Canton Coverup Part 399: Karen Read Juror Says They Didn’t Discuss Brian Albert Not Coming Out Of The House Or Michael Proctor’s Relationship With Alberts, Focused On Teach Stream Data, Tail Light, Alcohol Consumption

 

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

 

 

On Friday I interviewed a juror in the Karen Read case who wavered between guilty and not guilty on the manslaughter charge, but who confirmed that the jury was unanimous that she was not guilty of murder in the second degree. However, the interview left me with even more questions so the EMT agreed to sit down with me again on Tuesday and answer even more questions. His answers give us a lot of insight into what these 12 people were discussing as the world waited on a verdict. It was an eye opening interview that showed me, and many others, the dangers of Karen Read putting her fate in the hands of 12 strangers. The guilty voters completely disregarded testimony that the general public thought was critical, and instead almost exclusively focused on 3 things. Here is a summation of our interview, as I took notes while we were speaking.

 

What do you think reasonable doubt is? Was the definition discussed during deliberations?

We extensively discussed reasonable doubt during deliberations. We kept reading the charges. It was easy for the first and third charge. Whenever we read it we all agreed that there was reasonable doubt, so we voted not guilty. But for the second charge of manslaughter it became gray for some. Reasonable doubt to me means it’s unclear. So based on the evidence it wasn’t very clear that there could be some instances where perhaps there was some other factor that caused the event to occur. So for me that was reasonable doubt.

Was there pressure put on the 3 not guilty jurors to change their votes to guilty? Was it tense? What were their stated reasons for refusing to change their vote from not guilty?

It was very tense, more so for the side of not guilty. They didn’t want to change because they felt there was reasonable doubt. There were some individuals who were very set from the beginning and wouldn’t waver no matter what evidence was presented. We realized that no matter what we did we’d never reach a unanimous decision.

Did jurors discuss how the defense only called 6 witnesses, and did jurors think this made her look guilty?

The prosecution had asked for almost everybody, so there was no real need for the defense to ask for additional testimony.

So, there were 2 people on the defense list who were bit by Chloe. There was one person who was on the other end of Michael Proctor’s text messages, who they didn’t call. There was close to 40 people on their list who weren’t called. Do you think that hurt them?

We weren’t privy to who else could’ve been called, so we didn’t think it was absolutely necessary. There were certain experts that could’ve benefited the defense. For example, Lexus and the triggering of an event where there may be a data recorder showing when there was excessive acceleration or some sort of movement that was very specific therefore causing the car to track the date and time. That would’ve been beneficial for an expert from that group, such as the manufacturer themselves, so they could talk about the data that was being recorded. They said at one point that there were 23 events on the data recorder for Karen’s car, and one of those was the excessive speed backing up and then the sudden jerking movement or change of an angle as a direct result of a strike. That was told to us by Trooper Paul and we wanted someone who was more experienced and had more experience or more knowledge of physics and engineering. That would’ve been beneficial for the defense, knowing full well the Commonwealth didn’t have that witness.

So you guys were not convinced by Trooper Paul?

A lot of us were not convinced by him. He didn’t give us any equations, he didn’t seem like he could answer many questions about physics.

Well, he was the primary witness for the Commonwealth to prove John was hit by Karen’s car. If he didn’t come across well to the jury then how could anyone vote to convict her? What was their argument?

The individuals who believed in not guilty felt we couldn’t correlate John’s injuries to the injuries of a motor vehicle strike. It wasn’t clear based on what we saw that the vehicle strike cause his death. The injuries he sustained and the injuries to the vehicle were not consistent with a pedestrian strike.

So this conversation must’ve occurred where not guilty voters like you said that the injuries were not consistent with a motor vehicle collision, and then the guilty voters must’ve said “yes they are.” So what was their argument for that?

They were basing it on data. The data was showing that based on the data that the vehicle backed up and changed direction, and there were some injuries on John O’Keefe, and then he died. Based on that data they didn’t even consider this other scenario where he went inside the house. It seemed like Karen backed up at a high rate of speed. The only other thing we could think of was, what it snowy and icy? Could the vehicle be stuck on something, gun it, and maybe it interpreted this very high revolutions per minute as 24 mph? This to me meant there could be reasonable doubt about that data.

