MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20 Retrial
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 3,105
I don't know if they went hat shopping. I saw a video that pointed out that the hat looks different at the crime scene then the one presented as evidence in the trial. One had thicker lines. I thought the same after looking at the two hats. As one person already pointed out, it could be just different angles. I zoomed in pretty good on the crime scene hat and rotated it to different angles (that is the top of my photo enhancing abilities} and it appeared that the lines were much thinner on every angle. One theory is that if there was blood on the hat from the laceration on his head, it would be hard to explain considering that the crime scene shows that the hat was apparently thrown off of him. I am not here trying to create some kind of crazy fact, I thought that the person that originally noticed this might be correct and I wanted to see if anybody else felt the same.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 5,266
- Reaction score
- 44,619
If it is correct that there were two hats then you might be onto something. Looking for details is never a bad thing.JIMOO
It's always the tiny possible details in cases that someone notices! CW wants her bad regardless of the find of the AUDIT regarding the very, very unfortunate behavior of the officers on scene and after. We all saw that on the stand and the firing of Proctor who handled things for his friends and neighbors, whose lawn J.O'K was on. IMO
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 474
- Reaction score
- 6,666
No one claimed a cocktail glass was thrown. The area that was damaged on KR’s car was small and contained to just the tailight. ARCCA concluded it could not have been done by a person’s body colliding with the vehicle for a number of reasons. They were told a cocktail glass was found near his body so they tested for another explanation of the broken taillight. A cocktail glass is small enough that it could be thrown, hit the taillight and not cause other damage to the vehicle.
ARCCA needed to launch the glass at multiple speeds over different distances to mimic throwing the glass. Scientific tests need to be repeatable in order for it to have any validity. The pressurized air cannon was a means to do that.
Are you using the terminology potato launcher as a way to make the testing sound inferior? Even if you’re team Karen Read is guilty, its good to have replicable data to confirm or disprove a theory of the crime scene.
IMHO, the ARCCA testing was thorough with the parameters and info they were given. Can’t say that about the rest of the investigation.
The CW's own witness, Trooper Nicholas Guarino, a forensic expert, testified on direct examination as to KR's phone contacting JOK's home wifi at 12:36 a.m. On cross, Guarino agreed with the defense that KR's vehicle could not have been outside the Alberts' house after 12:40 a.m.
So J McCabe was wrong, and both parties agree she was wrong. So what? The CW's case doesn't need her erroneous testimony, on that point, and doesn't need to stick with it for closing argument. Trooper Guarino's contrasting testimony was in evidence and properly relied upon for that purpose. It is very much appropriate for the CW to use closing argument to present a timeline of facts in evidence and for the jurors to give it the weight they deem appropriate.
Witnesses make mistakes of recollection all the time. The pertinent question is always: what substantive difference does the mistake make? This is particularly true when the witness is not law enforcement, or a hired expert, but a non-professional "civilian", whose testimony is under compulsion because they have relevant knowledge.
Ryan Nagel testified that his conversation with sister Julie in front of the Alberts' house lasted about 30 seconds. It was pointed out to him on cross that he had previously testified that it lasted about 5 minutes. His response was, essentially, "If I said it, I said it." There's nothing to indicate any motivation to lie on his part. Also, IMO, no particular significance that can be attached to the difference, one way or the other. (Sister Julie said the convo lasted about 3 minutes.)
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 5,266
- Reaction score
- 44,619
DEDHAM, Mass. —
Three new jurors were seated Tuesday in the murder retrial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused in the death of her boyfriend, a Boston police officer.
One juror who was selected earlier in the process was excused on Tuesday. So far, six men and six women have been seated on the jury. The court seeks to seat 16 jurors, of whom 12 will end up deliberating and four will serve as alternates.
www.wcvb.com
Three new jurors were seated Tuesday in the murder retrial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused in the death of her boyfriend, a Boston police officer.
One juror who was selected earlier in the process was excused on Tuesday. So far, six men and six women have been seated on the jury. The court seeks to seat 16 jurors, of whom 12 will end up deliberating and four will serve as alternates.
