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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #321
IMO the next call went to VM but i am just going to wait for trial where both sides will present the fresh Cellebrite analysis.
I don't know where this is coming from, and I don't believe it's correct. Please provide a link to that testimony.

This was Jen McCabe's testimony - @1:23:00

AL [Q]: At any point in time when you texted John O'Keefe after you arrived at Fairview did John O'Keefe respond?

JMc [A]: No.

AL [Q]: At any point in time after you arrived at Fairview after you hung up from the 12.18am call in which you were describing where 34 Fairview was in reference to Bella's house did you ever hear from John O'Keefe ever again?

JMc [A]: No.

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

I went down the rabbithole on this but I can't find any digital testimony on whether that call was answered or not. And on cross, the D seemed to be more interested in how JMc would not have seen the body, if she was looking out at the window at the SUV.

There obviously is an exhibit if anyone has it?

I guess my scepticism here is that if JOK had answered this call, you'd have the activation in the cellebrite extraction as well but on the contrary, we don't seem to have anything after his last steps. My guess is it went to VM.

Unfortunately I am now infected with something nasty and with this headache I cannot chase the rabbit further!
 
Last edited:
  • #322
IMO the next call went to VM but i am just going to wait for trial where both sides will present the fresh Cellebrite analysis.


I went down the rabbithole on this but I can't find any digital testimony on whether that call was answered or not. And on cross, the D seemed to be more interested in how JMc would not have seen the body, if she was looking out at the window at the SUV.

There obviously is an exhibit if anyone has it?

I guess my scepticism here is that if JOK had answered this call, you'd have the activation in the cellebrite extraction as well but on the contrary, we don't seem to have anything after his last steps. My guess is it went to VM.

Unfortunately I am now infected with something nasty and with this headache I cannot chase the rabbit further!
Aw, I hope you feel better very soon.

I think the poster said the call was from John's phone to JMc's. She certainly didn't testify to this, or to any such content on her phone.
 
  • #323
Incoming call to JOK's phone 29 Jan 12.29 am lasting 07 seconds. From JMc. Status: answered.

If the link below doesn't take you to the doc on twitter ( I was able to click on this from the original post without having to login to Twitter), then below this link is the original post: click on the doc and it will take you to list of extracted call data from JOK's phone for time period after 12am.

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

Original Post by @AppleTreeGreen

Post in thread 'MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20' MISTRIAL - MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20

I apologise for not knowing where to find this doc other than above. I'm certain it is a copy of the correct document.

We know JMc denied the seven calls she made to JOK's phone for this time period and denied any recall of deleting them so moo her testimony is not reliable or to be taken seriously. But the cellBrite extraction shows JOK's number answering the 12.29am call that was made from JMc's number.
 
  • #324
Aw, I hope you feel better very soon.

I think the poster said the call was from John's phone to JMc's. She certainly didn't testify to this, or to any such content on her phone.

Something that might be fascinating here is that Read herself in Ep1 of Body in the Snow now tells her version of the timeline - to the effect that JOK ran in to see if they should stay, then she waited a few minutes and got annoyed when he didn't come back - and then called him and he didn't answer.

Looking at her list of calls, this initial call can't fit with the Router connection time back at Meadows IMO. She had already left.

I get that the point of the doco is to get a D version out there without testifying at trial - but this seems a bit haphazard is they want to go with the 12.36 Meadows router connection time.
 
  • #325
Incoming call to JOK's phone 29 Jan 12.29 am lasting 07 seconds. From JMc. Status: answered.

If the link below doesn't take you to the doc on twitter ( I was able to click on this from the original post without having to login to Twitter), then below this link is the original post: click on the doc and it will take you to list of extracted call data from JOK's phone for time period after 12am.

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

Original Post by @AppleTreeGreen

Post in thread 'MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20' MISTRIAL - MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20

I apologise for not knowing where to find this doc other than above. I'm certain it is a copy of the correct document.

We know JMc denied the seven calls she made to JOK's phone for this time period and denied any recall of deleting them so moo her testimony is not reliable or to be taken seriously. But the cellBrite extraction shows JOK's number answering the 12.29am call that was made from JMc's number.

Thank's Jepop - I've also seen this but was also wondering where the original exhibit is.

If the D had solid digital proof that the call was answered - why didn't they press Jmc on this? I also came across testimony yesterday about the calls between KR and JOK where the extraction of each phone differed as to whether a call was answered.

