MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
HarmonyE. said:
They could have ASKED to look around and they did not. As one of the officers testified today he decided to take Jen McCabe at her word. I don't think they'd take me or you at our word. Dead body on the friggin' lawn? Looks like he might have been beaten? Can't bother Brian Albert! He just woke up, after all.

I can't fathom how someone who watched the trial today can come away not seeing how incredibly bad the initial investigation was.
Click to expand...
If they asked to look around and then seized something it would be illegal. They would need a warrant to seize stuff. If they had asked and they were let in and then found something it may not have been allowed in court. McCabe was taken for her word because the investigation was unfolding and there was no reason not to at that time.
 
KMouse said:
If they asked to look around and then seized something it would be illegal. They would need a warrant to seize stuff. If they had asked and they were let in and then found something it may not have been allowed in court. McCabe was taken for her word because the investigation was unfolding and there was no reason not to at that time.
Click to expand...

Just ASKING to look around does not equal seizing anything. And cops know that. They didn't bother to ask if they could eyeball anywhere beyond the foyer and the kitchen area. Wonder what BA would have said had they just asked to look around.

Cops also know that just taking someone's word at the outset of an investigation is a really bad idea. Even if Jen's a good friend. You can take what she says at face value, but then you verify.
 
thebedbug said:
You're probably aware they police couldn't just do a full CSI search of the house or start walking around exploring... right? As mentioned in the trial - they didn't even have to be let into the house.

I feel like people just aren't watching the trial and are making up their own version of events.
Click to expand...
I find your last sentence incredibly enlightening.
I feel exactly the same as you, in fact as I read the comments from the “Karen is guilty” crowd I often wonder how much energy it takes to disregard what prosecution witnesses are admitting to.
I get being passionate about someone’s guilt and turning a blind eye here or there, but this requires doing it 94% of the time.
It has to be exhausting.
 
thebedbug said:
I'm not suggesting anything.

The testimony was that this was a cover sheet. The date/time and some other details of the incident don't change - that's why they are the same.

Over time these reports are updated. I would assume with additional interviews, details, evidence, photos... whatever. All of that information is contained within the report - presumably with dates and times of the updates.

The defense was keying on the photo on the cover sheet... implying it was some kind of effort to make it look like that photo was taken on the morning of the incident vs. being added later.

This, of course, is silly. Any information about that photo would be contained in the ACTUAL report. Why did the photo on the cover sheet change? What would this even accomplish (if it's yet another part of the big conspiracy)?

The officer who was questioned didn't know... it didn't seem like a manual process he was familiar with (ie. he or anyone was dropping and dragging photos to create a report) and he suggested it might even be the software just grabbing the last photo added to the report or similar.

OF COURSE - this would be all be very easy to verify, if the defense actually cared to.
Click to expand...
You see it as an attempt by the defense to imply the photo was taken on the morning of the accident rather than a day or two later.

I see it as an attempt to clarify how/why the photo that was taken a day or two later ended up on the front page of the report, when it was added later.

Which one of us is right?
 
arielilane said:
Lank pushes back that he was on his way to duty.
Jackson back to 2002, asking about the fight, the lack of arrest, the complaint filed against Lank, and the late police report.


J: Is this an example of you using your position as a police officer to come to the aid of a member of the Albert?
L:It’s an example of me coming to the aid of a person who was terrified for him and his family.


Jurors are taking a lot of notes during this portion of the testimony.
Jackson asking if Lank could not take the call at Fairview.
Lank says - I never would not take that call.
Jackson - fair enough Jackson - before your car came to a stop you knew it was the Albert house?
Yes


Did Lank have a dashcam in his car.
No.
Have you reviewed dashcam video from the incident?
Yes
We’re watching images on the screen now.
The still of the split dashcam footage.
Lank identifying the scene & responders


Lank being asked about his discussion with McCabe
Lank says he wanted a statement from the people in the house.
Lank: I knew the house was where OKeefe was supposed to end up.
Jackson: and there were potentially more witnesses inside?
Lank: potentially


Jackson asking why Lank let McCabe go into the house when they were potential witnesses?
Lank: McCabe was going to wake the Alberts up.
Jackson going through the dashcam footage, asking Lank to identify what he sees.


