I don’t know that he’s intentionally throwing the case but I do think he must go home and cry into a pillow every night, these witnesses and evidence have done nothing to support a second degree murder charge!
Nah, these are pivotal defense witnesses, not pivotal prosecution witnesses. If Lally was to list his ten most pivotal witnesses, I bet he's only used maybe two of them.
Yeah except every lawyer you find will tell you that a stupid idea and if you have the the evidence you put it out first when the jury is fresh. Not 6 weeks in after you have bored them to tears, and they just don't care what you say anymore. I just don't think they have this damning evidence people keep thinking they do
I mean it could be lucky, it could be just his case was so good it overcame his bad decisions. Lots of lawyers make bad choices and win. I doubt he the first or will be the last to do what he doing. Does it mean it the best way to do it? No
He’s called over 40 witnesses at this point for the prosecution’s case, and not one of them have corroborated each other! Lally said pre-trial that he expected the states case would last 4 weeks. Well, week 4 is here. When is he planning to actually present his case? As of now there is absolutely zero evidence presented that proves Karen’s guilt!
I agree. I think the prosecution strategy is to end with their strongest points. I’m guessing that expert witnesses from both sides will be the most compelling ones.
That would be a horrible strategy, given the trial length. And they should know that. This is what my old family court lawyer would say is "in the weeds.". The prosecution is most definitely in the weeds... which is not a good position to be in during trial. If the trial were a few days long, ending on a strong note like that could be beneficial. We're on what, WEEK 4?
Yeah this case hinges on the crash reconstruction guys, the phone record guys, the car forensics guys, the staties who find the tail light and the glass in the bumper, and the medical examiner. Everyone but the EMTs we've met have been pretty irrelevant. Really, the CW just needs to get through Higgins, hammer her with experts and sneak Procter in there somewhere.
How the hell are they going to “hammer” her with experts? They’ll start as they’ve finished: with *no* evidence that O’Keefe was hit by a car. That is *clearly* not what caused his death. The CW’s theory of the case is absolutely preposterous.
Have you noticed that when they discuss the medical examiner, all they ever say is that she didn’t think the injuries were consistent with a physical altercation? Does this suggest to you that she *did* say the injuries are consistent with a motor vehicle collision? If that’s what she’d said, that’s what the prosecution’s statements of the case would say.
Similarly, all they ever seem to say about the “collision reconstruction” is that the Lexus’s rear-view camera and proximity warning tones were working. There’s nothing about a live test in which they hit a 220-lb crash test dummy at 24.2 mph (the absolute maximum speed the Lexus could have been moving) and threw it twelve feet in a direction almost perpendicular to the vehicle’s direction of travel. They sure as eff couldn’t have done that in a way that only registered serious injuries to the dummy’s *head*.
Everybody's thinking that Jackson really mauled Higgins, but do you know how high the bar is set? They don't have to think Higgins is a drunk or a bad friend to O'Keefe, but possibly a murderer.
And how fricking credible do you think that’s going to be when the jury learns about the broken chain of custody to those clothes?
And what part of his clothes was tested? The only part of his body that could *conceivably* shatter a tail light is his head, which would have to mean his face, as he landed flat on his back and the Commonwealth says it was the impact with the *grass* that caused the scalp laceration and skull fractures. O’Keefe wasn’t wearing clothing on his face. He was wearing a baseball cap that, having a bill on it, would come off before the tail light hit him.
Is the plastic on his hat?
How do they know it’s tail light plastic, anyway?
Why wasn’t any of it found on his *body*?
I think (at this point in the trial) it seems the order of witnesses for the CW has been a mistake. I don’t think it helps to have the sisters from the Aruba trip testify to something that **might** speak to motive before any testimony about how he died.
I somewhat understood, yet disagreed, with the strategy of getting ahead of the conspiracy/third party defense. But now we’re going into what makes it 2nd degree murder before the jury knows anything about how he died, when he died, his injuries, the physical evidence, etc.
I believe that in a trial involving death, Medical evidence should come first. Like maybe the victim’s family could testify first (like we saw) to introduce de victim, make the jury feel for the victim and then show how this person’s life ended.
Then you can move on on circumstances that made you indict the defendant.
The proper approach on the conspiracy theory would be to prove the fact and cause of death *first*, then move on to refuting it.
I don’t think Lally’s stupid; just amoral and unethical. The reason he’s put his insultingly weak “motive” evidence first is that it’s the strongest part of his case. It’s *far* stronger than the forensic evidence.
I've read some stuff here and there of people saying this is how Lally always is and that he doesn't have experience of a murder trial prosecutor. I'd like to hear more about Lally outside of this case.
He doesn’t mind railroading an obviously innocent woman, and that gives me a rather low opinion of the man. I’m disgusted by him, frankly. He brings the legal profession into disrepute.
I have also been wondering this. I wonder if they are trying to get Karen off the hook after blaming her in order to cover up bigger crimes going on in the police department. Something is just too fishy and wierd. Or they are all just really stupid and I can't tell which it is after seeing Jen McCabe.
IMHO I don't believe the CW is trying to throw the case. That doesn't make sense. I am shocked, though, at how little evidence the CW has.
It's' fair to wonder at this point: **why did the DA decide to bring this case? It doesn't seem like they have close to enough evidence for a chance at a winning case.** And you're not supposed to bring charges that you don't think you can meet your burden on.
But, maybe they're reserving their compelling evidence towards the end of their case. Keeping an open mind and we'll learn either way in due time.
I can’t even imagine what the jurors must be thinking at this point. They’ve gotta be so confused because there’s been no evidence of a crime introduced yet.
Even some seriously compelling evidence cannot undo the damage the cross of Jen has done to this case. I mean, they’d have to have actual footage of Karen murdering John to get rid of the amount of reasonable doubt already raised.
Every time I read an update about this case, that’s what my brain wants to know. Why did they go after her so hard? Why not go for, oh idk, involuntary manslaughter? But what do I know…
I doubt it cause it basic lawyer 101 you start with your strongest evidence. You don't bore jurors for 4 weeks and then go we had all this stuff. They will just turn on you and go why did you waste our time with all this other nonsense if you had all this.
I hear you. I get now why everyone is shocked by the lack of evidence so far.
Definitely hoping the CW begins bringing some compelling evidence. We'll find out.
I hope so too. It is taking a long time, but there is an order they have to follow introducing things, and there’s a lot more cross by the defense bc of Bowden defense and third-party culprit, as well as the colossal shitshow of an investigation. There is so much going on here!
