MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #21 Retrial

[Bishop Black]

Professor Was Accused of Hitting Cop Boyfriend with Car, Leaving Him to Die. Does New Evidence Exonerate Her?

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

people.com

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the January 2022 death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe outside a Canton, Mass., home.

She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Leading up to his death, the couple of two years reportedly spent the night drinking and bar hopping with friends before Read, 43, dropped O'Keefe, 46, off at the home of a fellow off-duty police officer for an after-party, PEOPLE previously reported.

Prosecutors say as O'Keefe exited the vehicle, Read allegedly proceeded to make a three-point turn during a winter storm, striking her boyfriend in the process before driving off.

After O'Keefe failed to return home hours later, Read allegedly went looking for him, before finding his body in a snowbank outside the home where she allegedly left him.

Thread #1Thread #2 Thread #3Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20

 

[Knitty]

Please review Best Practices - Dealing with your fellow posters.

Once you've done that, please continue here.

 

[Linda7NJ]

ARCCA's testing focused on two primary scenarios:

1. whether John’s head was struck by the vehicle
2. whether the taillight damage could have resulted from glass traveling at 30 mph using a potato gun.

They did not consider the possibility John was hit by the car, projected - got up & fell backwards and died as a result.

Variable factors like impact speed, angle, or the body's position and movement post-impact or weather conditions were not considered at all.

I’m so hoping this time around this is addressed by the prosecution with an expert than can explain actual physics & science & variables in easy to understand language for the jury.

All IMO

Edited to add - ARCCA didn’t have the evidence transfer evidence either.

 

[Tricia]

Please continue on this thread

 

[Tricia]

Please remember to scroll to the top of the thread and click on the video to watch the live stream of the Karen Read trial—no need to leave Websleuths to watch.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915078985681178998

 

[Spectrix]

ARCCA's testing focused on two primary scenarios:

1. whether John’s head was struck by the vehicle
2. whether the taillight damage could have resulted from glass traveling at 30 mph using a potato gun.

They did not consider the possibility John was hit by the car, projected - got up & fell backwards and died as a result.

Variable factors like impact speed, angle, or the body's position and movement post-impact or weather conditions were not considered at all.

I’m so hoping this time around this is addressed by the prosecution with an expert than can explain actual physics & science & variables in easy to understand language for the jury.

In the first trial, ARCCA explained the "actual physics & science" to the jury in language that was easy to understand, at least for anyone that graduated kindergarten.
They explained that JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle and that KR's SUV didn't strike a person.

JOK's body was not projected any discernable distance from an impact with a vehicle. Looking for ANY possible method that fits the narrative of KR causing JOK's death is not how evidenced-based accident investigation works.

 

[mrjitty]

@twhel

Bringing your post over

I reviewed Green's testimony and don't see it. On Lally's cross, Green defends his testimony from the contrary testimony of Whiffin by saying the same operating system wasn't used to test (because it wasn't available). Whiffin testified this made no difference and Green's defense came across as formalistic. This was also the only point I noticed Yannetti making on his cross of Whiffin. Nothing about Google server logs.

Hyde also supported Whiffin's testimony that the 2:27 timestamp didn't correspond to a search at all. Yannetti's cross of her was very brief (and nothing raised about Google logs). Thanks.

I also went back and listened to all the 2.27 search testimony a week ago - I found no reference to the server side logs. I think it's clear these are not in evidence, as if they were they would resolve the point.

Unless someone can provide an actual link to this evidence, I am assuming it does not exist.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

Bringing over @Seattle1 's excellent post

In most states, perjury involves lying and deliberately making false statements after taking an oath to testify truthfully. In other words, statements must be made willfully with knowledge of their falsity to qualify as perjury and can be difficult to prosecute.

Agreed. This was great lawyering by AJ and a good partial recovery from Brennan.

It's clear the result in the grand jury was a misstatement given the specific question asked, but it's not clear that the witness lied or attempted to mislead the jury as drawn out by Brennan on redirect, as she did not actually say she heard it. It seems she recounted hearsay. Lally probably should have cleaned it up with "you heard the defendant say ..." but maybe he simply missed it or didn't realise.

A nice example of back and forth from two top practitioners.

The Judge obviously got frustrated with AJ at the end when he intentionally overstepped the line and she closed it down - but he did get his final question in which showed good concentration to step back from the showboating (he drew a direction from the Judge to the jury that counsel's statements were not evidence) to land the final blow.

