MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #7

[TTF14]

I want to get a peek at Karen’s phone records after John was hit.

RSBM. Definitely!

 

[HarmonyE.]

That will be disputed by the experts.

You're that impressed with the prosecution thus far? I'll just point out that the report confirming the 2:27 hopeful search that John would die in the cold was generated by Cellebrite and the person the prosecution is using is working for Cellebrite, so he'll need to testify his company's data is bunk.

I doubt it's going to go all that well for the prosecution.

(and speaking for myself and I'd guess at least some on the jury, Jen McCabe really does seem to be someone who would make a search like that. I shudder just remembering her on the stand)

 

[MyJoey]

You're that impressed with the prosecution thus far? I'll just point out that the report confirming the 2:27 hopeful search that John would die in the cold was generated by Cellebrite and the person the prosecution is using is working for Cellebrite, so he'll need to testify his company's data is bunk.

I doubt it's going to go all that well for the prosecution.

(and speaking for myself and I'd guess at least some on the jury, Jen McCabe really does seem to be someone who would make a search like that. I shudder just remembering her on the stand)

Let’s see how it goes. I’m sure Cellebrite has more than one employee. Agree the prosecution has a up hill battle, but that don’t mean I believe everything the defense is putting out there. I know you feel differently.

 

[Maat99]

That will be disputed by the experts.

Which experts would that be? And will they dispute the search AND her attempt to delete it later that morning or just the search?

 

[MyJoey]

I know Jen isn’t well liked but imagine she’s innocent……she acted angry and like I would expect being in that position. Their family has been harassed on a large scale. I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. You don’t have to get into the inconsistency’s, I’ve been reading. I’m say imagine…..

 

[MyJoey]

Which experts would that be? And will they dispute the search AND her attempt to delete it later that morning or just the search?

Have to watch the trial and find out….

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

Both the defense and prosecution will have experts who argue that their interpretation of Jen McCabe’s phone searches are correct. From my (admittedly limited!) understanding, and from reading the CW’s witness’s blog about the subject, it seems like it probably can’t be conclusively proven one way or another. So jury will have to decide which version they find more compelling (and of course are instructed to default to the version that favors the defense if two explanations are equally plausible).

IMHO, I think JM is shady but I think the Google search is probably a glitch of some kind, the circumstances around it are just too complex and weird. I think there’s better evidence that potentially exonerates KR than this.

 

[TTF14]

I know Jen isn’t well liked but imagine she’s innocent……she acted angry and like I would expect being in that position. Their family has been harassed on a large scale. I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. You don’t have to get into the inconsistency’s, I’ve been reading. I’m say imagine…..

Her personality doesn’t bother me. Her searches and deleted data do.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Does anyone know if any of JO's vomit was found in the snow and/or grass?

So far the main sources I know of that mention it, affidavit and a testimony from one of the paramedics, have given me the impression that perhaps a lot of the vomit splatter was isolated to his clothes, undergarments and person.

I could be wrong though

https://www.scribd.com/document/642121594/Commonwealth-vs-Read-Opposition

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

my random thought for the moment does anyone actually believe Colin Albert has a curfew

LMAOOOOOOOOO

Funny enough too in the text chain between CA and CMcC the defense shows CA mentions in a previous message that he was doing shotguns with his friend Mike. The text was sent at 12:17 AM so what happened to his parents hard and rule that he had to be home by midnight?

True maybe he was sleeping over his friend’s place so the rule didn’t apply but in the context of his testimony I couldn’t help but notice he was having more fun getting lit than worried about getting home.

 

[sunspun]

As I said awhile back, they will have experts on it. We still have a ways to go. Honestly can’t see anyone, even Jen googling about basketball games and then thinking oh and let me check on how long it will take John out there to freeze to death.
I want to get a peek at Karen’s phone records after John was hit.

I thought that it's commonly suspected that she googled the one about the cold, then may have realized possibly incriminating, so then quickly searched an innocuous topic (b-ball), in hope that it would obscure the previous search or add confusion or something like that. But I admit Idk if I came up w/that on my own, or if it's a theory I read somewhere.