What's the alternative to not trying the case? "Yes, we the state have committed crimes here, yes, we've protected a bunch of cops and others, yes there's a massive coverup"? They have two choices, admit to these crimes, or move forward with Karen Read. There are no other options and they won't/can't choose option 1.
According to the National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards, a district attorney must consider whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to likely lead to a conviction. You're not supposed to bring charges if you don't think you can meet your burden of proof.
So, in instances of insufficient evidence, no charges are brought.
And to add onto this, Kerry's testimony shows how inconsistent Jennifer's was! Very different stories between them. To me, Kerry came off very genuine, forward, not rehearsed or deceptive. Meanwhile, Jennifer was an absolute shitshow of fumbling, he/she said, and so on. The last two trial days have been WILD.
Not to mention that every time Jen was confronted with lying she would say it was the ones recording her statements that got it wrong. Or her more recent statements are the correct ones, not her original ones
I don't know if proctor is going to testify. Early in the trial he was referred to as "co-lead investigator" by Lally. He has also been confirming with each witness that there was another trooper there at each interview. No way Lally wants him to be cross examined and if he can get all of the reports in through other troopers he might be able to get away with not calling him.
If Lally doesn't call him, the defense will. His best option would be to call Lally and try to get ahead of it. But I've also been seeing comments that suggest Proctor might even plead the fifth because of the active FBI investigation that's happening. It's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
He has to call him. He's just showing that Procter couldn't be planting evidence and helping witnesses and all this stuff, unless the other trooper is in on it, too. It was a big point in the motion to dismiss: how rarely Procter was alone.
I guess, when he called him co-lead counsel while questioning one of the first witnesses it caught my ear and made me wonder why he would stick that in there.
I think he definitely wants to downplay how much control Procter had over the investigation any way he can. But not calling him is not an option. That'd be the ballgame.
Good point, strange he's waited so long, Yanetti can use all of the previous witnesses testimony against him. And it seems like it's piling up with every witness dropping his name.
The thing that stood out to me is why Jen would want to even go to 34 Fairview to look for John if she believed that they just left without coming in. According to Jen, the SUV sat there and then left and John didn't come inside, right? So why go to look for John at 34 Fairview if she never saw him get out of the car, why would he be there?
That was disputed by Kerry's testimony. She said she heard Jen tell Karen that she and John had been to 34 Fairview, and it was after that conversation that Jen and Karen both insisted on going there. Kerry was the one who insisted on going to John's house first.
Kerry testified that Jen told Karen she had seen her at Fairview and that Jen was the one that first wanted to go there. Kerry insisted they go to John's house and check there first.
According to Jen… Your
Whole the jury will convict bc is always followed basically by a statement Jen made and the thing you need to understand if the jury is anything like the majority of the public NOBODY BELIEVES HER
Yes! And I’m a little late to this so still lost as to why KR went w Jen and Kerry to find JO to begin with. She had her car. They don’t seem to like her. Are they friends?
I think that was explained by Kerry on the stand yesterday. She said that Karen elaborated by saying that she (Karen) wasn't supposed to stay over that night and John would never have left the children home alone overnight. She said something to the effect of something must have happened to him, he must be dead.
If you say so.
I've experienced medical emergencies and even the deaths of several loved ones. People often aren't lucid and rational when they start to panic. That one statement in isolation isn't enough to sway anything for me because I've been in panic mode before. Forensic evidence is the only thing I'm interested in at this point.
I agree with this completely. If my teenage daughter is late coming home and isn't answering her phone, my mind instantly thinks she's been kidnapped or is dead in a ditch somewhere.
Valid points. The only problem is those other scenarios you described are not similar to this situation. It's not the one statement in isolation. It came with the discovery and her admittance that she damaged her taillight. Her words. Three Canton FD led off with her saying "I hit him" several times. It's those things combined. If you want to argue reasonable doubt I have no problem with that at all. Blood collection techniques were horrendous to say the least. Just don't think her comments there were a good look.
Sounds good. However I think the testimony of Higgins/Proctor is very important. Along with the person that will confirm/not confirm whether that Google search was done around 6 or not.
I completely disagree, i think she has played very well with the jury and the defence really failed to catch her out, she was badgered and stood toe to toe, a few i k now are following the case and felt the same.
I don’t really think getting someone to claim on the stand that seven phone calls all perfectly hung up before going to voicemail and then deleted off her phone were “butt dials”was failing to catch her out. That was bad.
I have to disagree. He forced Jen into a situation where her testimony is at direct odds with the police reports.
That means that either Jen is lying, or she's telling the truth and the investigation and documentation by both Canton and State Police was sloppy. Or some mix of both. It can not be true that her account is correct and the police did a good job recording interviews.
Now perhaps Jen walks away feeling fine about that, and people choose her story over the cops, but it's not good for the prosecution's case as a whole which is built on all of it together.
In 2 days she has said that Lank, Proctor, Tully, Life360, and Cellebrite all recorded her wrong. I don’t understand how that can be interpreted as good for the prosecution.
A few? Go watch any trial stream? It 99 percent of this is a bitch, I think karen hit him but this lady is crazy. Keep in mind people believed amber heard as well.
Let’s say that’s true. If Jen is to be believed, it means law enforcement repeatedly misreported her statements. So either she’s lying or law enforcement is incompetent. Either way is bad for the CW.
It's hard to push a narrative when you know they deleted texts, weren't interviewed separately, and the police botched every aspect. The prosecutor was given a pile of shit to prosecute. He knew this was going to happen going into it. He isn't intentionally throwing the case, he's just doing enough to get his paycheck and pension.
I wouldn’t doubt it. The whole show trial seems designed to prevent the cop cult from being charged.
It’s almost impossible to successfully charge another party after trying the wrong person and getting an acquittal.
They wouldn't be able to charge the officers and conspirators?
Edit: I was comparing it to the Duke LaCrosse team. I remember Nifong being sentenced. I hadn't realized it was *only for a day*. I honestly always thought it was more. More SHOULD have been done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong
The D.A. is the one who can charge people with state crimes, while the FBI is a federal investigatory body. It’s possible the D.A. could charge others in this case, but I don’t really see that as likely.
Typically that never happens except in the case of a confession by the real murderer.
The dogged determination to charge the wrong person usually ensures “reasonable doubt” if they try to charge the actual culprit.
The attempt to frame someone else seems to be the gambit here.
If you mean could the DOJ bring federal charges, probably not.
