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

[arielilane]

lol

1. Karen Read says she would have cheered at O.J. Simpson's acquittal after what she's learned over the course of her own murder prosecution.

Read tells the publication that given her experience as a murder defendant going up against what she describes as a biased investigator, she now looks back at O.J. Simpson's 1995 acquittal differently.

Karen Read says she would have cheered O.J. Simpson's acquittal and more Vanity Fair interview takeaways

In a new Vanity Fair article released Thursday, Karen Read again reveals how she feels about her case, the investigation, and police in general.

www.cbsnews.com

4/10/2025

 

[Linda7NJ]

lol

1. Karen Read says she would have cheered at O.J. Simpson's acquittal after what she's learned over the course of her own murder prosecution.

Read tells the publication that given her experience as a murder defendant going up against what she describes as a biased investigator, she now looks back at O.J. Simpson's 1995 acquittal differently.

Karen Read says she would have cheered O.J. Simpson's acquittal and more Vanity Fair interview takeaways

In a new Vanity Fair article released Thursday, Karen Read again reveals how she feels about her case, the investigation, and police in general.

www.cbsnews.com

4/10/2025

Karen Read identifies with OJ Simpson.
That says a lot about a person.

IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Vanity Fair Article

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/karen-read-second-murder-trial

Karen still believes OJ guilty but would now cheer his not guilty verdict.

My interpretation of what she said
She did it, but so what? The police made mistakes so jury should let her go.

All imo

 

[SteveS]

My interpretation of what KR said - 'While the OJ claim that he was framed by police seemed ludicrous to me at the time, it doesn't seem as farfetched now, because I'm seeing firsthand just how far corrupt police and prosecutors will go, putting you in their sights and manufacturing fake evidence and framing you for something you didn't do.'

 

[keek]

My interpretation of what KR said - 'While the OJ claim that he was framed by police seemed ludicrous to me at the time, it doesn't seem as farfetched now, because I'm seeing firsthand just how far corrupt police and prosecutors will go, putting you in their sights and manufacturing fake evidence and framing you for something you didn't do.'

Putting you in their sights and framing can be easy to do when they know how and they do when they want. Not scrutinized or investigated professionally, or sloppy evidence control gets people in prison. There have been plenty of cases where the convicted were found to have not even been near the crime, but sights were put on them for self serving reasons. NOT O.J I'm talking about .

 

[Forest_Wood]

One thing that stands out to me as I watch this again, right around the 15:55 mark when JMc is being cross examined, AJ asks her about when she last looked for KR's car at 12:45 and it was gone and he points out she was looking directly over the front lawn where JOK would have been laying on the ground, yet she did not see him on the ground in her direct view to where Karen's vehicle last was. If it had happened as the CW outlined, she would have seen him right there on the grass. Where was JOK at 12:45?

 

[jepop]

My interpretation of what KR said - 'While the OJ claim that he was framed by police seemed ludicrous to me at the time, it doesn't seem as farfetched now, because I'm seeing firsthand just how far corrupt police and prosecutors will go, putting you in their sights and manufacturing fake evidence and framing you for something you didn't do.'

Exactly. That's the quote. Let's not morph that into KR believes he was innocent. Jmo

Actually, this is the quote from Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/karen-read-second-murder-trial

“I’m not saying I believe O.J. was innocent, but I believe that it was not a completely above-board investigation. Now that I am smarter, I would’ve cheered at that acquittal. You have to hold cops accountable.”

1) she is not saying she believes he is innocent.
2) she is saying she believes cops should be held accountable.

 

[mrjitty]

One thing that stands out to me as I watch this again, right around the 15:55 mark when JMc is being cross examined, AJ asks her about when she last looked for KR's car at 12:45 and it was gone and he points out she was looking directly over the front lawn where JOK would have been laying on the ground, yet she did not see him on the ground in her direct view to where Karen's vehicle last was. If it had happened as the CW outlined, she would have seen him right there on the grass. Where was JOK at 12:45?

I love these guys, though i am mostly listen to their analysis of text rather than body language. No idea how accurate it is, but their episode analysing the defendant herself was also fascinating.

 

[jepop]

ETA my post is in response to the important point made by @Seattle1 a few days ago ( did not quote correctly for some reason).

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 Retrial'

Apr 8, 2025

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...

