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

[waldojabba]

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

Yes, I sense that no matter what Karen did it was not right in Peggy's eyes. Damned if she did damned if she did not.
I watched a quick bit of John's friend on the stand today talk about two things he heard K and John fight about. Karen took the niece out to get her nails done and she called a plumber to fix something at John's house.
Now I cannot possibly know the context, but the friend indicated that the nails were perceived as spoiling the niece. Calling the plumber who you had to pay, when John knew a guy who knew a guy who was a plumber, well John was not happy about that or found it frivolous.
What I see is a woman who is trying to help, nuture and please people only to be denigrated.
Spending time with his niece - a lot of time - Karen was probably getting her nails done and brought the niece along - a little girls bonding - what does a kids mani cost in Canton $15-18?
You could spend as much on lunch at a fast food place in this area. And its Karen's money I imagine. And the plumber - maybe it was a recurrent problem and JOK never got around to calling his guy so she took the initiative and rectified things at his house.
Such small trivial things to make a big deal out.
It will be interesting to hear from John's father if he take s the stand.
Won't get us any closer to knowing who killed John - but most of these witnesses don't - they just help to paint a picture.
JMO

 

[Deleted member 246707]

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?

In the opening statement the prosecutor painted a picture of JO getting clipped by the car on the side, then hitting the back of his head on the ground.

I would think when we get to that point in the trial, they'll have some expert witnesses to back up that assertion. We'll see.

 

[Deleted member 246707]

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

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.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Time for the proverbial post....the defense doesn't have to prove anything!!!

 

[Tortoise]

Time for the proverbial post....the defense doesn't have to prove anything!!!

In law no, the defendant does not HAVE to prove anything, but practically they do, if they don't want the state's case to go to the jury as the only version.

That is why they are calling expert witnesses to the dog bites and ARCCA - to try to prove their version beyond lawyers just saying to the state witnesses they are wrong.

MOO

 

[Deleted member 246707]

So if she was your client, you would just let the witnesses tell lies and not try to prove it??

There's a couple of things.

1) Grand jury testimony and testimony given at trial years later is almost never going to be the same. It's a tactic that the defense will try to use to sew doubt, but... if the testimony was the same, the defense would then claim it's evidence of coached testimony. The judgement call is when and what the defense thinks will resonate with the jury.

2) Along those same lines - if you call everyone a liar, you risk the jury coming to the conclusion that no one is a liar. A more colorful way this was explained to me... if your defense is just to fling #$@% at a wall hoping something sticks, you risk the jury realizing it's all just...

 

[waldojabba]

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

The interesting thing about the hair from John is that there was no root iirc. It was just there lying on the bumper of K's car. And the car had traveled in a blizzard ( usually defined by high winds and snow). If I take the high road on this, lets say its very likely that the hair was secondary transfer from someone that had contact with John or even from John himself at any given time. IMO it means nothing.

Also re ARCCA, I know there are some science deniers here, which I respect, but ask yourself, if the ARCCA PHD's are just quacks with a nothing burger theory, why are we witnessing the absolutely dogged fight by Brennan to keep them from testifying?
And also remember ARCCA knew nothing about this case in little Canton MA or John and Karen and were hired independently by the FBI. Hard to see that ARCCA has any agenda but the facts.

All of course just IMO

 

[Bethlamb16]

I feel like if Karen thought she hit JOK she would have gotten out of the car immediately and gotten him help. She strikes me (whether drinking or not or whether mad at JOK or not) that she would get very loud and emotional about hitting him and get help. I find it hard to believe that she left this man knowing she hit him. If he was hit by her I don't think she realized she hit him. No matter what IMO there is so much reasonable doubt and the CPD is the blame for not doing their jobs. This is what happens with sloppy investigations and why there are standard operating procedures which they simply didn't follow.

 

[Tortoise]

The interesting thing about the hair from John is that there was no root iirc.

RSBM

There was a root. I re-watched the testimony just last week. The technician testified she was inexperienced at that time and didn't recognize the root until it was pointed out to her by her supervisor and she underwent additional training. I believe that is how they extracted the mitochondrial DNA from it. I also believe it was stuck to the bumper in the icy conditions.

MOO

eta - link to hair having root present

timestamp from 2.30.51

 

[Deleted member 246707]

Time for the proverbial post....the defense doesn't have to prove anything!!!

But, they do.

KR has no alibi, there is plenty of physical and circumstantial evidence to show she did it. The defense has to come up with some alternate theory that is plausible to the jury or she's cooked.

 

[bobbymkii]

The interesting thing about the hair from John is that there was no root iirc. It was just there lying on the bumper of K's car. And the car had traveled in a blizzard ( usually defined by high winds and snow).

RSBM

IIRC from Lally's closing argument, his explanation for how the hair managed to survive that treacherous journey was that the hair must have been frozen solid to the car.

I bet that was a real Archimedes moment for him when he came up with that!

