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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BUF said:
LOL…..One thing you won’t find in the space? Ceiling fans, as anyone who has caught the trial on TV have become accustomed to seeing.

(on the listing description)
Click to expand...
my expert opinion says she's reaching a bit with that price. maybe some trial junkie will fork over a bit more.
 
Seattle1 said:
Great post @OldCop! I've long believed the Edge and the Jeep were being manipulated on the street to obstruct any visual of JOK from any neighborhood ring cameras which miraculously NEVER surfaced. Not even from the LE who lived on the block -- including the homeowner, BA.

I'll never understand how this could be. A groups so skilled with butt dialing had no ring cameras? Really? SMH. MOO
Click to expand...
Yes Seattle1!^^^ and that IMO would have also allowed for tampering with evidence (and maybe obstruction of justice) charges to other potential individuals. Beyond proctor it would seem. And including those that produced the sally port video and those that had anything to do with the taillight evidence at a minimum? See e.g. the details of OldCop post 512 and the homeowner across the street! And still SMH at much of this trial and the judge disposition of it that last day upon deliberations concluding. IANAL. MOO
 
TIGER0822 said:
juror burnout? moo.
Click to expand...
They may have had no idea until being on the jury the extent of the case, the atmosphere in the court room, a feeling or vibe from certain witnesses, the realization of what happened to two innocent people. Both JO and KR at the hands of others in the community. They want nothing more to do with it.
 
rescuemom said:
They may have had no idea until being on the jury the extent of the case, the atmosphere in the court room, a feeling or vibe from certain witnesses, the realization of what happened to two innocent people. Both JO and KR at the hands of others in the community. They want nothing more to do with it.
Click to expand...
I can understand why they would want to be done with it, however, if they are as morally principled as they indicated in their note to judge Cannone, how could they let Miss Read be retried for a murder she did not commit; especially when they had deemed her not guilty of these charges?
 
OldCop said:
I can understand why they would want to be done with it, however, if they are as morally principled as they indicated in their note to judge Cannone, how could they let Miss Read be retried for a murder she did not commit; especially when they had deemed her not guilty of these charges?
Click to expand...
We have seen 4-jurors make claim that (2) of the charges were voted unanimous for acquittal, 2-of the jurors made that known directly to defense counsel. Jurors are not lawyers in most cases, and the CW does not want those charges to simply be purged from any forthcoming indictments. I believe the whole topic lands firmly on the Judge, that the rapid dismissal of the jurors in spite of there being (3) charges under deliberation, was intentional and brings us to exactly this point.
I don't know what would be applied as constraint to ensure the integrity of jurors responses to inquiries at this point in time, considering that now the jurors know who commissioned and paid for the ARCCA experts, they know they were presented with deceiving and improper evidence by the CW (the salley port video comes immediately to mind) and they know Proctor and Albert are suspended, in Proctor's case for his behavior demonstrating extreme prejudice as he undertook the subject investigation. At this point, all the jurors have to feel they were shortchanged by the judge and the proceedings overall, they were left in the dark and not given a realistic opportunity to get it right. MOO
If the jury were polled in the normal sense, it could be anticipated that the Acquittal votes would be reported as indicated by the defense, but the OUI charges....entirely possible that the outcome would differ from that reported by the (4) who have come forward to date. MOO again.
So as speculative scenario: lets say the poll results for the OUI come back 5-7 instead of 8-4. Then what? Would the DA see the scales tilting or just be relieved that he would have a new jury in the upcoming proceedings? And the Judge? Would any of the rulings about permitted evidence or extent/content of expert testimony change?
 
