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

[TIGER0822]

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

Lucky was very clear that the times in the police report are not what he told the police.

 

[shotgun09]

Thinking about the claims of : How can anyone at 34 Fairview even think that just tossing JOK's body on the lawn was a good idea??

IMO,
They were all trashed !!
A Blizzard was on the way !!!!

However it happened, I believe it was Higgins and Colin Albert who threw punches and/or items at JOK. Chloe jumped in for good measure, to protect her owner.

Brian Albert was in Oh s*#t mode, now that JOK was rendered unconscious. It happened in his house, with his BFF and his favorite nephew and his dog ! What to do? What to do??

Brian Higgins flees the scene, to go hide at Canton PD. Maybe catch the radio calls. Colin is secreted away ( at exactly 12:10 am ...sure ) never to be mentioned.

The 2:22 butt dials between Higgins and BA happen. I believe it was then, that the stoopid alcohol induced decision was made to just toss his body outside, let him die ( so he couldn't answer questions) and hope for the best. Maybe a snow plow? Or just some dude dead on the street.

Brian Albert and whoever take JOK outside at 3:30 am. He will Call my buddy ( Berkowitz) in the am. Do not look out the window. "HE NEVER CAME IN THE HOUSE !!! "

They all were trashed. Not thinking clearly at all. They were however, highly confident in getting some protection from 'friends'.

Just my meanderings while waiting for The Ceiling Fan to return.

 

[turaj]

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

thanks for that quote. That one is memorable....the blue line.

 

[misantha]

I am probably one of the people who would be a holdout on this jury. I do think she hit him, unintentionally, and I would want to discuss my opinions with the other jurors and compare against the evidence to make sure my recollections of the evidence were correct. I would also want to understand the requirements to find her guilty under the law. All of this takes time, and I commend the jurors for seeming to be taking that time. I was on a jury that lasted three days. It was an animal abuse case. Honestly, myself and another were holdouts as we didn't think the defendant should be held responsible. This related to dog fighting and it was my opinion that they tried the defendant because her abusive partner had skipped town. I was discouraged because I didn't feel like some of the other jurors even wanted to discuss the case. One said, "Did you see the picture of the animal? We should find her guilty." After our first vote one of the jurors said, "We've been here three days. I want to go home." The other jurors were not happy with the two holdouts. I wanted to vote not guilty, but after we asked for clarification regarding the elements of the law and some definitions, the two holdouts agreed she was guilty. I must say that in my state the judge determines the sentencing. I really didn't want the defendant to go to jail. Impacting someone's life like this is a heavy burden, and I am proud that the jury didn't make a hasty decision in this case, regardless of what that is. Since this is a high profile case, I'm sure there will be lingering consequences for them.

 

[k-mac]

I am probably one of the people who would be a holdout on this jury. I do think she hit him, unintentionally, and I would want to discuss my opinions with the other jurors and compare against the evidence to make sure my recollections of the evidence were correct. I would also want to understand the requirements to find her guilty under the law. All of this takes time, and I commend the jurors for seeming to be taking that time. I was on a jury that lasted three days. It was an animal abuse case. Honestly, myself and another were holdouts as we didn't think the defendant should be held responsible. This related to dog fighting and it was my opinion that they tried the defendant because her abusive partner had skipped town. I was discouraged because I didn't feel like some of the other jurors even wanted to discuss the case. One said, "Did you see the picture of the animal? We should find her guilty." After our first vote one of the jurors said, "We've been here three days. I want to go home." The other jurors were not happy with the two holdouts. I wanted to vote not guilty, but after we asked for clarification regarding the elements of the law and some definitions, the two holdouts agreed she was guilty. I must say that in my state the judge determines the sentencing. I really didn't want the defendant to go to jail. Impacting someone's life like this is a heavy burden, and I am proud that the jury didn't make a hasty decision in this case, regardless of what that is. Since this is a high profile case, I'm sure there will be lingering consequences for them.

The jury intimidation/ scare mongering going on in this trial is insane and quite disgusting.

Its not how the process is supposed to go.

I wouldn't want to be a juror on this case for a million bucks.
well OK...maybe I would for a million bucks

 

[Yemelyan]

I am trying to recall something about the testimony of Bukhenik - did he say at one point that when he and Proctor first saw JOK's body, their working theory was that he had perhaps been dragged by a car? I can go back and listen, of course, but wondering if anyone else remembers him saying this.

 

[TTF14]

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

I thought the exact same thing when I read that post, and then you went and articulated it perfectly!

