Canton Coverup Part 397: Karen Read Juror Says They Switched On Manslaughter Verdict, Confirms Murder Acquittal, Says Jurors Couldn’t Ask Judge Cannone Question About 2 Verdicts

 

Donate to the Turtleboy Legal defense fund

– Framed – Video for Full Background on Canton Cover-Up Story
– See all parts of the Canton Cover-Up Series
– Watch the Live Shows and Videos
– Join ”Justice for John O’Keefe and Karen Read” FB Group

 

This morning I conducted a one hour interview with a juror in the Karen Read case. This juror was one of the 3 who changed his vote to guilty on manslaughter, then went back to not guilty. This juror is an EMT, and was more than willing to speak with me about topics that no juror has thus far discussed. For the first time we now have insight into the deliberations. I will be paraphrasing some of the questions I ask the juror along with their answers.

Who was the most convincing witness for the defense?

The most convincing witnesses were the ARCCA guys because they were strong in their delivery and presentation.

But the ARCCA guys were unequivocal that John’s injuries didn’t come from a motor vehicle collision. Clearly those who voted guilty did not find them convincing. What went wrong? 

The group in general felt that the defense was trying to derail us with them. A lot of people were saying guilty because these individuals came in and gave us this information, but they couldn’t say who was sponsoring them. Whether it was an insurance company or, no offense, or was it yourself?

Did you know who I was?

We did know because there was someone in the jury who knew about you and we talked about it a little bit. There was information being told to us by family members about what was going on with the media, for lack of better terms. Someone on the jury was telling us that you were in the courtroom and there were people who were talking about different angles.

So the jury guessed that possibly Turtleboy paid for the ARCCA experts and but no one suggested the Feds?

“Based on our charge which was to follow the evidence so we left it alone. So because of that factor that we didn’t know who sponsored them, because the defense utilized them but the prosecution did not. So it was confusing on whether or not they were there to derail us, and some of the jurors felt strongly about that. I felt that there must be some truth in why they’re trying to present this information, and why the judge would even allow them to testify if they weren’t credible.”

Was there pressure to reach a verdict?

There was a lot of pressure to come to a consensus.

Why did you ultimately vote not guilty?

Maybe we were wiling to accept a lesser charge. But in the end I switched back and thought about it and said not guilty because the individual who asked how to get to 34 Fairview was John O’Keefe. He was the one who called and texted Jen McCabe. He was the one who programmed it into his WAZE. He was the one who wanted to go out drinking. There is evidence that there was scratches on the arm, but the clear cut delineation of what killed John was the blow to the back of the head and the hypothermia. And because of those 2 things it was not her.”

How did the vote move on deliberations?

Vote was 6-6, to 8-4, to 9-3, and then back to 8-4.

How were they initially able to persuade you to guilty?

There was an engineer in the group and the engineer and the foreman (also a medical person) both were, and they said let’s look solely at the evidence. And also look at the idea that perhaps it could’ve been, and this is conjecture so that’s why I went back when I changed quickly on the second day of deliberations. The question was did it seem like the car backing up caused enough idea that John was perceived that he fell backwards. And he fell backwards because he perceived a threat. And engineering wise that kind of made sense why there was no impact.

So that means they rejected Trooper Paul’s theory? Speaking of Trooper Paul, who did you think were the least credible witnesses?

Trooper Paul and Lucky Loughran.

Lucky??!!

He didn’t report that other piece of accident that occurred, but he remembered all the other details. Why would he not report that he got into an accident, but he did report everything else? During the testimony when he was presenting it to the jury he did not give us that information, he forgot that whole piece of information, which I think would’ve been important.

Did you think it was odd that the State Police never attempted to speak with Lucky Loughran?

We found it odd. The whole thing was odd. It was 6-6 because it seemed like there was so much information that was lost that could’ve been gleaned in the first few days of the case. And at the time half of the group thought it was clear that there was a little bit of bias and it was not clear what was going on.

What about Chloe?

The jury did not know, and we were all told that Chloe was rehomed. So we thought that as the jury and wondered why didn’t they present anything about Chloe? After the trial I realized that rehomed was another word for euthanized. My understanding is that Chloe is no longer.

Did the jury believe that John was bit by a dog? Because there was 2 doctors who said John was bitten by a dog.

The jury believed there was reasonable doubt. That’s why there were 6 people who had reasonable doubt. It was very clear on charge 1 and 3. Murder was decided on day one. She did not have an intent to murder.

How could they believe that if she went 24 mph in reverse?

We believe that he wasn’t hit.

