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

[jepop]

No. 33 Fairview Rd is shown with the white door on the left. It's almost directly opposite No. 34.
It looks very well positioned to see comings and goings of cars, the driveway and very likely the front door of 34 Fairview Road.

It's hard to believe that "nothing of importance" was found in that footage.
Actually it's easier to believe that the footage showed nothing that suited the narrative of JOK being struck by a Lexus.

View attachment 580189

In the satellite image below, I've shown a Ring Doorbell Camera field of view (150* - 160*)
Yellow Dot shows the Street Light
Blue Dot shows the Flag Pole.

You can be the judge whether you think that view would be sufficient to see JOK or a Lexus.

View attachment 580194

I know that the lack of securing the footage from no. 33 has already been discussed a lot in prior threads but thanks for taking the time to post up the location via Google again.

That cam surely would have recorded most if not all of the vehicle comings and goings that night especially in the road area around 34's driveway? And as you suggest imo possibly an even wider scope. Regardless, any footage could have and moo likely would have been invaluable for the timeline. Moo

Taking the cop home owner's word that there was nothing of import/interest seems to me like just one more incidence of an unprofessional, incompetent investigation. That cop wasn't part of the investigating team and his footage should have been taken and examined as would happen with any other civilian. Jmo

 

[Tortoise]

No. 33 Fairview Rd is shown with the white door on the left. It's almost directly opposite No. 34.
It looks very well positioned to see comings and goings of cars, the driveway and very likely the front door of 34 Fairview Road.

It's hard to believe that "nothing of importance" was found in that footage.
Actually it's easier to believe that the footage showed nothing that suited the narrative of JOK being struck by a Lexus.

View attachment 580189

In the satellite image below, I've shown a Ring Doorbell Camera field of view (150* - 160*)
Yellow Dot shows the Street Light
Blue Dot shows the Flag Pole.

You can be the judge whether you think that view would be sufficient to see JOK or a Lexus.

View attachment 580194

From what I can find about ring doorbell cameras, their maximum distance is typically 30 feet, and can be less in poor weather conditions. The door of no.33 to the flagpole clearly exceeds that. Even the front door of 34 exceeds that distance.

MOO

For example -

"Your Doorbell is designed to detect people approaching your door or entering your property. However, you don’t want to be constantly informed about passers-by on the sidewalk or passing cars. The area in which the infrared sensors operate is therefore focused where relevant movement is expected.

These are the ranges of the different Ring Video Doorbells:

• Generation 1: 1 m up to 10 m
• Generation 2: 1.50 m up to 9 m
• Generation 3 and 4: 1.5 m up to 5 m

Ring Doorbell 3 and 4 monitor the smallest area. For most homes, this is quite sufficient. Thus, irrelevant movements are recorded less often."
Ring Doorbell(s) Field of View | Distances & Angles

 

[MerlinFalcon]

From what I can find about ring doorbell cameras, their maximum distance is typically 30 feet, and can be less in poor weather conditions. The door of no.33 to the flagpole clearly exceeds that. Even the front door of 34 exceeds that distance.

MOO

We’ll never know. That’s the whole problem. He could have forwarded the video to the cops and let them decide but then again, who trusts them? It’s just one corrupt mess.

 

[Tortoise]

We’ll never know. That’s the whole problem. He could have forwarded the video to the cops and let them decide but then again, who trusts them? It’s just one corrupt mess.

30 feet seems to be the maximum range.

MOO

 

[MerlinFalcon]

From ring.com

“Look for high-traffic areas: The standard maximum detection range for Ring devices is 30 feet, but larger objects in the distance, such as vehicles, can still cause a motion alert. Note any high-traffic areas, such as busy streets or sidewalks. If you receive too many motion alerts from your Ring device, you can adjust your Motion Zones to exclude these areas”

I don’t have a ring camera. For anyone that does, can you tell if something beyond 30 feet is visible? Do we know for sure that his camera was a ring camera or could it have been another brand?

 

[Tortoise]

From ring.com

“Look for high-traffic areas: The standard maximum detection range for Ring devices is 30 feet, but larger objects in the distance, such as vehicles, can still cause a motion alert. Note any high-traffic areas, such as busy streets or sidewalks. If you receive too many motion alerts from your Ring device, you can adjust your Motion Zones to exclude these areas”

I don’t have a ring camera. For anyone that does, can you tell if something beyond 30 feet is visible? Do we know for sure that his camera was a ring camera or could it have been another brand?

I don't have one either, but I would surely change my settings if it was detecting and alerting me every time a car went past or my neighbor across the street opened their front door or went out in their car or walked to their mailbox.

It's not like a CCTV that provides constant footage, it's motion activated.

MOO

 

[Spectrix]

I don’t have a ring camera. For anyone that does, can you tell if something beyond 30 feet is visible?

