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

[Linda7NJ]

no blood on the vehicle or inside? yet his arm is shredded. mOO

They’re abrasions on his arm - not lacerations

 

[Bethlamb16]

What do you think the abrasions are from? If the car then wouldn't there be blood/DNA on the car or do you think the abrasions are from something else?

 

[detectivewannab]

Why did she call JO her husband? And since we are keeping track. That is a lie.

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks, I thought it might be something that came from KR herself

It did come from KR herself, she said it to the ambulance personnel. As confirmed in testimony and question asked by AJ.

 

[PamCake]

I’d like to know what the jury members are thinking. Prosecution SEEMS to be doing a good job painting KR as an outspoken, stubborn, clingy girlfriend with a bad temper and a penchant for alcohol.

It does seem that way BUT the testimony of JOK's friend, Mr Camerono, made Karen seem softer and more caring than previous witnesses. I even wonder why the prosecution called him to the stand, as he was so positive regarding Karen and John's relationship.

 

[Linda7NJ]

What do you think the abrasions are from? If the car then wouldn't there be blood/DNA on the car or do you think the abrasions are from something else?

Abrasions don’t bleed.
His DNA is on the taillight
His hair was found on her SUV

 

[Linda7NJ]

It does seem that way BUT the testimony of JOK's friend, Mr Camerono, made Karen seem softer and more caring than previous witnesses. I even wonder why the prosecution called him to the stand, as he was so positive regarding Karen and John's relationship.

The point is, no one knows what people are really like behind closed doors.
IMO
It’s a great reminder for everyone. IMO

 

[minazoe]

well looking at the photos, those look like cuts. do they think they are fingernail marks? where is the DNA? calling them abrasions doesn't really clarify .mOO

 

[Linda7NJ]

LET ME not forget the investigation into the lead state trooper who is fired and that takes being criminal

Was Proctor changed with a crime?

 

[Curiousobserver]

okay so no dog DNA on the victim. so what caused those wounds...a knife? I just have trouble with how the evidence is being analyzed...we just can't find the injuries that are consistent with being run over by a huge SUV. how did he get those injuries that don't support a vehicular homicide ? no dirt or detritus from tree branches or gravel.

even if she is stone cold guilty , you still have to show me. mOO

First, I think she is being overcharged, she did not intend to kill JO.

And- I cannot explain frame by frame how he got each injury, however I think in most cases of an accident with no video, the exact sequence of events is at best an educated guess.

Here is a very simple version of why I think she hit him, causing the injuries that resulted in him dying of hypothermia in the snow, vs he was beat up and dragged out in the yard to die.

She was drunk- Evidence: video of her at the bar, blood evidence, and her own admission
She was angry- Evidence: those voicemails
She accelerated backward at high speed at some point- Evidence: Telematics from her car
She hit something at 34 Fairview hard enough to break a polycarbonate tail light housing- Evidence: tail light pieces found at the scene
The thing she hit was John- Evidence: a small amount of his DNA on the tail light and tail light fragments embedded in his clothing
John died as a result of that impact- Evidence: phone GPS data showing he never moved from the spot where they found him
Finally, the morning of, she thought this was the most reasonable explanation- Evidence: Her own words, "I hit him"

In addition, every testable part of her third-party culpability defense is false. Note that most of the story is not testable any longer.

There is no canine DNA on John to support a dog bite and the police were willing to test it, her defense never did.

Every witness has said that he never entered 34 Fairview that night.

There are no tail light pieces in John's driveway to support her hypothesis that she broke that light with the light tap of her car on his van

 

[Linda7NJ]

well looking at the photos, those look like cuts. do they think they are fingernail marks? where is the DNA? calling them abrasions doesn't really clarify .mOO

Photos can be very deceiving.
Abrasions don’t bleed. It’s like a really bad scrape that doesn’t cut through all lawyers of the skin.

 

[Linda7NJ]

First, I think she is being overcharged, she did not intend to kill JO.

And- I cannot explain frame by frame how he got each injury, however I think in most cases of an accident with no video, the exact sequence of events is at best an educated guess.

Here is a very simple version of why I think she hit him, causing the injuries that resulted in him dying of hypothermia in the snow, vs he was beat up and dragged out in the yard to die.

She was drunk- Evidence: video of her at the bar, blood evidence, and her own admission
She was angry- Evidence: those voicemails
She accelerated backward at high speed at some point- Evidence: Telematics from her car
She hit something at 34 Fairview hard enough to break a polycarbonate tail light housing- Evidence: tail light pieces found at the scene
The thing she hit was John- Evidence: a small amount of his DNA on the tail light and tail light fragments embedded in his clothing
John died as a result of that impact- Evidence: phone GPS data showing he never moved from the spot where they found him
Finally, the morning of, she thought this was the most reasonable explanation- Evidence: Her own words, "I hit him"

In addition, every testable part of her third-party culpability defense is false. Note that most of the story is not testable any longer.

