MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #12

[k-mac]

If a jury convicts her, I think it would be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I can recall in a long time. And I say this as someone who thinks she did it.

I'm not convinced its a slam dunk for the defence.
More people than most care to believe, think the evidence is there.
Might not be here on websleuths but out in the world alot more see clear evidence through the white noise. IMO

Lets take for example.
The collection of evidence in the red cups.
Was it worlds best practise? no.
In the heat of the moment, an ill equipped first response collected evidence in what they considered at the time the best safest collection carriers at hand.

I am not going to even engage in the ridiculous volume of planting of evidence by Procter.
One example and thats all I am going to address.
He personally removed the dog dna off the shirt because there is NO DOG DNA.
Like he has invisible vision or something? sheesh! its been alot.. of that.


If she gets off on this kind of technicality the world needs a hard look at common sense.
We have taken a step to proving guilt to unreachable conditions.

There is always human error.

The totality is there. Whether the jury see it in totality or in singular point form.
That will be where they find their resolution.

moo

 

[MassGuy]

I'm not convinced its a slam dunk for the defence.
More people than most care to believe, think the evidence is there.
Might not be here on websleuths but out in the world alot more see clear evidence through the white noise. IMO

Lets take for example.
The collection of evidence in the red cups.
Was it worlds best practise? no.
In the heat of the moment, an ill equipped first response collected evidence in what they considered at the time the best safest collection carriers at hand.


If she gets off on this kind of technicality the world needs a hard look at common sense.
We have taken a step to proving guilt to unreachable conditions.

There is always human error.

The totality is there. Whether the jury see it in totality or in singular point form.
That will be where they find their resolution.

moo

Even if you can prove she hit him, you can’t prove the intent required for second degree murder. I don’t believe the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt for the former, even though that’s what I think happened.

I live here, and anecdotally, its overwhelmingly not guilty. And by that I mean, I haven’t encountered anyone who says they’d convict her (probably skewed a bit because turtleboy lives in my town). I really think it’s as high as 85% of the general public though.

I’m sure it’s a lot lower for other parts of the country, but definitely not here.

 

[nightowl1975]

I'm not convinced its a slam dunk for the defence.
More people than most care to believe, think the evidence is there.
Might not be here on websleuths but out in the world alot more see clear evidence through the white noise. IMO

Lets take for example.
The collection of evidence in the red cups.
Was it worlds best practise? no.
In the heat of the moment, an ill equipped first response collected evidence in what they considered at the time the best safest collection carriers at hand.

I am not going to even engage in the ridiculous volume of planting of evidence by Procter.
One example and thats all I am going to address.
He personally removed the dog dna off the shirt because there is NO DOG DNA.
Like he has invisible vision or something? sheesh! its been alot.. of that.


If she gets off on this kind of technicality the world needs a hard look at common sense.
We have taken a step to proving guilt to unreachable conditions.

There is always human error.

The totality is there. Whether the jury see it in totality or in singular point form.
That will be where they find their resolution.

moo

One of the biggest problems I have with this is the fact that the prosecution did not put on a reasonable, reliable, credible expert to support their charges. The defense put on multiple, independent, third party, hired by the FBI and DOJ experts that supported their side. In cases where we have expert testimony on both sides that refute each other, I definitely see how it becomes difficult to figure out which experts to believe.

The concept of “you can pay someone to conclude whatever you want” is certainly well known. I can’t help but think the prosecution couldn’t even do that though… they were stuck using ridiculous “experts” that were a complete joke on the stand. Why? Logically, I think it’s because they couldn’t find any reputable experts to support their case.

What reason would the FBI/DOJ have to want to find in favor of the defense? It seems to me that they would quite obviously prefer to find that their fellow officers of the law are upstanding and honest professionals. However, the independent experts found what they found. Do you think they were all wrong and the prosecution “experts” were correct?

 

[k-mac]

Even if you can prove she hit him, you can’t prove the intent required for second degree murder. I don’t believe the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt for the former, even though that’s what I think happened.

I live here, and anecdotally, its overwhelmingly not guilty. And by that I mean, I haven’t encountered anyone who says they’d convict her (probably skewed a bit because turtleboy lives in my town). I really think it’s as high as 85% of the general public though.

I’m sure it’s a lot lower for other parts of the country, but definitely not here.

You have inside perspective and we appreciate the local knowledge.

 

[MassGuy]

One of the biggest problems I have with this is the fact that the prosecution did not put on a reasonable, reliable, credible expert to support their charges. The defense put on multiple, independent, third party, hired by the FBI and DOJ experts that supported their side. In cases where we have expert testimony on both sides that refute each other, I definitely see how it becomes difficult to figure out which experts to believe.