This is an example from a Ring Doorbell Camera. Based on the size of the Gentleman on the path, I can estimate that the black Audi behind him might be 12ft (4m) away?
I estimate the apartments across the road to be perhaps 100ft (30m). They're clearly visible in the footage, but perhaps not within range to trigger if it's motion activated.

 

[Tortoise]

This is an example from a Ring Doorbell Camera.

View attachment 580198

That's because it's detected movement of the individual within the range which activates the camera.

If that guy wasn't there it wouldn't be filming the houses opposite at that time.

MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Recorded last night.
Posted this morning.

 

[jepop]

This is an example from a Ring Doorbell Camera.

View attachment 580198

Thanks for this image. Imo, as cars passed before pulling up at no 34, a ring doorbell camera would be alerted. Distance between the road and door is less than 30 feet imo...but anyway, this shows that the range when activated is more than 30 ft...

The important point is this imo:
If investigators had been at all minimally competent and in this instance impartial/unbias they would have collected the footage and examined it themselves instead of taking a fellow retired cop's word for it. 30 ft/ activation etc equals distraction from the real issue here. Moo

 

[Spectrix]

The important point is this imo:
If investigators had been at all minimally competent and in this instance impartial/unbias they would have collected the footage and examined it themselves instead of taking a fellow retired cop's word for it. 30 ft/ activation etc equals distraction from the real issue here. Moo

Exactly right. It was not the homeowners decision to make whether or not he thought any footage was useful.

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks for this image. Imo, as cars passed before pulling up at no 34, a ring doorbell camera would be alerted. Distance between the road and door is less than 30 feet imo...but anyway, this shows that the range when activated is more than 30 ft...

The important point is this imo:
If investigators had been at all minimally competent and in this instance impartial/unbias they would have collected the footage and examined it themselves instead of taking a fellow retired cop's word for it. 30 ft/ activation etc equals distraction from the real issue here. Moo

It's hardly a distraction if KR's Lexus reversing up by the flagpole, or even John being carried out to the lawn by the flagpole, wouldn't have activated no.33's ring camera because it was much further than 30 feet away. That was the assertion, that it would have captured those activities because it was within the angle of the camera.

 

[waldojabba]

No. 33 Fairview Rd is shown with the white door on the left. It's almost directly opposite No. 34.
It looks very well positioned to see comings and goings of cars, the driveway and very likely the front door of 34 Fairview Road.

It's hard to believe that "nothing of importance" was found in that footage.
Actually it's easier to believe that the footage showed nothing that suited the narrative of JOK being struck by a Lexus.

View attachment 580189

In the satellite image below, I've shown a Ring Doorbell Camera field of view (150* - 160*)
Yellow Dot shows the Street Light
Blue Dot shows the Flag Pole.

You can be the judge whether you think that view would be sufficient to see JOK or a Lexus.

View attachment 580194

My neighbor asked me as a favor to get a ring camera for this very reason. My house ia across the street from hers/ similar to the positioning shown here. Her husband and she were divorcing and he was not allowed at the house. My ring camera caught his truck parked in front of their house as well as pictures of him entering their house. He mistakenig thought that since she did not have a camera he was home free - not so much. If you have a ring camera you know their range and what they pick up. Of course you want to see who is in your neighborhood - this is not the city these are the suburbs.
Esp if you are keeping your eye on delivered packages /and potential porch pirates ! JMO

 

[jepop]

It's hardly a distraction if KR's Lexus reversing up by the flagpole, or even John being carried out to the lawn by the flagpole, wouldn't have activated no.33's ring camera because it was much further than 30 feet away. That was the assertion, that it would have captured those activities because it was within the angle of the camera.

Your missing my point. Should have been taken and examined as part of the investigation into JO's death. That's the main point. Vehicles passing, time stamps. The rest is distraction. As another poster points out, we will never know as this is one more failure of the initial investigation. There are no excuses for investigators allowing their bias towards the homeowner being an ex cop to interfere with their job. Just like BA being a Boston cop across the road at no. 34. Period. Agree to disagree. Moo

 

[Forest_Wood]

JOK and KR had only recently met BA. BA testified that he had only met JOK twice, even though he knew JOK was a friend of his brother Kevin, his brother Chris, and Jen and Matt McCabe. BA described their relationship as "Although I didn't know him well, I considered him to be someone I could hang out with and have a fun time with." BA testified he had only met KR once before that night.

I wonder why suddenly JOK and KR began drinking more at bars with the Alberts after two years of dating. I can see why Karen wanted confirmation that they were invited back to the Albert home since it wasn't clear it was an explicit invitation and they didn't know them very well.

BA testified he too was driving his work vehicle, the Ford Edge, this night. He had left the Ford Edge at a satellite police station in another town, and flown to NYC. When he drove back to Canton with BH, he picked up the Ford Edge, which he drove straight to the bar to meet Higgins at about 21:30 where he began drinking and had nothing to eat. He then drove his work vehicle to the Waterfall, where he partied until midnight. Then he drove that same work vehicle home after his night of drinking and having fun.

