MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #10

[Curiousobserver]

Well, if I may just politely try to help manage your expectations. You are a free thinking individual with agency and you have every right to interpret the case as if the defense have to prove it didn't happen, and express your thoughts in a public forum if you wish and that the "conspiracy" should be dismissed immediately on its' (admittedly) wild premise alone.

But bear in mind that whichever 12 members of the current jury panel get to deliberate on this case, they have sworn an oath to do the exact opposite, and judge whether or not the CW has proven its' case beyond a reasonable doubt.

With all due respect I have no idea why you think the defense has any obligation whatsoever to prove she wasn't there or argue that her tail light wasn't broken in order to prove her innocence, rather than that the CW have to prove that the damage caused to both the taillight and John O'Keefe's body were caused by Karen Read's car, thus proving her guilt?

Agree- the defense doesn't have to prove anything but disagree that what the jury needs to do is the exact opposite of what I have done. We probably disagree about what the reasonable part of reasonable doubt means.

There is physical evidence that she hit something that broke her tail light and left pieces in the yard, the road, and on his shirt. There is digital evidence her car moved very fast backwards. There is physical evidence his body was in contact with that tail light at some point. He was found lying there with significant injuries lying on an object, the glass, he had when he left the bar. I don't think the CW needs to also show a tail light-shaped imprint on his face for it to be beyond reasonable to conclude the events are related. The defense has a burden to present a defense, some plausible scenario where all of those things can be true but it isn't what it looks like. They don't need to prove it. BTW, the defense obviously knows this as well which is why they need a bad cop to plant evidence; its because there is lots of evidence they need the jury to ignore and they need a way for them to do that.

 

[cocomod]

I believe the CW's "expert" on the key cycle was picking and choosing what data to use to try to fit their narrative. If you look at these numbers:


He says at 1164 he was analyzing the car data. So, 1163 would have been pulling the SUV into the Sally Port (this is recorded on video). Also recorded on video is pulling the car on to the tow truck - which logically would mean 1162. She also parked at OJO's house that night. Started the car to go and look for him. At some point, she drove to her parents house. At another point there was KR and JMc and going to the house to find him - parking her car somewhere else. 1162 doesn't jive with being the key cycle that would have been when she was dropping him off at the house party and "backing up" to kill him. Sorry, not sorry, this "analysis" done by this "expert" doesn't make any sense. This would blow their theory of backing up that distance. At worst, it looks to me like at 1162 the vehicle was in the control of the state Troopah's!

 

[Wishbone]

Agree- the defense doesn't have to prove anything but disagree that what the jury needs to do is the exact opposite of what I have done. We probably disagree about what the reasonable part of reasonable doubt means.

There is physical evidence that she hit something that broke her tail light and left pieces in the yard, the road, and on his shirt. There is digital evidence her car moved very fast backwards. There is physical evidence his body was in contact with that tail light at some point. He was found lying there with significant injuries lying on an object, the glass, he had when he left the bar. I don't think the CW needs to also show a tail light-shaped imprint on his face for it to be beyond reasonable to conclude the events are related. The defense has a burden to present a defense, some plausible scenario where all of those things can be true but it isn't what it looks like. They don't need to prove it. BTW, the defense obviously knows this as well which is why they need a bad cop to plant evidence; its because there is lots of evidence they need the jury to ignore and they need a way for them to do that.

There is no proved evidence the jury needs to ignore. And the defense didn't need a bad cop to be planted because there was one that took it upon himself to act in his volition as a very bad cop.JMO

 

[Chelly]

IMO, Prosecution has presented no solid evidence JO was struck by a vehicle. We haven't even heard from the ME yet. If Commonwealth is reserving the ME as their ace-in-the-hole, I think the testimony will disappoint.

 

[Sachi]

She was texting him outside waiting to hear what the plan was. He never responded. She assumed he was ignoring her hence her angry calls or texts to him. She left after about 15 min I believe

Wait. She was sitting alone still in her car for 15 minutes had not made a 3 point turn , nor backed up the 62 ft at this time. He was out of the car for 15 minutes while she sat there before she moved the car?

 

[JusCurious]

She was texting him outside waiting to hear what the plan was. He never responded. She assumed he was ignoring her hence her angry calls or texts to him. She left after about 15 min I believe

Ok, this is what I thought was testified... if she was in the car, waiting to hear from him. Are we to believe the CW that JO was standing behind the car, in the cold and snow, and not answering her? Was she angry that he was standing behind the car, refusing to answer her so she ...as the CW suggests, backed into him at 24 mph? It just doesn't make sense... any of it, that added to so many other inconsistencies and far reaches!

 

[bobbymkii]

Agree- the defense doesn't have to prove anything but disagree that what the jury needs to do is the exact opposite of what I have done. We probably disagree about what the reasonable part of reasonable doubt means.

