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 #15

[keek]

I just watched 12 Angry Men last night. The movie clearly shows how reasonable doubt can come into play. Not one bit of " conspiracy" was needed. Just doubt.

This case? LOADED with reasonable doubt. IMO

ETA: I will start with the fact that the crime scene was never secured. Because CPD doesn't do crime scenes in the snow.....

it's too bad because I think they failed to put this case together. there are a myriad of things that could have happened to his arms...for instance , Karen could have been scratching him, if she is driving and reaches over his arms are level with hers and she could stop at a light, say and start fighting with him, maybe he hurt himself trying to get her to calm down. also she could have had something in her hand like a metal drinking straw or a pen.

someone is totally lying, but I think she has a bad temper and she may have committed vehicular homicide in which case she should be prosecuted for it. I just don't think all these cops are going to collude and lie to save a German Shepardrd and a home owners insurance company. It's not against the law to be drunk at your house and if someone accidentally hurt John in the midst of some kind of Dog attack, then it's an accident and everyone can attest to it. I just don't understand it, it doesn't make sense.

mOO

Not about the dog, that is why it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[OldCop]

But do you tend to agree with the independent analysis that determined JO could not have been hit by a car?

So doesn't that rule KR completely out?

JO's injuries were not the result of a car strike and I am reasonably sure KR did not beat him up.

Perhaps another party did?

Yes, it was this testimony that knocked me off the fence.
As an adjunct, KR can not be found guilty of the charge of second degree murder of JOK if he was not killed from being hit by a motor vehicle unless the prosecution came up with proof that she killed him by some other means. They proved neither.

 

[themonk]

it's too bad because I think they failed to put this case together. there are a myriad of things that could have happened to his arms...for instance , Karen could have been scratching him, if she is driving and reaches over his arms are level with hers and she could stop at a light, say and start fighting with him, maybe he hurt himself trying to get her to calm down. also she could have had something in her hand like a metal drinking straw or a pen.

someone is totally lying, but I think she has a bad temper and she may have committed vehicular homicide in which case she should be prosecuted for it. I just don't think all these cops are going to collude and lie to save a German Shepardrd and a home owners insurance company. It's not against the law to be drunk at your house and if someone accidentally hurt John in the midst of some kind of Dog attack, then it's an accident and everyone can attest to it. I just don't understand it, it doesn't make sense.

mOO

RBBM

Have you considered the possibility that JO's arm scratches may have been self inflicted?

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

I agree it was unnecessary.
IT still is a visual that everyone can see. Nowhere to hide. Its there.
The actions of everyone there to be seen.

Not remotely close to the importance of the missing ring camera show -casing Karen Reads activities between 12.30 am and 5am that morning.

That is the trickery exposed. The stuff gone missing.
pretty convenient.

poof!! vanished!! gone!!

moo

There is a difference between “missing” and “never existed in the first place.” The CW’s own witnesses stated that they have no proof of such video existing and no proof that KR deleted it, or that she even had access to it.

We do have proof however that the CW blatantly attempted to mislead the jury with an inverted video.

Furthermore: what would the ring video even prove? We know what time she arrived home due to WiFi and voicemail data. The angle wouldn’t have shown her taillight anyway.

 

[Misy]

While I’m totally hoping for a NG for KR, I’m equally hoping for investigations into the Albert, Higgins, McCabe “circle” - as testified by Jen McCabe. (“the (or “our”) circle” - odd description of their group sitting around discussing the JOK events.

And while the scientific evidence shows JOK was not struck by a vehicle (which at the very least provides reasonable doubt) I also believe there was definitely a cover up. Everyone in the “circle” coordinated their stories - not hard to do especially when one or more were being protected.

But as for JM - just a couple of things that stand so far out:

Of course deleting texts, making the google search.

Asking Julie nagle I think it was to give her (JM) Julie’s texts with her brother from that night. Huh? Why??

Nicole A texting with JM and NA saying let’s not discuss over text (I’m paraphrasing). JM was asked about this and she said it was because her kids read her phone and she didn’t want them to see their (she and NA) texts discussing what could have happened to JOK. Why not?

