💯

pathetic....really.

It wasn't asked because the judge is biased and incompetent.

Why didn’t the defense object to this ruling.

​@@deeannwebster6030 because they weren't given an opportunity on the day. The judge declared mistrial, the defense can't query the judges ruling at that stage, so they've had to go away and find out from jurors that they have a qualified reason to query the verdict.

Probably because the notes said they were deeply divided on the charges

It is up to the attorneys to ask that the jury be polled.

According to a cult who worships a criminal

Clearly it isn’t or it wouldn’t be on trial.

Yikes no one is going to take you seriously with that username. What are you, twelve?

@@mauiswift6391 Are you saying that inappropriate cases don't go to trial? Just look at the Alec Baldwin case as an example of why that's false. Or look at the fact that the prosecution didn't meet their burden and therefore she wasn't convicted. Everything about this is inappropriate.

@@sarasmilesco8551 Unlike you I don't condone mysogny.

A jury is never polled on a hung jury. Tell me one case where the judge declared a hung jury/mistrial and then asked each juror what they thought the verdict should be. It doesn’t happen. There was no verdict to be polled on.

@@sarasmilesco8551they can’t. they’ve only watched verdicts that went one way or another, so in their sample size the jury is always polled, they’re just don’t know enough to know that guilt/liability and not guilty/not liable aren’t the only outcomes. Absolute clown commentary, but lots of people think they are experts on a topic because they watched a KZfaq video.

I have seen times when the jury wasn't polled, but I have never witnessed jurors not being asked their verdict on each charge. Sadly, Bev assumed that they weren't unanimous on all the charges and failed our judicial system. I questioned it the day she declared the mistrial.

They did not poll the OJ Jury..lol ... Never say never.😅

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g Massachusetts law is an oxymoron. This state is corrupt to the core

SHE IS GUILTY

@@libertyna933 did they ? Hmmm maybe

​@dodgecharger5040that's what they were told by the judge

I doubt that the note said different and also you fill it out as you go you agree you mark it move to the next charge. Nothing was marked so no agreement

​@Cmart09 that is not how they were told to fill out the form. The judge specifically told them not to mark anything until they had come to an agreement on all three.

I think the changes made on the verdict form did nothing other than confuse them further. Her attys had a plan to circumvent justice, and this is it.

Agree 💯

Oh but she wasn't 😡

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

People don't know the Albert's vacation at the Hamptons together and that Auntie Bev is godmother to one of the children

@@chasethecat3839 Where’s the proof/evidence of that? Further, conspiracy theories are not evidence and ​​⁠the FBI already investigated the alleged frame job and conspiracy and finalised it via a 3,700 page report and found no evidence of such. Furthermore, incompetence/bad behaviour/negligence of LE and/or, knowing someone, or knowing of someone, does not by default = frame job and conspiracy.

@@tinafelicianoedwards8398 common sense says Karen’s vehicle data proves she floored it in reverse at the exact time John’s phone stops moving.

@@sarasmilesco8551- Try going 24mph in reverse and see how difficult it is to achieve. Nevermind the fact that they said she traveled 60 feet in reverse. Pretty sure she would’ve hit Higgins jeep that was parked less than 15 feet behind her. Why didn’t the prosecution subpoena an actual Lexus technician/mechanic to come in and explain how the Lexus data in that make and model actually records data?? Every person that speaks about the key cycles in this case in trying to explain them, contradicts the next person. But regardless of all that, the only real and true experts that were brought in here were the independently sourced, FBI experts that were hired to find out if Karen Read’s vehicle hit John O’Keefe. ARRCA experts concluded that John O’Keefe was not hit by her vehicle and that the vehicle did not hit John O’Keefe. They have no skin in the game and it wouldn’t matter to them if she was innocent or guilty. With unlimited resources available to them to find out if O’Keefe was actually hit, I fully trust their PHD level, expert opinions. But mostly they weren’t hired by neither the prosecution or defense team. That makes their findings highly more credible and not biased.

​@@sarasmilesco8551the experts stated the car did not hit him!!! Period!!

@@dollydampman2633 no they didn’t. When did they say that?

