Karen Read:
Although it was frustrating for a lot of people to hear the things he said about jury deliberations, it needed to be heard because what happened in that room was historical and is now part of the public record on the country’s biggest murder case. For many of us we have analyzed every detail of this case and thus are emotionally invested in it. But it was fascinating to hear from someone who knew nothing about the case going into jury duty, about how they reacted to hearing all of this testimony for the first time at trial. I believe that the defense can learn a lot from this interview to better prepare for the second trial in April. Here are some of the highlights:
- Ronnie believes Karen Read is innocent and that the people who murdered John O’Keefe remain free
- They voted 12-0 not guilty to acquit her on counts 1 and 3
- The jury was deadlocked 6-6 on manslaughter until the Tuey-Rodriguez charge from the Judge, after which 3 jurors (including Ronnie) switched from not guilty to guilty, before Ronnie went back to not guilty and the final count at deadlock was 8-4
- Ronnie wanted to ask Judge Cannone if they could reach a verdict on 2 charges while hanging on the third charge, but that the foreman and other “opinionated” individuals on the jury objected and did not inquire with the Judge
- He felt intimidated by the presence of Brian Albert and others staring at the jury during closing statements
- When asked, Ronnie said that if he was an EMT who came across the scene outside Brian Albert’s house he would not pay attention to statements given by witnesses because he would be focused on patient care
- The jurors who voted guilty on manslaughter did so because 1) Karen was there, 2) John was there, 3) John died there, 4) they were both drinking, 5) the witnesses said he didn’t go inside the house, 6) there was some sort of collision with Karen’s car, 7) the tech stream data shows the car going 24 mph in reverse, and therefore Karen was the only person who could have done it
- All testimony that involved allegations of a conspiracy was dismissed by many jurors as a “distraction,” including Jennifer McCabe’s Google search, the dog bite testimony from Dr. Russell, and the deleted phone calls and butt dials
- The ARCCA experts’ testimony was dismissed because jurors determined they could have been paid for by Read’s car insurance company to steer the jury in the wrong direction
- Ronnie believes that if they had been told that the FBI had hired the ARCCA experts and were investigating the investigation,
- { Asshole judge would not let this info in, I believe this also}
- that the jury would’ve been much more inclined to acquit Karen Read
- Jurors were inclined to believe Read was guilty because she was the only one charged with a crime
- The jury believed that the McAlberts were generally being truthful
- If the defense could provide an expert from Apple to explain why John’s phone ascended 3 flights of stairs, and then show Karen Read’s phone not ascending stairs at that same time, it would go a long way to making jurors believe he was inside the house
- Ronnie believes that it’s possible that the tech stream data showing Karen went 24 mph in reverse could be a mistake caused by spinning tires in the snow, but thinks the defense could’ve been strengthened with an expert from Toyota who could testify to that
- The jury thought Trooper Paul was a joke, yet the guilty voters seem to have believed his testimony over the ARCCA experts
- One of the jurors who firmly believed Karen Read was innocent was chosen to be an alternate was a lawyer, and Ronnie believes that having a lawyer in the room to explain what “to a moral certainty” meant as part of the reasonable doubt discussion would have helped the jury deliberate
- Ronnie says the biggest reason he ultimately voted not guilty was that John’s injuries do not align with a motor vehicle collision
- Because the trial went on for so long and they had to strictly rely on their notes, he believes that being given access to trial transcripts could have helped them deliberate
- He believes that some jurors had bias against Karen Read due to the faces she made in court
- He says that he finds Brian Albert’s story about butt answering his phone during sex “hard to believe, but anything is possible”
- Ronnie believes that the defense would’ve been better off if they focused more on explaining all the reasonable doubt, rather than trying to convince the jury of details of a conspiracy
- The jury was generally unsure if the marks on John’s arm were from a taillight or a specific dog
- He initially gave some credibility to Michael Proctor but changed his mind after hearing his text messages
- The jury dismissed the testimony of Lucky Loughran, who they did not find credible because he hit a basketball hoop that night and had inconsistencies with his testimony
- The jury was generally neutral on Jennifer McCabe’s testimony and didn’t find her useful to either side
- Judge Cannone did visit the jurors after the trial, but no one brought up the 12-0 acquittal vote because they thought it was a “done deal”
- He said it wasn’t clear if Karen Read bumping into John O’Keefe’s vehicle caused her taillight to break, but says that he could have been convinced if an expert testified
- Ronnie said he didn’t know anything about the Sandra Birchmore case, but if he knew that the same officers who determined she committed suicide were involved in the Read case, it would have affected his view of investigators
- Jurors discussed theories in which John could have fallen on his own without Karen Read hitting him with her car
- He believed the testimony of the children was unnecessary and unprofessional, designed only for shock value
Last night I did an impromptu show reacting to the interview and discussing how the defense could learn from this and change their approach in trial 2.
