MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #5

[HarmonyE.]

No, the video doesn't show she hit it, just that she comes near it. And there's no damage on his car nor any pieces of the tail light found there nor seen on the video.

His car clearly moves. Please stop just making stuff up. You aren't accomplishing anything useful.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If it moved, it was a microscopic amount. And if it was enough to break the taillight, then there should be taillight pieces found there, but there weren't any. Show me on the video where the broken pieces are.

 

[Derph]

No, the video doesn't show she hit it, just that she comes near it. And there's no damage on his car nor any pieces of the tail light found there nor seen on the video.

It 100% absolutely does. JO's car didn't move itself. When she backs into it, the car moves. And no it's not microscopically. It's right there to see. There is no arguing this FACT. KR's car backed into JO's car with the same corner of the car the prosecution claims hit JO.

As far as the tailight be broken I say the light was cracked not broken into 40+ pieces. That came after the shady investigation, evidence lockdown protocols. As well as the mysterious missing video of the carport when " investigators" including Higgins were around it with blood evidence contained in Solo Cups and a grocery bag sitting right next to the car.

 

[keek]

His car clearly moves. Please stop just making stuff up. You aren't accomplishing anything useful.

It moves with the narrator pointing out what angle of the SUV made JO's car's wheels move forward, when she backed her corner of her SUV into it. Clear to see the back wheels move forward then back, jolted.

 

[Universecalling]

I suspect it will come to light that BH and the Chief were in the sally port with KR’s car for an extended period of time and the film showing that - you guessed it - is missing.
I believe there were other employees at the CPD HQ who will testify to that shortly.
You will recall that AJ kept asking Higgins on the stand about if he was in the sally port and how long / with anybody etc.
I believe Higgins indicated he only used the sally port as a cut thru as he always did.
As I understand it the ex chief is unavailable to testify due to illness ? (Somebody jump in here if I am off base please on that. )So it’s Higgins word against the other Officers I think. Just my opinion
So we have the picture of her tail light after she supposedly hit JO not totally shattered and then you have these two shady dudes hanging in the sally port with the car.
Tail light irrelevant imo.
All imo.

Don’t forget lt Gallagher’s testimony.
He first says that in the process of taking off the tail light it shattered more. Then when asked if those pieces fell in the floor he denied it. Then said it wasn’t cracked more in the process of taking it off.
All this was in the sallyport.

 

[Universecalling]

LOL! All these people do is drink and drive! Constantly. They have no fear whatsover of DUI's.

The amount of hit and runs the Albert family alone was involved with tells you all you need to know. One included death.
Very little consequences.
And that is just what we know of!

It is beyond comprehension.
And that is precisely why it is believable there is a collusion.
They’ve gotten away with it for so long, why not again?
This time they didn’t think someone would fight back.

 

[HarmonyE.]

If it moved, it was a microscopic amount. And if it was enough to break the taillight, then there should be taillight pieces found there, but there weren't any. Show me on the video where the broken pieces are.

No. We all wouldn't have seen a "microscopic amount". His wheel actually moves.

I'm not sure you're actually watching the trial, but she didn't shatter her taillight at any time. She cracked it hitting John's vehicle.

Kerry Roberts, witness for the prosecution, testified a single piece was missing from Karen's taillight. One single piece.

Not 45 pieces missing. Not that the entire casement was void of red taillight. A single piece. Otherwise, the light was intact.

You really believe a single piece of taillight killed John O'Keefe? Her car had no body damage whatsoever.

And it's so curious that the Canton police, who searched the site using a leaf blower when there was still just a few inches of snow on the ground, found not a single piece of taillight. Absolutely nothing. And yet 45 pieces magically appear over the following days and weeks.

Stay tuned and we'll soon find out how that taillight was shattered.

 

[TIGER0822]

Yes, and clearly making his car jolt forward, twice I thought I saw. The wheels go forward, it was a very good informative vid.

What was the corresponding damage on JO car?

 

[Universecalling]

They sound 0% credible to me.

Prosecutors win cases all the time using phone and internet data. And yet:

Life360 data indicates Allie McCabe drove around town until 1:28 am although she testified she got home at 12:30 and stayed home. She and her mother say the data is wrong.

Phone data shows Jen McCabe called John O'Keefe's phone repeatedly - 6 times in total - before 1 am. She denies she called him at all and if the records are accurate, they must have all been butt dials she wasn't aware of.

Phone data shows Higgins and Brian Albert had conversations at around 2 am but they deny they spoke. They insist they didn't have a 22 second conversation, but if the records show they did, it must have been a case of butt dialing coupled with butt answering. So just their butts were talking for those 22 seconds.

Cellebrite data shows Jen McCabe googled "Hos long to die in the cold" at 2:27. She denies this, and insists that search relates to later searches asking essentially the same question at 6:23 am and 6:24 am. And yet, curiously, the only search she deleted of these was the 2:27 one.