@@sarasmilesco8551 Did you not watch the trial, @sarasmilesco8551? Did you not see the testimony of Dr Andrew Rentschler, Ph.D., who specializes in biomechanical engineering, or Dr. Wolfe, the Director of Accident Reconstruction, that specializes in the fields of accident reconstruction, human factors, and lighting, both from the company ARCCA, hired by the FBI to determine whether or not John O'Keefe was in fact hit by Karen Read's vehicle????? Did you not see this??? Perhaps you are ignoring this testimony because it fails to fit the narrative you wish to perceive?? Regardless and with facts over feelings, both experts testified that "The damage on the car was inconsistent with having made contact with John O’Keefe’s body." In other words, the car didn’t hit him, and he wasn’t hit by the car. Period.

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g Again? Really? Why do you insist on copy and pasting this comment on an endless amount of pro-Karen Read comments? Stop already... Aunt Bev was a biased judge who failed to do her job correctly.

The defense wanted mistrial first time jurors couldn’t make a decision.

BC CW DA wants a retrial bc AJ made a fool of him in court.

@@tringuyen7519absolutely!

What exactly would that do? If the Feds thought there was even a possibility of Karen’s innocence she would not be on trial.

The feds wrote a report said no way this guy was hit bya car someone in that house beat him up defence said in court in one of the hearings both sides got that info they still tryed to get karen on murdet charges wouldnt drop the case. Its on turtle boy somewhere. Crazy but true .

Feds investigation is finished. Found no conspiracy, corruption or framing, or cover up.

Its still MA. Corruption runs deep.

But were those other cases in Massachusetts?

The feds will get official statements from them during their invest.

@@CrazyMaryJo Ego will keep this defense team employed by people of similar egos

Because the (alleged) juror/s, have not attested to it via an affidavit and taking the stand to then be cross examined by the CW

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g Oh, I appreciate you letting me know! I was so confused :p

@@mariannealbano4411 that’s a bit extreme.

That is ehy she is a witness and needs to be questioned and removed from the case going forward.

Bev did not speak with them BEFORE declaring the mistrial. That is the issue. She did not obtain a clear understanding of the counts they agreed on and what charge(s) they were struggling with. She did not bring proper closure to the proceedings. She abandoned clarity and proper closure.

@@cathywithac I heard the judge say after the mistrial she was going in the back to speak with juror’s watch the rewind

@@ValLonardo-ot8bd Bev did talk to them after declaring the mistrial. According to the jurors, it was thank you for your service and there is the door to the bus. It was not a jury debrief.

In most judicial jurisdictions in the U.S., judges are required to speak to the jurors in open court, not in a back room where the attorneys, defendants etc cannot hear what is being said. Judge Bev didn't even poll the jurors in open court, which in most places the judge has the responsibility to do so.

The judge missed it !

This is almost never done. Idk why Karen reads “fans” think the entire justice system needs to be revamped just for Karen read

Judges poll the jury all the time and could have done it in private.

Nope, not under Massachusetts law and it just another publicity stunt to get people to donate for another trial coming up.

No. She’s the judge, not you. This is not a requirement of law. Not everyone is out to get Karen read 🤦🏻‍♀️

I think it was about money. There was drugs being sold in Canton and John had already called authorities and someone up that chain wanted him stopped. Uncle Joe was part of it all, Sherriffs kin I believe

Yeah well telling a shady judge and prosecutor is like going in one ear and out the other.

​@@EmmaDee Even if that were true - and it's not - it'd better to have said something right then and there.

Yes. If you don't believe it,research the jury instructions. This is all on Bev.

@@michelletaylor4211 I agree

The defense team approved of the verdict forms and obstructions. Regardless.

​@@user-ji5gz5fu3g exactly what does the content of the forms have to do with the instructions about how to fill in the forms other than nothing

@michelletaylor4211 - Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

Most humans will have imo, go a do a "Go Fund Me". Imo he was in a physical fight.

AJ will probably defer his legal fees on the retrial until after KR sues CW PD & DA in civil court for $100 million.

​@@tringuyen7519 BS. Mr California is/was running a funding site through his law firm. 😎The pinkies are fundraising for her defence. Open your eyes to facts. Karen will only get enough money to buy a McDonald's meal before she goes to jail.

