MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #16

[jepop]

I have the NYT on full boycott so I cannot read this.

Strong feelings is not enough to corrupt a jury.
They saw the evidence, better than we did.
The medical evidence was simplified, particularly by Dr Sheridan.

Simplified BARD.
With reasons and rationale provided in simple language. It's not like he is not an expert, 13000 autopsies.

What could have possibly tainted them after hearing that???

It cannot be the colour of her hair, clothes, mannerisms or personality because that only goes so far.


I think there is a story here, a big story.

I have no idea who will dare to break it though..

I agree about this being something bigger. The CW and DA's office with the Judge's blessing clearly allowed this case to go to trial with sub standard evidence. jmo But I'm not buying for present the implication that a jury member was somehow got to and tainted? While we don't know the number of gs, it does not surprise me really that some were able to ignore the medical evidence probably owing to the pull of an opposing strong emotional conviction. This is common amongst us IRL jmo. However, I am suspicious as to whether all jurors were adequately aware of their duty to be impartial: that strong convictions unrelated to a reasonable assessment of evidence should be put aside. Those notes from the jury I found kind ofstrange and contradictory. jmo

I have questions centred around whether or not the court judge sufficiently charged the jury regarding the concept of reasonable doubt and evidence. Whether there was sufficient understanding regarding putting aside personal bias and convictions and feelings to impartially assess evidence. jmo

Also, and this has been discussed a little bit, I know it it's a Court Rule that allows a judge to select the foreperson from the entire pool of jurors and alternates, but that is something I cannot understand because it is open for judicial bias and so easily fixed. Simply by having judge select foreperson after the 12 jurors have been drawn. I don't understand the rationale behind that Court Rule. moo

 

[kittythehare]

I agree, there are people like this everywhere. IMO it usually involves some kind of arrogance: they believe they can do no wrong, and indeed, people don't challenge them, often because everyone just wants to get along. Lawyers, teachers, soldiers, spies, it doesn't matter, there are always bad apples turning up, who go too far in flouting professional ethics and decent behaviour - the good news is when they are caught and weeded out.

But IMO, they are the opposite of minions acting for a boss in a larger conspiracy. IMO they are entirely self-directed, acting out of their own sense of self-importance, missing out entirely on the big picture and the damage they may be causing.

Say, a school teacher caught flirting with students - would this person be acting on orders from the school superintendent determined to undermine kids? Or a massage therapist who gets too handsy - is that person acting under orders to groom his victims for some massive sex trafficking ring?

JMO

he probably violated every single rule and procedure in the book. i have not read the book but I'm pretty sure it exists..
who was his supervisor?

 

[jepop]

No, not just misogyny, that's just cultural and probably endemic, I don't know. I'm far more concerned by his apparent flagrant disregard for the code of ethics he swore upon and how easily it became breached and normalised within a really rapid time frame.. crazy stuff, like swearing he'd spoken to an official who had informed him that no snow plough ran that night.
That simply was not the case..

Sure I'm with you on all that. My post was just about the misogyny side of it, so I misunderstood your reply...didn't make the connection over to the wider issues.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

That's a reasonable opinion to have, but it happens. If I recall, some of the early details of the Idaho student murders were suspected to have made it online after being shared by police to non-police. And, allegedly, the same with the fake abduction girl in Georgia(?). Also, the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash investigation.

It's a murder investigation. He did something he shouldn't have and is being punished. I don't think anyone disagrees. I think the side-eyes come when we see people trying to then connect A to B and B to C and C to D... when really it's just A.

I posted right after someone who did in fact explicitly disagree, lol. I didn’t quote them because they said they didn’t want to discuss it.

 

[geevee]

he probably violated every single rule and procedure in the book. i have not read the book but I'm pretty sure it exists..
who was his supervisor?

I could be misremembering but I thought Bukhenic said he was Proctor's supervisor.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

Say, a school teacher caught flirting with students - would this person be acting on orders from the school superintendent determined to undermine kids? Or a massage therapist who gets too handsy - is that person acting under orders to groom his victims for some massive sex trafficking ring?

RSBM.