ETA - i wonder if this is part of Green's filings in the case.
 
Last edited:
  • #326
If the D had solid digital proof that the call was answered - why didn't they press Jmc on this? I
I think they tried to between 2:21:57-2:39:18

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

Feel better!
 
  • #327
All of those clowns had many, many drinks that day and night, not just Karen Read.
Why do you suppose those cops and their wives even allowed her to drive drunk that night?
It's clear that not one of them cared about drinking and driving, well, until tragedy struck that is.
KR did speak highly of John O'Keefe on several occasions along with the children too.
In what world do you live where defendants "own up to what you did"? She has every right to plead not guilty and have the charges proven. She has every right to have people support her. She has every right to an adequate defense that focuses on discrepancies.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anyone who would side with MP's conduct in this case might be considered an actual whack job. He was a twisted cop with astounding behavior!
Matter of opinion
Appreciate your thoughts. I can respect the difference of opinions, it’s the false narratives that are of issue.

There’s so much false information put out by media, and many others, its unbelievable, and I can see why there’s support for KR, as people have been duped.

Even media is afraid to show support for JOK. YouTubers: many dont want to lose revenue, clicks, views, sponsors… Does AJ have a connection at Vanity Fair? I won’t even talk about TD's bias. No one wants to ask KR the hard questions.

I am really sorry to see that Sandra Birchmore’s horrible case gets included into the KR mess because what happened to SB is separate from KR’s case. Make no mistake what happened to SB is criminal and may justice be served and those responsible held accountable.

Remember that the difference between KR and the others (all innocent, BTW) in the house is that KR was not only extremely intoxicated, but angry (she told us she was angry) and she was impatient too. Only giving JOK a few minutes to get back to the vehicle… This story (one of many) makes absolutely no sense. So he didnt get back with her in a timely manner and all of a sudden he’s a pervert…

Why so many stories- the truth doesnt change.

She most likely angry that JOK choice to go inside without her rather than go back to his home. Though data records show JOK did not enter the residence. They had been arguing all day and he was breaking up with her. She invited herself to the bar that night. Id say she’s raging mad at this point. Under the influence of alcohol, a vehicle and rage does not mix well.

April is Alcohol Awareness Month.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he anticipated her going back to her house (not his house) that night before the blizzard set in, and he planned to go to BA’s and she’s furious. Maybe when she put her vehicle in reverse she planned to back track her way back (home) and hit him by accident … who knows??? She is still culpable. Especially since she most likely started realizing what she did, calling her parents, maybe went back to the scene of the crime, and not once did she call 911, instead she put a plan together (backing out of JOK's garage and a light tap to his vehicle) to stage an event to include two innocent women. She knew what she did, and could have saved him.

My experience with narcissistic people are that they must have complete control of everything and must have their own way at all times no matter what! They will fight to the end to get their way. Doesnt matter who they point the finger at or who goes down in the process… the goal is it’s all about their own self-importance. They possibly will gather a team of people to help them. No one matters to the narcissist person. They got no quit. Lol

She is the poster child for narcissistic behavior!

I based my opinion on her being guilty due to 1st trial’s evidence, unfortunately, it was not executed properly. I dont see that happening in the 2nd trial. However, it’s up to the 12 jurors to decide her fate.

All is a matter of opinion

Justice for Officer John O'Keefe
 
  • #328
All of those clowns had many, many drinks that day and night, not just Karen Read.
Why do you suppose those cops and their wives even allowed her to drive drunk that night?
It's clear that not one of them cared about drinking and driving, well, until tragedy struck that is.
KR did speak highly of John O'Keefe on several occasions along with the children too.
In what world do you live where defendants "own up to what you did"? She has every right to plead not guilty and have the charges proven. She has every right to have people support her. She has every right to an adequate defense that focuses on discrepancies.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anyone who would side with MP's conduct in this case might be considered an actual whack job. He was a twisted cop with astounding behavior!
Matter of opinion
Karen Read and nine vodka sodas later…

Once they got to the Waterfall people were ordering drinks for everyone as shown by bar tabs collected. What proof is there that she consumed 9 vodka sodas???? Did anyone retrace the consumption of BA or BH through the day and into the night???? Of course not. From what I have observed of BA he barely speaks.
 
  • #329
Appreciate your thoughts. I can respect the difference of opinions, it’s the false narratives that are of issue.

