MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #9

[HarmonyE.]

this is what I have trouble with .. he does seem to lose his @#$& .. I've only watched bits and pieces of the trial and every time I see it, he seems to come across as rude. I'm just saying for me personally, it's very off-putting. I'm glad I'm not on the jury or even worse, sitting in that witness box .. or there would be two of us loosing our @#$& lol

I've never once seen Jackson lose control. It's an intentional, controlled, sharp irritation that he's using with idiots and liars.

And he's hoping they lose it, just like Jen McCabe did. He has the talent of being able to make bad people look even worse.

 

[TIGER0822]

How is trooper Paul allowed to say that JOK got hit on the side (where’s the bruising and broken bones?), then spun around, hit his head on the curb (no blood?), kept spinning or turning and then ended up like that, and this was all caused by being hit by a car. That’s just pure speculation, he’s not a medical expert and he said he did what just a handful of courses in car crash reconstruction?

How is he allowed to speculate that and it be on the record

I think his testimony is very questionable for perjury, or at a minimum gross negligence.

 

[waldojabba]

I've never once seen Jackson lose control. It's an intentional, controlled, sharp irritation that he's using with idiots and liars.

And he's hoping they lose it, just like Jen McCabe did. He has the talent of being able to make bad people look even worse.

Totally agree. It’s called strategy.

As far as being loud, he has mentioned several times to the witnesses to please bear with him, he is not yelling at them, he is speaking to be heard above the fans/air conditioning etc. He is pretty much the only one Bev does not constantly admonish for speaking too softly.
My Lally might as well be Eyore, Judge B snaps at him constantly to SPEAK UP and Eyore says in his Eyore like voice, Certainly Judge, while keeping his voice at the same low pitch.
Sadly it’s a sitcom.
But it’s real life and someone’s has been inadvertently murdered. Beaten or run over?
If only the investigators had investigated we would know.
But sadly we still don’t know who killed John.
And we may never know
JMO

 

[fluffypaste]

It's really starting to bother me that the prosecution is allowed to call themselves the Commonwealth, as though they represent everyone in Massachusetts. They clearly don't.

 

[rebelchild]

I've never once seen Jackson lose control. It's an intentional, controlled, sharp irritation that he's using with idiots and liars.

And he's hoping they lose it, just like Jen McCabe did. He has the talent of being able to make bad people look even worse.

It's strange how we all see things differently. and that is okay I'm sure you know a lot more of what went on than I do.

 

[LadyL]

Because that's just not good enough to send someone to prison for the rest of her life, especially when there is compelling evidence to suggest that there are alternative suspects who might’ve been the real perpetrators.

Alternative suspects who weren't really investigated at all, despite living nearby.

as my post said, that's good enough FOR ME
alternative suspects

 

[LadyL]

The taillight pieces are actually the main piece of evidence that makes me both think that she's not guilty, and that there has been an attempt to frame her.

The taillight and reverse light have been completely shattered into 45 pieces. I simply cannot believe that contact with a human being at no more than 24mph would cause it both to do that and to scatter the pieces onto the lawn in the manner that they did. It simply must have been tampered with by LE in order for that to happen.

Luckily for us, we left off on Friday almost at the exact point where the CW might be about to try and explain this with the relevant witness. Let's see what happens!

i hit a car in front of me at literally 2 mph and the taillight shattered so ... yes it's not only possible, it's likely!

 

[LadyL]

Reasonable doubt
Per Proctors text “At first I thought it was a fight”. Guess what the people who were in the house were not investigated.
Then a secret text to his sister confidentiality saying a person who was at house (forget name? Albert’s? ) was involved.
Then the gift.
Destruction of phones
The FBI concluding that - the injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car, and the car damage is not consistent with hitting a pedestrian.

I think it is a fair point that the hair would not have stayed on for the entire trip.
I would love to compare the pieces of tail light found VS the small hole shown in the rear tail light. I don’t care if the jigsaw lady did a terrific job putting the headlight back together, the Q. Is do the pieces found fit the hole in the picture?

small hole? someone else said it shattered

 

[Mony Mony]

I have a late model SUV with this capability of automatic braking, BUT it is not activated. On my vehicle, which is a 2023, one can program this option to either 1. stop when encountering an obstacle, 2. send a sound signal warning, or 3. do nothing at all. So, maybe she did not have this option activated OR she overrode it. MOO

She also bumped JOK car. I wonder if the turned off the automatic braking. MOO.

