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

[Trailbum74]

Well maybe that’s what she is implying. But they had phone calls and mapping to try and get there, that’s sure a big waste to not intend to stay. I’m not sure I can rationalize all that.

Well…

BH went out of his way to get to 34F (arriving before the Albert’s), plow the driveway (“as a joke”), text OJO to see whether he was coming or not, and then left shortly after arrival because the Albert’s weren’t offering his drink of choice.

 

[Trailbum74]

Dbm

 

[jepop]

TO me this case could be used in the Chapter on Reasonable Doubt 101 in law classes. I guess what is up for interpretation is "reasonable" because clearly there is doubt. Not much in closing to make this concept crystal clear to jurors who may have never considered it before. We as trial watchers have a good idea of what it means but probably some jurors do not.

I'm yet to listen to jury instructions to see 'what, if anything,' (thanks Lally) was said about it by the judge. I may have been under a false impression from other trials I've watched that Judges invariably would provide some elucidation for a jury as part of charging them with their duties. But I'm actually pretty confident that this Judge must have covered it in an appropriate way. Jmo. Not sure if anybody who watched Judge charging jury can comment?

 

[jepop]

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.

Agree. It is totally the prosecution who forced the slow pace of the trial. Defense had to cross every pros witness they considered necessary to defend their client and that was many of them. It's possible that the slow tedium of the trial and the resulting sea of 'meaningless minutiae' has resulted in an unintended (I believe because I don't consider Lally as strategically gifted) benefit for the pros because muddying the waters and confusing some juror reasoning. All Jmo

 

[jepop]

I don't believe they 'created' reasonable doubt.
I think they highlighted existing facts of the case.

The victim's injuries, fact , were not consistent with a vehicle impact.
This is BARD.

The rest is pretty much BARD too.

The 'conspiracies' as everyone likes to call them were an attempt at seeking motivation.

I don't know what the motivation was.

They were reasonable guesses based upon the testimonies of the CW witnesses.

I started watching this trial on Tube, accidentally, believing she was surely guilty.
When I listened to the CW witnesses, I was appalled, even the dog walker lied and claimed she had never been inside the Albers or Mc Cabe house..
WHY?

It was outrageous.

BTW I come from a LE family and had a very positive experience of the Boston police during a trip there in the 70's.. They were extraordinarily kind to hapless hitch hikers..
It's utterly tragic that it will be almost impossible to investigate JOK's death now, house sold, basement dug up, prior.. contaminated crime scene from outset and everybody nicely lawyered up..

I really cannot see how a new investigation can even begin.

I love the way you put this. 100%

 

[jepop]

I was thinking today about those arm injuries on JOK. Was he wearing a hoodie? I think he was... so in either case, scratch marks and bite marks by a dog OR being struck by a vehicle, in which case would it be more plausible that marks appeared and no bruising?
ETA I'm just curious how tail light shards could produce that damage through a hoodie?

From memory, the experienced experts testified to the uniformity and discreteness of the claw marks and one bite mark (both Dr Russell and Dr Sheridan reached the same conclusions which was another big plus in terms of credibility of expert opinion. jmo). I believe this was one of the indicators the wounds were very probably the result of an animal's claws and teeth. The experts went on to describe other strong indicators that narrowed it down to a dog as the most likely candidate. Jmo

I keep posting how odd it is to me that the actual ME when on the stand, showed no curiosity whatsoever in terms of getting an outside opinion or doing some of her own research using a wound data base or something, to account for any role wounds may have played in JO's manner of death. Moo

 

[Spectrix]

Just wondering if a quick poll would be possible, or allowable at this point. It'd give an snapshot of Websleuths members feelings on the case, just before the actual verdict. I thought the following choices would be appropriate:

1. I believe Read is innocent, and will be found innocent (not guilty).
2. I believe Read is guilty, and will be found guilty.
3. I believe Read is guilty, but will be found innocent (not guilty).
4. I believe Read is innocent, but will be found guilty.

If not allowed, or considered appropriate, please delete, and accept my apologies.
Best regards.

I'd like to see a simple poll just to gauge the personal opinions of thread readers. It's clear that there is a small but vocal minority here that feel that KR is guilty of murder, but I suspect that there may be a larger pool who feel she's guilty but don't want to publicly post as such, as they don't want to be belittled or feel that they need to justify their thoughts.

1. I think Karen Read is Guilty of Murder or Manslaughter
2. I think Karen Read is Innocent

 

[jepop]

Just wondering if a quick poll would be possible, or allowable at this point. It'd give an snapshot of Websleuths members feelings on the case, just before the actual verdict. I thought the following choices would be appropriate:

1. I believe Read is innocent, and will be found innocent (not guilty).
2. I believe Read is guilty, and will be found guilty.
3. I believe Read is guilty, but will be found innocent (not guilty).
4. I believe Read is innocent, but will be found guilty.

