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

[k-mac]

Some powerful stuff here. It seems many are very protective of KR— from what I’ve seen she certainly stands up for herself, has a great family and defense team.

I just think it’s really sad when the victim of the crime and their family are forgotten and vilified. RIP John O’Keefe. Editing to add: I don’t think a crime victim’s family can be expected to be completely objective and analytical.

“The mistrial that happened the other day, obviously, it wasn't ideal. But if we have to do it again, we will do it again," Paul O'Keefe told WBZ-TV. "It's just a bump in the road and like I said, we will do it again. We will do it as many times as we have to”

“Paul O'Keefe was asked what he believes happened the night of his brother's death.

“Prosecutors say Read and John O'Keefe's relationship had deteriorated in the months before his death. The night of O'Keefe's death, Read left him a series of angry voicemails, including one where she says "John, I f---ing hate you."

"We know what happened," Paul O'Keefe said. "We know that Johnny and Karen were arguing, it was kind of towards the end of their relationship. Things weren't well. They were drinking, and arguing and fighting, and in an intoxicated state of rage and jealousy, she just decided that she was going to do something about it."

“This is about my brother"​

Paul O'Keefe said that his family has received hateful messages from members of the "Free Karen Read" movement.

"Yelling, screaming, calling us names. To this day I don't know what I did wrong," he said. "I get messages all the time, through Facebook, or other ways of communication. Telling me that I'm a moron, I'm stupid, open my eyes and all this stuff. I don't really care what people say to me. Because this isn't about me. This is about my brother."

“Paul O'Keefe also addressed an exchange he had in the courtroom with Read minutes after the mistrial was declared.”

“Throughout the trial, she liked to turn and look at me and smirk. She has never once made eye contact with my wife, Erin. So when the mistrial was announced, she turned and looked right at Erin and gave her a smirk, and then went over and was hugging and celebrating to some extent," Paul O'Keefe said. "And I just said, you know, 'You are not done yet.'"

"It's turned into the Karen Read show"​

“With the case gaining national attention and support growing for Read, Paul O'Keefe said his brother has been forgotten.”

Im really glad Paul got out into the public an interview.
Remind the world it's not the Karen Read spectacle.
Its his brothers death.

These people have endured harassment that is absolutely unacceptable.

Can see though that they are a strong family and ready to go again.
Prepared to stay the course until justice for John arrives.


moo

 

[Charlot123]

Juror #3 From listening to her interview, I understood that in her opinion there was reasonable doubt.

Maybe I didn't express myself right. Is voting "not guilty" the same as "reasonable doubt"? I think it is. So maybe I just expressed myself poorly, sorry. I understand that the Juror #3 was sitting there every day, diligently taking notes (good note-taking tells me something), and at the end, the burden of facts presented by the prosecution did not convince her that KR was guilty. What is important to me in this context is not whether KR is IRL is guilty. But, the person sitting inside, listening for days, remained unconvinced. Much as I lean on the side of KR's guilt, I believe that a hung jury is better in this case.

 

[Charlot123]

Im really glad Paul got out into the public an interview.
Remind the world it's not the Karen Read spectacle.
Its his brothers death.

These people have endured harassment that is absolutely unacceptable.

Can see though that they are a strong family and ready to go again.
Prepared to stay the course until justice for John arrives.


moo

His full right. Besides justice for his brother, there might be some unethical aspects in this case, and they, too, need to be known to public.

He is the only son, the strongest man of his once-large family, he should fight for the truth.

I only hope he doesn't bring JO's wards into it. Give or take, they are the only children of his departed sister and JO. If there is a fund for their therapy, for this cause, I'd gladly donate. But, their lives can not be marred by a vendetta. May they grow into good people.

 

[mrjitty]

These people have endured harassment that is absolutely unacceptable.

RSBM

This stuff is getting out of hand IMO - and not just in this case.

 

[k-mac]

I have explained this ad nauseum. JOK had not come home. JOK had young children at home he was caring for. Since taking care of those young children, JOK ALWAYS came home. So lets not act like him not coming home was some normal occurance and she should assume he's sleeping at a house he doesn't even know how to get to. JMO

In that case he should have been exactly where she left him.
Problem solved.

