people that think shes guilty complain that she always has a "b!tchy" look on her face and never smiles, and the other half of you say "i wouldnt be smirking and laughing." What exactly do you want her to do? Where a mask so you cant see what her expressions are?
Luckily the judge confronted her today. She never showed any emotions for the supposed love of her life and smirked her way through the entire trial. The only thing close to an emotion she showed was the panic over the voice mails.
guilty.....and her arrogant, smirky behaviour won't get unnoticed by the jury. Ice cold staring at the autopsy pictures and any lack of emotion speaks to her guilt. Her hateful, vicious screaming at John showed her true self....obsessed, pathological jealousy and mean spirited.
Maybe there's a person stuck on wanting to know who did it if not Karen....and they don't believe a cover-up would be as easy as it actually was to pull off. The 11 rational people are spending time going over the 5,000 reasons to acquit, and that takes time. Some people are quite irrational and stubborn.
I love how people are shocked that there are people driving after drinking alcohol. 😂 Look around at the restaurants and bars, and look at the parking lot. Is it empty? Well those people inside that are buying alcohol are actually going getting in their car and driving. I don't drink alcohol but something for all of you to process. Next time you go out for dinner, drink water.
To anyone saying those VMs are a "normal" part of relationships I'm terrified to think how your relationships look like tbh. She was toxic and abusive to him, thought that he was cheating almost obsessively (which is something cheaters themselves do btw) and her screaming at him on those VMs infront of the children she hated is awful. She was drunk and full of rage period. The defense saying they were lovey dovey is hilarious. Justice for John who was forgotten in this whole Karen and fame hungry lawyers circus 🎪
It's normal for certain people. My brother was always arguing like that with his partner but neither of them were violent. We all know how bad it can feel when people cheat too.
@@LegendLengthnah it isn't normal sorry. This is abusive behaviour, screaming at your partner with this amount of unhinged rage is never normal. If your brother and his partner were like this then their relationship was abusive end of story.
it is SO obvious that this little old lady with gray hair and wearing diapers who was the ONLY one in that group that wasn't MARRIED to a cop and who was about to be dumped by him, drank NINE drinks, got into that Lexus and RAN HIM DOWN. "Hell Hath No Fury like an Old Fart In Diapers who is DRUNK and being rejected by the man she wanted to MARRY to get his money, health insurance and pension, like all the OTHER women in that group". This whole group of cops and their soccer mom wives are a bunch of misfits. But they ALL had financial security because they were MARRIED to cops. NOT KAREN, This was her LAST CHANCE in that club of misfits and she was being dumped . SHE RAN HIM DOWN, Evil old gray haired devil in diapers,
It's totally ok if the jury doesn't "buy the conspiracy." The defense doesn't need an explanation as to _why_ Karen's Not Guilty. The Not Guilty plea alone is all they need to submit. Karen is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. So, if there was no cover-up or conspiracy, she's _still innocent_ until proven guilty. We have factual scientific evidence proving Karen's vehicle never hit John, and that's enough to acquit her - even without a satisfactory alternate theory about who k***ed him.
I feel they were in court to INTIMIDATE the jury. These cops are corrupt, they could make threats on the jury or their families. I would put nothing past them. Just look at their track record…very scary humans.
Doesn't she not always look furious or 'souer'? l do not know if she has this arrogant expression on her face due to botox but to me she always looks arrogant and narcisstic... of course if she is not guilty or there is reasonable doubt she should not go jail... but still, something seems to be wrong with that woman...
@@joditurrisi6004 No not only by her looks... don't forget her angry voicemails etc... she seems to have a problem with drinking also... l dont mean this in an arrogant way but my impression is that she is a narcisstist and lam not the only one who has that impression...
Most people lack the emotional intelligence and ability to give someone grace in times of trauma or grief. They can't allow for the possibility that people all respond differently in those times, though a response that's different than how they would've responded doesn't mean someone isn't being genuine! It should be common knowledge that people deal with their emotions in unique ways. Some laugh or remain stoic when overwhelmed with sadness because they're in denial, or are afraid to feel the grief. Some people only cry in private. Some people have learned to dissociate from painful feelings. Some people have been through so much pain throughout their lives that they develop a tolerance to grief and no longer respond to it in a typical manner. Some people no longer express grief by crying tears after a certain period of time, because they've sufficiently cried and processed their grief. People on antidepressants may not be able to access the feeling adequately that would result in tears. For all of these reasons and more, it is insensitive, unfair, and inappropriate to judge a person's guilt based on whether or not they cry in this situation, 2 years after the loss of a loved one, while being falsely accused!
Lally blatantly lied in his closing, multiple times. I'm disgusted by him, and loathe him more than Bev, Proctor, Morrissey, or anyone else involved! He has NO conscience, and NO ethics. He's trash.
It's totally ok if the jury doesn't "buy the conspiracy." The defense doesn't need an explanation as to _why_ Karen's Not Guilty. The Not Guilty plea alone is all they need to submit. Karen is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. So, if there was no cover-up or conspiracy, she's _still innocent_ until proven guilty. We have factual scientific evidence proving Karen's vehicle never hit John, and that's enough to acquit her - even without a satisfactory alternate theory about who k***ed him.