There is no canine DNA on John to support a dog bite and the police were willing to test it, her defense never did.

Every witness has said that he never entered 34 Fairview that night.

There are no tail light pieces in John's driveway to support her hypothesis that she broke that light with the light tap of her car on his van

You nailed it. In my opinion, it’s a slam dunk case. I have no reasonable doubt

 

[mzmarymac]

Why did she call JO her husband? And since we are keeping track. That is a lie.

Anyone who has ever tried to visit a loved one in a hospital knows that the first question they ask you is if you are family. If you so no, they won't speak to you. And if my boyfriend's family, who I know hate me, are trying to push me out, yeah, I'd probably lie and just say husband just to get the information I want. I have also seen MANY long-term couples refer to their significant other as husband/wife even if they aren't married, but my bet here is that she wanted information and just said that so they would give it to her.

 

[waldojabba]

People justifying, handwaving away, or simply ignoring Proctors behavior truly scares me. IMO, allowing police(and anyone in general)to think and behave as if this is normal is how we wind up with cases like Sandra Birchmore. Allowing this behavior to stand unchallenged simply because you have feels about the defendant doesn't say much about the future of fair and just trials. I hope those people never find themselves or their loved ones on the wrong side of a Proctor.

There are bad apples in every profession. Its just a given. Doctors Lawyers LE etc. - no profession is immune. So why throw down the gauntlet on Proctor - unless there is a personal involvement that may influence not seeing the forest for the trees - or something. I don't get it obviously

It feels foolish not to acknowledge why we are all still at this - because of a fubar investigation conducted by Mr Proctor and his terrible and tone deaf, at best, behavior.

thats just my 2 cents JMO

 

[jepop]

okay so no dog DNA on the victim. so what caused those wounds...a knife? I just have trouble with how the evidence is being analyzed...we just can't find the injuries that are consistent with being run over by a huge SUV. how did he get those injuries that don't support a vehicular homicide ? no dirt or detritus from tree branches or gravel.

even if she is stone cold guilty , you still have to show me. mOO

From last trial, some expert (DNA) said on cross I believe Imo re dog claws scratches not great for dog dna shedding. This was only touched on in trial 1 but have a feeling we'll hear more about it this time. Imo Dr Russell testified that there is likely one bite mark and it looked to be a glancing one, the rest look to be caused by claws. So the Chloe moulds imo, even if they had ended up admissible are not a big deal. Moo

 

[PamCake]

Seems stranger that Karen didn’t think he was crashing on their sofa. went there, knocked on their door before calling everyone who’s number she had so early in the morning.
IMO

Good grief, Karen DID NOT KNOW the people at 34F. That's why she called the people known to her.

 

[jepop]

I find it odd that with all the video evidence they have on scene that morning, and so many witnesses claiming they heard KR say "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him", not once was it heard on video.

Yeah, how very odd.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Anyone have any ideas why Hank directed the jurors to pay attention to height of the bumper, taillight and spoiler above the hatch. Im thinking heights.

I’m thinking - injuries lineup ?

I think Karen claiming backing into John’s car and damaging taillight is gonna be dead in the water, so I don’t think it’s that.

All imo

 

[Bethlamb16]

Photos can be very deceiving.
Abrasions don’t bleed. It’s like a really bad scrape that doesn’t cut through all lawyers of the skin.

Actually abrasions can bleed. They generally don't bleed heavily but yes they can bleed.

 

[mrjitty]

It's funny how we all come away with different judgements of witnesses.

My impression of Kerry Roberts was that she was a completely credible witness, a very caring and kind lady, and she misspoke at the GJ, because by that time she had heard that Karen asked Jen to make a search, without any intention of misleading anyone. It didn't negate her testimony, IMO. I can't believe the derogatory comments made here about her, or Peggy.

As a juror I wouldn't think much of the way K Roberts was treated by the defense. Trying to make out she was a dishonest witness didn't work, IMO.

It's hard to know how it lands if you haven't yet imbibed the entire Jen Mc backstory

Anyone have any ideas why Hank directed the jurors to pay attention to the the bumper, taillight and spoiler above the hatch. Im thinking heights.

I’m thinking - injuries lineup ?

I think Karen claiming backing into John’s car and damaging taillight is gonna be dead in the water, so I don’t think it’s that.

All imo

I think they are stuck with the backing story.