There’s so much false information put out by media, and many others, its unbelievable, and I can see why there’s support for KR, as people have been duped.

Even media is afraid to show support for JOK. YouTubers: many dont want to lose revenue, clicks, views, sponsors… Does AJ have a connection at Vanity Fair? I won’t even talk about TD's bias. No one wants to ask KR the hard questions.

I am really sorry to see that Sandra Birchmore’s horrible case gets included into the KR mess because what happened to SB is separate from KR’s case. Make no mistake what happened to SB is criminal and may justice be served and those responsible held accountable.

Remember that the difference between KR and the others (all innocent, BTW) in the house is that KR was not only extremely intoxicated, but angry (she told us she was angry) and she was impatient too. Only giving JOK a few minutes to get back to the vehicle… This story (one of many) makes absolutely no sense. So he didnt get back with her in a timely manner and all of a sudden he’s a pervert…

Why so many stories- the truth doesnt change.

She most likely angry that JOK choice to go inside without her rather than go back to his home. Though data records show JOK did not enter the residence. They had been arguing all day and he was breaking up with her. She invited herself to the bar that night. Id say she’s raging mad at this point. Under the influence of alcohol, a vehicle and rage does not mix well.

April is Alcohol Awareness Month.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he anticipated her going back to her house (not his house) that night before the blizzard set in, and he planned to go to BA’s and she’s furious. Maybe when she put her vehicle in reverse she planned to back track her way back (home) and hit him by accident … who knows??? She is still culpable. Especially since she most likely started realizing what she did, calling her parents, maybe went back to the scene of the crime, and not once did she call 911, instead she put a plan together (backing out of JOK's garage and a light tap to his vehicle) to stage an event to include two innocent women. She knew what she did, and could have saved him.

My experience with narcissistic people are that they must have complete control of everything and must have their own way at all times no matter what! They will fight to the end to get their way. Doesnt matter who they point the finger at or who goes down in the process… the goal is it’s all about their own self-importance. They possibly will gather a team of people to help them. No one matters to the narcissist person. They got no quit. Lol

She is the poster child for narcissistic behavior!

I based my opinion on her being guilty due to 1st trial’s evidence, unfortunately, it was not executed properly. I dont see that happening in the 2nd trial. However, it’s up to the 12 jurors to decide her fate.

All is a matter of opinion

Justice for Officer John O'Keefe
You said, "Even media is afraid to show support for JOK."

Showing support for KR not mean you are anti-JOK!

IMO!
 
  • #330
I saw/heard just recently that neither BA, BH or CA attended the funeral of JOK. Is this true???
 
  • #331
Said it weakly, I think she was told to to make a 'timeline that JO was out there when they left, others knowing and saying they saw KR's car there earlier. The car that all the Alberts had was seen though towards dawn right where JO was found. The witness who spoke of the dark blob could barely get a sentence together and out, did not seem at all with it or had strong thoughts. I believe at the time she was a nurse. IMO
Yes it was really strange testimony by JN about seeing a blob. Everyone in her best friend Brian Jr’s family would have been consumed with what happened to JOK, so why would she not have reported what she saw, if she actually saw it, at the time! She seemed so lost during Trial 1.
 
  • #332
Yes it was really strange testimony by JN about seeing a blob. Everyone in her best friend Brian Jr’s family would have been consumed with what happened to JOK, so why would she not have reported what she saw, if she actually saw it, at the time! She seemed so lost during Trial 1.
Of course, for sureeeeeeeeeeeeee. She would of come out right away to say she thinks she saw him when they were leaving with JMc. Ohhh that must of been himmmm. etc. etc. etc.. All of them were scripted by whoever was leading the story to prevent a PROBLEM FOR THEMSELVES and their friendsssss, warning warning. JMc was all about the loaf of bread in the car though so noticed nothing. Right, they were allll talking about the loaf of bread in the car. IMO
 
  • #333
Dear Websleuths members and guests,
The thought of those terrible ads returning on Websleuths makes my head feel like it will explode.
PLEASE help us keep Websleuths ad-free by becoming a monthly subscriber to
DNASolves.com
Not only do you help keep Websleuths ad-free, but you also help families of the missing get the answers they deserve. Your monthly donation becomes part of solving the mystery of the unidentified.