Odeto BJ said:
We have seen 4-jurors make claim that (2) of the charges were voted unanimous for acquittal, 2-of the jurors made that known directly to defense counsel. Jurors are not lawyers in most cases, and the CW does not want those charges to simply be purged from any forthcoming indictments. I believe the whole topic lands firmly on the Judge, that the rapid dismissal of the jurors in spite of there being (3) charges under deliberation, was intentional and brings us to exactly this point.
I don't know what would be applied as constraint to ensure the integrity of jurors responses to inquiries at this point in time, considering that now the jurors know who commissioned and paid for the ARCCA experts, they know they were presented with deceiving and improper evidence by the CW (the salley port video comes immediately to mind) and they know Proctor and Albert are suspended, in Proctor's case for his behavior demonstrating extreme prejudice as he undertook the subject investigation. At this point, all the jurors have to feel they were shortchanged by the judge and the proceedings overall, they were left in the dark and not given a realistic opportunity to get it right. MOO
If the jury were polled in the normal sense, it could be anticipated that the Acquittal votes would be reported as indicated by the defense, but the OUI charges....entirely possible that the outcome would differ from that reported by the (4) who have come forward to date. MOO again.
So as speculative scenario: lets say the poll results for the OUI come back 5-7 instead of 8-4. Then what? Would the DA see the scales tilting or just be relieved that he would have a new jury in the upcoming proceedings? And the Judge? Would any of the rulings about permitted evidence or extent/content of expert testimony change?
Click to expand...
I agree. I wasn’t suggesting the other charges not be retried, (although I think it would be a gigantic waste of taxpayers’ money). I meant if those other jurors would commit to a polling and admit to a judge what their vote was at that time, and it was found that there was a unanimous vote of not guilty, those charges should be dropped from future proceedings.
 
OldCop said:
Thanks, @Seattle1. Also, lest we forget, the Canton cop who lived across the street did not turn over his Ring video, but reviewed it himself and said he didn’t see anything unusual; so he taped over it.
Click to expand...
What is everyone’s obsession with butt dialing and deleting stuff in this case?

So far they deleted multiple phone calls, dogs, Ring footage, internet searches, integrity, recognition those in their own wedding party, recalling their kid’s babysitters, whole cell phones, actual memories, physics.

On that note shouldn’t that Canton cop at least have let the State Troopers decide for themselves if the footage was relevant or not instead of just his own judgement? I mean you never know how technology can advance to make seemingly useless recordings more helpful to an investigation. For example, maybe later at some point in the future Ring cameras will be even better at picking the minute sounds, car identifications or license plates, voices or people moving around.
 
Day 16 of trial.
So, the CW brought the Sullivan sisters in to testify and I'm wondering why?!
The judge even stipulated to the jury that their testimony was not to consider in the charges, only to determine her state of mind. Isn't that kind of the same thing?
The younger sister is the one Karen accused John of making out with in Aruba.
She testified that John walked into the hotel lobby - drunk - although she described it as glossy eyed and stumbling and looking above her, not making eye contact with her.
She hugged him, but he seemed so sloshed (my words), maybe she was holding him up.
And then she said both her and KR told each other to go f yourself.
It seems to me that all of these people were always drinking and mostly drunk, even John.
His friend Kerri also stated he always had a lot of girlfriends.
Made him sound like he couldn't settle for just one.
It's sad to know that if that was not their lifestyle, he'd likely be alive today because they wouldn't have found themselves so drunk much of the time that they didn't know what they were doing it seems.
MOO.

 
Forest_Wood said:
Day 16 of trial.
So, the CW brought the Sullivan sisters in to testify and I'm wondering why?!
The judge even stipulated to the jury that their testimony was not to consider in the charges, only to determine her state of mind. Isn't that kind of the same thing?
The younger sister is the one Karen accused John of making out with in Aruba.
She testified that John walked into the hotel lobby - drunk - although she described it as glossy eyed and stumbling and looking above her, not making eye contact with her.
She hugged him, but he seemed so sloshed (my words), maybe she was holding him up.
And then she said both her and KR told each other to go f yourself.
It seems to me that all of these people were always drinking and mostly drunk, even John.
His friend Kerri also stated he always had a lot of girlfriends.
Made him sound like he couldn't settle for just one.
It's sad to know that if that was not their lifestyle, he'd likely be alive today because they wouldn't have found themselves so drunk much of the time that they didn't know what they were doing it seems.
MOO.

Click to expand...

This one gets me. The Aruba trip is in no way related to the events. The judge should have not allowed it period. This was judicial misconduct. The fact that she subsequently told the jurors to ignore it, was trying to save herself. Yet the deed was done. Did the Defense object?
 
