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

[sds71]

Order from J.Cannone today says "counsel should be prepared to address...prior representations made to the Court on the record by defense counsel."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892701828665528344

 

[shotgun09]

It's about to go down.......
MOO

Order from J.Cannone today says "counsel should be prepared to address...prior representations made to the Court on the record by defense counsel."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892701828665528344

 

[Seattle1]

Link to Boston25 News complete video hearing below, including the 18 second clip with Brennan citing it was email received from the defense, and not the federal government, he earlier misrepresented to the Court before Judge Cannone called for a recess before coming back and ending the hearing-- citing her grave concerns for the defense and defense counsel...

Make no mistake, this reading implying he received the emails from the feds (pursuant to a Touhy request) was clearly intentional by Brennan.

No matter how many times Brennan attempts to hide behind he "did not watch the first trial," and only reviewed the transcripts, he's misrepresented the facts each time he appears before this Court! JMO

Watch live: Karen Read back in court for motions hearing as 2nd murder trial nears

The 44-year-old Mansfield woman is accused in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe.

www.boston25news.com

 

[Seattle1]

Relative to the subject transcript -- this from June 10, 2024:

Karen Read murder trial highlights Trooper Michael Proctor's "regrettable" text messages

Karen Read's high-profile Massachusetts murder trial resumed on Monday with lead investigator Michael Proctor on the stand.

www.cbsnews.com

6/10/24

Read's attorneys have said for months that scratches on O'Keefe's arm could have been caused by Brian Albert's dog Chloe inside 34 Fairview Road during a fight.

The state says they were just notified that Russell would be called as a witness on May 21 and they do not have sufficient time to prepare.

As Yannetti made his arguments, Cannone interjected and asked him to stick to arguments surrounding the motion. rather than overall issues with the trial.

"This is the hyperbole I don't need. Can you please get to the point," Cannone told Yannetti.

Yannetti said the defense plans to call several witnesses who they have not had the opportunity to interview themselves because they are experts hired by the federal government during an investigation into law enforcement's handling of the Read case.

Cannone said there will be voir dires of each witness this week. That means the witnesses will be questioned by both sides without the jury present.

The judge also ordered the defense to provide a summary of one expert's opinion by the end of the day Tuesday.

 

[Seattle1]

June 10, 2024

LIVE: MA v. Karen Read Day 22 - Killer Or Cover-Up Murder Trial | COURT TV​

From about minute mark 4:50:00 to 12:00:00, the defense responds to the CW allegations of discovery violations and Judge Cannone is dismissive and rude to the defense in what she wants to hear and/or not hear by the defense! Taking note there was no matching tone when hearing the Motion by the female prosecutor... Also, there is no audio from about marker 12:00:00 to 15:00:00 when the Court takes a recess. What is said during this time may or may not be relevant to this subject.

IMO, it's not the defense attorney who made any statement they had not communicated with the experts from ARCCA Inc. as specifically alleged by Brennan earlier this week but these were statements by Judge Cannone herself when talking over the defense, as she raced right over Attorney Yannetti!

 

[Wishbone]

It's about to go down.......
MOO

Seems like she is trying to hang him with some "rule 14" business, whatever that is. cw really wants to get rid of him. I just don't know if I can bear to watch what the dishonorable judge is about to do.

 

[shotgun09]

Geez
From the first trial, it was obvious that the CW didn't want the ARCA guys in. BOTH SIDES were granted the report from the FBI, which included the ARCA guys opinions.

The CW KNEW what they were going to discuss, and they didn't want that in. They fought, they cried, and Judge Bev played Misty for them. Insisting on the secrecy of where they came from, and insisting on a voir dire while simultaneously not allowing any discussions with them from the defense team. KR's team had their hands tied behind their backs, but moved forward somehow with Judge's instructions. The guys were allowed in after all that.

Now, fast forward to present time, with additional theatrics by Brennan, and the award winning " I'm ready for my close-up..." shivers and sighs from Judge, now we are here. We are watching....

 

[shotgun09]

I wonder if she ruled on Mark Bederow yet?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Following along here - IIRC, during the actual court proceedings at the first trial, with one or the other ARCCA representatives on the stand, was it when AJ was questioning them, weren’t there some questions on the court record as to who was solicited by who? And IIRC wasn’t there a constraint that the defense (and prosecution) were not allowed to state in open court or before the jury who it was that had engaged the independent report?

And wasn’t that in part due to some ruling by this judge? I seem to recall some odd questions that couldn’t really be asked or answered? And that IMO left questions before the jury and others?

