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

[mrjitty]

Imo the jury was too confused to ask and unsure about upsetting the judge who never bothered to hide her impatience, heavy sighs etc..They did ask for the sert report and were denied. Their notes to the court when hung were so formal and apologetic imo.

RSBM

Having read the recent Federal Court decision on Habeas, and listened to the likes of Bederow on the topic, I think it is actually very difficult to reconcile the claimed acquittal with the juries 3rd note.

In the Supreme Court's decision in Blueford, the SC held that even the foreman telling the Judge what the vote was, before deliberating further, cannot constitute an acquittal. They actually have to have the vote and deliver the verdict.

IMO there is no way to know what happened but I lean towards the view that there was in fact no final vote on it, which is why the defendant was not acquitted. There's literally no evidence final votes even happened - a straw poll is not the verdict ...

 

[twhel]

I


Excellent points!! The light being on in the car when RN saw her MUST have been because John had just gotten out. You are the first person to mention that (at least that I have read...). RN might've missed seeing him because he was too focused on who was in the black Lexus.

The way you frame it strikes me as suiting the CW's time line quite well. The vehicle carrying RN drives off; JN has returned to the house; JOK is out of the Lexus and exposed; and the bad thing happens with no witnesses.

Per Google map, the distance from the Alberts' house to JOK's is 2.3 miles, and the estimated driving time 6 minutes for a driver observing the letter of the traffic laws. Entirely plausible, IMO, that a "motivated" driver could cut a minute off that. The "bad thing" happens at 12:30-ish and KR is in range of JOK's home wifi at 12:36 .

For anyone wishing to review the CW's timeline of the events at Fairview, it's set forth in closing argument at 2:22:00-2:27:00 of the Court TV video of Day 31.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Statement of scope of audit

2025 Independent Audit
of the Town of Canton
Police Department
5 Stones intelligence (5Si) was tasked with auditing the
Canton Police Department in accordance with the scope of
work order detailed within. 5Si’s report does not make any
findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding ongoing
criminal investigations or pending legal matters involving
the Canton Police Department

https://www.town.canton.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/11832/Canton-Report-April-1-2025

How about the FBI and the DA of the state of Massachusetts?
What did they find?

Not a single shred of evidence of conspiracy!

All in my opinion

 

[Wishbone]

I


Excellent points!! The light being on in the car when RN saw her MUST have been because John had just gotten out. You are the first person to mention that (at least that I have read...). RN might've missed seeing him because he was too focused on who was in the black Lexus.

A portion of RN's testimony seeing KR alone in the car and not noticing JO standing or laying in the vicinity.

Ryan Nagel: SUV Taillights Were Intact, Never Saw Person Lying on Lawn

Ryan Nagel, who was outside the home, recalls seeing a woman alone in an SUV. Taillights were intact. He didn't see anyone lying on the lawn.

www.courttv.com

 

[Wishbone]

How about the FBI and the DA of the state of Massachusetts?
What did they find?

Not a single shred of evidence of conspiracy!

All in my opinion

The burden of BRD proof is on the cw, the defense doesn't have to prove that.MOO

​

 

[mrjitty]

The burden of BRD proof is on the cw, the defense doesn't have to prove anything.MOO

While that is accurate broadly - the defence in this case does require the jury to believe there is a reasonable possibility the defendant was framed. So they will need to establish enough of a factual basis for that at trial

So they don't have to prove she was framed, but there does need to be some kind of evidential foundation

IMO

 

[jepop]

The way you frame it strikes me as suiting the CW's time line quite well. The vehicle carrying RN drives off; JN has returned to the house; JOK is out of the Lexus and exposed; and the bad thing happens with no witnesses.

Per Google map, the distance from the Alberts' house to JOK's is 2.3 miles, and the estimated driving time 6 minutes for a driver observing the letter of the traffic laws. Entirely plausible, IMO, that a "motivated" driver could cut a minute off that. The "bad thing" happens at 12:30-ish and KR is in range of JOK's home wifi at 12:36 .

For anyone wishing to review the CW's timeline of the events at Fairview, it's set forth in closing argument at 2:22:00-2:27:00 of the Court TV video of Day 31.

