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

[justtrish]

I am realizing in this case that many things are really important to understand exactly what happened. Someone making a statement that they heard something is a big difference than someone saying they were told someone said something. Then making a statement that a person said XYZ as a fact or that person asked a question about IF this happened then... VERY different thing can be implied by each of these and in a case where nobody was a witness to exactly what did happen, all these little details really do matter. Just like "I hit him" or "did I hit him".. HUGE difference there... one is a statement of fact and the other is a question.

I can see why the defense is asking things the way they are. Seems many of these witnesses have told various things each step of the way and when the various statements can mean the difference in this trial, it's really important.

 

[detectivewannab]

Praying for justice.

 

[mzmarymac]

I am realizing in this case that many things are really important to understand exactly what happened. Someone making a statement that they heard something is a big difference than someone saying they were told someone said something. Then making a statement that a person said XYZ as a fact or that person asked a question about IF this happened then... VERY different thing can be implied by each of these and in a case where nobody was a witness to exactly what did happen, all these little details really do matter. Just like "I hit him" or "did I hit him".. HUGE difference there... one is a statement of fact and the other is a question.

I can see why the defense is asking things the way they are. Seems many of these witnesses have told various things each step of the way and when the various statements can mean the difference in this trial, it's really important.

I completely agree and, quite frankly, am surprised that people are dismissing this. There is a reason that hearsay is NOT allowed in testimony. That is exactly what this is and everyone who has even just watched legal shows knows this. And yes, it is a HUGE difference between hearing someone actually say something than hearing it was said from another person. Does KerR not realize she has likely been manipulated by her new friend? The same one that started a group chat to talk about her police interview that KerR didn't even realize JM could hear? She was literally eavesdropping on her. How does she not feel completely violated by this woman? There is also a huge difference between "I hit him" and "Did I hit him?" There is also a huge difference between "I hit him" and "I hit him??"

 

[rrsafety]

It is important for folks to remember that WBZ-TV news reported about JOK being hit by an SUV that there was a "video of the incident from a Ring doorbell camera”. Many witness interviews were tainted by that report because when they sat down with investigators they were under the impression there was video evidence of the event and that their testimony was simply in support of that presupposition. There is now no way to tease apart what their actual memories were of that night vs. what they told police under the mistaken assumption that it was already known on video to have been a hit and run by KR.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I'll take transfer DNA and hair evidence over a reconstruction put together by someone without all the information. What ARCCA cannot do is say how John reacted and moved. The taillight pieces tell the story.

And so does KR, when she said he didn't look mortally wounded to her.

MOO

And yet the state can't tell me how John reacted and moved. Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

A few things:

Defense tactics are same as first trial. Bully the witnesses...who are not on trial.
Jackson and Alessi do not need to yell.

She (KR) broke her taillight by hitting JOK at 12:30 am.
KR admits that her taillight was broken before returning to 34F at 6:00 am and finding JOK’s body under a mound of snow.

Video footage shown in court yesterday: KR comments about picking pieces off her SUV taillight that morning. She is worried about the wiring, bulb exposed and some of the red pieces.

Jackson must try to discredit KerR because the call to Kerry at 5:00 am from KR that John O'Keefe is dead is damning evidence (this is before JOK was found).

How did KR know JOK was left out in the cold all night without a coat?

moo

I've asked repeatedly and am never given an answer. How are defense attorneys supposed to act? Seems like you're expecting AJ to bring up a bouquet of roses and sprinkle sugar, gumdrops, and rainbows on prosecution witnesses.

 

[Tortoise]

And yet the state can't tell me how John reacted and moved. Funny how that works, isn't it?

True. But they can reconstruct events for the jury's consideration which uses all the data and evidence available, including DNA, hair, taillight pieces, his shoe and his cap buried under the snow, his phone movements and position under his body and battery temperature changes, the car reversing, and KR's many statements and questions to witnesses.

 

[Tricia]

Remember you can watch the livestream of the Karen Read trial here on Websleuths. Scroll to the top of this thread and hit play on the video. Post and watch the trial on Websleuths!

 

[CHEL]

Did we see these texts in the first trial?

 

[justtrish]

It is important for folks to remember that WBZ-TV news reported about JOK being hit by an SUV that there was a "video of the incident from a Ring doorbell camera”. Many witness interviews were tainted by that report because when they sat down with investigators they were under the impression there was video evidence of the event and that their testimony was simply in support of that presupposition. There is now no way to tease apart what their actual memories were of that night vs. what they told police under the mistaken assumption that it was already known on video to have been a hit and run by KR.

It's just still wild that anyone would change what they might say to police because they think there is a video of something happening. If I didn't see something, didn't hear someone say something, didn't have any idea what happened, I sure wouldn't tell LE I heard XYZ, or say anything that I didn't know first hand to be a fact. I would say, I don't know or I didn't see anything, I didn't hear anyone say that. It isn't difficult to just be truthful... Well unless you have some reason to lie or make up something because you think LE already has a video.

 

[waldojabba]

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

I think that Peggy may believe that just the fact that Karen left him at the party makes her guilty of anything and everythng that happened after that. Just the way she said the part about "you left him at the party?" like incredulous that Karen would leave without John - she did not even ask for context.
She just thinks it was Karen's job to wait for John.
Like if she hadn't left him at the party her Johnny would still be alive. My sense is that she never liked Karen - and thought she was trouble from the jump.
jmo

 

[nodamselindistress]

WTH?? Done for the day? The view scheduled for tomorrow.

 

[detectivewannab]

Why did they let her do those interview?

 

[justtrish]

As I am listening to these texts read in court, I just keep thinking and these are supposed to be 2 adults.. sounds like middle schoolers.

 

[Angelwatch]

As I am listening to these texts read in court, I just keep thinking and these are supposed to be 2 adults.. sounds like middle schoolers.

They did seem to have trouble communicating during the texts. Not sure if that represents their relationship or not. I was frustrated during the reading. Just pick up a phone and have a clear conversation.

 

[shotgun09]

As I am listening to these texts read in court, I just keep thinking and these are supposed to be 2 adults.. sounds like middle schoolers.

Very Thankful that Judge C decided against allowing Brennan to hire 'actors' to read the parts of KR and JOK 's text exchange. We could have had Brad Pitt and Meryl Streep doing their best !

 

[Spectrix]

True. But they can reconstruct events for the jury's consideration which uses all the data and evidence available, including DNA, hair, taillight pieces, his shoe and his cap buried under the snow, his phone movements and position under his body

They can do all that, but they can't explain why JOK didn't sustain any injuries consistant with being hit by a 6000 pound SUV.
Which is kind of the most important thing, isn't it?

Edit - and before you point it out, NO... a dog bitten arm is not consistent with being hit by a 6000 pound SUV. It's consistant with being bit by a dog.

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone
A few are getting a bit personal. Please respect others' opinions. It is just fine to disagree as long as you do so respectfully.
Tricia

 

[thebedbug]

They can do all that, but they can't explain why JOK didn't sustain any injuries consistant with being hit by a 6000 pound SUV.
Which is kind of the most important thing, isn't it?

Edit - and before you point it out, NO... a dog bitten arm is not consistent with being hit by a 6000 pound SUV. It's consistant with being bit by a dog.

Of course you can.

Getting hit by something doesn't mean you are hit by all 6000 lbs of it flush. The defense laid out the basics of their theory in the opening and I'm sure we'll hear more vs. the first trial.

The idea of dog bites on his arm - without any proof - is the stuff of fantasy.

 

[Tricia]

WTH?? Done for the day? The view scheduled for tomorrow.

Are they done for the day? If so, why?
Thanks,
Tricia