 

[Maat99]

Both the defense and prosecution will have experts who argue that their interpretation of Jen McCabe’s phone searches are correct. From my (admittedly limited!) understanding, and from reading the CW’s witness’s blog about the subject, it seems like it probably can’t be conclusively proven one way or another. So jury will have to decide which version they find more compelling (and of course are instructed to default to the version that favors the defense if two explanations are equally plausible).

IMHO, I think JM is shady but I think the Google search is probably a glitch of some kind, the circumstances around it are just too complex and weird. I think there’s better evidence that potentially exonerates KR than this.

The defense has an expert from Google on their witness list. IMO that says a lot. Hopefully they will have volumes of test results to prove the accuracy of their search history timestamps.

On the other hand, the CWs incompetence in not vetting their own witnesses has put Cellebrite in a terrible position. Cellebrites main business is helping LE build cases using technology. It will be interesting to see if someone from that company will be willing to testify that their service isn’t valid or reliable as evidence. Wouldnt that call into question previous convictions that used their reports as evidence?

And think about how many people leave browser tabs open. Pretty sure every tab my elderly mother has ever opened in a browser window is still open! If that is all it takes to create invalid search history, I’m really not sure how search history could have ever been used as evidence in any case. So I am thinking that there really isn’t going to be much actual controversy here. Jmo

 

[sunspun]

So far the main sources I know of that mention it, affidavit and a testimony from one of the paramedics, have given me the impression that perhaps a lot of the vomit splatter was isolated to his clothes, undergarments and person.

I could be wrong though

https://www.scribd.com/document/642121594/Commonwealth-vs-Read-Opposition

I wonder if any vomit was found in the passenger seat of KR's vehicle?

 

[kittythehare]

I know Jen isn’t well liked but imagine she’s innocent……she acted angry and like I would expect being in that position. Their family has been harassed on a large scale. I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. You don’t have to get into the inconsistency’s, I’ve been reading. I’m say imagine…..

Innocent of what and I'll try to imagine.
Not being snarky.
Genuine question.
Morticia -the-Innocent
Bring it. I want to test myself.

 

[Universecalling]

The defense has an expert from Google on their witness list. IMO that says a lot. Hopefully they will have volumes of test results to prove the accuracy of their search history timestamps.

On the other hand, the CWs incompetence in not vetting their own witnesses has put Cellebrite in a terrible position. Cellebrites main business is helping LE build cases using technology. It will be interesting to see if someone from that company will be willing to testify that their service isn’t valid or reliable as evidence. Wouldnt that call into question previous convictions that used their reports as evidence?

And think about how many people leave browser tabs open. Pretty sure every tab my elderly mother has ever opened in a browser window is still open! If that is all it takes to create invalid search history, I’m really not sure how search history could have ever been used as evidence in any case. So I am thinking that there really isn’t going to be much actual controversy here. Jmo

This, 1000%.

 

[whinewiththegravy]

There has been intermittent talk of Occam’s razor, fun to invoke but more difficult to formally apply. My problem—with the CW evidence formally introduced thus far plus all of its pre-trial previews (some of which has been debunked, a lot of which turned out to be accurate)—is how illogical it seems to me to damn KR with what the witnesses coming, going, and staying in the house have actually testified to.

Fairly uninterested to mildly interested parties didn’t hear the crash, didn’t see the body. Maybe because it didn’t happen, and it wasn’t there. There were two people actively waiting for John to get out of the car and come inside. One was trying to regularly communicate with his phone at the time. How lucky was KR that none of these people, or the neighbors, saw or heard anything that substantiates a hit, accidental or otherwise?

In this version of supposedly most probable events, she has to be a lot luckier than if another party injured him in a private house full of many loud conversations, the bellowing of Sullys, the birthday boy’s adolescent guests downstairs. Rides arrive, converse with passengers and non-passengers alike. They see Karen and the Lexus. Never specifically John, in or out of the Lexus. But maybe they do see others milling about, tall men they don’t know. Not everyone knew John. Voices and the sounds of clowning around can conceal personal violence and less friendly arguments, but they don’t as readily mask screeching tires, the thump of a body meeting a machine, then the ground or something worse.

