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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
one interview she talks about him going to the "side door" and then she looked down at her phone and didn't see anything else... the other interview she talks about seeing him go to the "door" and "put his head inside" then she leaves.

not huge discrepancies, but her stories don't really make a lot of sense. she was waiting for him or not? she just left? she saw him go in? she didn't? and then she started screaming into the phone... and texting like crazy?

what IS obvious is that - unless you believe all of those other folks were lying about her morning reactions - she is lying. no person on the planet (given either of those stories she told) would believe she then thought she might've hit and kill him with her SUV or he was killed by a plow (because he didn't answer his phone)!??!!?

it doesn't make a single bit of sense.

i know people love the conspiracy plots - but none of them explain this.

* as an aside, I'm surprised these tapes weren't introduced as evidence. I'll continue to say the prosecution in this case was so, so out of his depth.
I only looked at the facts. What does make sense is physics and science.
Throw away everything except math and you got your answer.
And no, I don’t mean trooper Paul’s math.
 
one interview she talks about him going to the "side door" and then she looked down at her phone and didn't see anything else... the other interview she talks about seeing him go to the "door" and "put his head inside" then she leaves.

not huge discrepancies, but her stories don't really make a lot of sense. she was waiting for him or not? she just left? she saw him go in? she didn't? and then she started screaming into the phone... and texting like crazy?

what IS obvious is that - unless you believe all of those other folks were lying about her morning reactions - she is lying. no person on the planet (given either of those stories she told) would believe she then thought she might've hit and kill him with her SUV or he was killed by a plow (because he didn't answer his phone)!??!!?

it doesn't make a single bit of sense.

i know people love the conspiracy plots - but none of them explain this.

* as an aside, I'm surprised these tapes weren't introduced as evidence. I'll continue to say the prosecution in this case was so, so out of his depth.
Gezzz thank you! Been pointing this out and no one else seems to want to look at Karen’s lies but throws everyone else under the bus.
 
We don't. But it appeared that the documented crack in the taillight could not have accounted for the 47 pieces of the tail light the investigators found. moo
For a guy who solved the case in 17 hrs, he sure took his time to submit and test the evidence. 6 weeks later for submission and year or yearS later to test.
What a disgrace.
 
Gezzz thank you! Been pointing this out and no one else seems to want to look at Karen’s lies but throws everyone else under the bus.

Did you see the testimony of the FBI experts who very confidently concluded - using math, science, and physics - that John was not hit by a car? I think you can find the trial on YouTube.

If he wasn't hit by a car, he was killed in the house and dumped on the lawn. Very straightforward.
 
<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Some expert above opined that the CW could "get a conviction" in a retrial. This not much of a declaration: A whole bunch of posters and followers, here on WS and elsewhere, would agree that a simple DUI would be a slam dunk more or less. And if the posted version of the juror votes are correct, it appears they were fumbling around to convict KR of something, anything, and at least to some extent, that was due to the influence of a hostile set of observers seated directly opposite the jurors at trial. Obviously those people thought that staging a united front during closing arguments would influence the jurors in some fashion; and at least one juror indicated they felt intimidated. I believe the majority were fishing around amongst the lesser included charges under Vehicular Manslaughter for something that would stick while the minority, as it applies to that charge, were voting NG which by the structure of the document, eliminated all the lesser included. MOO not surprising they found themselves deadlocked.

If the CW reruns all this with a charge of DUI only, all the pundits and judicial players that have lied, abused the legal system, espoused their view without basis or without complete comprehension...will claim a victory. It will be a Pyrrhic victory, in terms of fiscal responsibility and credibility and integrity for at least the adjudicants, but they will claim it nevertheless.

Unless, of course, the State DOJ, the Fed DOJ and the FBI have both the evidence and the political capital to ensure the whole legal and investigatory structure we have seen to be so deviant, is dismembered. What the local version of justice and law enforcement will look like after that count of shoes have dropped...Simply impossible to say, but its gonna be different for sure.

The real accomplishment would be: the DOJ's and the FBI could establish exactly how JO got killed. Definitively. Because one would assume that would be of value to the OK family, even if the perpetrators included some of their neighbours and kin.

MOO and with respect to all those who have been diligently following this FUBAR exercise all the way to this point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some expert above opined that the CW could "get a conviction" in a retrial. This not much of a declaration: A whole bunch of posters and followers, here on WS and elsewhere, would agree that a simple DUI would be a slam dunk more or less. And if the posted version of the juror votes are correct, it appears they were fumbling around to convict KR of something, anything, and at least to some extent, that was due to the influence of a hostile set of observers seated directly opposite the jurors at trial. Obviously those people thought that staging a united front during closing arguments would influence the jurors in some fashion; and at least one juror indicated they felt intimidated. I believe the majority were fishing around amongst the lesser included charges under Vehicular Manslaughter for something that would stick while the minority, as it applies to that charge, were voting NG which by the structure of the document, eliminated all the lesser included. MOO not surprising they found themselves deadlocked.

