MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[AppleTreeGreen]

These guys testified for free so that every defense attorney in America would know their company's name. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

There are probably many defense lawyers across America that are already aware of the ARCCA since it has already seemed to have established quite a name and reputation from themselves due to its the diverse skill set, reliability and its competent application and integration of multiple scientific disciplines to solve a problem or or complete a project using strict or standardized guidelines.


It is also not just defense attorneys who would have needs of their services or benefit from them. Forensic scientists, prosecutors, LE departments, DA offices, insurance companies, the families, friends, loved ones and survivors needing answers following the accidents involving truck, motor vehicle and even carnival or trailer park rides, NASA, FEMA, first responders and those who are interested in future careers in engineering, biomedical sciences and disaster relief are just a few populations. If anything for them it is probably not making bank but making raising public knowledge or awareness among civilians about this resource.

MOO

They work with national sport organizations on reducing the risk of injury.
I’m pretty sure developing a solution for the NHL, that’s been implemented across the Northern America to reduce serious injuries, makes you a highly credible source. And an asset to many organizations. In this case, the DOJ.

They’re not laughing all the way to the bank bc of KR.

They’ve been to the bank and back way before KR. And then some.

I agree. They seem very credible IMO and I don’t think making bank by treating JOK’s life, death and integrity was their aim at all

And it is not that anyone doubts or questions a low speeding car going at 25 mph can cause severe injury to someone. What the ARCCA were analyzing and question was the likelihood a low speeding car going to 25 mph caused harm or injury to JOK and played a part in his death and if so, how? Using fundamentals and technology based science, math, anatomy, and their expertise how many scenarios could be possible that would lead to the scenario outlined by the CW and just how many scenarios could exist out their to cause to the death and injuries on a figure with JOK’s size, built, posture and such.

JMO

remind me of where the 30ft somersault fit into the CW fantasy? My brain jammed shut, I don't know that it will ever reawaken.

Maybe Trooper Paul confused his notes with a memory of Free Willy jumping over that wall

Our Company | ARCCA Forensic Engineers and Experts

Learn more about ARCCA, our company, who we are, what we do, our expert witness services, our expert failure analysis services, and the ARCCA advantage.

arcca.com

 

[Seattle1]

I have a question. Post above says jury didn’t find her guilty on murder 2 or leaving the scene of the crime. Was she charged with murder 1?
I didn’t get to watch the trial. I am just wondering. And what charges did the jury hang on? Thank you.

Defendant was not charged with Murder 1 and Murder 2 was clearly an overcharge by the CW.

To be clear, unless the jurors reveal what they were split on, we trulyt have no idea. However given the jurors were unanimous that the defendant was not guilty of Count 3 (leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death), it doesn't follow they'd be split on vehicular manslaughter but probably the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter. JMO and only the Jurors know for certain.

FYI -- Guilty on Count 3 required 6 elements proven by the CW which the jurors were unanimous they did not prove:

"First, that the defendant operated a motor vehicle. Second, that she operated on a public way or in a place in which the public has a right of access. Third, that the defendant knowingly collided with John O'Keefe. Fourth, that the collision caused injury to John O'Keefe resulting in his death. And fifth, that after causing such injury, the defendant failed to stop and provide a name, home address and registration number of the motor vehicle. And sixth, that the defendant failed to do so for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or apprehension," Cannone explained.

Jury Deliberation Rules & Charges

ETA: Good to see you here @Love Never Fails

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Peter is an excellent attorney, and I essentially followed this case via his trial day recaps.

In this matter of the acquitted charges, I believe the very experienced parties did not push the issue intentionally when mistrial declared because neither side wanted to know the answer.

However, relative to the Jurors who were left wondering why they were sent home when they felt like they were not finished and/or didn't understand why nobody seemed to wanted to know the results of their deliberations, I do hold Judge C responsible pursuant to CT Crim Rule of Proc., Rule 27-- which is specific that this is the Judge's
responsibility and requires the consent of the Judge.