Establishing that Lank was on the phone. Doesn’t know who he is speaking to.
Confirms Sgt Goode is on the frame, standing next to him.
Lank says he was pacing, still on the phone.
We see an SUV leave the scene, Lank says he thinks it’s Kerry Robert’s & #KarenRead


Jackson asks if at this point, are the lights on or off at Fairview home.
Off.
Footage plays.
Courtroom is very quiet’s Jurors are paying close attention.
John OKeefe’s brother & sister-in-law are leaning over the barrier and looking back so they can see the screen.


McCabe has been on the house for about 3 minutes.
Lank might have still been on the phone.
Finally looks like Lank is off phone in footage.
About a 5 minute phone call. Lank doesn’t know who he called.
The lights have gone on in the Albert home. At the end of the footage…


…only parities left are Jen McCabe, police officers, and then the lights in the home went on.
Jackson asking about the call to the State police.
Did you speak to both Canton & State Police dispatch?
I don’t know if I spoke to both.


Jackson: you said to State Police that OKeefe had been in a fight, or whatever.




Jackson asking about Lank in the house.
You knew you were dealing with a violent incident.
No
You thought it was a heart attack?
No
You said “fight or whatever,” He had trauma to his face & head.
Lank saying there were a multitude of possibilities of what could have happened.



Jackson trying to establish that whatever happened to OKeefe could have happened in the house.
Lally objects at several attempts.

Sidebar
Jackson: Logically - could a confrontation had happened in the house.
Lank: it could have happened anywhere
Jackson: the house is anywhere


Lank basing his actions on what Jen McCabe told him.
Jackson successfully gets Lank to agree the house would be a good place to start.
Now talking about what Lank didn’t do in the house.
Lank never made it past the foyer.
Did you investigate any area for evidence of a fight


No. I didn’t have probable cause.
Jackson finds an opportunity to introduce the dog.
Were any people or animals moved to secure the premises?
No
Were other witnesses allowed in?
Yes, Matthew McCabe
Did you tell them not to discuss the situation?
No



Jackson establishes Lank did not document the house, or search it.
Jackson asking about the importance of electronic devices in investigation.
Did Lank ask to look thru the phones of the people on the house?
No


Did you notify your superiors that you had a personal relationship with the Alberts.
No
Did you record your interviews?
No





Jackson establishes that the witnesses could hear each other’s interviews.
You left the scene, then returned later to interview Jen McCabe again, because she had additional info.
Did other people hear that interview? Yes


Jackson asking about “relatively” secure crime scene, asks if the Canton Police had stakes to secure the crime scene tape.
Lank says no.
After 9am the crime scene was not secure.
Almost every juror wrote on their pad when Jackson asked that.



Jackson now giving examples of evidence tampering.
Lank says the State Police weren’t responding.
Jackson says - so after 8a, it was open.
Jackson listing the items Lank didn’t find at the scene…hat, shoe, 35 pieces of plastic.




We’re talking about the red solo cups.
The Crime Lab guidance on not using plastic to collect blood.
Talking about the process of the evidence storage.


Lank can’t remember if the cups were in the evidence bag or not…


We are looking at an image on the screen of the white rag & the Stop & Shop bag in the sally port.
Lank can’t say what was in the bag. First says it’s a Canton Police evidence bag, corrects himself a Stop & Shop bag.
Lank resists identifying the solo cups as THE solo cups.
Lank can’t say definitely.
Jackson because there is no label or evidence tape on the bag.
Lank says from the picture, I don’t know.
Jackson is now explaining how evidence tape works.
Asks if Lank has ever used evidence tape.



Lank is unsure, he’s sure he had, just not off the top of his head.


Jackson is done.
Sidebar.
Jurors are invited by judge to stretch. Then given a 10 minute break, while counsel & judge confer.


Long sidebar is over.
Counsel returns to desks.
Jury not back yet.

@SueNBCBoston
Click to expand...
He really said he doesn’t know if he has ever used evidence tape?

REALLY??
 
Weki said:
Her demeanor in the courtroom is bizarre to me. Puckered mouth and so much aTTitude! Both male attorneys seem wrapped around her little finger. She’s acting like co-counsel.

JMO
Click to expand...

We don’t know what it is due to. MS might produce tons of comorbidities and depending on the form, might be debilitating. I agree that she looks intense; I don’t know why.
 
TristanP said:
He really said he doesn’t know if he has ever used evidence tape?