And Indeed he was. EXACTLY where she left him.



There was absolutely no logical need for the frenzy. ....
KR guilty knowledge that night tripped her up over and over again...all night long.

moo

 

[mrjitty]

I came in just before the end of the prosecution case this time, having promised myself to stay away lol

But the trainwreck accident scene investigator witness was just too interesting. Was this that rare case when an innocent was fitted up?

I have to say the more I've read, the less I believe that is true. I think this is likely a much more mundane conspiracy, of the usual police failings, incompetence and subsequent bad faith CYA actions. The case has become notable because of the hype the defence successfully built around it, and now is being copied elsewhere.

I think that's a bad thing personally. Now every error or failing by LE to investigate speculation is evidence of the cover up that is amplified by filings designed to be read by the public rather than the Judge. I also really worry how common it is to now claim the Judge is somehow in on it, or is so biased they are railroading a well represented defendant.

I get many here will disagree with me so please accept in the spirit it was written!

Final 02c

I don't see how the State brings this case again, precisely because it was so botched in those first hours.

MOO

 

[kittythehare]

I came in just before the end of the prosecution case this time, having promised myself to stay away lol

But the trainwreck accident scene investigator witness was just too interesting. Was this that rare case when an innocent was fitted up?

I have to say the more I've read, the less I believe that is true. I think this is likely a much more mundane conspiracy, of the usual police failings, incompetence and subsequent bad faith CYA actions. The case has become notable because of the hype the defence successfully built around it, and now is being copied elsewhere.

I think that's a bad thing personally. Now every error or failing by LE to investigate speculation is evidence of the cover up that is amplified by filings designed to be read by the public rather than the Judge. I also really worry how common it is to now claim the Judge is somehow in on it, or is so biased they are railroading a well represented defendant.

I get many here will disagree with me so please accept in the spirit it was written!

Final 02c

I don't see how the State brings this case again, precisely because it was so botched in those first hours.

MOO

Well I didn't listen to the noise or hear it and only saw glimpses at the court hearings, I was surprised and wondered about their origin, but only vaguely because I know the jurors were not aware of them, the facts of the case, prosecution or defense were not influenced by them..

I only watched the trial and it was ages before I dug out the court documents.

The medical evidence does not support 'hit by a vehicle'. It does not and it can not.

It looks like she was setup but her own vulnerable state did not prevent that happening, she wasn't strong mentally at that time, I doubt she is now, either.. She looks wrecked.

It COULD have happened but not without leaving substantial evidence on the victim's body.

It is not possible.

That is why she is innocent. Has to be innocent.

It could only work had she alighted from her vehicle before he entered the property and slapped him with a hatched on the back of his head.

She didn't do that.

Somebody else did.

Common sense would lead any half baked police dept to investigate fully..
The people that were there after she left.
The actual house that was never processed, the attendees who did not put up a convincing testimony in court.

The noise has and had nothing to do with what went on in the court itself. The court is protected from hysteria, protesters, bullhorns , bloggers or whatever..
Just not liars.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Maybe I didn't express myself right. Is voting "not guilty" the same as "reasonable doubt"? I think it is. So maybe I just expressed myself poorly, sorry. I understand that the Juror #3 was sitting there every day, diligently taking notes (good note-taking tells me something), and at the end, the burden of facts presented by the prosecution did not convince her that KR was guilty. What is important to me in this context is not whether KR is IRL is guilty. But, the person sitting inside, listening for days, remained unconvinced. Much as I lean on the side of KR's guilt, I believe that a hung jury is better in this case.

You wrote: "She, with the notes, and having sat there, believes that the case did not meet the standards for reasonable doubt."

You wrote, "she did NOT meet the standards for reasonable doubt", in your original post, which implies the alternate juror would have found her guilty. But the alternate juror with her excellent notes would have found KR not guilty.

BBM.
MOO.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Well I didn't listen to the noise or hear it and only saw glimpses at the court hearings, I was surprised and wondered about their origin, but only vaguely because I know the jurors were not aware of them, the facts of the case, prosecution or defense were not influenced by them..