IMO, no Juror should spent 7+ weeks at Trial and sent home feeling like they were suppose to know the Trial Rules sans guidance from the Court! Especially given the consequences for the defendant where legally, I think she could very well be retried for charges she was acquitted on except for the the NG verdict never being reported and recorded on the Court record. I feel their pain and fury. JMO

In other words, it's as if it never happened.

Yes Seattle1. Wonderful post!

And it all circles back to this judge IMO. After watching much of this trial, courtroom treatment of counsel and the defendant, and the absence of clarity from the court on sustained or overruled objections to name only a few - I just sit here shaking my head.

Add in the IMO hurried odd behavior and pronouncements at the end by the judge to quickly excuse the jurors and clear the court. And there was the statement that the judge intended to speak with them briefly post trial. Just SMH at the time and effort expended to arrive at this point. Sure hope that the proper individuals and officials in MA are examining the rulings and court proceedings in this case. And if and where corrections or remedies are needed they are entered and enacted. MOO

 

[thebedbug]

IMO, that is disputable and shouldn’t be stated as fact.

It is a fact that the filing says this. I don't know why you are disputing this.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes Seattle1. Wonderful post!

And it all circles back to this judge IMO. After watching much of this trial, courtroom treatment of counsel and the defendant, and the absence of clarity from the court on sustained or overruled objections to name only a few - I just sit here shaking my head.

Add in the IMO hurried odd behavior and pronouncements at the end by the judge to quickly excuse the jurors and clear the court. And there was the statement that the judge intended to speak with them briefly post trial. Just SMH at the time and effort expended to arrive at this point. Sure hope that the proper individuals and officials in MA are examining the rulings and court proceedings in this case. And if and where corrections or remedies are needed they are entered and enacted. MOO

Thanks for confirming I was not imaging the Judges "bench side manner."

I was appalled at her reaction to the questioning of juror instructions, verdict form, and this 'my way or the highway' attitude. Especially as BC first began practicing law in 1985, and on the bench since 2009! As Dad would say, she's had enough practice!

Beverly J. Cannone.

 

[keek]

Thanks for confirming I was not imaging the Judges "bench side manner."

I was appalled at her reaction to the questioning of juror instructions, verdict form, and this 'my way or the highway' attitude. Especially as BC first began practicing law in 1985, and on the bench since 2009! As Dad would say, she's had enough practice!

Beverly J. Cannone.

Slobby and careless on every level, escalating as the trial went on, depending on who she was interacting with. Jurors got the baby voice, sooo embarrassing. No one would of expected this in such a serious trial. She was asked to recuse herself twice.. no.

 

[fluffypaste]

Slobby and careless on every level, escalating as the trial went on, depending on who she was interacting with. Jurors got the baby voice, sooo embarrassing. No one would of expected this in such a serious trial. She was asked to recuse herself twice.. no.

In literally every other case I've followed where the defense has asked a judge to recuse......the judge just does it and recuses without arguing. It only becomes an issue if the defense keeps asking for new judges.

 

[IDK]

Interesting thing about bruises that I haven’t seen mentioned, though I might have missed it.

We all know that the application of cold compresses and icing an injury decreases the amount of bruising and swelling. If someone is left out in the snow after being hit, it seems likely the cold would prevent or decrease bruising. Will need to do more research on this.All IMO.

 

[TIGER0822]

SARAH BOONE got her judge to recuse. SARAH BOONE, the most obviously guilty person of all time.

SARAH BOONE, who murdered her boyfriend by stuffing him in a suitcase and then cruelly taunting him while he was begging for his life as he suffocated, and FILMED HERSELF DOING THIS. She got her judge to recuse.

Recusal is based on a conflict of interest only.

 

[keek]

Recusal is based on a conflict of interest only.

