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

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904656094837830131

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904653166454390995

ETA: Hear, hear!!

 

[Seattle1]

Guess which state is referred to as Passachusetts by bar-exam takers?

Which state doesn’t require Continuing Legal Education for attorneys?

Massachusetts!

And Judges are appointed and not elected.

I'm finally beginning to understand...

No CLE is insane.

Even Licensed plumbers in MA are required to take continued education!

Massachusetts Plumber FAQ | Plumbers Training Institute

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904703938093285856

 

[Seattle1]

Courts Memorandum of Defense MTD:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904636823965438289

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904636893062717901

 

[mrjitty]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904653166454390995

ETA: Hear, hear!!

Yes personally I find this bonkers and would have thought the judge would want to get to the bottom of it. Especially seeing I agree with LYK that there will need to be a direction to the jury about this.

On the other hand, I am not a MA trial lawyer and do not know what the norms would be here.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904636984037171584

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904543399761285164

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904543453893062903

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904543518934106229

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904543573581742360

 

[mrjitty]

The pieces located by SERT on Jan 29 were in/under the snow between the flagpole and fire hydrant, in front of the Albert residence. A shovel was used to uncover the pieces (and the sneaker) per O'Hara's June 3 testimony.

Thanks. That is where they were recovered later on Jan 29.

What I am getting at is the following. The early morning dashcam footage clearly shows some important parts of the defendant's tail light to be missing already before the Lexus was seized by LE.

So where were those missing pieces at the time? To my mind, either they were already where subsequently recovered by SERT and the tail light was therefore broken at the crime scene, OR those pieces were somewhere else e.g on John's driveway, and corrupt LE must have recovered them from that location, then taken them to the crime scene to be 'discovered' by SERT?

Or are we saying that corrupt LE used completely different tail light pieces taken from the sallyport and took those to the crime scene for SERT to find, and those original critical missing pieces were in fact never recovered?

I think it is important to understand how this scheme can actually have been carried out. I get that it would be possible to add more tail light from the sallyport later, but i wonder about those original critical pieces.

 

[mrjitty]

The crime scene was left unattended for large periods of time. Too snowy, I guess?

The crime scene is also a 3 - 4 minute drive from the Canton PD.

Of course, the Read vehicle should have been brought to a State police garage (there were 2 far closer to Dighton than Canton) but I suspect Mr. Proctor preferred the friendlier - and much closer - Canton location.

Access to the crime scene is not in dispute. What I am wondering about is where he got the original missing pieces from. If they were broken off in John's driveway - shouldn't they have been there?

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you @Derph for sharing this.

Also adding this 5 ABC WCVB News online March 25, 2025 article by Jamey Pombo Sesselman entitled ‘Attorneys debate Karen Read's defense strategy; Prosecution denied access to her messages with attorney’:

Karen Read's latest motion to dismiss denied after busy pretrial hearing

A pretrial hearing centered on the defense's plans to use a third-party culprit defense and the prosecution's request for access to communications between Read and her attorney.

www.wcvb.com

Still wonder if the CW might try and appeal this; but would hopefully judge and higher courts (if needed) would result in the same conclusion. IANAL. MOO

Judge was not born yesterday! There are no incriminating texts IMO.

On the one hand it looks like the defendant and Yanetti took a risk with KR talking about those discussions. But on the other hand, Yanetti knows this very well and would not let Read talk about incriminating messages.

IMO Yanetti was doing a clean up of defendant's 'bad' early utterances. The 'conversations' Read talked about maybe never even happened as described.

So Judge is just being practical here. LYK and others all seemed to agree the defendant did waive privilege to a limited extent. But why go there when the defence will grandstand about it, and obviously there is nothing useful to discover.

CW will have her statements in the doco to use in any event, and Yanetti was always comfortable with it. Indeed he may want that.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

All that said, I find the defendant's participation in the documentary to be baffling from the POV of an ordinary D strategy.

But I do not believe the D strategy really is a 3rd party suspect strategy. IMO the strategy overall is to create public narratives to influence the jury.

As @Seattle1 intimidated, they might have done that precisely because there was little media attention as regards corruption/misconduct against an innocent defendant. Regardless, IMO it is their real strategy, and I find it ethically questionable. But I think the genie is out of the bottle now.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

DBM

 

[twhel]

Thanks. That is where they were recovered later on Jan 29.

What I am getting at is the following. The early morning dashcam footage clearly shows some important parts of the defendant's tail light to be missing already before the Lexus was seized by LE.

So where were those missing pieces at the time? To my mind, either they were already where subsequently recovered by SERT and the tail light was therefore broken at the crime scene, OR those pieces were somewhere else e.g on John's driveway, and corrupt LE must have recovered them from that location, then taken them to the crime scene to be 'discovered' by SERT?

Or are we saying that corrupt LE used completely different tail light pieces taken from the sallyport and took those to the crime scene for SERT to find, and those original critical missing pieces were in fact never recovered?

I think it is important to understand how this scheme can actually have been carried out. I get that it would be possible to add more tail light from the sallyport later, but i wonder about those original critical pieces.