If someone who disagrees with these experts IS a PhD in biomechanics, well, then, I'd respect their opinion.

 

[Maat99]

I should go back to listen to Lucky’s testimony, but … didn’t he say he passed by 34F at least a couple of times? Did not see JOK. But said he saw a Ford Edge parked on the side of the road where JOK was eventually found. He said parking along the side of the roads was “against the law” or words to that effect, in snowy conditions. Asked about why he didn’t report the Ford Edge being there he said basically he was giving the Alberts a break.
Speculation that the A’s (probably BA) moved the Edge from the driveway in order to block activity in the front yard. MOO

It doesn’t make sense to me that the car would be there to block what was going on. That really only works if someone is looking at the car dead on. But anyone coming up the road from either direction and looking from an angle would have full view (see pic). My thought is that maybe they were planning to move JO but because of Lucky seeing the car, the blizzard or some other reason they abandoned the plan..?

 

[TTF14]

Thinking about the claims of : How can anyone at 34 Fairview even think that just tossing JOK's body on the lawn was a good idea??

IMO,
They were all trashed !!
A Blizzard was on the way !!!!

However it happened, I believe it was Higgins and Colin Albert who threw punches and/or items at JOK. Chloe jumped in for good measure, to protect her owner.

Brian Albert was in Oh s*#t mode, now that JOK was rendered unconscious. It happened in his house, with his BFF and his favorite nephew and his dog ! What to do? What to do??

Brian Higgins flees the scene, to go hide at Canton PD. Maybe catch the radio calls. Colin is secreted away ( at exactly 12:10 am ...sure ) never to be mentioned.

The 2:22 butt dials between Higgins and BA happen. I believe it was then, that the stoopid alcohol induced decision was made to just toss his body outside, let him die ( so he couldn't answer questions) and hope for the best. Maybe a snow plow? Or just some dude dead on the street.

Brian Albert and whoever take JOK outside at 3:30 am. He will Call my buddy ( Berkowitz) in the am. Do not look out the window. "HE NEVER CAME IN THE HOUSE !!! "

They all were trashed. Not thinking clearly at all. They were however, highly confident in getting some protection from 'friends'.

Just my meanderings while waiting for The Ceiling Fan to return.

Their biggest mistake was not putting him closer to the road. I bet they regret that big time.

IMO MOO

 

[TIGER0822]

Thinking about the claims of : How can anyone at 34 Fairview even think that just tossing JOK's body on the lawn was a good idea??

IMO,
They were all trashed !!
A Blizzard was on the way !!!!

However it happened, I believe it was Higgins and Colin Albert who threw punches and/or items at JOK. Chloe jumped in for good measure, to protect her owner.

Brian Albert was in Oh s*#t mode, now that JOK was rendered unconscious. It happened in his house, with his BFF and his favorite nephew and his dog ! What to do? What to do??

Brian Higgins flees the scene, to go hide at Canton PD. Maybe catch the radio calls. Colin is secreted away ( at exactly 12:10 am ...sure ) never to be mentioned.

The 2:22 butt dials between Higgins and BA happen. I believe it was then, that the stoopid alcohol induced decision was made to just toss his body outside, let him die ( so he couldn't answer questions) and hope for the best. Maybe a snow plow? Or just some dude dead on the street.

Brian Albert and whoever take JOK outside at 3:30 am. He will Call my buddy ( Berkowitz) in the am. Do not look out the window. "HE NEVER CAME IN THE HOUSE !!! "

They all were trashed. Not thinking clearly at all. They were however, highly confident in getting some protection from 'friends'.

Just my meanderings while waiting for The Ceiling Fan to return.

Sounds like JO body was covered with a mound of snow, more than would be expected. Me thinks that handy dandy snowblower helped out, and also conveniently covered tracks. Darn hit by a snowblower , umm snowplow. .MOO

 

[TIGER0822]

I am trying to recall something about the testimony of Bukhenik - did he say at one point that when he and Proctor first saw JOK's body, their working theory was that he had perhaps been dragged by a car? I can go back and listen, of course, but wondering if anyone else remembers him saying this.

In a text he said something like his initial thought was that it was as a result of an altercation. !

 

[OldCop]

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.