I only watched the trial and it was ages before I dug out the court documents.

The medical evidence does not support 'hit by a vehicle'. It does not and it can not.

It looks like she was setup but her own vulnerable state did not prevent that happening, she wasn't strong mentally at that time, I doubt she is now, either.. She looks wrecked.

It COULD have happened but not without leaving substantial evidence on the victim's body.

It is not possible.

That is why she is innocent. Has to be innocent.

It could only work had she alighted from her vehicle before he entered the property and slapped him with a hatched on the back of his head.

She didn't do that.

Somebody else did.

Common sense would lead any half baked police dept to investigate fully..
The people that were there after she left.
The actual house that was never processed, the attendees who did not put up a convincing testimony in court.

The noise has and had nothing to do with what went on in the court itself. The court is protected from hysteria, protesters, bullhorns , bloggers or whatever..
Just not liars.

It's hard to get past the expert testimony that it was not even possible he was hit by a vehicle (any vehicle including a snow plow).
So, If he wasn't hit by a vehicle, then how did his wounds occur?
That's the million dollar question the defense tried to answer the best they could with the other evidence they uncovered.
Had Proctor done his job properly and investigated the circumstances inside the house and at the side entrance that morning, that answer most likely would have been uncovered from the beginning.
But, nope! The homeowner is a Boston cop too!
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Well I didn't listen to the noise or hear it and only saw glimpses at the court hearings, I was surprised and wondered about their origin, but only vaguely because I know the jurors were not aware of them, the facts of the case, prosecution or defense were not influenced by them..

I only watched the trial and it was ages before I dug out the court documents.

The medical evidence does not support 'hit by a vehicle'. It does not and it can not.

It looks like she was setup but her own vulnerable state did not prevent that happening, she wasn't strong mentally at that time, I doubt she is now, either.. She looks wrecked.

It COULD have happened but not without leaving substantial evidence on the victim's body.

It is not possible.

That is why she is innocent. Has to be innocent.

It could only work had she alighted from her vehicle before he entered the property and slapped him with a hatched on the back of his head.

She didn't do that.

Somebody else did.

Common sense would lead any half baked police dept to investigate fully..
The people that were there after she left.
The actual house that was never processed, the attendees who did not put up a convincing testimony in court.

The noise has and had nothing to do with what went on in the court itself. The court is protected from hysteria, protesters, bullhorns , bloggers or whatever..
Just not liars.

I don't know what happened to JO, and I think the chance to know was lost when they bungled the crime scene.

I also strongly believe that a prosecution which introduced flipped video, with a witness who then presumably perjured himself about that video (how could he not realise??) cannot be trusted with any of its exhibits IMO. I'll die on the hill that the judge should have tossed the case when that happened.

I'll thus accept as a real possibility that evidence might have been planted. I just don't assume it was done to cover up the real kilers. It could have been done because they believed KR did it but they bungled it.

As noted by others previously, I think it is actually more likely JO had some kind of accident than a fight.

MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Who knows. If he used a state issued phone to say the things he did about someone he was actively investigating, then I could see that being considered gross misconduct or dereliction of duty or misuse of equipment and grounds for dismissal especially if there is contract language around that. And certainly if he's done it before.

So far he's only admitted to sending the texts, everything else that seems suspect may or may not be part of the internal investigation, or he could have several separate discoveries looking at numerous suspected code of conduct violations taking place concurrently. His past work history will be considered in minor offenses but the key is what the states idea of gross misconduct is.

My company has four levels of corrective action. Level 1 and 2 are minor and handled within the local department, just the employee, a union steward, and the manager. Typically everything starts at 1, but can move up quickly. An employee can be at different levels of corrective action for different issues. If the employee corrected their actions and did what they were supposed to the corrective action records were expunged after a year if they were a level one or two offense. Once something rises to a level three the internal organizer and HR gots involved. Gross misconduct could go straight to level four but there has to be undeniable evidence of misconduct. I would think he is smart enough to invoke his Weingarten Rights and have union representation during the process but if not that certainly makes it easier to fire him.

