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

[sunshineray]

Can anyone explain why Karen Read told to Jen McCabe that she left John at The Waterfall that night?

 

[Seattle1]

Can anyone explain why Karen Read told to Jen McCabe that she left John at The Waterfall that night?

I believe this alleged comment per JM would have occurred during this time frame in the timeline:

4-5 a.m. – At 4:23 a.m. while heavy snow was falling, O'Keefe's niece called Jennifer McCabe, Brian Albert's sister-in-law and a friend of O'Keefe's. She said Read was "distraught" because O'Keefe had not come home and was not answering his cellphone. According to court documents, McCabe said she heard Read screaming "John didn't come home. We had a fight." Around 5 a.m. Read called another woman whose husband was friends with O'Keefe. Prosecutors alleged that Read said while they searched "What if he's dead? What if a plow hit him? … I don't remember anything from last night, we drank so much I don't remember anything."

A timeline of the Karen Read case and the story behind the high-profile Massachusetts murder trial

A look at the timeline of events in Karen Read's high-profile Massachusetts murder trial as she is charged with killing Boston police officer John O'Keefe.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[twhel]

More specifically, I believe sunshineray is bringing up this testimony from Jennifer McCabe:

"[McCabe] said she later awoke at 4:53 a.m. to a phone call from O’Keefe’s 14-year-old niece, who informed her that O’Keefe hadn’t come home. McCabe testified that she could hear Read screaming 'Jen! Jen!' in the background.

'She proceeds to scream my name multiple times, and she tells me that John didn’t come home, they got into a fight, and that she left him at the Waterfall,' McCabe recalled.

She said she made a few calls to friends and mutual acquaintances in an attempt to track O’Keefe down, but her husband reminded her that they had seen Read’s car outside 34 Fairview Road. When she spoke to Read again and told her as much, Read 'told me that she didn’t remember going there, and then she started yelling, ‘Jen! Jen!’ And then she was saying, ‘Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?' McCabe testified."

What Jen McCabe had to say about the fiercely debated Google search, the broken taillight, and Karen Read’s alleged ‘I hit him’ statements

One explanation is that KR was attempting to distance herself from what had occurred. I know there are many here who will not take Jennifer McCabe's recollections at face value.

 

[sunshineray]

More specifically, I believe sunshineray is bringing up this testimony from Jennifer McCabe:

"[McCabe] said she later awoke at 4:53 a.m. to a phone call from O’Keefe’s 14-year-old niece, who informed her that O’Keefe hadn’t come home. McCabe testified that she could hear Read screaming 'Jen! Jen!' in the background.

'She proceeds to scream my name multiple times, and she tells me that John didn’t come home, they got into a fight, and that she left him at the Waterfall,' McCabe recalled.

She said she made a few calls to friends and mutual acquaintances in an attempt to track O’Keefe down, but her husband reminded her that they had seen Read’s car outside 34 Fairview Road. When she spoke to Read again and told her as much, Read 'told me that she didn’t remember going there, and then she started yelling, ‘Jen! Jen!’ And then she was saying, ‘Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?' McCabe testified."

What Jen McCabe had to say about the fiercely debated Google search, the broken taillight, and Karen Read’s alleged ‘I hit him’ statements

One explanation is that KR was attempting to distance herself from what had occurred. I know there are many here who will not take Jennifer McCabe's recollections at face value.

Yes, correct. KR sure seemed definite that when they pulled up to house it looked like no "soiree" was going on. John got out and ran up to the far right porch door and let himself inside. She then sat there getting more and more angry thinking how long does it take him to see if they're still going in and having drinks? Then she got fed up and left and went to his house, without him.

KR was sure full of lots of details about a trip in a snowstorm, to a house she never went to, because she just left John at the Waterfall.

Info from "A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read" on Netflix and Hulu

https://www.hulu.com/series/a-body-in-the-snow-the-trial-of-karen-read-85b36aef-0ba3-4eff-811c-b71afd48bcb4

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, correct. KR sure seemed definite that when they pulled up to house it looked like no "soiree" was going on. John got out and ran up to the far right porch door and let himself inside. She then sat there getting more and more angry thinking how long does it take him to see if they're still going in and having drinks? Then she got fed up and left and went to his house, without him.

KR was sure full of lots of details about a trip in a snowstorm, to a house she never went to, because she just left John at the Waterfall.

Info from "A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read" on Netflix and Hulu

https://www.hulu.com/series/a-body-in-the-snow-the-trial-of-karen-read-85b36aef-0ba3-4eff-811c-b71afd48bcb4

Yes, and 'I hit him' or 'did I hit him?' are incompatible with seeing him go inside the house.