IIUC wasn’t this because of some requirement to not fully disclose that some investigators were under investigation?

Starting to wonder IMO if this is all about an attempt to disallow the experts? The ones that IIRC had basically shredded the CW obscure description of how JOK might (or might not) have been struck?

And might this be more maneuvering by the judge to head this a certain direction?

And might this be an effort to attempt to further discredit the independent report that apparently had major repercussions for trooper proctor and some of the other investigators?

The report that to my knowledge, has still not been released and made publicly available for review?

From what has been observed in this courtroom, nothing would be surprising, unfortunately. IANAL nor a judge. MOO

 

[shotgun09]

Following along here - IIRC, during the actual court proceedings at the first trial, with one or the other ARCCA representatives on the stand, was it when AJ was questioning them, weren’t there some questions on the court record as to who was solicited by who? And IIRC wasn’t there a constraint that the defense (and prosecution) were not allowed to state in open court or before the jury who it was that had engaged the independent report?

And wasn’t that in part due to some ruling by this judge? I seem to recall some odd questions that couldn’t really be asked or answered? And that IMO left questions before the jury and others?

IIUC wasn’t this because of some requirement to not fully disclose that some investigators were under investigation?

Starting to wonder IMO if this is all about an attempt to disallow the experts? The ones that IIRC had basically shredded the CW obscure description of how JOK might (or might not) have been struck?

And might this be more maneuvering by the judge to head this a certain direction?

And might this be an effort to attempt to further discredit the independent report that apparently had major repercussions for trooper proctor and some of the other investigators?

The report that to my knowledge, has still not been released and made publicly available for review?

From what has been observed in this courtroom, nothing would be surprising, unfortunately. IANAL nor a judge. MOO

EXACTLY !!!! IMO

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder if she ruled on Mark Bederow yet?

She seemed ready off of just Yannetti's Motion until Brennan did his little performance about how KR and TB/AK were not co-defendants, yet seemed to share discovery, blah, blah,...

Of course, he left out that these parties were not indicted by any grand jury and therefore not co-defendants!

 

[Seattle1]

Unbelievable!! They want Judge Cannone to Order the defense file all their Motions under seal!

Karen Read defense repeatedly violated court orders in documents, prosecutors claim

Prosecutors in the Karen Read case say a recent motion from Read's defense that revealed an inflammatory text message from a suspended Massachusetts State Police trooper violated a court order.

www.masslive.com

2/18/25

The motion, filed in Norfolk Superior Court on Friday, specifically cites two protective orders agreed to by both sides — one set down in November and another set down in January. Prosecutors claim that a recent filing from Read’s defense that included an inflammatory text message sent by now-suspended State Police Trooper Michael Proctor where Proctor described Read’s attorney, Alan Jackson, with an expletive “flagrantly violated” the Jan. 31 order.

 

[Wishbone]

LYK has a good breakdown in a 15 minute video of the pro's and con's of the next hearing. He states in the long run even if the defense is ruled against it in no way affects the trial..Much ado about nothing. He plans to go live and comment on the hearing in progress as well.

 

[Seattle1]

Judge in Karen Read case tells defense to be ready to explain latest bombshell

The judge in the Karen Read case tells her lawyers to be ready to explain recent revelations by a specially appointed prosecutor.

www.masslive.com

2/20/25

The US Attorney’s Office hired ARCCA to investigate the prosecution’s theory of the case that Read’s SUV struck and killed her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, in January 2022.

Brennan originally said on Tuesday that the new information came from the federal government, but later clarified the emails and the bill were produced by Read’s lawyers earlier this month.

The emails were from before one of the experts, Daniel Wolfe, testified at trial, according to Brennan. The emails were between Wolfe and defense attorney Alan Jackson.

As Cannone noted in her notice, the new information “relate to prior representations made to the Court on the record by defense counsel concerning the ARCCA witnesses.” [..]

Brennan is seeking to bar the ARCCA experts from the second trial. They testified at the first trial that O’Keefe’s injuries were not consistent with a car-pedestrian crash. They also said the damage to Read’s SUV was not consistent with hitting O’Keefe.

 

[turaj]

Link to Boston25 News complete video hearing below, including the 18 second clip with Brennan citing it was email received from the defense, and not the federal government, he earlier misrepresented to the Court before Judge Cannone called for a recess before coming back and ending the hearing-- citing her grave concerns for the defense and defense counsel...

Make no mistake, this reading implying he received the emails from the feds (pursuant to a Touhy request) was clearly intentional by Brennan.

