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

[jepop]

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

Great. Thanks.I'm about to rewatch his testimony but at least this source suggests my memory is still semi functional

 

[RANCH]

Wasn’t that the house of the Assistant Chief of Canton PD? Not saying there was anything nefarious here, but 100 coinky dinks in one case is a bit much for me. I usually don’t tolerate one.

So another piece of the conspiracy is revealed. Thanks for this information, I didn't know about that until now.

 

[jepop]

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.

No I think it was that he could have been in a fight. I remember Jackson dragging that out of Proctor, possibly Bukhenic too though that's more hazy.moo

 

[GoBuckeyes]

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.

IIRC, one of the pre-trial motions was specifically about the fact that they had made requests for the clothing. In fact, I believe the court at one point mandated that the clothing be made available to the defense for testing. The pretrial motion was a vigorous plea to the judge to enforce her previous order. I don't know why the CW wouldn't comply.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

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

Yes, they had his first pass at 12:15 or so. He clearly stated numerous times that he was on the road beginning between 2:20 and 2:30, no earlier, no later. His recollection and his recollection of his testimony to LE were crystal clear.

 

[kittythehare]

more about Lucky

Loughran’s testimony, according to the defense motion, not only establishes reasonable doubt as to the commonwealth’s version of events; it also highlights what they allege to be “extraordinarily misleading and inaccurate information” provided by State Trooper Michael Proctor, a Canton resident and one of the investigators handling the case. Specifically, the defense references a police report prepared by Proctor on February 3, 2022, which cites an interview with DPW Superintendent Michael Trotta stating that “no snowplows were dispatched to the area of 34 Fairview Road” during the snowstorm on January 29. According to the defense motion, however, not only is that statement “patently false,” but two DPW employees, Brian Loughran and Bill Walsh, reportedly told the defense team’s private investigator that Loughran was in fact dispatched to plow Fairview Road.

This is cray cray!!

Lawyers in Karen Read case set to argue new motions | Canton Citizen

www.thecantoncitizen.com

Lawyers in Karen Read case set to argue new motions | Canton Citizen

www.thecantoncitizen.com

 

[GoBuckeyes]

It was the Albert, McCabe stare down straight across the room to the jury box in court that really bothered me. It was the town bullies trying to intimidate the jury; just like CA did on that video to a rival hockey team. “I’m gonna f you up!”

Fantastic post!

 

[GoBuckeyes]

more about Lucky

Loughran’s testimony, according to the defense motion, not only establishes reasonable doubt as to the commonwealth’s version of events; it also highlights what they allege to be “extraordinarily misleading and inaccurate information” provided by State Trooper Michael Proctor, a Canton resident and one of the investigators handling the case. Specifically, the defense references a police report prepared by Proctor on February 3, 2022, which cites an interview with DPW Superintendent Michael Trotta stating that “no snowplows were dispatched to the area of 34 Fairview Road” during the snowstorm on January 29. According to the defense motion, however, not only is that statement “patently false,” but two DPW employees, Brian Loughran and Bill Walsh, reportedly told the defense team’s private investigator that Loughran was in fact dispatched to plow Fairview Road.

This is cray cray!!

Lawyers in Karen Read case set to argue new motions | Canton Citizen

www.thecantoncitizen.com

Lawyers in Karen Read case set to argue new motions | Canton Citizen

www.thecantoncitizen.com

That blatant lying by the CW is unparalleled in any case I've ever seen!