So you’re saying that for the guilty voters the Lexus tech stream data was really solid evidence, and you believe that a good witness for the defense to counter that would’ve been some sort of Lexus expert who can explain what that data means, and if it really meant she went 24 mph in reverse?

Correct. And that’s the other thing – how is it in the entire lifetime of the car she only had 23 triggering events? Can revving the engine create a triggering event? It would’ve been nice to now.

Can you please clarify what you meant when you said that one of the jurors spoke to a family member who alerted them of my presence in the courtroom?

That was something we discovered in the middle of the trial. One of the jurors said they recognized your face in the courtroom, and from there other jurors talked about it and family members were telling them information. One of the jurors’ family members said that you were pointing out that one of the jurors was wearing a bowtie. And that wasn’t my family members, but one of the other jurors’ family members knew that. During deliberations we discussed it a little more.

You were told not to talk about it when you went home, but it sounds like this juror talked to a family member at home who was watching my show or reading my tweets. That seems to be a violation of the judges orders, does it not?

The judge ordered us not to discuss the case. She knew, and we knew it was everywhere. One of the things we were asked to do was not watch news coverage. I continued to work throughout the trial, and whenever my coworkers began talking about it I left the room.

Did your coworkers know you were on the jury?

They eventually found out. They added it up eventually because I was gone for long periods of time, and they knew not to talk about it in front of me.

So you live in Norfolk County, right?

I actually moved to Middlesex County, so I still had my old address on my license. That’s how I ended up on the jury.

What were the top 3 reasons guilty voters insisted she was guilty?

1. Alcohol consumption – showing the drinks purchased and her BAC in the morning
2. Tech stream data
3. They were there at the same time

In my opinion they didn’t prove that she was drunk that night. She could’ve drank when she got home. They never tested her blood alcohol level until the next day.

What do you mean “they were at there as the same time?”

The mere fact that they placed them there at that time, and everyone else in the household claims that they never saw him. So those pieces of information made these jurors believe that she was guilty.

Did jurors find it all suspicious that not one of the people who left the house reported seeing John’s body on the front lawn? Matt McCabe said he saw tire tracks in the snow, but missed John’s body which was closer than the street. Was that brought up?

One of the things we deliberated on was whether or not there was enough lighting in the area. There were no street lights in the area to illuminate it. Could it have been missed if you’re not looking for a body and it started to snow? Some people weren’t sure. But they were sure that she was intoxicated, that there was teach stream data showing 24 mph, and her and John were there at the same time and he’s dead.

Let’s talk about them both being there at the same time. Heather Mason, Ryan Nagel, and Ricky D’Antuono all testified that Karen was alone inside her car, and that John wasn’t outside the car OR inside the car with her. So where did the guilty jurors think John was?

We did discuss that. But at the end of the day the individuals who believed that she was guilty remained guilty.

Yea I get that, but I assume a not guilty voter must’ve pointed out that none of these people saw John inside or outside the car. What was the response to that from guilty voters?

There was a lot more strong personalities for guilty. And essentially that made it very difficult for an argument from the opposite side.

It’s my understanding that the 4 not guilty voters at the end were you, the skinny guy closest to the witnesses, the young nurse, and the woman next to her with the long dark hair and glasses. Were these people quiet? They clearly believe Karen Read was not guilty, but did they try to convince others that she was not guilty?

We did go around the room to speak our piece, explaining why we felt the way we did. But as we went around the room we realized we were at an impasse because several people simply wouldn’t waver no matter how much evidence was presented showing reasonable doubt.

9-3 is pretty close to getting a verdict. Did the guilty voters at that point put pressure on the 3 remaining not guilty voters to say “the O’Keefe family needs closure, what can we do to convince you guys that she’s guilty?”

There was, which was why it went from 6-6 to 9-3. It was because, there was a little bit of, I don’t wanna say coercion, but that they stressed she was under the influence of alcohol, and that she should be guilty of some sort of crime related to that. And that’s why they settled on involuntary manslaughter. A lot of individuals changed their vote because they were convinced that she was operating the vehicle while intoxicated and likely killed him by accident.

