MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #18

[Seattle1]

Judge denies prosecutors request for parents phone.
Initially I was elated. However would not the same calls be on KR phone?

Karen Read judge hands down decision on 'suspicious' phone calls

Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone ruled on whether special prosecutor Hank Brennan could access phone records of Karen Read's parents ahead of a retrial.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yes, and exactly why the commonwealth's Motion was such an bogus, invasion of privacy of innocent citizens! Clearly, a fishing expedition hoping to uncover calls, texts, etc., to impeach a witness. A new DA trying out the Court for size... JMO

 

[rescuemom]

I believe the excessive digging beyond the principles could just be used for distraction and intimidation. To me it shows desparation, all JMO.

 

[LvsAMystry]

Love the dig that Elizabeth Little gets in, on Judge Cannone. The fact that she( judge) denied the motion for others (Albert's and Higgins ) phone records....who were present ! at the scene during the first trial, and yet would consider allowing Mr Reed's phone records, who was not involved at all at the time of the accident.

The hypocrisy and bias is shown, and called in open court, IMO. We see you !!

I’ve been out of the loop here for a bit, but YES I loved when she made that point it was brilliant!

 

[rescuemom]

I happened on a podcast where it was said that KR has changed her story among the Dateline, 20/20 and Vanity Fair interviews. I can't believe this is true. She's too smart to do that.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I happened on a podcast where it was said that KR has changed her story among the Dateline, 20/20 and Vanity Fair interviews. I can't believe this is true. She's too smart to do that.

From what, to what?

 

[TIGER0822]

From what, to what?

She should never have talked with the media.

 

[ch_13]

Karen Read supporter who scattered rubber ducks has charges dismissed

Richard Schiffer Jr. had argued in Stoughton District Court that he had a First Amendment right to support the defense theory that Karen Read has been framed in the polarizing murder case.

www.nbcboston.com

A Massachusetts judge dismissed criminal charges Monday against a backer of Karen Read who admitted placing dozens of yellow rubber ducks and fake $100 bills around town in support of Read.
...
Schiffer's actions did not rise to the level of witness intimidation and criminal harassment "nor does his speech, or in this case his written word on fake currency and use of rubber toys, which are afforded the protections of the First Amendment," Judge Brian Walsh wrote.


It's ridiculous that the DA's office is trying to prosecute people for exercising their First Amendment rights. They need to get a grip.

 

[rescuemom]

From what, to what?

I can't remember, just little things as I listened and really this talking head seemed to not be a KR fan, so maybe it isn't true or is not a big deal.

 

[Derph]

It is absolutely ridiculous that the judge is making Dr Russell go thru another qualifications hearing> Actually it's a disgrace. The hearing is live now.

 

[rescuemom]

It is absolutely ridiculous that the judge is making this woman go thru another qualifications hearing> Actually it's a disgrace. The hearing is live now.

To show KR who's in charge, agree ridiculous

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Carrying this over from the Karen Read Media Timeline Discussion thread in case anyone might have missed it. Thank you @arielilane for keeping us updated. MOO

DEDHAM, Mass. —
Judge Beverly Cannone, who oversees Karen Read's criminal case, has endorsed a joint request from the prosecution and defense to postpone the upcoming second trial.

Judge allows motion to delay Karen Read's second trial​

Both sides said they need the extra time to prepare for the high-profile trial.

www.wcvb.com

WCBV5 Boston December 9, 2024 online article by Phil Tenser.

 

[jepop]

Karen Read supporter who scattered rubber ducks has charges dismissed

Richard Schiffer Jr. had argued in Stoughton District Court that he had a First Amendment right to support the defense theory that Karen Read has been framed in the polarizing murder case.

www.nbcboston.com

(Snipped)
A Massachusetts judge dismissed criminal charges Monday against a backer of Karen Read who admitted placing dozens of yellow rubber ducks and fake $100 bills around town in support of Read.
...


It's ridiculous that the DA's office is trying to prosecute people for exercising their First Amendment rights. They need to get a grip.

Idk, aren't yellow rubber duckies a menace to modern civil society? How
did these charges ever get dismissed? Shocking...!

 

[Derph]

I did see that the CW request for all the interview recordings, notes, etc from Karen's appearance on that ABC show was denied. So that is a small victory for the Defense.

 

[TIGER0822]

The judge is denying prosecutors requests for materials. Maybe this judge is not lockstep with the new prosecutor. My opinion only.

 

[cocomod]

The judge is denying prosecutors requests for materials. Maybe this judge is not lockstep with the new prosecutor. My opinion only.

Or possibly the judge is seeing just how many people have had repercussions for their involvement in this mess and possibly she doesn't want anything coming her way.

 

[k-mac]

I like Hank!
This is going to be good.
He shredded that 'dog bite' nonsense ahem...expert.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

<modsnip - article references a different case> Only, the Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey and his office have since been mired in a number of scandals that Walshe's attorneys are now using to build his defense.

One involves the prosecution of Karen Read, who is being defended by heavy-hitting Los Angeles attorneys Alan Jackson and Liza Little, along with former Boston prosecutor David Yanetti. Read, 44, a former equity analyst from Mansfield, Massachusetts, is accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keef, with her SUV outside a Canton, Massachusetts, home on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snowstorm after a night of heavy drinking.

https://lamag.com/crimeinla/grisly-massachusetts-murder-case-tied-to-la-lawyers-fight-for-justice-in-karen-read-saga

 

[imstilla.grandma]

The highly-publicized trial is heading into week 7 of testimony on Monday, as Yuri Bukhenik takes the stand to finish his cross examination.

On Wednesday and Thursday of last week, Bukhenik testified to his investigation as the on-duty supervisor when Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe died.

