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

[Elliot_Alderson]

The timing of the seizure of KR's vehicle in Dighton and its return to Canton PD was such that there was no possibility of pieces of KR's tail light finding their way to the alleged crime scene prior to SERT''s search.

That is why, IMO, the first jury was sufficiently focused on the SERT search to request a written SERT report, after the case had been submitted to them.

Huh, and they still voted NG on murder whether Bev wants to admit it or not. JMO

 

[Spectrix]

No, we watched the trial. It's the one way you can actually get unbiased information. JMO

Quoted for the truth.
In most cases documentory makers have their own opinions or agendas. Referring to actual trial court recordings is a far better source of information.

The jury are certainly not allowed to refer to documentaries and opinion peices.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

That would not explain the tail light pieces at the alleged crime scene. Including those found by SERT.

Except there is no clear documentation on exactly when SERT discovered this pieces. The team supposedly found pieces at 5:45PM on 1/29/22. Nearly 24 hours after the initial investigation, and after KR’s car had already left the scene.

There are no detailed notes on who found them, how they were collected, or why they were not noticed earlier. No notes on the precise location within the scene, personnel involved in discovery, and methods of collection.

The entire thing is a chain of custody nightmare, IMO. These issues create a lot of doubt for many people on whether the taillight evidence gathered by SERT can be relied upon.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The timing of the seizure of KR's vehicle in Dighton and its return to Canton PD was such that there was no possibility of pieces of KR's tail light finding their way to the alleged crime scene prior to SERT''s search.

That is why, IMO, the first jury was sufficiently focused on the SERT search to request a written SERT report, after the case had been submitted to them.

Refer to my other post about the SERT report issues. The lack of proper documentation on when, where, and how the taillight pieces were found makes the chain of custody questionable.

As for your claim that there was ‘no possibility’ of pieces finding their way to the scene before the SERT search… how can you be so certain? The fact remains that SERT didn’t find anything until nearly 24 hours later, after the area had already been searched, and by that time, Karen Read’s SUV was no longer there. Without airtight documentation, there’s no way to rule out the possibility of evidence being mishandled, misplaced, or even planted.

And yes, the first jury was focused on the SERT search. Because it raised serious questions, not because it resolved them.

IMO

 

[turaj]

removed post

 

[twhel]

Refer to my other post about the SERT report issues. The lack of proper documentation on when, where, and how the taillight pieces were found makes the chain of custody questionable.

As for your claim that there was ‘no possibility’ of pieces finding their way to the scene before the SERT search… how can you be so certain? The fact remains that SERT didn’t find anything until nearly 24 hours later, after the area had already been searched, and by that time, Karen Read’s SUV was no longer there. Without airtight documentation, there’s no way to rule out the possibility of evidence being mishandled, misplaced, or even planted.

And yes, the first jury was focused on the SERT search. Because it raised serious questions, not because it resolved them.

IMO

The SERT search took place on the afternoon/evening of the incident. Kevin O'Hara testified in considerable detail about the search, with photos of the evidence located, and GPS mapping of two of the tail light pieces (and JOK's sneaker) located in the same spot.

Nine of the twelve jurors reportedly voted to convict on motor vehicle manslaughter. IMO, the tail light pieces are the reason why.

 

[mrjitty]

That would not explain the tail light pieces at the alleged crime scene. Including those found by SERT.

I wonder if the CW will have an analysis of the defendants collision with JOKs vehicle? like would the tail light have struck his bumper? or what is the logic of it?

wouldn’t the defendants bumper be the first impact point?

i don’t full accept this explanation

 

[Forest_Wood]

So glad someone else finds his departure time from 34 Fairview and arrival time at Canton PD extremely suspect! I was all over that during 1st trial but eventually let it go since defense did not follow up on it. Very disappointing and hopefully this is explored further in the 2nd trial.

If I had to decide who was involved in John's death, I would choose Higgins 100% based on his pursuit of Karen Read, when he left the Alberts at the exact time John was arriving, and the delay of an hour for him to get to the CPD. For that matter, why did he return to the CPD in the first place in the middle of the night! Outrageous behavior after a day/night of drinking. For all we know, John and he had words outside after John left Karen's vehicle and before he entered the Albert home. Maybe Higgins had stepped out into the breezeway at the same time John was about to enter. We don't know. Maybe they stepped to the side of the house and got into a fight. We don't know. Maybe his body was kept in the back/side yard until Higgins figured out what to do during that missing hour. The fact that these clowns the Alberts had no security cameras is unbelievable to me. Karen had her head down at this point in her car, as all people these days do, looking at her phone, and the snow had started, so it's not like she was looking in that direction. I think BA got involved after the fact to protect his best buddy Higgins, hence all those butt calls at 2:30AM. There is more than one scenario that could have happened. There is plenty of reasonable doubt for a NG verdict IMO.
MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The SERT search took place on the afternoon/evening of the incident. Kevin O'Hara testified in considerable detail about the search, with photos of the evidence located, and GPS mapping of two of the tail light pieces (and JOK's sneaker) located in the same spot.

Nine of the twelve jurors reportedly voted to convict on motor vehicle manslaughter. IMO, the tail light pieces are the reason why.

