MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[misantha]

Thank you to all of those who responded to my question about whether you think the Alberts actually did something to JOK. Based on the responses, it seems the KR supporters are coming more from the perspective that JOK's injuries aren't consistent with a vehicle strike so they are entertaining other possibilities.

Obviously, it is the prosecution's job to prove their case against KR. Although I am inclined to think she did it, I also had reasonable doubt so I understand a mistrial or not guilty from that perspective. It seems from the tone of some of the posts that people are adamant that the Alberts did something, so I was honestly just wondering if there was other evidence out there to support this that I was missing since KR was on trial, not the Alberts. I have been surprised by the vitriol towards the Alberts and others at the house, and this caused me to wonder what I am missing. Based on what I have read, it seems rooted in suspicious behavior. Maybe we will never know because the investigation was inadequate.

Like others mentioned, I really am just curious about differing opinions and how people reach their own conclusions. This is one of the things that fascinates me when following cases and why I appreciate this forum.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

<modsnip>

As an uninvolved participant here, not even residing in the state of Massachusetts or town of Canton, in following this case and others….. I am just looking at the evidence, testimony, investigative technique, courtroom procedural matters, rulings on the record, and attempting to determine guilt or absence of guilt by a reasonable doubt. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

But there is a lot more. JO's shirt and all his other clothes are still in evidence and could be tested for canine DNA by the defense, but they didn't. Why do you think they didn't? The prosecution did and found no canine DNA.

^^rsbm

It's not the defense job to prove KR innocent, and they had no duty to test anything! In this case, the test was positive for pig DNA which IMO, was most likely from the dog.

This is the second case I've followed involving testing for canine where the DNA results were positive for pig from the dog's own food. (Dateline and E. Scott Sills murder trial).

Expert disputes dog DNA defense in Karen Read murder trial

 

[ch_13]

^^rsbm

It's not the defense job to prove KR innocent, and they had no duty to test anything! In this case, the test was positive for pig DNA which IMO, was most likely from the dog.

This is the second case I've followed involving testing for canine where the DNA results were positive for pig from the dog's own food. (Dateline and E. Scott Sills murder trial).

Expert disputes dog DNA defense in Karen Read murder trial

The claim that the defense didn't want to test John's clothing for DNA is simply false. In fact, very early on they filed a motion to compel to in order to get access to the shirt and test it for DNA. That motion was opposed by the commonwealth. And the judge simply refused to rule on the motion. She sat on it for something like 20 months. If she had denied it the defense could have appealed, but as long as the motion was outstanding the defense had no recourse.

Eventually, the shirt was tested by the commonwealth but not until the eve of the trial. Of course more than two years had passed since John's death by that point. The evidence chain for the clothing is tenuous at best, and who knows what happened to the shirt in those two years.

Setting aside the DNA for a moment, I just can't believe that the tiny puncture holes in the hoodie that match up perfectly with the arm wounds were caused by John's arm hitting the taillight, which is what the commonwealth is claiming. It's like they're saying "don't trust your lyin' eyes."

Well, I do trust my eyes and those are not the wounds nor the fabric damage that you would get from being hit by a car. They're just not.

 

[fluffypaste]

It actually wouldn't matter if Karen Read's defense claimed that JO'K was killed by aliens or by a time-travelling Genghis Khan, if the CW can't convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that she hit him with her car then she can't be found guilty!

JMO

In theory. In practice, if a defense attorney puts forward a theory that seems strange or preposterous or bizarre, they need to be able to support it with serious evidence to persuade the jury, otherwise the defendant will almost certainly be found guilty.

 

[bobbymkii]

<modsnip>

As an uninvolved participant here, not even residing in the state of Massachusetts or town of Canton, in following this case and others….. I am just looking at the evidence, testimony, investigative technique, courtroom procedural matters, rulings on the record, and attempting to determine guilt or absence of guilt by a reasonable doubt. MOO

I don't even live in the United States. This case is happening in New England, I live in Merry Old England and cases like this make me all the more terrified by the near-complete lack of transparency we have in our justice system over here.

When you guys have possibly horrendous miscarriages of justice take place, there's at least a decent chance that there's a camera in the courtroom where it happened and it is more likely something can be done about it as a result. No such luxury over here!

JMO

 

[jepop]

The claim that the defense didn't want to test John's clothing for DNA is simply false. In fact, very early on they filed a motion to compel to in order to get access to the shirt and test it for DNA. That motion was opposed by the commonwealth. And the judge simply refused to rule on the motion. She sat on it for something like 20 months. If she had denied it the defense could have appealed, but as long as the motion was outstanding the defense had no recourse.