She has it too. Showed itself all along, didn't like being asked to recuse twice before this trial due to it. Arrogance along with ridiculous sense of her own entitlement. She needed to leave that with her own circle as now ALL are aware. Oh she is NOT happy being called out on this. Shows she is just like the Alberts and McCabes, Proctors and so on

 

[TIGER0822]

She has it too. Showed itself all along, didn't like being asked to recuse twice before this trial due to it. Arrogance along with ridiculous sense of her own entitlement. She needed to leave that with her own circle as now ALL are aware. Oh she is NOT happy being called out on this. Shows she is just like the Alberts and McCabes, Proctors and so on

Genuine Q. where is the COI?

 

[Love Never Fails]

vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk. vote was apparently 8-4 to convict.

There’s so much about this case i do not understand. Having not been able to watch the trial some things make no sense. If 8 jurors wanted to convict her of vehicular manslaughter then why not convict her of leaving the scene?

 

[keek]

Genuine Q. where is the COI?

Her brother represented Chris Albert in the 90's on a charge of killing a student while driving drunk, took off, hid out, then later turned himself in. I believe he only got 6 months, 6 months. There is also the question of her involvement with the McCabe/cottage rental, one of them let the cat out of the bag of their association and hence: Auntie Bev. This is what is alerted the defense team in their ask.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Defendant was not charged with Murder 1 and Murder 2 was clearly an overcharge by the CW.

To be clear, unless the jurors reveal what they were split on, we trulyt have no idea. However given the jurors were unanimous that the defendant was not guilty of Count 3 (leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death), it doesn't follow they'd be split on vehicular manslaughter but probably the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter. JMO and only the Jurors know for certain.

FYI -- Guilty on Count 3 required 6 elements proven by the CW which the jurors were unanimous they did not prove:

"First, that the defendant operated a motor vehicle. Second, that she operated on a public way or in a place in which the public has a right of access. Third, that the defendant knowingly collided with John O'Keefe. Fourth, that the collision caused injury to John O'Keefe resulting in his death. And fifth, that after causing such injury, the defendant failed to stop and provide a name, home address and registration number of the motor vehicle. And sixth, that the defendant failed to do so for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or apprehension," Cannone explained.

Jury Deliberation Rules & Charges

ETA: Good to see you here @Love Never Fails

Thanks @Seattle. I don’t think we will ever know for sure if KR was guilty but we do know all parties were drunk or drinking. Were any police officers charged with drinking while on duty? I bet not. And I have always supported LE, but this is one crazy case.

On count 3, which elements were not proven?

 

[iusedtofloat]

Recusal is based on a conflict of interest only.

Judge's brother was CA's attorney when he committed vehicular homicide. His name is John Prescott; he is named after he & Beverly's father.

United States v. Albert, 195 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Mass. 2002)

United States v. Albert, 195 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Mass. 2002) case opinion from the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts

law.justia.com

That is classic conflict of interest.

Furthermore, KA is BA's brother - conflict of interest. MP was friends with the Albert and McCabe families and even trusted them to babysit his children. Heck, the Alberts were at MP's wedding. Don't even get me started on the DA. Conflicts of interest occur at every single level in this case.

Also,

Jackson argued Tuesday that Cannone's presence gives "disinterested members of the public a reason to doubt this court's fairness and doubt this court's impartiality."

The defense attorney presented a message between Sean McCabe and a reporter as evidence. Sean McCabe is Jennifer McCabe's brother-in-law.

The reporter in the message exchage presented by Jackson asked "Do you really have a line to judge cannone?" Sean McCabe purportedly replied "Auntie Bev??? Whose seaside cottage do you think we're gonna bury your corpse under?"

 

[iusedtofloat]

Speaking of CA, the man went from murder to casually threatening members of the public. I feel that innocent people don't do things like this.

Throughout the video, Christopher Albert is heard telling [the reporter], “Two seconds, I would beat your face up and down this sidewalk."

A woman who identified herself as a resident of Canton is heard in the background of the video asking Albert, “Why do you think the whole town is the way they are? You’re supposed to represent this town … You’re supposed to be a representative of this town.”

 

[Universecalling]

It is a fact that the filing says this. I don't know why you are disputing this.

