MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #16

[Charlot123]

There are a lot of diverse opinions on these threads from those posters who believe KR innocent.IMO. I don't believe we all fall into one simple basket when it comes to theorising/speculating on what may have occurred. Jmo

My take, for example, is KR couldn't have done this owing to medical and other expert evidence presented at trial. Because of this I believe JO was killed in some other way. I also believe the expert medical evidence pertaining to the arm wounds and am convinced BARD they were inflicted by a dog and given the context that dog is very likely to have been Chloe.jmo

Regarding RBBM in your post, that is an interesting abstract theory on what a conspiracy is but it is one theory/your opinion. The truth is probably a lot simpler yet does involve some level of cover up or keeping mum by players unknown but likely amongst those witnesses who testified. IMO

I certainly do not believe what occurred has much to do with fitting into rules a) and b) of your theory above. It's a shame a proper, impartial investigation of all potential POIs was never conducted. Imo

I agree with some others here that we may never reach the truth of what actually unfolded. That is not justice for JO or his family and IMO that is firmly on the head of a flawed investigation, then on the DA for prolonging the situation by pushing for trial and then the Judge for finding enough at prelim to go ahead and pushing the flawed case through. Moo

ETA First sentence of post: Regarding the idea that the entire investigating team would have to know if one of that team planted a bit of evidnnce such as some tail light pieces doesn't hold with me. It could involve only one person (Proctor for instance). On top of that, it isn't necessary that any of the Albert,Higgins, McCabes etc have to have known anything about it, if evidence was planted. MOO

My personal point of view: I still believe that more information points at KR doing it. However, Alternative Juror appears to be an educated, diligent person who sat in the room and took good notes, as she states. She, with the notes, and having sat there, believes that the case did not meet the standards for reasonable doubt. I can weigh in both versions, because nothing looks the same from inside the courthouse.

Not sure that Proctor planted evidence. If he did, he would not plant evidence for himself. He would plant evidence if not allowed to enter the house, if advised to make it a quick open-and-shut case, if there was zero evidence of a car trauma, and, mostly, if he didn’t know KR’s circumstances at all.

SODDI defense is common. The case when the police becomes that very “D” who “DI” is interesting in itself. I think we all pay attention to AJ, but Yanetti was instrumental in organizing KR’s specific defense. And there was evidence missing, as Proctor never entered BA’s house, and the case required specialists to testify, and is still missing bits and pieces.

Do I believe KR’s lawyers? No. Do I see why Yanetti believed the case was defensible? Absolutely. Do I think it is “not our typical case”, from both sides? Surely. But mostly, the guilty verdict missed evidence, and there was too much noise around the case.

I expect Stoughton case to be more telling.

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey everyone,

Discussion about the purportedly fake video has been removed. Please do not discuss it further.

It is up to MSM to vet their sources, and WS is not in a position to verify its authenticity.

 

[Sleuth2010]

Had the flu so I looked in on this trial just over the weekend for the first time and then only seeing Law and Crime and or CourtTV clips for any knowlege I have in this case. I saw both opening and closing arguments on both sides. I then became a tad familiar with the different characters, etc., so specifically sought them out if I could find them. None seemed very professional or bright. I'm so sorry for the death of JO and for his family and those young kids, so much trauma in their life.
IMO, KR is not guilty of the charges against her but do think she is an instigator, not very likeable and an easy target, apparently. The texts between her and BH were immature and disgusting and made me think that she had self serving motives for reaching out to BH, either to make JO jealous or to just line up the next one. The realtionship with JO had run it's course and she realized that she or any woman probably would play second fiddle to his niece and nephew, and DH had no kids. Also JMO, DH didn't like being manipulated by KR or being her patsy.
'The 'group' of the LE and wives involved reminded me of the popular kids in high school and everyone wanted to be part of it, family included. I don't know who were exactly the closest to 'the Alberts' aside from family or who were just acquantainces who got invited back to the after party just this time. Big drinkers, big egos, the ladies' pecking order probably depended on your husaband's stripes at a party house with people coming and going at all hours.
So it is JMO that JO was not killed by a car. He was killed in the Alberts basement, maybe not intentially and maybe not by anyone we currently know about or have met yet. But then there is the cover up, too much brass involved in the death of another cop.
I hope that JO and his family get justice. The real murderer was at that house that night. It wasn't KR. As far as another trial, not before some heads roll and not of KR. I do wonder whether there will be any more fall out in her life as result of her dirty laundry now known everywhere. Aside from her leaving town maybe.