@@Rose-ii7fk One thing is for sure. He wasn’t ran over by that Lexus truck.

@@tringuyen7519 I hope so. I at least see a book deal down the line

@@PEBBLEZ21 thank you!!! 👏👏👏 common sense is scarce these days. Nice to see you here!

Exactly! But so many people are so easily deceived by the defense team lies. It’s like they have no brain anymore! 🥸

Yes about the second charge their were lots of lesser included charges. Bev said don't fill in Form until you agree on all charges

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

💯

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

@@michaelaraneta6995 no it’s not

too

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

@@Cmart09 yes thank you 👏👏👏

This defense is up to the same old car salesmen tricks. Just like their defense. Whilst the prosecution has a burden of proof, when the defense said KR was framed, in the eyes of the jury they made this case a binary decision - either she’s guilty or she was framed and put the burden on themselves to deliver at least something proving it and definitively. They didn’t ask the big questions of the big witnesses, couldn’t name/prove the alleged third party culprit, didn’t prove the alleged frame job and conspiracy and didn’t get a not guilty verdict (nor in one day as alleged). Defending and proving the defense was as important as the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt and extremely pertinent in this particular case. They failed!

Except the jury instructions said to only fill in the forms when they had reached a decision on all counts

@@cfawcett9870 Where did it say that? Have you got the evidence / proof? I did hear one attorney say that (but no other attorney) has to be the case. I just searched it up and it says it is Massachusetts law. Therefore if true the defense motion on that ground also will fail - the law is the law!

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g yes actually, go watch when bev read the instructions, that is exactly what she read out

@@susanwhalls6230 That was after the first note, before they were sent back the second time.

there is literally NO untainted evidence that she even hit him with her car, OR EVEN that he was hit by a car.

@@BondJames-vz5wk You sound like a stuck record she's guilty AF

It is in the best interest of the CW to not retry the case if all 12 jurors decided in deliberations “not guilty” it sounds like the juror instructions were not easy to understand which is what the defense argued. Either way, it’s a waste of tax payers money as there is zero percent chance there will be a guilty verdict. Mark my words!

Apparently the jurors didn't understand that they could have a split verdict. How bizarre.

EXACTLY!

Here we are listening to actual lawyers and experts when Stephanie here has it figured out. I’m surprised they haven’t called you to testify.

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues). Further, there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g The judge in this case allowed manipulated, inverted footage to be entered as evidence - this alone should have struck the Commonwealth with misconduct. Lally clearly knew the film was manipulated, yet entered it anyway. In the case of Alec Baldwin, we just witnessed many similarities with evidence and guess what? The Baldwin judge followed the law, and dismissed the trial. I'm not talking about the mess of the jurors jury slips and trial ending with a mistrial verdict... I'm talking about the misconduct allowed the entire way through trial, from manipulated evidence, the allowance of entering evidence prior to the defense seeing the evidence, non-allowances of pertinent defense evidence testimony by qualified expert testimony. Clearly the Massachusetts judge was biased and unprofessional in her duties to uphold the law to the highest degree.

@@lynmarie1786 Disagree totally and you are exaggerated in my opinion. The Alec Baldwin was totally different. Who is telling you this nonsense. That was evidence that was withheld from the defense. Very different. Don’t start me on the defense team in this case.

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g Listen to the lawyers covering the case that have channels. There's one particular attorney that has a comparison video. Anyway, why single me out and jump on my case? Go down through the comments on here.... We all feel the same about a multitude of issues with this case. I suppose you are anti-Karen Read and are most likely blinded by anything less than a guilty verdict. Personally, I feel this case wreaks of corruption, misconduct and malicious people framing an innocent woman. I don't really care what you think... You are free to have your own opinion. But there's no excuse for certain things that happened in the investigation and trial. And, as far as I'm concerned, NONE of it helped the Commonwealth.

we are in the process of hearing from them.

​@@BondJames-vz5wkwe have not heard anything saying otherwise.

@@BondJames-vz5wk what does that mean? We are in the process of hearing from them?

@@CharlieLynne-eu9dz pretty sure the commonwealth filed a motion calling it all nonsense.

❤

Sounds like you need to detach yourself and are a bit obsessed

Exactly.