 

[jepop]

Good point about a possible plan to move the body. If the Edge was one of the unmarked police vehicles, I bet they thought no one would be searching that car. I think visibility was very poor. They may have heard the loud plows and saw their headlights and knew they were plowing that neighborhood and didn’t want to take the chance of moving him. As the storm became more intense, perhaps they decided to leave the vehicle where it was until the snow provided a covering for the body.
I don’t think there was any murder plan that night. Because the blood from John’s head wound ran down the back of his shirt, he was either upright for a bit or he was propped up for a time. Medical experts defined the head wound as lethal and the skull fracture as almost immediately debilitating. If an accident happened in the home, perhaps concurrent with an attack by Chloe, could John have stumbled outside and collapsed in the snow where he was found? Or, could the drunks in the house have propped him up to see if they could revive him and when they realized he was too far gone brought him out and laid him where he was found? If anyone was the least bit culpable they did not want him found in the house. They were all in some stages of intoxication. Judgement is clouded. Stupid plans are formed.

Sheridan testified that the head wound would have rendered JO immediately unconscious. Prior to his testimony I also considered the possibility of badly injured JO wandering from back yard or side door out into the yard and falling where he was found. Had to abandon that one.moo

I suppose the moving the body scenario could make sense if for instance BH and BA were out back and in process of carrying JO through side gate (BH's govt ford edge parked near flag pole for that purpose as speculated) when the approach of snow plow makes them reconsider. They wait for Lucky to pass by again on way back towards cedar crest then abandon plan leaving JO where he would be found. BH gets back into his car and drives away. It would be about 3.45 am by this time. All pure speculation!

 

[kittythehare]

That blatant lying by the CW is unparalleled in any case I've ever seen!

I can't believe it..
Gobsmacked and I don't know the half of it.

 

[jepop]

Didn’t the 911 caller state the following when JOK was found that morning,
“…a man unresponsive in the snow,” the 911 caller is heard saying. “…We just flipped him over.

Jurors hear 911 call, additional testimony as Karen Read murder trial continues - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Jurors heard a 911 call for help Monday as the closely-watched Karen Read murder trial entered its second week of testimony. Three<a class="excerpt-read-more" href="https://whdh.com/news/jurors-hear-911-call-additional-testimony-as-karen-read-murder-trial-continues/">Read...

whdh.com

I think that probably isn't clear from the call and I don't think they flipped him. I'm fairly positive the trial testimony and evidence supports JO being found on his back. KR was out of the car and laying on JO wailing in despair and horror, KerryR pushed her off, wiped snow off his face and began CPR and instructed KR on how to assist. She told KR or J Mc to get blankets from car to place under him. JMc or KR did this then JMc placed the 911 call. jmo

 

[CourtandSims4]

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!

I'm not sure if any spinning was involved. If he was already trying to move out of the way or anything else, that could play a part in this. This is the problem. It's basically trying to guess what he must have done in reaction to a SUV coming at him. And then being asked "did this happen?" Obviously Trooper Paul was not up for this. He shouldn't be doing this work and Troopers shouldn't be getting doubled up as experts. Taking some classes is not enough, imo, but that's another subject altogether.

 

[CourtandSims4]

IIRC, one of the pre-trial motions was specifically about the fact that they had made requests for the clothing. In fact, I believe the court at one point mandated that the clothing be made available to the defense for testing. The pretrial motion was a vigorous plea to the judge to enforce her previous order. I don't know why the CW wouldn't comply.

I would love it if you can point me in the right direction to find out more about this. I searched and couldn't find anything.

 

[mrjitty]

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 think she is probably guilty but don't believe it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially I wonder if there was just a super poor investigation, which the investigators sought to 'improve"

I am still shocked by the inverted video. The witness must have realised the video was not a true video. How does that exhibit and testimony even happen?

I'd find not guilty just for that personally - as I would not trust any other exhibits from this investigation.

 

[jepop]

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?

Thanks for the post. I got through to the end no problems and I think I might get some of the points you're making. I really admire your conviction that were you on this jury you would find your way clear to vote not guilty. Because despite your misgivings you can nonetheless see that cw didn't prove their case BARD. Just moo but court rooms need jurors just like
you.

