VERDICT WATCH MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #15

[kittythehare]

He also tried to pass a 3rd time, but he couldn't get through bc of first responders, etc.

trying to figger what time the vehicle was blocking, think it was 2.30am time..

 

[keek]

how connected are all the other towns and villages in the area. Would they all have heard about it?

Yes, as Boston news is for all of Massachusetts and wherever anyone picks it up online news. It grabbed you as he was killed and made it seem in some stories, depending on the reporter or source, that she did it on purpose. I saw it made BBC news this a.m.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

trying to figger what time the vehicle was blocking, think it was 2.30am time..

Interesting kittyhare…… and I am not certain or have recollection or recall, but if so isn’t that also real close to the time of the search ‘hos long to…. in the…… ’. IIRC wasn’t there some indication that search was ~2:27 am or thereabouts?

Granted there was also considerable debate about that browser window time when opened / viewed I believe? MOO

 

[CourtandSims4]

For fellow WSers who believe KR is guilty, is it because:
1) The CW proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or
2) You do not believe the alternative “conspiracy theory” so that leaves no other choice.

For those that select #1, what SPECIFIC evidence proves to you that KR killed JOK with her SUV?
ETA I am genuinely interested in the response to this. The SODDI defenses are often brought forth because there is good evidence that a crime was committed by someone other than the defendant. But sometimes, an alternative scenario is presented to a jury to try and get them to think outside the box. The defense attorneys’ “conspiracy theory” was, for the most part, their merely pointing out during cross examination, glaring instances of lies, poor investigative work, and police misconduct by the prosecution witnesses. Did that hurt the defense?

I am not sure if I am really from the group you want to hear from because while I think she more than likely is responsible for John O'Keefe's death, I also feel like the CW did not earn a conviction. Much of why I feel this way is because of things that the jury didn't get to see/hear. So, if I was on the jury, I would vote NG because I would have even more lingering doubt without that added information.

I do not believe the conspiracy as told by the defense. I do not believe that a 30 year vet of the BPD, and an ATF agent, would look at John O'Keefe and say, "let's say a snowplow did this. Let's put him in my front yard." Not down the street, but in his yard. And let's do this while he is still breathing, and someone can see him and get him help before he dies. (There is no reason to search 'Hos Long' if he is already dead.)

This is not a plan two veteran law enforcement officials would come up with. "The snowplow did it" is a plan a panicking woman, who hasn't spent 30 years as a cop responding to accidents, would come up with, imo.

I didn't buy the text message "threat" of going out for drinks or your lawn will be destroyed as a credible threat, in that John was scared to say no. Or them taking a picture on John's lawn being part of a history of bullying him, versus the obvious inside joke that it is. He's the one who asked them to watch his house.

I don't buy that playfighting in the bar was "practicing" for what they were about to do to John. I don't buy that Jen McCabe's role was to separate Karen from John so that they can carry out their plans to jump him, along with Colin Albert, who was still mad at John for yelling at his little brother to get off the lawn. This is all very silly and undercuts the actual seriousness of their accusation that this is all a coverup.

The only person we know for a fact was enraged with John that night was Karen. The defense did a good job showcasing that these witnesses had bad memories. It didn't mean much to me that months after this happened, people couldn't remember the times they made calls or saw something. Especially when there were minutes off, not hours. Most of us wouldn't remember innocuous 3 and 9 second calls, now make us ish-faced drunk. We definitely won't remember. It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that cops would have things on their phone that they don't want in evidence. Brian Albert may well be a dirty cop, but it doesn't automatically means that what he is hiding is a coverup.

Trooper Proctor's texts, disgusting as they were, proves that he believed that Karen was guilty. We can call it tunnel vision, but not proof of a coverup.

I believe John's childhood friend's/Kerry Robert's testimony. Despite her damning testimony, the defense didn't try to poke holes in it. Which tells me that her account is likely the most trustworthy when it comes to determining Karen's behavior and mindset that morning.

How many people think their boyfriend is dead when you have not heard from him in 4 hours, especially after a fight? He wasn't left in the middle of the road. He was left at a house. Why are you so frantic and having a meltdown?

Why lie about where she last saw him? Why do you think a snowplow hit him? Why do you see a cracked taillight and conclude you could have hit him? Why are you so preoccupied with this taillight? Why are you telling your dad that you thought you hit something? You say you saw him walking into the house on 34 Fairview, you didn't feel a bump when you drove off. What is this giant leap in conclusion?

If you think he may have gotten in an accident, you would call hospitals. Why not consider he just slept on the Albert's couch? Karen didn't even search the house, which is why they went back there. She didn't search because she knew he wasn't there. The right answer would have been of course I searched the house.

Karen's behavior looks like someone setting up a defense and/or trying to find another person to blame - the snowplow or "could I have hit him? See, my taillight is cracked, I must have been blackout drunk, that's why I only remember being at the Waterfall. Also, maybe it was a snowplow..."