 

[geevee]

No, the 53 calls were just from KR to JO between 12:33 and 6:03am

Court video, updates: Forensic scientists testify about DNA evidence in Karen Read murder trial

Thursday marks day 24 of witness testimony in the high-profile trial.

www.boston25news.com

Could have sworn I read just yesterday that the 53 was the total of calls/texts she made, but I'm probably misremembering.

 

[housewife]

She did not. And she also didn’t explain why the “hos long” search (6:24am) was the one allegedly incorrectly time stamped for 2:27am even though there were 2 searches immediately prior to that at 6:23:49 and 6:23:51. Shouldn’t one of those be the ones attributed to 2:27am?

So she googled "hos long"
Then she spelled it correctly "how long"
Then she searched "How long does it take to digest food"

Maybe those are the 3 searches?

 

[housewife]

LOL I saw that earlier too. I think the person meant that the juror was engaged in the testimony throughout the case. Not engaged to be married. At least I think.

lol thanks I'm an idiot

 

[seekingjustice**]

this is what I have trouble with .. he does seem to lose his @#$& .. I've only watched bits and pieces of the trial and every time I see it, he seems to come across as rude. I'm just saying for me personally, it's very off-putting. I'm glad I'm not on the jury or even worse, sitting in that witness box .. or there would be two of us loosing our @#$& lol

Same here, I don't think I've ever seen a Defense lawyer so aggressive and rude which I also find really off putting.

 

[housewife]

I watched Emily D. Baker's stream and she had some great comments regarding the witness meeting with the cw and forming a new opinion without documenting it and sharing with defense.

 

[Seattle1]

Since she dropped him off, was there an agreed upon way he was going to get home? Call her? Get a ride with some one else? An uber?

Whether or not there was a fight or an agreement how JO was to get home, I just assumed he would get a ride with Jen McCabe! She was the party calling/texting/directing him to the BA residence and IMO, she's not happy if she's not controlling something/someone. And I don't think she'd care if it upset KR. JMO

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

One of the things I can't understand .. when calling people at 5 or 5:30 in the morning I think my questions would be "have you seen John?" or "what time did he leave last night" or "do you happen to know where John is?" .. did she ever do that? Or was she just immediately in panic mode?

I don’t think she had the phone numbers of most of the attendees who went to the party that night. John’s niece had JMcC’s number so KR asked her to call JMcC who anlso informed her that she didn’t know where JOK was at that time.

JMcC called KRob and CC, who were good friends with JOK, since she had their phone numbers and could inform them that JOK was missing.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Same here, I don't think I've ever seen a Defense lawyer so aggressive and rude which I also find really off putting.

You obviously didn't watch the Troconis trial! Schoenhorn, the defense attorney in that trial. was so much worse when it comes to aggressive and rude.

 

[Spectrix]

i hit a car in front of me at literally 2 mph and the taillight shattered so ... yes it's not only possible, it's likely!

The way I see it, it's a hard object (your car) hitting a single point on the brittle plastic of the taillight of the car in front of you.
Reversing that brittle plastic taillight into the cushioned body of a fat man, well this is very different. The force over the taillight will be applied much more evenly. So you might get a crack, but not a lens shattered into 45 pieces.

 

[waldojabba]

Same here, I don't think I've ever seen a Defense lawyer so aggressive and rude which I also find really off putting.

Maybe stroll over to the Suzanne Morphew threads. The defendent there has a lawyer that is a piranha - and misrepresents the facts. Iris Eytan. And screeches.
Or how about the bottom feeder lawyer Schoenhorn who is the rudest I have seen by far, in the Jennifer Dulos thread.

Alan Jackson is smart and strategic imo and gets a little sarcastic when the witnesses try and bamboozle him. He also has facts and receipts.
Just a diff of opinion!
IMO

 

[ch_13]

i hit a car in front of me at literally 2 mph and the taillight shattered so ... yes it's not only possible, it's likely!

Yes, hitting a car at 2 mph can at least crack a taillight. Perhaps shatter it. That's why it's believable that Karen broke her taillight when she hit John's car the next morning.

However, hitting a person is a completely different situation. A parked car is stationary, a human is not. If you hit a person at 2 mph, you will knock the person down, but your taillight would remain undamaged.

The state claims that Karen was reversing at 24 mph when she hit John. I still doubt that you would shatter a taillight at this speed, although I'm open to a convincing argument (beyond anecdotes). I expected the accident reconstructionist for the commonwealth to explain why it's possible. It's a simple matter of physics: force equals mass times acceleration. But he didn't actually provide any actual scientific basis for his claims.

I know the defense has a couple of PhDs lined up to testify, and I expect that they will be more analytical in their arguments.