- Explain reasonable doubt over and over again, and explain how all of the evidence and testimony constitutes reasonable doubt. The defense did a very good job of bringing to light all of the suspicious behavior by the McAlberts and the problems with the investigation. But they need to explain to the jury that although these things don’t prove that any specific person killed John O’Keefe, they all provide reasonable doubt that Karen Read might not have done it.
- Explain to the jury that it is not their job to come up with theories about what happened. The Commonwealth presented a theory of how John O’Keefe was killed by Karen Read, and it is their job based on the testimony and evidence presented in court, to determine if they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that their theory was accurate.
- The defense shouldn’t waste time in their closing trying to convince the jurors about their theory of how John O’Keefe died. Alan Jackson told them that he believed John was lured to the house by Brian Higgins, and that Higgins and Brian Albert lay in wait in the basement, beat him, and then brought his body out of the bulkhead and placed him on the front lawn. Although I believe that this is plausible, it’s not their job to prove this happened. All they have to do is convince the jury that it’s reasonable to believe that John could have gone inside the house. If it’s possible that he went inside the house then it’s impossible that Karen Read killed him. It doesn’t matter what happened once he went inside.
- We viewed this trial as a fascinating murder mystery, involving a well connected family using their connections in the State Police to get away with murder. Jurors clearly viewed this as a fatal motor vehicle collision involving alcohol.
- There is not enough time in closing arguments to go over the entire case. But given Ronnie’s claim that the jury viewed much of the McAlbert testimony as “distractors,” the defense should hammer home that they’re not accusing any particular witness of killing John O’Keefe, but rather that the witnesses were dishonest several times. Brian Albert testified that he butt answered his phone while having sex with his wife, because he had previously testified under oath at a grand jury proceeding that he didn’t speak to anyone on the phone that night. If jurors find this story to be untruthful or hard to believe then there is reasonable doubt that any of Albert’s testimony was truthful.
- The defense should ask the ARCCA experts if they were paid for by some sort of insurance company, or if their testimony would benefit another entity financially in any way.
- The defense should have some sort of criminal justice professor, or former law enforcement who can testify that there WAS reasonable doubt to search Brian Albert’s house, that Michael Proctor should’ve recused himself due to being conflicted (which is a much bigger deal than his text messages), and that the McAlberts were treated differently than witnesses would normally be treated in a murder investigation.
- A Toyota tech stream expert will be hard to find, so it should be pointed out to the jury that the tech stream data showing Karen accelerating to 24 mph in reverse could’ve been the cars spinning at her parents’ house in Dighton. The Commonwealth hasn’t offered any experts that would suggest otherwise, and the burden of proof is on them.
- Cross examine Nicholas Barros by showing him a picture of Karen Read’s taillight in the Canton Police Sally port garage, and ask him if the taillight looked like it was THAT broken? I’m quite confident based on his eagerness to point out that the taillight was simply cracked, that he would say it didn’t look like that. The jury clearly was inclined to trust police, and Barros is a police officer.
- Pick jurors who better represent the population. This was a highly educated jury, including two people with PhD’s and multiple healthcare workers. Nurses and lawyers are good jurors because they know better than anyone that John O’Keefe wasn’t hit by a car, and Karen Read is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But regular blue collar people are more likely to identify with being in Karen Read’s position, whereas from the looks of the jury I’m guessing a lot of them don’t go out drinking very often. The defense thought that highly educated people would be able to recognize this for the conspiracy that it was, but in reality they thought they were smarter than the ARCCA experts and were less inclined to believe in a conspiracy because they’re more likely to trust the institutions. In order to believe in Read’s innocence it requires people to not only be skeptical of the McAlberts, but to be skeptical of the police and the DA’s Office as well. If they haven’t purchased a scratch ticket in the last month then don’t pick them to be on the jury.
|