The concept of “you can pay someone to conclude whatever you want” is certainly well known. I can’t help but think the prosecution couldn’t even do that though… they were stuck using ridiculous “experts” that were a complete joke on the stand. Why? Logically, I think it’s because they couldn’t find any reputable experts to support their case.

What reason would the FBI/DOJ have to want to find in favor of the defense? It seems to me that they would quite obviously prefer to find that their fellow officers of the law are upstanding and honest professionals. However, the independent experts found what they found. Do you think they were all wrong and the prosecution “experts” were correct?

I said this from the beginning, but if you didn’t know any better, you’d think the prosecution witnesses were defense witnesses.

When it came time for the defense, they had their ace in the hole with the independent experts. That’s absolutely devastating given the context.

 

[nightowl1975]

If she gets off on this kind of technicality the world needs a hard look at common sense.
We have taken a step to proving guilt to unreachable conditions.

It is WILD to me that anyone following the trial closely would consider her being found NG would be her “getting off on a technicality”. I absolutely agree that we shouldn’t expect PERFECTION with evidence collection and such. But come on. A basic evidence log? Chain of custody? Something. Anything. We have none of that.

If I were on a jury and the prosecutor presented this type of evidence with no evidence log, no chain of custody, known issues with how it was collected, how it was stored, etc etc etc… I would discredit all of that in my mind. Who knows why dog DNA wasn’t found on his clothing. Was the clothing washed? We don’t know. We don’t even have an attempt at basic evidence collection, processing, and storage. Were the swabs taken from the areas of clothing with holes? Taken from completely different areas? We don’t know. I’m astounded this “evidence” was even allowed in to be honest.

 

[k-mac]

It is WILD to me that anyone following the trial closely would consider her being found NG would be her “getting off on a technicality”. I absolutely agree that we shouldn’t expect PERFECTION with evidence collection and such. But come on. A basic evidence log? Chain of custody? Something. Anything. We have none of that.

If I were on a jury and the prosecutor presented this type of evidence with no evidence log, no chain of custody, known issues with how it was collected, how it was stored, etc etc etc… I would discredit all of that in my mind. Who knows why dog DNA wasn’t found on his clothing. Was the clothing washed? We don’t know. We don’t even have an attempt at basic evidence collection, processing, and storage. Were the swabs taken from the areas of clothing with holes? Taken from completely different areas? We don’t know. I’m astounded this “evidence” was even allowed in to be honest.

But the problem with all of that is the alternative/ defence is the idea that this all happened to frame karen read.

They have proven what an unsophisticated/ simplistic police force they are by having Procter at the wheel to represent them in court.

A defence of Basic incompetency might have swayed me.
They have proven they can't get basic procedure right.
How in the hell could they fumble their way through setting up someone to this extent with so many people involved.

I can not come at that notion.

No way could they get so much to align...and... who is 'they' anyway??
Hiding behind big man on campus Procter .
That man isn't smart enough to keep lewd jokes off his work phone.

Way too much credit given to this idea.
Im shocked it is the defence and people buy it.

moo

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

But the problem with all of that is the alternative/ defence is the idea that this all happened to frame karen read.

They have proven what an unsophisticated/ simplistic police force they are by having Procter at the wheel to represent them in court.

A defence of Basic incompetency might have swayed me.
They have proven they can't get basic procedure right.
How in the hell could they fumble their way through setting up someone to this extent with so many people involved.

I can not come at that notion.

No way could they get so much to align...and... who is 'they' anyway??
Hiding behind big man on campus Procter .
That man isn't smart enough to keep lewd jokes off his work phone.

Way too much credit given to this idea.
Im shocked it is the defence and people buy it.

moo

The good news is, at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. If you choose to take multiple independent FBI-approved experts at their word (which, spoiler, I do), the conversation begins and ends at she didn’t hit him with her car. All the rest of it is just a distraction or icing on the cake, depending on your perspective.

Did you watch the CW’s ME testimony? Even she was pretty darn reluctant to say JO’s injuries were the result of being hit by a car. She repeatedly said things like “I guess it’s possible,” “it’s certainly not the classic presentation…” I think it’s important to watch her testimony because her body language is clearly very dismissive when discussing these theories.

 

[mrjitty]

I said this from the beginning, but if you didn’t know any better, you’d think the prosecution witnesses were defense witnesses.

When it came time for the defense, they had their ace in the hole with the independent experts. That’s absolutely devastating given the context.

I agree.

I only started following for the prosecution crime scene / accident witness - because it was such a cluster it got my attention. Like you, this is the first case I have followed on here where I think it should be a NG verdict. I don't know if she did it or not, but I think the case should have been dismissed at half time.

The prosecution have to prove, as a question of fact, that she hit him - and that reconstruction did not do that IMO.