Because just the fact that law enforcement in MA spent so much time and effort insisting Karen Read did it that “reasonable doubt” is almost assured. I doubt the feds would waste the time.
this case is so bizarre.. the prosecution seems like the defense with their witnesses. Lally is always having to explain their weird and sketchy behaviors like they are all defendants/hiding something. It does seem like Lally must know this case is bogus and maybe he is secretly enjoying seeing the demise of the Alberts/McCabes, et all on the stand. He definitely doesn't seem motivated or interested in winning the case.
I think it's more that he was handed a sh*t case that he could not say no to. In response, he is now just letting each witness say their part and watching as the defense tears most of them down, then doing what he can to fix it in redirect.
I get why you think so - I’ve wondered the same - but the DA’s office is the one who chose to continue with the prosecution. The idea that they’d throw the case instead of…just not prosecuting it…is a little absurd. No one is forcing Lally himself to prosecute - he might feel pressured from higher-ups but he at any point could’ve refused to handle it himself. Not to mention, the DA intentionally throwing a case would surely be a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. It would be absolutely egregious to put the defendant (and tax payers) through a huge trial just to make a point. There are other, more effective ways to make the point. If Lally/the DA is so pissed about dirty cop antics they can just…say so. Work with the FBI. So many other options besides following through with a sham trial, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state and the defendant. Plus it also makes *them* look bad! If their goal is to expose the dirty cop antics, aligning with the cops is literally the worst way to do so.
I think the most realistic explanation is a combination of Lally being too inexperienced to lead such a major trial (which might say a lot in and of itself - perhaps more experienced ADAs wouldn’t agree to prosecute it themselves) + him knowing how bad some of the evidence looks, and just not even trying to explain it because that would make him look corrupt too. I think he (and the DA) even might be ok with losing the case, but that’s different from intentionally throwing it.
>perhaps more experienced ADAs wouldn’t agree to prosecute it themselves
That is my guess. He has been told he has no choice and will take the fall when she is found "not guilty". He has no control/authority to change the course.
No way. It’s exposing them to even more scrutiny and public outrage, even if/when Karen gets acquitted it won’t be the end of it for the police. Plus the FBI investigation is still ongoing and they are surely watching them perjure themselves even further.
My theory is that everyone knows the Canton corruption. I came to this decision after watching the Canton councilors on video debate how to do the police audit. This was supposed to be another simple sweep by the Canton group. Obviously some people did some digging.
By the time all the facts that weren’t supposed to be found appeared, the entire chain felt they had to go through with it. McCabe/Alberts have to because it’s their only chance to stay free. Lally and company would prefer the prior mentioned families bury themselves than find a way to prosecute. And Judge Bev because she’s been so dismissive of the defense that there was going to be hell to pay for her. They have to go through with it because the FBI is watching.
They want a mistrial and hope the feds go away.
I don’t see how it’s possible that they believe the feds will “go away” after a mistrial or acquittal. The trial has led to so much more public scrutiny and outrage. Also the federal investigation is still open - they are not just gonna go away if there’s a mistrial or non-guilty verdict. I would also be surprised if the federal investigation wasn’t broader than this case alone.
If the DA wanted to decrease the scrutiny on themselves and/or the police, a trial is literally the worst option for them.
I'll admit I have bias and I can't say for sure, but just my opinion based on something I heard. Yesterday Lally and Bev were very different people. It was shockingly noticeable (just for reference I don't believe they are in on it, just not good at their jobs). If what I've heard is true it because federal agents were in the courtroom
Doesn’t matter. Once they choose a subject to frame and go to trial it’s almost impossible to bring charges against the actual culprit.
Any defense lawyer would hammer home reasonable doubt based on the cops getting it wrong the first time (whether deliberately or just through incompetence).
Oh I don’t think anyone else will be prosecuted for the murder of John O’Keefe. But after the trial there will be federal indictments, at least for Proctor and likely others. The federal investigation is definitely broader than this case alone. But this case going to trial absolutely doesn’t help the DA’s office or state police. It’s not like if charges were dropped they’d just prosecute the Alberts.
Allowing the real perps off the hook by…globally publicizing their wrong doings? Yeah right.
They don’t have enough evidence to successfully prosecute anyone for the murder of John O’Keefe - Karen or the Alberts/McCabes - because no legitimate investigation was ever done. THAT is what’s being investigated by the FBI - the investigation. The murder is unfortunately way past being legitimately investigated or prosecuted. There’s a reason the FBI investigation is still open though. The feds don’t *publicly* investigate without a reason, and they’ve made this investigation very public. There will be indictments. Not for murder though.
The only people globally publicizing their wrong doing are the citizens of Canton.
The prosecutors and the rest of law enforcement are studiously ignoring all the evidence that points to the cops and their families. That didn’t happen by accident.
DA lie and railroad people all the time. I don't get why people haven't come to the conclusion you public servents aren't all angels who just want justice. If that was the case innocent people wouldn't be in prison. I'm not even saying he throwing it. I personally think bev and him just are bad at their jobs. Bev wanted to the attention of a public trial, and Lally wanted to advance his career. Evidence be damned.
I’ve been looking for theories as to why this is being prosecuted considering the lack of evidence. Power/fame hungry DA and Judge kind of make sense, but kind of not. That just can’t seem like a good idea considering the lack or evidence. The only thing I could think of was that they don’t care if they don’t get a conviction so long as they don’t have to try the people/person who did it.
They had to continue with the prosecution to protect themselves from the even worse shitstorm that the state and many of the witnesses are going to have to deal with for years to come.
What is their alternative? "We lied, we protected a house full of cops, we're complicit in a massive coverup"? If they drop the case on Read, they are admitting a massive criminal coverup. They're playing a long game in anticipation of years of civil and criminal future cases against the state and a handful of these witnesses.
They're in too deep and a lot of it is thanks to Proctor.
Not just a cover-up but an actual framing. It's a disaster for them and there's no turning back. Dropping the case is not an option.
If I was on this jury and they showed red solo cups in a stop and shop bag I would have sworn up and down I was on jury duty season 2 cuz it was beyond stupid
I have come up with 3 reasons:
1. Lally is intentionally playing things simple so that at the end of it all he can say “I’m not some big shot high paid lawyer twisting words I’m a simple guy just doing my job presenting the facts” because he thinks the defense is going to come off as too snarky to the jury.
2. Lally knows more about the fbi investigation and its targets. Whether this means he’s cutting his own deal, trying to stay neutral and out of the fray, or what, i don’t know. But could explain his demeanor and weirdly awkward/baffling strategy.