Lally altered the states's time line in his closing after JMc's testimony directly conflicted with defense witness testimony re KR connecting with JO's home wifi at 12.36am. It was talked about on the threads alot at the time. It almost seemed like JMc had been coached to give specific times to fit in with the state's time line as per opening statement ( seems Lally made a blunder and overlooked the wifi evidence). If you listen to the opening you'll see the change Lally made in his closing. The trial evidence stuck with the claims in his opening. Jmo

Ofcourse closing and opening arguments are not evidence so technically the jury should have ignored Lally's time line claims in his closing.

Check out how JMc says under oath that she was still seeing the Lexus after 12.40am. It's incorrect (as later proved by defense) but imo somehow must be connected to all the lying she did regarding her numerous deleted butt calls to JO within the same time frame. Moo

 

[Wishbone]

While that is accurate broadly - the defence in this case does require the jury to believe there is a reasonable possibility the defendant was framed. So they will need to establish enough of a factual basis for that at trial

So they don't have to prove she was framed, but there does need to be some kind of evidential foundation

IMO

Read’s defense lawyers argued that the investigation was flawed, with undisclosed conflicts of interest, offensive text messages and a failure to consider alternative suspects.They’ve alleged a conspiracy among law enforcement officers to cover up the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe at the hands of one of their own and frame Read in his killing. Regardless of the trial’s outcome, legal experts said, the proceedings exposed an often-hidden side of law enforcement that can be rife with problems. “One of the legacies of the Karen Read murder prosecution is that it puts a spotlight on some of the flaws and missteps in the police investigation,” said Daniel Medwed, a professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University and an expert on wrongful convictions.

“If there are missteps and sloppiness in a murder investigation involving the death of a police officer, what does that suggest about the process in a more run-of-the-mill case with a civilian victim?”he said.

Karen Read murder trial: Messy investigation exposes problems with police work that public rarely sees, experts say

“If there are missteps and sloppiness in a murder investigation involving the death of a police officer, what does that suggest about the process in a more run-of-the-mill case?” one law professor asked.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[jepop]

While that is accurate broadly - the defence in this case does require the jury to believe there is a reasonable possibility the defendant was framed. So they will need to establish enough of a factual basis for that at trial

So they don't have to prove she was framed, but there does need to be some kind of evidential foundation

IMO

Moo the medical evidence and crash reconstruction evidence the defense brought in trial 1 was enough to counter the prosecution in addition to the cw not proving BARD that JO was struck by KR's vehicle or any vehicle. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Read’s defense lawyers argued that the investigation was flawed, with undisclosed conflicts of interest, offensive text messages and a failure to consider alternative suspects.They’ve alleged a conspiracy among law enforcement officers to cover up the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe at the hands of one of their own and frame Read in his killing. Regardless of the trial’s outcome, legal experts said, the proceedings exposed an often-hidden side of law enforcement that can be rife with problems. “One of the legacies of the Karen Read murder prosecution is that it puts a spotlight on some of the flaws and missteps in the police investigation,” said Daniel Medwed, a professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University and an expert on wrongful convictions.

“If there are missteps and sloppiness in a murder investigation involving the death of a police officer, what does that suggest about the process in a more run-of-the-mill case with a civilian victim?”he said.

Karen Read murder trial: Messy investigation exposes problems with police work that public rarely sees, experts say

“If there are missteps and sloppiness in a murder investigation involving the death of a police officer, what does that suggest about the process in a more run-of-the-mill case?” one law professor asked.

www.nbcnews.com

I am not sure how this relates to my point. The defence will have some kind of evidential burden in this case - as a practical question.

 

[Vaderman]

I just noticed Max has a new documentary on this case. Has anyone given it a watch?

 

[Wishbone]

I am not sure how this relates to my point. The defence will have some kind of evidential burden in this case - as a practical question.

If you have watched the hearings and the trial the defense has presented plenty of evidence.JMOO

 

[mrjitty]

Moo the medical evidence and crash reconstruction evidence the defense brought in trial 1 was enough to counter the prosecution in addition to the cw not proving BARD that JO was struck by KR's vehicle or any vehicle. Jmo

Sure - I agree re Trial 1.

The way I think about it is the plastic on the lawn and on JOK's clothing establishes prima facie that it's vehicle involved. So the defence needs to create a reasonable possibility it was staged.