When JM and MM left 34F with Julie and Sue (?) to drive them home, JM turned around from the fromt seat and started talking and laughing with the girls, right away as they were pulling in front of the house. Deliberately distracting the girls to look at her? Maybe not but it crossed my mind.

JM testifying she kept looking out the window at 34F and reported seeing KR’s suv multiple times when it was shown KR was not even there at that time.

Why did JM repeatedly call JOK cellphone that morning after JOK was discovered in the Alberts front yard. Attempting to locate the phone?

Why did JM call Nicole’s cellphone that morning a couple of times - claiming she didn’t mean to, and NA says she never picked it up.

These people have already testified in other hearings, under oath, so they’re kind of locked in to those statements.
W
At the beginning of the aftermath of the assault I believe they were all confident that their stories would not be questioned… BA and BH were LE after all, including BH’s brother Kevin, and apparently BA was close friends with the police chief at the time. The crime scene was not secured, the house wasn’t searched, etc etc. I mean after all, as proctor said no need BA is a cop.

There’s so much more about JM and so much more about ALL in the circle.

Edit to add: I just sure hope the FBI is looking into all of this - all of the stories, statements and testimonies of the A’s, McC’s and BH. I believe that they believe they’re above the law, their lies will be believed just in the face of it with no real questions asked…. It’s so upsetting.

MOO

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

Ill even qualify the phone calls KR made through the night to her parents...(ahem..while she was sleepin lol)
was help working out how to delete the ring camera and all the other back side covering stuff she did.
MY OPINION ONLY OF COURSE.

You think her elderly parents are such sophisticated camera hackers that they were able to delete Ring footage in such a way that would disguise it from both the MSP and Ring itself? That is a new one!

 

[keek]

While I’m totally hoping for a NG for KR, I’m equally hoping for investigations into the Albert, Higgins, McCabe “circle” - as testified by Jen McCabe. (“the (or “our”) circle” - odd description of their group sitting around discussing the JOK events.

And while the scientific evidence shows JOK was not struck by a vehicle (which at the very least provides reasonable doubt) I also believe there was definitely a cover up. Everyone in the “circle” coordinated their stories - not hard to do especially when one or more were being protected.

But as for JM - just a couple of things that stand so far out:

Of course deleting texts, making the google search.

Asking Julie nagle I think it was to give her (JM) Julie’s texts with her brother from that night. Huh? Why??

Nicole A texting with JM and NA saying let’s not discuss over text (I’m paraphrasing). JM was asked about this and she said it was because her kids read her phone and she didn’t want them to see their (she and NA) texts discussing what could have happened to JOK. Why not?

When JM and MM left 34F with Julie and Sue (?) to drive them home, JM turned around from the fromt seat and started talking and laughing with the girls, right away as they were pulling in front of the house. Deliberately distracting the girls to look at her? Maybe not but it crossed my mind.

JM testifying she kept looking out the window at 34F and reported seeing KR’s suv multiple times when it was shown KR was not even there at that time.

Why did JM repeatedly call JOK cellphone that morning after JOK was discovered in the Alberts front yard. Attempting to locate the phone?

Why did JM call Nicole’s cellphone that morning a couple of times - claiming she didn’t mean to, and NA says she never picked it up.

These people have already testified in other hearings, under oath, so they’re kind of locked in to those statements.
W
At the beginning of the aftermath of the assault I believe they were all confident that their stories would not be questioned… BA and BH were LE after all, including BH’s brother Kevin, and apparently BA was close friends with the police chief at the time. The crime scene was not secured, the house wasn’t searched, etc etc. I mean after all, as proctor said no need BA is a cop.

There’s so much more about JM and so much more about ALL in the circle.

MOO

Can't hide from perhaps upcoming charges or the already involved to a degree, FBI. All seeing and knowing FBI.

