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

[Wishbone]

Sandra Birchmore case is 2nd Norfolk County death probe that feds intervened in​

Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy didn't directly answer when asked whether, in light of the Birchmore and Karen Read cases, it was rare for federal and state prosecutors to reach different conclusions on investigations, but experts called it unusual for federal authorities to become involved in a local investigation, especially twice within the same county​

snipped​

The U.S. Attorney's Office for Massachusetts also conducted its own investigation into the highly-controversial Karen Read case, which ended in a mistrial last month. The Norfolk County District Attorney's office alleged that Read killed her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, by hitting him with her SUV, but crash reconstruction experts hired by federal prosecutors came to a different conclusion, a theory that Read's lawyers were able to discuss in front of the jury.
And in the Birchmore case, federal prosecutors came to a different conclusion from their counterparts in Norfolk County, at least initially. Where investigators said soon afterward that there was no foul play involved in Birchmore's death, the federal case outlined in court now alleges she was killed by Matthew Farwell, a detective with the Stoughton Police Department. Farwell is accused of strangling her and staging her apartment to make it appear that she took her own life.

Feds have stepped in on Karen Read, Sandra Birchmore cases. Experts say it's unusual.

Legal experts say it’s unusual for federal authorities to become involved in a local investigation, especially twice within the same county, as has happened in the Karen Read and Sandra Birchmore cases.

www.nbcboston.com

​

​

 

[Charlot123]

I do not think that Sandra Birchmore’s case and John O’Keefe’s murder are connected in a major way. I still feel that there are more “pro”s for “KR did it” than “someone in the Alberts’ house and Chloe did it”, but even this hung jury is better than what is now happening in Delphi.

If there is not enough data to convict, it is better to let the accused go, all the more so that it JOK’s one was obviously not a planned murder and KR is not a serial killer. The case was about a drunk policeman allowing his drunk GF to give him a ride, with dire consequences. All of it testifies to the level of power and disorganization the policemen in Canton are allowed to have under DA Morrissey, that’s all.

But at least, lot of work went into it, and we were privy to the process.

The power of expensive lawyers should not be unlimited, though, and I hope that some other cases, like that of Suzanne Morphew, for example, will have an expected and much-desired outcome.

If KR’s and SB’s cases are connected, and it is JMO, IMHO, MOO and all disclosures, just my Conjecture, it would be through one factor.
The family of Sandra got the money to hire a private medical expert. I question a potential connection there, but after all, SB’s murder is so obvious and the whole situation with these pedophile policemen, nauseating, that it is good. As I said, JMO.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Most of the YouTube lawyers seem to think the appeals court won't overturn the judge's decision because there is no precedent or caselaw in Massachusetts to support overturning it. But several think the court will establish new rules for judges in such situations on a go forward basis. This judge was so unbelievably sloppy all around here.

No time like the present for a precedent setting case! Precedent always begins with one case/appeal. This one is a mighty fine candidate. moo

 

[GoBuckeyes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1828103260114493744

GodSpeed o’Keefes

Give me a break! KR had every right to any defense strategy or strategies she and her lawyers chose. If they were so emotionally distressed, they could have chosen not to attend said proceedings.

Even the civil case document and statements of "fact" are just plain bizarre. moo omo

 

[jepop]

Well, my position remains that no vehicle ever hit and killed JOK. Said best in Aug 6th post courtesy of @SteveS. Moo. Have brought forward at the end of my post.

Questions about possible similarities in investigations of both Canton cases are finally reported in msm as shown up thread.

Moo follows; ,MA State MEs got things wrong in both cases. SB was not suicide. JOk's arm wounds were never swabbed, researched, investigated per KR ME trial testimony. IOW they were ignored by the relevant ME in JOK's case when it came to manner of death/ circumstances surrounding death. Imoo

What was the dynamic between these 2 diff MA State MEs and the main investigating officers from Canton PD and MSP? Some investigating officers were involved in both cases. Did both MEs do less than competent investigations into MOD on their lonesomes? Were their findings influenced by sub par and/or incompetent /tunnel visioned/corrupt Canton PD and MSP investigators?

These above are my questions emerging from msm reporting on both cases together and my opinion on how JOK was NOT killed.