Eventually, the shirt was tested by the commonwealth but not until the eve of the trial. Of course more than two years had passed since John's death by that point. The evidence chain for the clothing is tenuous at best, and who knows what happened to the shirt in those two years.

Setting aside the DNA for a moment, I just can't believe that the tiny puncture holes in the hoodie that match up perfectly with the arm wounds were caused by John's arm hitting the taillight, which is what the commonwealth is claiming. It's like they're saying "don't trust your lyin' eyes."

Well, I do trust my eyes and those are not the wounds nor the fabric damage that you would get from being hit by a car. They're just not.


View attachment 520698

Agree in full. I've also seen unsubstantiated claims that the defense did nothing about trying to get access to the dog Chloe pre trial. I only came in when trial was underway, but I believe imo defense encountered difficulties here too re motions being denied or not acted on. Jmo. Not sure if you're more familiar with background there and can point to anything that occurred in the period?

On a general note I see the nine pro charge 2 (manslaughter) jurors as looking the other way and burying heads in sand re the dog scratch and one bite testimony and of course! the medical (no bruising) and the physics laid out by accident reconstruction experts. All of this unchallenged by the CW who set the example for jurors to look away and ignore . Jmo And imo the judge had opportunities to instruct the jury firmly re their duties when the first note re personal convictions arrived but failed to do so. Jmo

There was a list of questions on prior threads including 1. Why no swabbing of arm wounds; 2. Why no blood or DNA on taillight pieces uncovered from lawn. Jmo

 

[TIGER0822]

It seems most of the posters on this thread think Karen Read should have been found not guilty of all charges. I watched the trial like a juror. That is to say I only watched testimony in front of jurors, and I really have no idea of the substance of anything else outside of that including any other investigation ongoing. At the end of the trial, I think she most likely hit him with no intent to kill him. Also, I would have probably voted not guilty due to reasonable doubt related to the sloppy investigation. However, in no way, do I buy into the conspiracy surrounding the Albert family, and it is illogical to me that every single piece of damning evidence could be planted by Proctor.

I am honestly wondering if a lot of you really believe the Albert family did something to JOK, and if so, what is the evidence to support this?

In my opinion there is a lot of circumstantial evidence of a cover up.
-Two phones completely destroyed with phone numbers changed the day before a protective order came down.
-The text ‘tell them the guy was not in the house’. That is an order not a statement.
Proctors texted that ‘he thought that it was initially a fight, with no investigation
Another text that (Colin??/ forget name) was involved shhh..:
Colin not being listed as being in the house
‘I bet the homeowners are going to get some serious sh ..
‘No he is a Boston Cop’.
Two friends changing from texting to some snap chat thing messaging.
McCabe stating that she would get Proctor a present when this was all over’. “Give it to my wife’
FBI specialist hired recon team
‘The car did not have damage consistent with hitting a person and JO injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car’. ‘You can’t deny the science and the physics’
‘The inverted video.
Feel free to add.
I could go on, but my flight is boarding! MOO

 

[shotgun09]

In my opinion there is a lot of circumstantial evidence of a cover up.
-Two phones completely destroyed with phone numbers changed the day before a protective order came down.
-The text ‘tell them the guy was not in the house’. That is an order not a statement.
Proctors texted that ‘he thought that it was initially a fight, with no investigation
Another text that (Colin??/ forget name) was involved shhh..:
Colin not being listed as being in the house
‘I bet the homeowners are going to get some serious sh ..
‘No he is a Boston Cop’.
Two friends changing from texting to some snap chat thing messaging.
McCabe stating that she would get Proctor a present when this was all over’. “Give it to my wife’
FBI specialist hired recon team
‘The car did not have damage consistent with hitting a person and JO injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car’. ‘You can’t deny the science and the physics’
‘The inverted video.
Feel free to add.
I could go on, but my flight is boarding! MOO

Here's one to add to your list ( after landing )...

Chloe, The MIA dog
Who didn't bark when 6 vehicles with lights on and multiple people yelling at each other over the howling winds were happening right outside the window where she ' usually slept'.
Except that night...per dog owner extraordinaire Brian Albert, she may have 'slept in the closet'......

And Jen McCabe BARGES into her sister and brother-in-laws bedroom amidst the flurry of activity....and SHE doesn't remember the dog being there or barking......

Where the flock was Chloe?

Not one LE member or person present in the 7-9 am hours inside the home at 34 Fairview recalls or speaks of Chloe being present. It's as if she just poofed out of the atmosphere.

And the dog owner extraordinaires also called her an "It".