 

[MyJoey]

Thanks for replying @MyJoey. I think a lot of folks are voting against the conspiracy theory. It does sound preposterous, doesn’t it? Other than that, the tail light evidence is a toss up between the G and NG folks I think. Yes, there were some pieces found in the street and near the body, but not all of them belonged to KR’s SUV. There have been two versions of what KR said the morning John was found. Some heard “I did it” while others think it was “Did I do it?”
KR was really drunk. Is it possible that maybe even she doesn’t know what she said or did?
Next we come to the crux of the charges. What proof do we have that John died as the result of being hit by a motor vehicle? If the prosecution can not prove that, KR can’t be guilty of doing that, can she?
John’s body doesn’t tell us how exactly he died, but it does tell us how he didn’t die. He didn’t die from being hit by a motor vehicle. Witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense admit they can’t conclude that JOK definitely died as a result of being hit by a motor vehicle. His injuries, the lethal head wound and the deep scratches and puncture wounds on his arm, were not caused by impact with a vehicle, any vehicle. Furthermore, his body lacked the injuries that he should have sustained had he been hit by a vehicle; broken bones or fractures, heavy bruising, and those types of injuries should have been present, especially below the neck. His body is the most important piece of evidence in this case, not tail light fragments, not deleted texts, not butt dials, not a completely incompetent investigation. Extensive testing was done by highly qualified experts. Their conclusions were not theories or guesses. They were based on the laws of physics, medical evidence, kinetics, and pathology.
We, as law abiding citizens, want justice for victims. However, we can’t get justice for a victim or protect the rights of an accused by finding them guilty based on feelings. We need good solid evidence with no reasonable doubt in order to convict. I do not believe that we have that in this case. A wrongful conviction is justice for nobody.

Absolutely appreciate all this. In my mind, they also didn’t rule out John’s being hit by a car, just didn’t have enough information and not what they normally see. I think about drunk drivers that walk away from accidents, while others die. Was it Wolfe that said the tail light couldn’t have broke either way, hitting John or from backing into John’s car…..so that leaves how did it get broken in the few minutes she left John to getting back to his house? Her car was seen at the house with no damage. Only my opinion but he’s wrong one way or the other. Karen believed she hit something, as she told her parents. Then her 3 very early AM phone calls to them solidified in my mind she thought she did something. Karen running right to John’s body that morning really nailed it for me, once I seen the video from the police cam what the conditions were like. I believe she’s guilty of the lesser charges, I couldn’t convict her on Man 2.
I can definitely see only looking at the expert testimony, some reasonable doubt.

 

[OldCop]

But then again....
you can have camera's like JO had...
AND....
wouldn't ya read about it.

The very moments that would support or INCRIMINATE KR's behaviour when she arrived back at JO abode (after hitting him IMO) poof!!! vanished!!! magic!!

Pesky camera's just don't work when you need em too.

But they work perfectly while you then reverse out with your reverse beepers (sensors)blasting in your ears....and capture you gently tapping that pesky back tail light.
Miracle!

moo

RSBM: Pesky camera's just don't work when you need em too.

I know what you mean. The other camera miracle that occurred was when the camera on the Town Library suddenly didn’t record when it would have picked up KR’s vehicle going past and her taillights would have been completely visible.
I wonder how KR was ably to break into/mess with the Town Library’s recording system?
Oh, wait……..
ETA. The Library camera was working both before and after KR’s SUV passed by.

 

[arielilane]

When all else fails -- deflect - deviate - look away - I’ve got a story to tell.

Was KR and defense attempting to incorporate a blogger’s outside handy work into their story line?
Why was all the extra unnecessary conspiracy, framing theory, info, etc. necessary to present in a court of law?

moo

-- KR communicated with a blogger and provided info about the case that was not public.

Alleged link between murder suspect Karen Read, 'Turtleboy' detailed in document

Investigators have evidence appearing to show that murder suspect Karen Read had frequent contact with a controversial blogger known as "Turtleboy."

www.wcvb.com

Updated: 6:42 PM EST Jan 31, 2024

 

[Spectrix]

it truly strikes a chord regarding the Defense's conspiracy theory...

The defence introduced a possible alternate theory in which KR isn't responsible for anyone's death. This is only to aid in creating reasonable doubt. It only needs to be plausible, they don't need to prove anything.

The prosecution, on the other hand, they're supposed to have a plausible "theory" and be able to prove it.
I say "theory" because that's all it is. It's not even a reasonable theory, in fact it's a terrible one when you consider the two most important pieces of evidence:

• JOK's body which doesn't appear to have been hit by a car.
• KR's car which doesn't appear to have hit a body.