There is physical evidence that she hit something that broke her tail light and left pieces in the yard, the road, and on his shirt. There is digital evidence her car moved very fast backwards. There is physical evidence his body was in contact with that tail light at some point. He was found lying there with significant injuries lying on an object, the glass, he had when he left the bar. I don't think the CW needs to also show a tail light-shaped imprint on his face for it to be beyond reasonable to conclude the events are related. The defense has a burden to present a defense, some plausible scenario where all of those things can be true but it isn't what it looks like. They don't need to prove it. BTW, the defense obviously knows this as well which is why they need a bad cop to plant evidence; its because there is lots of evidence they need the jury to ignore and they need a way for them to do that.

Well I don't want to be rude, especially as there seems to be a tendency for dogpiling in this thread whenever someone expresses a "Karen is guilty" opinion and you're being very respectful. I'll just take your word for it that you will listen to the defense experts and balance their evidence's credibility with that of trooper Paul and the CW's two medical examiners which we should hopefully hear from tomorrow.

 

[kittythehare]

But the prosecution doesn't have to present a second by second account of what happened to show murder actually happened. Neither do they need to trace every mark on his body back to the object that made it. This is reasonable doubt, not beyond any uncertainty. They have so far proven she was there, she was very drunk, she admitted to being in a fight, she accelerated backward with her foot 75% to the floor reaching 24mph in 60 feet, her tail light is broken, his DNA is on it, the pieces of tail light are in the yard and on the street, pieces of tail light are on his shirt, broken glass from the one he was holding in his hand as he left the bar were in the yard with him, and she knew exactly where to find him and speculated that she may have hit him, and he is dead.

The defense wants you to believe that all those things above are false or fabricated, and that he went into a house full of people, including law enforcement officers, all of them are now lying, he got beat up and bitten by their dog, then they dragged him out in the street to die and they were smart enough to plant him right on top of his broken glass. Without presenting a single piece of evidence any of this is real.

The defense's case is beyond ludicrous.

We have argued all of these points you make repeatedly so I'm not going to do it again.

They proved nothing at all and the defense destroyed all of their witnesses effectively.

Also the defense case you claim is ridiculous has not yet been presented.

 

[keek]

Ok, this is what I thought was testified... if she was in the car, waiting to hear from him. Are we to believe the CW that JO was standing behind the car, in the cold and snow, and not answering her? Was she angry that he was standing behind the car, refusing to answer her so she ...as the CW suggests, backed into him at 24 mph? It just doesn't make sense... any of it, that added to so many other inconsistencies and far reaches!

See how lame..She was seen sitting in her car with the dome light on staring straight ahead/hands on wheel per the Nagle boy and his buddy. They did not see him standing around anywhere and they were there a bit waiting for the sister to come out and say WHATEVER her 'reason was'. and JMc would drive her and her friend home.

 

[Spectrix]

Interesting, thank you for sharing. Just today I was wondering if the jurors were even allowed to discuss the "kill me" comment (if they even heard it) amongst themselves.....probably not.

Heheh yeah I noted that whisper too. As far as I am aware the feed from the microphone is not amplified in the court and can only be heard on the live feed.
Though the jury are certainly allowed to discuss anything they hear in court with each other (edited to add: during deliberation)

 

[kittythehare]

They wouldn't have let Chloe out in front. Not fenced, busy road and a leash law. John would have had no reason to enter from the back yard and it was fenced and gated so he wouldn't have had access from the outside. Sounds like when Chloe attacked those two people one of the family members had accidentally left the gate open and she was roaming.

Is there access to the back yard from the basement?

 

[HarmonyE.]

There is physical evidence that she hit something that broke her tail light and left pieces in the yard, the road, and on his shirt. There is digital evidence her car moved very fast backwards. There is physical evidence his body was in contact with that tail light at some point. He was found lying there with significant injuries lying on an object, the glass, he had when he left the bar.

Everything here is inaccurate.

There is physical evidence she hit John's 7,000 pound vehicle with her 6,000 pound vehicle and cracked her taillight. Two witnesses (Roberts and the Dighton police officer) say only a little piece was missing with the officer - with no reason to lie - saying it was minimally damaged. So the vast majority of the 45 pieces - including some big hunks - were accounted for before Trooper got his hands on the car.

The digital "evidence" was presented by Trooper Paul, who appears to have made serious calculation errors that will be corrected by actual experts when they testify for the defense. Trooper Paul had no idea what he was talking about. You should watch his testimony.

There is no physical evidence presented that his "body was in contact with that taillight". Unless you are talking about a single hair near the lift gate of a car that was housed in John's garage and in which he had been traveling that night?

And maybe you missed the testimony, but the glass allegedly found on the bumper of the vehicle didn't match the glass in the yard, so again, another dead end.

The alleged dispersion of the taillight and glass make no sense in relation to physics. This is because they were planted by Trooper Proctor and not documented with relation to time or space. We only have undocumented findings with no viable photos of them in relation to each other or landmarks.

Proctor, who should have been conflicted off the case, planted the evidence to both make his life easier and help out his good pals the Alberts. It's as simple as that.

 

[TTF14]

Heheh yeah I noted that whisper too. As far as I am aware the feed from the microphone is not amplified in the court and can only be heard on the live feed.
Though the jury are certainly allowed to discuss anything they hear in court with each other.