Hi, @CourtandSims4. Thank you for well thought out post. I am one who likes to hear opposing thoughts and the reasoning behind them. It helps me think outside the box.
The part of your response that I found interesting was: “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.”
Could you please expand on this? I myself found their testimony very compelling. Hitting the arm of a person who was trying to jump out of the way may spin the victim, but according to the experts, physics and kinetics show that this would not propel the body up to 30 feet. It has the do with the center of mass. If the arm was struck in such a way as to spin the person into the vehicle, there would be numerous injuries to the torso and to the vehicle itself. Also, the injuries to John’s arm were not caused by a vehicle.
I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on the other possibilities you have thought of that would show how KR hit and killed JOK with her vehicle.
Thanks!

 

[thebedbug]

It doesn’t make sense to me that the car would be there to block what was going on. That really only works if someone is looking at the car dead on. But anyone coming up the road from either direction and looking from an angle would have full view (see pic). My thought is that maybe they were planning to move JO but because of Lucky seeing the car, the blizzard or some other reason they abandoned the plan..?
View attachment 514596

I thought the snow plow driver's testimony was basically worthless.

I don't believe he saw a Ford Edge in front of 34 at the time he said. He may have been lying or he may have confused it with something he saw on another street or at another time. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't even a shred of evidence presented to show that he was even on that street at the time he said. He may not have seen a body on the lawn, but I don't believe he knows one wasn't there. I don't believe he is some special plow driver that sees all and is super observant. Anyone in MA knows plow drivers hit stuff all the time... mailboxes... trash cans... cars... whatever. Heck, this guy even hit a basketball hoop that night. He is color blind. He was up on the stand struggling with his glasses - you can say neither of those things matter... but I'm also going to dispute with anyone that 40+ year olds with a visual impairment and glasses see like hawks in the night.

If you doubt me... consider how dark it was... consider what a body with a bit of snow covering it even partially looks like. You don't know? There are countless images from the war in Ukraine and you can see even a dusting of snow on a body is like natural camoflauge.

I think the defense knew he wasn't the best witness. As I said above, they didn't put any effort into corroborating his story... but they probably figured if there was a chance he might cause pause in one juror, it was worth it.

 

[MyJoey]

The jury intimidation/ scare mongering going on in this trial is insane and quite disgusting.

Its not how the process is supposed to go.

I wouldn't want to be a juror on this case for a million bucks.
well OK...maybe I would for a million bucks

Yeah I’ve been seeing that also, of I course can’t post links to that kind of stuff, but seen Turtleboy posting what they look like/ age stuff like that. I’m sure anyone that looks on X sees the same stuff.

 

[TIGER0822]

I thought the snow plow driver's testimony was basically worthless.

I don't believe he saw a Ford Edge in front of 34 at the time he said. He may have been lying or he may have confused it with something he saw on another street or at another time. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't even a shred of evidence presented to show that he was even on that street at the time he said. He may not have seen a body on the lawn, but I don't believe he knows one wasn't there. I don't believe he is some special plow driver that sees all and is super observant. Anyone in MA knows plow drivers hit stuff all the time... mailboxes... trash cans... cars... whatever. Heck, this guy even hit a basketball hoop that night. He is color blind. He was up on the stand struggling with his glasses - you can say neither of those things matter... but I'm also going to dispute with anyone that 40+ year olds with a visual impairment and glasses see like hawks in the night.

If you doubt me... consider how dark it was... consider what a body with a bit of snow covering it even partially looks like. You don't know? There are countless images from the war in Ukraine and you can see even a dusting of snow on a body is like natural camoflauge.

I think the defense knew he wasn't the best witness. As I said above, they didn't put any effort into corroborating his story... but they probably figured if there was a chance he might cause pause in one juror, it was worth

Dbm

 

[themonk]

I thought the snow plow driver's testimony was basically worthless.

I don't believe he saw a Ford Edge in front of 34 at the time he said. He may have been lying or he may have confused it with something he saw on another street or at another time. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't even a shred of evidence presented to show that he was even on that street at the time he said. He may not have seen a body on the lawn, but I don't believe he knows one wasn't there. I don't believe he is some special plow driver that sees all and is super observant. Anyone in MA knows plow drivers hit stuff all the time... mailboxes... trash cans... cars... whatever. Heck, this guy even hit a basketball hoop that night. He is color blind. He was up on the stand struggling with his glasses - you can say neither of those things matter... but I'm also going to dispute with anyone that 40+ year olds with a visual impairment and glasses see like hawks in the night.

If you doubt me... consider how dark it was... consider what a body with a bit of snow covering it even partially looks like. You don't know? There are countless images from the war in Ukraine and you can see even a dusting of snow on a body is like natural camoflauge.

I think the defense knew he wasn't the best witness. As I said above, they didn't put any effort into corroborating his story... but they probably figured if there was a chance he might cause pause in one juror, it was worth it.