One way to do that, is to suggest the injuries cannot have happened as claimed. They need not prove that even on the balance of probabilities - just a real possibility. However they will in practice need to establish some facts that the jury accepts. Like you say, such a fact might be that the arm injury is from a dog. Then it follows JOK might have died some other way = reasonable doubt.

In my view.

 

[mrjitty]

If you have watched the hearings and the trial the defense has presented plenty of evidence.JMOO

I know. I simply reacted to the idea the defence does not have to prove anything. As a practical question when alleging a police conspiracy to frame the defendant - they will carry an evidential burden of sorts. IMO

 

[Wishbone]

Sure - I agree re Trial 1.

The way I think about it is the plastic on the lawn and on JOK's clothing establishes prima facie that it's vehicle involved. So the defence needs to create a reasonable possibility it was staged.

One way to do that, is to suggest the injuries cannot have happened as claimed. They need not prove that even on the balance of probabilities - just a real possibility. However they will in practice need to establish some facts that the jury accepts. Like you say, such a fact might be that the arm injury is from a dog. Then it follows JOK might have died some other way = reasonable doubt.

In my view.

Well I take the testimony of ARCCA that a car did not hit JO and he was not hit by a car.JMOO

 

[mrjitty]

The way you frame it strikes me as suiting the CW's time line quite well. The vehicle carrying RN drives off; JN has returned to the house; JOK is out of the Lexus and exposed; and the bad thing happens with no witnesses.

Per Google map, the distance from the Alberts' house to JOK's is 2.3 miles, and the estimated driving time 6 minutes for a driver observing the letter of the traffic laws. Entirely plausible, IMO, that a "motivated" driver could cut a minute off that. The "bad thing" happens at 12:30-ish and KR is in range of JOK's home wifi at 12:36 .

For anyone wishing to review the CW's timeline of the events at Fairview, it's set forth in closing argument at 2:22:00-2:27:00 of the Court TV video of Day 31.

Thank you - I might re-listen to both sides closings as a final preparation. It will be interesting what if anything changes.

 

[mrjitty]

Well I take the testimony of ARCCA that a car did not hit JO and he was not hit by a car.JMOO

Sure. If the jury accepts the ARCCA evidence, for example - that could raise the real possibility that the tail light evidence is not legit, or at least unreliable.

MOO

 

[thebedbug]

Even if Yannetti did receive such a phone call, I would give it a "So what?" for two reasons.

First, the caller did not provide any evidence, either directly or second-hand. And, with the technical dismissal of the "Hos long to die in the cold?"' angle, no credible hard evidence against those in the Alberts' house has developed.

Second, where else was the defense going to point the finger to explain JOK's death? A random serial killer wandering the streets of Canton, in a snowstorm? They had to go after the people in the house.

Hardly a turning point.

I'd agree that if there was irrefutable evidence that search had been typed at 2:27 AM - then we've got a whole other case. The problem is... it makes zero sense.

The defense wants us to believe she went home... sat around looking at her kids' basketball schedule... then randomly made a single mistyped search and that was it?

Or, does it fit with exactly the story she told of several hurried searches at the moment they found JOK?

I'd say the same for the scratch marks. If there was irrefutable evidence it was a dog, of course, we're looking a whole other case... but by itself - what? JOK went into the house... he was immediately bashed... then attacked by a dog... then bizarrely dragged out and dumped on the side of the yard and left to die... while a dozen or so continued the night's party and all remain utterly silent about events?

C'mon.

 

[jepop]

Well I take the testimony of ARCCA that a car did not hit JO and he was not hit by a car.JMOO

Agreed

ETA in addition to lack of bodily injury and no reasonable explanation for how a vehicle created the symmetrical deep animal like scratch wounds ( and one puncture like tooth wound) on JO's right arm. Ad nauseum; no blood or skin on tail light shafts, no blood or skin on rear of Lexus or under Lexus, arm wounds ignored by investigators and the ME - no swabbing, no investigative research, no curiosity. Smh

 

[Spectrix]

Well I take the testimony of ARCCA that a car did not hit JO and he was not hit by a car.JMOO

Sure. If the jury accepts the ARCCA evidence, for example - that could raise the real possibility that the tail light evidence is not legit, or at least unreliable.

That's what worries me. IF the jury accept the ARCCA evidence.

It appears as if nine of the previous twelve jurors did not place nearly as much weight on the ARCCA evidence as I do.