Karen Read says retrial openings expected next week; 3 more jurors seated
The court seeks to seat 16 jurors, of whom 12 will end up deliberating and four will serve as alternates.
www.wcvb.com
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,409
- Reaction score
- 12,320
Would it be easier to believe that only one person in the house was involved with throwing (or possibly just sending) JOK back outside? In this scenario, JOK would be injured (I don't know how) and still very inebriated and ended up falling or even just lying down on the ground outside, and never got up despite snow beginning to fall, eventually dying of his injuries and hypothermia.
I'm thinking pretty much the same scenario as the grand conspiracy proponents, except that only one person from the house was aware of anything happening to John before he died outside. I don't have a specific person in mind. Actually I guess I do, probably Higgins, possibly Colin, possibly BA. But whoever it was wouldn't have said a word to anyone else in the house about JOK coming in, having some altercation or maybe some accident, and either being thrown outside by this person or possibly staggering outside on his own, after which the person returned to the house and acted like nothing happened, probably because this person was to blame at least partially for his wounds and certainly for allowing (or forcing) him to go out into the cold.
I find that easier to believe than everyone in the house being in on whatever happened and nobody spilling the beans about any of it. It would explain a lot of things that defy credibility in the grand conspiracy theory, like mainly the cluelessness of JA and the rest of them. They may not be lying, they really may not have known a thing about it. Would explain their righteous indignant stubborn anger, for being unfairly blamed.
How all this could have happened without anyone else inside knowing about it is possible if JOK went straight into the basement or possibly thru the gate into the backyard, where he would have encountered this person and whatever trouble he found there. And yes, I think the dog probably was involved as well.
I do think that eventually the homeowner would have been told what happened, which could be the reason for the extreme basement deconstruction and eventual sale of the house at below market value, as well as the rehoming of the dog.
I think it certainly leaves room for reasonable doubt at the very least, as far as the trial is concerned.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,409
- Reaction score
- 12,320
I see those 2 hats he's wearing in those pictures as the same hat. I see why they thought they might be different, but to me, upon close inspection, they look the same.
But it's funny you mention this, because I vaguely remember something about the shoe they presented in court looking like a different shoe from the one he was wearing, or maybe different from the one they found in the snow, as seen in photos from the scene. Do you remember that? Like I said, my memory on that is vague, so don't know what it might have meant.
But say they're right about the hat (or the shoe!) ... What would that mean? What would be gained by any such substitutions? Did they suggest anything about why anyone might do that?
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,409
- Reaction score
- 12,320
Just zeroing in on this one thing you asked... As far as the defense goes, I think they were extremely relieved when the mistrial was suddenly declared, and skipped polling the jury just to end it as quickly as possible, as if the judge might change her mind if they dallied at all! Because I really feel that they never expected to have to try the case a second time. I think they thought the mistrial would actually be the end of it all.
With the complete mess the case was shown to be during the trial, I think they thought no way would the prosecution want to go thru this all over again! Better to just cut your losses and move on. People will eventually forget about it. And had it been another case and another prosecution team, I think that's what would usually have happened, but for some reason, not so with this one. They don't seem to want to give in with this one.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 3,105
I didn't hear about the shoe until recently and I am not sure why they would switch it. I read one person say that perhaps the original shoe had signs of dog attack. From what I can tell, that has been put to rest.
As far as the hat goes, I can see that the pics of him wearing the hat are hard to tell. The person that posted the video that I first saw swears that one of the hats says BPD and the other is GPD or SPD with thinner lines.
I was more intrigued by the crime scene photo and the photo of the detective holding up the hat in court. To me, the crime scene hat seemed to have thinner lines. As I stated before, I zoomed in and rotated the photo to a few different angles and again, they all seemed to show that hat having thinner lines.
One of the other posters suggested that it could just be the different angles that the actual photos were taken that make them appear different. That is why I posted the photos, to see what other people think. I also thought that perhaps someone had better photo software that could clean them up a little to get a better look.
As far as why they would switch them, someone had mentioned that if John did indeed have blood on his hat from a blow to the head, it would be hard for the prosecution to explain how it got there because their theory has his hat being knocked off when he was hit by Karen.
The thing is, if the jury follows the law, the CW didn’t prove their case. It doesn’t matter if the defense proved or didn’t prove conspiracy or a fight. The CW just plain didn’t prove how he died. They didn’t prove it. Therefore, by extension, they didn’t prove BARS KR killed him.
What is amazing to me is the people that will convict her based on emotion. I am glad that is not how the justice system works. At least, that is not how it should work
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 3,105
I agree that the CW did not prove their case. I feel like the defense did not expose the fact that nothing was proven enough, and they were way too heavy on trying to create a 3rd party scenario. But if we believe that the jury really would have came back not guilty if they knew they could separate they charges like they are saying, perhaps the defense did their job.
As far as people convicting her on emotion, I find it very hard to believe that the potential jurors have not heard about this case at all. It has national exposure and from what I read, it is all everyone in the area talks about. The good news for Karen, if she is indeed innocent, is that people have emotions on both sides of the case. Someone would vote not guilty on emotion just as much as someone would vote guilty.
Last edited:
Yes. It's in necessary to understand what the state appeal court and federal court said about partial verdicts and revealing a verdict.
The internal straw polling that juries do is not the verdict. This seems to be widely misunderstood. It only becomes the verdict when it is written in to the jury forms and read into Court. Before then any juror can still change their minds!
When the D, CW and Judge Cannone received the third note, the game theory begins, as there are three possibilities out there. For example;
The CW might believe the jury could be hanging on murder but guilty on manslaughter for example - but polling might well have acquitted on murder and hung on manslaughter!
Reverse for the D. Polling might have revealed hanging on murder but guilty on manslaughter.
They don't know what a poll might have uncovered, and nor do we - though we can guess directionally. So neither polled. Sleeping dogs lying etc
This is also why the Judge correctly did not poll - due to the risk of coercing a verdict that the jury has told her point blank they do not have.
IMO the inevitable endpoint of the D argument to the Supreme Court is that in hanging scenarios the Judge must poll the jury to avoid this exact scenario. But there are very good policy reasons why we don't do that!
MOO
I agree. From my side, I pay no attention to claims about timing from the witnesses, beyond broad strokes that can be corroborated.
As a Pistorius trial veteran who wasted years of my life trying to reconcile 15 mins of events from multiple eye witness testimonies - I completely get this. Mobile phone events at least give you one central clock, but it turns out witnesses can be highly unreliable even on the order of events.
Yes great point. In my view these witnesses tend to do a good job but I think there is a danger of over-reliance on their time estimates. Like I give way more weight to the fact that they saw the Lexus with the defendant inside, than when it was.
One of the things I am interested in for trial is how these times are logged. e.g the router is a different clock to the calls. And are they using the router record or the phone record? And if the phone - how is it logged?
My burning question is if the defendant connects at 12.36 - even if still a bit down the street, what is she doing for the 6 mins until 12.42 when we know she is definitely home?
MOO
My opinion only - the D actively needs the jury to think Proctor staged the tail light plastic AND a solid suggestion the people in the house conspired to cover something up.
I think the first part of that is difficult. It's kind of the doom loop i am stuck in. Apparently the majority of the T1 jury did not believe that (if we believe you can read the tea-leaves).
Yes I mostly agree with LYK on those things, though I have to say Judge Cannone doesn't even make my top 3 of most frustrating Judges.
If I had to hazard a guess on it, I think the Turtle Boy tactics come with a judicial price tag. So not a bias, so much as the Judge simply won't trust attorneys who do this. My theory only.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2024
- Messages
- 2,448
- Reaction score
- 34,388
Karen Read says opening statements in her murder trial could be next week, as 3 more jurors added
With a jury nearing completion, Karen Read expects opening statements could begin on Tuesday.
www.cbsnews.com
“Speaking after court on Tuesday, Read told reporters that she expects opening statements could begin on Tuesday [4/15] with the defense opening given by Alan Jackson. Last trial, David Yannetti, one of Read's other attorneys, gave the opening statement.
"I'm anxious and it's in God's hands" Read said outside court Tuesday afternoon, "and we are fighting and working as hard as we can so what else can we do?"”
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2023
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 5,434
IMO, I imagine recreating a timeline is important because investigators working on a possible homicide case/hit-and-run would probably want to recreate the crime scene, corroborate witness statements with digital data and note any discrepancies and use these tools to further gather more clues, think of more places to look, people to interview and questions to ask as they work diligently to solve a case, maintain evidence, apply forensic and get justice for a victim’s family and friends the best way possible. Plus, a lot of the court documents submitted do reference specific times and locations and based on expert and LE testimony are part of the CWs and defense’s arguments which makes them somewhat important, JMO, but I could be wrong.