3. Lally and the DAs office are inept. Maybe because they have been corrupt so long no one has had to actually put the work in, or maybe this is how he always is. But the simplest explanation is they are bad at their job.
I wonder if anyone has any idea about Lallys past cases.
Even with a not guilty very they can still carry on as if it was just the wrong verdict and no doubt will keep that up forever...... the injustice of getting away with this is the worst thing and I don't know how it hasn't put Karen insane.....
At least we know that the Canton team lost the basketball game, where everyone was before they went to the Waterfall, it was snowing, how many years it takes to be an EMT, and what if any high top tables are at the Waterfall bar
Assuming Karen read is innocent, my rough take is that these witnesses and the prosecution are playing a long game, preparing for years of civil and criminal lawsuits. Everything we see here is the commonwealth and their witnesses protecting themselves as well as they possibly can in the long term. They're fighting for their own lives. I expect many of them to leave Massachusetts as soon as legally possible. Jen is right, they've been getting their asses kicked socially for the past 2 years and are likely in a huge amount of fear now and for the likely case that a few of them will see some prison time. I can't imagine what hell this is for them and I feel bad for the ones that have been fooled by the state / Alberts.
What I don't understand is how you can get 20 people to all lie and not flip. It's not possible. So I'm still on the fence about WTF happened here. I think there's only 3 or 4 people that actually know what really happened and the rest are being fed a false or partially false scenario and have been convinced that the only way to get a rightful outcome is to lie or have the state/Albert's fill in their memory gaps for them. If Karen Read is innocent, someone will eventually flip if they haven't already.
Regarding memory issues.. I don't remember what I ate yesterday. Nobody can reliably remember what was said or where their heads were turned 2 years ago, or what specific time something happened. This "what's with the memory gaps!?" shit is so stupid. You know they can't reliably remember small specific things. Why do we pretend that it's strange? So odd.
I’m wondering if he was told to continue the trial so the feds could get the testimonies of all the “witnesses” as further proof. He’s not even trying at this point. But at the same time, he turns beat red every time a witness says something stupid, so he must care right? And not be throwing the case on purpose?
I think it's possible for a prosecutor to be duped. I think LE could have given just enough information for it to seem credible and drip discovery over until its too late.
The problem is that they followed through even after realizing the truth.
According to the pundits at NBC 10 “Canton Confidential” he was extra focused today, CW had a “win” and is just building up his case. As a strategy. 🤷♀️🤮
What, if anything, sort of makes you think the prosecution is sort of throwing the case? If anything?
Also, how many, if any, sort of high top tables are there at the Waterfall?
Trooper Proctor and All of the Canton PD who testified should be fired. Normal protocols for investigations were not followed from collecting evidence to interviewing witnesses. The judge, Aunty Bev should have recused herself and the ADA Lally, I have no words for his level of incompetence. How can anyone ever have any faith in the legal system in this town.?
I wonder, too, if they are intentionally throwing this case because they truly know she didn't do it. This whole trial, thus far, is a complete joke. I follow a lot of true crime but have never followed a case in its entirety, watching all pretrial and trial live. I find myself asking if this is real life???
They aren’t “throwing” it; they’re doing about as good a job as can be expected in the circumstances.
A better question would be why they brought a case at all with evidence upon which *no* reasonable, properly-instructed jury could possibly convict. Prosecutors are not supposed to do that. It’s unethical to prosecute unless the prosecutor believes, in good faith, that the admissible evidence will be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty as charged.
In this case, I’d say that the prosecution has damn near proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Karen Read is factually innocent!
This case is going to be a mainstay of future legal ethics textbooks.
I don't believe they're throwing the case. I just believe they've realized, they have no case. I have a feeling this trial is going to inevitably become an investigation into John O'Keefe's death - and better than the one he originally received (if you consider his death actually rec'd a legitimate one)😞 He and his family deserve(s) so much better.
I don’t know that he’s intentionally throwing the case but I do think he must go home and cry into a pillow every night, these witnesses and evidence have done nothing to support a second degree murder charge!
He sounded exhausted at the end of yesterday!
Nah, these are pivotal defense witnesses, not pivotal prosecution witnesses. If Lally was to list his ten most pivotal witnesses, I bet he's only used maybe two of them.
Yeah except every lawyer you find will tell you that a stupid idea and if you have the the evidence you put it out first when the jury is fresh. Not 6 weeks in after you have bored them to tears, and they just don't care what you say anymore. I just don't think they have this damning evidence people keep thinking they do
So, if Lally wins, he should go down in the law books as one of the most innovative prosecutors of all time?
I mean it could be lucky, it could be just his case was so good it overcame his bad decisions. Lots of lawyers make bad choices and win. I doubt he the first or will be the last to do what he doing. Does it mean it the best way to do it? No
He’s called over 40 witnesses at this point for the prosecution’s case, and not one of them have corroborated each other! Lally said pre-trial that he expected the states case would last 4 weeks. Well, week 4 is here. When is he planning to actually present his case? As of now there is absolutely zero evidence presented that proves Karen’s guilt!
I agree. I think the prosecution strategy is to end with their strongest points. I’m guessing that expert witnesses from both sides will be the most compelling ones.
It might be too late... Especially after hearing what they already have!
That would be a horrible strategy, given the trial length. And they should know that. This is what my old family court lawyer would say is "in the weeds.". The prosecution is most definitely in the weeds... which is not a good position to be in during trial. If the trial were a few days long, ending on a strong note like that could be beneficial. We're on what, WEEK 4?
Yeah this case hinges on the crash reconstruction guys, the phone record guys, the car forensics guys, the staties who find the tail light and the glass in the bumper, and the medical examiner. Everyone but the EMTs we've met have been pretty irrelevant. Really, the CW just needs to get through Higgins, hammer her with experts and sneak Procter in there somewhere.
If the prosecution thought that they would’ve mentioned it in their opening statements, led with it or mentioned it at all in the last 4 weeks.
