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

[TristanP]

The CW will argue that the defendant is engaged in narrative building in the clip - placing pieces on the ground so they can be staged at the crime scene by ... someone. They have 2 witnesses and the dashcam and ringcam showing significant material missing

Snipped for focus.

How would that be narrative building for the crime scene when she's talking about dropping pieces in John's driveway?

 

[mrjitty]

Snipped for focus.

How would that be narrative building for the crime scene when she's talking about dropping pieces in John's driveway?

The defendant needs whole pieces to be missing due to testimony of 2 witnesses (kerry+jen) and the dashcam at 8am. The collision on ring cam doesn't appear to be sufficient to break out whole pieces (testimony Dr Wolfe).

Secondly, given arrival of SERT and documented recovery of the initial pieces from under the snow later than day, it is not possible that those pieces come from the Sallyport IMO.

IMO the Defendants best argument for staging is someone took those pieces from the driveway and staged them much earlier in the day. Indeed according to defence theory of the case - the most obvious person to do this is Jen herself. (Not my belief but IMO they will imply this). The other person they can finger I guess is Proctor that morning.

The CW will obviously argue that the defendant made these claims in her interview long after the night in question to explain away bad evidence and make staging theory possible.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

One other battle line that seems clear.

AJs opening seem to indicate the D is all in on an inside the house theory - perhaps because of the defendant's out of court statements.

I wonder if that is a mistake because it seemed to me that the D had significant grey area for a scuffle outside the house, or maybe even a slip and fall outside the house. It may seem fanciful but i had wondered if the D, could argue, via ARCCA, that their theory works even without a fight. Then lazy investigators assuming the obvious, railroad the defendant. Angry friends get together in good faith, but taint their own evidence etc.

Then you don't need 3 sets of conspirators (the killers, the investigators and the friends)

IMO

 

[iusedtofloat]

@Forest_Wood you said this on the last thread:
That clip is so funny! If looks could kill, AJ would have been arrested for the way he stared down poor unprepared Trooper Paul as he removed his things and exited the courtroom as slow as a turtle. The judge wasn't putting up with either AJ or Lally's descriptive words that day (AJ=ambush and AL=laughable). It must have been hot in the courtroom after a gruelling week for all of them late on a Friday. Her sighing is very evident and I did like seeing her chastise Lally for a change.

IF LOOKS COULD KILL IS RIGHT! I didn't even notice that before! Made me spit my drink out

 

[Linda7NJ]

How do you know they didn't? It doesn't matter about people outside, it's the Albert's inside that didn't go out to see what was going on and to help.

If their home is well insulated, a tv or a fan was on…I would NOT expect them to be awakened by flashing lights. I’d bet they had curtains that blocked light too, which are heavier than most and also blocks sound,

Cops usually have rotating shifts and utilize the above to be able to sleep during the day. It becomes routine,

ALL imo

 

[rrsafety]

There was ZERO probable cause to get a warrant to search that house

Zero? I guarantee if someone was dropped off at my house for a party and they ended up bloodied and bruised on my front lawn, the cops would get a warrant….. but I’m not a cop who is friends with the investigators.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

So here’s a court tv interview with a neighbor of Fairview - he mentions friends of his being bit by Chloe / I’m not sure if it’s the same person you reference

https://twitter.com/x/status/1915941104949858317

Thank you and I believe those are the people.

I finished watching her testimony last night. On one hand, she started to get emotional when talking about rehoming Chloe. On the other hand, she called her “it” repeatedly. Things like “it slept with us”. I am more suspicious than ever. I wonder if her husband forced her to rehome Chloe because of what happened. I wonder if calling her “it” was a way of disassociating Chloe from her.

John walked in as a stranger. Chloe knew the other people in the house or if she didn’t know all of them, she would have thought they were ok if introduced by the people who live there. John walked in as a stranger and he was alone. The other thing is, he was wearing a hat. As crazy as it seems, a lot of dogs react to men in hats and/or sunglasses. Not just aggressive dogs but dogs in general.

My friend had a fear aggressive dog who had been living with her and her husband for a couple of years. Her husband came in one night wearing a hat and sunglasses due to a migraine. Their dog went berserk and she kept screaming at him to take off his hat and sunglasses and telling the dog it was daddy. Once he realized who it was everything went back to normal. So if that can happen with a family member it can happen to a stranger.

 

[jepop]

Zero? I guarantee if someone was dropped off at my house for a party and they ended up bloodied and bruised on my front lawn, the cops would get a warrant….. but I’m not a cop who is friends with the investigators.

I agree. There have to be investigators willing to competently investigate in order for warrants to be applied for and ultimately granted. We all know that never happened from the get go here.

Probable Cause doesn't just drop out of the sky; saying 'so and so says there were no grounds' for probable cause imo is meaningless. Of course there were no grounds because competent LE never even attempted an impartial investigation of the circumstances. Proctor's tunnel vision foreclosed all potentially legit avenues. We already know this. Jmo

 

[franki]

Maybe I’ve missed it - but does anyone consider maybe she accidentally backed into him, drove over him a bit and doesn’t remember at all? Total black out? Idk I go back and forth but what I do know is she doesn’t seem very compassionate about it. As far as looks …to me looks diminish when personality shines through and I feel like she thinks she’s “so cute” which to me makes the most gorgeous people look uglier.

 

[franki]

Thank you and I believe those are the people.