And right around 46:20, he said BH left at around 01:30. After BH left, he went up to his bedroom and hung out. Others say BH left at before 12:30.

 

[Forest_Wood]

know that the lack of securing the footage from no. 33 has already been discussed a lot in prior threads but thanks for taking the time to post up the location via Google again.

It's worthwhile to revisit details unsurfaced in Trial 1. Especially when we are going to be hearing second testimonies from the same people in Trial 2. It's a good refresher of testimony IMO.

 

[arielilane]

One could just as easily say that many of us have looked very closely at the facts. And what stands out isn’t a ‘conspiracy theory’, but a series of bizarre and unexplained choices made by people at 34 Fairview and by the officers involved. The car strike theory has never been conclusively proven with forensics, and the sequence of events that night leaves major gaps that demand scrutiny.

It’s not about a “perfect investigation.” It’s about an investigation that preserved evidence properly, avoided conflicts of interest, and followed basic standards.
Thats not a high bar. That’s the bare minimum. And yes, despite the emotional appeals implying that asking for due process means letting “drunk killers” roam free, I actually do believe in the U.S. Constitution and the laws that guarantee every citizen the right to a fair trial. That includes people you might not like. If that’s too radical an idea, the issue isn’t with the defense, but with different ideas of what ‘justice’ means to us.

Reasonable doubt isn’t about liking Karen Read. It’s about the legal burden of proof when someone’s life is on the line.

MOO.

Where did I say I did not like KR? Please do not make assumptions about my post. TIA I am an advocate for justice; and I simply believe the defendant’s own words. Critical thinking works best for me. She made many confessions, which will be used against her in trial.

Defendant Karen Read is the only person accused in the murder of Officer John O’Keefe's death and for good reason.


KR said, I hit him! I hit him! I hit him! First responders testified to her statements.



Why think you hit him, if you saw him go into the house?


KR: I didn’t think I hit him, hit him but could I have clipped him? Could Ive tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him, he didn’t look mortally wounded as far as I could seebut could I have done something that knocked him out in his drunkenness and in the cold didn’t come to again

DM: And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party

KR: Yeah, yes, it would have had to have been

Matter of opinion

Justice for Officer John O'Keefe

Arraignment

 

[Spectrix]

Why think you hit him, if you saw him go into the house


KR: I didn’t think I hit him, hit him but could I have clipped him? Could Ive tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him, he didn’t look mortally wounded as far as I could seebut could I have done something that knocked him out in his drunkenness and in the cold didn’t come to again

DM: And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party

KR: Yeah, yes, it would have had to have been

So this is after Proctor's team had railroaded KR with their so called indisputable evidence that her vehicle had run JOK down?

This "confession" is as meaningless as their excuse for evidence.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Where did I say I did not like KR? Please do not make assumptions about my post. TIA I am an advocate for justice; and I simply believe the defendant’s own words. Critical thinking works best for me. She made many confessions, which will be used against her in trial.

Defendant Karen Read is the only person accused in the murder of Officer John O’Keefe's death and for good reason.


KR said, I hit him! I hit him! I hit him! First responders testified to her statements.



Why think you hit him, if you saw him go into the house?


KR: I didn’t think I hit him, hit him but could I have clipped him? Could Ive tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him, he didn’t look mortally wounded as far as I could seebut could I have done something that knocked him out in his drunkenness and in the cold didn’t come to again

DM: And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party

KR: Yeah, yes, it would have had to have been

Matter of opinion

Justice for Officer John O'Keefe

Arraignment

Whether someone says they dislike a defendant or just repeatedly implies it doesn’t really change the point. Everyone is entitled to due process and a fair trial. That’s the constitutional baseline.

Also, let’s be precise: the phrase “I hit him” was attributed to Karen Read by others, notably Jennifer McCabe, who has credibility issues of her own. Karen herself maintains she said “Could I have hit him?”, which is a fundamentally different, and reasonable, question for someone in shock trying to process a traumatic event without all the facts. That’s not a confession, that’s a human reaction to a shocking situation.

Plenty of defendants have said alarming things under duress. This is why we have forensic evidence, proper investigations, and trials. And that’s exactly why so many are troubled by the mishandled evidence, broken chain of custody, and high strangeness at 34 Fairview. Reasonable doubt isn’t an opinion, it’s the legal standard. And in this case, there simply is not EBARD.

All MOO.

 

[Derph]

I didn't even realize Jen McCabe had an attorney. I thought it was just Higgins since his attorney was in the courtroom and he was allowed to stop testifying to take a break to consult with his attorney too. Unbelievable and very interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

They ALL got lawyers. Protor, Colin Albert, Brian Albert, Jen, etc.