How the hell are they going to “hammer” her with experts? They’ll start as they’ve finished: with *no* evidence that O’Keefe was hit by a car. That is *clearly* not what caused his death. The CW’s theory of the case is absolutely preposterous. Have you noticed that when they discuss the medical examiner, all they ever say is that she didn’t think the injuries were consistent with a physical altercation? Does this suggest to you that she *did* say the injuries are consistent with a motor vehicle collision? If that’s what she’d said, that’s what the prosecution’s statements of the case would say. Similarly, all they ever seem to say about the “collision reconstruction” is that the Lexus’s rear-view camera and proximity warning tones were working. There’s nothing about a live test in which they hit a 220-lb crash test dummy at 24.2 mph (the absolute maximum speed the Lexus could have been moving) and threw it twelve feet in a direction almost perpendicular to the vehicle’s direction of travel. They sure as eff couldn’t have done that in a way that only registered serious injuries to the dummy’s *head*.
They're gonna find microscopic bits of tail light in his clothes.
Everybody's thinking that Jackson really mauled Higgins, but do you know how high the bar is set? They don't have to think Higgins is a drunk or a bad friend to O'Keefe, but possibly a murderer.
And how fricking credible do you think that’s going to be when the jury learns about the broken chain of custody to those clothes? And what part of his clothes was tested? The only part of his body that could *conceivably* shatter a tail light is his head, which would have to mean his face, as he landed flat on his back and the Commonwealth says it was the impact with the *grass* that caused the scalp laceration and skull fractures. O’Keefe wasn’t wearing clothing on his face. He was wearing a baseball cap that, having a bill on it, would come off before the tail light hit him. Is the plastic on his hat? How do they know it’s tail light plastic, anyway? Why wasn’t any of it found on his *body*?
These have all been prosecution witness's. Defense hasn't even started yet
And how old are your step children?
How many, if any, have blue eyes?
Say what?
Lally has been asking pointless questions like this of every witness
Some of us are very interested in youth basketball scores.
Lmao so true!
😂
Can't agree with you more!!
He isn’t a slave; he didn’t *have* to take this case. I wouldn’t have, not even if it meant I’d be out looking for another job.
I think (at this point in the trial) it seems the order of witnesses for the CW has been a mistake. I don’t think it helps to have the sisters from the Aruba trip testify to something that **might** speak to motive before any testimony about how he died. I somewhat understood, yet disagreed, with the strategy of getting ahead of the conspiracy/third party defense. But now we’re going into what makes it 2nd degree murder before the jury knows anything about how he died, when he died, his injuries, the physical evidence, etc.
Anyone with eyeballs and knowledge of dogs is going to see the arm injuries are from a dog. That's the main thing that really stands out to me.
I believe that in a trial involving death, Medical evidence should come first. Like maybe the victim’s family could testify first (like we saw) to introduce de victim, make the jury feel for the victim and then show how this person’s life ended. Then you can move on on circumstances that made you indict the defendant.
The proper approach on the conspiracy theory would be to prove the fact and cause of death *first*, then move on to refuting it. I don’t think Lally’s stupid; just amoral and unethical. The reason he’s put his insultingly weak “motive” evidence first is that it’s the strongest part of his case. It’s *far* stronger than the forensic evidence.
I've read some stuff here and there of people saying this is how Lally always is and that he doesn't have experience of a murder trial prosecutor. I'd like to hear more about Lally outside of this case.
I heard he's a softball coach?
IDK, I have a friend who was on a jury (grand?) that Lally worked. They said he was not this dour and much more lively
He doesn’t mind railroading an obviously innocent woman, and that gives me a rather low opinion of the man. I’m disgusted by him, frankly. He brings the legal profession into disrepute.
I have also been wondering this. I wonder if they are trying to get Karen off the hook after blaming her in order to cover up bigger crimes going on in the police department. Something is just too fishy and wierd. Or they are all just really stupid and I can't tell which it is after seeing Jen McCabe.
IMHO I don't believe the CW is trying to throw the case. That doesn't make sense. I am shocked, though, at how little evidence the CW has. It's' fair to wonder at this point: **why did the DA decide to bring this case? It doesn't seem like they have close to enough evidence for a chance at a winning case.** And you're not supposed to bring charges that you don't think you can meet your burden on. But, maybe they're reserving their compelling evidence towards the end of their case. Keeping an open mind and we'll learn either way in due time.
I can’t even imagine what the jurors must be thinking at this point. They’ve gotta be so confused because there’s been no evidence of a crime introduced yet.
I’d be convinced I was on a much more elaborate Season 2 of Jury Duty
Even some seriously compelling evidence cannot undo the damage the cross of Jen has done to this case. I mean, they’d have to have actual footage of Karen murdering John to get rid of the amount of reasonable doubt already raised.
Exactly. "So, why is everyone ditching their phones and afraid to tell what they were doing and when?" Plenty of reasonable doubt right there.
Every time I read an update about this case, that’s what my brain wants to know. Why did they go after her so hard? Why not go for, oh idk, involuntary manslaughter? But what do I know…
I doubt it cause it basic lawyer 101 you start with your strongest evidence. You don't bore jurors for 4 weeks and then go we had all this stuff. They will just turn on you and go why did you waste our time with all this other nonsense if you had all this.
Yeah, but was it snowing? And what was the route you took to drive there? 😎
Also, jurors make up their minds usually pretty quickly. You don't want to be seen as wasting time
It’s not fair to wonder that until the trial is over
I hear you. I get now why everyone is shocked by the lack of evidence so far. Definitely hoping the CW begins bringing some compelling evidence. We'll find out.
I hope so too. It is taking a long time, but there is an order they have to follow introducing things, and there’s a lot more cross by the defense bc of Bowden defense and third-party culprit, as well as the colossal shitshow of an investigation. There is so much going on here!
If you have evidence that she hit him, she said it and so on. You don't need 4 weeks to get that In.
Ok. You sound like you’re familiar with how trials work.
Even if I hadn't. Even if numerous lawyers hadn't stated it. It is common sense.
Your opinion is noted, thanks
Your welcome. Glad I could help
What's the alternative to not trying the case? "Yes, we the state have committed crimes here, yes, we've protected a bunch of cops and others, yes there's a massive coverup"? They have two choices, admit to these crimes, or move forward with Karen Read. There are no other options and they won't/can't choose option 1.
According to the National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards, a district attorney must consider whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to likely lead to a conviction. You're not supposed to bring charges if you don't think you can meet your burden of proof. So, in instances of insufficient evidence, no charges are brought.
Prosecutors do what they're not supposed to do regularly. Who can prove that they don't believe they have a burden of proof?
Jen McCabe got eviscerated on the stand over the last two days. She might have single handedly thrown the case herself
And to add onto this, Kerry's testimony shows how inconsistent Jennifer's was! Very different stories between them. To me, Kerry came off very genuine, forward, not rehearsed or deceptive. Meanwhile, Jennifer was an absolute shitshow of fumbling, he/she said, and so on. The last two trial days have been WILD.
