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

[KSwizzle]

We are losing track of the conversations- I think you have asked me that question a couple of times now

I 100% agree that MP is a jerk, I have no idea if those texts to his sister were typical or not, internal affairs will find out.

I did not see any evidence that he planted any evidence, only speculation that he did. Lots of sloppy police work, but enough. Once you buy that the evidence is the evidence its simple.

Therefore, the tail light pieces at the crime scene could only have come from some sort of collision. The plastic fragments on his shirt indicate he was the thing involved in that collision as well as his DNA on the car. His phone GPS that says he never moved, never moved. The lack of canine DNA on the right sleeve of his shirt cinches that no dog nibbled on his arm. She likely scratched it. The mechanism of his death that night will never be known but there are reasonable things you can imagine if you buy into that evidence was not planted.

I don't think she has any memory of this and was likely not even aware that it happened. Based on her blood alcohol levels she would have been on the verge of passing out and so would JO. She's a highly intelligent and accomplished person who, once more sober, put the pieces together that morning and realized what had happened; thus the panic and the confession at the scene.

And what I would say in response the to DNA on the taillight, it was touch DNA. There is literally no proof or evidence there was any blood or bodily fluids of JoK on those tailight pieces, literally nothing, nothing. If you're going to say to me that JoK's DNA being on the taillight is some sort of indictment on him being hit Karen Read's car, why was there literally no blood or bodily fluids of his on those pieces, please explain this to me

 

[MyJoey]

RBBM

Can you link to these photos please? Thank you.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-see-read-evidence-shown-to-jurors-in-courtroom/60793160

There’s a slide show of evidence photos.

 

[cocomod]

At the very end when Lally asks him about side swipe hits, I thought he did very good. The expert said there’s a lot of possibilities. I don’t believe in a fight at all, John was never in the house there is no evidence of that. Much more evidence around his body (tail light pieces ) and on his body he was hit….

I appreciate that we all have differing points of view, but you keep saying that there is no evidence of him being in the house. With all due respect, you can't really say that. There was ZERO investigation into that issue. The interviews of the party goers was not made that night - and when they were interviewed, some of them were together. Not one police officer checked the house. I can stand here today and say that there is no way that anyone outside of that party can definitively say that there is no evidence of him being in the house - because simply, there was no investigation to prove that he wasn't.

Also, it is highly unlikely that the taillight pieces would have followed his body to where he landed unless she drove up on the lawn, which she didn't. Also, where did the extra taillight pieces come from? There were more pieces than could be used in her puzzle that she put together. Where is the explanation for the extra pieces?

 

[MyJoey]

Spin? Is that like the mirrored video lally tried to pass off as accurate?

It was still a true video although it should have been mentioned.

 

[Chelly]

The Canton Select Board meets tonight at
7 p.m. Eastern..... 6 p.m. Central..... 5 p.m. Mountain..........
4 p.m. Pacific.
Some locals are expecting things will heat up during the open forum.

 

[ch_13]

Where do you believe the extra pieces come from? They went around just breaking up random pieces of taillight and added it to the scene? What would be the point?

Apparently that's what happened with the glass they found on Karen's bumper. Proctor found a piece of the same glass at 34 Fairview. However, neither of the glass pieces matched John's drinking glass.

I explain this in more detail here: 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

No one has been able to explain the existence of these matching glass pieces, except for Proctor to have planted it there. The commonwealth just brushed it aside and never even bothered to address it.

So, if Proctor planted the glass pieces then why not the taillight?

 

[cocomod]

It was still a true video although it should have been mentioned.

It wasn't true, because as he testified while it was inverted, he literally said noone was near that taillight. Then, when confronted that it was inverted, you can SEE Proctor near the actual taillight in question - right on the video. That is not testifying to the truth!

 

[shotgun09]

It was still a true video although it should have been mentioned.

Clearly that video was purposeful fraud, directed at the jury.
They got caught, with their proverbial pants down.
Seriously here. That is a true fact.

 

[MyJoey]

I appreciate that we all have differing points of view, but you keep saying that there is no evidence of him being in the house. With all due respect, you can't really say that. There was ZERO investigation into that issue. The interviews of the party goers was not made that night - and when they were interviewed, some of them were together. Not one police officer checked the house. I can stand here today and say that there is no way that anyone outside of that party can definitively say that there is no evidence of him being in the house - because simply, there was no investigation to prove that he wasn't.

Also, it is highly unlikely that the taillight pieces would have followed his body to where he landed unless she drove up on the lawn, which she didn't. Also, where did the extra taillight pieces come from? There were more pieces than could be used in her puzzle that she put together. Where is the explanation for the extra pieces?

With all the people there and no one seen him in the house or slipped up over 2 years. Agree no investigation in the however we can only use the evidence we have.
There were Micro pieces found on his clothing. I’m looking into the extra pieces as I haven’t heard that, only that some pieces didn’t mechanically fit together……

 

[CourtandSims4]

I take it you're of the persuasion that defense attorneys just lie, lie, lie? (Similar to beliefs held over on the Delphi threads)

IMO MOO

Well, to be fair, most defense attorneys do lie lie lie because most of their clients are guilty guilty guilty. NOT ALL, but MOST. They are spin doctors by trade. They say a lot of things that even they may not believe is true, or even know is not true, in service of their clients. It's their jobs.

My first experience with Karen Read's defense came about a couple of weeks before the trial began, when they were stating that the 2:27am absolutely was factual and did happen, that police had seized Karen's phone without a warrant and something else that I can't remember, which was a spin on information or taken out of context.