And if she considered she might have hit him, before finding his body outside, it was based on consciousness she already had at the time she drove away. How could she have guessed that AND he would be found outside with fatal injuries?

IMO

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Maybe JOK threw the Waterfall glass in anger at the Lexus and it broke the taillight. Maybe Read continued to backup over JOK after he was already down. She seemed to think she hit him but now says she didn't.

Point is the only two there were JOK and Read's now saying she didn't hit him. Both of them were intoxicated.

Didn’t RN testify though that after he pulled up behind KR’s vehicle he never saw JOK and that KR was alone in her vehicle the entire time he was there, including when he finally drove past her to leave? Where was JOK in that time? It seems likely he was already out of the vehicle and if not in the home probably very close to the vicinity of it, like perhaps around the side deeper in the driveway or such. And say hypothetically he did come back from wherever he was and headed towards KR in her car, wouldn’t JMc have seen him since she was watching and waiting for them to come to the front door? IIRC, both JMc and Manx testify that when they saw KR’s vehicle leave, it did so by continuing south. It did not reverse. Also, even if it had wouldn’t they have seen JOK or at least some human figure moving behind the taillights and seen him get hit and dragged by KR’s car? Also, according to RN and JMc, KR was parked by the flag pole. The street is also curved. Wouldn’t there also be dragged marks on the ground and snow, including on the lawn. Furthermore, from her parked position how did she maneuver and accelerate to 24 mph in that short time and space enough without crashing into flag pole or fire hydrant as well? Wouldn’t both witnesses have also noticed the driver’s odd behavior and the fact it was driving on and risking damage to their in-laws lawn? Wouldn’t someone go to check what was going on, what damage was done and why KR, and presumably JOK, just drive away so bizarrely?

JMOT but I could be wrong

 

[mrjitty]

Didn’t RN testify though that after he pulled up behind KR’s vehicle he never saw JOK and that KR was alone in her vehicle the entire time he was there, including when he finally drove past her to leave? Where was JOK in that time? It seems likely he was already out of the vehicle and if not in the home probably very close to the vicinity of it, like perhaps around the side deeper in the driveway or such. And say hypothetically he did come back from wherever he was and headed towards KR in her car, wouldn’t JMc have seen him since she was watching and waiting for them to come to the front door? IIRC, both JMc and Manx testify that when they saw KR’s vehicle leave, it did so by continuing south. It did not reverse. Also, even if it had wouldn’t they have seen JOK or at least some human figure moving behind the taillights and seen him get hit and dragged by KR’s car? Also, according to RN and JMc, KR was parked by the flag pole. The street is also curved. Wouldn’t there also be dragged marks on the ground and snow, including on the lawn. Furthermore, from her parked position how did she maneuver and accelerate to 24 mph in that short time and space enough without crashing into flag pole or fire hydrant as well? Wouldn’t both witnesses have also noticed the driver’s odd behavior and the fact it was driving on and risking damage to their in-laws lawn? Wouldn’t someone go to check what was going on, what damage was done and why KR, and presumably JOK, just drive away so bizarrely?

JMOT but I could be wrong

these are all the kinds of reaonswhy the prosecution have to present a cohesive reconstruction IMO

i was NG in trial 1. i could infer the defendant hit JOK but not to criminal standard

too many vibes and must haves.

 

[angkg]

I think OJO’s phone data will be key to this new trial as well as other’s phone data. In the first trial, the phone data showing KR arriving at his house completely changed the CW’s timeline from the beginning of the trial to the end. The CW literally contradicted their own version of events from the opening statements to the end of the trial. To me, the CW looked incompetent when they had to change their narrative. Why didn’t they know the case better? Also, I hope they nail down the 2am google search. These are key factors regarding who knew what when.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I’m worried about jury selection, I hate high profile cases.
There’s the chance of stealth jurors.
People that haven’t followed along, have no knowledge and haven’t formed an opinion are the same people that live under a rock. I don’t have a lot of faith in them.

