MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #6
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
- Status
It occurred to me this weekend that the jury could actually believe Karen hit John, but still not find her guilty of either the murder charge or the manslaughter charge.
As I understand it, the second-degree murder charge requires the commonwealth to prove intent. So far I think it's been iffy. They have the Aruba incident, whatever the children testified to and Jen McCabe mentioning "Bella's mom" on the phone. In contrast, you have the couple acting really "lovey-dovey" that night. Is the potential that they had an argument in the car sufficient for intent? Or, can the jury rely on the physics of the car crash alone, showing that she hit John at 24 MPH to prove intent?
The second charge is 'manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol'. So they need to show that she was over the limit that night. But while they presented evidence that Karen was drunk the following morning, I believe that the defense could argue that she drank after she got back to John's residence that night. Thath would obviate all the calculations used to determine her BAC at 12:45 AM. Supposedly, the commonwealth has video evidence of her pouring shots into her drink, but we haven't seen it at trial. If they don't present it, how can the jury conclude she was under the influence beyond a reasonable doubt?
If the can't show intent or she had an elevated BAC at 12:45 then they can't convict on either charge.
I believe then only the third charge remains: "Leaving the scene of personal injury and death". I presume the sentencing guidelines on that charge will be significantly less than the murder/manslaughter charge.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Lt. O'Hara confirms he wrote in his "final mission report" “the officer was hit and dragged by a vehicle at approx.
12:30 am”
DY asks about parameters of search and going inside, Lt. O'Hara responds: "“no we never discussed searching inside the house"
https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1797638589070950530
12:30 am”
DY asks about parameters of search and going inside, Lt. O'Hara responds: "“no we never discussed searching inside the house"
https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1797638589070950530
By whom? I don't know what sources you are using, but the defense never claimed the sneaker wasn't found. Belt and hat.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Recess (break)
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
nodamselindistress
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 26,031
Like I said earlier, MSM
Wishbone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,885
- Reaction score
- 18,596
Unfortunately its hit or miss with msm.Sometimes they get it right but its best to find something official if possible. I've believed what they wrote only to find out it was the total opposite more than once. They have the worst record when the crime first happens. JMO
shotgun09
'Certified' Boomer
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,242
- Reaction score
- 44,257
Just using my own questions ( waiting for Yanetti to jump on this ) but 'what if any' amount of times had a snow plow come down Fairview between 7:50 am and 5 pm that day, and possibly pushed/plowed tailight pieces and a shoe? The scene was a compromised contaminated scene by that point, IMO.
Crime scene investigation 101. Establish a sign in and out log of each and every single person who entered and left the crimes scene along with the EXACT time each person did so. This wasn't done.
Conclusion: Yet another example of laughable crime scene handing and investigation techniques and procedures. Each and every piece of evidence collected at the crime scene is questionable at the very least and creates another big old slice of reasonable doubt.
Also this dude just said that JO was dragged!!!! If he was dragged how did he end up 12 ft up off of the street and in the Albert's yard???
So very sloppy.
Conclusion: Yet another example of laughable crime scene handing and investigation techniques and procedures. Each and every piece of evidence collected at the crime scene is questionable at the very least and creates another big old slice of reasonable doubt.
Also this dude just said that JO was dragged!!!! If he was dragged how did he end up 12 ft up off of the street and in the Albert's yard???
So very sloppy.
They've been wrong about many things here.
Likely several times. The storm was heavy throughout the day.
nodamselindistress
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 26,031
Most of MSN I read on this case is what is posted here at WS. Plenty of WS members have repeated this "sneaker never found" lie as well. We were all duped!
ETA: Do not want to belabor this point, but a simple google search shows the many, many, many repetitions of this lie.
OK I'm done.
I am not Sherlock H.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2023
- Messages
- 1,684
- Reaction score
- 15,901
Were the taillight lens shards and shoe found at the same distance from the ground? The same elevation relevant to ground level? In the snow? Or at varying and different depths?
Can’t readily discern from those images unfortunately.
Any testimony or evidence on that point? MOO
Yeah, I remember hearing that and I probably posted about it too. I also remember hearing that the sneaker was found a month later.
I think misinformation is not unusual in high-profile cases. What's true comes directly from the affidavits, motions and courtroom proceedings. Everything else, MSM reports, defense and prosecution "sources", etc you need to be wary about.
Wishbone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,885
- Reaction score
- 18,596
yes, unless we could find something from a hearing video or the the like. Since I didn't find anything official, I left that area alone to wait for trial proof. I did see JO was wearing a belt but still don't know if it is missing. Still waiting on the mention on the vomit on his underwear to be explained or not if it exists. JMO
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
New witness: A forensic scientist is on the stand.
arielilane
Justice for Liz Barraza
Can't say I blame her. I think even an experienced witness wouldn't want to be testifying in this case with every word she says being scrutinized and feelings running so high.
And she basically has to get on the stand and admit that she failed her proficiency test. How embarrassing.
- Status