Some say that the defence's story is smoke and mirrors.
Well, the prosecution called 140 different witnesses and asked them all sorts of gibberish before we even heard from the Medical Examiner to talk about JOK's actual injuries.

In my mind, they also didn’t rule out John’s being hit by a car, just didn’t have enough information and not what they normally see...

I have spent some time in Accident and Emergency and I've seen a number of motor vehicle/pedestrian injuries.
Some common injuries they tend to have:

• Lacerations and bruising
• Road rash and burns
• Broken bones and fractures
• Soft tissue injuries
• Internal injuries like organ damage and internal bleeding
• Spinal injuries

Did the CW explain how JOK was hit at high speed by a 7000 pound SUV so hard that he was projected 30 feet through the air, and didn't get so much as a bruise?

Did the CW explain how this SUV hit a 220 pound man at high speed and came away with only a broken tail light?

Like I said, it's a pretty terrible theory.

 

[arielilane]

In this lengthy article it states "I hit him" four times, same as what ADA stated in closing:

Before Roberts, McCabe, and Read found O’Keefe’s body, Roberts told police, Read showed them her cracked right taillight, saying she had no idea how it had happened the night before. When an emergency responder asked Read how O’Keefe had injured his face, the document stated, Read said, “I hit him. I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

The Karen Read Canton Case: The Killing That Tore a Town Apart

Inside the simmering tabloid drama dividing this tight-knit Mass. suburb.

www.bostonmagazine.com

 

[OldCop]

Jurors know exactly what guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means.

The defense included too much fluff into their story line:
-- Why the need to attack all or most of MA LE
-- Why the need to include a conspiracy/planting of evidence theory
-- Planned birthday party at the A’s for a son - let’s have Officer O'Keefe come over w/KR so we can fight with him (JOK)

I'm sure there's more...Did defense try to throw things at the wall and see what sticks?

Why complicate a case that had so much reasonable doubt?

Dont need to complicate when you have a lot of reasonable doubt.

The CW did not prove legal burden that the defendant KR guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense knew what they had, keep it simple.

Trooper MP and shoddy police work and so much more reasonable doubt would have ended the trial with a NG verdict.

Now, we wait until Monday.

Hypothetical. Speculation. Moo

I understand what you are saying, @arielilane. The thing is, the defense has to defend. They can’t just let the prosecution witnesses’ proclamations go unchecked.
If they did, Proctor would get up there and say he conducted a stellar investigation, found all the evidence, (and handled it properly), interviewed witnesses, and can prove without a reasonable doubt that KR committed manslaughter.
Lally went on for WEEKS without hardly even mentioning how JOK was killed and how KR did it. When he finally got around to it even his own medical examiner couldn’t conclude that JOK was killed from being struck by a motor vehicle.
The defense rested it’s case after 2 days.

 

[Spectrix]

In this lengthy article it states "I hit him" four times, same as what ADA stated in closing:
Before Roberts, McCabe, and Read found O’Keefe’s body, Roberts told police, Read showed them her cracked right taillight, saying she had no idea how it had happened the night before. When an emergency responder asked Read how O’Keefe had injured his face, the document stated, Read said, “I hit him. I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

The Karen Read Canton Case: The Killing That Tore a Town Apart

Inside the simmering tabloid drama dividing this tight-knit Mass. suburb.

www.bostonmagazine.com

Just to play devils advocate here.
KR was already terrified that something terrible might have happened because JOK hadn't returned home.
Is it possible that Jen McCabe suggested to KR that she'd broken her tail light by hitting JOK?

 

[shotgun09]

Just to play devils advocate here.
KR was already terrified that something terrible might have happened because JOK hadn't returned home.
Is it possible that Jen McCabe suggested to KR that she'd broken her tail light by hitting JOK?

Is that the same JMC who google searched Hos long to die in cold at 2:27 am? No....it couldn't be...

That would mean she was a planner and a schemer...

 

[subaw0067]

Just to play devils advocate here.
KR was already terrified that something terrible might have happened because JOK hadn't returned home.
Is it possible that Jen McCabe suggested to KR that she'd broken her tail light by hitting JOK?