jmo moo omo

Occam's razor is a principle from philosophy. Suppose an event has two possible explanations. The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

KR via forensics of her rig, killed / massively injured the victim . Due to the blizzard and deep cold, the taillight may have cracked & broken more easily. Forensics prove the taillight was on him. Bring in the experts, next case.

Maybe in her rage ( which she was raging with 60 messages / texts) KR never knew she hit him.
Maybe she did, but couldn't put it all together until, when sober.

If the ( imo alcoholic party goers) realized he (hey, that newbie) was, " passed out in the yard," thought it was a just-leave-him-there... night... funny, or whatever. Left him there, not realizing the fatal injury.
Therein comes the cops culpability and later need to, cover-up.
(Googling how long to die... forensics need to know/prove exact time of phone researching that)

Occam's razor and scientific proof answers the crime.

Weather, alcoholism, anger, rage, deep cold ground, vehicle forensics.

Time to clean up and clean out this entire police force.

Incredible sympathy to the family and friends, who lost a good man. Especially his brother.
Heart prints broken.

jmo moo omo

---

 

[Cedars]

A bit of a change of subject, but does anyone know how MP's text messages were obtained by the defense?

JMO

 

[cocomod]

A bit of a change of subject, but does anyone know how MP's text messages were obtained by the defense?

JMO

Supplied by the FBI report

 

[Cedars]

Supplied by the FBI report

Thanks. Then we may never know. I see this is now a fresh source of wild speculation, so I won't pursue the question further.

JMO

 

[thebedbug]

...

Maybe in her rage ( which she was raging with 60 messages / texts) KR never knew she hit him.
Maybe she did, but couldn't put it all together until, when sober.

...

---

Unless you think the niece was (also) lying in her testimony... because I'm calling it a given that KR supporters think JM and KRob were lying... she (the niece) said KR mentioned JO being hit by a plow.

In her interview with Nightline, KR was specific about seeing JO walk up the driveway and to the side door. There is no reason on earth that 3 hours later she would've logically or even illogically been waking up his niece and suggesting he could've been "hit by a plow."

That might not qualify as beyond any reasonable doubt... but to me it's a pretty big indicator she knew something more was up than her boyfriend stayed at an after party and wasn't responding to her calls. Seriously... the logical thing that anyone would think would be that he crashed on a couch - not that he's dead.

 

[shotgun09]

On Trooper Proctors removal:

The MSP guy makes a very wordy and promising speech regarding something like: 'We are working on Cleaning this all up'. ( Underneath the banner of MSP is corrupt, IMO )

The State Police Association takes it another step, and defends MP in the KR trial fiasco, by claiming he was just a bad dude caught up in his private texts, saying mean things... We will support him. There is no corruption in the MSP.

Ummm, No !
Michael Proctor testified under oath that why YES INDEED, he used/ instructed the very one person conflicted out of CPD's investigation...the one and only Kevin Albert to set up/ arrange interviews. Does this spell conflicted and corrupt? Or does that spell " Needs additional training" ??

Please don't tell me it's raining, while you are.....etc

IMHO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Unless you think the niece was (also) lying in her testimony... because I'm calling it a given that KR supporters think JM and KRob were lying... she (the niece) said KR mentioned JO being hit by a plow.

In her interview with Nightline, KR was specific about seeing JO walk up the driveway and to the side door. There is no reason on earth that 3 hours later she would've logically or even illogically been waking up his niece and suggesting he could've been "hit by a plow."

That might not qualify as beyond any reasonable doubt... but to me it's a pretty big indicator she knew something more was up than her boyfriend stayed at an after party and wasn't responding to her calls. Seriously... the logical thing that anyone would think would be that he crashed on a couch - not that he's dead.