• Seattle1

• 
• 

The judge's ruling of keeping the identity of the FBI, who commissioned ARCA's work, a secret, opened up the space for potential prejudicial jury speculation and influence in deliberations. Moo

Compare with the Kohberger case and ruling that just occurred yesterday. The sides have agreed to not including reference to the IGG process that helped ID Kohberger as suspect. The prosecution will refer to a generic tip that was received that lead to LE scrutinising BK more thoroughly. However, judge has ruled that both defense and state try to figure out a way to have this tip testified to that will premptively ensure the jury does not speculate re the nature of the tip, whether it was valid etc. The Judge in that case is going to review what the parties come up with at a later date and implied that if it becomes necessary, he will issue an instruction explaining that the tip was verified and valid and that the jury is not to speculate. Moo

Imo, in KR case the judge made zero comparable effort and showed no comparable concern after ruling that ARCA's commission by the FBI was not to be admitted. Zero interest in the potential for this 'secrecy to unfairly prejudice the jury. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

The judge's ruling of keeping the identity of the FBI, who commissioned ARCA's work, a secret, opened up the space for potential prejudicial jury speculation and influence in deliberations. Moo

Compare with the Kohberger case and ruling that just occurred yesterday. The sides have agreed to not including reference to the IGG process that helped ID Kohberger as suspect. The prosecution will refer to a generic tip that was received that lead to LE scrutinising BK more thoroughly. However, judge has ruled that both defense and state try to figure out a way to have this tip testified to that will premptively ensure the jury does not speculate re the nature of the tip, whether it was valid etc. The Judge in that case is going to review what the parties come up with at a later date and implied that if it becomes necessary, he will issue an instruction explaining that the tip was verified and valid and that the jury is not to speculate. Moo

Imo, in KR case the judge made zero comparable effort and showed no comparable concern after ruling that ARCA's commission by the FBI was not to be admitted. Zero interest in the potential for this 'secrecy to unfairly prejudice the jury. Jmo

I tend to agree with you @jepop - i'd prefer the FBI to be mentioned.

To be fair to the Judge, I feel like the Feds are the real cause of the problem here, because they've strolled in to the middle of the case and dropped this evidence, but also refused to clarify what their investigation was, how it ended up, and why they instructed these experts.

I get this is all standard practice for them, but it also feels like they've created a situation which is highly unsatisfactory - not least to the defendant!

Like are we supposed to believe this is the only relevant federal evidence that ought to be discovered in this case?

 

[Tortoise]

If he had no involvement with the jury why and how was he able to have a juror dismissed toward the end of the 1st trial, an obviously pro defense leaning juror? Of course Cannone said he had no involvement with the jury but she never said he wasn’t there.

He reported to the court what had been reported to him. That the juror concerned was recorded at an event misconducting herself/himself discussing the case. Of course he had to act on those reports. Other Dedham police officers reported it also.

Judge Cannone did say he had no contact with the jurors, which by definition means he wasn't there.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Her comments to anyone that would listen were I hit him, I hit him, I hit him, maybe he got hit by a plow, did I hit him...

According to the transcript read in court, JMc testified at least 2 times in front of the GJ that KR kept frantically asking the questions “Did I hit him? Could I hit him? Is he alive” when speaking to the responding officer or EMT. This is similar to what she asked CR, according to the nurse’s testimony, after she shows both women her taillight earlier that morning. However, it appears that later during trial 1 that JMc recalls KR repeatedly confessing, not asking like she testified earlier, by stating ‘I hit him I hit him I hit I him’ in her respond to questions from the first responder. If JMc was certain that she overheard these confessions from KR after finding JOK why didn’t she mention them during the GJ?

however, no one else could see him, yet she does.

Which is kind of weird, IMO, considering that JOK was wearing a dark colored shirt, black sneakers and should have been bleeding profusely. From the perspective of drivers heading south on that road, and thus driving past where JOK tragically laid prone, JOK’s blood and clothes should have stood out both against both the snow and bright red fire hydrant next to him. Additionally, in the case of BH who testified leaving 12:30 and CA and her boyfriend left around 1:15, and both of whom testified that their headlights were on and they could see the road ahead of them, there likely was not enough time between JOK allegedly getting hit and them leaving the home too for snow to have accumulated enough to cover JOK and basically render him invisible. So how did they not see him? JMc also mentioned looking straight ahead and being able to see the road as her husband drove with the headlights but testified she also did not see JOK. However, JN eyes were able to note a dark shape from the back passenger window without the assistance of the headlights available? If JN could notice a dark shape from the back without lights on why didn’t JMc or MMc see it when JMc testified to being focused on the road and area them? What about the snow plower with his bright headlights? IIRC, he testified to regularly checking the roads and the areas around them for hazards while he worked and was confident in his recall that JOK was not there, lying on that spot near curb and flag pole, when he plowed past there at 2:30/2:45 that morning. What about the car he did testify too seeing parked near that spot as he drove by? Was the owner or the driver ever identified?

JMO/JMT

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

She gathers her thoughts, plans and "crew" that morning.

She knows what she did. KR refused to take accountability for drunk driving and leaving her boyfriend to die in a cold blizzard.