I wish there was a change of venue

Respectfully, IMO I believe the CW and all parties are seeking impartial jurors. Potential jurors that have not formed an opinion. And that would render judgment only on evidence presented as testimony or entered during the trial. One also imagines that they are not desirous of individuals that might have followed the case in other venues and that might form an opinion or conclusion based on anything other than admitted evidence and testimony. MOO

 

[Sustained]

Respectfully, IMO I believe the CW and all parties are seeking impartial jurors. Potential jurors that have not formed an opinion. And that would render judgment only on evidence presented as testimony or entered during the trial. One also imagines that they are not desirous of individuals that might have followed the case in other venues and that might form an opinion or conclusion based on anything other than admitted evidence and testimony. MOO

BBM -

Good luck with that - IMO, the only way to get an impartial jury would have been to move the trial to western Mass somewhere.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

They have voir dire and challenges for a reason.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

They have voir dire and challenges for a reason.

I meant to quote/respond Sherlock

 

[Wishbone]

How long will Karen Read jury selection take?​

In previous pretrial hearings, Cannone indicated that opening statements in the case may not start until the end of April.

That prediction puts this second trial on the exact same timeline as the first, despite previous predictions it may be a shorter trial.

Like in the first trial, prosecutors have estimated about four or five weeks to try their case, and defense attorneys predicted about two weeks. The same was true last year, but the trial actually lasted for nearly 10 weeks, ending in a mistrial on July 1, 2024.

How jury selection will work in Karen Read's high-profile second trial

Jury selection will start Tuesday in Karen Read's second trial. Here is a look at how it will work.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

Peter and his dad just did a morning update
"getting prepped"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Linda7NJ]

Can anyone explain why Karen Read told to Jen McCabe that she left John at The Waterfall that night?

My guess, she wanted to distance herself from John O’Keefe laying on that lawn.
She was blackout drunk and bits & pieces started coming back to her…
That’s why she said he may have been HIT BY A PLOW before he was ever “found”

 

[Forest_Wood]

Didn’t RN testify though that after he pulled up behind KR’s vehicle he never saw JOK and that KR was alone in her vehicle the entire time he was there, including when he finally drove past her to leave? Where was JOK in that time? It seems likely he was already out of the vehicle and if not in the home probably very close to the vicinity of it, like perhaps around the side deeper in the driveway or such. And say hypothetically he did come back from wherever he was and headed towards KR in her car, wouldn’t JMc have seen him since she was watching and waiting for them to come to the front door? IIRC, both JMc and Manx testify that when they saw KR’s vehicle leave, it did so by continuing south. It did not reverse. Also, even if it had wouldn’t they have seen JOK or at least some human figure moving behind the taillights and seen him get hit and dragged by KR’s car? Also, according to RN and JMc, KR was parked by the flag pole. The street is also curved. Wouldn’t there also be dragged marks on the ground and snow, including on the lawn. Furthermore, from her parked position how did she maneuver and accelerate to 24 mph in that short time and space enough without crashing into flag pole or fire hydrant as well? Wouldn’t both witnesses have also noticed the driver’s odd behavior and the fact it was driving on and risking damage to their in-laws lawn? Wouldn’t someone go to check what was going on, what damage was done and why KR, and presumably JOK, just drive away so bizarrely?

JMOT but I could be wrong

This is exactly it! There must have been screaming/shouting/yelling/thumping if she reversed into him. For there to be damage on her taillight, there must have been a smash sound of some kind, that nobody heard. There would have been tire marks in the fresh snow and leading up on the lawn that nobody saw. I forget how many times JMc testified to looking out the window at Karen's vehicle waiting for them to come inside, but it was a lot IIRC. Others said they looked outside through the window too. And with the truck having pulled up right behind her vehicle, almost at the same time, and they did not see John there. However, RN's girlfriend testified she saw a man in the vehicle when it turned from Cedarcrest onto Fairview. So, we know he was in the SUV when they turned, but not there when they pulled up behind Karen. Karen stopped at the driveway first, then pulled up 3 car lengths. It just makes sense he got out quickly at the driveway and went into the house or into the backyard through the right gate. John was drunk too. Who's to say he didn't go into the back yard, encountered the german shepherd, got attacked, fell back onto this head, and later when found in the yard by BA or BH, was placed onto the front yard where the others had seen Karen's car earlier to make it seem like he never made it into the house. That could be where the coverup came in. All those butt calls made later by JMc, BH, BA were about something. "Hos long to die in the snow."
MOO

 

[sunshineray]

My guess, she wanted to distance herself from John O’Keefe laying on that lawn.
She was blackout drunk and bits & pieces started coming back to her…
That’s why she said he may have been HIT BY A PLOW before he was ever “found”

I think she remembers very clearly what happened, JMO

 

[Derph]

That was explained in testimony by the ME

Prosecutor Adam Lally asked Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello if she had seen any indications of a physical altercation during her autopsy on John O’Keefe, and she said she did not.

