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

[Moonsie]

bite from insect. Cut from normal activities..

So why is it included in the autopsy report

 

[shotgun09]

This photo has been plaguing me. I don’t know why. It received very little attention in light of the other injuries. But it is intriguing nonetheless. Any opinions as to how JO gets this injury? Clearly not from a car.
View attachment 513525

My guess is that this is a site where EMT's attempted IO access, or Intraosseous access for the rapid delivery of life saving fluids and meds. JOK more than likely had no circulation via typical IV access. This is another attempt for the same.

 

[kittythehare]

So why is it included in the autopsy report

His entire body was included in the autopsy report.
Every mark, bruise internal and external. That is standard.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Do you notice Judge devoted a great deal of extra time today reading the lesser charges again? This was just after Mr. Jackson brought up the issue of the confusing verdict form. She really made a point emphasizing charges 2, 3, 4. She planted an ear worm for me; I couldn't get those manslaughter charges out of my head. If I was a juror, I'd be asking myself , "Why does she keep stressing those lesser charges? Is she planting a seed?"

I thought the same thing.

I really do not like this judge.

 

[Aquarian]

This photo has been plaguing me. I don’t know why. It received very little attention in light of the other injuries. But it is intriguing nonetheless. Any opinions as to how JO gets this injury? Clearly not from a car.
View attachment 513525

IMO it looks like puncture. Maybe not deep, but more than a scrape.

 

[geevee]

My guess is that this is a site where EMT's attempted IO access, or Intraosseous access for the rapid delivery of life saving fluids and meds. JOK more than likely had no circulation via typical IV access. This is another attempt for the same.

That's exactly what I have thought.

 

[Aquarian]

So... that's kind of confusing to me. It sounds like you're saying they matched some of the pieces of glass that they found outside 34 F to a glass or pieces of a glass that was found outside 34 F. So I assume that's not what you meant, since that doesn't make sense. So I also assume it's me - I am obviously misunderstanding you. Or maybe that does make sense and I'm just not getting it? Either way, is there another way you could explain that to help me understand? thx again!!

It was my understanding from here and AJ, the issue was there was One piece that didn’t match the drinking glass.

 

[ch_13]

So... that's kind of confusing to me. It sounds like you're saying they matched some of the pieces of glass that they found outside 34 F to a glass or pieces of a glass that was found outside 34 F. So I assume that's not what you meant, since that doesn't make sense. So I also assume it's me - I am obviously misunderstanding you. Or maybe that does make sense and I'm just not getting it? Either way, is there another way you could explain that to help me understand? thx again!!

Let me try this again.

There are three groups of glass:
A - The pieces of drinking glass which John was carrying and which were found outside 34 Fairview
B - Other glass found outside 34 Fairview that do not come from John's drinking glass
C - The pieces of glass found on Karen's bumper none of which matched John's drinking glass

The state crime lab matched one piece of glass from set B to one piece of glass from set C. Neither of these pieces had anything to do with John's drinking glass. Why would these two random pieces of glass ever match? There is no nexus between them, except that Karen was briefly parked outside the home.

Note that the piece of glass from set B was documented as being picked up by Michael Proctor. Proctor of course is also one of the Troopers who examined Karen's vehicle after it was impounded.

Does that clarify things?

 

[sunspun]

It was my understanding from here and AJ, the issue was there was One piece that didn’t match the drinking glass.

Right, I remember that. So they actually have not said that they matched that odd piece to any particular glass anywhere? Much less to a glass from the house? Maybe I read it wrong, but that was what I thought was posted, and I suspected that was not true. If that really was what was posted (and I don't know now if it was you or someone else!), I'm just saying that would be quite misleading and shouldn't be said. Now if they really have claimed that the one piece of glass they found that didn't match JO's glass DID actually match a glass that came from the house, then I'd say that should be shouted from the rooftops! But I don't see how that could ever be known (though it may very well be true), since AFAIK, a formal search of the house was never made. So best not to pass that misinfo on, imo!

 

[ch_13]

Right, I remember that. So they actually have not said that they matched that odd piece to any particular glass anywhere? Much less to a glass from the house? Maybe I read it wrong, but that was what I thought was posted, and I suspected that was not true. If that really was what was posted (and I don't know now if it was you or someone else!), I'm just saying that would be quite misleading and shouldn't be said. Now if they really have claimed that the one piece of glass they found that didn't match JO's glass DID actually match a glass that came from the house, then I'd say that should be shouted from the rooftops! But I don't see how that could ever be known (though it may very well be true), since AFAIK, a formal search of the house was never made. So best not to pass that misinfo on, imo!