RBBM above from the quote I took from your post. One of the problems for the CW is highlighted here. At least some of your misgivings if I'm understanding correctly, come from feeling the CW didn't explore the above possible scenario and the defense's experts' testimony didn't convince you in regards to this possibility either. I think this highlights a major weakness in cws case: lally did not challenge or counter the defense experts' evidence. If a jury member has lingering questions they remain unaddressed. jmo

Having said that, the jury is charged only with considering the evidence brought into trial, so doubt generated by extrapolated scenarios not in evidence, the 'what ifs', don't have a place in deliberations and need to be be put aside in order to consider what actually is. As I said above I think your post recognises that. jmo

I blame the cw for the lot of it as it's my opinion that this case should not have been brought in the first place.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Great post - thanks for sharing

I think the any conspiracy is more likely the mind numbing usual kind of investigative incompetence, lost evidence, discovery violations, overcharging etc etc

I suspect the original investigators really did think she was guilty, and didn't do a proper job on the crash as usual, then when they got way out of their depth, they've been protecting themselves ever since.

IMO

 

[k-mac]

It was the Albert, McCabe stare down straight across the room to the jury box in court that really bothered me. It was the town bullies trying to intimidate the jury; just like CA did on that video to a rival hockey team. “I’m gonna f you up!”

really?
I didnt see that. But Ill take your word for it.
Let's call that balance then


Because nobody is talking about the harassment and intimidation day after day after day out the front of the court house by the free KR-ers , of course it is influencing the jury and so cruel to Johns family and friends what gets thrown at them too.


moo

 

[jepop]

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.

Just on dog scratches and bites Dr Sheridan also testified and his conclusions mirrored Dr Russell's. I think defense probably had Sheridan and then Dr Russell reached out after seeing a photo of the wounds on internet or whatever and learning about the case through media. Why? Because that is an area of expertise for her, she was convinced by the photo and she sincerely believed her services might usefully serve truth and justice. JMO but I found her to be credible, erudite and sincere.

eta Lally was given the opportunity to find another expert to counter Dr Russell and he didn't. Why not? Lally knew about Dr Sheridan and what his testimony would be, yet again he chose not to present an expert of his own to counter. Why not?

 

[jepop]

Karen Read case: Judge sets 200-foot buffer zone, courtroom restrictions for protests during trial

Judge Beverly Cannone set a buffer for demonstrations during Karen Read's trial later this month, citing the need to keep jurors unbiased.

www.boston.com

I'll try to find a source but imo it's common for juries to arrive and leave court together via a designated bus and enter and leave via doors not utilised by the public. I don't believe the jury room would have a window overlooking any protest activity, Jmo.

From above

Judge Cannone '“The defendant here is entitled to a fair trial with an impartial jury, free from outside influence, focused solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom during trial and the applicable law,” Cannone wrote in a three-page ruling Thursday. “To protect this right, this Court must reduce the risk of exposing witnesses or jurors in this case to such outside influences."'

Lally
'Lally asserted that prosecutors were not seeking to limit demonstrators’ rights.
“Protesting is going to happen; that’s fine,” he said. “It’s just where it happens and how it impacts the jury in this case is what the commonwealth has concerns about.”'

Yanetti
'"Read’s lawyers declined to take an official stance on the buffer zone request, with defense attorney Tanis Yannetti telling the court, “We do not control these protesters. This has been an organic movement that arose because ordinary citizens were made aware of the case and apparently agree with us that the prosecution of Karen Read is unjust.”
Yannetti added: “Our intent is and always has been that we are going to win this case inside the courtroom.”'

really?
I didnt see that. But Ill take your word for it.
Let's call that balance then


Because nobody is talking about the harassment and intimidation day after day after day out the front of the court house by the free KR-ers , of course it is influencing the jury and so cruel to Johns family and friends what gets thrown at them too.


moo

 

[nighttimesleuth]

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.

As a person who leans more towards the idea that she is not guilty, I still go back and forth. I think your post is the most well laid out post from the “likely guilty” camp that I’ve seen. I like your opposing view and think you’ve laid out a very good argument that makes a lot of sense to me.