Could it be that she hit him with the car when he sat down for a moment glass in hand then drove off. When John was laying there someone let the dog out for a pee? Dog finds John and grabs Johns arm for whatever reason. Dog goes back in and nobody is any the wiser?
It's people who still think she's guilty for John's death, who make injustice so present in our society. There are people who are really easily manipulated...
Yeah so many people manipulated. A 44 year old woman calls her elderly parents 3 times in the middle of the night to tell them she left her boyfriend at a party and hasn't come home. She said she went to sleep at 1:30 am and woke up at 4 something in distress because he wasn't home. Now we know that was a lie and she never went to sleep. Who goes to sleep after being drunk and wakes up less than 3 hours later in a panic because the boyfriend they left at a party disappeared. She woke up his niece and called a bunch of people to tell them he's dead. I can understand being upset that your boyfriend isn't home. But instead of going to where YOU left him, you called a bunch of people acting like you didn't know where he was. The video from when she arrived is gone. I can keep going. There are multiple FACTS but once you are sold on a conspiracy theory there's nothing else to believe. BTW that's the first thing lawyers do is to discredit witnesses and find flaws in the police investigation. This is lawyers 101. Once you discredit police investigation there's nothing left on the case. Which apparently that plus the added media and blog marketing caused this case to become a conspiracy heaven.
@@sanayrica Like I said, if you still believe on that... you're just another manipulated person. As quoted in the trial: You can't deny science and physics. The rest (as you say) is just speculation.
What a horrible person to know that she’s responsible for killing John, but is trying to make it look like other people did it. I couldn’t live with myself.
He was NOT struck by the vehicle… no broken bones etc. granted she was drunk as so was he. So she is guilty of that. But she’s not responsible for his death. Maybe he was scooped up by the plow?
@MyLife-n8xExactly. People here are not able to absorb the fact that the exact contact/interaction is unknown. But clearly there was contact which ultimately led to the injury on the back of his head, etc.
@@reasonable342… most likely he fell backwards down the stairs when dog attacked or he was in a fight and fell backwards. Several experts testified no vehicle contact at all !! No blood on the car … but guess what the didn’t even walk in the house where he was found… I find that outrageous. Interesting.. they rejoined dog immediately and moved to a new home within days… too late to check house .. it has been what 2 years ago.. horrible investigation
In closing arguments, when the defense showed the 3 photos together of the car leaving Johns, why was the snow on the ground so red in the third photo? Could that photo have been edited to enhance the redness in the tailight?
Lesser included, forget that, there is all or nothing here. If I am the jury, I can not convict her. I have no clue if she did it or not, I know of one person that is equally likely.
100% guilty but she’ll probably get off because in this country if you can afford high-powered lawyers you probably won’t go to jail. Just like OJ. Sucks for the poor people though.
OJ was a completely different story. So are you not believing the expert witnesses that the defense called with concrete scientific evidence? Experts that were not hired by the defense? Make it make sense.
You think "high powered attorneys" can outweigh the entire corrupt LE in a town, along with all the families and friends of those corrupt LE? No. If shes found not guilty (which she should be found not guilty) its bc the jury saw the facts and evidence and werent corrupt like everyone else.
The good thing is you have the freedom not to watch or listen, so perhaps you might consider that option if it comes to it. The completely irrelevant things people complain about here is just crazy, but it shows where you all are focused.
His family has been through it bc of the cops... specifically Michael Procter and then everyone that followed his lead. This should not have even gone to trial after that "investigation."
I'm shocked. I thought the jury would have a NOT GUILTY verdict in only the amount of time is takes to fill out the forms. Maybe there is one "back the blue" type stooge who conned his way on to the jury or who took a bribe and is holding things up.
It would have been interesting to have witnessed the voir dire of the jurors. Unfortunately, in most cases one doesn't discover the worm until t you've already taken a bite or two of your apple. What is worse than finding a worm in your apple, is finding half a worm after you've already eaten half of your apple
@@musicismysanctuary5813 You do know that being hired and paid by the defense automatically makes you biased. I am glad you think he's brilliant and good looking. Maybe someone else is biased. 🤣
@@sanayrica Wolfe was not hired by the Defense or Prosecutors, try and keep up with the facts. I’m for Truth which was truly lacking in the police department and its cohorts. No bias here.
@@musicismysanctuary5813 Wolfe was a defense witness love, "try and keep up with the facts". You may also need to keep up with legal proceedings in general. That way you can differentiate between typical lawyer 101 "discredit witnesses and police investigation" tactics and the "Truth". "the police department and its cohorts" obviously is a bias statement given the FACTS, that it is absolutely impossible to have an entire police department, EMTs, multiple doctor's in different fields and organizations to be in cahoots over some guy they don't know.
What the hell is wrong with the jury, are they all in on it too or just stupid, my god thought our police were bad enough uk but america is abhorrent, not just this trial but them entering homes without warrants and sheer brutality
How come the others involved were not charged with DUI. Oh, that is because they were cops and wives of cops. But she was. COVER UP BY THE THIN BLUE LINE. DOG WASN'T CHECKED FOR DNA OR HOUSE SEARCHED.
The majority of them got rid of their phones after this happened. 🤔 Plus the Albert’s re-did the basement flooring and sold their house…all after this happened. 🤔 Maybe that basement floor is where 3.5 liters of John’s blood ended up. Tell me where did all of that blood go?! 🤔
