MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #7

[Wishbone]

snipped​

Judge to hear arguments about alleged dog attack​

Before the jury comes in Monday morning, Judge Beverly Cannone will hear the prosecution's motion to exclude the testimony of defense witness Dr. Marie Russell. She plans to testify that O'Keefe's injuries are consistent with a dog attack.

The commonwealth says it was "unfairly prejudiced" and surprised when defense attorney David Yannetti referenced a dog attack in his opening statement. The motion says prosecutors received late notice of Dr. Russell's anticipated testimony and no specific documents outlining her opinion, which are required by state procedure.

What's next in the Karen Read murder trial?

Here's what we know about the witness list and the schedule for the rest of the Karen Read murder trial in Massachusetts.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[waldojabba]

I agree with everything you wrote. Just adding that the defendant deserves better, too.

Totally agree. I think what has been done to her is egregious.
Even posters here want to denigrate her by basically calling her a drunk and a scorned woman.
Morality police?
Are we in the 1800's? Is there no grace?

The FBI says that JOK's wounds are not the result of a being hit by a vehicle.
But let me go with my original opinion, before coming to this thread and seeing the autopsy photos etc.
Lets say she did hit him. She was likely black out drunk as was JOK and the rest of them.
IF she is responsible they have over charged her.
This woman is no intentional killer.
I believe certain LE have also outdone themselves in their quest to make the charges stick and that it will be their undoing.

I've said it many times here already. I live 7 miles from the court house.

I know of another incident personally where a video tape was made to disappear at the request of LE, of a felony to protect an eighteen yr old boy. It was not murder of course but everybody involved, in telling me the outcome seemed to think it was fine. They would want the same thing done to protect their child etc. I was the only person thinking it was not ok.

My sense how this all started ? they are all protecting the young male CA who most likely sucker punched JOK over the bs about his lawn or maybe even over rumors of selling drugs. Maybe the kid does not even remember bc booze and whatever else. But then it escalated. A case of unintentional murder and then the cover up bc "We cannot let this ruin this childs life" . Easy to understand but wrong on so many levels. Why else was his presence at the house hidden?

JOK was a good clean cop. He was probaly labelled a "goody two shoes" by the other party going LE. So they really did not consider him one of their own. Just the way Procter was going thru KR's phone - so disrespectful to KR but also to JOK. Looking for nudes? Calling her the C word, hoping she would kill herself.

Who are these people?

JMO

 

[nodamselindistress]

I could see how a punch or punches to the head could cause those injuries, particularly, if he was near a solid doorway or cement block wall...like would be found in a basement. The back of his head ricochets off the wall... AMOO

I am still not convinced JO made it inside the house, but IF he did and he was accosted in the basement, there was a weight type machine down there that I could see causing head injuries if he fell into that - the rounded ends of the bar that you put weights on, specifically. Also, perhaps an explanation for the arm injuries? All JMO.

 

[Wishbone]

wow 4 days to make the defense case
snipped

The prosecution is also still expected to call Lt. Brian Tully with the Massachusetts State Police, phone data extraction experts, the medical examiner and accident reconstruction experts.

The defense has told WBZ-TV they expect to take four full days to make their case in court. They expect to call several experts, including engineers who specialize in accident reconstruction. The jury will also likely hear from plow driver Brian Loughran, who says he did many rounds clearing snow near 34 Fairview and did not see a body on the lawn.

Still to be determined is whether the judge will let the defense call Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey and Norfolk County victim witness advocate Steve Nelson to the stand

What's next in the Karen Read murder trial?

Here's what we know about the witness list and the schedule for the rest of the Karen Read murder trial in Massachusetts.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[HarmonyE.]

Absolutely! It's JMC's caught red handed manipulation that will sink this for her. In more ways than this. Waiting for the defense to call the Beatty's ( Tom and Erin ).

Almost forgot about them! Damning, very damning indeed. And what normal person talks to a kid like that?