Security camera video of Read's SUV after it was seized by police has been under the microscope in recent days. Read's defense team has pointed out the video, which shows Bukhenik and state police trooper Michael Proctor inspecting Read's SUV, is inverted.

“Somebody had to put that on the inverted, the manipulated, the altered video, on purpose,” Read's defense attorney Alan Jackson said outside of court.

Another video also under the microscope is Ring camera video that shows Read backing up into O'Keefe's car and then driving off. Her defense team has pointed to this incident as what caused her taillight damage in the first place.

Outside of court last week, NBC10 Boston asked Read how her taillight got damaged.

"You saw it," Read said. "I backed into John's car.”

Cannone told jurors that this week's trial schedule will include full days of testimony on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, but no testimony on Tuesday.

MSN

 

[imstilla.grandma]

In a motion filed in Norfolk Superior Court, prosecutors on Tuesday asked Judge Beverly J. Cannone to bar Richard Green, a digital forensics expert, from testifying again about a phone belonging to prosecution witness Jennifer McCabe.

Specifically, prosecutors are seeking an order barring Green from making two assertions on the stand: that McCabe made Google searches on her phone about dying in the cold shortly before 2:30 a.m. on the morning of John O’Keefe’s death, and that the device showed data deletions around the same time

Prosecutors in Karen Read case seeking to bar testimony of defense cellphone specialist - The Boston Globe

In a motion, prosecutors asked Judge Beverly Cannone to bar a digital forensics expert from testifying again about a phone belonging to prosecution witness Jennifer McCabe.

www.bostonglobe.com

"Exclusion is appropriate because both claims lack any evidentiary support, and the claims cannot be made in good faith," the motion read. "Allowing introduction of baseless claims without any scientific, forensic, or factual support would be misleading to the jury and disruptive to the interest of justice."

Prosecutors are trying to show that Read’s alleged actions outside 34 Fairview Road were intentional. Read's lawyers have alleged there was a cover-up involving members of several law enforcement agencies. They say O’Keefe was beaten by someone else inside the home, bitten by a dog and then left outside

Karen Read prosecutors want testimony about friend's cellphone excluded from 2nd trial

Green previously testified that Jen McCabe's phone was used to search Google for "hos long to die in cold."

www.wcvb.com

Prosecutors in the Karen Read case want to bar an expert hired by the defense who testified that Jennifer McCabe searched, “hos long to die in cold” hours on her phone before John O’Keefe was found from testifying at Read’s second trial.

The expert, Richard Green, described himself as a forensic expert in computer cloud and surveillance systems when he testified during Read’s first trial in June

‘Hos long to die in cold’ Google search subject of new motion in Karen Read case

Prosecutors say an expert hired by Karen Read's defense team should not be allowed to testify about hotly contested Google searches during her second trial.

www.masslive.com

 

[Seattle1]

IMO, solid analysis on latest Motion by the CW to exclude Green as defense expert witness:

Bederow Law

@Bederowlaw


Last point on the Google search controversy: Many have criticized the DA for filing this motion as part of a strategy designed more to "defend" the McCabes and Alberts than prosecute Karen Read. That is too narrow an understanding of the DA's motive for filing what is an almost unprecedented motion asking a court to exclude a witness based on the DA's pinky promise that their experts are correct and the defense's expert is a fool with a "debunked opinion." For reasons that many don't understand (including me), the DA is all-in on trying to convict Karen Read for killing John O'keefe, lack of credible evidence notwithstanding. If you accept this premise, it is easy to understand why the DA is bent on doing anything to wipe out any evidence that supports the possibility of a 2:27 am search: either they annihilate this argument entirely or they lose because they cannot satisfy their burden of proof. It really is that simple. If the jury finds it even plausible that Jennifer McCabe made that search at 2:27, it obviously follows that such a search cannot be explained by the prosecution (and Jennifer McCabe's credibility is torched) and without more, there is clear reasonable doubt as to Karen Read's guilt. Even worse, this is a multi-layered problem for the DA, in which Green's presumed opinion is but one of several parts. A 2:27 am search would be in perfect sync with a timeline of other bizarre activities on various McCabe, Albert (and Higgins') cell phones, including the butt dials and texts. Moreover, Jennifer McCabe has exacerbated the DA's problem by materially altering her story about the timing and circumstances surrounding the Google search 2-3 times. Some of these statements will be exposed by state police testimony and dash camera video. This is in addition to her materially inconsistent statements surrounding Karen Read's alleged statement about "hitting" John O'Keefe. Recall this is the witness who testified that she wanted to see all of the evidence from the DA before she testified. In this context, it is easy to understand why the DA is seriously concerned with Green's opinion being heard at all by the jury: the defense likely will argue it is bolstered and corroborated by the other evidence. Real lawyers, which Brennan and all of the defense attorneys are, understand that to argue effectively, evidence must not be considered in a vacuum, but marshaled. And if Green stands by his opinion, combined with the other evidence described above, it may very well convince jurors that there is a reasonable possibility that the search was made by Jennifer McCabe at 2:27 am. Thus, the bottom line is that the Google search is a "must have" compelling fact for the DA and house money for the defense--if the jury CONCLUSIVELY concludes Karen Read sought the search after 6 am, this is in no way devastating to her, whereas a conclusion that the search MAY HAVE been made by Jennifer McCabe at 2:27 am is a guaranteed acquittal. This is why the DA is filing such an unprecedented and seemingly desperate motion to keep Green away from the stand altogether. It's much more than personally "defending" Jennifer McCabe; it is trying to make sure their case doesn't collapse.


5:44 AM · Jan 5, 2025