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

[Wishbone]

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

start with inadequate police work, including failure to secure a crime scene, collect evidence, or interview witnesses. Especially Failure to interview witnesses: Missing potential leads and crucial information can significantly hinder the investigation that lead to other suspects. A botched investigation from the beginning.JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

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.

It seems the jury did not understand the questionnaire.JMOO

 

[mrjitty]

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.

without the search i feel like the fight theory is going to be hard to stand up. be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out.

 

[jepop]

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

Yes, the jury should apply the faculty of reason to the evidence and only the evidence. There was a boat load of reasonable doubt at trial X 1, the CW was unable to counter the defenses' expert evidence in any reasonable way. Yet KR was not acquitted. That bothers me going into trial 2.

However, KR has good attorneys and as long as they are not hamstrung on cross, and jurors take their duties seriously, justice should be served this time around imo.

I noticed how LYK and his dad predicted judge cannone would allow the defense FBI expert to testify concerning what a competent and impartial investigation should have entailed. They thought a reasonable judge would have no problems with it. Yet she ruled against. That doesn't seem right to me. Jmo

As you must have seen, LYK and co. have pointed out a number of instances of judicial bias favourable to the prosecution and unfavourable to the defense. Most not provable ofcourse cos plausible deniability. The judge's attitude, her sighing, her shutting down of that pretrial hearing in an almost hysterical moment of unnecessary drama; all of this and more is concerning IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Not knowing they were instructed by the Feds likely makes a big difference IMO

 

[Mistermagoo]

Hello all, this is my first post on this case, and my first post in many years. Like most of you, I am fascinated with this case. I go back and forth on the guilty and not guilty. My thoughts are this, if KR is guilty, the prosecutions theory of how it happened is wrong. The whole got hit in the arm, flew so many feet are all inconsistent with the injuries and other things. Could something else have happened where she hit him, he hit his head, got up and stumbled to his resting place? We will never know because they never looked into another theory.

Now on to the not guilty. If she is not guilty, then there is a conspiracy. Whether it is with a few people or all of them, their has to be a conspiracy. I will not get into all of that right now, I will get to the point of my post, which is John's hat.

I do not take credit for finding this, search for Jay Megan on TikTok, she is the one who first posted about it and it has had my attention since.

She seems to think that JOK owned at least two different hats that looked identical. One had a flag patch with THICK WHITE STRIPES and said BPD HOCKEY under it. The other had a flag patch with THIN WHITE STRIPES and said either GPD HOCKEY or SPD hockey. Here are photos of him wearing them, whether or not they are two different hats is still debatable.




She then goes on to say that it appears that the hat that was found at the crime scene is a hat that more resembles the one that has thin white lines, and then the hat that is shown as evidence in court more resembles a version of the hat that has thick white lines. Here are the those photos.





Sorry about the quality of some of the photos.

SO before we get into the reason why they would switch hats I would like all of you to give your opinion on the two sets of photos.
1. Did John have two similar hats?
2. Does the hat in the courtroom look like the same as at the crime scene?

I have looked for more photos to inspect and have found none with any better quality. I do not have the means to clean up the photos to compare, perhaps some of you do?

My personal opinion is that in both sets of photos it appears there are two different hats, one with thin lines and one with thick lines. The hat in the courtroom looks clean and in good shape after what it has supposedly been through. IF there is a conspiracy then anything is possible. They would not have necessarily needed to switch it out with Johns other hat, They may have not realized that there were two different styles and just purchased another one they thought looked the same. There are plenty of places online to do that, thinbluelineusa, Bostonfinestswag etc...

I thought it was a good enough observation by the person who discovered it. and it has intrigued me enough to start posting again. What are your thoughts?

 

[Wishbone]

Hello all, this is my first post on this case, and my first post in many years. Like most of you, I am fascinated with this case. I go back and forth on the guilty and not guilty. My thoughts are this, if KR is guilty, the prosecutions theory of how it happened is wrong. The whole got hit in the arm, flew so many feet are all inconsistent with the injuries and other things. Could something else have happened where she hit him, he hit his head, got up and stumbled to his resting place? We will never know because they never looked into another theory.

Now on to the not guilty. If she is not guilty, then there is a conspiracy. Whether it is with a few people or all of them, their has to be a conspiracy. I will not get into all of that right now, I will get to the point of my post, which is John's hat.

I do not take credit for finding this, search for Jay Megan on TikTok, she is the one who first posted about it and it has had my attention since.

She seems to think that JOK owned at least two different hats that looked identical. One had a flag patch with THICK WHITE STRIPES and said BPD HOCKEY under it. The other had a flag patch with THIN WHITE STRIPES and said either GPD HOCKEY or SPD hockey. Here are photos of him wearing them, whether or not they are two different hats is still debatable.