Forest_Wood said:
Day 16 of trial.
So, the CW brought the Sullivan sisters in to testify and I'm wondering why?!
The judge even stipulated to the jury that their testimony was not to consider in the charges, only to determine her state of mind. Isn't that kind of the same thing?
The younger sister is the one Karen accused John of making out with in Aruba.
She testified that John walked into the hotel lobby - drunk - although she described it as glossy eyed and stumbling and looking above her, not making eye contact with her.
She hugged him, but he seemed so sloshed (my words), maybe she was holding him up.
And then she said both her and KR told each other to go f yourself.
It seems to me that all of these people were always drinking and mostly drunk, even John.
His friend Kerri also stated he always had a lot of girlfriends.
Made him sound like he couldn't settle for just one.
It's sad to know that if that was not their lifestyle, he'd likely be alive today because they wouldn't have found themselves so drunk much of the time that they didn't know what they were doing it seems.
MOO.

Click to expand...
'It's sad to know that if that was not their lifestyle, he'd likely be alive today because they wouldn't have found themselves so drunk much of the time that they didn't know what they were doing it seems.'

I have to disagree strongly with this for several reasons, the first being that there are zero indications that 'this was their lifestyle' because they both held down jobs that simply could not and would not support this claim.

The second is that we have no idea why JOK got killed, I believe he was murdered because of the evidence presented by his body. I don't accept he was murdered because he overdid the booze on two or more occasions.

There is no evidence to suggest the 'blackout drunk' was either a permanent or even frequent status of both or either.

Finally it feels to be victim blaming, they caused it themselves because they swallowed alcohol.. that's a huge stretch.
jMO
 
TIGER0822 said:
This one gets me. The Aruba trip is in no way related to the events. The judge should have not allowed it period. This was judicial misconduct. The fact that she subsequently told the jurors to ignore it, was trying to save herself. Yet the deed was done. Did the Defense object?
Click to expand...

kittythehare said:
'It's sad to know that if that was not their lifestyle, he'd likely be alive today because they wouldn't have found themselves so drunk much of the time that they didn't know what they were doing it seems.'

I have to disagree strongly with this for several reasons, the first being that there are zero indications that 'this was their lifestyle' because they both held down jobs that simply could not and would not support this claim.

The second is that we have no idea why JOK got killed, I believe he was murdered because of the evidence presented by his body. I don't accept he was murdered because he overdid the booze on two or more occasions.

There is no evidence to suggest the 'blackout drunk' was either a permanent or even frequent status of both or either.

Finally it feels to be victim blaming, they caused it themselves because they swallowed alcohol.. that's a huge stretch.
jMO
Click to expand...
Disagree! Lots of evidence proves otherwise.
ETA: Please read my post again to grasp what was said. I wasn’t just referring to JOK but all of them.
 
Last edited:
TIGER0822 said:
This one gets me. The Aruba trip is in no way related to the events. The judge should have not allowed it period. This was judicial misconduct. The fact that she subsequently told the jurors to ignore it, was trying to save herself. Yet the deed was done. Did the Defense object?
Click to expand...
I imagine they objected to it being permitted before it went to trial? When the sisters were cross examined, the lawyer was sure to remind the jury that neither of those two sisters were at the bar or the Albert’s party that night. In other words, your testimony means nothing related to this case.
MOO
 
Forest_Wood said:
Disagree! Lots of evidence proves otherwise.
ETA: Please read my post again to grasp what was said. I wasn’t just referring to JOK but all of them.
Click to expand...
Well, if I think about it, all that drinking that night certainly clouded the judgement of all the many players involved that night. So, I think alcohol was certainly part of the “recipe” for disaster that ensued. But just one of the ingredients.
There are many trains of thought in these threads regarding what may have occurred that night.
Some believe it was planned to get JOK back to the house bc he was “on to” whatever illegal activity Colin may have been up to.
Others think Higgins wanted to confront JOK about Karen etc - no need to list them all.
I think most agree though no one actually set out to murder JOK. So what led to things going too far - it very well could have been the impaired judgement of a few, due to all the alcohol and perhaps other substances consumed that night.
A sucker punch to John’s face, only meaning to send a message, delivered with too much force due to alcohol fueled “hormones”. He then falls over backwards and gets the fatal wound.
Why no call to 911? Alcohol addled brains ? Making very bad decisions - ? I think so.