 

[K.T]

I’m incredibly invested and can’t wait for the closing arguments! This is the most prosecutory and police bad behaviour that I’ve seen in a while and I was writing up a list of points that point to problems in the prosecution’s case but I got to 25+ and its just too many to post.

Just as an aside, I’ve now watched so many trial YouTube watchers and the former police channels were interesting (in small doses) but especially when they talked about procedure and old cop personalities of the case.

 

[jepop]

I think the best evidence - objective Experts, the best of the best, who didn't speak for either side, and simply presented their observations as Experts - made it literally impossible that KR did anything wrong. They even said that. Not possible. They concluded, on a scientific basis, it was "not possible" that she hit him, and "not possible" that the taillight was damaged by collision with JOK, not in light of those injuries and that setting.

The only person who said otherwise was Paul, whose theories and testimony were so unprofessional and convoluted that it was literally laughable to observers. He was clearly no expert. But his job was to spout the prosecution line - he works for them, so very far from an objective evaluator - so what else was he gonna say? He admittedly made up as good a tale as he could to fit the prosecution claims, with no real backing, because they made it his job. He actually said, while under oath, that the evidence didn’t fit the scenario of a vehicular collision so he made it fit because that’s what his buddies said had happened.

But the science speaks. It wasn't his lack of ability, but rather that the science says KR could not have hit JOK and caused such injuries, leading to JOK being found where he was and his death.

The cherry on top was the testimony from the defense Experts on the arm injuries being dog bites. It was clear and obvious, and was actually either directly supported or not contradicted by any medical testimony by the prosecution. It's informative that Lally said he'd easily bring a rebuttal witness re the defense's dog bite testimony, but then did not -- obviously no one who wants to stick to the truth and who is concerned about their integrity could contradict the fact that JOK's arm was injured by a dog attack. It is what it is.

Once we know JOK's injuries (and the taillight damage) aren't scientifically possible from a vehicle accident as proposed, and that his arm was injured in a dog attack, it's obvious KR didn't do it. She didn't kill him. Couldn't have. How it all REALLY played out? Hope we find out and the perps are brought to justice. It had to be something very different than these people claimed - with no vehicle accident and with dog bites, it couldn't have been her - and it feels like the FBI will weigh in at some point. But it wasn't KR.

I was about to write a similar synopsis but your post says it all. A reasonable jury cannot come to any other conclusion.IMO

Bottom line for me is that arm wounds were not caused by vehicular impact but by a dog. This is what the evidence irrefutably tells me. It's my bottom line. That and the absence of injuries that a vehicular impact would reasonably inflict. In particular, the lack of any significant brusing and contusions to any part of JO's body. Moo

Until yesterday I was struggling with the idea that Proctor definitely planted tail light pieces on scene and was really just ignoring my cognitive dissonance, given that the evidence showed the extreme unlikelihood that JO was hit at any point by a reversing vehicle. However, since yesterday I
reviewed the evidence presented around the tail light, rewatched videos of Lexus five am departure from meadows vs what tail light looked like post being in police custody. There are definitely discrepancies between state of tail light at five am and the state of tail light post police custody IMO.

My cognitive dissonance is now resolved and I now understand that the tail light pieces discovered at 34 Fairview after 29 Jan had to have arrived there via human intervention because JO did not receive his injuries via a vehicular strike that shattered a tail light. And there is room to reasonably conjecture that Proctor planted most, if not all, of the shards discovered in February 2022 on the lawn of 34 Fairview.

All of the conclusions I have drawn above are my opinon only.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I said this from the beginning, but if you didn’t know any better, you’d think the prosecution witnesses were defense witnesses.

When it came time for the defense, they had their ace in the hole with the independent experts. That’s absolutely devastating given the context.

They also had the very honest, down-to-earth voice of Lucky. I think many people felt a real connection to him. moo

 

[fluffypaste]

I believe that Karen will be acquitted of all charges. I was a doubter in the past, now I'm ready to believe. I don't see how any jury could possibly find her guilty of anything after the scientific testimony we heard yesterday.

"You can't deny the science and the physics." It's that simple. John's injuries cannot be explained by him being hit by a car. Where his body ended up cannot be explained by Karen backing into him. And the damage to the car itself is not consistent with the prosecution theory.

Proven innocent. That's what the verdict should be. "Not Guilty" isn't enough, the verdict should be "proven innocent of all charges."

 

[Moonstrawbs]

I do and I did! Middle of the night

Well I'm afraid that means you're a killer, go straight to jail, do not pass go...

 

[Warwick7]

I believe that Karen will be acquitted of all charges. I was a doubter in the past, now I'm ready to believe. I don't see how any jury could possibly find her guilty of anything after the scientific testimony we heard yesterday.