But what was her plan then originally? If she knew she did it but wasn’t going to take responsibility for hitting JOK why raise the alarm herself at all? Why not distance herself from the start by waiting for someone else to unfortunately but incidentally find JOK, call for help, talk to LE and other first responders and then lie and act distraught, suggest he got hit by plow or drunk driver and deny having any idea about where he was or what happened to him when informed that JOK was found prone, hypothermic and fatally injured on the lawn? Why tell others you got in argument right before, you were intoxicated and show then show them the broken headlight? Why put suspicion on yourself and also provide multiple witnesses, including LE and EMT, with incriminating evidence, a motive and a confession of ‘I did it, I did it, I did it’? She was not obliged to do any of this at all and if her plan is to get away with murder, why give the any helpful information or statements those that can help prosecutors win the case? If this was all part of some grand plan or scheme she was able in her condition to think of why not also call a lawyer first before ever even called for help from his friends and family since she wasn’t obliged going to incriminate herself anyway? This just all seems odd or contradictory to her end goal if she did hit JOK, knew so and then planned to get away with it or not take any responsibility at all.

JMO/JMT

 

[turaj]

i have skimmed thru so many comments since I was last here and just am wondering where we are in jury selection? Are we on for trial starting next Monday? Thanks.

 

[minor4th]

i have skimmed thru so many comments since I was last here and just am wondering where we are in jury selection? Are we on for trial starting next Monday? Thanks.

They have 16 jurors seated, and I think they’re continuing on Monday to try to get one or two more jurors. Possibly opening statements Tuesday?

 

[turaj]

They have 16 jurors seated, and I think they’re continuing on Monday to try to get one or two more jurors. Possibly opening statements Tuesday?

are they going to be taking Fridays off? Thanks for the update. They went faster than I thought and I will admit being a skeptic especially in this trial I think it is highly likely that at least one or two got on with an agenda. I expect as this trial goes on to have jury issues.

 

[minor4th]

My first post about this case- I am convinced Proctor had someone plant pieces of tail light on the 29th because Karen’s tail light was more or less intact when she left John’s driveway at 5:08 a.m. The tail light is red all the way across.

Brennan’s reference to “white light shining through” is a red herring. Under no circumstances would white light be shining through because the actual LED lights in the tail light are red. There are no white bulbs, as Brennan suggested. So whatever white was seen on his video was either some kind of artifact or the result of tampering with the video.

By mid-day Proctor was sure Karen hit John, based on Jen’s statement (and his bias in favor of the Albert’s) but there was no physical evidence and no eyewitnesses to Karen hitting John. So he made sure there was something to implicate Karen by manufacturing evidence and having it placed at the scene.

I don’t know what happened to John - but the people inside the house know more than what they have disclosed. If they had nothing to hide, then we wouldn’t see all the changing testimony, destruction of cell phones, deleted messages, butt dials, and overall shady behavior by nearly everyone in the house.

They were all so drunk (including Karen and John) most of them probably have no clear recollection of what happened. They’re all trying to recreate a narrative based off of data from text messages and phone calls.

As far as the 2:27 a.m. google search, I’ve never seen a cellebrite report show a search at a particular time that wasn’t accurate. I’ve never even seen an attorney question the reliability of times generated in a cellebrite report. Occam’s razor - it seems more likely than not that the search happened at that time. Why? Who knows what exactly was happening at that time and whether Jen would even remember it?

And finally, John’s injuries could not have possibly happened the way the CW has theorized.

 

[minor4th]

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

The CW reconstructionist for this trial is only slightly better than Trp Paul.

 

[LvsAMystry]

He reported to the court what had been reported to him. That the juror concerned was recorded at an event misconducting herself/himself discussing the case. Of course he had to act on those reports. Other Dedham police officers reported it also.

Judge Cannone did say he had no contact with the jurors, which by definition means he wasn't there.

Ah yes, phantom “other” police officers who presented conveniently to Fanning at a critical moment just before deliberations in the 1st trial and thus allowing Fanning to “report” the errant Read leaning juror for misconduct and dismissal. I suppose it would’ve been better if Cannone had granted Defense’ request back then to corroborate these phantom police officers rather than rely on Fanning’s third party reporting, but of course she didn’t allow.

 

[Tortoise]

What about the snow plower with his bright headlights? IIRC, he testified to regularly checking the roads and the areas around them for hazards while he worked and was confident in his recall that JOK was not there, lying on that spot near curb and flag pole, when he plowed past there at 2:30/2:45 that morning.

RSBM

That's a flaw in the defense case right there. Loughran not seeing a body between 2.30/2.45am, after JMc allegedly searched how long to die in the cold at 2.27am.

I don't put stock in any of the witnesses who said they didn't see John lying there. It's more accurate to say they didn't notice anything, because people are positioned differently, moving differently, generally distracted by their own thoughts, perhaps their own intoxication, conversations, and any one of a hundred other sights and lights, and not focused on one specific spot, searching for a body lying on the ground at night and in those weather conditions. Our eyes don't take in every aspect of a landscape, I might be standing in front of a vista of beautiful hills but noticing the clouds in the sky, or one bird.