Phone data shows Nicole answered two of Jen's calls before Jen finally decided to enter the apparently unlocked house. But both of them claim this data is wrong and they never spoke until Jen "burst" into the Albert bedroom.

And then to ice the cake, we have deleted messages (Jen), destroyed/wiped phones (BA and BH) and my favorites, BH's illegal use of FBI equipment to pull data from his phone and the destruction of his SIM card at a military base on Cape Cod.

Sure. Nothing to see here, folks.

I still wonder if Chloe got out from the back yard and attacked JO after they threw him out (they were all adamant BA took her out to pee, I think he just let her out).
I could see him laying on the ground half out of it and her pouncing on him while he’s protecting his face.
Same theory applies if they kept him outside in the back yard until 2:30 and then dragged him upfront (while the ford edge is blocking the view jic someone drives by).

 

[Universecalling]

Not really. She just needed to drive out of the garage with the unbroken one, get on the camera and then slightly hit JO’s car. After that, she does have a small break on the glass that won’t be of the size left when you hit a person full-speed. A break, but smaller one, After that, all red glass found in the area of the Fairview 34, as she claims, was “planted“.

BTW, I don’t know how exactly JO died. I merely assume that he was last seen getting into KR’s car at the Waterfall and that en route to Fairview 34 he was texting back, and after a while, the texts stopped coming. The time between his last text and the first not-answered one is when he was somehow incapacitated, probably, in KR’s car or getting out. All I know is that no witness saw him enter BA’s house so I assume, it didn’t happen.

I personally suspect that KR killing him is the most plausible of versions, but I don’t know all the details. All to the rest - we had the defense claim that the dog bit JO; if you have noticed, this version quietly expired. People claimed that BA and BH kill him, out of BH’s “jealousy”. The texts between BH and KR that we were presented show, amidst other things, that BH is no young passionate Romeo. I think the defense will return to “Colin” because fewer people saw him leave. But I hope, technology will reveal more about the true circumstances of JO’s death.

Respectfully, the plausibility of KR finding a new taillight (a specific one for her expensive, foreign car), in the snow storm at 3 am, affixing it or someone doing it for her, is FAR less plausible than evidence being collected in red solo cups.
If you gave me those two possibilities, I’d say solo cups are more plausible. And that says a lot.

 

[turaj]

I said she admitted it was broken that night, not that she confessed to the crime.

But how do you know she hit John's car when there's no proof of it?

sure looked like she hit John's car in that video...the car moved a bit.

 

[MyJoey]

In the CW's opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss (link below, thanks for finding this, Hope4More!), on page 18 it states the other shoe was found, along with two red pieces of taillight plastic, in the same area JOK was found.

Also, pages 21/22 are interesting, it talks about street camera videos (a library and a Temple) and KR's cell records that they use to plot her travel after leaving JOK's home the early morning of Jan. 29th, where on her way over to Jen McCabe's house she traveled towards the Waterfall and also the vicinity of 34 Fairview.

I'm no crime scene expert but nothing about the prosecution's view of the events that late night outside the Albert's home make sense to me.

And if I were on the jury I would disregard most of the state's witness testimony, nearly everyone has shown themselves not to be credible (and even incredible [butt dials being answered by butt dials??]), but if the state does show in trial what is in the SOC, about her going over by 34 Fairview *before* going to Jen McCabe's to look for him, it makes me wonder what she actually knew about JOK's whereabouts.

Did she go past 34 Fairview and see him covered in snow, and still go on to Jen's, leaving him for another hour+ in the snow? Was she just looking in areas they had been in the night before, hoping to spot him? I don't know, but that bit of info threw me for a loop.

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/karen-read-document-240222-125438-65d7abb038003.pdf

You see on page 20 I believe KR had 7 drinks at the one bar. I know one thing if I had that much to drink there is no way, I would be moving or up at 5 in the morning.

 

[MyJoey]

If it moved, it was a microscopic amount. And if it was enough to break the taillight, then there should be taillight pieces found there, but there weren't any. Show me on the video where the broken pieces are.

I think there’s 2 different angles of video because I thought the same thing till I seen the other…..

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

It 100% absolutely does. JO's car didn't move itself. When she backs into it, the car moves. And no it's not microscopically. It's right there to see. There is no arguing this FACT. KR's car backed into JO's car with the same corner of the car the prosecution claims hit JO.

As far as the tailight be broken I say the light was cracked not broken into 40+ pieces. That came after the shady investigation, evidence lockdown protocols. As well as the mysterious missing video of the carport when " investigators" including Higgins were around it with blood evidence contained in Solo Cups and a grocery bag sitting right next to the car.

