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

[Amber29]

It’s wild to me that they are even trying to get a murder 1 conviction. If she hit him and that’s a big if, I don’t think it was intentional. This is all imo but if she hit him purposely and left him to die in the cold, why did she call him 50 times leaving super hateful messages? Why at 4:30am was she raising the alarm looking for him and declaring to anyone that would listen “I hit him?” None of that makes sense for someone who committed murder. I can 100% understand why the first jury was unanimous for acquittal of the murder charges but hung on the vehicular charge. I could maybe understand she accidentally hit him, drunk and didn’t realize but there is reasonable doubt even for that for me. This case is just crazy.

 

[bobbymkii]

It’s wild to me that they are even trying to get a murder 1 conviction. If she hit him and that’s a big if, I don’t think it was intentional. This is all imo but if she hit him purposely and left him to die in the cold, why did she call him 50 times leaving super hateful messages? Why at 4:30am was she raising the alarm looking for him and declaring to anyone that would listen “I hit him?” None of that makes sense for someone who committed murder. I can 100% understand why the first jury was unanimous for acquittal of the murder charges but hung on the vehicular charge. I could maybe understand she accidentally hit him, drunk and didn’t realize but there is reasonable doubt even for that for me. This case is just crazy.

she's not charged with 1st degree, she's charged with 2nd degree murder.

 

[thebedbug]

It’s wild to me that they are even trying to get a murder 1 conviction. If she hit him and that’s a big if, I don’t think it was intentional. This is all imo but if she hit him purposely and left him to die in the cold, why did she call him 50 times leaving super hateful messages? Why at 4:30am was she raising the alarm looking for him and declaring to anyone that would listen “I hit him?” None of that makes sense for someone who committed murder. I can 100% understand why the first jury was unanimous for acquittal of the murder charges but hung on the vehicular charge. I could maybe understand she accidentally hit him, drunk and didn’t realize but there is reasonable doubt even for that for me. This case is just crazy.

Isn't it murder 2 they are after?

Whether or not the CW can do it, I think they would just need to prove she hit him with malice (not premeditation).

 

[Amber29]

she's not charged with 1st degree, she's charged with 2nd degree murder.

Oh I’m sorry 2nd degree murder either way, they are saying intentional. Which I strongly disagree with there being any prove of.

 

[Amber29]

Isn't it murder 2 they are after?

Whether or not the CW can do it, I think they would just need to prove she hit him with malice (not premeditation).

Yes murder 2 I apologize. No premeditation for sure but I don’t even think they can get a murder conviction at all. This case never should’ve been charged this way. Manslaughter, sure.

 

[LvsAMystry]

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

I’ve heard the prosecution has switched up their witness list the past three days likely as an attempt to catch defense unprepared for certain witnesses. Hence why the witness order has been so weird. Prosecution has now been ordered to present their witness list to both the court and defense 24 hours in advance.

 

[thebedbug]

Oh I’m sorry 2nd degree murder either way, they are saying intentional. Which I strongly disagree with there being any prove of.

They haven't completed the trial, but her slamming the car in reverse would be some proof and then, if the jury believes the evidence shows she knew or had a good idea she hit him, would go a long ways towards that charge.

Reality may be that it was a drunken moment of rage/loss of control, which she quickly regretted, but I don't think that prevents it from being 2nd degree murder.

Wouldn't surprise me if she was convicted of the lesser charge only.

 

[Amber29]

They haven't completed the trial, but her slamming the car in reverse would be some proof and then, if the jury believes the evidence shows she knew or had a good idea she hit him, would go a long ways towards that charge.

Reality may be that it was a drunken moment of rage/loss of control, which she quickly regretted, but I don't think that prevents it from being 2nd degree murder.

Wouldn't surprise me if she was convicted of the lesser charge only.

Sure they haven’t completed “this” trial but she should’ve been acquitted of the murder charge in the first trial. Huge error there.

 

[LvsAMystry]

There is no proof of a dog bite. Why insist there is?

One person testified it looked to her like a dog bite/marks. If there was solid proof, this case would be open and shut done. It's similar to the 'hos long...' search. If that was incontrovertibly proven to have been made at 2:27AM - there would've been no 2nd trial.

There’s no real proof of a vehicle hitting JOK either. Conjecture just like dog bites.

 

[danielleray500]

she's not charged with 1st degree, she's charged with 2nd degree murder.

Even second degree has to show malice

Yes murder 2 I apologize. No premeditation for sure but I don’t even think they can get a murder conviction at all. This case never should’ve been charged this way. Manslaughter, sure.

Agreed.. murder 2 they have to show malice...