This isn't correct. Did you read what I just posted?

We are talking about glass from the lawn and street outside the house.

 

[k-mac]

So glad the jury is taking their time with deliberations.

It gives me confidence that no matter what they decide it was well thought out and considered.

Looking past the smoke and mirrors.
This is good!

 

[sunspun]

Let me try this again.

There are three groups of glass:
A - The pieces of drinking glass which John was carrying and was found outside 34 Fairview
B - Other glass found outside 34 Fairview that do not come from John's drinking glass
C - The pieces of glass found on Karen's bumper none of which matched John's drinking glass

The state crime lab matched one piece of glass from set B to one piece of glass from set C. Neither of these pieces had anything to do with John's drinking glass. Why would these two random pieces of glass ever match? There is no nexus between them, except that Karen was briefly parked outside the home.

Note that the piece of glass from set B was documented as being picked up by Michael Proctor. Proctor of course is also one of the Troopers who examined Karen's vehicle after it was impounded.

Does that clarify things?

And now I see your post, after I just replied to someone who also tried to answer my question, and I replied thinking I had it all figured out, but after your post, I see it's not as simple as I thought! But it's still not that complicated, and thanks to the way you laid it out, I'm no longer confused. I was actually just concerned that some misinfo was being perpetuated (and now I don't even know who wrote the original post I saw this in, but it doesn't matter!), so wanted to make sure it was all true facts and all that. Looks good to me! Off to find the next one lol

 

[Aquarian]

My guess is that this is a site where EMT's attempted IO access, or Intraosseous access for the rapid delivery of life saving fluids and meds. JOK more than likely had no circulation via typical IV access. This is another attempt for the same.

Isn’t that usually anterior?

 

[Wishbone]

And now I see your post, after I just replied to someone who also tried to answer my question, and I replied thinking I had it all figured out, but after your post, I see it's not as simple as I thought! But it's still not that complicated, and thanks to the way you laid it out, I'm no longer confused. I was actually just concerned that some misinfo was being perpetuated (and now I don't even know who wrote the original post I saw this in, but it doesn't matter!), so wanted to make sure it was all true facts and all that. Looks good to me! Off to find the next one lol

The glass is a red herring just like the incredible hair.

 

[Aquarian]

Right, I remember that. So they actually have not said that they matched that odd piece to any particular glass anywhere? Much less to a glass from the house? Maybe I read it wrong, but that was what I thought was posted, and I suspected that was not true. If that really was what was posted (and I don't know now if it was you or someone else!), I'm just saying that would be quite misleading and shouldn't be said. Now if they really have claimed that the one piece of glass they found that didn't match JO's glass DID actually match a glass that came from the house, then I'd say that should be shouted from the rooftops! But I don't see how that could ever be known (though it may very well be true), since AFAIK, a formal search of the house was never made. So best not to pass that misinfo on, imo!

Honestly, I have never seen a reconciliation of this issue. Have no idea.

 

[Moonsie]

My guess is that this is a site where EMT's attempted IO access, or Intraosseous access for the rapid delivery of life saving fluids and meds. JOK more than likely had no circulation via typical IV access. This is another attempt for the same.

Ok ty

 

[Snoopster]

Just stopping in here, as I do from time to time. Are any of you close followers of this case willing to tell me how long the jury has been out?
This seems like a pretty tricky case to me. I'm not surprised that it's been a while.

 

[Moonsie]

Just stopping in here, as I do from time to time. Are any of you close followers of this case willing to tell me how long the jury has been out?
This seems like a pretty tricky case to me. I'm not surprised that it's been a while.

Only ~10 hours so far

 

[fluffypaste]

Just stopping in here, as I do from time to time. Are any of you close followers of this case willing to tell me how long the jury has been out?
This seems like a pretty tricky case to me. I'm not surprised that it's been a while.

I think about 10 hours of deliberation have happened so far.

 

[Snoopster]

Only ~10 hours so far

Thank you.
What's the general sense here on WS in terms of:
- whether she is guilty
- whether she will be found guilty

Thanks in advance!