I agree that her demeanor at times seems like someone who has constant “dupers delight”. I think it could also be argued, though, that if she is not guilty her demeanor is based on being angry and incredulous of these people to the point of contempt. I think contempt and dupers delight look similar.

In regards to her initially saying it was an accident when they told her they had footage, I also hesitate at this one. I think I’d keep my mouth shut on saying I was guilty until I saw it. And, if I believe that Karen is an extremely anxious person I could also see her freaking out and saying she is willing to take the punishment for something even if she doesn’t remember doing it.

I struggle with her mentioning she hit something before finding him. I can’t do much with this other than excuse it as something bizarre and, if she’s not guilty, saying it fell into the laps of the others. I do think her exclamations of “I hit him!” are being exaggerated years later. I don’t think it’s odd to find the person you love near where you left them and to start to scream all sorts of things … maybe even “omg !! Is it possible I hit him” especially if you’re still what I would assume is very drunk.

Re: the unlikelihood of a massive conspiracy, I think the defense did itself a disservice focusing on it being so complex. I don’t believe it was a “set up”. I do think it’s possible that something happened that was not planned (he fell and hit his head, people got angry and he got beat up, the dog did something and they worried about a lawsuit due to past poor behavior from dog). Like you, I can’t get past why they would throw him on the lawn UNLESS they actually didn’t think he would die and initially it was a “get the “eff” out” kind of toss by really drunk men. This argument doesn’t fully make sense either. I do think that this mess is a result of a lot of people protecting themselves for varying reasons.

My other thought is that these cops are hiding a lot (not related to John) and they needed to distance themselves from whatever accident/ fight killed him because they couldn’t risk anyone knowing they were dealing drugs (letting underaged people drink) or something else that night. I think they’re smart enough to know that throwing him in the woods looks like murder, but if they throw him in the lawn it either looks like drunk guy passed out, fell and died OR if it did come back to them they’d say “oh my god! We got in a fight but we didn’t realize he died! He must have walked outside and passed out”. This would have a better outcome than finding someone “buried” in the woods.

I can’t get past Jen’s incessant calls - I do understand why Karen would be freaking out that John wasn’t home but I don’t get why Jen would care so much about him coming inside. I think the theory she was looking for his phone makes sense to me.

I can’t get over the flurry of action around 2:30 - phone calls, Google searches, moved cars. And I can’t get past no one seeing a body in the yard. Many people came and went, snowplow driver went by, and I’m sure other random drivers and yet no body was seen. I live on a similar road with very similar lighting and yards and every night when I drive , I become more and more doubtful his body was out in that spot all night. I can see my neighbors yards clearly (even in bad weather).

Lastly, I can’t get past the lack of bruising, lack of blood, and injuries that don’t look like a vehicle hit him. I also think so much evidence about her car was misleading (the key turns don’t line up with when she’d be reversing, the multiplying tail light pieces, reversed video).

At the end of the day we may never know because a group of adults (including Karen) were incredibly negligent, immature, selfish drunks with no regard to human life - every single person in that home and Karen thought it was ok, during inclement weather, to get wasted like they were in college and drive around town. The people in the home even included their children. The owners of the home KEPT a vicious dog that had harmed their OWN neighbors twice. The family of the owners killed someone in a hit and run. The brother of the deceased drunk drove and hurt someone. The lead investigator is a disgusting misogynistic police officer and liar and I shudder to think how he treats people that have even less recourse than Karen. These aren’t pillars of any community, regardless of their career path.

This is a group of people that cares very little about the safety of others - including their loved ones. They are all unlikable, in moo, which is why people dislike Karen but also why people dislike Proctor, Higgins, the McCabes, Alberts and even sadly the O’Keefe family - at the end of the day most recognize any of these people would be willing to harm them and try to get away with it. Maybe that’s why the jury is having trouble - everyone seems guilty of something in some way. It gets confusing.

Edited to fix typos and make some points more clear.