Now do Ryan Nagel

'Ryan Nagel, brother of Julie Nagel, was outside the home when Karen Read would have been in front of the house in her SUV. Ryan saw a woman alone in the SUV and the taillights were intact. He also did not see anyone lying on the lawn.'

Ryan Nagel: SUV Taillights Were Intact, Never Saw Person Lying on Lawn

Ryan Nagel, who was outside the home, recalls seeing a woman alone in an SUV. Taillights were intact. He didn't see anyone lying on the lawn.

www.courttv.com

 

[TTF14]

I thought the snow plow driver's testimony was basically worthless.

I don't believe he saw a Ford Edge in front of 34 at the time he said. He may have been lying or he may have confused it with something he saw on another street or at another time. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't even a shred of evidence presented to show that he was even on that street at the time he said. He may not have seen a body on the lawn, but I don't believe he knows one wasn't there. I don't believe he is some special plow driver that sees all and is super observant. Anyone in MA knows plow drivers hit stuff all the time... mailboxes... trash cans... cars... whatever. Heck, this guy even hit a basketball hoop that night. He is color blind. He was up on the stand struggling with his glasses - you can say neither of those things matter... but I'm also going to dispute with anyone that 40+ year olds with a visual impairment and glasses see like hawks in the night.

If you doubt me... consider how dark it was... consider what a body with a bit of snow covering it even partially looks like. You don't know? There are countless images from the war in Ukraine and you can see even a dusting of snow on a body is like natural camoflauge.

I think the defense knew he wasn't the best witness. As I said above, they didn't put any effort into corroborating his story... but they probably figured if there was a chance he might cause pause in one juror, it was worth it.

Interesting. I'm sure the Alberts and McCabes are hoping someone exactly like you is on the jury. Or, 12 of you actually. I respectfully disagree with everything you have said here. Snow plow drivers have to be on high alert for things like vehicles, etc. being in the street when they are not supposed to be in a snow emergency. I'd guess it's a crucial part of their training and retraining. I don't see what color blindness has to do with behind able to see a six foot dark blob in the white snow....


IMO MOO

 

[keek]

Now do Ryan Nagel

'Ryan Nagel, brother of Julie Nagel, was outside the home when Karen Read would have been in front of the house in her SUV. Ryan saw a woman alone in the SUV and the taillights were intact. He also did not see anyone lying on the lawn.'

Ryan Nagel: SUV Taillights Were Intact, Never Saw Person Lying on Lawn

Ryan Nagel, who was outside the home, recalls seeing a woman alone in an SUV. Taillights were intact. He didn't see anyone lying on the lawn.

www.courttv.com

..and taillights intact even. Great post Monk.

 

[kittythehare]

I thought the snow plow driver's testimony was basically worthless.

I don't believe he saw a Ford Edge in front of 34 at the time he said. He may have been lying or he may have confused it with something he saw on another street or at another time. To the best of my knowledge there wasn't even a shred of evidence presented to show that he was even on that street at the time he said. He may not have seen a body on the lawn, but I don't believe he knows one wasn't there. I don't believe he is some special plow driver that sees all and is super observant. Anyone in MA knows plow drivers hit stuff all the time... mailboxes... trash cans... cars... whatever. Heck, this guy even hit a basketball hoop that night. He is color blind. He was up on the stand struggling with his glasses - you can say neither of those things matter... but I'm also going to dispute with anyone that 40+ year olds with a visual impairment and glasses see like hawks in the night.

If you doubt me... consider how dark it was... consider what a body with a bit of snow covering it even partially looks like. You don't know? There are countless images from the war in Ukraine and you can see even a dusting of snow on a body is like natural camoflauge.

I think the defense knew he wasn't the best witness. As I said above, they didn't put any effort into corroborating his story... but they probably figured if there was a chance he might cause pause in one juror, it was worth it.

 

[nightowl1975]

It doesn’t make sense to me that the car would be there to block what was going on. That really only works if someone is looking at the car dead on. But anyone coming up the road from either direction and looking from an angle would have full view (see pic). My thought is that maybe they were planning to move JO but because of Lucky seeing the car, the blizzard or some other reason they abandoned the plan..?
View attachment 514596

Maybe the car blocked the camera view of neighbor across the street? Obviously they wouldn’t want to be caught on camera moving a body. I’ve always found it highly suspic that the neighbor reviewed his footage, deemed it “not useful”, and erased it. His camera view absolutely should have caught KR backing into JO. Clearly it didn’t or he wouldn’t have erased it.