All that is public now is probably all that will be ever be revealed regarding OP's employee investigation and any disciplinary action as he has a right to privacy. However, if he's charged with perjury, tampering, obstruction, RICO or any number of other things that seem like a possibility then obviously that would be public and one could make some inferences if he's relieved of employment that they are or could be connected. And if the state is privy to those charges coming I suspect that would be part of a decision making process. But I don't expect to hear any details of their internal investigation, the findings or why they reached their conclusion.


All IMO.

Thank you. Hopefully we do hear the result of their findings since it's at such a high level and out there now. MOO.

 

[jepop]

Just like @kittythehare, all I did was watch the trial and assess the evidence. No noise. I didn't follow this case in the media and I still don't. I actively avoid it.

In addition to what the evidence tells me, another question keeps eating away. From the very beginning those arm wounds were ignored by everybody involved except Karen Read's defense. IMO

LE investigators knew the Alberts had a dog, had seen JO's wound at the hospital.Moo

The ME according to her testimony ignored them: not swabbed, not compared to a data base of wounds, no calling in of someone for an opinion. Moo

Had the ME done something, an impartial LE would have been open to expanding their investigation to look at all possible POIs. That is not based on speculation. Even without a competent ME, a search warrant for 34 Fairview would not have been based on wild speculation. IMO

I think about all that, then into evidence comes the speculation arm wounds were caused by shards of tail light. But also not in evidence are that shards of tail light were stuck in those wounds. Also not in evidence are that any of the shards of tail light found on the lawn had blood, dna, skin fragments. Nor was any blood or skin found either in the housing of the passenger tail light or on the outer area of the tail light. JO's dna from epithelial cells was found on the outer area and that can be explained easily. Lifting of the hatch for one thing. I notice the opposite tail light was never tested for JO's dna.Moo

After all that, the defense then introduced credible expert medical evidence and credible expert crash reconstruction evidence. None of which the prosecution challenged or countered. No bruising; dog scratches and a dog bite; physics make the cw's contention all but impossible.Moo

Imo Karen Read did not and could not have killed JO with her lexus.

edited for typos

ETA Imo inflexible tunnel vision and non adherence to protocol (witness interviews for eg)were part of the problem with this investigation, in conjunction with the lead investigator being internally driven to pursue KR and a non competent ME Jmo

 

[Charlot123]

You wrote: "She, with the notes, and having sat there, believes that the case did not meet the standards for reasonable doubt."

You wrote, "she did NOT meet the standards for reasonable doubt", in your original post, which implies the alternate juror would have found her guilty. But the alternate juror with her excellent notes would have found KR not guilty.

BBM.
MOO.

That time, i simply made a mistake. Ultimately, however, the mistake came from poor understanding of the origins of the expression, which, in turn, stemmed from the term "reasonable doubt" being overused in literature and movies. For years, I could not understand the choice of words, why "beyond" and not "above"? And what is the measure of "reasonable doubt"? Apparently, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the article is often dropped. With the article, it makes total sense. "Beyond any reasonable doubt".

ETA: and that summarizes my feelings. “Much as I believe that KR, likely, hit JO with his car, would I be ready to find her guilty of second-degree murder? Without any witnesses?” When I first read about the case, I felt that everyone’s recollection of that night was hazy at best, and the evidence presented at the trial, on either side, was not convincing. So, a hung jury is probably the best outcome.

I am very much concerned about the level of anger that this case has evoked, but not prepared, yet, to put my feelings into words.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

I don't know what happened to JO, and I think the chance to know was lost when they bungled the crime scene.

I also strongly believe that a prosecution which introduced flipped video, with a witness who then presumably perjured himself about that video (how could he not realise??) cannot be trusted with any of its exhibits IMO. I'll die on the hill that the judge should have tossed the case when that happened.

I'll thus accept as a real possibility that evidence might have been planted. I just don't assume it was done to cover up the real kilers. It could have been done because they believed KR did it but they bungled it.

