google.com, pub-9442811071336901, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

Karen Read: JURY DEADLOCKS! What Does This Mean and What’s Next? – Lawyer LIVE

Did Karen Read murder her boyfriend John O’Keefe by mowing him down with her car —maybe even intentionally? Or is she being set up by a corrupt law enforcement officials trying to protect their own?

O’Keefe was found dead in Canton, Massachusetts, in the front yard of Boston police officer Brian Albert. Prosecutors say Karen dropped him off at a party at Albert’s house and then hit him with her car.

#Karenread #boyfriendcop #murdertrial #johnokeefe

Enjoying the content? Join us by becoming a channel member!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXXZgehRtbz2Fopk9iioZfQ/join

This channel was formerly known as the Harvard Lawyer Lee channel.

TWITTER: LawyerLeeW
MODERATORS:  Many thanks to marlonmaastricht and mamapinks, the best mods anywhere.
OUTRO: by MarlonMaastricht

WHAT I USE TO STREAM: STREAMYARD.  You can preload exhibits and video and it works for meetings as well as YouTube livestreams.  Affiliate link: https://streamyard.com/?fpr=lee59

Visit YouTube Channel

36 thoughts on “Karen Read: JURY DEADLOCKS! What Does This Mean and What’s Next? – Lawyer LIVE

  1. Very painful with Johns family and mom. But convicting an innocent woman is not justice . And from the evidence i truly believe she is ! I knew nothing of the case before watching this trial and the trial not even gave me reasonable doubt to not convict but in my opinion showed she is innocent and did not hit him with the car!

  2. You are on the fence and think she was guilty but also framed? Is that a walking contradiction? You were impressed with the talent and strategy of both Alan Jackson and David Yannetti but deny the ARCCA expert witnesses testimony? There are nuances in this case, no doubt. I don't think she was framed, I think it became an oppotunity foreseen by Michael Proctor. Luck is what happens with preparation meets opportunity. Your final opinion on this case is the very first I have heard from any other legal analyist. Proctor carried around OJO's clothes in the trunk of his car for six weeks but the defining moment is small particles of red plastic on his clothes but none in his wounds? I understand some folks believe Karen is guilty; however, I cannot understand how anyone can deny the major facts in their summation and focus on details that could easily be explained by your theory of being framed. Those capable of corruption are also capable of perjury to sustain it. You're still the best! Just felt the need to offer commentary since I read a voluminous amount of public documents, watched pretrial hearings, listened to many, many other legal analysis and watched 90% of the live trial. I just cannot see how you can split hairs and justify both theories of Officer John's O'Keefe's unfortunate and untimely death.

  3. I'm just shocked people can listen to the evidence and doctors and YTers who clearly identified dog attack on JOs right arm, and guys with phds in physics and think, nah, science doesnt mean much, i believe the clearly corrupt cops. Physics may really not apply when a vehicle goes in reverse, after all, trustworthy expert trooper paul said physics can't be understood if something moves in reverse

  4. Their fundamental differences are their biases. Some may have issues with women. Some may have issues with LE. So this will impact their decisions.

  5. My money is on the majority of jurors finding her not guilty and one or two jurors who I would say were ‘compromised’ and held out for guilty. If they retry the case it should be nowhere near that town!

  6. I think Karen did hit John with her vehicle but couldn't remember the details initially due to drinking. The police didn't do a good job and took for granted everyone would blindly believe their findings.

  7. I know most of you won't support this but..she's guilty if look at just the EVIDENCE..not the assumption, not what the police are being ACCUSED of ( without proof) but look at the actual evidence she's guilty of manslaughter.

  8. The defense did not believe the dog did it and had no interest beyond creating a scenario were JO was in the house. It, in my opinion, it was snow spikes fitted under boots. That is why they did not want to go further with it. A retrial could see the prosecution go after this angle and find the fitting shoe for Read. Bit risky though, as who had the snow boots? Only my theory.

  9. Lee, you truly deliver the most satisfying presentation and details. You are aware of what and how needs to fulfill our minds. Thank you and be blessed!😇♥️

  10. The judge is biased, favoring the prosecution. It would be a shame if they tried this case again. Higgins and others have things to hide, which is why they destroyed their SIM cards. The FBI will find out.

  11. What I would like to understand is how he could go inside, get beaten and be taken outside with his drink on his hands. I think she was mad and instead drive she accidentally reversed and hit him

  12. I cannot even imagine being on a jury for 2 months and missing my salary! I could never afford that! The “expert” witnesses get paid but the jury gets a measly pittance.

  13. I'm sure this is not going to happen, but it would be really good if law enforcement would conduct a better, more thorough investigation. There were so many times their conduct didn't follow standard police procedure (collecting evidence in disposible cups from the neighbor, not searching the home where O'Keefe died in the front yard, waiting so long to interview some people, and more).

    I realize they can't go back in time and fix these things, but law enforcement never considered involvement by anyone else and their "investigation" into the circumstances was practically non-existent, unless it involved Karen Read. Anything they could use against her was all they were interested in. There are a lot of areas they could delve into much deeper. But they won't…

  14. Is it reasonable or logical to assume that O'Keefe's mother is crying because she believes K. Read is guilty and hers are tears of disappointment in the failure of the jury and/or prosecutors to secure a conviction.

  15. Massachusetts is a corrupt crackpot democrat state so of course they will pee away tax payer money and keep retrying the case until they get the verdict they want. Typical Democrat way of wasting tax payer dollars.

  16. Does anyone know why they haven’t pulled the gps from the car? Or why they didn’t pull the location information from Karen’s phone, johns phone and anyone else’s phones? I fully support Karen and she should have been found not guilty, just wondering if it’s something they can do if it gets tried again

  17. This case should have never gone to trial. The investigation was so shady & bias it will be hard for any Jury to agree on a guilty verdict. The State will want to know how many Jurors voted guilty…if is a 10-2 they'll try the case again for sure..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *