MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #6

[HarmonyE.]

It's possible I missed it a mention to it. But I watched all of her testimony and if she said it, there was no discussion of it. Which pieces of clothing and where on the clothing? How were the pieces collected? How tightly were they embedded in the fabric? And of course, there's been no cross yet.

Hardly damning if it was just one brief mention that didn't even make it into any of the trial recaps in the MSM.


edit - Actually, it's coming back to me now. Didn't Vallier say the pieces were found on the orange tee? I remember thinking that was weird because John was wearing the sweatshirt over the t-shirt. How did they get on the t-shirt? Then they started going through and identifying all the exhibits and never came back to it. Let's see what's discussed tomorrow.

There's a photo of John's body lying in a hospital bed, with his clothes in a heap on the floor. An officer's legs can be seen next to them.

Where'd they go from there? The defense touched upon it yesterday, but it seems they weren't catalogued until March.

Did they land in the same Stop and Shop bag with the plastic pieces? Or was it a Dollar Tree bag this time?

 

[shotgun09]

There's a photo of John's body lying in a hospital bed, with his clothes in a heap on the floor. An officer's legs can be seen next to them.

Where'd they go from there? The defense touched upon it yesterday, but it seems they weren't catalogued until March.

Did they land in the same Stop and Shop bag with the plastic pieces? Or was it a Dollar Tree bag this time?

And, obviously the clothes were never properly logged in to any professional/legally accepted evidence log. The Canton PD didn't log anything in properly. Surely the lead investigator has not either...as far as we know. Things just magically appear there, don't they? Why, personal vehicles become 'Command Centers' in MA, from what I heard yesterday.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

No chain of custody!! This investigation was beyond a sham!! The car didn’t have any evidence of her hitting him. The broken taillight is not evidence and shouldn’t even be admissible since it was obviously tampered with. It doesn’t matter if pieces were found under the snow, it was still snowing when the “investigators” were there. The same ones that were around her SUV when the surveillance video mysteriously lost footage. They admit they broke the light taking it out of her car. A single hair on her car after driving in a blizzard - but even so, her car was in his garage. What does one hair prove?! As Luis Litt would say - Not a GD thing.

Karen Read trial live updates: Hair was found on rear bumper of Read’s SUV

A Massachusetts State Police forensic scientist testified Monday that she found what appeared to be a human hair on the rear bumper of Karen Read's SUV.

www.masslive.com

She also confirmed that both the t-shirt and the sweatshirt were bagged together in one evidence bag.

Finally, Jackson asked when the evidence not collected by Hartnett was submitted to her, and provided an evidence log showing that it was submitted on March 14 or after by Trooper Michael Proctor or other officers from the Norfolk County State Police detective unit.

Yikes! Snipped for this point:

“They admit they broke the light taking it out of her car.”

I’ve not been watching in court testimony, rather following here….. so in the prosecution case this has been admitted and entered?

My word……. so if true (and I am not doubting you)….. then seems anything related to that rear taillight is fully compromised and worthless evidence IMO. And so much seemed to have been centered on that light assembly and what it might have hit, how much force, when, etc…

(And for reference…. way up thread I had indicated that rear taillight lens could not likely be removed easily. And not from the outside. Probably required removing interior trim panels and fasteners, and nuts before removal. Then pulled from the outside of the vehicle once all items are removed and free.)

The handling of this key central item (if one is to believe the prosecution case) is absolutely appalling IMO. Simply unforgivable IMO. MOO

 

[ch_13]

Yikes! Snipped for this point:

“They admit they broke the light taking it out of her car.”

I’ve not been watching in court testimony, rather following here….. so I the prosecution case this has been admitted and entered?

My word……. so if true (and I am not doubting you)….. then seems anything related to that rear taillight is fully compromised and worthless evidence IMO. And so much seemed to have been centered on that light assembly and what it might have hit, how much force, when, etc…

(And for reference…. way up thread I had indicated that rear taillight lens could not likely be removed easily. And not from the outside. Probably required removing interior trim panels and fasteners, and nuts before removal. Then pulled from the outside of the vehicle once all items are removed and free.)

The handling of this key central item (if one is to believe the prosecution case) is absolutely appalling IMO. Simply unforgivable IMO. MOO

I believe it came in during the first few days of the trial. One of the Canton cops was a "car guy" and he testified that he was called in to remove the taillight. He was reluctant to admit that it broke, but they eventually got there on cross.

 

[arielilane]

Friendly reminder:

-- Court is dark today.
-- For anyone who is unaware, testimony will resume Wed., w/forensic scientist Ashley Vallier back on the stand.
Wed. full day, short lunch - until 4:30

Thurs: Half a day (until noon)
Fri: Court is dark

 

[ch_13]

Friendly reminder:

-- Court is dark today.
-- For anyone who is unaware, testimony will resume Wed., w/forensic scientist Ashley Vallier back on the stand.
Wed. full day, short lunch - until 4:30

Thurs: Half a day (until noon)
Fri: Court is dark

Which means that in the last two weeks we'll have only had 3 1/2 days of court. This snail's pace is exasperating to me and I'm just an observer. I can't imagine how the jury feels.

 

[Derph]

KR was the one that reached out to Higgins outta the blue and started hitting on him. She was still in a relationship with John when she was text-flirting and calling Higgins “hot.” He repeatedly asked her what she wanted and she wouldn’t answer. Of course he was flattered and kept replying but he was also skeptical. After John died, Higgins never responded to KR.

KR has repeatedly said “I hit him.” She’s guilty. These conspiracy theories are just that - theories. They are not evidence. Testimony from several people who heard KR saying “I hit him” IS EVIDENCE.

JMO

" I hit him " is not evidence. It was never giving in an official way as in no official statement was giving to the police in terms of an admission of guilt. No one was able to corroborate it. It never made it into any police of 1st responder reports. The person who claimed to hear that statement has been shown to lie. ( 17 butt dials!!, deleted Google searches, etc... yeah right!). The same person who claims to have heard KR make that statement admits that KR was " hysterical" and " not making any sense". So IF we are to believe what JM says is true, KR's statements can not be taken as truth because she "wasn't making any sense".

Not for one nanosecond do I believe that KR all of a sudden came to her senses and had this moment of clarity where she admits to murdering JO before slipping back into hysterics and asking her so called friends if she " was having her period" because of all the blood that was on her face.

All the other evidence that was collected is completely tainted and unreliable because of sloppy investigation techniques including: Absolutely NO CONTROL of the crime scene, No logs of who entered and left the crime scene, missing video footage, collected evidence, lack of collected evidence along with compromised chain of custody protocols, compromised witnesses, missing cell phones, and on and on and on.

Just one of those things creates reasonable doubt.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

RBBM

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.
MOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

About that tampered with taillight. The defense will call the Dighton police and the tow truck personnel who were involved with towing Read's vehicle from Dighton to Canton.

This was late afternoon. Proctor lied about the times this all happened, which will be proven by the above witnesses. He had the vehicle towed to Canton, which had lost jurisdiction hours earlier when John was declared dead. During the worst of the blizzard. It should have been towed to the Middleboro State Police barracks, almost half the distance. As this was a state police case at the time, it never should have been brought to Canton under any circumstances. But it seems that's exactly where Proctor wanted it to be.

Dighton to Canton - 32 miles
Dighton to Middleboro - 17 miles

But more importantly, what will the tow truck driver say about the condition of that taillight before it landed in Canton? Those who tow vehicles know they have to note the condition of vehicles before they tow them so as not to be blamed for any damage along the way.

As these people and officers from Dighton are on the defense list and not the prosecution list, I think it's a safe bet that what they have to say will be more bad news for Michael Proctor.

 

[shotgun09]

Sustained.
MOO

I just have to....

"Is that a judicial determination?"
( That's me, channeling Darrell Brooks )

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I just have to....

"Is that a judicial determination?"
( That's me, channeling Darrell Brooks )

IANAL. but I loved to watch Perry Mason with Raymond Burr and William Hopper / Paul Drake as a kid and during undergraduate college lunchtime while playing cards. If that might count perhaps? MOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

" I hit him " is not evidence. It was never giving in an official way as in no official statement was giving to the police in terms of an admission of guilt. No one was able to corroborate it. It never made it into any police of 1st responder reports. The person who claimed to hear that statement has been shown to lie. ( 17 butt dials!!, deleted Google searches, etc... yeah right!). The same person who claims to have heard KR make that statement admits that KR was " hysterical" and " not making any sense". So IF we are to believe what JM says is true, KR's statements can not be taken as truth because she "wasn't making any sense".

And I'll point out here that Jen McCabe's story ALWAYS was the confused question "Could I have hit him?" and not "I hit him". She only changed her story at or just before trial. But Jen seems like such a nice, honest person, I just don't know what to believe!

Also NO first responder recorded in their reports that Read said "I hit him". Not a one. One would assume they would have arrested her on the spot had she made such a confession and never let that car be brought to her parents' house in Dighton. But of course, that didn't happen. Probably because she never said it.

 

[Bodhi]

" I hit him " is not evidence. It was never giving in an official way as in no official statement was giving to the police in terms of an admission of guilt. No one was able to corroborate it. It never made it into any police of 1st responder reports. The person who claimed to hear that statement has been shown to lie. ( 17 butt dials!!, deleted Google searches, etc... yeah right!). The same person who claims to have heard KR make that statement admits that KR was " hysterical" and " not making any sense". So IF we are to believe what JM says is true, KR's statements can not be taken as truth because she "wasn't making any sense".

