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.
The prosecution has several points they’re are relying on:
-Witness testimony of Karen allegedly either saying ‘I did it’ or ‘I hit him’ - However, Karen maintains she said ‘Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?’
-Broken taillight fragments matching Read’s SUV were found near John O’Keefe’s body, with some pieces reportedly containing his DNA (DNA evidence links Karen Read's car to death of police officer, prosecutors say) - However, chain of custody on the taillight pieces has led to major question regarding the integrity of the evidence.
-Motive: The prosecution suggests Karen has motive to kill John because she was angry with him regarding relationship issues and drunk.
-Kerry Robert’s testimony, who just testified yesterday, was a key point of trial 1. She says Karen called her and said ‘John is dead’ before anyone saw the body. The prosecution claims this is evidence that Karen was aware she had struck John.
-Timing: the prosecution claims the window of time where O’Keefe could have left the car and been fatally struck is consistent with their version of events.

What’s not in their favor:
-No one saw Karen hit John, and there’s no surveillance footage of the incident.
-No blood, hair, or tissue were found on Karen’s car.
-No tire marks, bumper damage, or body dents on the car that would be consistent with a fatal strike.
-John’s wounds can’t be said to certainly have been caused by a car strike
-The lead investigator, Proctor, was just dishonorably discharged and fired for misconduct.
A hair was found on the rear panel of the Lexus and tested to be consistent by mitochondrial DNA (95% confidence). The DNA found on the tail light housing was tissue residue and tested by nuclear DNA method to extreme confidence to match JOK.

As a matter of common sense, IMO, there is no specific level of vehicle damage that corresponds to "fatal strike" when the the fatal strike isn't with the vehicle itself but with a hard surface contacted by the back of the skull.

The prosecution is alleging more than a time window consistent with JOK's being struck. It will present data from the Lexus's own tracking information indicating the vehicle reversing for a significant distance at high speed. It will also present data from JOK's phone alleged to be consistent with JOK remaining in the same spot at which he exited KR's vehicle, for the rest of the night, on top of his phone.

The tail light pieces, though, are the case, IMO. If the snowstorm hadn't come along to bury them, the train of events we have witnessed would never have gotten rolling, because there would never have been a serious effort to deny the most evident significance of those pieces.
 
Is it necessary to ask so many personal/background questions of the witnesses? Specifically, career history, address history, marital history etc.?
 
This arrangement of testimony's by CW's witnesses is crazy !

We go from Nuttall the paramedic, to Kerry Roberts the driver and witness, to Peggy O'Keefe grieving mother, to now the Celibrite phone dude ( To state Jen McCabe never made the 2:27 am search " Hos long to die in the cold". ??????

sprinkled between the witnesses are 10 second media clips of KR speaking ( Taken completely out of context )

The defense is puzzled...as am I

Where's the beef? Brennan?
 
You all are amazing. This is very helpful. I'm trying to figure out the case players now.
Is there a list of who is who in this case I can refer to?
Thanks again.
Tricia
A lot of information on this site
 
Do we actually know this to be a fact (all 12 jurors agree on this), or is this a pro-Read partisan assertion?
This has not been officially recognized by the court. But it is being claimed by the defense.

Five jurors have spoken to the defense and said that if they had understood the verdict form correctly, they would have acquitted on murder and leaving the scene of a collision causing death. Karen Read’s lawyers say a fifth juror has confirmed the jury was a unanimous ‘not guilty’ on murder charge

According to the defense/jurors, they were deadlocked on the motor vehicular manslaughter while driving under the influence. The jurors say they weren’t sure if they were allowed to inform the judge of the NG verdict on those two charges.
 
Is the other female at the defense table the juror from the first trial that they added to their payroll?
NO. That is one of her regular attorneys Elizabeth Little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
510
Total visitors
585

Forum statistics

Threads
625,548
Messages
18,505,952
Members
240,811
Latest member
NJbystander
Back
Top