If not allowed, or considered appropriate, please delete, and accept my apologies.
Best regards.

It's not on your options: 5. I believe Read is innocent but Jury will be hung

 

[seekingjustice**]

What is sickening about people who peacefully assemble in support of someone who they believe to be guilty? They aren't protesting against the O"Keefe's. They are protesting for justice. moo

In my personal opinion, the protesters have turned the trial into a circus, which I find disrespectful towards the victims family and loved ones. I appreciate we have different views.

 

[arielilane]

I don't believe they 'created' reasonable doubt.
I think they highlighted existing facts of the case.

The victim's injuries, fact , were not consistent with a vehicle impact.
This is BARD.

The rest is pretty much BARD too.

The 'conspiracies' as everyone likes to call them were an attempt at seeking motivation.

I don't know what the motivation was.

They were reasonable guesses based upon the testimonies of the CW witnesses.

I started watching this trial on Tube, accidentally, believing she was surely guilty.
When I listened to the CW witnesses, I was appalled, even the dog walker lied and claimed she had never been inside the Albers or Mc Cabe house..
WHY?

It was outrageous.

BTW I come from a LE family and had a very positive experience of the Boston police during a trip there in the 70's.. They were extraordinarily kind to hapless hitch hikers..
It's utterly tragic that it will be almost impossible to investigate JOK's death now, house sold, basement dug up, prior.. contaminated crime scene from outset and everybody nicely lawyered up..

I really cannot see how a new investigation can even begin.

Perhaps the wording "created" not used properly.

However, I've not determined definitively whether KR did or didn't hit JOK, because the case is so complex. It's been that way for me since first reading everything I can about this case. It's important to skip over bloggers, YTer's and anyone who has an agenda, they care only about clicks, as you already know.

I am interested in hearing why you first thought guilty, but changed to not guilty, if you choose to share. TIA

I've stated all along there's a lot of reasonable doubt and she will walk. Ive not waver from that initial stance. Which agree with, she should walk, because of the lack of evidence presented ... no proof she committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD).

Will the jurors use their common sense. I suspect they're confused by some of the info. They will follow MA laws.

She is innocent until proven guilty BARD.

Speculation and moo

 

[fluffypaste]

In my personal opinion, the protesters have turned the trial into a circus, which I find disrespectful towards the victims family and loved ones. I appreciate we have different views.

The prosecution turned the trial into circus by relying on deliberately falsified evidence such as the inverted video and trying to prevent ultra-qualified experts from testifying just because their findings disprove the prosecution's theory.

It's perfectly valid for people to see this happening and express outrage.

 

[arielilane]

With all due respect given, not certain I understand the significance of this.

From observing crime investigations over the years, it is IMO not uncommon for a defendant or relatives of e.g. the missing or accused to contact others and even news, media, or private investigators, etc. for assistance. With no intent to thread hop - by example - in the LISK / GILGO NY / NJ case of Rex Heuermann IIRC the Gilbert family contacted others in attempt to start and amplify the perceived stalled investigation. Some of that is in the ‘Lost Girls’ documentary.

Link on the Lost Girls documentary:

Lost Girls (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are also several WS threads here on that continuing and expanding LISK investigation.

Last week I watched an episode on a long unsolved crime in which a family member had been murdered. IIRC a surviving relative went to the interesting approach to offer a reward and to publish notice of it in nearby jails and prisons. A fruitful lead developed, was pursued, and the cold case was solved. (Unfortunately the name of that case escapes me at the moment.)

I am not certain the lengths I personally might go to or enlist if a family member or friend was in need of similar assistance. But I envision they could be quite involved and expansive if necessary? MOO

Agree your post.

I dont see KR as the victim. I know this will be unpopular statement but its moo.

Hypothetically:

KR not on trial, this never happened to her and roles were reversed and it was someone else in KR's shoes, do you think KR would be out there on the streets protesting? I dont.

moo

 

[arielilane]

Should start a list. Did Lally he say that KR drove back to FV at around 3am (3.30am)?? Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

I thought it was a bit later , but no exact time that I recall. Will need research .

@BienickWCVB

#KarenRead Lally says Jennifer McCabe got a phone call from O'Keefe's niece at about 3am. Niece then passed phone to Read who tells McCabe that O'Keefe never came home.


10:55 AM · Apr 29, 2024

 

[ch_13]

Agree your post.

I dont see KR as the victim. I know this will be unpopular statement but its moo.

Hypothetically:

KR not on trial, this never happened to her and roles were reversed and it was someone else in KR's shoes, do you think KR would be out there on the streets protesting? I dont.

moo

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Are you saying the only people deserving of justice are those who would protest themselves?