I have seen multiple post from you, today alone italicized and bolded, stating that the 4-8 split was 8 guilty.

Also, your statement regarding this post stated “vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk. vote was apparently 8-4 to convict.” That is also disputable.

Offense 2: Manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence (Recklessly knowing something like this could result in death)
Check one or both:

• manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence (same)
• manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle with a BAL of .08 or greater
• Minimum penalty of 5 years in prison, but punishable by up to 20 years in state prison

Lesser included 1: Involuntary manslaughter (Acted recklessly and showed indifference and disregard, regardless of, if she knew it or not)

• Maximum of 20 years in prison or a minimum of 2.5 years in jail or house of corrections

Lesser included 2: Negligent motor vehicle homicide while operating under the influence (Read acted negligent and knew she might have endangered O’Keefe)
Check one or both:

• Motor Vehicle Homicide by OUI (no negligence)
• And/Or: Motor Vehicle Homicide over the legal limit of .08
• A minimum penalty of 30 days and up to 2 ½ years

So, unless you’re part of the defense team or a juror in this case, you cannot confidently state “vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk. vote was apparently 8-4 to convict.”.

This above quote was also a reply to a poster who did not watch a trial and hoped for insight into charges on murder 1 and 2, as well as asking what the jury was hung on.

So to answer your question… why I’m disputing your answer to that poster is because it was important they knew the answer you provided is not factual.

 

[iusedtofloat]

I generally really try hard to see both sides in circumstances where a defendant has such a different story than the prosecution. However, I am struggling to see the prosecution's side even an inch. I cannot believe a state trooper who took "a math class" and can't even know the basic mathematic concepts of physics over not one but two ARCCA doctors who are entirely impartial to the case, hired by neither the defense nor the commonwealth. And yet the commonwealth not only didn't call them to testify, they tried to get their testimony blocked entirely, which doesn't make sense unless they know they're arguing a losing case if actual experts testify instead of state troopers.

I personally wouldn't have trusted that trooper with reciting the alphabet, let alone reconstructing a car accident (where the body was "about" here, and the car must've been "about" there, so... GUESSING) where the "crime scene spoke" to him. The commonwealth's cellphone expert? Yet another state trooper. Especially in such a high profile case, you would think they'd spring for experts...

John did a pirouette (Jackson made me laugh with that one) into the yard and died, after being hit by a Lexus weighing thousands of pounds, and somehow had no bruising below his face and no broken bones. I cannot make that make sense, no matter how hard I try.

However, the defense's position makes perfect sense what with the commonwealth's witnesses seeming to have selective amnesia the second the defense started questioning them, and the prosecution acted like JM was the one on trial and they (the CW) were her defense team. Having the 3 key people in these families sit behind JOK's family and stare directly at the jury did not sit right with me at all - I cannot even think of a trial that is comparable.

These are my thoughts and opinions.

 

[ch_13]

There’s so much about this case i do not understand. Having not been able to watch the trial some things make no sense. If 8 jurors wanted to convict her of vehicular manslaughter then why not convict her of leaving the scene?

We really don't know what the jurors thought or exactly how they voted, despite some people stating their opinions as if they are facts. At best we have some snippets from conversations discussing the deliberations which are coming to us second- or third-hand.

But, hypothetically speaking....
Count 3, "Leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death" requires intent. You have to know that you hit someone and make a decision to leave them in order to be found guilty.
Count 2, "Involuntary manslaughter while DUI" does not require intent. You could unknowingly hit someone and still be guilty.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Thanks for confirming I was not imaging the Judges "bench side manner."

I was appalled at her reaction to the questioning of juror instructions, verdict form, and this 'my way or the highway' attitude. Especially as BC first began practicing law in 1985, and on the bench since 2009! As Dad would say, she's had enough practice!

Beverly J. Cannone.

Hello Seattle1. Absolutely….. and I wasn’t meaning to imply you had done anything of the like. It was my moving the goal post and noting some of my observations on this trial in that courtroom. And yes to those additional points you included there! MOO