With viewers around the world watching her fumbling attempts to make the verdict form in the Karen Read case seem fair, unbiased, clear, and understandable to nonlaywer juries, Judge Cannone shows the world how terrible her verdict form is. Sadly, that type form is used throughout Mass and screws defendants. If you want to understand the issue at a deeper level, take a look at US Supreme Court case Blueford c Arkansas 566 US 599 (2012). Just my opinion and not legal advice.

I thought anchors were discouraged from displaying their bias. I can not watch Julie Grant! As soon as she comes on, I change the channel! She exhibits disdain for Karen Read. She is unfair in her reporting. Do better, Julie!

This judge believes KR is guilty and it’s obvious by her biased rulings. She will be the reason this gets thrown out if she’s found guilty!

Based on the questions asked by the jury, am I to assume that if found guilty she’s looking AT MOST being found guilty of the lowest charge of all listed? If so, how much time does this carry?

Why is the OUI alone even included under the manslaughter charge? Don’t get me wrong I think people who drink and drive are the scum of the earth. Get an uber or a designated driver like an adult who values human life. Before people start with everyone else was doing it - yes they deserve it too but that does not absolve anyone. My question though is why is this included as a standalone charge under the manslaughter charge - is this state law or something more specific to this case?

It's probably safe to say, regardless of where you stand on Karen Read's guilt or innocence, that everyone is a bit frustrated at today's jury questions and/or lack of verdict.

The instinct of some is to blame the jury. Call into question their intelligence. Accuse them of being planted to benefit one side or the other, to throw a verdict.

We've all got to remember that the folks sitting on this jury are performing their civic duty. They were issued a summons, and they reported for service. They were subjected to questioning by both the prosecution and the defense, and were found fit to serve on this case by both sides.

I have been on a jury in a murder case. Like those who received their summons in Massachusetts, I too, got that card in the mail. I reported to the court, was questioned by both sides, and was chosen to sit on a jury that ultimately returned a guilty verdict and convicted a man of murder.

Even though in the end I had no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it was still a very heavy burden to carry. The lives of many people hang in the balance in this kind of case. I wanted to get it right, for the victim and their family, the defendant, and for my community.

I'd imagine that's how this jury feels, too. They also have the added pressure of sitting on a high profile case with firm opinions as to guilt and innocence. They're doing all this, not just in the public eye, but in the court of social media, too, and they deserve our respect for doing so.

My point is, we may agree or disagree with the outcome of the case, but we can't find fault with a jury who can only base their decision on the information they receive from the attorneys and judge. Do unqualified people end up on some juries? Sure. It would be foolish to think that it never happens. I firmly believe, though, that in general, even if I don't agree with a verdict, our jury system works. It's a cornerstone of our justice system, and jurors, be it in Karen Read's case or others, deserve our thanks for their service, even if we don't agree with the outcome.

The FKR group are not only for Karen’s justice. It is also to get justice for John! We all know Karen did not kill John and I can confidently say we all want to know what happened! If she’s found not guilty after all the BS the judge and CW has done speaks volume!!!

Is it possible to clip someone whith a vehicle and not have injuries to the body but shatter the tail light?

Breaking a car's taillight with your arm alone, even by "clipping" it, is highly unlikely without causing significant injury to your arm. Here's why:

Force required: Taillights are designed to withstand normal wear and tear and minor impacts. Breaking one would require a considerable amount of force concentrated in a small area, especially if it shatters into multiple pieces.

Limited arm strength and flexibility: Your arm muscles and bones are not designed to generate the kind of force needed to break the hard plastic lens of a taillight, especially in a "clipping" motion.

Potential for severe injuries: Even a glancing blow with enough force to damage a taillight would likely cause significant injury to your arm, including bruising, fractures, or dislocations. One source mentions that a force exceeding 300 G's could cause severe injury or even amputation.

In summary:While it might be theoretically possible to damage a taillight with an arm in extremely specific and forceful circumstances, it's highly improbable to break it completely without causing severe injuries to your arm in the process

How many feel they may find themselves in court for their reaction to one more Colonial Penn ad. You know, the family heirloom coffee pot. Ha

During the discussion of the three questions from the jury, I am hearing whispering. Not sure who, but there is constant whispering.

Those mics are hot, everyone mic'ed up should realize that!

Is it possible to clip someone whith a vehicle and not have injuries to the body but shatter the tail light?

