MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #19

[turaj]

He named them in the last trial.

Okay thanks I watched the last trial mostly highlights. How can you name names and not provide solid evidence...no one seems to have seen what happened in the house. I think something did or at minimum the dog got at him but naming 3rd parties?

 

[turaj]

I guess one reason I've decided to watch the trial is I simply cannot make head nor tail of the state of it. On the one hand I find the defence theories of the case hard to swallow. Especially I struggle with the planted tail light plastic theory.

On the other, I cannot wrap my head around the Proctor's evidence at trial 1, plus the absurd accident reconstruction theory. Especially stuff like the bizarre evidence collection, the texts, the missing ring videos, together with the sally port videos (absurd!). And then the ARCA experts are hard to go past knowing the FBI instructed them.

I guess I feel on a policy basis, this should never have come to trial.

Perhaps the truth is unknowable - we shall see.

I find Alberts getting rid of the dog interesting and I think dog had a key role in this. I don't believe the dog is still alive but they are saying it is "rehomed"?

 

[HarmonyE.]

I guess one reason I've decided to watch the trial is I simply cannot make head nor tail of the state of it. On the one hand I find the defence theories of the case hard to swallow. Especially I struggle with the planted tail light plastic theory.

Proctor obviously has multiple screws loose. Unless you confess to murdering someone, it's pretty hard to get fired by the Mass State Police. The union is extremely powerful.

The planting of evidence by bad cops is not unheard of, and Proctor is just the sort of bad cop who would do such a thing. But we don't need to speculate about the pieces of tailllight not being there when the Canton police still had the case (They relinquished control once John was officially pronounced pronounced dead at the hosptial). They'd searched the entire area with a leaf blower before the snow accumulated beyond a few inches. 47 bright red pieces. All they found was a small piece of clear glass. And yet, after Proctor gets his hands on Read's vehicle, there they are.

To top it off, the pieces were poorly photographed without context and not mapped out, so no one has any idea where they actually were located or can reconstruct a disbursement pattern. State cops know all about accident reconstructions when there is a road fatality, and yet nothing was done to ensure this "accident" could fully reconstructed.

 

[iamshadow21]

I find Alberts getting rid of the dog interesting and I think dog had a key role in this. I don't believe the dog is still alive but they are saying it is "rehomed"?

On a farm in Vermont. Which is a story so old a version of it was trotted out for my mother when she was a child about a pet that went away. She's seventy three this year.

What farms want is high strung former police dogs with aggression issues. Absolutely.

MOO

 

[Derph]

I find Alberts getting rid of the dog interesting and I think dog had a key role in this. I don't believe the dog is still alive but they are saying it is "rehomed"?

And they tore up the carpeting and the entire basement and had it redone. Then they sold the house for way less than market value.

And we're live right now:

 

[Wishbone]

She lets brennan drone on and on repeating the same thing over and over yet cuts Alessi off before he even gets started...

 

[turaj]

They are in court now and Brennan is doing one by one on the 3rd parties...I tend to agree with him no concrete evidence. I don't think they should be any more than witnesses and not confronted with some of the stuff that came in first time. Maybe they have bad character traits but they are not on trial.

 

[Linda7NJ]

On a farm in Vermont. Which is a story so old a version of it was trotted out for my mother when she was a child about a pet that went away. She's seventy three this year.

What farms want is high strung former police dogs with aggression issues. Absolutely.

MOO

The defense could have examined the dog at any time.

Moulds were made of her mouth.

IMO

 

[waldojabba]

His attorney said he'd appeal, and I agree, he'll cooperate even if he has close to zero shot of prevailing. And it's not just the Read case; he was an investigator on a number of other serious cases, some of which might be in jeopardy now. Even if he didn't plant evidence to make his work easier in other cases, you can bet defense attorneys can't wait to look into Mr. Proctor's work habits.

I gotta say, his wife and sister have to be the most tone deaf people I've heard in a long time. Supporting a family member is one thing. Making him out to be the victim here is quite another.

I agree that the family is out to lunch on this for sure.

I tried to put myself in their shoes and understand where they may be coming from with this alternate reality thinking.
I think for Det Proctor he was just operating the same way he always did - business as usual. And maybe not unlike many others he works with. I have LE in my extended family/friend group so I have been around to hear a lot of chatter and off the record remarks. When I think back, there was no push back on his texts etc until everything saw the light of day. Without KR being so proactive'/smart/lining up top notch lawyers etc imo she would already be in jail.
IMO they appear to have railroaded and bullied her - If they thought she was a just a bimbo they got caught off guard.
For his family, Det Proctor was always likely Mr Law and Order. He put the bad guys away, while putting his own life on the line and he is their hero. So to them, this all has to be some one elses fault.
They don't question his motives or integrity and stick with his narrative. Much like the Okeefes. They stay locked in the same narrative. Very black and white thinkers. There is not a lot of critical thinking involved, just a vengence, a rush to judgement and then boiling hatred.
It does not help that KR is smart successful and good looking. There is a unspoken mentaility in this neck of the woods IMO that she should know her place.
It still remains incredulous to me that this is going back to trial. Even if there is an unlikely conviction
( you would need the jury stacked with emotional thinkers vs logical thinkers imo) , there are so many appelate issues that this will drag on and on and on forever.
I watched the entire first trial and my vote was Innocent. I dont find her a sympathetic defendant but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
There is obviously something afoot when the P brings in a "reinforcement", who is a known mob lawyer and then he stumbles around misrepresenting things seemingly on purpose. Maybe because he cannot try it on the merits of the case.
I can only shake my head at this one. Kudos to KR whose boyfriend was murdered imo and then she has had to go through being labeled and tried as a heinous hussey killer all in the view of the world - unimaginable to me and more than most people could handle with any type of grace.
all just my opinion

 

[Wishbone]

The defense could have examined the dog at any time.

