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]

3/18/25

LIVE! Real Lawyer Reacts: More Drama in the Karen Read Hearing - Judge Has Harsh Words for Defense​

 

[Seattle1]

3/18/25

LIVE: MA v. Karen Read Murder Retrial - Motions Hearing​

 

[Seattle1]

Karen Read judge says defense made "repeated misrepresentations" to court

The judge in the Karen Read case admonished the defense team for "repeated misrepresentations" to the court.

www.cbsnews.com

3/18/25

 

[Seattle1]

'Repeated misrepresentations': Judge gives stern warning to Karen Read's lawyers

Karen Read's case returned to court Tuesday with a harsh warning for her defense team and a long to-do list as attorneys prepare for the start of her 2nd trial

www.wcvb.com

3/18/25

 

[Seattle1]

Karen Read returns to court today. Follow along for live updates

Karen Read is back in court Tuesday for the first of two days of hearings ahead of the start of her second murder trial next month.

www.nbcboston.com

3/18/25

 

[Deleted member 246707]

I don't know who on KR side thought this HBO show was a good idea... I guess it shouldn't matter, but yeesh.

 

[tricia]

Did you know supporting DNASolves.com with a subscription or donation helps solve crime and keeps Websleuths free for everyone? If you enjoy Websleuths, along with the fact no more insufferable ads, we ask that you become a monthly subscriber to DNASolves.com. If you can't make a monthly donation, please pick a case that needs funding and donate once. We know not everyone can donate. So if you could please get the word out about DNASolves.com through your social media or by simply emailing your friends, we would really appreciate it.
If you have any questions please CLICK HERE!
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[jepop]

THOSE particular lawyers, no. They are all pretty WELL set for long time in their profession if you read their professional backgrounds, if you have not come across their names and cases, but.

Agree. Publicity could be why Brennan took the case though. Along with a boatload of taxpayers money of course. I hope he is disappointed if the jury acquits or hangs for a second time.

Moo he gets away with "repeated and continuous" moments of real lack of candour in his snakey word smithing without this judge raising an eyebrow. IMO judge's wording in castigating the defense is unsupported by the record. Wow. JMO.

Defense is now pro bono as I understand it? No doubt in my mind and it is my opinion, all of them sincerely believe KR is innocent with good reason.

 

[mrjitty]

Guilty or not guilty every single defendant in the US is entitled to a defense attorney.

It's silly to claim no attorney asks his/her client about what actually happened, including whether the crime was committed as alleged. Of course they do. But even if the client confesses, they're still entitled to the best defense their attorney can provide.

In this case, it seems Read's attorneys are quite convinced of her innocence, with Alessi working free of charge.

Not a US lawyer but we were trained never to ask this. My opinion. It’s sort of irrelevant anyway.

Overall i don’t understand the purpose in trying to parse whether defence attorneys are personally endorsing innocence. we know the evidence same as them.

What we do know is that this prosecution is problematic.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks. Mark Bederow was going to come on board pro bono as well. Judge said no. Says quite a lot about what all of these attorneys think about what is going on here.

i certainly agree with your take here. Certain attorneys will take on cases where they think there is injustice. I don’t think we need to see it in terms of guilt or innocence but rather constitutionally.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

From about 1.26.30 - questions for Dr Russell, Jan 7th, 2025

"when you're looking for trace evidence to see if something caused an injury you look for remnants of that [inaudible] Mr O'Keefe's body right?

A. I did not have hands on.

Ok, but you did learn that there was something remarkable in Mr O'Keefe's sweater, didn't you?

A. Can you be more specific?

I can. Glass shards, or broken taillight plastic shards, you understand they were found in Mr O'Keefe's sweater right?

A. Doesn't surprise me.

Well I know it doesn't surprise you but the question I'm asking you is when you decide to engage in differential diagnosis and you decide to exclude collision as the cause of this abrasion, didn't you want to know all the facts and information in considering whether it was the taillight that caused the abrasion? Didn't you want to know that information?

A. Yes.

Ok, and when you were considering that information did you know from the criminalistic reports that shards of that broken taillight were littered in his sweater?

A. I did not know that.

When's the first time you learned of that?

A. Right now.

Right now. And so when you've prepared for this case and you've received materials from the defense, nobody has ever sent you, ever, the criminalistic reports that showed taillight shards were in his sweater where the abrasion was? No one ever showed you that?

A. I don't recall seeing that at all.

Well [inaudible] detective and using circumstantial evidence and trace evidence, I want you now to consider this new evidence that you didn't know before you testified at the voir dire and the trial and the Daubert-Lanigan hearing, when you were ruling out the taillight as the mechanism of injury, when you excluded it in your differential diagnosis and you said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries that you looked at were caused by a dog bite. now that you know that there was a debris field of shattered taillight right near the body of Mr O'Keefe, and now that you know in his very sweater where the abrasions, the same arm, under them, is littered with shards of taillight, from that Lexus, does that in any way change your analysis in your differential diagnosis excluding the car as the mechanic of injury for that abrasion?