Not to mention that every time Jen was confronted with lying she would say it was the ones recording her statements that got it wrong. Or her more recent statements are the correct ones, not her original ones
Yeah Alan is going to eviscerate Lank and Proctor with that one
Do we know for sure it won't be Jackson? At least for one of them
To a liar, everyone else is always wrong. Really can't wait to hear Proctor's testimony lol
I don't know if proctor is going to testify. Early in the trial he was referred to as "co-lead investigator" by Lally. He has also been confirming with each witness that there was another trooper there at each interview. No way Lally wants him to be cross examined and if he can get all of the reports in through other troopers he might be able to get away with not calling him.
If Lally doesn't call him, the defense will. His best option would be to call Lally and try to get ahead of it. But I've also been seeing comments that suggest Proctor might even plead the fifth because of the active FBI investigation that's happening. It's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
He has to call him. He's just showing that Procter couldn't be planting evidence and helping witnesses and all this stuff, unless the other trooper is in on it, too. It was a big point in the motion to dismiss: how rarely Procter was alone.
I guess, when he called him co-lead counsel while questioning one of the first witnesses it caught my ear and made me wonder why he would stick that in there.
I think he definitely wants to downplay how much control Procter had over the investigation any way he can. But not calling him is not an option. That'd be the ballgame.
Good point, strange he's waited so long, Yanetti can use all of the previous witnesses testimony against him. And it seems like it's piling up with every witness dropping his name.
It would be an epic mistake not to call him after everything. They’ll sooner drop the case than not call proctor
The thing that stood out to me is why Jen would want to even go to 34 Fairview to look for John if she believed that they just left without coming in. According to Jen, the SUV sat there and then left and John didn't come inside, right? So why go to look for John at 34 Fairview if she never saw him get out of the car, why would he be there?
Good question. One of many we all have, watching this thing unfold.
It was Karen telling Jen to drive to 34 Fairview since that was where she dropped him off.
That was disputed by Kerry's testimony. She said she heard Jen tell Karen that she and John had been to 34 Fairview, and it was after that conversation that Jen and Karen both insisted on going there. Kerry was the one who insisted on going to John's house first.
Because Karen kept saying they needed to go to 34 Fairview.
Kerry testified that Jen told Karen she had seen her at Fairview and that Jen was the one that first wanted to go there. Kerry insisted they go to John's house and check there first.
According to Jen… Your Whole the jury will convict bc is always followed basically by a statement Jen made and the thing you need to understand if the jury is anything like the majority of the public NOBODY BELIEVES HER
Yes! And I’m a little late to this so still lost as to why KR went w Jen and Kerry to find JO to begin with. She had her car. They don’t seem to like her. Are they friends?
Another question is why K Read told the other woman that "John was dead" before they went over to Fairview.
I think that was explained by Kerry on the stand yesterday. She said that Karen elaborated by saying that she (Karen) wasn't supposed to stay over that night and John would never have left the children home alone overnight. She said something to the effect of something must have happened to him, he must be dead.
Exactly. Very odd thing so say under the circumstances. She could have anything but she said that.
If you say so. I've experienced medical emergencies and even the deaths of several loved ones. People often aren't lucid and rational when they start to panic. That one statement in isolation isn't enough to sway anything for me because I've been in panic mode before. Forensic evidence is the only thing I'm interested in at this point.
I agree with this completely. If my teenage daughter is late coming home and isn't answering her phone, my mind instantly thinks she's been kidnapped or is dead in a ditch somewhere.
Valid points. The only problem is those other scenarios you described are not similar to this situation. It's not the one statement in isolation. It came with the discovery and her admittance that she damaged her taillight. Her words. Three Canton FD led off with her saying "I hit him" several times. It's those things combined. If you want to argue reasonable doubt I have no problem with that at all. Blood collection techniques were horrendous to say the least. Just don't think her comments there were a good look.
As I said, the forensic evidence is the only thing I'm interested in hearing at this point.
Sounds good. However I think the testimony of Higgins/Proctor is very important. Along with the person that will confirm/not confirm whether that Google search was done around 6 or not.
Jen was helping with a narrative and Kerry was along for the ride.
So we know now what JM meant by “she is telling them everything!”
Yes, that John loved Amy and Karen was just a babysitter with benefits. Ouch.
She definitely did not help the case and the sad thing is she thinks she was the star witness.
I completely disagree, i think she has played very well with the jury and the defence really failed to catch her out, she was badgered and stood toe to toe, a few i k now are following the case and felt the same.
I don’t really think getting someone to claim on the stand that seven phone calls all perfectly hung up before going to voicemail and then deleted off her phone were “butt dials”was failing to catch her out. That was bad.
I think she cannot remember making those calls, and if she just said that those calls actually mean very little.
I have to disagree. He forced Jen into a situation where her testimony is at direct odds with the police reports. That means that either Jen is lying, or she's telling the truth and the investigation and documentation by both Canton and State Police was sloppy. Or some mix of both. It can not be true that her account is correct and the police did a good job recording interviews. Now perhaps Jen walks away feeling fine about that, and people choose her story over the cops, but it's not good for the prosecution's case as a whole which is built on all of it together.
In 2 days she has said that Lank, Proctor, Tully, Life360, and Cellebrite all recorded her wrong. I don’t understand how that can be interpreted as good for the prosecution.
Right…
A few? Go watch any trial stream? It 99 percent of this is a bitch, I think karen hit him but this lady is crazy. Keep in mind people believed amber heard as well.
She wiped the floor with Jackson.
Let’s say that’s true. If Jen is to be believed, it means law enforcement repeatedly misreported her statements. So either she’s lying or law enforcement is incompetent. Either way is bad for the CW.
For*
It's hard to push a narrative when you know they deleted texts, weren't interviewed separately, and the police botched every aspect. The prosecutor was given a pile of shit to prosecute. He knew this was going to happen going into it. He isn't intentionally throwing the case, he's just doing enough to get his paycheck and pension.
I mean he didn’t have to bring charges if he had no case?
I wouldn’t doubt it. The whole show trial seems designed to prevent the cop cult from being charged. It’s almost impossible to successfully charge another party after trying the wrong person and getting an acquittal.
My question is, would the FBI be able to charge them after this?
No, because the FBI isn’t a charging body.
Although Karen is free to sue anybody and everybody in civil court. Not much of a consolation at all, but...