All these people seemingly led a drinking lifestyle. Yes they held responsible jobs - I’ve seen it many times. Some may have been just heavy drinkers others functional alcoholics. And the job slip up eventually comes but not always. Different people different metabolisms and different results.
It once again all boils down to choices.
Drinking did not kill John O’Keefe but imo it was certainly a contributing factor.
JMO
 
waldojabba said:
Well, if I think about it, all that drinking that night certainly clouded the judgement of all the many players involved that night. So, I think alcohol was certainly part of the “recipe” for disaster that ensued. But just one of the ingredients.
There are many trains of thought in these threads regarding what may have occurred that night.
Some believe it was planned to get JOK back to the house bc he was “on to” whatever illegal activity Colin may have been up to.
Others think Higgins wanted to confront JOK about Karen etc - no need to list them all.
I think most agree though no one actually set out to murder JOK. So what led to things going too far - it very well could have been the impaired judgement of a few, due to all the alcohol and perhaps other substances consumed that night.
A sucker punch to John’s face, only meaning to send a message, delivered with too much force due to alcohol fueled “hormones”. He then falls over backwards and gets the fatal wound.
Why no call to 911? Alcohol addled brains ? Making very bad decisions - ? I think so.

All these people seemingly led a drinking lifestyle. Yes they held responsible jobs - I’ve seen it many times. Some may have been just heavy drinkers others functional alcoholics. And the job slip up eventually comes but not always. Different people different metabolisms and different results.
It once again all boils down to choices.
Drinking did not kill John O’Keefe but imo it was certainly a contributing factor.
JMO
Click to expand...
You get it! I agree.
Just because people hold "professional" jobs does not discount the many problems they face due to their problematic drinking.
If all those people, or at least some of those people, had not been drinking a lot of alcohol that night, even bringing glasses with them as they entered and exited bars, then I doubt that KR would have been charged with murder, DUI, leaving the scene, etc.
If JOK had not been drinking, would he have gotten into a car with someone who was drinking? So careless to drink and drive, but also to condone it by getting into a vehicle with someone who's been drinking is equally careless.
Maybe he was staggering again like the Sullivan girl testified to and slipped and fell when he got out of the car and banged his fist on the rear light trying to get up.
Or maybe he was mad at Karen again and calling her crazy like he did in Aruba and purposely hit her light when he exited the vehicle.
There's so many scenarios that could have happened that night, and had they not been so impaired, their thinking capacity would have been clearer I would hope. This goes for each and every one of them.
MOO.
 
Forest_Wood said:
You get it! I agree.
Just because people hold "professional" jobs does not discount the many problems they face due to their problematic drinking.
If all those people, or at least some of those people, had not been drinking a lot of alcohol that night, even bringing glasses with them as they entered and exited bars, then I doubt that KR would have been charged with murder, DUI, leaving the scene, etc.
If JOK had not been drinking, would he have gotten into a car with someone who was drinking? So careless to drink and drive, but also to condone it by getting into a vehicle with someone who's been drinking is equally careless.
Maybe he was staggering again like the Sullivan girl testified to and slipped and fell when he got out of the car and banged his fist on the rear light trying to get up.
Or maybe he was mad at Karen again and calling her crazy like he did in Aruba and purposely hit her light when he exited the vehicle.
There's so many scenarios that could have happened that night, and had they not been so impaired, their thinking capacity would have been clearer I would hope. This goes for each and every one of them.
MOO.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Alcohol was a major factor anyway you look at it. Poor decision making that night by many and the said decision making continued after that night as well. Imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 532 (members: 73, guests: 459)

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
459
Total visitors
532
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,240
Messages
18,236,716
Members
234,325
Latest member
davenotwayne
Back
Top