MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I think Proctor and O'Harra both testified that they found plastic pieces of taillight.

https://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/state-police-lead-investigator-testifies-about-taillight-pieces-texts-at-karen-read-murder-trial/article_58683bd5-8ca1-55fc-9dcc-42da220c3228.html

---

But Proctor was thoroughly impeached as unreliable. Which also may have played into that particular inquiry by the jury.

But we are all just spit-ballin' now.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I think Proctor and O'Harra both testified that they found plastic pieces of taillight.

https://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/state-police-lead-investigator-testifies-about-taillight-pieces-texts-at-karen-read-murder-trial/article_58683bd5-8ca1-55fc-9dcc-42da220c3228.html

---

Pieces were found the next day after initial search had been completed without finding anything. Proctor had taken the vehicle to the garage between the time that they quit the initial search, and he went back to the crime scene and found the plastic pieces. The time between when proctor said he delivered the vehicle to the garage and when he actually did does not match up as well.This is where the flipped video as well as the ring cam come into play. Karen hit the tail light when she backed out of the garage the next morning (per video), and cracked the tail-light. The issue with that is that the damage the prosecution claims happened doesn't match up with other video the next day prior to when Proctor had custody.

Thanks for that clarification. I didn't have the time to watch a lot of this trial sice it was so long but did watch some streams regrding certain parts of the testimony. I was not that clear on all of the details but knew that Proctor had major credibility issues with what he claimed he had done and not done.

Ahh. Ok!!

Is this where they said they just searched the location where Proctor told them too? I only just kinda half listen/watch.

I'd like to think that the reason that deliberations are taking so long is that they're looking for something to convict the prosecution and their witnesses on.

Going into the final hour and half for today. Not looking as if we'll get a verdict today either.

<sigh>

Juries can be cray-cray but this getting ridiculous.

This case is very politically charged at the local level. I can see why there would be some reluctance to acquit, at least among a few of them. This was also a 9 week trial and it's possible they decided to go over every witness and compare notes, which will take time.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

This case is very politically charged at the local level. I can see why there would be some reluctance to acquit, at least among a few of them. This was also a 9 week trial and it's possible they decided to go over every witness and compare notes, which will take time.

---

It you are refrring to their notes taken during trial, I believe the judge took those away from them and told their own notes were not evidence as the reason they would not be in the deliberation room with them.

8.7 weeks of Lally gagging. 2 days of Action Jackson.

Wow. What is the purpose of taking notes?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Wow. What is the purpose of taking notes?

---

They can consult them each morning while waiting to be called into the courtroom to refresh their memory of where they left off before. But becausea particular juror's ability to accurately write down what the precise testimony is, the possibility for further juror confusion during deliberations, the fear is the jury will reach an erroneous factual conlusion base on the notes instead of the evidence itself.

That is the general reason why some jurisdictions allow them to take notes but withhold those during deliberations. Not that unusual. Now with a 9 week trial the wisdom of that would seem counterintuitive, I agree.

Reminder: jury has been deliberating for 18 hours and still no verdict.

aggiehawg said:

---

Reminder: jury has been deliberating for 18 hours and still no verdict.

---

Rittenhouse took 27 hours. Thinking hung jury?

Note from jury they are deadlocked.

Bev sending them back to deliberations.

Lally wants more deliberations, Defense ok with hung jury???

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Lally wants more deliberations, Defense ok with hung jury???

---

Gives them more time for the federal investigation. They wanted the trial delayed until the feds were done investigating and potentially arresting police witnesses and maybe even the chief prosecutor.

For example, the ATF guy and witness who had a crush on Read illegally used federal property at the FBI building to selectively extract data from his own phone to turn over to the cw. He had to have a lawyer present in the courtroom during testimony. He's toast if they want to charge him. He's still under investigation.

If i'm remembering correctly, both this prosecution and the defense wanted the trial delayed until the federal investigations were over. The judge wanted the trial.

Thank you for this!! If it ends in deadlock, will they say guilty vs ng?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Thank you for this!! If it ends in deadlock, will they say guilty vs ng?

---

Mistrial.

I meant, if it is deadlock/mistral will we know how many jurors were ng and how many guilty.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I meant, if it is deadlock/mistral will we know how many jurors were ng and how many guilty.

---

Only if the jurors talk about that.

Ok, thanks

Judge told the lawyers to come back at 4:15 Eastern. I presume to send the jury home for the weekend?

Is it possible to be not guilty on the highest counts and hung on the lesser counts? Could the prosecution then only retry on the lesser counts?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Is it possible to be not guilty on the highest counts and hung on the lesser counts? Could the prosecution then only retry on the lesser counts?

---

Possible? Yes.

And the retrial, if any, would be restricted to the counts upon which they hung.

Okay. Judge sent them home and told them to return Monday.

<sigh>

How much prison time for the least charge?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

How much prison time for the least charge?

---

Don;t know off the top of my head as there are three separate lesser includeds in Count II with varying degrees of culpability.

But the 3 lesser charges still mean they think she hit him? I'm soooo confused

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

But the 3 lesser charges still mean they think she hit him? I'm soooo confused

---

Oh yes. They still refer to operation of a motor vehicle wherein decedent was struck whether intentionally or not.

Ok, just scratching my head how they could think she hit him after the testimony. But, who knows. I've heard there's a cop and attorney on the jury?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Ok, just scratching my head how they could think she hit him after the testimony. But, who knows. I've heard there's a cop and attorney on the jury?

---

If there is a single juror who is convinced that she did not hit him, and then a single other juror who is convinced she did hit him, then it would be very easy to get to a hung jury. I could potentially see a juror just outright dismissing the defense's position of a setup/coverup (i.e., making the assumption that police are not that corrupt).

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Ok, just scratching my head how they could think she hit him after the testimony. But, who knows. I've heard there's a cop and attorney on the jury?

---

Not sure the attorney made it but the cop from another jurisdiction did, meaning he didn't work in the same PD that O'Keefe did.

But again I come back to how that courtroom is ladi out with the family directly across from the jury. That is very intimidating, in my view. There is also some suspicions that the Alberts were able to sneak a sympathetic juror onto the jury. Can neither confirm nor deny that so don't quote me.

But if they are still deadlocked at the end of Monday, I think the judge will throw in the towel and declare the mistrial. Should that happen, we'll have to wait to see if any of the jurors talk to the press about what happened during deliberations. They may talk with the attorneys but not to the press although they are under no obligation to speak with either.