He didn’t die immediately, I believe we will learn. If he was on the lawn earlier than at the time the Edge was there to provide cover for that particular stretch of lawn, did he move, was his breath misting in the air, could he make sounds? Just a motionless black blob? Will the ME give a ToD that makes that blob already dead when it was supposedly spotted? Very unlikely.

If somebody hit him around that crucial time the Lexus was there, with two people inside regularly looking out onto the street and several others waiting in or arriving/departing by car, and there were no witnesses to the event, ANYONE could have hit him, and perhaps never even knew. That’s what the testimony is saying. Nobody saw what they should have. But now that the CW is wed to the story that the facts they have not yet introduced makes this an intentional act, so no one should be afforded any benefit of the doubt about an accident. And given that Karen was spotted without John supports rather than undermines her story that she was waiting for him and therefore lessens the chances, IMO, he never made it into the house or backyard. Because Karen and everyone else agree: none of them saw or heard John get hit by a car. They saw his absence from the car and from the front of the house.

As for the ME making a point of saying neither injuries for death were the results of a fight, Bukhenik’s direct examination explains this. He testified (in truth or otherwise) that his original theory involved somebody, probably Karen, hitting John in the face with the cocktail glass. The police then, too, thought the facial and head injuries looked consistent with a brawl, they called it a “domestic,” and the ME was at some point asked to judge if this was correct (or, more probably, asked to eliminate it as a possibility by that point). The CW has to explain why that theory was undeniably wrong because it introduces reasonable doubt about her intentions and raises the possibility of self defense. They’d not draw attention to the possibility of a fight if they didn’t have to in a case where they know the defense will argue it was a fight and Karen was not one of the amateur cardio boxers.

This is the problem with overcharging with bravado and then trying to undercut a vociferous defense using, among other things, unreliable witness testimony. Now everyone looks stupid, shady, or pickled. Non-expert testimony is not serving the charges, but trying to pre-emptively explain away malpractice (approximately 4,000 people were wheeled in to telegraph early on to the jury that it was just too snowy to secure the scene or preserve evidence) and the indifference about John’s welfare (if nobody saw Karen and John fighting, nobody can be blamed for not being alarmed earlier). No dashcams picked up her confessions because she was being hysterical on a register that defies electronics but can be discerned by human ears belonging to certain people and their friends only. And so on. The state started this case acting like a bully but came to trial on the back foot and it shows.

As for conspiracies, blame the state police for casting the first stone. They were the ones who leaked to the press that there was “video” of Karen hitting John. This would later transform into her intentionally “deleting” his driveway footage. EAIAC, yeah?

 

[kittythehare]

The defense has an expert from Google on their witness list. IMO that says a lot. Hopefully they will have volumes of test results to prove the accuracy of their search history timestamps.

On the other hand, the CWs incompetence in not vetting their own witnesses has put Cellebrite in a terrible position. Cellebrites main business is helping LE build cases using technology. It will be interesting to see if someone from that company will be willing to testify that their service isn’t valid or reliable as evidence. Wouldnt that call into question previous convictions that used their reports as evidence?

And think about how many people leave browser tabs open. Pretty sure every tab my elderly mother has ever opened in a browser window is still open! If that is all it takes to create invalid search history, I’m really not sure how search history could have ever been used as evidence in any case. So I am thinking that there really isn’t going to be much actual controversy here. Jmo

which browser did she use or was it mentioned?

 

[kittythehare]

There has been intermittent talk of Occam’s razor, fun to invoke but more difficult to formally apply. My problem—with the CW evidence formally introduced thus far plus all of its pre-trial previews (some of which has been debunked, a lot of which turned out to be accurate)—is how illogical it seems to me to damn KR with what the witnesses coming, going, and staying in the house have actually testified to.