What did you think of the inverted video? Did you feel intentionally deceived?

It was confusing because you would have to videotape the video. That’s what we came up with. We did discuss it, but by that point it didn’t matter because the guilty voters were convinced there was no planted tail light. So it didn’t really matter what happened in that garbage or if the video was inverted.

Why did people believe it wasn’t planted?

The defense created the idea that the tail light was broken when she collided with John’s car backing up. Guilty voters believed this didn’t make any sense because there would be broken tail light in John’s driveway. We all felt that it wasn’t as credible. We believe that the individual who put the car on the flat bed in Dighton (the tow truck driver) would’ve bene a valuable witness to the defense. They could talk about the condition of the tail light and would be a very credible witness.

I do wonder why they didn’t call the tow truck driver. But let’s talk about Dighton Police Officer Nicholas Barron, who testified that the tail light was cracked, not destroyed. He said it twice. Did jurors pick up on that? Do you think the defense should’ve cross examined him?

Those individuals who felt she was guilty didn’t look at stuff like that because they were stuck on the other things (tech stream data, alcohol consumption). But I agree, it would’ve been beneficial to the defense to cross examine Barros and show him a picture of the tail light that State Police entered into evidence and ask Barron if the tail light looked like that when he saw it in Dighton.

As a first responder, what would you have done if you came across that scene and heard Karen Read say “I hit him”? Would you inform police on the spot so that she doesn’t leave?

The scene would’ve been chaotic. Unless she was that expressive I would’ve dismissed what she said and focused on patient care. I would’ve hoped that law enforcement picked up on that. Unless of course at the hospital I wanted to give reports to the nurses and doctors that this was a trauma.

Firefighters Flematti and Nuttal both testified that they did not inform doctors at Good Samaritan Hospital that Karen had said “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.” As a matter of fact, they weren’t even interviewed by police until February 7. So I understand that in the heat of the moment they wouldn’t tell police this. But wouldn’t you tell police about it after things calmed down and the investigation began? These firefighters admittedly didn’t do that.

I would if I remembered it.

Did you think it was strange that these firefighters didn’t offer any of this to police until the police came to them 10 days later? And if so, during deliberations did you use your experience as an EMT to say that this was unusual for first responders not to say something?

So in deliberations we didn’t really look at that. We accepted their testimony and didn’t really look at that as evidence about whether or not she was guilty. “I hit him” was not testimony that we were considered to determine guilt or lack thereof. What we looked at a lot was the testimony of the medical examiner who put what the cause of death was, which was a fracture of the base of the skull. And the point of impact was from behind. And there’s arm injuries and hypothermia. So could that be related to the backing up of the car? And the guilty voters felt that the car must’ve impacted him somehow. The not guilty voters felt those injuries were not normal injuries to a pedestrian strike, and the damage to the car didn’t correlate to hitting someone as large as John.

In your opinion, but in the opinions of the guilty voters they were consistent, right?

They just looked at the tech stream data and the fact that John was injured and died, and that Karen was driving a car under the influence of alcohol.

You said the engineer pointed out his background in engineering to discredit the ARCCA experts. Did you mention that you were an EMT and did other jurors ask your opinion based off of your expertise?

They did. They asked the experts in the group during deliberations about their opinions. Anyone who was medical, they asked what our opinions are.

And one of those experts was a nurse who was a not guilty verdict. So I guess they didn’t listen to her or you? Were you guys quiet and not persuasive?

We had reasonable doubt. But again, the others looked at the tech stream data and ignored the experts. One of the instructions from the judge was not to ignore the data and use our life experiences. So they looked at it as, Karen was drunk, she backed up, and there were injuries that led to John’s death. So for them in their minds there was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did the jurors find it odd that Michael Proctor found large pieces of tail light on February 18 that were bigger than previous pieces of tail light he supposedly found?

Those who believe that tail light was there, and not planted, their argument was that when this occurred there wasn’t enough snowfall. So it was in different layers of the snow, and likely the lower level. So that’s why as the snow melted they continued to find more tail light. They never pointed out where each piece was found.

