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

[Wishbone]

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

It's hard to not get emotional when watching the calls this judge is making.

 

[Wishbone]

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

Seems there was a mix up or problem with the cw witnesses that were to be there today. If it had been the defense in that situation we would have never heard the end of it. JMOO

 

[rescuemom]

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

What ARCCA cannot do is say how John reacted and moved.

ARCCA was NOT asked how John reacted and moved. They were asked if A could produce B or if B was a result of A and the answer to both was NO. Why do you think the CW doesn't want them to testify???

 

[RatFace]

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.

Did the Prosecution give specifics as to how the SUV caused the head trauma? The car made contact with his head or it was from impact with the ground?

 

[Seattle1]

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

This is Day-3 of the CW/State's case in chief and they had no more witnesses to call today. This is on Brennan...

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

What ARCCA cannot do is say how John reacted and moved.

ARCCA was NOT asked how John reacted and moved. They were asked if A could produce B or if B was a result of A and the answer to both was NO. Why do you think the CW doesn't want them to testify???

Preaching to the choir

 

[rescuemom]

Did we see these texts in the first trial?

I don't remember these specific texts read by this witness or any other. These today IMO, showed the frustration from JOK to parenting, to his father and to KR. He was having a frustrating day. It showed KR to be understanding and a willingness to be cooperative with him. It indicated maybe past conversations but no argument. Maybe a difference of opinion about her plumber, her water heater and if she was staying the weekend because of the snow but no argument.

Not victim blaming but to me John came across to me as controlling. She's an adult with her own home, she can handle it. What do we really know about JOKs behavior, personality and attitude in the realtionship??? I wonder what was the point of the reading of them at all. Busy work, IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915391609048306172

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915392123408429258

 

[rescuemom]

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.

ARCCA was not asked to do any of this.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Seems there was a mix up or problem with the cw witnesses that were to be there today. If it had been the defense in that situation we would have never heard the end of it. JMOO

They would have been forced to move along with their case without the witnesses

 

[rescuemom]

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??"

Agree and yet not once have I heard an objection about hearsay unless I missed it. Defense will straighten it out though.

 

[rescuemom]

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.

If they don't know then they need to say they don't know, not try to join in the popular narrative or an impression.

 

[mrjitty]

Agree and yet not once have I heard an objection about hearsay unless I missed it. Defense will straighten it out though.

Statements by the defendant are generally admissible under the party opponent exception. That's why the witnesses can say what she saying. There are also other exceptions which may apply.

Party admission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I don’t know why KR’s lawyers let her do these interviews unless there is some kind of strategy that is way beyond me. She could have done them afterward, not during.

 

[rescuemom]

Why did they let her do those interview?

Why did the judge allow these videos shown in CW case?? To me it's a distraction and interfers with her right and decision to testify. I saw many of her interviews and haven't seen anything that would incriminate her. I also watched the 1st trial. Were they word for word or verbatim, no. To me they are more believable that way and it is in her own words, her side of it all as she remembers it depending on the question asked. Hasn't every civilian testified as to how they remembered it ??

For instance her description of the 9 vodka drinks. She explained how the drinks she ordered were weak and at JOKs suggestion, she added a portion of another shot to one or more. She also explained that the last 2 drinks at the Waterfall were hardly touched as she was socializing with different people and left the drink at another table. IF drunk driving is so important to this case, they should ask everyone who admitted to driving drunk and have evidence to prove their answer.

What about BA and BH drinking all day long and driving from city to city AND then furnishing drinks to underage kids at a house party.

 

[rescuemom]

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

And yet she was criticized for retreiving her personal items and her vehicle from JOKs house.

 

[rescuemom]

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

Wonder if the jury knows that the house at 34 Fairview has an new owner, probly not yet. Judge C breaks or dismisses right before defence cross.

 

[rescuemom]

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.

The defence theory is that he was beaten! There is proof of a dog bite.

 

[SubtlePseudonym]

Best way to beat a murder rap, have an unlimited budget to find attitude bias in witness and investigators… so the jury looks at that and not the evidence. Karen Read = OJ.

 

[rescuemom]

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.

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.

Probably the only conclusion she could come to after seeing him nearly dead in the snow. How could she think of a reality that he was beaten by so called friends and brother officers, carried to the front yard of a homeowner who then had no interest at all in the scene that was taking place and then left to die. It was unimaginable to her.