If the CW reruns all this with a charge of DUI only, all the pundits and judicial players that have lied, abused the legal system, espoused their view without basis or without complete comprehension...will claim a victory. It will be a Pyrrhic victory, in terms of fiscal responsibility and credibility and integrity for at least the adjudicants, but they will claim it nevertheless.

Unless, of course, the State DOJ, the Fed DOJ and the FBI have both the evidence and the political capital to ensure the whole legal and investigatory structure we have seen to be so deviant, is dismembered. What the local version of justice and law enforcement will look like after that count of shoes have dropped...Simply impossible to say, but its gonna be different for sure.

MOO and with respect to all those who have been diligently following this FUBAR exercise all the way to this point.
can you charge some one with a DUI several years later with no traffic stop, no observed poor driving, no documented accident and no blood alcohol reading? ... based on a bar tab? that would be a new type of prosecution for me IMO.
 
Some expert above opined that the CW could "get a conviction" in a retrial. This not much of a declaration: A whole bunch of posters and followers, here on WS and elsewhere, would agree that a simple DUI would be a slam dunk more or less. And if the posted version of the juror votes are correct, it appears they were fumbling around to convict KR of something, anything, and at least to some extent, that was due to the influence of a hostile set of observers seated directly opposite the jurors at trial. Obviously those people thought that staging a united front during closing arguments would influence the jurors in some fashion; and at least one juror indicated they felt intimidated. I believe the majority were fishing around amongst the lesser included charges under Vehicular Manslaughter for something that would stick while the minority, as it applies to that charge, were voting NG which by the structure of the document, eliminated all the lesser included. MOO not surprising they found themselves deadlocked.

If the CW reruns all this with a charge of DUI only, all the pundits and judicial players that have lied, abused the legal system, espoused their view without basis or without complete comprehension...will claim a victory. It will be a Pyrrhic victory, in terms of fiscal responsibility and credibility and integrity for at least the adjudicants, but they will claim it nevertheless.

Unless, of course, the State DOJ, the Fed DOJ and the FBI have both the evidence and the political capital to ensure the whole legal and investigatory structure we have seen to be so deviant, is dismembered. What the local version of justice and law enforcement will look like after that count of shoes have dropped...Simply impossible to say, but its gonna be different for sure.

MOO and with respect to all those who have been diligently following this FUBAR exercise all the way to this point.
Karen Reed and JOK did not go to the pub until 11pm.
they were there for a very short period of time.
KR was not tested for blood alcohol levels until far too many hours had passed for an accurate reading of the time she drove from pub to Albert's house.
She may well have consumed several drinks in the interim.
a DUI cannot stick.
no evidence.
 
Did you see the testimony of the FBI experts who very confidently concluded - using math, science, and physics - that John was not hit by a car? I think you can find the trial on YouTube.

If he wasn't hit by a car, he was killed in the house and dumped on the lawn. Very straightforward.
Right, no injuries at all, just his deep gash on back of head which created multiple skull fractures. Found just laying on his back, phone under him. Throwing a body through the air after being hit would be big bruises and a person not laying flat as was said. J.McCabe was asked the position of JO. Can't just get hit by a car in the head and go flying and land flat out without broken bones and bruises, but that was explained by the experts. Dog bites by an expert, small holes from dog teeth through his shirt, matched up to wounds on his skin. Awful. Expert on dog bites even said large dog. She knew her studies and examples through her career.
Tons of new news now, that trial is OVER. More to come on the rest of them.
 
I mean, does it even matter what a blackout drunk person claims to have happened, I wouldn’t take her comments or testimony at face value at all, she was beyond drunk, so, her comments in any aspect should be ignored, and I’m not defending her as to why she would give an interview or not, but legally speaking she was not of sound mind to explain anything

And this is all separate from the fact the evidence does not show JoK was hit by a car at all, period.

She can be a bad partner, she can be a drunk driver (they all were), she can be a liar. JoK was not hit by a car
Ummm couldn’t we say all of them were drunk and excuse all behavior then. Shes stone cold sober making them interviews and changing up how she last saw him. I mean if she seen him putting her head in the door why would she question hitting him. Drives me crazy that everyone totally excuses everything she does.
When new experts are brought in that say John was hit by a car…then what. Tail light pieces around his body and in his shirt say he was.
 
Gezzz thank you! Been pointing this out and no one else seems to want to look at Karen’s lies but throws everyone else under the bus.
Let’s say KR lied. So did everyone else. Let’s cancel those out.
What’s left is physics and math. Calculated by a third party, not paid by the defense, and not partial.
Phd vs trooper Paul. PhDs the DOJ trusts. PhDs who have no dog in this fight.
Imagine if the defense was able to examine them the proper way? The defense went in cold, not knowing what they will disclose beyond the 14 bullet points. They had to wing it. Imagine what their testimonies will look like the second time around when they’re able to prep them.
If the DA had any wits about them, they’d peacock until July 1, 2025 and drop all charges. We all know he will drag his true decision til the 11th hour. He has a year to decide.
 
Karen Reed and JOK did not go to the pub until 11pm.
they were there for a very short period of time.
KR was not tested for blood alcohol levels until far too many hours had passed for an accurate reading of the time she drove from pub to Albert's house.
She may well have consumed several drinks in the interim.
a DUI cannot stick.
no evidence.
Good point. Whose to say she didn't go home and start drinking at 1AM.