View attachment 577601

View attachment 577602
She then goes on to say that it appears that the hat that was found at the crime scene is a hat that more resembles the one that has thin white lines, and then the hat that is shown as evidence in court more resembles a version of the hat that has thick white lines. Here are the those photos.

View attachment 577609

View attachment 577610

Sorry about the quality of some of the photos.

SO before we get into the reason why they would switch hats I would like all of you to give your opinion on the two sets of photos.
1. Did John have two similar hats?
2. Does the hat in the courtroom look like the same as at the crime scene?

I have looked for more photos to inspect and have found none with any better quality. I do not have the means to clean up the photos to compare, perhaps some of you do?

My personal opinion is that in both sets of photos it appears there are two different hats, one with thin lines and one with thick lines. The hat in the courtroom looks clean and in good shape after what it has supposedly been through. IF there is a conspiracy then anything is possible. They would not have necessarily needed to switch it out with Johns other hat, They may have not realized that there were two different styles and just purchased another one they thought looked the same. There are plenty of places online to do that, thinbluelineusa, Bostonfinestswag etc...

I thought it was a good enough observation by the person who discovered it. and it has intrigued me enough to start posting again. What are your thoughts?

Just a guess, but I think those two photos are the same hat just taken at different distances so the lines in the one look smaller.JMOO

 

[Seattle1]

So turning to the SC - will they want to wade into this stuff on this case? Probably not IMO. The Judge clearly followed procedure on deliberations. And if she directed the jury wrong pre-deliberation (e.g confusion about the form), you get a new trial. I don't seen the SC doing anything as chaos inducing as ordering a voir dire on all this

^^rsbm

Whether amending the verdict slip or polling the jurors before being dismissed, all was at the discretion of the Court, and any errors here would ultimately result in a new trial-- which is where the case is at. I also don't see the SC taking this on.

Let's hope the defense will not allow a similar verdict slip pushed upon them, and that history can't repeat itself. MOO

 

[cocomod]

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

The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. They just have to make sure the CW doesn’t prove BARD. In my opinion, the CW didn’t prove BARD that she hit him with her car. In fact, they didn’t prove how OJO died in the first trial. The CW basically spent most of the first trial defending the people at the party rather than proving their case.

 

[Tragg]

The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. They just have to make sure the CW doesn’t prove BARD. In my opinion, the CW didn’t prove BARD that she hit him with her car. In fact, they didn’t prove how OJO died in the first trial. The CW basically spent most of the first trial defending the people at the party rather than proving their case.

I think @mrjitty is trying to say that a jury could struggle to find reasonable doubt as to some of the alternatives argued by the defense. Without any evidence to support them, they would be speculation - which is specifically NOT grounds for reasonable doubt.

 

[Seattle1]

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.

Unfortunately, the jurors brought their own bias here because they believed the ARCCA experts were provided by KR's auto insurance and therefore discounted their testimony! IMO, another error by the Court in clouding the identity/source of the expert witness. I don't doubt the jurors would have placed fair weight on ARCCA had they known they were hired by the FBI to inform the Agency of what happened to JOK per the evidence! JMO

 

[Mistermagoo]

Just a guess, but I think those two photos are the same hat just taken at different distances so the lines in the one look smaller.JMOO

Fair enough. That could very well be the case. Just to point out, on the thinblueline website there does seem to be two different style flag hats for sale that seem similar. These are not the Nike version that he has on, but just making an observation

 

[Wishbone]

I think @mrjitty is trying to say that a jury could struggle to find reasonable doubt as to some of the alternatives argued by the defense. Without any evidence to support them, they would be speculation - which is specifically NOT grounds for reasonable doubt.

The jury will have to determine if the cw proves it's case BARD. JMOO

 

[mzmarymac]

I've been following this from the first trial and have to give my opinion here. I have absolutely ZERO idea what happened that night? I can just as easily believe any one of the following scenarios:
1.) She was drunk and backed him over, not realizing it
2.) She was drunk and backed him over out of rage and remembers it or doesn't remember it
3.) Someone else killed JOK and may or may not have had help covering it up
4.) Confirmation bias played a large role in this tragic event.
5.) This was one of the worst led investigations of all time. Seriously. Victim is a cop. Homeowner is a cop. Many of the people there were cops. Everyone knew everyone. Cop/homeowner never exits the house to see what is going on? Not roped off. No photos taken. So much shadiness, unprofessionalism, and conflicts of interest all over the place.

Now, in my opinion, that is MORE than enough to find reasonable doubt. But that is NOT my issue here. My main issue here is the incredible injustice in what is clearly serving as an abuse against the double jeopardy standard found in the Constitution.