She said the small contusions on the backs of his hands were consistent with an attempt to insert an IV, but she did not see any bruising to his knuckles or breaks in his fingernails.

She explained that the swelling around O’Keefe’s eyes was a very common response associated with a fracture at the base of the skull, and is known as “raccoon eyes.”


“Emergency room physicians are always very alerted to any hemorrhage and any bleeding around the eyes, because it could signify or it could mean there is a much bigger injury inside the skull and it’s not just some bleeding around the eyes. It’s actually associated with a skull fracture,” she said.

Karen Read trial live updates: GPS data shows O’Keefe never entered the house

Testimony resumed in the Karen Read trial on Thursday. Follow the latest updates here.

www.masslive.com

I started a long post to this on Fri, but got pulled away and I thought I saved it but it didn't save, and I don't feel like looking up all the research I did so I'm going to try to wing it. For this I did a quick google search and I apologize for not saving my sources that I had on a much longer post.

I might not understand biology properly but if JOK was dead, how could blood pump to his hand to form a bruise? How could an IV work without blood circulation unless he was having his heart pumped. And they would have had to perform that hours after he died, and all thru the time EMS showed up, got him to a hospital and into an ER.

Bruising can appear on a dead body as uncirculated blood pools in the extremities.
Lividity (Postmortem Stain):
As blood circulation stops, blood pools in the lowest parts of the body, causing a reddish-purple discoloration that looks like a bruise.

• Lividity( blood pooling) starts appearing within a few hours of death.
  

• It's initially not fixed, meaning the area will blanch under pressure and shift with body position.
  
  
• After about 4-6 hours, the lividity becomes fixed, meaning it doesn't blanch and shifts with body position.
  

In some cases, bruises have been found to appear after death, even several hours later.

• • The time it takes for livor mortis to become fixed can vary.
    
• 
  
  
• Other observers have noted a different time sequence; lividity becoming apparent from 20 minutes to 2 hours after death, reaching maximum intensity in 6–9 hours and becoming fixed from 3 to 5 days.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• After death, blood stops circulation stops and blood pools in the area closest to the ground.
  
  
  • The capillaries in the dermis are occluded by the surrounding fat as it solidifies, preventing the blood from moving.

There are a few reasons a bruise can form: Medications, nutrient deficiency, diabetes, and several other diseases and procedures that don't have any baring on this that we know of. I think we all can agree that trauma seems the most logical explanation for the bruise on his hand. But if blood has stopped circulating then the bruise wouldn't form from trauma, but from lividity. So therefore the bruise on JOK's hand could not form from the trauma of the IV needle OR the trauma happened BEFORE death! If you look at the autopsy photos ( which I'm not going to post here) there is a bruise on JOK's hand starting in the middle of the hand and going down to around the 1st knuckle on his pointer finger. So that bruise either happened when JOK was hit by the car or by some other incident. A fight perhaps, or a fall or a defensive action from something that he was trying to get away from. The point is we don't know exactly and that to me raises doubt. One of the avalanche of doubt I have about KR hitting him with her car.

I had a lot more on this that went into could the bruise indicate of the body was moved. If lividity was the reason for the bruise was it caused by the way he was laying there in the snow and if he was propped up at some point but I think I made my point above. This is my understanding of things and I may be wrong.

 

[Derph]

And like clockwork and another slap in the face for the Defense by this thing presiding over this case. This is getting ridiculous.

The Defense will not be able to disclose the FBI investigation into JOK's murder. judge will NOT let Michael Easter (retired FBI) testify for defense about quality of police investigation.

But I thought the investigation was OVER and NOTHING came of it?? Why then are they hiding it?

Oh and she WON'T let Karen wear headphones so she can hear what is being said at sidebar!!!!!!

I just can't with this *(&&*^&"&^ %$0- #$#$T$ %&%, anymore.

 

[keek]

And like clockwork and another slap in the face for the Defense by this thing presiding over this case. This is getting ridiculous.

The Defense will not be able to disclose the FBI investigation into JOK's murder. judge will NOT let Michael Easter (retired FBI) testify for defense about quality of police investigation.

But I thought the investigation was OVER and NOTHING came of it?? Why then are they hiding it?

Oh and she WON'T let Karen wear headphones so she can hear what is being said at sidebar!!!!!!

I just can't with this *(&&*^&"&^ %$0- #$#$T$ %&%, anymore.

It is though there is NO accountability for the judge. No explanations. Maybe feeling the heat from the biggies. Getting aggressive JMO.