Also, it seems to me it is not just the witness statements that are notable in regards to when KR and JOK arrived and when did she allegedly hit him with her car. The digital data also seems to indicate that the time frame that this tragedy or crime occurred was really short. JOK answered his phone at 12:29:44 and KR makes that 6-7 minute drive back to his home by 12:36. RN seems to have been consistent in his interviews and testimony that he was outside the Alberts home for around 5 minutes and that during that time he doesn’t witness any arguing or yelling come from outside or within KR’s car. RN and RD both testify that they did not see JOK outside or leave the car. JN doesn’t overhear anything either and like RN, HM notes that the woman was alone in the car as they drove passed the SUV. RN also notes she was alone and seemed calmed, unlike the rage and agitation hinted at in her voicemail. That would seem to indicate that between 12:29:52 and 12:30ish not only did things get so intense that they got into a fight but also in that time, according to the CW and victim was found hours later, KR was also able to drive at least 60 feet forward, than reverse back around that curve at 24 mph to hit JOK with her car and drive off, all while being intoxicated and enraged enough to horrifically kill someone but somehow still precise enough not crash and harm herself or JOK more by hitting the fire hydrant, curve or the flag pole. I know life can change in a second but even for 60 of them that seems like a lot would have had to occur. Also, it occurs without BAJr or MMc seeing any of it at all even though they were watching the vehicle from the window, according to their testimony.
I think too that even witness statements can be wrong when their timelines or recall seem to align well with other data available or they appear to be consistent and reliable, their memories may further open the door for investigators to recreate the crime scene, fill any gaps they were struggling with before and make their case even stronger or at least have know they left no stone unturned when they investigated what happened to JOK.
Also, if the taillight is as broken as depicted in the pictures why wasn’t that reflected when KR was pulling out the garage? Shouldn’t the back right light be more white or bright against the fence, car and snow? Could be wrong though.
JMO/JMT
My own speculation
www.boston25news.com
revelationstraining.com
Also, it seems to me it is not just the witness statements that are notable in regards to when KR and JOK arrived and when did she allegedly hit him with her car. The digital data also seems to indicate that the time frame that this tragedy or crime occurred was really short. JOK answered his phone at 12:29:44 and KR makes that 6-7 minute drive back to his home by 12:36. RN seems to have been consistent in his interviews and testimony that he was outside the Alberts home for around 5 minutes and that during that time he doesn’t witness any arguing or yelling come from outside or within KR’s car. RN and RD both testify that they did not see JOK outside or leave the car. JN doesn’t overhear anything either and like RN, HM notes that the woman was alone in the car as they drove passed the SUV. RN also notes she was alone and seemed calmed, unlike the rage and agitation hinted at in her voicemail. That would seem to indicate that between 12:29:52 and 12:30ish not only did things get so intense that they got into a fight but also in that time, according to the CW and victim was found hours later, KR was also able to drive at least 60 feet forward, than reverse back around that curve at 24 mph to hit JOK with her car and drive off, all while being intoxicated and enraged enough to horrifically kill someone but somehow still precise enough not crash and harm herself or JOK more by hitting the fire hydrant, curve or the flag pole. I know life can change in a second but even for 60 of them that seems like a lot would have had to occur. Also, it occurs without BAJr or MMc seeing any of it at all even though they were watching the vehicle from the window, according to their testimony.
I think too that even witness statements can be wrong when their timelines or recall seem to align well with other data available or they appear to be consistent and reliable, their memories may further open the door for investigators to recreate the crime scene, fill any gaps they were struggling with before and make their case even stronger or at least have know they left no stone unturned when they investigated what happened to JOK.
Also, if the taillight is as broken as depicted in the pictures why wasn’t that reflected when KR was pulling out the garage? Shouldn’t the back right light be more white or bright against the fence, car and snow? Could be wrong though.
JMO/JMT
My own speculation
Court video, updates: Key witness Colin Albert testifies in Karen Read murder trial
Read is accused of backing over her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe and leaving him to die in the snow in Canton.
The Role of Vehicle Forensics in Criminal Investigations
Vehicle forensics is a fascinating field that plays a critical role in criminal investigations, particularly in cases such as hit-and-run accidents, DUI cases, and homicides. By examining the physical…
revelationstraining.com
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 109
- Guests online
- 1,500
- Total visitors
- 1,609