I would agree, but the situation at hand is a little different. How about if that teacher texted the superintendent about flirting with kids, and the super did nothing? Then yes, I’d argue the school district is indeed tacitly encouraging and facilitating the behavior.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree about this being something bigger. The CW and DA's office with the Judge's blessing clearly allowed this case to go to trial with sub standard evidence. jmo But I'm not buying for present the implication that a jury member was somehow got to and tainted? While we don't know the number of gs, it does not surprise me really that some were able to ignore the medical evidence probably owing to the pull of an opposing strong emotional conviction. This is common amongst us IRL jmo. However, I am suspicious as to whether all jurors were adequately aware of their duty to be impartial: that strong convictions unrelated to a reasonable assessment of evidence should be put aside. Those notes from the jury I found kind ofstrange and contradictory. jmo

I have questions centred around whether or not the court judge sufficiently charged the jury regarding the concept of reasonable doubt and evidence. Whether there was sufficient understanding regarding putting aside personal bias and convictions and feelings to impartially assess evidence. jmo

Also, and this has been discussed a little bit, I know it it's a Court Rule that allows a judge to select the foreperson from the entire pool of jurors and alternates, but that is something I cannot understand because it is open for judicial bias and so easily fixed. Simply by having judge select foreperson after the 12 jurors have been drawn. I don't understand the rationale behind that Court Rule. moo

Not tainted but possibly intimidated were my thoughts.
I just cannot understand it.

For one thing they did not get to that pub until 11pm, they left shortly after midnight.. how much can one consume in that period without everybody noticing?

she was clearly quite demented and in a state of desperation since the Aruba event, real or imaginary but I really don't believe she arrived at that pitch in a single leap, I think it had built up and there is no blame in that, it happens. she wasn't putting herself first or receiving what she needed, it became advanced in her. Problem with that is that the victim is in a super heightened state of awareness and borderline paranoia which they are unwilling to rationalise. She would have believed her mental state rather than the facts of reality, I think she had already lost herself. That's why it feels so utterly cruel.

 

[kittythehare]

I could be misremembering but I thought Bukhenic said he was Proctor's supervisor.

Oh Lordy..is all..

 

[jepop]

I could be misremembering but I thought Bukhenic said he was Proctor's supervisor

That's right he was.

 

[jepop]

Not tainted but possibly intimidated were my thoughts.
I just cannot understand it.

For one thing they did not get to that pub until 11pm, they left shortly after midnight.. how much can one consume in that period without everybody noticing?

she was clearly quite demented and in a state of desperation since the Aruba event, real or imaginary but I really don't believe she arrived at that pitch in a single leap, I think it had built up and there is no blame in that, it happens. she wasn't putting herself first or receiving what she needed, it became advanced in her. Problem with that is that the victim is in a super heightened state of awareness and borderline paranoia which they are unwilling to rationalise. She would have believed her mental state rather than the facts of reality, I think she had already lost herself. That's why it feels so utterly cruel.

Thanks for your thoughts, and yeah the whole thing on a personal level seems really toxic and feels horrible and pretty nasty. I can't fathom how KR feels after what she has gone through and what may still be coming. It's good that she genuinely appears to have the love and support of her parents and close friends. jmo

Re jury: When you say some jury members may have felt intimidated (to decide g and hence ignore medical evidence?), do you mean by the demeanour of the judge maybe in conjunction with their own fears about consequences for themselves post trial? Idk, but am not seeing that really if the juror notes are anything to go by. jmo

 

[PenelopeJude]

I still have so many questions about what happened here. I really want the truth to come out. I came into this knowing nothing. I was excited to start a case like a juror. I had the internet to rely on during the trial, the jurors didn’t. You think they are reading up on it all now? All the stuff they weren’t told?

I really want to know how a car could make the injuries on his arm. I’ve sarcastically mentioned she had to be driving a transformer to make those injuries happen. Also, there were three other ladies (that we know of) that were at the Albert’s that night. “Supposedly” they left before Collin left, but we found out that timing was incorrect (Collin;s exit). What if there was one more person there? One that hasn’t been named. Or two? What if the arrivals/departures weren’t actually as stated? The Albert’s didn’t tell the truth that often, but this case relies on their words? No geofence data? We know the phones were destruct geofence data would tell the rest.

And, what I really, really want to know is what cases was John working on leading up to this (going back at least 6 months)? Every one of his phone calls, emails, etc. Could he have found out something he shouldn’t have found out? Especially with Sandra Birchmore and the fact Lank and Kevin Albert were first to respond there (also a cover-up), there are just so many possibilities/alternatives to what the real story is. Nothing made sense from what I saw in court. Which usually means it isn’t the story.

 

[TIGER0822]

My opinion of their relationship and her behavior was a descriptor that is possible to not like someone and remove that from what the trial was trying to prove. So let's not try to change my mind on what I think of her and their relationship. I am not a fan of her and she should have been found not guilty do to lack of proof of the charges. JMO.