I have explained this ad nauseum. JOK had not come home. JOK had young children at home he was caring for. Since taking care of those young children, JOK ALWAYS came home. So lets not act like him not coming home was some normal occurance and she should assume he's sleeping at a house he doesn't even know how to get to. JMO

 

[lilyk]

So because he's in a union, he gets suspended from his current duties as a State Trooper, and put on administrative duties at a desk job and out of the public eye where he can no longer be seen as an embarrassment. Could you imagine them having him attend to a crime scene after this! Unless he faces charges of some kind, I can't see him ever losing his job. MOO.

Not necessarily. I was a union steward for almost 25 years and sat in many, many discoveries, corrective action plans and all levels of disciplinary outcomes up to and including terminations and "voluntary" ends to service. I can't speak to the particulars of his contract - though it's probably online somewhere - or the scope and severity of his particular review, but if it is deemed there was gross misconduct he will be fired, likely with the option to voluntarily leave.

When the corrective or disciplinary actions reach the point that termination is a real possibility, there will also be an internal organizer from the union involved, contract specialists, human resources, probably the manger above OP's supervisor and possibly an attorney, all in addition to the Human Resources representative (management and the states CYA person) that are often lawyers themselves. Or always lawyers in my experience with HR's - also IMO they were all so so stupid - like how did any of them ever pass a bar exam senseless). I sat in four employee terminations (or voluntolds). They are a really big deal and often take months or a year to reach that point if someone has been given opportunities to correct their actions. In every termination meeting I sat in the internal organizer, myself and other union reps could clearly see and supported managements request for termination. A strong and honorable union isn't going to support someone who should be fired - for many reasons. A corrupt union might try. With terminations, the union steps up to insure the employee gets what they deserve per contractual language and other requested terms (when, severance, benefit preservation, time off and sick leave bank discussions, confidentiality and review or references agreements, and more). This is where the union starts fighting for the to-be-terminated employee so they exit in the best possible way.

Just wanted to say unions don't exist to protect bad employees, in my experience it's the opposite.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

A Worcester Police Department spokesperson told Boston 25 News that detectives are looking into the incident as acts of harassment and animal cruelty.

Police: Investigation underway after dead turtle hung outside ‘Turtleboy’ blogger’s parents’ home

An investigation is underway after a dead turtle was found hung outside a home where “Turtleboy” blogger Aidan Kearney’s parents live.

www.boston25news.com

That's disgusting. I'm going to pay special attention to BOTH of my turtles when I get home from work.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Not necessarily. I was a union steward for almost 25 years and sat in many, many discoveries, corrective action plans and all levels of disciplinary outcomes up to and including terminations and "voluntary" ends to service. I can't speak to the particulars of his contract - though it's probably online somewhere - or the scope and severity of his particular review, but if it is deemed there was gross misconduct he will be fired, likely with the option to voluntarily leave.

When the corrective or disciplinary actions reach the point that termination is a real possibility, there will also be an internal organizer from the union involved, contract specialists, human resources, probably the manger above OP's supervisor and possibly an attorney, all in addition to the Human Resources representative (management and the states CYA person) that are often lawyers themselves. Or always lawyers in my experience with HR's - also IMO they were all so so stupid - like how did any of them ever pass a bar exam senseless). I sat in four employee terminations (or voluntolds). They are a really big deal and often take months or a year to reach that point if someone has been given opportunities to correct their actions. In every termination meeting I sat in the internal organizer, myself and other union reps could clearly see and supported managements request for termination. A strong and honorable union isn't going to support someone who should be fired - for many reasons. A corrupt union might try. With terminations, the union steps up to insure the employee gets what they deserve per contractual language and other requested terms (when, severance, benefit preservation, time off and sick leave bank discussions, confidentiality and review or references agreements, and more). This is where the union starts fighting for the to-be-terminated employee so they exit in the best possible way.

Just wanted to say unions don't exist to protect bad employees, in my experience it's the opposite.

Thank you for explaining the process! Do you think there are grounds so far as what we know to date to terminate his employment?