Oh they are? As long as it's not about evidence?

 

[keek]

Wait. She was sitting alone still in her car for 15 minutes had not made a 3 point turn , nor backed up the 62 ft at this time. He was out of the car for 15 minutes while she sat there before she moved the car?

Ok, this is what I thought was testified... if she was in the car, waiting to hear from him. Are we to believe the CW that JO was standing behind the car, in the cold and snow, and not answering her? Was she angry that he was standing behind the car, refusing to answer her so she ...as the CW suggests, backed into him at 24 mph? It just doesn't make sense... any of it, that added to so many other inconsistencies and far reaches!

..and as you hopefully saw, Trooper Paul was way out of his league in ability to answer scientifically or realistically. He's going on what he was told as he said, pretty much!

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Oh they are? As long as it's not about evidence?

I don’t think they’re allowed to actually discuss the case with each other until they’re deliberating. I thought when they were leaving for the day on Monday she told them not to discuss the case.

 

[TTF14]

Everything here is inaccurate.

There is physical evidence she hit John's 7,000 pound vehicle with her 6,000 pound vehicle and cracked her taillight. Two witnesses (Roberts and the Dighton police officer) say only a little piece was missing with the officer - with no reason to lie - saying it was minimally damaged. So the vast majority of the 45 pieces - including some big hunks - were accounted for before Trooper got his hands on the car.

The digital "evidence" was presented by Trooper Paul, who appears to have made serious calculation errors that will be corrected by actual experts when they testify for the defense. Trooper Paul had no idea what he was talking about. You should watch his testimony.

There is no physical evidence presented that his "body was in contact with that taillight". Unless you are talking about a single hair near the lift gate of a car that was housed in John's garage and in which he had been traveling that night?

And maybe you missed the testimony, but the glass allegedly found on the bumper of the vehicle didn't match the glass in the yard, so again, another dead end.

The alleged dispersion of the taillight and glass make no sense in relation to physics. This is because they were planted by Trooper Proctor and not documented with relation to time or space. We only have undocumented findings with no viable photos of them in relation to each other or landmarks.

Proctor, who should have been conflicted off the case, planted the evidence to both make his life easier and help out his good pals the Alberts. It's as simple as that.

BBM - This part is huge, IMO. I can't think of another reason for that other than "planted evidence."

As far as Trooper Paul....I felt so bad for that guy. It made me wonder how he got put into that job in the first place, 4 years after becoming a Trooper. He's probably always hard to understand (seems to have some speech issues), but his lack of knowledge combined with that made him a very poor witness for the State. I think he was just doing his job (forced to be the one to testify) and it was probably the last place he wanted to be--on that stand! Poor guy.

IMO MOO

 

[Wishbone]

Heheh yeah I noted that whisper too. As far as I am aware the feed from the microphone is not amplified in the court and can only be heard on the live feed.
Though the jury are certainly allowed to discuss anything they hear in court with each other.

It has not been my experience to be able to discuss the case with other jurors until deliberations begin per the judge's direction.

 

[keek]

Wait. She was sitting alone still in her car for 15 minutes had not made a 3 point turn , nor backed up the 62 ft at this time. He was out of the car for 15 minutes while she sat there before she moved the car?

McCabes, looking out the window, said that time frame, as Matt Mc testified and also saw it moved up to the corner where she eventually left from. Nagle boy and buddie saw this as well. J.Mc was still texting as she saw the suv out there on the road, said pull into the driveway behind me. JO'K still did not answer her, then eventually, she no longer saw the SUV there, she assumed they left she said.

 

[keek]

BBM - This part is huge, IMO. I can't think of another reason for that other than "planted evidence."

As far as Trooper Paul....I felt so bad for that guy. It made me wonder how he got put into that job in the first place, 4 years after becoming a Trooper. He's probably always hard to understand (seems to have some speech issues), but his lack of knowledge combined with that made him a very poor witness for the State. I think he was just doing his job (forced to be the one to testify) and it was probably the last place he wanted to be--on that stand! Poor guy.

IMO MOO

I have heard other guys sound like him here, not sure where he was born and bred but the ones I've heard speak like that were from inside Boston, say SOMERVILLE, SOUTHIE, two of them. Oh but the HARD NOD he gave to Jackson who was giving him the hardesssssst stare down ever. I kept thinking, how do I know him, then I realized, I don't as he's a very young one and I don't mingle about in the area really and not those areas.

 

[HarmonyE.]

As far as Trooper Paul....I felt so bad for that guy. It made me wonder how he got put into that job in the first place, 4 years after becoming a Trooper. He's probably always hard to understand (seems to have some speech issues), but his lack of knowledge combined with that made him a very poor witness for the State. I think he was just doing his job (forced to be the one to testify) and it was probably the last place he wanted to be--on that stand! Poor guy.

IMO MOO

Zero sympathy from me. He's trying to put an innocent woman in prison with his Associates Degree-based nonsense.

If that's "doing your job", don't do it. Or get deservedly ridiculed by the world.