So all you got is rampant speculation to explain the lack of pieces there.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

What was the corresponding damage on JO car?

*crickets*

 

[PenelopeJude]

It’s always interesting to see when tools with questionable indisputability are used to hold the Shoulda Just Complied classes to account for their own actions when they suspect they might be swept up into a criminal investigation. And it’s instructional to observe how current and former LE navigate their personal, off duty civil rights; defensible things like seeking and paying for legal advice, declining to participate in pseudoscience criminalistics like polygraphs, getting ahead of quashable preservation orders, not using cloud-based digital security camera systems on their own homes when the data collected might be used to monitor their behavior or the ordinary comings and goings of neighbors and friends, deciding to create a timeline of their behavior through group consensus. The right to privacy, and confer with other witnesses, is important!

For years, organized legal defense advocates for murder and terrorism suspects, especially, have argued that cell phone and smart device analytics purporting to demonstrate detailed on- and off-phone activities down to the second are imperfect interpretations of data, including passive background activity and collection by apps, and that companies like Cellebrite that market their interpretations to security forces actively use these public-private contracts to resist exposing their in-house metrics to public scrutiny, testing, and legal dispute. The master’s tools can apparently smart when, to mix metaphors, that boomerang bounces back.

I’m assuming this will change nothing for the average citizen but I bet the local and federal peers of the Alberts and of Higgins are paying close attention and will make the necessary adjustments to protect themselves being subjected in future to these tactics we ourselves aren’t as readily able to avoid. Indeed, as @ch_13 pointed out, Karen Read’s defense counsel couldn’t have hired an analytics company to scrutinize anyone’s device because they weren’t permitted to successfully obtain and execute preservation and search orders for any interested party in this death. Defense counsel for ordinary civilians (police and federal agents are, of course, civilians, too, but there are these kiosks, y’see) can’t mount an affirmative defense using this kind of material evidence unless a government agency sought and seized it, as it did here, nor do they get to limit access to their clients’ data — such as it is and with what qualifiers apply as to what that data really represents, warts and all — in curated screenshot form.

Again, a lot of this stuff really is disputable and always has been, but the usual caveated appeals to law n order tend to blunt the reality and significance for all of us. But this case is really something else when it comes to even simple things that we might ordinarily think are pretty low tech, like a security card swipe. Not so definitive anymore, it’s being argued. Doesn’t prove much, can’t be used to lock down a non-opaque timeline or trace a person’s steps in a secured facility, which itself has been militarized to the gills on our dime and for the greater good.

Will the rest of us get the benefit of that doubt, or will it be business as usual when the interested party is a lesser public servant, like a teacher or a welfare worker? Will a person who sanitizes the facilities in a public building endear themselves to a jury, awash for decades in the teachings of the church of our Big Tech Savior and reared to believe anything that seems science-y can’t be wrong or nuanced or non-definitive, with a butt dial argument concerning a phone they used to have, now disposed of, they admit had at least one if not two lock screen protection features enabled? Would it be in their favor if they were also on a Jameson bender or having sex at the time? Or would the commonwealth demand access to the phone itself to prove they simply couldn’t’ve been on the couch or in missionary position because their compass app or the haptics or whatever definitely, pinky swear, sez nein?

Lexus OBD metrics are coming. Who will be as skeptical about them as they (probably rightfully are) are about Life360 or search engine queries?

Wait….who was having sex? What do you know? I’m suddenly interested in your point.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You see on page 20 I believe KR had 7 drinks at the one bar. I know one thing if I had that much to drink there is no way, I would be moving or up at 5 in the morning.

Yep. And not to blame the victim, but he never should have got in the car with her.

 

[HarmonyE.]

What was the corresponding damage on JO car?

No confirmation either way, however, this was a low speed collision with very minor damage to Read's taillight. Laws of physics do not require that there would be corresponding damage to the other vehicle. Ever been in a minor accident where one vehicle sustained a little damage but the other did not? Or one sustained quite a bit and one had very little?

Either way, I doubt anyone took a close look a John's vehicle. Because, well, no investigation done...

 

[ch_13]

You see on page 20 I believe KR had 7 drinks at the one bar. I know one thing if I had that much to drink there is no way, I would be moving or up at 5 in the morning.

I know that's what the motion says. But it's awfully interesting that the commonwealth never introduced that video into evidence. They also could have had the bartender testify or introduced the receipts from that evening. But they did none of that. Instead all they have is a bunch of people testifying that Karen was drinking something "clear with a lime in it."

I have no idea why they didn't but it's just yet another oddity in the prosecution's case.

 

[HarmonyE.]

So all you got is rampant speculation to explain the lack of pieces there.

I think you mean "piece"? See Kerry Robert's testimony. It didn't even have to fall out there. It could have been pushed in before the entire thing was ripped out and shattered in the sallyport.