The Only Thing Glowing Brighter Than That Taillight Is My Disbelief.
Well, the first juror from the Karen Read trial has spoken—and I’m going to need a blood pressure cuff and a sarcasm detector. Because what we just heard wasn’t just a peek behind the jury room curtain; it was a masterclass in intellectual laziness sprinkled with the kind of vague half-logic that makes true crime fans scream into their throw pillows.
Let’s break this down before I break something.
The Interview: Jason, Juror #XYZ, Philosopher of Fog
TMZ sat down with a juror who looked like he had a decent heart, but let’s be real—not the sharpest cross-examiner in the box. When asked if they acquitted because of reasonable doubt or actual belief in Karen Read’s innocence, he gave a classic juror shrug and said: “Some thought she was innocent, some had reasonable doubt.” Sweet young Jason thinks Karen is completely innocent.
Translation: We weren’t really sure, but hey, red taillight.
No really, that was the keystone of his personal belief: the taillight looked red on video, which in his mind meant Karen’s SUV couldn’t possibly have hit John O’Keefe. He watched a few seconds of footage and declared her innocent. Evidence? Forensics? Phone data? “Enh, glowing red, so… case closed.”
Hey Jason! Did ya see the white glow from the broken taillight on that rear right side? Look very closely at the image below.
Taillight Diffusers and Other Science-y Words No One Bothered to Google
Let’s talk about this “taillight logic” and Alan Jackson’s clever lie for a second. Defense attorney AJ confidently stated that the light wouldn’t glow if the diffuser were broken. To which I, and every mechanic on Earth, collectively replied:
“Sir… diffusers don’t make light. They scatter it.”
It’s like saying your sunglasses stopped the sun from rising. A damaged diffuser might make the light shine differently—harsher, maybe—but it doesn’t shut off the bulb. So no, Jackson didn’t drop science—he dropped nonsense, and Jason picked it up like a toddler with a shiny rock.
Although Jason was specifically referring to when Karen backed into John’s car, “the light was red”, he said, but when the vehicle drives away, we can all clearly see the damaged taillight.
Phone Data? What Phone Data?
This part really twisted the knife. The juror was never asked—not once—about the rock-solid digital forensics:
John’s phone stopped moving the minute he got out of Karen’s SUV.
The phone began cooling in a pattern consistent with being outdoors.
And hello? He was found on top of it, which is why it didn’t cool instantly—but definitely wasn’t inside a cozy house getting mauled by a ghost-dog.
But sure, let’s talk more about the taillight.
Reverse, 24mph, 73% Gas Pedal Pressure: But Tell Me Again About the Dog Bite?
Why wasn’t Jason asked about the SUV’s own black box data showing Karen gunned it in reverse, right after John exited? Or about the scrapes on his arm that perfectly align with falling backward and scraping the pavement?
Instead, we’re left watching defense supporters hunt for dog DNA that never existed, while ignoring a literal digital breadcrumb trail leading from her accelerator pedal to a dead body.
And the dog theory? Gone from basement beatdown to garage fight club overnight, because someone finally noticed—wait a minute—basements usually don’t have three flights of stairs.
Jason! Just ICYMI. See below!
Karen’s Own Words: How Did They Help Her? I’m Just Saying…
The juror somehow didn’t mention Karen’s charming quotes:
“I didn’t think I hit him… hit him.”
“He didn’t look mortally wounded.”
If that’s not the language of a panicked half-confession, I don’t know what is. People who didn’t hit someone don’t talk like that. They say, “I didn’t hit him.” Not: “I didn’t hit him—hit him.”
What’s next, “I didn’t kill him—kill him kill him, like kill kill?”
That Mysterious Sealed Envelope Moment
Ah yes, the “Oops, we have a verdict. Just kidding. Wait, yes we do” moment.
Jason claimed the verdict form they sent to judge was “the same” as the final one. But when asked why they pulled it, he mumbled something about the DUI charge and cut himself off with a casual “Yeah… so…” That’s not confidence—that’s jury room tap dancing.
We’re just supposed to believe nothing changed? Even though they deliberated for another 15 minutes then came back with a brand new verdict?
Sure, Jan.
The Crowd Didn’t Sway Us… Except It Totally Did
Jason also noted that the crowds and the pro-Read movement outside the courthouse made their job “harder”—then insisted it didn’t influence them.
Okay, buddy.
That’s like saying “the marching band outside my window didn’t affect my nap, except for all the parts where it did.”
Let’s be real: The crowd was the thirteenth juror in that room. They screamed. They posted. They stared jurors down. And that pressure seeps in whether you want it to or not.
Karen, the Crime Scene Investigator
Let’s not forget the latest episode of CSI: Canton, where Karen allegedly purchased the basement carpet after the trial from the new homeowners of 34 Fairview so she can test it for blood… someday. You know, later. When it won’t have to be disclosed as part of trial evidence.
Because if she tested it before trial and it came up negative, it would’ve gone into discovery—and blown a hole in her own defense. But now? She can test it in secret, and if it’s negative again? Oops, test must’ve been bad. If it’s positive? Instagram live, baby.
And let’s not forget—she moved the crime scene from basement to garage.
Maybe by 2026 it’ll be the attic.
The Civil Case: Justice, Take Two
Now Karen has to testify. No 5th Amendment. No ducking the stand. Civil court is where the rubber meets the subpoena.
But yes, there will be a jury. And if it’s another batch of TikTok truthers and taillight enthusiasts, we may be stuck in reruns. But at least it won’t have the same media circus.
Maybe, just maybe, the case will be heard by 12 people with a functioning nonsense detector.
John O’Keefe deserves better than this. And frankly? So do we.
If Jason is the best spokesperson for the jury’s decision, then we need a national IQ wellness check. The problem isn’t just the verdict. It’s the fact that so much actual evidence was ignored—dismissed in favor of internet conspiracies, legal smoke screens, and soundbite logic.
Related Articles
Related
Paula Prado | Karen Read Trial Juror #11
When Post-Trial Spotlight Meets Social Media Backlash The Karen Read trial ended—but the drama didn’t. As the dust settles, one juror has stepped into the public arena and struck a pose squarely in the spotlight: Paula Prado, known on X (formerly Twitter) as...
The Power of Alan Jackson’s Closing Argument | Karen Read Trial
When defense attorney Alan Jackson stood to deliver his closing argument in the Karen Read trial, expectations were sky-high. Jackson has a reputation as a legendary trial lawyer, but his performance was oddly rigid, as he remained glued to the podium and read from a...
The Genius of Hank Brennan’s Closing Argument | Karen Read Trial
“We don’t know exactly how this happened, but we have a good idea.” That line from Hank Brennan’s closing in the Karen Read trial raised some Twitter eyebrows — and not in a good way. Several responded sarcastically: “Yes, f**ing brilliant lawyering. 🥴”* "Yes amazing....