 

[waldojabba]

WOW, Matt Johnson on Court TV reporting just now that what he has heard is the CW will rest by the end of next week!

Maybe they have been given the word from above to cut this s show short. Lots of blowback I imagine.
JMO

 

[Wishbone]

Maybe they have been given the word from above to cut this s show short. Lots of blowback I imagine.
JMO

Maybe lessening the time they would be incriminating themselves.JMOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Maybe lessening the time they would be incriminating themselves.JMOO

First thing I thought when I heard!

 

[themonk]

Jen's claiming Karen asked her to do a Google search 20 minutes after John's body was found by them.

So she says she searched - twice - she says because she spelled the search wrong the first time. A problem for Jen here is that first search still came up with information on hypothermia. It just looks like she was trying to duplicate her earlier "Hos long..." search instead.

But even odder is the fact that Jen deleted the 2:27 search off her phone before she handed her phone over that morning. She didn't delete the two later searches though.

One problem, of perhaps many, with Jen is that nothing she says can be reasonably assumed to be the truth.

 

[Knitty]

MOD NOTE:

It is a violation of TOS to discuss removed posts. It is especially a violation to discuss removed posts in detail. Posts have been removed.

IF somebody has the link to the photo, feel free to post the photo and then you can discuss it all you'd like.
You can discuss it all you'd like without a link, in PM with up to 20 people. If you choose to do that, don't talk about it on the thread. This includes "please somebody start the PM convo and invite me" posts.

Thanks.

Knitty,
Moderator

 

[k-mac]

Some would say a prosecutor trying to sneak a mirrored camera angle sally port video into the trial and past the jurors without even bringing it up reeks of desperation.

Whether an image is mirrored or not...what is in the image is still the same.

 

[k-mac]

Karen Read's defense don't have to answer any of the questions you have put to the forum (rhetorical or otherwise) in your post which I have quoted above in full. (Although after I began typing this I see that @ch_13 has given it a good go!)

They are not required to prove who did kill him if it wasn't Karen. They are not required to prove every single person's specific role in the cover up that they are alleging.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that John O'Keefe was murdered by Karen Read in the 2nd Degree, by assaulting him with the rear of her vehicle and leaving him to die outside 34 Fairview Road, Canton in the early hours of 29 January 2022.

It does have to be believable though.
There is the problem.

How many people can be involved in such a large scale conspiracy cover up??

25?? 50?? 100?
what is in it for them?
There has to be explanations as to what each person involved would do this for.

without putting forward an actual narrative including this its unrealistic to me.

A dog attack is not that big a deal seriously....
Self defence in a boozy bust up......

these things are so beige for the scale of cover up being stated by the defence.


Then there is a cover up within the cover up. The investigation has become a seperate conspiracy.



moo

 

[ch_13]

Whether an image is mirrored or not...what is in the image is still the same.

The image isn't the same because the jurors are looking at the opposite side of the car then they think they are seeing. It appears like the video is showing the passenger side of the vehicle with the busted taillight. But in fact, it's showing the driver's side.

You can see people are going to that far corner, which is in fact where the busted taillight is. You can't see what they're doing because it's obscured, but the jurors would have never realized that if Alan Jackson hadn't pointed it out.

It's fraudulent, is what it is. And I think the people who are excusing the commonwealth for this would be screaming bloody murder if Alan Jackson had tried pulling the same stunt.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The image isn't the same because the jurors are looking at the opposite side of the car then they think they are seeing. It appears like the video is showing the passenger side of the vehicle with the busted taillight. But in fact, it's showing the driver's side.

You can see people are going to that far corner, which is in fact where the busted taillight is. You can't see what they're doing because it's obscured, but the jurors would have never realized that if Alan Jackson hadn't pointed it out.

It's fraudulent, is what it is. And I think the people who are excusing the commonwealth for this would be screaming bloody murder if Alan Jackson had tried pulling the same stunt.