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

www.websleuths.com

 

[Curiousobserver]

The problem is that the FBI did not prove he wasn't hit by a vehicle, they can't scientifically do that. Their conclusion was that they didn't think his injuries and the damage to the are were consistent with each other and they couldn't reconcile the two with the limited experiments and analysis they did. This is very different.

The FBI guys couldn't figure out how it happened, they didn't prove it couldn't have happened.

The evidence he was hit by the vehicle are the broken tail light pieces at the scene with his DNA on them. Until you prove they were planted by a corrupt police officer(s), the most likely explanation for those is they are related to the injuries on the dead guy whose DNA they match.

 

[jepop]

The problem is that the FBI did not prove he wasn't hit by a vehicle, they can't scientifically do that. Their conclusion was that they didn't think his injuries and the damage to the are were consistent with each other and they couldn't reconcile the two with the limited experiments and analysis they did. This is very different.

The FBI guys couldn't figure out how it happened, they didn't prove it couldn't have happened.

The evidence he was hit by the vehicle are the broken tail light pieces at the scene with his DNA on them. Until you prove they were planted by a corrupt police officer(s), the most likely explanation for those is they are related to the injuries on the dead guy whose DNA they match.

I don't recall any testimony at trial or evidence presented at trial demonstrating tail light shards uncovered on the lawn had JOK 's dna on them, imo the shards on the lawn were not even tested for his DNA or if they were none was found. You'll need to please show time stamped testimony to back up this assertion otherwise your statement appears misinformative.IMO

Re the shards uncovered on the lawn also Lally presented no witness saying they had found either JOk's blood or skin on those shards moo but I watched that testimony carefully. Also happy to be proved wrong about this with a time stamped video from trial testimony showing otherwise. Moo

 

[ch_13]

The evidence he was hit by the vehicle are the broken tail light pieces at the scene with his DNA on them. Until you prove they were planted by a corrupt police officer(s), the most likely explanation for those is they are related to the injuries on the dead guy whose DNA they match.

snipped.

And, yet...There were those shards of glass which mysteriously appeared on Karen's bumper and also at the scene. But none of those glass pieces were matched to John's drinking glass. Who put them there? Not John and not Karen. There's no other reasonable explanation other than they were planted, probably by Proctor.

And if the glass pieces were planted, then is it so hard to believe the taillight shards were? The so-called DNA evidence is really sketchy. It's touch DNA. Yet, supposedly those same taillight pieces cut huge gashes in his arms, yet no blood or skin was found on them. Plus, there's no way those taillight pieces made tiny pinprick holes in his jersey. That's just not the way a broken piece of polycarbonate would damage a piece of cotton cloth.

 

[jepop]

snipped.

And, yet...There were those shards of glass which mysteriously appeared on Karen's bumper and also at the scene. But none of those glass pieces were matched to John's drinking glass. Who put them there? Not John and not Karen. There's no other reasonable explanation other than they were planted, probably by Proctor.

And if the glass pieces were planted, then is it so hard to believe the taillight shards were? The so-called DNA evidence is really sketchy. It's touch DNA. Yet, supposedly those same taillight pieces cut huge gashes in his arms, yet no blood or skin was found on them. Plus, there's no way those taillight pieces made tiny pinprick holes in his jersey. That's just not the way a broken piece of polycarbonate would damage a piece of cotton cloth.

Bradford at around 3 hours 52 mins. NOt the pieces recovered from lawn, just an extraction of epithelial cells from tail light housing area of busted light. To be clear NO JOK DNA evidence at trial re JOK DNA on the lawn pieces and as stated before, also no blood and no skin. OP is misinformed.

 

[Seattle1]

Give me a break! KR had every right to any defense strategy or strategies she and her lawyers chose. If they were so emotionally distressed, they could have chosen not to attend said proceedings.

Even the civil case document and statements of "fact" are just plain bizarre. moo omo

Nothing make me cringe more than Civil pleadings that are drafted to butter both sides of the bread for a money grab!

For example, generally, anticipated claims for pain and suffering are covered in the non-economic category for "Loss of Companionship." IMO, by making a claim for emotional distress, citing KR changing her defense strategy as the basis here, the Plaintiffs have positioned the party to also straddle the fence for Punitive damages (i.e., punish the defendant) which are uncommon in MA -- especially without a criminal conviction.