So true! The defense said nothing but "YES!" when it was a mistrial... redicilous.

@@RobertP-kk5ou and judge cannone said she was going to speak with all juror’s after the mistrial that’s why these court channels should get the right information

The defense "bolted" out of there? Lol They were the last to leave.

​@@IndiartworksThat is not true, Bev declared a mistrial without speaking to either side.

Bless your heart 😂😂😂

Yep, and totally unethical to even speak to any Jurors about their deliberations. That is not allowed to be discussed.

100%. Seth is a huge player here. A very shady man. I'd retain an attorney if I were him

@@kmm1691 lol everyone who thinks differently is wrong? Even a prosecutor? Wow. You may want to consider you are wrong.

Not sure if true rumoured higgins told someone he pulled the dog off john.

Yes who are they?

@@sarasmilesco8551 nope. Youre dillusional and need help

Criminal procedure rule 27 states otherwise

@@cfawcett9870 Generally at law no. That has to be when the jury has raised it and notified the court via the verdict forms, the parties are heard upon any arguments and then the judge may exercise that discretion. The jury was discharged after their inability to reach a verdict and thereafter double jeopardy cannot apply. Not stating that they had on any charges and the defense not seeking it but rather demanding a mistrial be declared. Therefore it doesn’t apply here. You cannot go back in time. The law does not work that way.

@@cfawcett9870 Jury note (final #4 before the mistrial was declared): “Some” members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of the “charges” (indicating this related to all charges) beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely “others” find the elements fail to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the “charges” (indicating this related to all charges and all the jury members were not in agreement on any of the charges). The deep “division” is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs”.

@@user-ji5gz5fu3g why are you mentioning things that didn't happen or i didn't say You said the jury must find a verdict on every charge but that isn't true when you actually read the law and not cherry pick to fit your argument. No one is asking to change the law, we're asking for it to be followed which, imo, bev isn't doing.

@@cfawcett9870 I explained this above. Just stop writing to me. You are not getting it!

On what grounds exactly?

​@@user-ji5gz5fu3gthey tried apt she is aunty brvto thr Albert kids

​@@mandy2117😂😂 stop believing tb and ridiculous rumors.

💯💯💯

No do overs but redo the trial? That's a whole lot of contradiction in so few words The evidence proved that john wasn't hit by a car but sure, you continue to believe that going after karen and not trying to find out what really happened is getting justice for john if you want

@@susanwhalls6230 Rude.

​@@lynmarie1786 🤢

@@chhansen9813 what would you charge a murderer with?

Tell that to the Grand Jury who indicted her upon those charges

💯 car salesmen!

doubt it.

As if….dream on….no idea what you are talking about 💭🛌💤 !

Incorrect and you really should understand the law before you go asserting such things as fact: Jury note 4 (final before the mistrial was declared): “Some” members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of the “charges” (indicating this related to all charges) beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely “others” find the elements fail to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the “charges” (indicating this related to all charges and all the jury members were not in agreement on any of the charges). The deep “division” is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs”.

I hope so too but as you said she is biased (if not worse)

AJ doesn’t act for KR anymore 😂

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, the jury must be unanimous in its findings on every charge (guilty or not guilty), otherwise it is a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial was therefore legally correct and no doubt why the defense also pushed for the trial to be declared a mistrial repeatedly and forcefully. Regardless, the law is the law and cannot be changed for one case and the defense’s motion must fail and be thrown out, even on this ground alone (notwithstanding other issues) and there is no legal standing as to an appeal, which would also fail upon the same reason.

Jury note (final #4 before the mistrial was declared): “Some” members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of the “charges” (indicating this related to all charges) beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely “others” find the elements fail to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the “charges” (indicating this related to all charges and all the jury members were not in agreement on any of the charges). The deep “division” is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs”.

@@TheNativoamericano this is false. They did not prove that. They weren’t even given vehicle data and told not to do any outside research. They didn’t even know the car was moving in reverse.

omg. you've officially gone full tinfoil hat.

@@BoxerClover Really? Please be more specific as I stated three facts. Unless you have a "everyonewhodisagreeswithmewearsatinfoilhat" hat on?

🤦🏻‍♂️