No matter how many times Brennan attempts to hide behind he "did not watch the first trial," and only reviewed the transcripts, he's misrepresented the facts each time he appears before this Court! JMO

Watch live: Karen Read back in court for motions hearing as 2nd murder trial nears

The 44-year-old Mansfield woman is accused in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe.

www.boston25news.com

I have not followed this closely but why would Brennan declare he has "not watched the first trial"? I would think that would be a critical part of getting up to speed...transcript is only a part of it.

 

[turaj]

Judge Cannone seems very intent on this trial ending in a guilty verdict. Just the vibe I get from her.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I have not followed this closely but why would Brennan declare he has "not watched the first trial"? I would think that would be a critical part of getting up to speed...transcript is only a part of it.

My guess is so he can try to distance himself completely from the prior failed effort to convict Read. I'll bet Lally is hoping it happens again....

 

[Columba64]

Theory: Could Karen Read’s SUV Have Hit the Electrical Box, Leading to a Tragic Accident?​

I have been exploring an alternate explanation for what happened to John O’Keefe, one that involves an accident rather than intentional harm.

Key Known Facts:​

• John was heavily intoxicated.
• A dent was found on an electrical box on the property.
• Karen Read’s SUV had a broken taillight.
• John suffered a fatal head injury—a deep gash on the back of his skull.
• He also had scratches on his arm.
• His body was found approximately 12 feet from the road, near a fire hydrant and flagpole.
• The fire hydrant is confirmed to be made of cast iron, a material capable of causing significant injury upon impact.

Possible Scenario:​

Karen Read, while reversing her SUV, may have accidentally hit the electrical box, causing the dent. If John was unsteady on his feet due to intoxication, he could have exited the vehicle, become disoriented, and stumbled backward, striking his head on the cast iron fire hydrant.

The Fire Hydrant and the Head Injury:​

• Fire hydrant is solid cast iron with various edges, bolts, and protrusions.
• If John fell backward, he could have hit the back of his head on one of these edges, causing a deep gash rather than just a bump or bruise.
• The nature of his injury, described as a large laceration to the back of the head is consistent with a direct impact against a metal structure like a hydrant.
• His body was found near the hydrant, reinforcing the possibility that this was the point of impact.
• If he was unconscious and left outside in freezing temperatures, this could explain his condition when found.

Dog Scratches – Could a Dog Have Tried to Help?​

John was found with scratches on his arm. Rather than being defensive wounds from a struggle, these could have come from a dog trying to wake him up.

• If the family dog Chloe was outside and came across John lying unresponsive in the snow, it may have pawed at him, scratched him, or even nipped him in an attempt to get a reaction.
• Dogs are known to instinctively try to rouse unresponsive humans, often using their paws or noses to nudge them.
• The positioning and depth of the scratches could help determine whether they were made by a dog or another source.

Key Questions to Consider:​

• Does the height of the dent in the electrical box match the height of Karen Read’s broken taillight?
• Were taillight fragments found near the electrical box?
• Do John’s injuries align with a fall onto a cast iron hydrant rather than being struck by a car?
• Could the scratches on his arm be consistent with a dog trying to wake him rather than a struggle?

If this theory holds, it would suggest an unfortunate accident rather than an intentional hit-and-run.

 

[shotgun09]

Theory: Could Karen Read’s SUV Have Hit the Electrical Box, Leading to a Tragic Accident?​

I have been exploring an alternate explanation for what happened to John O’Keefe, one that involves an accident rather than intentional harm.

Key Known Facts:​

• John was heavily intoxicated.
• A dent was found on an electrical box on the property.
• Karen Read’s SUV had a broken taillight.
• John suffered a fatal head injury—a deep gash on the back of his skull.
• He also had scratches on his arm.
• His body was found approximately 12 feet from the road, near a fire hydrant and flagpole.
• The fire hydrant is confirmed to be made of cast iron, a material capable of causing significant injury upon impact.

Possible Scenario:​

Karen Read, while reversing her SUV, may have accidentally hit the electrical box, causing the dent. If John was unsteady on his feet due to intoxication, he could have exited the vehicle, become disoriented, and stumbled backward, striking his head on the cast iron fire hydrant.

The Fire Hydrant and the Head Injury:​

• Fire hydrant is solid cast iron with various edges, bolts, and protrusions.
• If John fell backward, he could have hit the back of his head on one of these edges, causing a deep gash rather than just a bump or bruise.
• The nature of his injury, described as a large laceration to the back of the head is consistent with a direct impact against a metal structure like a hydrant.
• His body was found near the hydrant, reinforcing the possibility that this was the point of impact.
• If he was unconscious and left outside in freezing temperatures, this could explain his condition when found.