Fairly uninterested to mildly interested parties didn’t hear the crash, didn’t see the body. Maybe because it didn’t happen, and it wasn’t there. There were two people actively waiting for John to get out of the car and come inside. One was trying to regularly communicate with his phone at the time. How lucky was KR that none of these people, or the neighbors, saw or heard anything that substantiates a hit, accidental or otherwise?

In this version of supposedly most probable events, she has to be a lot luckier than if another party injured him in a private house full of many loud conversations, the bellowing of Sullys, the birthday boy’s adolescent guests downstairs. Rides arrive, converse with passengers and non-passengers alike. They see Karen and the Lexus. Never specifically John, in or out of the Lexus. But maybe they do see others milling about, tall men they don’t know. Not everyone knew John. Voices and the sounds of clowning around can conceal personal violence and less friendly arguments, but they don’t as readily mask screeching tires, the thump of a body meeting a machine, then the ground or something worse.

He didn’t die immediately, I believe we will learn. If he was on the lawn earlier than at the time the Edge was there to provide cover for that particular stretch of lawn, did he move, was his breath misting in the air, could he make sounds? Just a motionless black blob? Will the ME give a ToD that makes that blob already dead when it was supposedly spotted? Very unlikely.

If somebody hit him around that crucial time the Lexus was there, with two people inside regularly looking out onto the street and several others waiting in or arriving/departing by car, and there were no witnesses to the event, ANYONE could have hit him, and perhaps never even knew. That’s what the testimony is saying. Nobody saw what they should have. But now that the CW is wed to the story that the facts they have not yet introduced makes this an intentional act, so no one should be afforded any benefit of the doubt about an accident. And given that Karen was spotted without John supports rather than undermines her story that she was waiting for him and therefore lessens the chances, IMO, he never made it into the house or backyard. Because Karen and everyone else agree: none of them saw or heard John get hit by a car. They saw his absence from the car and from the front of the house.

As for the ME making a point of saying neither injuries for death were the results of a fight, Bukhenik’s direct examination explains this. He testified (in truth or otherwise) that his original theory involved somebody, probably Karen, hitting John in the face with the cocktail glass. The police then, too, thought the facial and head injuries looked consistent with a brawl, they called it a “domestic,” and the ME was at some point asked to judge if this was correct (or, more probably, asked to eliminate it as a possibility by that point). The CW has to explain why that theory was undeniably wrong because it introduces reasonable doubt about her intentions and raises the possibility of self defense. They’d not draw attention to the possibility of a fight if they didn’t have to in a case where they know the defense will argue it was a fight and Karen was not one of the amateur cardio boxers.

This is the problem with overcharging with bravado and then trying to undercut a vociferous defense using, among other things, unreliable witness testimony. Now everyone looks stupid, shady, or pickled. Non-expert testimony is not serving the charges, but trying to pre-emptively explain away malpractice (approximately 4,000 people were wheeled in to telegraph early on to the jury that it was just too snowy to secure the scene or preserve evidence) and the indifference about John’s welfare (if nobody saw Karen and John fighting, nobody can be blamed for not being alarmed earlier). No dashcams picked up her confessions because she was being hysterical on a register that defies electronics but can be discerned by human ears belonging to certain people and their friends only. And so on. The state started this case acting like a bully but came to trial on the back foot and it shows.

As for conspiracies, blame the state police for casting the first stone. They were the ones who leaked to the press that there was “video” of Karen hitting John. This would later transform into her intentionally “deleting” his driveway footage. EAIAC, yeah?

Well spoke.
The overcharging is ridiculous.
The very most she should have been charged with was manslaughter, involuntary, surely?

I don't think she is guilty of that btw...

 

[MyJoey]

Her personality doesn’t bother me. Her searches and deleted data

I thought that it's commonly suspected that she googled the one about the cold, then may have realized possibly incriminating, so then quickly searched an innocuous topic (b-ball), in hope that it would obscure the previous search or add confusion or something like that. But I admit Idk if I came up w/that on my own, or if it's a theory I read somewhere.

Believe that’s what the defense is putting out there.

 

[kittythehare]

Believe that’s what the defense is putting out there.

But they're not lying, surely?
She either did or she did not?
Which is it?