 

[KSwizzle]

If the dog had nothing to do with it why did they get rid of it and then not give access to the dog, it would literally be inconsequential and the prosecution would say, yes, here’s the dog take whatever bite marks etc, dna you need

And I’m not even sure if the dog did have anything to do with it, it is just another potentially shady action by LE moo

 

[thebedbug]

If the dog had nothing to do with it why did they get rid of it and then not give access to the dog, it would literally be inconsequential and the prosecution would say, yes, here’s the dog take whatever bite marks etc, dna you need

And I’m not even sure if the dog did have anything to do with it, it is just another potentially shady action by LE moo

The dog was rehomed. Could it not have been for the exact reason they stated?

But, you'll be glad to know, Chloe lives (as of late 2024) and molds have been taking of her teeth and will be discussed in this trial.

Unless you are expecting the dog to testify, this should put that part of the conspiracy to rest.

 

[shotgun09]

The Alberts re-homed their dog, their home, and their phones.
They never came out of the house at 6 am !!

CW/ MSP response to the above?

"Pay no attention to the Man behind the Curtain".......

 

[KSwizzle]

The dog was rehomed. Could it not have been for the exact reason they stated?

But, you'll be glad to know, Chloe lives (as of late 2024) and molds have been taking of her teeth and will be discussed in this trial.

Unless you are expecting the dog to testify, this should put that part of the conspiracy to rest.

I agree it is “probably” the same dog, can we prove this?

It’s not a smoking gun or a huge I gotcha point, though originally they were not given access to the dog, but it is just another strike against how poorly this investigation and prosecution is/was moo

 

[thebedbug]

I agree it is “probably” the same dog, can we prove this?

It’s not a smoking gun or a huge I gotcha point, though originally they were not given access to the dog, but it is just another strike against how poorly this investigation and prosecution is/was moo

It's a message board, one can imagine anything they want.

I'd think the prosecution will offer some evidence establishing the dog's identity. Pictures? I don't know.

Of course, the defense, no doubt, has access to information about the dog, where it was rehomed to, who has it... maybe they will be called to the stand and implicated as additional liars and conspirators! Stay tuned.

 

[keek]

The dog was rehomed. Could it not have been for the exact reason they stated?

But, you'll be glad to know, Chloe lives (as of late 2024) and molds have been taking of her teeth and will be discussed in this trial.

Unless you are expecting the dog to testify, this should put that part of the conspiracy to rest.

Where is she rehomed? I know they said that but with all the butt dials all night and deleted texts which were uncovered, one takes nothing as truth.

 

[shotgun09]

IMO, the 'moulds' of Chloes bite will not be allowed in to the trial. There is no proven and acceptable scientific method regarding animal bite moulds allowed by courts across this country. The CW knows this as well. But somehow Judge C has allowed the appearance of a gotcha by them. The dude will fall flat upon questioning during a long time needed voir dire.....whenever we get there.

And yes.....there is absolutely zero way to ensure that the same dog ( Chloe) was tested. Evidence is mute.

This was all smoke and mirrors by Hank Brennan, and allowed to proceed towards trial by Judge C. And, we all know it. MOO

 

[bobbymkii]

This is a part of the first trial that has really stuck with me through all of this. If the timestamp for the link doesn't work, jump to 2:48:00 in the video, and it takes place during a sidebar from Trooper Paul's Redirect.

The courtroom camera pans across the O'Keefe family bench. Look at their faces. They look like they're sat behind home plate at Fenway just after Aaron Judge has crushed a grand slam home run over the green monster in game 7 of the ALCS, almost certainly sending the Yankees to the World Series and the left the Red Sox' dreams in tatters.

Except this isn't a ball game. They may be spectators but this is no spectator sport. They can't just go home and turn up for opening day next April and hope for better luck this season. This is about justice for their son/brother who died in apalling circumstances.

Have we seen anything so far in this retrial that suggests this is going to end up better for the O'Keefes?

 

[Angelwatch]

The dog was rehomed. Could it not have been for the exact reason they stated?

But, you'll be glad to know, Chloe lives (as of late 2024) and molds have been taking of her teeth and will be discussed in this trial.

Unless you are expecting the dog to testify, this should put that part of the conspiracy to rest.

As stated in the first trial, molds can’t be reliably used to match to dog bites. So it’s basically useless. The CW probably found someone to testify that it’s reliable, but the literature goes against that according to Dr Russell.

 

[thebedbug]

As stated in the first trial, molds can’t be reliably used to match to dog bites. So it’s basically useless. The CW probably found someone to testify that it’s reliable, but the literature goes against that according to Dr Russell.

Molds aren't useful, but staring at some pictures is. Ok.

Given that the dog can't testify, and I am pretty sure if she could, some would say she's in on it... please tell me what on planet Earth is a valid piece of evidence or evaluation of the pictures of JO's arm, other than that woman's opinion or, I'm guessing, someone that agrees with her?