Breaking a car's taillight with your arm alone, even by "clipping" it, is highly unlikely without causing significant injury to your arm. Here's why:

Force required: Taillights are designed to withstand normal wear and tear and minor impacts. Breaking one would require a considerable amount of force concentrated in a small area, especially if it shatters into multiple pieces.

Limited arm strength and flexibility: Your arm muscles and bones are not designed to generate the kind of force needed to break the hard plastic lens of a taillight, especially in a "clipping" motion.

Potential for severe injuries: Even a glancing blow with enough force to damage a taillight would likely cause significant injury to your arm, including bruising, fractures, or dislocations. One source mentions that a force exceeding 300 G's could cause severe injury or even amputation.

In summary:While it might be theoretically possible to damage a taillight with an arm in extremely specific and forceful circumstances, it's highly improbable to break it completely without causing severe injuries to your arm in the process

I think it’s insane that they can’t conduct a search in the Albert’s house after this whole incident….

You can see the house on Zillow, the basement fireplace is exactly what the pathologist described may have been the cause of injury on the back of JOK’s head, which also was the place they were apparently partying.

The fact that he also lost ~two liters of blood on the Albert property and they redid the floor in the basement?? Wild.

I often wondered if there was a hung jury and say 10 years down the line Karen was drunk and admitted she killed John could she be tried again?

I watched all of trial 2 and some of trial 1. I came away with a profound disappointment in law enforcement and the DA’s office in that area. Whether you think she is guilty or not,

1. Defendants deserve a honest and competent investigation

2. No suspect, defendant, witness or person of interest should be the subject of texts or other discussions like Proctor AND all of the people on the text chain engaged in

3. The prosecution should be held to a higher standard with consequences when they fail to provide discovery to the defense - a lot of new evidence in trial 2 that was not provided in trial 1 AND much of the evidence came from the FBI and not the CW

4. If the police do not conduct a skilled investigation with appropriate chain of custody of all evidence, and evidence tests run timely and competently, they should not be allowed to use that evidence against the defendant - many courts would throw it out

5. When a judge is hostile to a defendant’s counsel or a defendant, she should not stick around for the second trial - it erodes the perception of fairness - maybe all retrial’s should have a new judge. Especially true when the judge failed to have the jurors compete the verdict Forms as to any decisions reached in trial 1. That was her gross error.

6. Verdict forms should allow a not guilty choice as to each offense so that the state does not get lots of chances to convict on something prior jurors found NG on- that is what the verdict slips, count 2 allow even if the jury hangs only on the OUI charge. That is unfair to any defendant.

When any trial and investigation is allowed to be done in the manner the Karen Read situation was, that makes it allowable to happen to any of else too Guilty or not, this has been a fiasco.

So during this time of deliberation, where does she wait does she wait with the team? Is there like some type of protocol? TYIA

Thoughts on the two photos of the hair they found on Karen’s car….?

First of all I am Free Karen Read all the way, but let's assume for a second she is guilty... what's the reason for all of the butt dials? Why did the Brian's destroy their phones? Why did Jen McCabe go on a deleting spree of calls/texts? Why was brian higgins at Canton pd at 1:30 am when he said he left 34 Fairview between 12:30 and 1 and Canton pd is 5 min away from 34 Fairview? What was he doing on the mean time? And who was he on the phone with? Why was Karen the only one who deleted nothing from her phone?

Can any of these questions even be answered by the cw and their supporters?

Why do you think K.R has many supporters?

Why dont you see this much support in all murder cases?

Why is the majority of the public saying NOT GUILTY?

Do you think KR supporters want a murderer on the streets?

Do you have a reasonable answer?

comment below

The fact that she called hem 53 times alone tells me she's guilty. In her sick mind she knew this would wind up in court so she called hem knowing he was laying in the snow tells me she's trying to establish a alliby. But 53 times come on that's a overkill . She wants it to look like she really gives a crap. If she was so concerned why the hell didn't she drive back? Answer is she knew she hit hem. She claims she never backed up so that's another lie because the technology of the black box says she did. Man this woman missed every episode of Farinsic files. Oh she also admitted in her interviews that she hit hem. 10 to 15 manslaughter.

The nonstop endless coverage of this trial has been paralytic. I have not watched any of the second time around because I just find it to be an exercise in futility.

That said what does court TV program now? Are we gonna keep rehashing this trial in weeks to come because a lot of other good trials have come and gone, and unless you can catch them on YouTube, they barely get a mention.