Is she innocent? 

 

I have been wound up in this and looking at data. 

 

What's your thoughts. 

Edited March 21, 20251 yr by Shaner69

My gut feeling is that she's innocent and her boyfriend's work colleague/ fellow police officer did kill John O' Keefe. 
 

He did not sustain injuries consistent with being hit by a large SUV.
 

I believe John uncovered police corruption and was set to expose his colleague, so his colleague violently attacked John, then moved his body and staged the crime scene.

She's very clearly guilty, but her defense team is very savvy in getting ahead of evidence and casting doubt through the court of public opinion. I think she committed manslaughter, but not second degree murder. She was wasted that night.

6 minutes ago, suburbannature said:

She's very clearly guilty, but her defense team is very savvy in getting ahead of evidence and casting doubt through the court of public opinion. I think she committed manslaughter, but not second degree murder. She was wasted that night.

Having watched the trial, I find it absolutely wild that anyone could still believe that she's "clearly guilty".  Also saying her team is savvy instead of saying the prosecution was woefully incompetent at best and malicious at worst is also interesting. I mean come on they doctored footage, hid evidence, and the "detectives" handled the evidence so spectacularly poorly that there is no way they could get a conviction even if she did do it. 

10 minutes ago, jordanjm said:

Having watched the trial, I find it absolutely wild that anyone could still believe that she's "clearly guilty".  Also saying her team is savvy instead of saying the prosecution was woefully incompetent at best and malicious at worst is also interesting. I mean come on they doctored footage, hid evidence, and the "detectives" handled the evidence so spectacularly poorly that there is no way they could get a conviction even if she did do it. 

Of manslaughter. The evidence is frankly undeniable and I've followed the trial and hearings every single day. The conspiracy defense is a fairly common one, but it has caught on with the publicity of this case. Her lawyers are incredibly strong at taking existing evidence and casting doubt through conspiracies. I've testified as a psychological expert in dozens of cases (typically for defense) and have a bit more knowledge of the legal process than the laypeople following this case. I agree that the investigative team was not professional and often incompetent (that's very different from prosecution, btw) and that there's a good 'ol boys club with the police dept., but it can be and is simultaneously true that she drove drunk and killed her boyfriend. 
 

People are longing for police accountability and I'm in agreement with the need for that, but latching on to a movement associated with this guilty dependent is not the way to navigate it.

5 hours ago, suburbannature said:

She's very clearly guilty, but her defense team is very savvy in getting ahead of evidence and casting doubt through the court of public opinion. I think she committed manslaughter, but not second degree murder. She was wasted that night.

Not "very clearly guilty" when there's zero direct evidence, a corrupt cabal of cops who admit they wanted to take her down, and a jury of 12 neutral people listened to months of evidence and all agreed she isn't guilty of murder

I'm not completely convinced she's innocent, but there's more than enough doubt due to the poor/shady investigative work.