They actually did testify where each piece was found. Do you think this confusion was a bi-product of not being able to review transcripts of testimony?

I think eventually they did, but it wasn’t as organized as you would expect they would’ve. They should’ve shown us a nice map, and it seemed like the tail light was all in one area. Which is inconsistent if they actually searched that small area. So some jurors looked at it as tail light could’ve been in different spots in the yard. And we looked at the idea of whether or not the leaf blower would’ve moved tail light to different spots in the yard. The majority believed the tail light was already there and they continued to find it as snow continued to melt.

Sounds like it’s safe to say that the tail light evidence factored much more into the minds of guilty voters than “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

Correct.

You mentioned that you or the engineer believed at one time that John fell backwards because he perceived a threat. What did you mean by that?

One of the theories we deliberated on was, if you see a car backing up and based on your perception you actually try to avoid it, could John have seen the car backing up at a high rate of speed and he actually ultimately fell back. And in the process of falling back, could the car have brushed him and broke the tail light? And because you’re imbalanced and intoxicated you fall back. Right before he fell straight back, could there have been impact of the tail light on the arm? If there was someone good in physics who could’ve explained that for the prosecution, that would’ve been beneficial. But no witness said that. It was based on Trooper Paul’s testimony, and he said John did that pirouette everyone laughed about. So instead of that theory we discussed if John instead of being able to move out of the way, he fell straight back, but in the motion of him falling back the car impacted his arm, causing scratches and abrasions, and then he ends up hitting his head on the ground, and the ground is hard enough to cause the skull fracture.

Could a video recreation with a crash dummy or a computer simulated program have been beneficial?

Yes, I think it could’ve been beneficial for both sides.  If the prosecution could show us a video showing us how John was hit, or if the defense could refute that, it could’ve helped either side. And also a witness who has some sort of background in physics or engineering. I think Trooper Paul was a new guy who they put on the case, and they didn’t realize it was gonna be such a big case, and he just never did his research. Even if you don’t know at the time immediately you could do more research.

Did the jurors find the McAlberts to be dishonest? Colin Albert said he cut his knuckles slipping on ice, and had never been in a fight. Brian Albert said that he butt answered the phone while having sex with his wife. Jen McCabe said that 20 deleted phone calls were never actually deleted. Katie McLaughlin said that she barely knew Caitlin Albert. If jurors thought they were lying, then how could they trust or believe anything they said?

One of the things that we looked at was whether or not each witness was credible. But ultimately guilty voters thought that the testimony of them (the McAlberts) wasn’t really important. We looked more at the tech stream data. We looked at the evidence that she was served alcohol and operated a vehicle. That she was with John O’Keefe at one point outside the house, and that ultimately John died during that time frame. I get what you’re saying – what about the credibility of people inside the house?

Right. Because if he didn’t go in the house then Karen Read did it. And they’re all saying Karen didn’t go into the house, but if they lied about other things, why wouldn’t they lie about John going in the house since it would protect them from being suspects?

Unfortunately the other pieces of evidence overruled everything else for the guilty voters. For others they didn’t find them credible and it was reasonable doubt.

So is it safe to say that they did feel that Colin Albert was lying about his knuckles, but it didn’t matter because they thought the tech stream data was more important?

Honestly, some of the guilty voters didn’t think he was lying. That being said, some individuals did agree that it was very scripted and they always had an answer for everything. They always had an excuse for why something wasn’t the norm. It was very strange and that was noted by many on the jury. But others just had it in their minds that she was guilty so it didn’t matter.

Did the jurors think Jen McCabe searched for “how long to die in cold” at 2:27 AM? It they couldn’t be sure either way, wasn’t that reasonable doubt for Karen Read?

They dismissed that as low hanging fruit. They said it wasn’t that important to look at. They viewed it as a distraction and fluff, and said that we should be looking more at was that she was drunk, drove a car, backed up the car, she had damage to the back of the car, John was injured, and he died.

But I think we all agree that if the Google search happened at 2:27 then it was a conspiracy, so would you say that not much time was put into discussing the Google search?