Not for one nanosecond do I believe that KR all of a sudden came to her senses and had this moment of clarity where she admits to murdering JO before slipping back into hysterics and asking her so called friends if she " was having her period" because of all the blood that was on her face.

All the other evidence that was collected is completely tainted and unreliable because of sloppy investigation techniques including: Absolutely NO CONTROL of the crime scene, No logs of who entered and left the crime scene, missing video footage, collected evidence, lack of collected evidence along with compromised chain of custody protocols, compromised witnesses, missing cell phones, and on and on and on.

Just one of those things creates reasonable doubt.

Karen's statements at the scene were excited utterances and therefore they are evidence.

I realize most people posting actively here believe the trial is a sham, based on a conspiracy by dozens of people. I have been reluctant to comment because posts skeptical of the defense allegations are not well received. I expect other members who take a more nuanced view of the defense claims are reluctant to post. I love WS because it is not an echo chamber and because it is victim-friendly. I am contributing to the discussion in the hope my comments can be considered in light of WS's spirit.

In her excited utterances at the scene and in the ambulance, Karen admitted involvement in differing ways to first responders and friends. Many first responders testified to what they heard. The statements varied in the degree of self-incrimination, but the weaker admissions of possible culpability support the more direct ones heard by others. If all the first responders were in on a conspiracy or coached on what to say, they would all have tesitified they heard direct admissions of "I hit him." I found the testimony to the EMTs in the second ambulance, taking her to the hospital as her father requested, to be especially troubling. At that point, reality was setting in and she stated she expected to go to prison for her actions.

All MOO.

 

[themonk]

I give the reports of Karen Read's 'excited utterances' at 34 Fairview about hitting anything and about menstruation about the same weight. That is, not much at all.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Karen's statements at the scene were excited utterances and therefore they are evidence.

I realize most people posting actively here believe the trial is a sham, based on a conspiracy by dozens of people. I have been reluctant to comment because posts skeptical of the defense allegations are not well received. I expect other members who take a more nuanced view of the defense claims are reluctant to post. I love WS because it is not an echo chamber and because it is victim-friendly. I am contributing to the discussion in the hope my comments can be considered in light of WS's spirit.

In her excited utterances at the scene and in the ambulance, Karen admitted involvement in differing ways to first responders and friends. Many first responders testified to what they heard. The statements varied in the degree of self-incrimination, but the weaker admissions of possible culpability support the more direct ones heard by others. If all the first responders were in on a conspiracy or coached on what to say, they would all have tesitified they heard direct admissions of "I hit him." I found the testimony to the EMTs in the second ambulance, taking her to the hospital as her father requested, to be especially troubling. At that point, reality was setting in and she stated she expected to go to prison for her actions.

All MOO.

How are people skeptical of the defense claims not well received? I have not seen that happening. There are just as many pro-CW posts. Karen's statements are not physical evidence which people have been waiting weeks for. I seriously don't think varying accounts of what she said is proof of MURDER, but that's JMO.

 

[jepop]

So, where did they swab for DNA?

nyet

 

[jepop]

Further, that one hair that was found wasn't even human.

Witness testified it was human IIUC?

 

[jepop]

So the defense DID tell the court this, right??? I didn't hear that. But if it's true, it's the only thing about this stupid hair that matters. So they'd of course bring it up! Why did the defense waste time asking other questions about the hair (such as why didn't it blow off while on the road) if they knew it wasn't even a human hair?

I thought the witness testified that it was a hair from JO?? Did they just leave that unstated and let us assume it was?

Did they even bring this up in court?

I recall Harnett testifying it was human according to her and she sent it off to internal dna department.MOO I missed testimony after this. Did the internal dna person testify next? I'll be trying to watch some more tomorrow

 

[nodamselindistress]

Did a bit of a deep dive earlier on this whole human/non-human hair stuff.

My understanding is that Hartnett looked at the hair under a microscope and determined it was human hair. She snipped it in half and sent off the half with the root for dna testing to the MSP Crime lab. Results from Commonwealth Motion below (DocumentCloud):

 

[jepop]

Did a bit of a deep dive earlier on this whole human/non-human hair stuff.

My understanding is that Hartnett looked at the hair under a microscope and determined it was human hair. She snipped it in half and sent off the half with the root for dna testing to the MSP Crime lab. Results from Defense Motion below (DocumentCloud):

View attachment 507892
View attachment 507893

Thanks, that makes sense. HAir looks to be a dead end if cw were prevented from exhausting the sample. Do we know the outcome to the d's motion to prevent consumptive testing?