I don't live near Norfolk County, but even if I did, I doubt I would stand outside the courthouse waving signs. Does that mean if I was improperly arrested and put on trial, I'm not a victim?

 

[turaj]

On the other hand a hung jury may benefit Jackson, because prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, a hung jury might prompt a prosecutor to reevaluate their case based on what they have seen of the Lally's hand. I think a second go around would bring in the FBI heavy and strong.

I guess "hung" is better than Guilty for KR and team. However given they were ,I think, expecting a NG based on the case as it unfolded...I find a "hung" a bad situation for KR. To not ever be vindicated in a court of law after these charges for me would mean a cloud over my head for the rest of time. That is assuming CW would not retry case. I don't know what others think but I expect sometime before lunch tomorrow another note same as last time. I am not holding out much hope that the hold out(s) are going to have an epiphany and change. I hope I am wrong.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I would suggest this - DEFENSE WITNESS #4) Dr. Frank Sheridan, Forensic Pathologist
He speaks in far more detail than the ME. He is a brilliant witness in this case.

He is very clear and thorough, and uses easy to understand terminology.

In the following video he is first up, starting around 9m 30 seconds

Probably both. The arm injuries could have been entirely separate, or they could be related, for instance he became involved in an altercation with someone else at the premises, and the dog got involved too.

Thank you Spectrix!….. for reinforcing this^^…. I absolutely agree. Dr. Sheridan’s testimony was quite convincing. He spoke in very simple, clear, and convincing words and terminology.

And IMO if there is just one witness’ testimony - a single witness - on which to consider and introduce reasonable doubt for the defense it is his. His testimony alone IMO opened that door of reasonable doubt wide open. To further the analogy, IMO it removed the door from the hinges and it was placed in the attic of the house.

His analysis of the absence of victim bruising as well as broken bones was also important. And IIRC he said it at least twice if not three times. And his rationale for why a potential strike from a vehicle was unlikely was good. He also stated observation as to the possible likelihood that the gouges or furrows on the arm (my words for them) were likely from something with claws (or words to that effect). And he clearly demonstrated on what appeared to be several areas for the strikes and possible puncture or bite wounds at IIRC the elbow area. MOO

From my observation of his input, that testimony alone helped to create reasonable doubt. And IMO a significant amount of it. MOO

 

[turaj]

I'm yet to listen to jury instructions to see 'what, if anything,' (thanks Lally) was said about it by the judge. I may have been under a false impression from other trials I've watched that Judges invariably would provide some elucidation for a jury as part of charging them with their duties. But I'm actually pretty confident that this Judge must have covered it in an appropriate way. Jmo. Not sure if anybody who watched Judge charging jury can comment?

Especially with the "lessers" from other cases I have watched attorneys on both sides so spend some time in closing arguments explaining how to go thru the form. I heard nothing of the sort in these very rushed closings. One hour given the length of the case seemed just a rush to get this to the jury despite how much time the CW wasted during the 8 weeks. I did not hear the judge instructions however most attorneys want to present things in the light most favorable to their side.

 

[turaj]

Watched Higgins cross again yesterday...wow is all I can say. One thing I noticed more carefully was the constant whispering between KR and the attorneys....lots of laughs involved and mouthing words to someone behind her..I assume her dad? Jury was in room during much of this. She has been given a "star" status by the supporters and marches in daily again as if she is some "star". Don't like the vibe of this but still want a NG.

 

[jepop]

@BienickWCVB

#KarenRead Lally says Jennifer McCabe got a phone call from O'Keefe's niece at about 3am. Niece then passed phone to Read who tells McCabe that O'Keefe never came home.


10:55 AM · Apr 29, 2024

Huh? Are we talking 29 Jan? But where did tweeter Bienick get that from.? I swear the evidence and testimony was the call between Niece/KR and JMc was closer to 4.30/5am and it was affirmed with records IIRC. Definitely was not 3am unless we are talking about another call from Niece/KR to JMc which I don't recall there being ICBW. Or is this from Lally's closing which would then be another discrepancy between the evidence and closing argument. If that's the case, then even though we all know closings are not evidence it reflects poorly on the cw to have Lally apparently misrepresent what was in evidence in his closing. Some would call it lying, jmo

Please ignore if there was actually an earlier call made by niece to JMc at 3am. Or since been confirmed this is a typo in the tweet. I would really like to know for sure but have no time or incliniation to re-listen to JMc testimony or Lally's closing. Moo

 

[turaj]

Well…

BH went out of his way to get to 34F (arriving before the Albert’s), plow the driveway (“as a joke”), text OJO to see whether he was coming or not, and then left shortly after arrival because the Albert’s weren’t offering his drink of choice.

something about BH on cross ...his demeanor....this guys knows so much more....so very much.