Yea, we didn’t really spend much time discussing the Google search. Some said that it was fluff that designed to convince us that the defense was playing this reasonable doubt thing by introducing all these weird things, like the Google search and the dog bites. The focus was “did she do it?” And ultimately the guilty voters felt she was drunk, accidentally hit him, and that’s what killed him.

Did jurors find it odd that no conversations with witnesses were recorded, that some witnesses were not spoken to for more than a year, like Colin Albert, Caitlin Albert, Sarah Levinson, and Tristin Morris, and that police never considered any other potential suspects besides Karen Read?

Some found it odd and some didn’t. If someone dies on my front lawn and I said I didn’t know how he ended up there, I would think that everyone, including the neighbors was interviewed. And none of that was gleaned upon the jury, so we don’t know if that happened or didn’t happen. We just know that this was the pieces of the case that was presented to us. We don’t know if they did it or didn’t do it. You can see on either front someone saying that should’ve happened, and another person saying that it probably did happen (videotaped interviews) and they didn’t give us that information because the witnesses didn’t see anything.

Were jurors aware that both houses across the street from 34 Fairview Road had Ring camera videos that would’ve shown the alleged car crash?

We weren’t provided the data, and no one testified there was Ring video, so we wouldn’t know anything about that.

How did jurors feel about closing arguments? Alan Jackson gave a very spirited speech, and looking at the juror’s faces they seemed moved by it. But I guess not. What did jurors think of the closing arguments?

Some jurors were happy that the closing arguments were kept to an hour because we really just wanted to deliberate. We talked about at the end how one was more powerful than the other. Jackson’s closing argument was stronger and it went through everything, but it didn’t change the minds of the jurors. We looked at the instructions to see if she was guilty of the 3 charges. We looked at the judge’s instructions to see if she was guilty of the 3 charges.

Were the text messages with Higgins discussed at all in deliberation, and did this impact the way jurors viewed Karen? Did they judge her because of that?

It was quickly looked at for a minute or two and then we moved on. No one thought Karen killed him on purpose so it didn’t really matter.

Did you decide on the murder charge on the first day?

I think we reached a full consensus of not guilty on the second day.

Was there ever any formal votes on the murder charge to see where the group stood?

We did that multiple times and it was consistent for charges 1 and 3. Eventually we stopped voting on the murder charge because it was 12-0 every time. We spent the last 4 days entirely deliberating on manslaughter.

Did the jurors discuss the verdict forms or want clarification, or did they understand it fully? Was the jury divided on charge 2 because they didn’t understand it.

Some individuals were confused about it. One person read the whole thing out loud and made sure it was clear what the charge was and what we were gonna vote for. So it was definitely discussed and it was clear in individuals minds what we were actually voting. And that’s what caused us to send the vote that we couldn’t reach a consensus. For some individuals it was very clear they were not going to move from their stance.

Were jurors aware that if there were multiple possibilities with evidence (i.e. the crash daddies saying a vehicle strike was impossible vs. trooper Paul’s theory), that shows reasonable doubt and so it must favor the defendant? Did they understand that in the jury instructions?

The piece that was the reason that some individuals felt one way vs the other was that they didn’t have enough evidence to clearly state there was reasonable doubt. For those who believed there was reasonable doubt they thought there were so many other possibilities for how John died. I think the justice system worked in this case because it wasn’t one person determining she was guilty. It was 12 people who ultimately couldn’t agree if she was guilty of manslaughter or not.

Let’s talk about public opinion. You couldn’t pay attention to this sort of stuff but Court TV and others put up polls asking viewers if they thought Karen Read was guilty, and it was like 90-10 in favor of not guilty. So it’s odd that a jury would have a sample that was so statistically at odds with the rest of the population. Have you had a chance to glean public opinion on this, and has it changed your opinion on the case?

I still feel there was reasonable doubt based on what the medical examiner thought was the cause of death. The injuries are not consistent with a motor vehicle collision, and the damage to the car was not consistent with causing significant impact to cause a skull fracture. That was enough reasonable doubt for me, but for others it wasn’t so clear.

Would you agree that the medical examiner’s testimony was inconclusive, which allowed the jurors to come up with their own conclusion?