I do believe she was drunk (like the rest of them, including the underage kids being permitted to get drunk by their LE parents), but disproving it may be easy.

IMIO
 
When new experts are brought in that say John was hit by a car…then what. Tail light pieces around his body and in his shirt say he was.

Again, the experts used science and physics to determine there is no possible way he was hit by a car. These people are PHDs who do biomechanical work for a living, unlike the unfortunate, terribly confused Trooper Paul.

Do you have a link to the testimony about taillight pieces around his body and in his shirt? You do realize Michael Proctor didn't even bother to log in John's clothing for a month and he had access to it to do whatever he wanted. He planted taillight at the scene, what's to stop him going further to make it extra special? But I'd love a link.

When your entire investigation hinges on the actions of a dirty cop who is going to be fired at a minimum, you don't have much of an investigation, do you?
 
Some expert above opined that the CW could "get a conviction" in a retrial. This not much of a declaration: A whole bunch of posters and followers, here on WS and elsewhere, would agree that a simple DUI would be a slam dunk more or less.
RSBM.

I have to disagree with this. In the trial, the defense didn't really bother to contest the claim that she was drunk that night. However, the commonwealth's own expert said that his calculations relied on the assumption that Karen's last drink was at 12:45 AM. In a retrial the defense could simply argue that the commonwealth can't prove she didn't take a drink at some point after 12:45 when she returned to John's home. Without any proof of the last time she drank, the blood test results are invalid and I don't think a jury could find her guilty. Or, perhaps they still could, but it certainly wouldn't be a slam-dunk.

Edit - I'm slightly late. I see that @acutename and @kittythehare had similar thoughts.
 
Ummm couldn’t we say all of them were drunk and excuse all behavior then. Shes stone cold sober making them interviews and changing up how she last saw him. I mean if she seen him putting her head in the door why would she question hitting him. Drives me crazy that everyone totally excuses everything she does.
When new experts are brought in that say John was hit by a car…then what. Tail light pieces around his body and in his shirt say he was.
Yeah it’s a really bad look doing that interview and doesn’t help her at all, and the fact she can afford a lawyer like Jackson it doesn’t make much sense, and I can’t defend it
 
Good point. Whose to say she didn't go home and start drinking at 1AM.

I do believe she was drunk (like the rest of them, including the underage kids being permitted to get drunk by their LE parents), but disproving it may be easy.

IMIO
But everyone that met her in the pub claimed she was not drunk..
She couldn't have become blind drunk in the few minutes it took her to drive him to Alberts' gaf..
 
Let’s say KR lied. So did everyone else. Let’s cancel those out.
What’s left is physics and math. Calculated by a third party, not paid by the defense, and not partial.
Phd vs trooper Paul. PhDs the DOJ trusts. PhDs who have no dog in this fight.
Imagine if the defense was able to examine them the proper way? The defense went in cold, not knowing what they will disclose beyond the 14 bullet points. They had to wing it. Imagine what their testimonies will look like the second time around when they’re able to prep them.
If the DA had any wits about them, they’d peacock until July 1, 2025 and drop all charges. We all know he will drag his true decision til the 11th hour. He has a year to decide.
Until I see prove of what the defense is saying about theses jurors, it’s smoke and mirrors. With that said, physical evidence around and on John’s body said he was hit by her car. Obviously some jurors believed that to be the truth.
Hopefully the CW will being in better experts in the next trial.
 
Ummm couldn’t we say all of them were drunk and excuse all behavior then. Shes stone cold sober making them interviews and changing up how she last saw him. I mean if she seen him putting her head in the door why would she question hitting him. Drives me crazy that everyone totally excuses everything she does.
When new experts are brought in that say John was hit by a car…then what. Tail light pieces around his body and in his shirt
Tail light pieces that were wholly non existant at the time JO was found even with much less snow than later and a leaf blower looking through the snow. Not one bright red piece out of 47 was seen in the bright white snow.
 
RSBM.

I have to disagree with this. In the trial, the defense didn't really bother to contest the claim that she was drunk that night. However, the commonwealth's own expert said that his calculations relied on the assumption that Karen's last drink was at 12:45 AM. In a retrial the defense could simply argue that the commonwealth can't prove she didn't take a drink at some point after 12:45 when she returned to John's home. Without any proof of the last time she drank, the blood test results are invalid and I don't think a jury could find her guilty. Or, perhaps they still could, but it certainly wouldn't be a slam-dunk.

Edit - I'm slightly late. I see that @acutename and @kittythehare had similar thoughts.

I'm firmly convinced she wasn't charged with OUI as a stand alone count because the prosecution knew the odds were high that would be the one and only compromise conclusion. No murder, no manslaughter but we'll give you an OUI, Lally.

I'll be surprised if they do re-try her, but I still think they'll avoid that charge if they do. Especially now.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
1,107
Total visitors
1,261

Forum statistics

Threads
598,878
Messages
18,087,408
Members
230,743
Latest member
ellllop
Back
Top