Dog Scratches – Could a Dog Have Tried to Help?​

John was found with scratches on his arm. Rather than being defensive wounds from a struggle, these could have come from a dog trying to wake him up.

• If the family dog Chloe was outside and came across John lying unresponsive in the snow, it may have pawed at him, scratched him, or even nipped him in an attempt to get a reaction.
• Dogs are known to instinctively try to rouse unresponsive humans, often using their paws or noses to nudge them.
• The positioning and depth of the scratches could help determine whether they were made by a dog or another source.

Key Questions to Consider:​

• Does the height of the dent in the electrical box match the height of Karen Read’s broken taillight?
• Were taillight fragments found near the electrical box?
• Do John’s injuries align with a fall onto a cast iron hydrant rather than being struck by a car?
• Could the scratches on his arm be consistent with a dog trying to wake him rather than a struggle?

If this theory holds, it would suggest an unfortunate accident rather than an intentional hit-and-run.

Well! IMO your theory makes much more sense than the CW and Trooper Paul's suggestion/ allegations/ charges. So there's that!

 

[HarmonyE.]

Theory: Could Karen Read’s SUV Have Hit the Electrical Box, Leading to a Tragic Accident?​

I have been exploring an alternate explanation for what happened to John O’Keefe, one that involves an accident rather than intentional harm.

Key Known Facts:​

• John was heavily intoxicated.
• A dent was found on an electrical box on the property.
• Karen Read’s SUV had a broken taillight.
• John suffered a fatal head injury—a deep gash on the back of his skull.
• He also had scratches on his arm.
• His body was found approximately 12 feet from the road, near a fire hydrant and flagpole.
• The fire hydrant is confirmed to be made of cast iron, a material capable of causing significant injury upon impact.

Possible Scenario:​

Karen Read, while reversing her SUV, may have accidentally hit the electrical box, causing the dent. If John was unsteady on his feet due to intoxication, he could have exited the vehicle, become disoriented, and stumbled backward, striking his head on the cast iron fire hydrant.

The Fire Hydrant and the Head Injury:​

• Fire hydrant is solid cast iron with various edges, bolts, and protrusions.
• If John fell backward, he could have hit the back of his head on one of these edges, causing a deep gash rather than just a bump or bruise.
• The nature of his injury, described as a large laceration to the back of the head is consistent with a direct impact against a metal structure like a hydrant.
• His body was found near the hydrant, reinforcing the possibility that this was the point of impact.
• If he was unconscious and left outside in freezing temperatures, this could explain his condition when found.

Dog Scratches – Could a Dog Have Tried to Help?​

John was found with scratches on his arm. Rather than being defensive wounds from a struggle, these could have come from a dog trying to wake him up.

• If the family dog Chloe was outside and came across John lying unresponsive in the snow, it may have pawed at him, scratched him, or even nipped him in an attempt to get a reaction.
• Dogs are known to instinctively try to rouse unresponsive humans, often using their paws or noses to nudge them.
• The positioning and depth of the scratches could help determine whether they were made by a dog or another source.

Key Questions to Consider:​

• Does the height of the dent in the electrical box match the height of Karen Read’s broken taillight?
• Were taillight fragments found near the electrical box?
• Do John’s injuries align with a fall onto a cast iron hydrant rather than being struck by a car?
• Could the scratches on his arm be consistent with a dog trying to wake him rather than a struggle?

If this theory holds, it would suggest an unfortunate accident rather than an intentional hit-and-run.

The "electrical box" wasn't an electric box. It's a communications pedestal. Basically has wires for phone and or cable because the neighborhood has undergrouind utilities. I have one on the border of my property as well. Pretty flimsy. But more importantly, John wasn't found anywhere near it. And he had no damage on his person consistent with ANY other injuries that could support an argurment that he was flung 15, 20 or 30 feet in order for the back of his head to come into contact with it.

As for your other points, no, there was no evidence Read's vehicle came in contact with the pedestal and none of the taillight was located near it. Not that proper contextual photos were ever taken, but from the descriptions we do have, no taillight in that area.

"Chloe trying to help." There is no evidence Chloe ever went out to the front yard that night. According to the Alberts, Chloe was let out in the fenced back yard briefly from the back door when Brian Albert got home and then she came right back in. The front yard is not fenced and given Chloe's aggressiveness it seems unlikely she'd be allowed to roam around the neighborhood or even be in the unfenced portion of the lawn late at night.

IMO, there was nothing accidental about John's placement on the lawn.