According to the evidence introduced in court, the SERT search began around 2:53 PM on January 29, 2022, with the team arriving at the scene shortly before 5 PM, and the search continuing into the evening. The taillight pieces were found around 24 hours after the incident, which raises concerns, especially since snow had fallen by that time. Kevin O’Hara, who led the search, testified about the discovery of the taillight pieces and other evidence, but there are no clear records on the exact details of how or when these pieces were found. The lack of thorough documentation around their collection creates issues with the chain of custody, making it questionable.

Regarding the jury, I have to disagree with you there. They did request to see the SERT report, showing the significance they placed on this evidence, but the judge DENIED the request, saying all evidence had already been presented. So while the taillight pieces were part of the deliberation, the timing and handling of that evidence raises legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

All IMO, informed by following trial 1.

 

[mrjitty]

The SERT search took place on the afternoon/evening of the incident. Kevin O'Hara testified in considerable detail about the search, with photos of the evidence located, and GPS mapping of two of the tail light pieces (and JOK's sneaker) located in the same spot.

Nine of the twelve jurors reportedly voted to convict on motor vehicle manslaughter. IMO, the tail light pieces are the reason why.

it’s worth also remembering that where COC is missing the primary witness can still testify to what they found.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yeah except she backed her car into another car that same day.

And her taillight never touched his car

It’s my opinion, this will be proven this time at trial.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

it’s worth also remembering that where COC is missing the primary witness can still testify to what they found.

But without proper records, we can’t fully rely on the testimony about the search process. It’s not just about what was found, it’s about how it was handled and whether it was preserved correctly. The absence of detailed documentation on the chain of custody casts a shadow over the reliability of the evidence. MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

But without proper records, we can’t fully rely on the testimony about the search process. It’s not just about what was found, it’s about how it was handled and whether it was preserved correctly. The absence of detailed documentation on the chain of custody casts a shadow over the reliability of the evidence. MOO.

I agree it can do, but i don't see in this instance that it can be seriously disputed what SERT found.

The argument has to be that too much time went by so that the evidence was planted for SERT to discover. Otherwise you are requiring that SERT are also lying about finding the tail light.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Because I’m sure a special someone will ask for a source:
What to know about the Karen Read murder case and her first murder trial

“She backed into O’Keefe’s car, Yannetti said, in an event that was captured on security camera. He added that authorities did not find the broken pieces of taillight during an initial search of Albert’s yard. They only began finding them later in the day, after Read’s car had been seized, Yannetti said.”

I can’t find the footage right now, but did see it in the most recent Dateline episode on the case. The security footage is from JOK’s home. JOK’s car is in the driveway, and KR clearly bumps him with her back taillight as she leaves. The footage was also shown in the first trial.

IMO her BUMPER struck his vehicle, not her taillight

 

[mrjitty]

IMO her BUMPER struck his vehicle, not her taillight

I don't really see how it could be otherwise - but hopefully this will be addressed at trial.

Unless JOK's vehicle was so much taller his bumper was over the top of defendant's bumper as to directly contact the tail light?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I agree it can do, but i don't see in this instance that it can be seriously disputed what SERT found.

The argument has to be that too much time went by so that the evidence was planted for SERT to discover. Otherwise you are requiring that SERT are also lying about finding the tail light.

I’m not suggesting SERT is lying, I’m questioning the integrity of the evidence given the circumstances. It’s not about accusing SERT. It’s about acknowledging the potential for mishandling or tampering. IMO, this is one of the many points of the investigation that introduces too much reasonable doubt for me to feel that KR should be convicted.

 

[mrjitty]

The SERT search took place on the afternoon/evening of the incident. Kevin O'Hara testified in considerable detail about the search, with photos of the evidence located, and GPS mapping of two of the tail light pieces (and JOK's sneaker) located in the same spot.

Nine of the twelve jurors reportedly voted to convict on motor vehicle manslaughter. IMO, the tail light pieces are the reason why.

Bolded. I was wondering about this, and I suspect it is the kind of reason why the D did not poll the jury.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

It's funny that I'm constantly told the way the jury voted doesn't matter. I guess until people want to use it to try to prove their point, and then it's suddenly relevant.

 

[Spectrix]

I wonder if the CW will have an analysis of the defendants collision with JOKs vehicle? like would the tail light have struck his bumper? or what is the logic of it?

wouldn’t the defendants bumper be the first impact point?

i don’t full accept this explanation

You're right, an analysis or accident reconstruction may prove or disprove that theory.
It's not clear in the video exactly what hit what first, or what followed. Bumpers are designed to absorb impact, but tail lights are not.
Certainly the impact was enough for JOKs vehicle to visibly move. So it's a possible explanation for a cause of the damage.

 

[mrjitty]

X

I’m not suggesting SERT is lying, I’m questioning the integrity of the evidence given the circumstances. It’s not about accusing SERT. It’s about acknowledging the potential for mishandling or tampering. IMO, this is one of the many points of the investigation that introduces too much reasonable doubt for me to feel that KR should be convicted.

I understand that. I was simply commenting that I don't think COC is a big issue as regards SERTs evidence. It's surely not disputed what they found.

This sometimes happens where defence dispute COC, then the State will have to bring the witness to prove each step.

IMO