Objection your honor.

I'm going to allow that, minus the police officer part, the detective part.

A. No, it doesn't change my conclusion that those injuries, those abrasions were caused by a dog bite.

How do you think the shards of taillight got into his sweater?

A. They could have got into his sweater from an accident, correct.

From an impact with the taillight, yes?

A. Could be.

Right and when the taillight breaks and there's jagged irregular linear sharp edges from that break what do you think is going to happen to the skin when those shards impact the skin?

A. They could cause injury, yes.

They could cause puncture wounds couldn't they?

A. Uh yes they could.

They could cause scratches couldn't they?

A. They could cause scratches.

You have no studies on how an abrasion looks after an impact with a taillight that is shattered, you don't have any studies or comparative analysis do you?

A. I have no studies, I just have my years of experience."

This is the key trial question for me.

Either the defendant is guilty or evidence was juiced. That requires a criminal conspiracy by law enforcement. I don’t think we have to have a few on the alt suspect theory. Evidence could have been juiced because they believed she was guilty.

IMO this is why the case should be dismissed.

 

[Derph]

Michael Proctor has been terminated from MSP!!!

Lead investigator in Karen Read murder case, MSP Trooper Michael Proctor, fired - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

FRAMINGHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Massachusetts State Police announced Wednesday that Michael Proctor, the controversial trooper who served as lead investigator in the Karen Read murder<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

whdh.com

 

[HarmonyE.]

Michael Proctor has been terminated from MSP!!!

Very good news for Karen Read. And for the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Michael Proctor has been terminated from MSP!!!

Lead investigator in Karen Read murder case, MSP Trooper Michael Proctor, fired - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

FRAMINGHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Massachusetts State Police announced Wednesday that Michael Proctor, the controversial trooper who served as lead investigator in the Karen Read murder<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

whdh.com

He thought he was such a big shot as a state trooper, bragging to his friends, drinking on duty, degrading others. The article speaks of him as a scapegoat and I would bet he’s not the only cop there that has conducted himself that way. Good riddance to bad cops! MOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Michael Proctor has been terminated from MSP!!!

Lead investigator in Karen Read murder case, MSP Trooper Michael Proctor, fired - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

FRAMINGHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Massachusetts State Police announced Wednesday that Michael Proctor, the controversial trooper who served as lead investigator in the Karen Read murder<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

whdh.com

Can't wait until he is called as a witness.

 

[rescuemom]

Michael Proctor has been terminated from MSP!!!

I wonder if he will now squeal on the rest and tell if anything what he knows. I don't know if MP was part of a cover up or not. Did he 'read' the situation and take it upon himself to frame KR hoping to gain favor from the 'popular kids' involved or did he have a grudge against KR for whatever reason? OR was it normal practice for him to just interfere? JMO

 

[HarmonyE.]

Michael Proctor has been terminated from MSP!!!

I wonder if he will now squeal on the rest and tell if anything what he knows. I don't know if MP was part of a cover up or not. Did he 'read' the situation and take it upon himself to frame KR hoping to gain favor from the 'popular kids' involved or did he have a grudge against KR for whatever reason? OR was it normal practice for him to just interfere? JMO

Doubtful. He'd surely be facing criminal prosecution himself. Not that he shouldn't be as it is....

Personally, I think he was acutely aware there was no physical evidence against Read and that a small crack in a taillight could have had several other explanations (not knowing at the time the actual explanation was on John's own ring cam!) so he further damaged her vehicle and scattered taillight pieces on the lawn to make it "seem" a violent collision had occurred. To make himself an investigative hero and to help out his pals (whom he denied even knowing) so they didn't have to get too bothered by an in-depth investigation. I question whether the idiot had any idea what really did happen to JO though.

 

[Sustained]

Doubtful. He'd surely be facing criminal prosecution himself. Not that he shouldn't be as it is....

Personally, I think he was acutely aware there was no physical evidence against Read and that a small crack in a taillight could have had several other explanations (not knowing at the time the actual explanation was on John's own ring cam!) so he further damaged her vehicle and scattered taillight pieces on the lawn to make it "seem" a violent collision had occurred. To make himself an investigative hero and to help out his pals (whom he denied even knowing) so they didn't have to get too bothered by an in-depth investigation. I question whether the idiot had any idea what really did happen to JO though.

BBM -

What really did happen to JO ? I find it hard to believe that he was beaten senseless inside the Albert house and thrown out in plain view in the front yard to die. Too bad one of the neighbors across the street didn't have a Ring or outside camera.

 

[Sissy1355]

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....

 

[Forest_Wood]

Can't wait until he is called as a witness.

I doubt he’ll be as “cooperative” as Trial #1.
MOO