This is EXACTLY my thought. She was already distressed and they planted the idea in her head that she hit him. This is my first time jumping in on this thread, but I was attacked by a dog as a young child and the injuries to JOK’s arm are extremely similar to the injuries to my own leg and arm from that event. Lacerations from being cut by a cocktail glass or a plastic taillight (I think people keep forgetting that modern cars have PLASTIC taillights, which do not create sharp shards) would look very different from the apparent puncture wounds to JOKs arm.

JMO, IMO.

 

[Leilei]

Just to play devils advocate here.
KR was already terrified that something terrible might have happened because JOK hadn't returned home.
Is it possible that Jen McCabe suggested to KR that she'd broken her tail light by hitting JOK?

Ding ding ding!
I was thinking the same.
IMO.

 

[IDK]

The defence introduced a possible alternate theory in which KR isn't responsible for anyone's death. This is only to aid in creating reasonable doubt.

The prosecution, on the other hand, they're supposed to be able PROVE their "theory".
I say "theory" because that's all it is. It's not even a reasonable theory, in fact it's a terrible one when you consider the two most important pieces of evidence:

• JOK's body which doesn't appear to have been hit by a car.
• KR's car which doesn't appear to have hit a body.

Some say that the defence's story is smoke and mirrors.
The prosecution called 140 different witnesses and asked them all sorts of gibberish before we even heard from the Medical Examiner to talk about JOK's actual injuries.



I have spent some time in Accident and Emergency and I've seen a number of motor vehicle/pedestrian injuries.
Some common injuries they tend to have:

• Lacerations and bruising
• Road rash and burns
• Broken bones and fractures
• Soft tissue injuries
• Internal injuries like organ damage and internal bleeding
• Spinal injuries

Did the CW explain how JOK was hit at high speed by a 7000 pound SUV so hard that he was projected 30 feet through the air, and didn't get so much as a bruise?

Did the CW explain how this SUV hit a 220 pound man at high speed and came away with only a broken tail light?

Like I said, it's a pretty terrible theory.

I read that the victim did have fractures— a fractured skull:

“3:05 p.m.

• Dr. Scordi-Bello: fractures were emanating from the back of the skull.

2:55 p.m.

• Dr. Scordi-Bello: “The majority of blunt force injuries were to the face and the head.”

2:50 p.m.

• Dr. Scordi-Bello ruled JO’s manner of death “could not be determined.” She says it’s a medical ruling not legal.

2:30 p.m.

• Dr. Stonebridge says JO had acute traumatic injuries due to some type of trauma. She says it was something that caused a lot of force.
• Lally: Can it be consistent with being struck by a vehicle and going to the ground?
• RS: It can be.
• 
  
• No cross exam”

Karen Read murder trial: Medical examiners detail John O’Keefe’s injuries

The court heard profanity-laced voicemails that Read left on O’Keefe’s as witness testimony continues.

www.boston25news.com

 

[thebedbug]

The FBI hired experts testified that the injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car, and the cars damage was not consistent with hitting a pedestrian. These witnesses were completely neutral.


Julie Alberts sister I think. Just when you think this whole trial could not get any crazier,, it does. terrible family.

It doesn't matter to me that they were hired by the FBI and being completely neutral doesn't mean they are 100% correct or infallible. They should certainly know there are uncertainties in reconstructing an incident, especially based entirely on pictures and incomplete information.

I appreciate your clear and concise explanation, it goes some way to help me understand what may be going on for those jury hold outs.

Edit - are you able to explain your thoughts on why JOK's injuries below the neck might be so minor and don't appear as one would expect from a motor vehicle accident?
Thank you.

You can only have expected injuries if you're certain about all of the circumstances and variables of the impact... which we are clearly not.

I can guess. KR guns it in reverse and he might've fallen down... perhaps on one knee... perhaps in the process of getting back up and trying to scramble out of the way, then gets hit. Maybe she stops and even backs over him a little more? There are a lot of scenarios that could've happened and unfortunately the weather played a part in making those harder to discern.

 

[vlbay]

I don't know a lot about this case, but reading the article just posted, why does "I hit him" have to imply she hit him with a car? Did she clarify that that was what she meant? Or was it just assumed?