DBM

 

[Cedars]

RSBM.

I would agree, but the situation at hand is a little different. How about if that teacher texted the superintendent about flirting with kids, and the super did nothing? Then yes, I’d argue the school district is indeed tacitly encouraging and facilitating the behavior.

I don't agree that his supervisor was included in any of his private texts.

IMO, at that level all the investigating detectives work as collegues and divide up the cases between them. It's not like working in a low-level job where everything you say and do is monitored, you clock in and out, and your bathroom breaks are noticed, etc.

IMO, his boss was the District Attorney, or his deputy:
"By statute, the District Attorney or his law enforcement representative, shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate the investigation with the medical examiner and the police department within the jurisdiction where the death occurred."

HOMICIDE UNIT

I don't think police troopers talk to prosecutors in the same way they talk among themselves. I expect there will be consequences for all the troopers in the DA's police unit.

JMO

 

[jepop]

I don't agree that his supervisor was included in any of his private texts.

IMO, at that level all the investigating detectives work as collegues and divide up the cases between them. It's not like working in a low-level job where everything you say and do is monitored, you clock in and out, and your bathroom breaks are noticed, etc.

IMO, his boss was the District Attorney, or his deputy:
"By statute, the District Attorney or his law enforcement representative, shall direct and control the investigation of the death and shall coordinate the investigation with the medical examiner and the police department within the jurisdiction where the death occurred."

HOMICIDE UNIT

I don't think police troopers talk to prosecutors in the same way they talk among themselves. I expect there will be consequences for all the troopers in the DA's police unit.

JMO

During his testimony it was brought into evidence that Proctor was also sending misogynistic texts about Karen Read within a text group that included other Troopers including Bukhenic. And I am almost 100 percent certain that at least one of these text messages (I won't rewatch Proctor's testimony to post which one ugghh) was 'liked' by Bukhenic. I can still hear Jackson's voice as he confronted Proctor over that one. Proctor gave evidence after Bukhenic and you can see Lally's hand in that strategically ofcourse. moo

ETA Bukhenic testified to being Proctor's supervisor in name, if not in practice. That's why Lally had him up there first to try and get in evidence supervisor's faith in Proctor doing his job.Imo. Unfortunately for Lally Bukhenic's credibility may have taken a hit cos inverted Sally Port video that he failed to alert jury to under direct as did Lally Jmo. It must have taken somewhat of a second hit when his tacit approval of Proctor's misogyny was exposed when Proctor himself testified. JMO

 

[Charlot123]

'I bet the home owners will get some sh..
'no he is a Boston cop'.

Let me be the contrarian of the participants here.

This is something I would like to draw the attention to.

Trooper Proctor's house is a small rambler. (Understanding, houses in MA are not cheap, and prices are only rising.) But...Trooper Proctor is living modestly, judging by the house, is he not?

And here he shows up at the doorstep of a man who's been living in Canton for eons, whose brother is - well, call it a local chieftain, who himself has been featured in "Boston's finest" or whatever that cop show was called. Who did not walk out to look at JO - a body lying on his lawn! - and probably, was not too eager to let outsiders into his 900+K- house the morning after the murder.

IMHO, there are two ways Trooper Proctor messed up the investigation. One, because of his verbal eruptions. (Making the case weak because any good lawyer would make a mincemeat out of him.) But the second one, practically, is more serious - the house is part of the crime scene, and it has never been examined. That's the biggest weakness of the case. After that, the defense or bloggers can throw the wildest accusations at the guests or the owners of 34 Fairview. PD has no aces to beat the accusations. The house has not been investigated, period.

Do you think Trooper Proctor didn't want to enter the house himself? (Like, simply didn't want to witness the remains of the party?) Or did he get a "tactful hint" from the house owner? Or was it, indeed, true cop brotherhood?

I wonder if Proctor was merely afraid of entering the house. In this case, his texts may serve to cover his fear. He already creates a narrative he is sharing with his friends, and they are, in a way, his witnesses. Early in the morning of Jan 29, it is obvious to him that Karen Read is the culpable person, and he shares it with different people, using a lot of profanities, insults, and stupid jokes. At the same time, the Albert, a Boston cop, is the paragon of virtue.

Proctor's texts look, alternatively, bullying and shockingly moronic, but he did not come across as a such in Anna Walche's case. The group went through so many dumpsters, performed a good investigation, did a good job. He was effective.

Am I seeing too much in this situation?
Is Proctor just clueless, or was he so scared that he ended up being the fall guy for everyone - Boston Police, the Alberts, Karen Read, Brian Higgins, all of them?