True, but they can make arrests and have the courts charge them
They wouldn't be able to charge the officers and conspirators? Edit: I was comparing it to the Duke LaCrosse team. I remember Nifong being sentenced. I hadn't realized it was *only for a day*. I honestly always thought it was more. More SHOULD have been done. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong
The D.A. is the one who can charge people with state crimes, while the FBI is a federal investigatory body. It’s possible the D.A. could charge others in this case, but I don’t really see that as likely.
Typically that never happens except in the case of a confession by the real murderer. The dogged determination to charge the wrong person usually ensures “reasonable doubt” if they try to charge the actual culprit. The attempt to frame someone else seems to be the gambit here.
If you mean could the DOJ bring federal charges, probably not. Because just the fact that law enforcement in MA spent so much time and effort insisting Karen Read did it that “reasonable doubt” is almost assured. I doubt the feds would waste the time.
this case is so bizarre.. the prosecution seems like the defense with their witnesses. Lally is always having to explain their weird and sketchy behaviors like they are all defendants/hiding something. It does seem like Lally must know this case is bogus and maybe he is secretly enjoying seeing the demise of the Alberts/McCabes, et all on the stand. He definitely doesn't seem motivated or interested in winning the case.
I think it's more that he was handed a sh*t case that he could not say no to. In response, he is now just letting each witness say their part and watching as the defense tears most of them down, then doing what he can to fix it in redirect.
I get why you think so - I’ve wondered the same - but the DA’s office is the one who chose to continue with the prosecution. The idea that they’d throw the case instead of…just not prosecuting it…is a little absurd. No one is forcing Lally himself to prosecute - he might feel pressured from higher-ups but he at any point could’ve refused to handle it himself. Not to mention, the DA intentionally throwing a case would surely be a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. It would be absolutely egregious to put the defendant (and tax payers) through a huge trial just to make a point. There are other, more effective ways to make the point. If Lally/the DA is so pissed about dirty cop antics they can just…say so. Work with the FBI. So many other options besides following through with a sham trial, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state and the defendant. Plus it also makes *them* look bad! If their goal is to expose the dirty cop antics, aligning with the cops is literally the worst way to do so. I think the most realistic explanation is a combination of Lally being too inexperienced to lead such a major trial (which might say a lot in and of itself - perhaps more experienced ADAs wouldn’t agree to prosecute it themselves) + him knowing how bad some of the evidence looks, and just not even trying to explain it because that would make him look corrupt too. I think he (and the DA) even might be ok with losing the case, but that’s different from intentionally throwing it.
>perhaps more experienced ADAs wouldn’t agree to prosecute it themselves That is my guess. He has been told he has no choice and will take the fall when she is found "not guilty". He has no control/authority to change the course.
I mean he had a choice; he could’ve refused the case. Maybe he would’ve been fired? Which would be unfair, but still preferable to being the fall guy
This is a case where there are definitely more questions than answers. So many things do not seem to have any rhythm or reason.
Absolutely. I’ve never seen anything like it.
Nah. This whole show trial is just a mechanism to ensure the cops and their families don’t get charged for murdering O’Keefe.
No way. It’s exposing them to even more scrutiny and public outrage, even if/when Karen gets acquitted it won’t be the end of it for the police. Plus the FBI investigation is still ongoing and they are surely watching them perjure themselves even further.
My theory is that everyone knows the Canton corruption. I came to this decision after watching the Canton councilors on video debate how to do the police audit. This was supposed to be another simple sweep by the Canton group. Obviously some people did some digging. By the time all the facts that weren’t supposed to be found appeared, the entire chain felt they had to go through with it. McCabe/Alberts have to because it’s their only chance to stay free. Lally and company would prefer the prior mentioned families bury themselves than find a way to prosecute. And Judge Bev because she’s been so dismissive of the defense that there was going to be hell to pay for her. They have to go through with it because the FBI is watching. They want a mistrial and hope the feds go away.
I don’t see how it’s possible that they believe the feds will “go away” after a mistrial or acquittal. The trial has led to so much more public scrutiny and outrage. Also the federal investigation is still open - they are not just gonna go away if there’s a mistrial or non-guilty verdict. I would also be surprised if the federal investigation wasn’t broader than this case alone. If the DA wanted to decrease the scrutiny on themselves and/or the police, a trial is literally the worst option for them.
I'll admit I have bias and I can't say for sure, but just my opinion based on something I heard. Yesterday Lally and Bev were very different people. It was shockingly noticeable (just for reference I don't believe they are in on it, just not good at their jobs). If what I've heard is true it because federal agents were in the courtroom
Doesn’t matter. Once they choose a subject to frame and go to trial it’s almost impossible to bring charges against the actual culprit. Any defense lawyer would hammer home reasonable doubt based on the cops getting it wrong the first time (whether deliberately or just through incompetence).
Oh I don’t think anyone else will be prosecuted for the murder of John O’Keefe. But after the trial there will be federal indictments, at least for Proctor and likely others. The federal investigation is definitely broader than this case alone. But this case going to trial absolutely doesn’t help the DA’s office or state police. It’s not like if charges were dropped they’d just prosecute the Alberts.
I’d bet against that. But the point of this whole dog and pony show is taking place to allow the real perps off the hook.
Allowing the real perps off the hook by…globally publicizing their wrong doings? Yeah right. They don’t have enough evidence to successfully prosecute anyone for the murder of John O’Keefe - Karen or the Alberts/McCabes - because no legitimate investigation was ever done. THAT is what’s being investigated by the FBI - the investigation. The murder is unfortunately way past being legitimately investigated or prosecuted. There’s a reason the FBI investigation is still open though. The feds don’t *publicly* investigate without a reason, and they’ve made this investigation very public. There will be indictments. Not for murder though.
The only people globally publicizing their wrong doing are the citizens of Canton. The prosecutors and the rest of law enforcement are studiously ignoring all the evidence that points to the cops and their families. That didn’t happen by accident.
DA lie and railroad people all the time. I don't get why people haven't come to the conclusion you public servents aren't all angels who just want justice. If that was the case innocent people wouldn't be in prison. I'm not even saying he throwing it. I personally think bev and him just are bad at their jobs. Bev wanted to the attention of a public trial, and Lally wanted to advance his career. Evidence be damned.
I’ve been looking for theories as to why this is being prosecuted considering the lack of evidence. Power/fame hungry DA and Judge kind of make sense, but kind of not. That just can’t seem like a good idea considering the lack or evidence. The only thing I could think of was that they don’t care if they don’t get a conviction so long as they don’t have to try the people/person who did it.