Yannetti's statements to the media and in court, early on, was never that Karen was innocent. It was that it was an innocent accident and about the charges being too steep. Story is that they told her it was caught on ring footage. Well, she has already laid the foundation for it being an accident. Next is to say... it was an innocent accident. She doesn't even ask to see the ring footage. She didn't ask her parents or attorney to watch and tell her what happened. She just acquiesced.

LE was proven incompetent by the defense. Part of this incompetence is going to naturally extend to them not reading the crime scene incorrectly. Trooper Paul is not knowledgeable enough to have done that. And the experts the FBI hired was simply asked to see if that car hit that body. (Karen's words.) This was very narrowly defined, which left open other possibilities for me.

I mean, is the belief that she didn't actually do what the car data states she did? The 3 point turn was right - Karen said she did a 3 point turn - but not the barreling backwards part? Then the question is are you going to just stand there or are you going to try to turn and run when you see it coming? We know what is typical in a pedestrian/MV accident. What happens if you are moving your body out of the way but your arm is lingering behind and his struck with a glancing blow? Will the rest of the body get struck?

John's phone stops moving and moments later Karen is leaving voicemails saying she hates him and calling him a pervert. I know people think that she could not have shaved 2 minutes off of her travel time, but it's not hard to imagine her driving like a bat out of hell given how enraged she was. And who knows if the data on the time his phone stopped moving is even exact. Technology can tell us a lot, but not everything.

The icing on the cake for me is Karen's demeanor. No one victimized by the system is going to court everyday with a huge smile on their face. And they are definitely not carefree, laughing and smirking, cutting their eyes here and there as the jury watches.

The first thing I thought when I saw Karen, after hearing details of this case, is that she looks like someone who thinks she already gotten away with it. What I read about this case and how she carries herself are contradictory. This leaves me to believe she is not worried because she knows this is not a frame job and, because they were able to poke so many holes into this shoddy investigation, there is no way she will be convicted.

I expect most people have already stopped reading. lol Too long and also because people don't really like hearing opposing thoughts and also I imagine quite a few people have called me an idiot to themselves. lol I know my opinion is in the extreme minority.

Despite all I have said, I still would find her not guilty because I have to account for the possibility that I am wrong, and that is law enforcement's fault for how they handled everything about this case. I hope they learn from this and do better in the future.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

RBBM

I think it is important to emphasize this.

I don't have a PhD in biomechanics so I don't have much of a problem deferring to someone who does.

The idea that I would have a better idea of accident reconstruction/analysis than the ARCCA experts is laughable. I feel pretty good about myself but not THAT good lololol

Thank you, Monk, for elucidating the reasons for your deference to true experts in biomechanics. You stated so eloquently what I had previously tried (and failed) to imply in previous posts, or perhaps my intended audience failed to infer? Anyway, thank you for your refreshing post!

 

[themonk]

Then the question is are you going to just stand there or are you going to try to turn and run when you see it coming? We know what is typical in a pedestrian/MV accident. What happens if you are moving your body out of the way but your arm is lingering behind and his struck with a glancing blow? Will the rest of the body get struck?

RSBM

Unbiased experts testified that John O'Keefe was not hit by a car, any car.

Do you discount this testimony?

A CW witness Irini Scordi-Bello, the medical examiner, said John O'Keefe's injuries could have been the result of getting punched in the face. Or the result of an animal attack.

Do you discount this testimony as well?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

trying to figger what time the vehicle was blocking, think it was 2.30am time..

It was on his 2nd pass.

 

[turaj]

Yes, as Boston news is for all of Massachusetts and wherever anyone picks it up online news. It grabbed you as he was killed and made it seem in some stories, depending on the reporter or source, that she did it on purpose. I saw it made BBC news this a.m.

clearly this story made international as well at national news. But I think the most day to day reminder of it would be in Denham and of course Canton. And KR lives in another town Mansfield. I expect the verdict or lack thereof to be big news for sure.

 

[CourtandSims4]

RSBM

Unbiased experts testified that John O'Keefe was not hit by a car, any car.

Do you discount this testimony?

A CW witness Irini Scordi-Bello, the medical examiner, said John O'Keefe's injuries could have been the result of getting punched in the face. Or the result of an animal attack.

Do you discount this testimony as well?

I do not discount their testimony. It just didn't make me think that there are not other possible ways this could have gone down. And if I feel this way, there is probably at least 1 juror who feels the same way. And I gave you the reasons why I feel this way about her guilt. The experts spent most of their time talking about an experiment done about throwing his glass at the taillight, which is not what the CW has ever said happened.

 

[keek]

clearly this story made international as well at national news. But I think the most day to day reminder of it would be in Denham and of course Canton. And KR lives in another town Mansfield. I expect the verdict or lack thereof to be big news for sure.

No, it is huge news and heavily followed and talked about daily among people you would think would not be bothered. It is huge news as due to the nature and ability to watch live on MA online news stations starting at 9 am.daily. Social media of diff types in MA are all over it all day with updates and comments as well.

