I am not sure if I am really from the group you want to hear from because while I think she more than likely is responsible for John O'Keefe's death, I also feel like the CW did not earn a conviction. Much of why I feel this way is because of things that the jury didn't get to see/hear. So, if I was on the jury, I would vote NG because I would have even more lingering doubt without that added information.
I do not believe the conspiracy as told by the defense. I do not believe that a 30 year vet of the BPD, and an ATF agent, would look at John O'Keefe and say, "let's say a snowplow did this. Let's put him in my front yard." Not down the street, but in his yard. And let's do this while he is still breathing, and someone can see him and get him help before he dies. (There is no reason to search 'Hos Long' if he is already dead.)
This is not a plan two veteran law enforcement officials would come up with. "The snowplow did it" is a plan a panicking woman, who hasn't spent 30 years as a cop responding to accidents, would come up with, imo.
I didn't buy the text message "threat" of going out for drinks or your lawn will be destroyed as a credible threat, in that John was scared to say no. Or them taking a picture on John's lawn being part of a history of bullying him, versus the obvious inside joke that it is. He's the one who asked them to watch his house.
I don't buy that playfighting in the bar was "practicing" for what they were about to do to John. I don't buy that Jen McCabe's role was to separate Karen from John so that they can carry out their plans to jump him, along with Colin Albert, who was still mad at John for yelling at his little brother to get off the lawn. This is all very silly and undercuts the actual seriousness of their accusation that this is all a coverup.
The only person we know for a fact was enraged with John that night was Karen. The defense did a good job showcasing that these witnesses had bad memories. It didn't mean much to me that months after this happened, people couldn't remember the times they made calls or saw something. Especially when there were minutes off, not hours. Most of us wouldn't remember innocuous 3 and 9 second calls, now make us ish-faced drunk. We definitely won't remember. It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that cops would have things on their phone that they don't want in evidence. Brian Albert may well be a dirty cop, but it doesn't automatically means that what he is hiding is a coverup.
Trooper Proctor's texts, disgusting as they were, proves that he believed that Karen was guilty. We can call it tunnel vision, but not proof of a coverup.
I believe John's childhood friend's/Kerry Robert's testimony. Despite her damning testimony, the defense didn't try to poke holes in it. Which tells me that her account is likely the most trustworthy when it comes to determining Karen's behavior and mindset that morning.
How many people think their boyfriend is dead when you have not heard from him in 4 hours, especially after a fight? He wasn't left in the middle of the road. He was left at a house. Why are you so frantic and having a meltdown?
Why lie about where she last saw him? Why do you think a snowplow hit him? Why do you see a cracked taillight and conclude you could have hit him? Why are you so preoccupied with this taillight? Why are you telling your dad that you thought you hit something? You say you saw him walking into the house on 34 Fairview, you didn't feel a bump when you drove off. What is this giant leap in conclusion?
If you think he may have gotten in an accident, you would call hospitals. Why not consider he just slept on the Albert's couch? Karen didn't even search the house, which is why they went back there. She didn't search because she knew he wasn't there. The right answer would have been of course I searched the house.
Karen's behavior looks like someone setting up a defense and/or trying to find another person to blame - the snowplow or "could I have hit him? See, my taillight is cracked, I must have been blackout drunk, that's why I only remember being at the Waterfall. Also, maybe it was a snowplow..."
Yannetti's statements to the media and in court, early on, was never that Karen was innocent. It was that it was an innocent accident and about the charges being too steep. Story is that they told her it was caught on ring footage. Well, she has already laid the foundation for it being an accident. Next is to say... it was an innocent accident. She doesn't even ask to see the ring footage. She didn't ask her parents or attorney to watch and tell her what happened. She just acquiesced.
LE was proven incompetent by the defense. Part of this incompetence is going to naturally extend to them not reading the crime scene incorrectly. Trooper Paul is not knowledgeable enough to have done that. And the experts the FBI hired was simply asked to see if that car hit that body. (Karen's words.) This was very narrowly defined, which left open other possibilities for me.
I mean, is the belief that she didn't actually do what the car data states she did? The 3 point turn was right - Karen said she did a 3 point turn - but not the barreling backwards part? Then the question is are you going to just stand there or are you going to try to turn and run when you see it coming? We know what is typical in a pedestrian/MV accident. What happens if you are moving your body out of the way but your arm is lingering behind and his struck with a glancing blow? Will the rest of the body get struck?
John's phone stops moving and moments later Karen is leaving voicemails saying she hates him and calling him a pervert. I know people think that she could not have shaved 2 minutes off of her travel time, but it's not hard to imagine her driving like a bat out of hell given how enraged she was. And who knows if the data on the time his phone stopped moving is even exact. Technology can tell us a lot, but not everything.
The icing on the cake for me is Karen's demeanor. No one victimized by the system is going to court everyday with a huge smile on their face. And they are definitely not carefree, laughing and smirking, cutting their eyes here and there as the jury watches.
The first thing I thought when I saw Karen, after hearing details of this case, is that she looks like someone who thinks she already gotten away with it. What I read about this case and how she carries herself are contradictory. This leaves me to believe she is not worried because she knows this is not a frame job and, because they were able to poke so many holes into this shoddy investigation, there is no way she will be convicted.
I expect most people have already stopped reading. lol Too long and also because people don't really like hearing opposing thoughts and also I imagine quite a few people have called me an idiot to themselves. lol I know my opinion is in the extreme minority.
Despite all I have said, I still would find her not guilty because I have to account for the possibility that I am wrong, and that is law enforcement's fault for how they handled everything about this case. I hope they learn from this and do better in the future.
www.nbcboston.com