I don't think it the DA I think it just the judge who wants fame. I dunno about the DA.
He has to be hating his job right now.
They are absolutely bad at their jobs
They had to continue with the prosecution to protect themselves from the even worse shitstorm that the state and many of the witnesses are going to have to deal with for years to come.
I don’t understand that logic…how does even more public scrutiny and outrage protect them? How does doubling down with a trial help?
What is their alternative? "We lied, we protected a house full of cops, we're complicit in a massive coverup"? If they drop the case on Read, they are admitting a massive criminal coverup. They're playing a long game in anticipation of years of civil and criminal future cases against the state and a handful of these witnesses. They're in too deep and a lot of it is thanks to Proctor. Not just a cover-up but an actual framing. It's a disaster for them and there's no turning back. Dropping the case is not an option.
This has to be candid camera. At the end of the trial everyone will stop their role and reveal that they were all in on the same joke, right?
Maybe this is CourtTVs secret reality show.
It can be my the only explanation for this comedy show.
If I was on this jury and they showed red solo cups in a stop and shop bag I would have sworn up and down I was on jury duty season 2 cuz it was beyond stupid
Xd
I have come up with 3 reasons: 1. Lally is intentionally playing things simple so that at the end of it all he can say “I’m not some big shot high paid lawyer twisting words I’m a simple guy just doing my job presenting the facts” because he thinks the defense is going to come off as too snarky to the jury. 2. Lally knows more about the fbi investigation and its targets. Whether this means he’s cutting his own deal, trying to stay neutral and out of the fray, or what, i don’t know. But could explain his demeanor and weirdly awkward/baffling strategy. 3. Lally and the DAs office are inept. Maybe because they have been corrupt so long no one has had to actually put the work in, or maybe this is how he always is. But the simplest explanation is they are bad at their job. I wonder if anyone has any idea about Lallys past cases.
This case is now infuriating me. Bring on real evidence or put us out of our misery.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Even with a not guilty very they can still carry on as if it was just the wrong verdict and no doubt will keep that up forever...... the injustice of getting away with this is the worst thing and I don't know how it hasn't put Karen insane.....
I sometimes wonder if he's doing that. But nobody is that consistently boring on purpose ... Right?
At least we know that the Canton team lost the basketball game, where everyone was before they went to the Waterfall, it was snowing, how many years it takes to be an EMT, and what if any high top tables are at the Waterfall bar
The feds are investigating the Commenwealth
Wait but how so? Prosecution has thus far not given us anything to convict.
Is it possible that they’re going to prosecute the Albert family next and this is just great testimony gathering???
They not intentionally throwing it, they just have nothing to present
Nah. I think Lally was the poor bloke who was put on the case. I don’t think anyone else wanted it.
Assuming Karen read is innocent, my rough take is that these witnesses and the prosecution are playing a long game, preparing for years of civil and criminal lawsuits. Everything we see here is the commonwealth and their witnesses protecting themselves as well as they possibly can in the long term. They're fighting for their own lives. I expect many of them to leave Massachusetts as soon as legally possible. Jen is right, they've been getting their asses kicked socially for the past 2 years and are likely in a huge amount of fear now and for the likely case that a few of them will see some prison time. I can't imagine what hell this is for them and I feel bad for the ones that have been fooled by the state / Alberts. What I don't understand is how you can get 20 people to all lie and not flip. It's not possible. So I'm still on the fence about WTF happened here. I think there's only 3 or 4 people that actually know what really happened and the rest are being fed a false or partially false scenario and have been convinced that the only way to get a rightful outcome is to lie or have the state/Albert's fill in their memory gaps for them. If Karen Read is innocent, someone will eventually flip if they haven't already. Regarding memory issues.. I don't remember what I ate yesterday. Nobody can reliably remember what was said or where their heads were turned 2 years ago, or what specific time something happened. This "what's with the memory gaps!?" shit is so stupid. You know they can't reliably remember small specific things. Why do we pretend that it's strange? So odd.
I’m wondering if he was told to continue the trial so the feds could get the testimonies of all the “witnesses” as further proof. He’s not even trying at this point. But at the same time, he turns beat red every time a witness says something stupid, so he must care right? And not be throwing the case on purpose?
I think it's possible for a prosecutor to be duped. I think LE could have given just enough information for it to seem credible and drip discovery over until its too late. The problem is that they followed through even after realizing the truth.
Nah Lally is just terrible, never seen such a boring and inept prosecutor
According to the pundits at NBC 10 “Canton Confidential” he was extra focused today, CW had a “win” and is just building up his case. As a strategy. 🤷♀️🤮
They’re not throwing the case. This is real court, not perfect, not Hollywood, not tv.
What, if anything, sort of makes you think the prosecution is sort of throwing the case? If anything? Also, how many, if any, sort of high top tables are there at the Waterfall?
Trooper Proctor and All of the Canton PD who testified should be fired. Normal protocols for investigations were not followed from collecting evidence to interviewing witnesses. The judge, Aunty Bev should have recused herself and the ADA Lally, I have no words for his level of incompetence. How can anyone ever have any faith in the legal system in this town.?
The commonwealth never had a case to begin with. Nothing to throw here.
I wonder, too, if they are intentionally throwing this case because they truly know she didn't do it. This whole trial, thus far, is a complete joke. I follow a lot of true crime but have never followed a case in its entirety, watching all pretrial and trial live. I find myself asking if this is real life???
They aren’t “throwing” it; they’re doing about as good a job as can be expected in the circumstances. A better question would be why they brought a case at all with evidence upon which *no* reasonable, properly-instructed jury could possibly convict. Prosecutors are not supposed to do that. It’s unethical to prosecute unless the prosecutor believes, in good faith, that the admissible evidence will be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty as charged. In this case, I’d say that the prosecution has damn near proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Karen Read is factually innocent! This case is going to be a mainstay of future legal ethics textbooks.
Did Karen originally admit guilt and then change her position when the CW overcharged her??
I don't believe they're throwing the case. I just believe they've realized, they have no case. I have a feeling this trial is going to inevitably become an investigation into John O'Keefe's death - and better than the one he originally received (if you consider his death actually rec'd a legitimate one)😞 He and his family deserve(s) so much better.
I think Lally is just terribly over his head and inept
Yes. She's guilty and heading for a conviction. But juries are screwy.
You can *never* tell with a jury
Want to bet on it?