A lot of individuals who testified left us thinking it could go in either direction. Other than the data showing she backed up and under the influence of alcohol at a time when she was with John and he sustained injuries. I said the data wasn’t consistent with being struck by a vehicle, but other people ignored that data and looked at the tech stream and other evidence we keep going back on.

Have you reached out to other jurors and suggested coming forward and declaring that the vote on murder was 12-0 for not guilty?

Conversations with other jurors are mainly about the media. People are worried that the media will be camped out in their backyards.

So you guys haven’t talked bout the facts of the case since then?

Not me. I don’t know if other jurors have. There’s 2 group chats, one with the alternates. We gave them some details about the deliberation since they weren’t there. We created the text message group to mostly talk about if people were being harassed by the media. I have not approached them to let them know I’m talking to you, but they’ve probably figured it out.

Yea, they probably know since I identified you as a EMT. Are you OK with that?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that since I haven’t named anyone by name.

The foreman filed an affidavit asking to have his name impounded, and specifically mentioned me as a safety threat. I don’t bite, I swear. Are people afraid of me? Are they worried that I’m going to dox them?

I think there is public perception that media may be a threat. There is also a perception that law enforcement and other individuals would seek revenge on the jury because we voted to acquit her on murder.

Since we last spoke have you, or anyone else in the jury, reached out to other jurors to see if they’d like to issue a public statement and ask to be polled by Judge Cannone?

Last I spoke with you I said I should speak to the group. But then I thought I should retain legal counsel first. Nobody has suggested it yet. Individuals have done it on their own with other media, but I think the best way is a unified front. The entire group should reach out and say as a unified group that we the jury agreed on counts 1 and 3, whether that means an affidavit or sworn testimony in court. We should clarify that we weren’t clear from the directions that we could acquit on 2 counts and hang on the third.

So long story short, you’re still thinking about it but wanna talk to a lawyer first?

I want to go to the group. And if it’s not successful then I would probably go and reach out to one of the court officers to let them know that was our vote.

And to clarify, you are not one of the voters who reached out to the defense already?

I was not.

Wrapping this up here, do you know what other jobs people had on the jury? I know there was an engineer, a lawyer, a EMT, a nurse, a mailman, and a physician’s assistant. Seems like an educated jury.

It was an educated jury. One person was a financial planner, I think. One was a retired teacher. I’m not sure what everyone else did.

How did you stay awake when Adam Lally droned on with his ridiculous questions?

We drank a lot of coffee and coke (soda). When Lally came up with all those pieces of tail light and entered each of them into evidence, it was tough.

 

To end this, I’m gonna go through a number of things and you tell me whether each one of them was discussed by jurors during deliberations.

OK

Hair on the car

Yes

Glass on the bumper

Yes

Nicholas Barros testimony

Yes

John’s Apple Health data showing him going 3 flights of stairs

Yes

The 2:27 Google search

Yes

The 911 call and how Jennifer McCabe sounded

Yes

The dash cam videos

Yes

Katie McLaughlin’s association with the Albert family

Not really. A little bit, but not significant.

Michael Proctor’s association with the Albert family

Not really.

Brian Tully’s involvement with the SERT team search

No

Names of officers involved in the SERT team search

A little, but stopped after looking at the video showing how long it would’ve taken the car to get to Canton Police

Brian Higgins’ white Jeep, which some witnesses said was there and others didn’t

No

Brian Higgins’ behavior and whereabouts that night after leaving the Albert’s house

Barely

Brian Albert not coming out of the house

We didn’t think twice about that

Jennifer McCabe’s 2 phones calls to Nicole Albert that came up as answered on the Celebrate report

No

The Ford Edge Lucky Loughran said he saw

Briefly, but not extensively because it was dismissed as a distractor

Tristin Morris’ sudden decision to pick up Caitlin Albert despite having to go out plowing at 3 AM

Nope

The amount of alcohol Karen Read consumed

Yes

 

It’s just wild to me how we’ve spent 18 months analyzing every aspect of this case, and ultimately the people tasked with deciding Karen Read’s fate completely disregarded everything that had to do with the McAlberts. But at least Karen Read’s defense team can use this information to pick a better jury next time and alter their strategy for trial 2.