REALLY??
Click to expand...
I’m starting to rethink my career. One lead of all detectives never processed a crime scene in the snow in 30 years in Boston, and this guy doesn’t remember ever using an evidence tape in 25.
A fringe benefit- you can beat the living daylights out of two people and the taxpayers pay your way out of it. Your additional bonus is getting promoted.
 
KMouse said:
So let's say you are the investigator that wants to search the basement...on that morning. You can't just walk in and do it. What is your next course of action? When you go to the judge to ask for the warrant what is in your probable cause affidavit? You have to write it up stating what you are looking for and where and why. Tell me.
Click to expand...

My next course of action I guess is to help my cop buddies.
 
I’m sorry, but is the Karen is Guilty Camp really gonna catch strays for Proctor? you know, the lead investigator that saw one of his “brothers” dead and promptly searched KR’s phone for nudes (allegedly) ummmmmm
 
LvsAMystry said:
Probable cause aside though, couldn’t they have just asked to have a look around? Obviously it would’ve been within the rights of the homeowners to decline but they didn’t even ask. I know if a dead person was found on my lawn and I was asked if police could have look around I wouldn’t have issue with it if I had nothing to hide. We’ll never know in this situation whether the Albert’s would’ve allowed because again they were never asked.
Click to expand...
Reading much of this case, and based on the times involved, and the ‘investigative’ work, I wonder if any of the investigating officers had their blood alcohol content taken and checked? There are an awful lot of holes in this case it seems.

Unfortunately my ‘dear’ cable provider on the East Coast seems to be having a row with CourtTV so I am not able to watch any of this case or trial. Thanks to all for the updates! The jury has their work cut out for them. MOO
 
bobbymkii said:
We've had 6 days worth of prosecution evidence (albeit some were half days) and I would have surely expected to see some serious physical evidence that John O'Keefe died as a result of being hit by a reversing automobile by now? And not just any automobile, an automobile being driven by Karen Read? Is that too much to ask?!
Click to expand...
There you go bringing in common sense and logic! ;)
 
The defense, #KarenRead and her friends & supporters are in the courtroom. The color pink has returned, after a couple days absence.The OKeefe family had also entered the courtroom, and the prosecution team.


Yesterday’s testimony ended with Canton Police Lt. Charles Rae on how he executed a wellness check on O'Keefe's niece and nephew. We saw footage from Rae's dashcam showing Read's SUV parked in O'Keefe's driveway.


The jury & the judge have entered the courtroom.Court is in session.Good mornings & introductions.


Canton Police Lt. Charles Rae back on the stand, ADA Lally picking up where they left off.Identifying Meadows Lane footage.Lally asking about how the wellness check was executed.


Rae says he was at that scene for about 5 minutes or so.Learned the children were not there.Lally asking if anything was on the ground near the cars, driveway.No


We are looking at another video view of Meadows Lane.And another, showing Rae leaving the residence.


Now we’re seeing the ring camera footage, of Rae and another officer at the door of Meadows Lane.



@SueNBCBoston
 
Will Proctor actually take the stand? If he's under FBI investigation he'll be able to claim 5th amendment privilege to get out of testifying won't he?

Maybe a voir dire beforehand to see if it applies? They seem to like to voir dire witnesses about anything and everything in this trial!
 
Canton PD Lt. Charles Rae back on the stand to start Day 7. His dash cam footage, ring camera caught Karen Read’s SUV at O’Keefes hours after he was found dead. He says his well-being check lasted 5 minutes.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788197496931467610


Lt. Rae said he left after 5 minutes and went back to the police station. No one was home after he rang the doorbell. Defense has no questions for Rae. He’s dismissed by Judge Cannone. Both sides meet for sidebar before next witness.



Rae learned O’Keefe’s niece and nephew were somewhere else
 
Michael is testifying that his son & John O’Keefe’s nephew were close.
On the night of 1/28, both John's niece and Camerano's daughter got high school acceptance letters, Michael Camerano & OKeefe were friends. He appears sad on the stand.


Lally gives Camerano a binder that includes text messages. The judge instructs the jury about consideration that the texts are from/to who they purport to be from/to as they consider the evidence.


We are seeing texts in a group text with Camerano, his wife, and John OKeffe. The message says congrats. This is around the high school acceptance.

@SueNBCBoston
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 110 more.
Total: 4,005 (members: 111, guests: 3,894)

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
3,894
Total visitors
4,005
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,166
Messages
17,999,976
Members
229,329
Latest member
KreepinSavage
Back
Top