Moulds were made of her mouth.

IMO

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims - PMC

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Derph]

AMAZING how the court video feed keeps going in and out only when the Defense is speaking. Just another coincidence right?

 

[Wishbone]

I don't understand why the defense is having to justify items that were a part of the first trial. It's like the first trial is actually on trial. JMOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

I don't understand why the defense is having to justify items that were a part of the first trial. It's like the first trial is actually on trial. JMOO

That makes 2 of us.

 

[jepop]

I agree that the family is out to lunch on this for sure.

I tried to put myself in their shoes and understand where they may be coming from with this alternate reality thinking.
I think for Det Proctor he was just operating the same way he always did - business as usual. And maybe not unlike many others he works with. I have LE in my extended family/friend group so I have been around to hear a lot of chatter and off the record remarks. When I think back, there was no push back on his texts etc until everything saw the light of day. Without KR being so proactive'/smart/lining up top notch lawyers etc imo she would already be in jail.
IMO they appear to have railroaded and bullied her - If they thought she was a just a bimbo they got caught off guard.
For his family, Det Proctor was always likely Mr Law and Order. He put the bad guys away, while putting his own life on the line and he is their hero. So to them, this all has to be some one elses fault.
They don't question his motives or integrity and stick with his narrative. Much like the Okeefes. They stay locked in the same narrative. Very black and white thinkers. There is not a lot of critical thinking involved, just a vengence, a rush to judgement and then boiling hatred.
It does not help that KR is smart successful and good looking. There is a unspoken mentaility in this neck of the woods IMO that she should know her place.
It still remains incredulous to me that this is going back to trial. Even if there is an unlikely conviction
( you would need the jury stacked with emotional thinkers vs logical thinkers imo) , there are so many appelate issues that this will drag on and on and on forever.
I watched the entire first trial and my vote was Innocent. I dont find her a sympathetic defendant but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
There is obviously something afoot when the P brings in a "reinforcement", who is a known mob lawyer and then he stumbles around misrepresenting things seemingly on purpose. Maybe because he cannot try it on the merits of the case.
I can only shake my head at this one. Kudos to KR whose boyfriend was murdered imo and then she has had to go through being labeled and tried as a heinous hussey killer all in the view of the world - unimaginable to me and more than most people could handle with any type of grace.
all just my opinion

I can't agree with your post enough. Black and white thinking, the unspoken, uncritical mentality that KR should 'know her place'. This seems somewhat akin to the feeling I get that KR is the subject of a sort of modern day witch hunt where the CW is leading the pack.

I hypothesise the subtext to Brennan's case at trial will centre around engaging the emotional buttons of the jury. Because as you say, and I agree, it seems impossible that a logically engaged jury could not find reasonable doubt.

I likewise came out of watching every day of trial X 1 ( and with no engagement with any extraneous media surrounding the case), believing KR is innocent. Jmo.

 

[Linda7NJ]

OUCH!
The federal investigation found no evidence of anyone other than Karen Read hit John O’Keefe
Zero charges against police officers and no evidence of a conspiracy

 

[Wishbone]

OUCH!
The federal investigation found no evidence of anyone other than Karen Read hit John O’Keefe
Zero charges against police officers and no evidence of a conspiracy

"The federal investigation found no evidence of anyone other than Karen Read hit John O’Keefe"

Is there a link for that exact statement?

 

[Linda7NJ]

"The federal investigation found no evidence of anyone other than Karen Read hit John O’Keefe"

Is there a link for that exact statement?

You see anyone else charged ?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims - PMC

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There’s always the lack of canine DNA and canine dog hair

 

[Wishbone]

You see anyone else charged ?

Then it is your opinion, correct? No exact statement from the Feds. Just the submission from ARCCA that JO was not hit by her car nor his injuries caused by being hit by a car.

 

[HarmonyE.]

"The federal investigation found no evidence of anyone other than Karen Read hit John O’Keefe"

Is there a link for that exact statement?

The FBI doesn't investigate murders under state jurisdiction, so no way that happened.

Many speculate they were investigating the cross-over personnel with the Sandra Birchmore case. Birchmore was murdered in Canton by a police officier and both the Canton police and the State police refused to investigate her murder and appear to have ignored evidence in this case. Like the 33,000 texts "not found" by the Nicholas Guerino who was used as an expert on the Read case.

The fact remains that no one knows what the FBI's role here was. And we'll likely never know.