 

[keek]

Yes, they didn't know who, just the body and vehicle and what was found at that time. They said not hit by a car. No agenda b ARCCA. The hair def was not on there by hitting JO, please. No root and just found laying there after retrieved from a distance through wind and snow and actual driving. Someone thought that was a good idea??? ARCCA has nothing to gain or allegiance as the others do.

 

[waldojabba]

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 idea of dog bites on his arm - without any proof - is the stuff of fantasy"
The picture of his arm has been posted many times - wondering what are you calling those injuries?

Using common sense mind you, stone cold sober, I compared that photo to photo's online of dog bites. That was BINGO moment for me - no fantasy invloved - the wounds really mimic those of dog bites.

JMO

 

[keek]

RSBM

IIRC from Lally's closing argument, his explanation for how the hair managed to survive that treacherous journey was that the hair must have been frozen solid to the car.

I bet that was a real Archimedes moment for him when he came up with that!

So absurd.

 

[keek]

"The idea of dog bites on his arm - without any proof - is the stuff of fantasy"
The picture of his arm has been posted many times - wondering what are you calling those injuries?

Using common sense mind you, stone cold sober, I compared that photo to photo's online of dog bites. That was BINGO moment for me - no fantasy invloved - the wounds really mimic those of dog bites.

JMO

Lots of those photos are identical pretty much, no brainer.

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, I sense that no matter what Karen did it was not right in Peggy's eyes. Damned if she did damned if she did not.
I watched a quick bit of John's friend on the stand today talk about two things he heard K and John fight about. Karen took the niece out to get her nails done and she called a plumber to fix something at John's house.
Now I cannot possibly know the context, but the friend indicated that the nails were perceived as spoiling the niece. Calling the plumber who you had to pay, when John knew a guy who knew a guy who was a plumber, well John was not happy about that or found it frivolous.
What I see is a woman who is trying to help, nuture and please people only to be denigrated.
Spending time with his niece - a lot of time - Karen was probably getting her nails done and brought the niece along - a little girls bonding - what does a kids mani cost in Canton $15-18?
You could spend as much on lunch at a fast food place in this area. And its Karen's money I imagine. And the plumber - maybe it was a recurrent problem and JOK never got around to calling his guy so she took the initiative and rectified things at his house.
Such small trivial things to make a big deal out.
It will be interesting to hear from John's father if he take s the stand.
Won't get us any closer to knowing who killed John - but most of these witnesses don't - they just help to paint a picture.
JMO

We heard from K Roberts that JOK's father was sympathetic towards KR and stopped JOK's mother from commenting/responding to KR while traveling in Robert's vehicle -- saying something like 'Stop, KR's been through enough.'

Also, we had testimony from JOK's brother during the first trial who testified that he informed the kids about JOK's death which corroborates KR's story but now we have JOK's mother testifying that she informed the children.

IMO, they were all in shock-- I know I would be!

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, they didn't know who, just the body and vehicle and what was found at that time. They said not hit by a car. No agenda b ARCCA. The hair def was not on there by hitting JO, please. No root and just found laying there after retrieved from a distance through wind and snow and actual driving. Someone thought that was a good idea??? ARCCA has nothing to gain or allegiance as the others do.

The hair did have a root. Link provided to testimony in post above.

 

[Deleted member 246707]

Lots of those photos are identical pretty much, no brainer.

You can find dozens of arm dog bite photos that look nothing like JO's arm.

I suspect this prosecution will do a much better job of putting that issue to rest, but we'll see when we get to that part of the trial. It will be interesting to hear your analysis, then.

 

[RatFace]

In the opening statement the prosecutor painted a picture of JO getting clipped by the car on the side, then hitting the back of his head on the ground.

I would think when we get to that point in the trial, they'll have some expert witnesses to back up that assertion. We'll see.

OK, so when he was clipped on the side, that's when he got the large knot above his eye and then, in addition, he got the injury on the back of his head when it hit the ground? I'm just trying to picture how this could have played out. It doesn't seem like his head hitting the ground would cause severe injury but maybe they'll say the hit on the forehead that did most of the damage. It will be interesting to see how they explain it in detail.

 

[Deleted member 246707]

Yes, they didn't know who, just the body and vehicle and what was found at that time. They said not hit by a car. No agenda b ARCCA. The hair def was not on there by hitting JO, please. No root and just found laying there after retrieved from a distance through wind and snow and actual driving. Someone thought that was a good idea??? ARCCA has nothing to gain or allegiance as the others do.

A hair stuck to a vehicle in the winter is not like putting a coffee cup on the roof of the car. The metal is cold, there is a mixture of salt, grime, and whatever else... any bit of warmth or moisture can make something stick instantly - go look at any vehicle in late January in Massachusetts and you will find all sorts of things stuck (bonded) to them.

I don't want to post detailed AI - but if you ask the one of your choosing the question, you'll more specifically be informed of a variety of forces like static electricity, surface adhesion, ice bonding, aerodynamic sheltering, and the hair’s physical properties which can all conspire to keep it stuck, despite high-speed driving in harsh blizzard conditions.