"You can't deny the science and the physics." It's that simple. John's injuries cannot be explained by him being hit by a car. Where his body ended up cannot be explained by Karen backing into him. And the damage to the car itself is not consistent with the prosecution theory.

Proven innocent. That's what the verdict should be. "Not Guilty" isn't enough, the verdict should be "proven innocent of all charges."

BBM
Same here. Originally I heard just enough to convict her in my head. The same way I did with Johny Depp. But, then, I started really listening and reading and going back and watching the beginning of the trial. Once I started seeing the evidence and fake evidence then I knew KR was the scape Goat. Just how I felt about Depp,that he was Heard's scape goat.

 

[fluffypaste]

They also had the very honest, down-to-earth voice of Lucky. I think many people felt a real connection to him. moo

He was a great witness.

 

[K.T]

“Higgins spoke of how he, Brian Albert, Kevin Albert and another officer had been in New York City on Jan. 28 to attend a police officer's funeral and drove back to Massachusetts…”

I might have missed this little point in the posts here, but I think it’s really relevant that Jan 28, Higgins, Kevin Albert, Brian Alberts homeowner (and man that never left his house to look at his friend’s body on the lawn and then retired immediately after) were driving back after attending an early NY policeman’s funeral.

Policeman have been said to heavily drink at funerals. The trial has shown us especially that all three cops are heavy drinkers, probably with substance issues.

They drink all day, then it’s a 6-7 hour drive together. Somehow they come back and drink at bars in the evening, planning to drink even more at a cop house party.
How did they kept awake so long? In my opinion that there is possibly recreational drug use and it’s common in their police group. I mean John O’Keefe had a complaint about drugs in his neighbourhood…

There have also been suggestions of the increasing steroid use in cops (hey, one of the side effects is balding lol joking?!). And town gossip about them using too. But I think Colin and Brian Albert, Higgins were really high, aggressive and drunk and it’s pretty easy to see a stupid fight break out. They been going hard all day in many diff ways and something escalated fast and wildly, like it often does when you get macho wasted dudes with simmering issues.

ATF agent Brian Higgins testifies in Karen Read trial

ATF agent Brian Higgins testified in the Karen Read trial Friday, spending hours on the stand between the prosecution and defense questioning.

www.nbcboston.com

Steroid Abuse by Law Enforcement Personnel | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

 

[iamshadow21]

“Higgins spoke of how he, Brian Albert, Kevin Albert and another officer had been in New York City on Jan. 28 to attend a police officer's funeral and drove back to Massachusetts…”

I might have missed this little point in the posts here, but I think it’s really relevant that Jan 28, Higgins, Kevin Albert, Brian Alberts homeowner (and man that never left his house to look at his friend’s body on the lawn and then retired immediately after) were driving back after attending an early NY policeman’s funeral.

Policeman have been said to heavily drink at funerals. The trial has shown us especially that all three cops are heavy drinkers, probably with substance issues.

They drink all day, then it’s a 6-7 hour drive together. Somehow they come back and drink at bars in the evening, planning to drink even more at a cop house party.
How did they kept awake so long? In my opinion that there is possibly recreational drug use and it’s common in their police group. I mean John O’Keefe had a complaint about drugs in his neighbourhood…

There have also been suggestions of the increasing steroid use in cops (hey, one of the side effects is balding lol joking?!). And town gossip about them using too. But I think Colin and Brian Albert, Higgins were really high, aggressive and drunk and it’s pretty easy to see a stupid fight break out. They been going hard all day in many diff ways and something escalated fast and wildly, like it often does when you get macho wasted dudes with simmering issues.

ATF agent Brian Higgins testifies in Karen Read trial

ATF agent Brian Higgins testified in the Karen Read trial Friday, spending hours on the stand between the prosecution and defense questioning.

www.nbcboston.com

Steroid Abuse by Law Enforcement Personnel | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Staying up that long, there was probably amphetamines in there somewhere, if there was illicit drug use.

MOO

 

[Bibbers]

The common wisdom is that there will be a quick NG verdict, as it should be. IMO, though, those jurors might take a bit longer simply because there might be some time spent with "Can you believe this?" or
"WTH with the sallyport video?" or "What is that stuff about another agency?" These jurors have witnessed a baffling presentation and haven't been able to share their thoughts with one another during the trial. I'm just saying that I'm trying to tell myself that if it takes a bit longer to reach a verdict, I'm going to try not to panic. Of course, the jurors would also want to put a quick end to KR's misery. Not sure. But I'm trying to give myself some self-talk about the verdict time.

 

[iamshadow21]

I'm never sure about anything until the verdict comes back and is read. I'm all too aware that the way I see the case and the way the jury sees the case might be vastly different.

MOO