I finished watching her testimony last night. On one hand, she started to get emotional when talking about rehoming Chloe. On the other hand, she called her “it” repeatedly. Things like “it slept with us”. I am more suspicious than ever. I wonder if her husband forced her to rehome Chloe because of what happened. I wonder if calling her “it” was a way of disassociating Chloe from her.

John walked in as a stranger. Chloe knew the other people in the house or if she didn’t know all of them, she would have thought they were ok if introduced by the people who live there. John walked in as a stranger and he was alone. The other thing is, he was wearing a hat. As crazy as it seems, a lot of dogs react to men in hats and/or sunglasses. Not just aggressive dogs but dogs in general.

My friend had a fear aggressive dog who had been living with her and her husband for a couple of years. Her husband came in one night wearing a hat and sunglasses due to a migraine. Their dog went berserk and she kept screaming at him to take off his hat and sunglasses and telling the dog it was daddy. Once he realized who it was everything went back to normal. So if that can happen with a family member it can happen to a stranger.

You are so right. But why would they just put him in front of the house like an advertisement….I would think they’d come up with a better idea to cover up if that’s what really happened …

 

[jepop]

Wondering what her size and appearance has to do with anything? Can you elaborate?

Nothing at all. Moo

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Am I right in thinking we can’t post what Turtleboy posts on twitter? Even if it is an affidavit? Don’t want to get in trouble here.

 

[pcrum12]

You are so right. But why would they just put him in front of the house like an advertisement….I would think they’d come up with a better idea to cover up if that’s what really happened …

I think whatever happened, he got there on his own. But, What about the Ford Edge? That throws a kink in it right there. So IDK.

 

[Linda7NJ]

What???? Dead body on your property is probable cause for the search of the entire perimeter and the inside of the house included.

Read the independent audit

 

[Linda7NJ]

Could it be that the Karen that got mad and made a scene with her car, killing her boyfriend, only lives in your mind?

No, there’s a mountain of evidence you would have to ignore totally

 

[jepop]

I don’t love these clips played. I think this could make some jurors curious to look up the interview in its entirety. I know they are instructed not to but they are human after all and curiosity is real. Being played certain clips, they know they are being cherry picked and taken out of context. I don’t think prosecutors should open that door. IMO

There will be an undercurrent of attempted character assassination running through the trial imo. That's what these little sound bites are primarily about, I think it's their main purpose.

I think the CW wants to have the jury emotionally and not logically engaged, and emotionally affected, before they present any actual relevant evidence to try and prove BARD that JOK and KR's Lexus impacted to cause his injuries.

If Brennan can manipulate the jury into feeling dislike for KR as a person, then maybe some of them will be less able to focus logically on the lack of evidence and whatever unsound evidence the CW serves up down the line. Disliking KR may even soften some juror reactions to the terrible, incompetent and suspect stuff up of an investigation. Anyways, that's my current speculation on CW strategy and is jmo.

AJ went hard on reasonable doubt and that there was no vehicle impact in his opening. This opening was outstanding and substantively different from trial X 1. Jmo.

The defense has to address CW witness inconsistencies as they arise, but moo this time around they will make sure the jury does not forget the prosecution's burden, the substantial reasonable doubt and a juror's duty to apply the faculty of reason to the evidence. I think it's possible the defense may even address the notion of emotional manipulation in the CW's case; if they do it will be in their closing.

I still hope for a logically engaged jury who take their duties seriously.

 

[mrjitty]

Read the independent audit

IMO the better criticism is they didn't do some basic investigative work which might have established PC. Of course this argument tends to be circular, because if you already think there was a fight in the house, then an entry with consent might have turned up enough for PC. On the other hand, if there never was such a fight, nothing was ever going to turn up PC end of the day.

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO the better criticism is they didn't do some basic investigative work which might have established PC. Of course this argument tends to be circular, because if you already think there was a fight in the house, then an entry with consent might have turned up enough for PC. On the other hand, if there never was such a fight, nothing was ever going to turn up PC end of the day.

Had Karen Read that morning demanded to know WHAT HAPPENED because she SAW HIM ENTER THAT HOUSE - a warrant would be justified.
She did not.


IMO

 

[Yesiamapirate]

Yes! This may be how it all started. The men, maybe having a smoke outside with the dog, and stranger John shows up.

To continue your thought… MMO..Dog bites JO, he drunkenly stumbles back towards KR’s car just as she is backing up?
Honestly, I think she hit him unintentionally. She had a lot to drink and may not have even realized it.
A few things cause me to pause here.
Dog evidence on JO. Was it even properly looked for? If it was and no hairs, saliva was found, I have to let dog bites go.
Second..that scene the next morning finding JO seemed in MOO was something that may have woken those in the house. Not saying they weren’t passed out and sleeping opposite the street facing the back but I still get hung up on that.
My somewhat wishy washy theory has KR unintentionally hitting him.

 

[DustysMom]

I agree. If that had been MY sister's house, the first thing I would've done upon finding JOK wounded on the lawn, would be to call my sister. If no answer, then her husband, and then finally pound on the door. It just seems strange that JMc did none of those things immediately.

I thought that JMc DID go into the house minutes after finding JO - as seen from the patrol car camera (dash cam). IIRC, D pointed this out in Trial 1 - while KR was walking back and forth and EMTs working on JO, JMc slipped away from the scene and walked into the house. Correct me if I’m wrong here!