CLICK HERE TO BECOME A MONTHLY SUBSCRIBER
If you have any questions, please

CLICK HERE!
Thank you,

Tricia
 
  • #334
Thank's Jepop - I've also seen this but was also wondering where the original exhibit is.

If the D had solid digital proof that the call was answered - why didn't they press Jmc on this? I also came across testimony yesterday about the calls between KR and JOK where the extraction of each phone differed as to whether a call was answered.

ETA - i wonder if this is part of Green's filings in the case.
The defense pressed her. She denied all the calls. This one that was answered is probably the reason why. If no one else can find the trial exhibits, I will when time permits. In the meantime, none of this changes those arms wounds into something they are not. I'm sure there is a way to speculate away all the evidence of an alternative to the tail light killer impact theory, but the actual physical evidence says otherwise. Once that is clear, JMc's deceptions under oath, and also the butt dial deceptions of BA and Higgins at 2.30am, are a little harder to write off as irrelevant. Jmo.
 
  • #335
I could not get past where you claim taillight bulbs are red. They’re not. The lense is red, not the bulb. IMO
You’re incorrect. For that model Lexus SUV, the LED bulbs in the tail light are RED. There are YouTube videos demonstrating the exact same tail light and what it looks like when the red lens is broken off. It still shines red because the bulb is red. IMO
 
  • #336
  • #337
You said, "Even media is afraid to show support for JOK."

Showing support for KR not mean you are anti-JOK!

IMO!
In my view point looking for the truth honors Officer John Okeefe. That is what we should all want.
The TRUTH.
Unfortunately those who conducted the investigation made so many unforced errors in the course of this investigation that there is a"taint" on this case. John's fellow police officers did not honor him or his family with this investigation.
As a local I know what goes on ( see Sandra BIrchmore - overlap of investigators), but let's put that aside and take the high road. So I'll call all the investigation errors unintentional. They still taint the case. Because of the faulty investigation JOK's family may never be able to know the truth.
If you look at the facts presented at the first trial there is not the evidence to convict KR. Plain and simple. That's what I call reasonable doubt.
Emotions run high on all platforms including this one that fuel opinions. To craft a story/opinion of a persons guilt based upon an sense of the defendant's narcissim tendencies is pure fiction. It has absolutley no bearing on guilt or innocence. She is not sympathetic defendant but that has no bearing imo. There's more than enough drunken /narcissistic behavior to go around in this entire extended crowd.
I will repeat what I have written many times on these threads - which of course is only my 2 cents
Originally when seeing this case in the local papers I thought, Sure - everybody was out at the bars drunk, she backed into him unintentionally and drove off - case closed. Those "after the bar closes" parties are never a good idea. I thought it tragic that another life was lost due to alcohol.
But when I came here and saw the pictures and the injuries that JOK suffered - I sensed we were looking at something different so I kept abreast of the info and watched the trial.

The ARCA guys - (who imo could not be more credentialed) had no idea about this case or the players iirc when they made their report - there is no emotion or bias in their conclusions.
Per ARCA : NO vehicle incuding KR's caused those injuries to JOK.
Personally I take that to the "bank".
JMO
 
Last edited:
  • #338
The first she spoke of that was on the witness stand IIRC. Under cross examination, the defense asked her why she didn't go to the police about this in the following days after JOK's body was found where she said she saw a 5-6 ft black blob. It made no sense that she wouldn't have reported that, after all the interviews and the Grand Jury testimony, her best friend's father being a police officer, and so on.
MOO
She said something similar on her police interview - but she wasn’t interviewed until more than a year later IIRC
 
  • #339
FORMER MSP Trooper Michael Proctor remains the HUGE hurdle that the CW will have to jump to get a conviction. Once the reason for his dismissal ( Implicit Bias ) comes through to the jury, I cannot see how one juror would believe ANY testimony or evidence questionably obtained from the 'Lead Detective" after that. This Trial is splattered and covered in reasonable doubt because of him. IMO
 
  • #340
She said something similar on her police interview - but she wasn’t interviewed until more than a year later IIRC
Thank you! I couldn't recall the details. She was present that night but wasn't interviewed until a year later? Unbelievable.
ETA: In that year, she could have called the police days or weeks after a dead body was found on her best friend's lawn and shared her concerns about a blob. I'd like to see this explored more with her this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
51
Guests online
2,629
Total visitors
2,680

Forum statistics

Threads
633,009
Messages
18,634,826
Members
243,373
Latest member
Lady-J
Back
Top