 

[themonk]

I do not discount their testimony. It just didn't make me think that there are not other possible ways this could have gone down. And if I feel this way, there is probably at least 1 juror who feels the same way. And I gave you the reasons why I feel this way about her guilt. The experts spent most of their time talking about an experiment done about throwing his glass at the taillight, which is not what the CW has ever said happened.

and the injuries?

even to a layperson these seem inconsistent with a car strike

 

[CourtandSims4]

and the injuries?

even to a layperson these seem inconsistent with a car strike

It would depend on how it happened. Which the CW cannot explain. This is part of why I find her NG.

What I found interesting is that after I listened to people the world over claim that his injuries looked like typical dog bites and claw marks, there are practically no pictures that I could find that look like John's injuries. I really expected a great many that matched, honestly.

ETA: To clarify, I maybe saw a couple that could be considered similar. But most didn't like anything like his injuries.

Also, I find it interesting that an expert had to reach out to them after the trial started. I would think that a dog bite expert would have been a no brainer. Did they not try to find one? Or could they not find one who would agree that those injuries came from a dog? I also still don't know why they didn't make a request for his shirt to be independently tested for canine DNA.

 

[keek]

and the injuries?

even to a layperson these seem inconsistent with a car strike

Many different types of experts. Physics and science and dog bites. Amazing credentials and I believe not hired by either side? Oh, jurors of the grand jury who indicted to have THIS trial go on, when they see and watch what was withheld from them all and current testimonies that showed lieing under oath and on and on and on in this one. Bad, bad goings on here. FBI on it all though from D.A. down...for a reason.

 

[kittythehare]

It was on his 2nd pass.

4.30am? Okay that makes more sense for his body temp of 80F

 

[keek]

I live in Massachusetts, and I've learned from many years of jury duty that the state prefers prospective jurors to NOT be residents of the town or from neighboring towns in which a trial is held and/or where a crime has been committed. This is supposed to ensure that people on a jury are less likely to be familiar with those who are being tried or their family members. Jurors are confined to a specific county however, this one being Norfolk County, which encompasses 28 towns/cities. So, even if there is a courthouse in my town, I'm sent 25-30 miles away to be on jury duty on the other side of the county.

I used to get sent to Fall River, no thank you and that was before ubers which would of cost a lot. I was in N.Easton at the time but ended up not needed to attend, WHEWWWW. So faaaaaaarrr away.

 

[themonk]

What I found interesting is that after I listened to people the world over claim that his injuries looked like typical dog bites and claw marks, there are practically no pictures that I could find that look like John's injuries. I really expected a great many that matched, honestly.

ETA: To clarify, I maybe saw a couple that could be consider similar. But most didn't like anything like his injuries.

RSBM

'john o'keefe georgia hunter dogs' image search was good enough for me

 

[Wishbone]

trying to figger what time the vehicle was blocking, think it was 2.30am time..

Loughran, who grew up in Canton, said he was told to report to work for the pending blizzard and made his first of three passes by that address about 2:45 a.m.
“I saw nothing,” Loughran testified when asked if he observed anything in the area of the flagpole.
Loughran maintained he had a clear view of the front yard during his three passes. He said his driver’s seat was raised to see over the plow and the headlights and plow lights were so bright it was “almost like driving with a spotlight.”
Loughran said he was vigilant about looking on both sides of the vehicle for cars, pedestrians and “God forbid, any animals” while plowing.
During a pass about 3:30 a.m., Loughran testified he saw a Ford Edge SUV parked on the street in front of the house by the flagpole where O’Keefe’s body was later found. He said he remembered it because it was unusual.
“The Alberts never had a car parked out front. It was weird,” Loughran said.

Plow driver testifies in Karen Read murder trial that he saw no body on lawn

DEDHAM — A Canton snowplow driver testified Friday he never saw a body on the front lawn of a house where Karen Read is alleged to have left her cop

www.thesunchronicle.com

 

[CourtandSims4]

RSBM

'john o'keefe georgia hunter dogs' image search was good enough for me

Yes, that's the one I found.

 

[keek]

I used to get sent to Fall River, no thank you and that was before ubers which would of cost a lot. I was in N.Easton at the time but ended up not needed to attend, WHEWWWW. So faaaaaaarrr away.

I say the word Uber instead of driving as I would make it maybe three towns over and collapse. haha..FR is horrifically complicated and a city of like, cars and trucks. haha.

 

[TIGER0822]

The absolute MESS of this investigation should be proof hands down Not Guilty. They NEVER considered the home at 34 Fairview, or it's occupants at a party the night of could be of any importance. They interviewed groups of people ! Not individually. The reason? Proctors own words. " Nope. He's a Boston Cop too" The Big Blue Wall indeed. 'No lookie see in the house, mmkay? '

It needs to be said again. If someone found a dead or dying body on MY lawn, after a night of partying? You can bet they would be marching in with a warrant. There is no protection for me though. Yep, the CSI would be inside my home, yellow tags showing any perceived evidence, properly photographed, logged and verified. There would be a video of them entering inside, and following through the entire space of my home. Documenting everything.

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED at 34 Fairview. Why?

“The owners of the house must be getting some sh**. “No, he is a Boston Cop”.