As noted by others previously, I think it is actually more likely JO had some kind of accident than a fight.

I agree with you 100%. I don’t think anyone - KR, an Albert, or a McCabe - had motive to kill John. I think his death was an accident. I’m also with you on what I refer to as a “benevolent” coverup - not done to cover the tracks of a murderer, but to strengthen a weak case against someone the cops earnestly thought did the crime.

 

[mrjitty]

After all that, the defense then introduced credible expert medical evidence and credible expert crash reconstruction evidence. None of which the prosecution challenged or countered. No bruising; dog scratches and a dog bite; physics make the cw's contention all but impossible.Moo

Imo Karen Read did not and could not have killed JO with her lexus.

RSBM

I suppose personally i would say "she did not kill JO in the way the State says"

Don't get my wrong. I am 100% in agreement that the State deservedly failed in this case and it is important they did. It should have been an NG verdict to punish them fully.

I also agree the State did not counter or challenge the D witnesses. A huge fail.

But I think because the crime/accident scene investigation was so poor, we never got any coherent explanation of what 'must have happened' - it was all very 'trust me bro' that the victim went sailing through the air - propelled via his elbow - bounced off the curb to his final resting place ...

We lost the chance to understand how this might actually have happened

MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

I'll thus accept as a real possibility that evidence might have been planted. I just don't assume it was done to cover up the real kilers. It could have been done because they believed KR did it but they bungled it.

That would still be a crime either way. Police have no right to plant evidence of any kind under any circumstances. It doesn't make it less repulsive or less of a cover-up IMO.

 

[jepop]

Hmmmm. I don't believe this.

IMO MOO

Whatever went down, I have questions around the jury having been exposed to it for 8 weeks running; in their direct line of sight. Extraneous influence. Not that I believe any such influence would not, necessarily, be mitigated by Judge's instructions when charging the jury. But on the principle of court's committment to a fair trial for defendant and thus in good faith addressing sources of potential extraneous influence. Could the seating not have been managed differently is my question.

 

[jepop]

RSBM

I suppose personally i would say "she did not kill JO in the way the State says"

Don't get my wrong. I am 100% in agreement that the State deservedly failed in this case and it is important they did. It should have been an NG verdict to punish them fully.

I also agree the State did not counter or challenge the D witnesses. A huge fail.

But I think because the crime/accident scene investigation was so poor, we never got any coherent explanation of what 'must have happened' - it was all very 'trust me bro' that the victim went sailing through the air - propelled via his elbow - bounced off the curb to his final resting place ...

We lost the chance to understand how this might actually have happened

MOO

RBBM That's true if one comes in believing KR did it but it was just never explained how. However, I cannot get past the arm wounds and infliction by a dog. Why were they ignored by ME and investigators. Heads were placed in the sand. Jmo

eta and like a broken record, no bruising to speak of where there should have been bruising which imo is another matter over which heads were placed in the sand.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree with you 100%. I don’t think anyone - KR, an Albert, or a McCabe - had motive to kill John. I think his death was an accident. I’m also with you on what I refer to as a “benevolent” coverup - not done to cover the tracks of a murderer, but to strengthen a weak case against someone the cops earnestly thought did the crime.

What kind of an accident?
There was only a light falling of snow as they left the pub...
Flashback to his head injury which is what killed him..
How could one accidentally receive a head injury in that particular part of the skull?

 

[kittythehare]

@OldCop shared this some time ago, I just now got round to reading it.
It's worth your time.. It's not that DA's first rodeo

The state medical examiner concluded that Birchmore had died by suicide, and, in a separate investigation, the same district attorney’s office that pursued the charges against Karen Read found no evidence of foul play in Birchmore’s death. But, earlier this month, a forensic pathologist hired by Birchmore’s estate concluded that she had been strangled to death. The report also noted that a rape kit and fetal tissue taken from her body were never sent for DNA analysis.

The Irresolvable Tragedy of the Karen Read Case

The trial, which ended on Monday in a deadlocked jury, became an object of obsession for offering up a mix of conspiracy, corruption, and hard-drinking oblivion.

www.newyorker.com