The additional tail light pieces recovered at the scene subsequent to Jan 29 were not recovered by the SERT. They were recovered on February 3, 4 and 18 by Bukhenik and Proctor, who had been assigned the case. The February 4 recovery occurred after Bukhenik was advised by Canton PD that piece(s) had been noticed on a drive by.

The position of the CW is that the SERT only found a few small pieces on the evening of Jan 29 (using a shovel) because the remainder were buried in the snow. At that point, as Kevin O'Hara testified, SERT did not know the extent of the damage to KR's tail light, so did not know the extent of the evidence they could expect to uncover by any additional searching in the dark/snowy conditions.

As the snow melted, per the CW, the additional pieces were uncovered and discovered. The conspiracy theory theorizes otherwise. The CW's position is that all of the pieces, Jan 29 and subsequent, are a physical match to KR's tail light.

Links to (1) a news story about Bukhenik's testimony about recovery of tail light pieces, and (2) a video of a CW forensic witness being cross examined about reconstructing the tail light with the (partial) benefit of pieces recovered by Proctor on Feb 18.

Key state police investigator returns to the stand in Karen Read trial

Scientist Compares Plastic Tail Light Pieces in Karen Read Trial

 

[mrjitty]

The additional tail light pieces recovered at the scene subsequent to Jan 29 were not recovered by the SERT. They were recovered on February 3, 4 and 18 by Bukhenik and Proctor, who had been assigned the case. The February 4 recovery occurred after Bukhenik was advised by Canton PD that piece(s) had been noticed on a drive by.

The position of the CW is that the SERT only found a few small pieces on the evening of Jan 29 (using a shovel) because the remainder were buried in the snow. At that point, as Kevin O'Hara testified, SERT did not know the extent of the damage to KR's tail light, so did not know the extent of the evidence they could expect to uncover by any additional searching in the dark/snowy conditions.

As the snow melted, per the CW, the additional pieces were uncovered and discovered. The conspiracy theory theorizes otherwise. The CW's position is that all of the pieces, Jan 29 and subsequent, are a physical match to KR's tail light.

Links to (1) a news story about Bukhenik's testimony about recovery of tail light pieces, and (2) a video of a CW forensic witness being cross examined about reconstructing the tail light with the (partial) benefit of pieces recovered by Proctor on Feb 18.

Key state police investigator returns to the stand in Karen Read trial

Scientist Compares Plastic Tail Light Pieces in Karen Read Trial

So to follow up on your excellent level of detail, for the conspiracy to be true, no matter how many extra pieces Bukhenik and Proctor add later from the Sally Port, there are 2 fundamental issues:

1. someone needed to add pieces found on Jan 29 by SERT
2. someone needed to find the pieces already missing from the defendant's Lexus in the dashcam video and get these to the crime scene

Point 2 is to me the main problem with the planting evidence theory. Where were those pieces and how would Proctor have found them?

 

[Forest_Wood]

No, this was not introduced in the last trial. But as a local, I was surprised it wasn't.

Related, on the defense's witness list last time was a fellow named Tom Beatty and his teen (at the time) daughter Erin. For some reason, the defense did not call them, but I see them back on the list for this trial. They have an interesting story to tell and I hope we get to hear it from them this time around.

Here's the current witness list. Karen Read defense team files list of prospective witnesses ahead of retrial

I hope Tom Beatty gets to testify this time and his daughter too. The defense didn't really get into BA's violence last time from what I recall. They focused more on the nephew's violent tendency. Seems to run in the family then. I think this is critical information, given all the other nonsense related to the Alberts/McCabes/Higgins that took place.

I also wonder how the local people who live in this area look at all the revelations coming out of this trial about the LE there.

 

[Forest_Wood]

The additional tail light pieces recovered at the scene subsequent to Jan 29 were not recovered by the SERT. They were recovered on February 3, 4 and 18 by Bukhenik and Proctor, who had been assigned the case. The February 4 recovery occurred after Bukhenik was advised by Canton PD that piece(s) had been noticed on a drive by.

The position of the CW is that the SERT only found a few small pieces on the evening of Jan 29 (using a shovel) because the remainder were buried in the snow. At that point, as Kevin O'Hara testified, SERT did not know the extent of the damage to KR's tail light, so did not know the extent of the evidence they could expect to uncover by any additional searching in the dark/snowy conditions.

As the snow melted, per the CW, the additional pieces were uncovered and discovered. The conspiracy theory theorizes otherwise. The CW's position is that all of the pieces, Jan 29 and subsequent, are a physical match to KR's tail light.

Links to (1) a news story about Bukhenik's testimony about recovery of tail light pieces, and (2) a video of a CW forensic witness being cross examined about reconstructing the tail light with the (partial) benefit of pieces recovered by Proctor on Feb 18.

Key state police investigator returns to the stand in Karen Read trial

Scientist Compares Plastic Tail Light Pieces in Karen Read Trial

I think it's unbelievable that pieces of red tail light would not have been found the same day. There's not much snow on the ground here, and they found John at 06:00 hours, having all day to see those pieces. Besides, it was fresh snow and those pieces would have been laying on top of the snow unless all those workers trampled on them. There is the possibility the pieces got pushed back by the snowplow, but wouldn't that mean that John's body also got pushed onto the lawn by the snow plow. The trial never went in that direction.
MOO.