However, knowing they can pause this suit at anytime for the criminal case, the Plaintiffs timely filed the WDC, and will be in the position to massage and manipulate (the sympathy of the jurors) the dollars between the overlapping claims for both pain and suffering and emotional distress.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your stance, experienced Civil Attorneys understand the multiplier and per diem calcs used by Underwriters to settle such cases for the least exposure and greatest economic benefit for each. MOO

Here is a summary of the key categories:

• Loss of financial support — This includes income the deceased would have likely earned in the future, as well as the value of household services they provided, such as child care or home maintenance.
• Loss of companionship — This encompasses the emotional pain and suffering endured by the beneficiaries due to the loss of companionship, guidance and love from the deceased.
• Loss of decedent’s society — This compensates for the loss of the deceased’s companionship, protection and enjoyment of life.
• Medical and funeral expenses — Reimbursement for reasonable medical bills incurred before death and the costs associated with the funeral and burial.

Punitive damages are uncommon in MA:

Punitive damages put the focus on the person or organization that is responsible for the accident or death. They are similar to a fine. The court will impose the damages on the responsible party based on conduct that led to the accident or death. By doing so, the court seeks to deter others from acting the same way. Punitive damages in MA are uncommon--especially if no criminal conviction. Most likely because they are not insurable, MOO.

 

[Seattle1]

Standing and Wrongful Death Lawsuit in MA:

Under Massachusetts law, only the administrator or executor of the deceased’s estate has standing to file a wrongful death claim. An executor or administrator has a number of obligations and responsibilities regarding the deceased’s estate, including paying any outstanding debts, ensuring beneficiaries receive their inheritance under the terms of the will, and finalizing the estate’s affairs. In this specific case, I think it's fair to assume that JOK had a will, and that he nominated his brother POK to serve as the executor.

Please take note that pursuant to MA law, given JOK had no surviving spouse, his children will receive the whole of any economic portion of a presumed Wrongful Death award, in equal shares. In other words, JOK's parents and siblings will not benefit from the lawsuit because there are surviving children.

^^rsbm

https://twitter.com/x/status/1828103649052311768

^^^^^^^^^^^UPADATE & IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Reading from attached pages 1 and 2 above by reporter Kristina Rex from the subject Wrongful Death Claim dated 8/26/24, it's now confirmed that JOK did NOT legally adopt his minor niece and nephew (Kaylee and Patrick) who'd resided with the decedent for eight years prior to his death.

In other words, for relevant standing, legally, K & P are only JOK's surviving niece and nephew, and not his children. (In my initial post, I incorrectly believed JOK adopted the minors as his legal children which would have excluded his parents and siblings from any presumed award from the suit).

Pursuant to MA law, given JOF had no surviving children, his parents and siblings are in-fact Plaintiffs to the wrongful death suit, and claims to any economic portion of a presumed Wrongful Death award by his surviving niece and nephew, are as beneficiaries of the estate of JOK's sibling, Kristen, their mother. (Kristen is identified in the suit as JOK's sister, and the daughter of each their parents).

This is further made clear on page one where JOK's mother Margaret (MOK) is separately named a Plaintiff as the grandparent and guardian for the niece and not for both of the minor children. MOO

ETA: attach image

 

[Seattle1]

The problem is that the FBI did not prove he wasn't hit by a vehicle, they can't scientifically do that. Their conclusion was that they didn't think his injuries and the damage to the are were consistent with each other and they couldn't reconcile the two with the limited experiments and analysis they did. This is very different.

The FBI guys couldn't figure out how it happened, they didn't prove it couldn't have happened.

The evidence he was hit by the vehicle are the broken tail light pieces at the scene with his DNA on them. Until you prove they were planted by a corrupt police officer(s), the most likely explanation for those is they are related to the injuries on the dead guy whose DNA they match.

I disagree with OP's conclusion given the defense has no burden of proof here. IMO, FBI provided reasonable doubt that given the totality of the evidence, the CW failed to show that JOK was struck by a vehicle. The CW holds this burden, not the FBI. And if/when KR is recharged as indicted, I hope the defense will drop this alternate claim of planted evidence and let the science speak loudly for itself. JMO

 

[weepingangel]

Two deaths in one Massachusetts town cast doubt on the relationship between police and prosecutors

The Massachusetts model of state police working alongside prosecutors on high-profile crimes, instead of an independent investigative agency, is compromising cases, experts said.

www.nbcnews.com