 

[Forest_Wood]

How could a person's phone end up underneath them while they're on their back? I could see if he was found lying on his stomach and the phone was in his hand and he falls on it. He was found lying straight out on his back according to KR. If a person was hit, and spun, wouldn't a cell phone be inclined to fly out of a hand or be dropped to the side?

 

[Tortoise]

In the first trial, ARCCA explained the "actual physics & science" to the jury in language that was easy to understand, at least for anyone that graduated kindergarten.
They explained that JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle and that KR's SUV didn't strike a person.

JOK's body was not projected any discernable distance from an impact with a vehicle. Looking for ANY possible method that fits the narrative of KR causing JOK's death is not how evidenced-based accident investigation works.

Didn't they admit they weren't aware of John's DNA being on the taillight and his hair on the bumper? IIRC

 

[iamshadow21]

How could a person's phone end up underneath them while they're on their back? I could see if he was found lying on his stomach and the phone was in his hand and he falls on it. He was found lying straight out on his back according to KR. If a person was hit, and spun, wouldn't a cell phone be inclined to fly out of a hand or be dropped to the side?

If it's in their back pocket, it could be underneath them. But then I'd expect it to be reported it was in a pocket.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

If it's in their back pocket, it could be underneath them. But then I'd expect it to be reported it was in a pocket.

MOO

If he switched his phone off immediately prior I think it would be a natural thing to put it away in his back pocket.

 

[rrsafety]

Didn't they admit they weren't aware of John's DNA being on the taillight and his hair on the bumper? IIRC

Yes, but it is irrelevant to the physics involved.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, but it is irrelevant to the physics involved.

Sounds like the physics is wrong to me.

 

[rrsafety]

Yesterday’s witness is a good example why the grand jury system is a crock. Because the defendant has no active representation in the court room, lies like KerR’s are allowed to go unchallenged. Given all the corrupt circumstances around this case and many others in Norfolk County, I am shocked there are folks on this forum who believe Lally not clarifying the lie was simply an innocent oversight. This issue was a critically important point in the case. If the google search was made in the 2 o’clock hour then Karen Read never gets indicted. Ooops?

 

[rrsafety]

Sounds like the physics is wrong to me.

The PhDs in physics would disagree with you.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I don't agree with Brennan when he's talking about consciousness of guilt because Karen removed her vehicle from John's place, which he describes as "the murder weapon". There had been zero talk of murder or that she was even a suspect at that time. The police had allowed Karen to leave the scene without charging her. So how could she be thinking of her vehicle as a murder weapon at that time? Karen wanted to simply collect all of her belongings that she had left at John's, including her vehicle. That would be a natural reaction. Also, from Peggy's testimony, how was it that she thought so early on that Karen was guilty of killing her son? Peggy didn't even talk to her when she entered the hospital, which was within a couple hours of finding the body. Where did Peggy get the idea that Karen was responsible? Wasn't Kerry the only person Peggy had been talking to at that point about the events?
MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Yesterday’s witness is a good example why the grand jury system is a crock. Because the defendant has no active representation in the court room, lies like KerR’s are allowed to go unchallenged. Given all the corrupt circumstances around this case and many others in Norfolk County, I am shocked there are folks on this forum who believe Lally not clarifying the lie was simply an innocent oversight. This issue was a critically important point in the case. If the google search was made in the 2 o’clock hour then Karen Read never gets indicted. Ooops?

Common sense tells me it wasn't conducted at 2am, and repeated later at 6am. The ambulance witness yesterday even confirmed that KR was asking the same question in the back of the ambulance.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Yesterday’s witness is a good example why the grand jury system is a crock. Because the defendant has no active representation in the court room, lies like KerR’s are allowed to go unchallenged. Given all the corrupt circumstances around this case and many others in Norfolk County, I am shocked there are folks on this forum who believe Lally not clarifying the lie was simply an innocent oversight. This issue was a critically important point in the case. If the google search was made in the 2 o’clock hour then Karen Read never gets indicted. Ooops?

I presume you are referring to me?

Seeing as I was not at the GJ and don't have the transcript, I have no idea what Lally knew or did not know. I think some allowance has to be made for complexity here.

It is quite possible the witness simply answered a different question than what was asked because she didn't pay attention properly. She is of course not an expert in what is hearsay and simply stated 'what happened at that point' (her words). Lally may not have been aware that she never actually heard it herself - that's a high level of detail about individual witness testimony that would be easy for him to miss.

In short it's not great but not of itself evidence of some wild conspiracy/corruption IMO