Turned out, there was more information that proved that JM could not have made that search at 2:27am (confirmed by internet history at the same exact time) and Karen had handed her phone over voluntarily. People who are a part of an investigation are always asked if they would voluntarily turn over their phones, without a warrant. That's not unusual. But, it was meant to push a particular narrative. That is deception and a lot people react negatively to that.

Then, during the trial, they tried to make a playful text about going out for drinks sound menacing and foreboding and turned John jokingly telling a little boy to get off his lawn, years prior, into motive for a teenage boy to want to beat him up.

So, yea, a lot of people don't trust defense attorneys because of things like this. I find them very necessary to the justice system, however. Because, again, not everyone is guilty and everyone deserves a fair trial.

 

[MyJoey]

It wasn't true, because as he testified while it was inverted, he literally said noone was near that taillight. Then, when confronted that it was inverted, you can SEE Proctor near the actual taillight in question - right on the video. That is not testifying to the truth!

Agree it was kinda shady but it didn’t show proctor doing anything to the tail light.

 

[kittythehare]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810760257938842045

 

[cocomod]

Agree it was kinda shady but it didn’t show proctor doing anything to the tail light.

No, but he said noone went near the taillight and that was a flat out lie. You are right that we cannot see Proctor do anything to the taillight, but we also can't see that he didn't. Proctor also lied about the time that he picked up the car - on an affidavit! He lied! Not by a minute, but by an hour. Not one digit wrong, but the whole time wrong!! That is in NO way a typo! He even couldn't explain it.

 

[CourtandSims4]

It was still a true video although it should have been mentioned.

I have actually been trying to figure out the significance of the video being mirrored, and what it concealed.

One answer I got is that it shows that people were gathered around the damage taillight. Which... that can't be it because why would they be looking at the undamaged taillight? Hope to get some more clarity at some point. lol

ETA:

It wasn't true, because as he testified while it was inverted, he literally said noone was near that taillight. Then, when confronted that it was inverted, you can SEE Proctor near the actual taillight in question - right on the video. That is not testifying to the truth!

Ooooh, okay. This tells me more about it. That's bizarre that they wouldn't just tell the truth. Of course the investigators are investigating the busted light. He had reason to be there.

So much of the defense's pretrial control of the narrative did a great job putting witnesses on the defensive. A lot were scared to admit to things that they thought looked bad. As far as trying a case in the media goes, this defense was ACE. Credit where credit is due.

 

[shotgun09]

The defense didn't "make up" Michael Proctor. He did that all on his own. With a little help from the FBI, Proctor's phone records and family ties to the Alberts/ McCabes came into focus. Yannetti and Co couldn't help but to investigate what the MSP did not. The Big Blue Wall was uncovered. The case was lost before it ever got to court. IMO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

The charge they voted 8-4 on still requires her striking him with the car. So 8 of them still thought she struck him and caused his death. All 3 charges, you have to agree she hit him to get a guilty verdict. How else could they have thought she would have been responsible?

Because the DUI charge was connected to the manslaughter charge

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I have actually been trying to figure out the significance of the video being mirrored, and what it concealed.

One answer I got is that it shows that people were gathered around the damage taillight. Which... that can't be it because why would they be looking at the undamaged taillight? Hope to get some more clarity at some point. lol

Because they could have been back there damaging the taillight. Nobody said there was zero damage at all points

 

[cocomod]

So, yea, a lot of people don't trust defense attorneys because of things like this. I find them very necessary to the justice system, however. Because, again, not everyone is guilty and everyone deserves a fair trial.

RSBM - This is the very first case I have personally watched closely that I found the CW (prosecutor) to be untrustworthy! I am extremely disappointed in the amount of times that the CW twisted, turned, and flat out tried to confuse the truth!! It started before the trial as well - with the comment that there was video proof that she hit him with her vehicle! I think they should be sanctioned over several things that they did in trial! You are right, I expect this kind of behavior from some shady defense attorneys that try anything and everything to get their client off. I have never expected it from the "legal" prosecutors!

 

[keek]

Where do you believe the extra pieces come from? They went around just breaking up random pieces of taillight and added it to the scene? What would be the point

And what I would say in response the to DNA on the taillight, it was touch DNA. There is literally no proof or evidence there was any blood or bodily fluids of JoK on those tailight pieces, literally nothing, nothing. If you're going to say to me that JoK's DNA being on the taillight is some sort of indictment on him being hit Karen Read's car, why was there literally no blood or bodily fluids of his on those pieces, please explain this to me

Nothing of his DNA under the car or tailpipe, nothing of him. Factual entered evidence. Oh and the car did not hit John, nor just his head and propelled him up to the lawn with a deep gash only, and multiple skull fractures from that per evidence and also dog bites, his defensive arm, also face beaten, back of knuckles bruised. Old news, wait for the upcoming new news. Rehash.

 

[keek]

RSBM - This is the very first case I have personally watched closely that I found the CW (prosecutor) to be untrustworthy! I am extremely disappointed in the amount of times that the CW twisted, turned, and flat out tried to confuse the truth!! It started before the trial as well - with the comment that there was video proof that she hit him with her vehicle! I think they should be sanctioned over several things that they did in trial! You are right, I expect this kind of behavior from some shady defense attorneys that try anything and everything to get their client off. I have never expected it from the "legal" prosecutors!

IMAGINE, Prosecutors caught lieing saying there was video proof she hit him and allowed to carry on. Disgusting. No worries.. Lally is also under investigation and he knew it and before this, FBI got more intel on him with this trial as a bonus.