View attachment 508649

Great work there ch_13!

And that other important point about the date / time stamp. Would be ideal if one could have or produce the original tape or disc which shows its origination. Would be astounding if that had been manipulated and by whom and when? I have a difficult time believing that a surveillance video in a police premises impound lot (is it IIUC?) for evidentiary purposes is deliberately showing a reverse image?

Lastly….. still no pictures of that damaged right rear / passenger side taillight when it first arrived in the garage - or before taken into evidence? Speechless since IIRC aren’t police investigators now already believing at that point that the victim was hit with that vehicle / taillight? MOO

 

[RANCH]

Proctor would hardly be the first cop to plant evidence to make a stronger case. It's certainly happened many times before.

I noticed that most of the trial coverage barely seemed to mention Christina Hanley's testimony on Wednesday perhaps because it was slow and plodding, but I think there was some crucial testimony that I just can't wrap my head around.

This is the best summary on the web that I could find.

Video, updates: MSP sergeant who investigated O’Keefe’s death takes stand in Karen Read murder trial

After a day off, one of the state police detectives who supervised the investigation into the death of John O’Keefe took the stand in the Karen Read murder trial.

www.boston25news.com

12:00 p.m.

• On cross-examination, AJ asks about 3 items of glass that were “not a match with the cup”. “As you sit here none of the items on the bumper were deemed to match the cup” he says.
• AJ: “the cup was not found to match any items found on the bumper?” Hanley: “That’s correct.”
• Hanley confirms the only thing the glass on the bumper was consistent with is the glass submitted by Trooper Proctor.

If the glass on the bumper didn't come from John O'Keefe's cocktail glass, how did it get there? And why would there be a matching piece found at 34 Fairview by Michael Proctor?

The most obvious answer is that it was planted. But if anyone has an alternate explanation that doesn't involve Proctor placing it there, I am all ears.

Keep in mind, this is evidence that comes directly from the commonwealth. And the person who determined that the pieces matched was a forensic scientist working for the state police crime lab.

So the cup that's being talked about is the same object as the cocktail glass? It's a bit confusing to me.

 

[ch_13]

So the cup that's being talked about is the same object as the cocktail glass? It's a bit confusing to me.

Yeah, I think Jackson is using "cup" to distinguish the cocktail glass from the pieces of glass found on the bumper. Otherwise it's hard to know which "glass" he means.

We saw the broken "cup" earlier in the trial.

 

[RANCH]

Yeah, I think Jackson is using "cup" to distinguish the cocktail glass from the pieces of glass found on the bumper. Otherwise it's hard to know which "glass" he means.

We saw the broken "cup" earlier in the trial.

View attachment 508658

So the glass shown in this photo is not O'Keefe's?

 

[shotgun09]

So the glass shown in this photo is not O'Keefe's?

Nope No proof of that. Just a broken glass found on the lawn near the body of JOK. It has been 'suggested' that it might have been his, or KR's. But, also not at all suggested that it came from any other member of the house party at 34 Fairview that night. Because....evidence

 

[ch_13]

So the glass shown in this photo is not O'Keefe's?

Sorry for the confusion. O'Keefe was carrying a glass as he walked out of the Waterfall, and presumably had with him when he stepped out of the SUV (at least according to the commonwealth). The glass in the picture was near his body and the commonwealth believes it was the one he carried.

The other cocktail glass that's been mentioned is the one Read carried between bars, from CF McCarthys to the Waterfall. As far as I know she never carried it out of the Waterfall.

 

[RANCH]

Nope No proof of that. Just a broken glass found on the lawn near the body of JOK. It has been 'suggested' that it might have been his, or KR's. But, also not at all suggested that it came from any other member of the house party at 34 Fairview that night. Because....evidence

Thanks.

So it's possible that the glass shards found on the bumper came from the broken cocktail glass and O'Keefe may have had this glass on his person. JMO.