So you all believed he wasn’t struck by a car? And that he jumped out of the way and fell.

The jury believed it wasn’t intentional.

How could it NOT be intentional going that fast?

The 6 believed it was an accidental hit believed he was struck at 24 mph.

How could you believe it wasn’t intentional going that fast?

I don’t know what the other jurors were thinking.

But you believe he wasn’t hit?

Correct. It was inconsistent too because we thought that there should’ve been more damage to the car.

So you were persuaded because someone on the jury was an engineer and they had a convincing argument, and then you went back to not guilty because you changed your mind?

I went home and thought about it, and I thought about based on the evidence what ultimately killed him? And that was a blow to the back of the head and hypothermia.

Are you one of the jurors who reached out to the defense?

I am not. I was thinking about reaching out to the group and saying should we reach out to the judge as a group, not as individuals, so that the first and third count can be resolved. Because we did want to sign that. The reason it ended up the way it did was because there was 2 of us in the group who wanted to reach out to the judge and tell her that we were unanimous on count 1 and 3. The foreman said no that’s not our charge, we have to be unanimous on all 3 accounts.

There were reports of bullying in the deliberation room. Do you feel the foreman was bullying?

He was given the charge as being the foreman, and therefore we believed that he was the leader and knew what he was talking about. The letters to the judge regarding how we were going back were well written. I don’t know if it would’ve changed things if we had asked that question about consensus on 2 of the accounts.”

So 2 of the jurors wanted to reach out to Judge Cannone and ask her if you could acquit on 2 charges and hang on a third, and the foreman said no?

Yes. He said it needs to be 100% of the charges with a unanimous verdict.

So why didn’t you reach out to the judge?

Because only the foreman is allowed to reach out to the judge. The foreman is the only one who can write the notes. And it was only 2 of us who wanted to reach out, but since the foreman didn’t it was 10-2 that they agreed that we had to be unanimous, and no note was passed to the judge.

Do you feel like the guilty voters were more persuasive? 

Once deliberations began there were jurors who didn’t want to deliberate because they had made their decision already for guilty.

How did you feel about Brian Albert, Colin Albert, and Jen McCabe coming in on the last day of court?

It was intimidating. Why are they here? I get that they have a vested interest in it, but it was not a comfortable feeling. The majority of us were not comfortable seeing them there.

So there was more than one of you that was intimidated by them?

I know for a fact that there was another juror who felt intimidated. We brought it up as a group as we were deliberating. A couple people didn’t notice them, but the people who did notice said it was uncomfortable.

Did you find Jennifer McCabe believable?

It seemed to me it was rehearsed. I get it, you have to review your material before. But it seemed like they were all rehearsed or coached.

Do you believe John went inside the house based on the testimony you heard?

I am not sure. I think he might’ve made it in the house, but what happened after that I don’t know. There was some of us in the room that believed there was doubt about whether or not he made it in the house and whether or not there were interactions in the house.

That means that the people who voted guilty on manslaughter believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go inside the house, which means they believed the McAlberts?

Correct.

Have you read about the case afterwards?

Afterwards I have done a little bit of research, but not as much as people are thinking.

If you had known about the federal investigation would that change your opinion?

Knowing the ARCCA guys were hired by the FBI that would’ve changed a lot. If it was told to us that they were part of a separate investigation, that’s all they needed to say without tainting our information. But I think even the jurors would’ve looked at that differently. One of the major pivotal points was the engineer in the group said the ARCCA guys did not give us any of their data. They presented the information but didn’t give us any of the parameters they set up as far as engineering controls. And any kind of specific data. The engineer based on his experiences to us said that these were not credible witnesses. The majority of us probably would’ve changed our vote if we knew that information.

Have you ever interacted with John Fanning?

No. The State Police would be there in the parking lot when we finished, but we didn’t speak to any of them.

Was there ever any contention based on differences in notes?

The group wanted to look at the SERT notes.

Why did you ask for the SERT team report?

There was this fear that some of the pieces of red tail light was planted. The point of our contention was to see what time the first SERT team individuals were arriving, and if there was time to take pieces of tail light and put it on the grass prior to the state police coming in.

Was the jury aware that at 7 AM the Canton Police didn’t find any pieces of tail light or a shoe? How did jurors think that tail light got there when the State Police searched 12 hours later?

Some people were looking at it and saying we’re going to ignore those pieces of information, because it seems like it’s very convincing the other data they had. Some people were saying it had to be there but Canton Police missed it. They believed it was more likely than not that it had to be there because she was guilty.