One way to answer is to see if this behavior is typical for him. If he hyperactively gushes out privileged information about every case he investigates, then, it is just him. Then it is, indeed, poor luck, that out of the whole city of Canton, Trooper Proctor was the only one sober enough to investigate the case on that fateful day. But if it is not his typical behavior, then, one wonders what swayed it.

 

[Spectrix]

And, what I really, really want to know is what cases was John working on leading up to this (going back at least 6 months)? Every one of his phone calls, emails, etc. Could he have found out something he shouldn’t have found out? Especially with Sandra Birchmore and the fact Lank and Kevin Albert were first to respond there (also a cover-up)

This has been my thinking, that JOK knew too much. It should have been investigated thoroughly at the time by a separate, impartial department such as the FBI.
We know they are involved now, but it's not clear exactly what they're investigating.

 

[kittythehare]

 

[jepop]

Thinking over extraneous influence that has potential to taint or intimidate a juror during trial.

Recalling BA, JMc and co. turning up for closing arguments and the fact of PO spending 8 weeks looking as if he was about to explode with anger as he looked at KR with hatred and contempt within direct sight of the jury. There was something not quite right about the level of exposure the jury was subjected to of the victim's seething brother.jmo. Not part of the evidence and maybe there's an argument to be made that the judge was remiss in not mitigating that as an extraneous influence on jury in the way she did with ordering buffer zone between protesters and court house. In other trials I've watched I don't recall victim's family being seated in direct line of sight of the jury. Even in such a small venue was there no solution to the seating arrangements to avoid this? jmo

For sure I can imagine this could effect a juror's emotions and some could feel from time to time intimidated or obligated to vote a certain way. But also think anything occuring like that internally in jurors should have easily been mitigated later by Judge's instructions. Then again in the interests of committment to fair trial and removal of extraneous influence, this situation really should have been addressed? Moo and random thoughts.

 

[mrjitty]

Let me be the contrarian of the participants here.

This is something I would like to draw the attention to.

Trooper Proctor's house is a small rambler. (Understanding, houses in MA are not cheap, and prices are only rising.) But...Trooper Proctor is living modestly, judging by the house, is he not?

And here he shows up at the doorstep of a man who's been living in Canton for eons, whose brother is - well, call it a local chieftain, who himself has been featured in "Boston's finest" or whatever that cop show was called. Who did not walk out to look at JO - a body lying on his lawn! - and probably, was not too eager to let outsiders into his 900+K- house the morning after the murder.

IMHO, there are two ways Trooper Proctor messed up the investigation. One, because of his verbal eruptions. (Making the case weak because any good lawyer would make a mincemeat out of him.) But the second one, practically, is more serious - the house is part of the crime scene, and it has never been examined. That's the biggest weakness of the case. After that, the defense or bloggers can throw the wildest accusations at the guests or the owners of 34 Fairview. PD has no aces to beat the accusations. The house has not been investigated, period.

Do you think Trooper Proctor didn't want to enter the house himself? (Like, simply didn't want to witness the remains of the party?) Or did he get a "tactful hint" from the house owner? Or was it, indeed, true cop brotherhood?

I wonder if Proctor was merely afraid of entering the house. In this case, his texts may serve to cover his fear. He already creates a narrative he is sharing with his friends, and they are, in a way, his witnesses. Early in the morning of Jan 29, it is obvious to him that Karen Read is the culpable person, and he shares it with different people, using a lot of profanities, insults, and stupid jokes. At the same time, the Albert, a Boston cop, is the paragon of virtue.

Proctor's texts look, alternatively, bullying and shockingly moronic, but he did not come across as a such in Anna Walche's case. The group went through so many dumpsters, performed a good investigation, did a good job. He was effective.

Am I seeing too much in this situation?
Is Proctor just clueless, or was he so scared that he ended up being the fall guy for everyone - Boston Police, the Alberts, Karen Read, Brian Higgins, all of them?

One way to answer is to see if this behavior is typical for him. If he hyperactively gushes out privileged information about every case he investigates, then, it is just him. Then it is, indeed, poor luck, that out of the whole city of Canton, Trooper Proctor was the only one sober enough to investigate the case on that fateful day. But if it is not his typical behavior, then, one wonders what swayed it.

my thinking is much more along these lines as well.

 

[weepingangel]

State police union calls for justice after Karen Read mistrial, slams Proctor texts

The Massachusetts State Police union said it hoped the family of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe could receive the closure they deserve.

www.masslive.com