When 3 different crimes are being tried at the same time, the jury makes decisions based upon each of those crimes separately and the convictions and sentences of each of those crimes carries it's own separate weight. But when you have an acquittal on one of those charges, i.e. 12 jurors AGREE on a verdict, a paperwork/procedural error should NOT deny someone the right to this Constitutional right.

I must wonder how the CW would have reacted had they known that 12 jurors voted to convict on one of the charges. Would they have allowed everything to be declared a mistrial? Or would they have argued that the charges that they voted for conviction remain and the defendant found guilty and adjudicated and sentenced. Then they could decide to do with the hung charges. To deny a citizen of this protection is absolutely horrific.

Why weren't the jurors polled? I can guess. I can guess that the CW knew which way their were leaning and chose to keep their lips shut. I wish the defense had said something at the time. But I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS overturns this, if they do ultimately take the case. To me, this is a huge Constitutional question here and needs to be addressed for not just this case, but for future cases as well.

 

[keek]

Very good point about CW and lips shut. Not surprised a bit if that happened due to the whole coloring of this trial covered by judge on the case.. IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I think @mrjitty is trying to say that a jury could struggle to find reasonable doubt as to some of the alternatives argued by the defense. Without any evidence to support them, they would be speculation - which is specifically NOT grounds for reasonable doubt.

exactly! As a practical matter you will need some kind of factual foundation.

 

[Linda7NJ]

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.

The jury didn’t believe ARCCA last time.

Personally, I thought they presented well but not believably, I was certain at least one person on the jury had a basic understanding of physics.

This go around, they’ll look like amateur hour compared to the CW’s expert, if they stick to the same script as last time.

ALL IMO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Court TV reporting we now have seated 12 jurors.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hello all, this is my first post on this case, and my first post in many years. Like most of you, I am fascinated with this case. I go back and forth on the guilty and not guilty. My thoughts are this, if KR is guilty, the prosecutions theory of how it happened is wrong. The whole got hit in the arm, flew so many feet are all inconsistent with the injuries and other things. Could something else have happened where she hit him, he hit his head, got up and stumbled to his resting place? We will never know because they never looked into another theory.

Now on to the not guilty. If she is not guilty, then there is a conspiracy. Whether it is with a few people or all of them, their has to be a conspiracy. I will not get into all of that right now, I will get to the point of my post, which is John's hat.

I do not take credit for finding this, search for Jay Megan on TikTok, she is the one who first posted about it and it has had my attention since.

She seems to think that JOK owned at least two different hats that looked identical. One had a flag patch with THICK WHITE STRIPES and said BPD HOCKEY under it. The other had a flag patch with THIN WHITE STRIPES and said either GPD HOCKEY or SPD hockey. Here are photos of him wearing them, whether or not they are two different hats is still debatable.

View attachment 577601

View attachment 577602
She then goes on to say that it appears that the hat that was found at the crime scene is a hat that more resembles the one that has thin white lines, and then the hat that is shown as evidence in court more resembles a version of the hat that has thick white lines. Here are the those photos.

View attachment 577609

View attachment 577610

Sorry about the quality of some of the photos.

SO before we get into the reason why they would switch hats I would like all of you to give your opinion on the two sets of photos.
1. Did John have two similar hats?
2. Does the hat in the courtroom look like the same as at the crime scene?

I have looked for more photos to inspect and have found none with any better quality. I do not have the means to clean up the photos to compare, perhaps some of you do?

My personal opinion is that in both sets of photos it appears there are two different hats, one with thin lines and one with thick lines. The hat in the courtroom looks clean and in good shape after what it has supposedly been through. IF there is a conspiracy then anything is possible. They would not have necessarily needed to switch it out with Johns other hat, They may have not realized that there were two different styles and just purchased another one they thought looked the same. There are plenty of places online to do that, thinbluelineusa, Bostonfinestswag etc...

I thought it was a good enough observation by the person who discovered it. and it has intrigued me enough to start posting again. What are your thoughts?

What relevance does the hat make?
You think law enforcement went out hat shopping? Why?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Unfortunately, the jurors brought their own bias here because they believed the ARCCA experts were provided by KR's auto insurance and therefore discounted their testimony! IMO, another error by the Court in clouding the identity/source of the expert witness. I don't doubt the jurors would have placed fair weight on ARCCA had they known they were hired by the FBI to inform the Agency of what happened to JOK per the evidence! JMO

A potato gun?
Seriously? To mimic a glass thrown at the taillight.
Who ever claimed a cocktail glass was thrown?

That and the incredibly limited testing done make Wolfe’s testimony a joke.
Did they test to see if John was sideswiped & propelled & bashed his head in a backward fall?
They lacked the necessary data - they did very little testing

This go around, the CW’s expert will make Wolfe look like a fool.

Last go around the CW relied on a local police accident reconstructionist. That was a huge mistake.

All imo