So they believed she was guilty and worked backwards from there and said Canton Police must’ve missed it?

Or they must’ve not paid attention. I think looking back at it, the defense should point out, “how well did they look for it? Did they do a grid search?” Everyone lost respect for Canton PD because why would you use a leaf blower? You’re gonna blow things everywhere. So you could maybe argue that some of the small shards of plastic would be blown around to other spots on the lawn.”

So the jurors believe that the Canton Police are completely incompetent but the State Police are very good and found 45 pieces of tail light under a foot of snow that the CPD missed?

Correct.

Did Karen Read’s demeanor turn jurors off?

I think it was her demeanor and facial expressions at certain points during the trial. She made certain facial expressions during certain witness testimony, some of the jurors looked at that in a particular way.

Did they say that during deliberations?

When statements were being made and someone would either sigh or make an expression. That was more of the commenting that we talked about during deliberation. 

Did anyone pick up on Ryan Nagel mentioning speaking with the feds?

I wrote that down in my notes but I don’t know if others did.

Did the 3 holdouts for not guilty make it clear that they could not be persuaded?

They were very strong about it and wouldn’t budge.

Did you guys talk about any of this before deliberations?

No, during deliberations is when information unfolded during the groups. The manslaughter count is what took us a long time. We looked at the tail light, opened up all the packages, looked at video footage to see if there was damage to the tail light prior to her getting back. And why was there no footage of her getting back to John O’Keefe’s house?

Did jurors think she deleted it?

I don’t think she deleted it, but I wonder if it was lost during the investigation because it probably wasn’t saved on Ring. It would’ve been better if Bukhenik followed up with Ring to make sure there was footage showing what time she got back because we don’t know what time she got back.

Well we do, because Nicholas Guarino said she clocked into the Wifi at 12:36.

Which is also strange because it should’ve created video footage of her parking.

Speaking of Guarino, John’s cell phone data shows him going up and down 3 flights of stairs. Guarino said this could’ve been caused by driving on a hill and moving the phone around. Did that ever come up in discussion?

We never looked at that. The only thing we looked at was whether or not John ultimately arrived at 34 Fairview. So we looked at the fact that he did arrive, but we didn’t take into account whether or not there was any validity to the apple health data going up and down 3 flights of stairs.

Did jurors judge Karen Read because she drove drunk?

The 6 who were guilty had very strong opinions regarding operating a vehicle under influence, and the drinking habits of the parties involved.

The parties involved? Not just Karen?

One of the things we commented on was when John switched from drinking beer to hard alcohol in a glass. So why did he switch? Now with that being said, these people must be experienced drinkers. Brian Higgins said he was going to go home and have another drink. So we thought these people were all professionals with their consumption of alcohol.

What did jurors think of all the butt dials, the life 360 data, and the Google search? There was a theme with the McAlberts that all this cell phone data wasn’t reliable. Did you guys discuss the butt dials and whether or not Brian Higgins and Brian Albert spoke on the phone at 2:22 AM?

The majority did not take it into account or believe it had any sort of credibility about whether or not it created reasonable doubt. The minority had doubts. To some, it was just a diversion tactic to create confusion.

The foreman wrote in an after David that protesters could be heard outside during deliberations. Was that true?

We only heard them during lunch, or when Karen’s defense attorneys were walking out.

Beverly Cannone did not bring jurors back to confirm the 12-0 acquittal on murder.  Is there any discussion amongst jurors to come together and make a statement as a group about how you acquitted her of murder, now that she’s facing another trial for murder?

I have not text the group. I was hoping the foreman would approach the group. I think it’s our duty to put out a unified front. No one has suggested coming out publicly. But my feeling is that in order to do our civic duty I want to reach out to them as a group and say that I think we should all approach and make a statement that we found her not guilty of count 1 and count 3.

I thought it was going to resolve. I thought Judge Cannone is going to change her mind here. I wonder legally if she can’t, but if we did it as a united front then she could do something.

Do you believe that the focus on the conspiracy by the defense hurt their cause? Do you think if they had just stuck to Karen Read couldn’t have hit him with her car because it’s physically impossible, instead of blaming the McAlberts, would that have been a more effective defense?

I believe it would’ve been the most effective defense. If they had just gone with the facts of the case and not created all these other pieces, which I get it, is great for reasonable doubt, but clearly did not create a case for those individuals who did not create a reasonable doubt.

 

I will have a lot to say about this tomorrow night on the Live Show. As you can imagine, I have thoughts. This juror is willing to speak with me again as well. If you have any questions you’d recommend me let me know.