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

[lohrtabitha]

I have not seen where she said he had multiple injuries to his face, only what you quoted. I asked what specific injuries he had to his face, no one has told me. I did not watch the first trial so I have seen nothing that says what specific injuries he had to his face. Her testimony that I did see doesn’t mention injuries to the face.please tell me specifically what the facial injuries to his face are

Go to YouTube and type in the doctors name and testimony in karen read trial. You can watch it yourself. It's long but you can hear her testimony

 

[PenelopeJude]

Her smashed taillight at the scene & on John
The cocktail glasses.
His hair & DNA on her suv & DAMAGE to her SUV

The transfer of evidence during a crime is referred to by the **Locard's Exchange Principle**. This principle, developed by Dr. Edmond Locard, states that when two objects come into contact, there is always a transfer of material between them, which can serve as trace evidence in criminal investigations.

IMO

Then of course the timeline

Yet no transfer from John to the taillight pieces….that supposedly made “furrows” in his arm?

 

[jepop]

It isn’t touch DNA if it rips through skin. There should, most definitely, be DNA on the light pieces that broke skin. And, lots of it.

Yes. Brennan's case falls apart on this just for starters. Jmo

 

[jepop]

Abrasions do bleed. He lived with KR. Do you think he never touched her car??

Exactly. There are a million innocuous reasons for a random hair and traces of JOK epithelial cell dna being on the Lexus.

*Note that the CW only tested for DNA on the right rear passenger side of the Lexus.

*Note that the dna extracted was on the exterior area surrounding/near adjacent to the tail light, not from inside the housing or inside edges of exposed housing where you would expect blood and skin (whichever absurd theory the cw ends up trying to promote, ie back of the head impact ( what the actual ..) or right arm symmetrically gouged by dog claw trained tail light impact). Moo

*Note the CW never dna tested, for eg, the left side rear of the Lexus. Because if they had, chances are they would have found some JOK epithelial cell DNA there too because, as you point out, suprise suprise, JOK and KR were in a relationship and around each other a lot. Jmo

Moo the DNA and hair 'evidence' are 100% devoid of anything that can be construed as meaningful for Brennan and the CW's case.

 

[mrjitty]

While I think you have described this hearing fairly accurately, I think you are misreading the ramifications of this hearing.

It needs to be undestood that this hearing is NOT meant to offer up things to later be presented in the trial itself, but rather to dispose of those issues in advance, of how ARCCA came to do testing for this case, without burdening the jury to have to hear and deal with the issue.

That issue will get decided in the hearing AND that genesis will be how ARCCA as a company (or set of experts) is presented to the jury. But then ARCCA's work (and superior expertise in such things) will be allowed to be presented, as the experts they are. They ARE used by FBI and other govt people a lot, because they are so elite. That can now be made apparent.

One other thing that I would suspect will happen in T2 that we did not see in T1. In the original, ARCCA used a very limited set of data, merely testing the physics of car and injuries and whether they aligned. I would wager that in the interim, ARCCA has been asked to also look at, to test, and then be prepared to testify to the specifics of THIS case and how those can alter their conclusions (if at all).

I actually expect ARCCA's evidence to be even more compelling this time around, and more damning to Proctor, and the prosec as a whole, because it will be fully unleashed.

I agree with much of your post and the issue of how ARCCA will be presented has already been decided - unless the Judge changes her mind.

What I am getting at is if there are things in the texts in 2023 like discussion of strategy/testimony etc - then Brennan can use it to impeach their independence on X in the trial.

I don't understand how there can be any texts from 2023. And my cynical nature makes me suspect they were in fact deleted for that reason. But maybe I misunderstood the date range Alessi was talking about. We shall soon find out.

 

[mrjitty]

And IIRC, he had an FBI friend help him extract items from his phone before destroying it at the military base. His lawyer was in the courtroom when this came out in T1, so I'm imagining that we'll never really know what that was all about. Maybe someone in our thread here knows the story...

There were many months in between the extraction of the text messages and the disposal of the phone

I've already posted the detailed timeline based on the trial testimony if you search back.

 

[mrjitty]

They wouldn’t have known her tail light was broken until they saw her that morning when he was already put on the lawn. Does anybody have an explanation for this? Was it ever considered she did in fact hit him but it was just an accident? Why did it have to be murder? Thank you in advance

Snipped for Focus

IMO it's absurd. The real defence case is to try to cast doubt on the accident mechanics, combined with a so-called Bowman approach which argues that a deficient investigation means we can't know with sufficient certainty what happened.

However as a question of a story for the jury, Yannetti and Jackson, who are highly experienced attorneys, feel they need someone in the house to point the finger at. The risk is the phone data and battery evidence may rule it out the idea JOK ever went in the house.

I suspect the reality is thanks to the documentary, the D has to be all in on JOK going in the house now.

MOO

 

[TristanP]

Prove to me she didn’t

It was proven in the last trial. John could access the Ring service through his app or his laptop. We know it wasn't accessed on his phone. His niece and nephew both testified that Karen did not have an account on John's laptop, nor did she know his password to his account on his laptop.

It's certain that if the CW had found evidence of anyone accessing John's laptop after midnight on January 29, 2022, they would have revealed that in the last trial.

Also in the last trial, testimony revealed that Ring sent Proctor all the videos via a dropbox link. Mysteriously, only the videos that support the CW's theory exist. Other videos that we know should exist (such as Karen showing Jen and Kerry the back of her car) are gone.

 

[mrjitty]

It was proven in the last trial. John could access the Ring service through his app or his laptop. We know it wasn't accessed on his phone. His niece and nephew both testified that Karen did not have an account on John's laptop, nor did she know his password to his account on his laptop.

It's certain that if the CW had found evidence of anyone accessing John's laptop after midnight on January 29, 2022, they would have revealed that in the last trial.

Also in the last trial, testimony revealed that Ring sent Proctor all the videos via a dropbox link. Mysteriously, only the videos that support the CW's theory exist. Other videos that we know should exist (such as Karen showing Jen and Kerry the back of her car) are gone.

I used to be quite in to the idea Proctor deleted the Ring videos but now I am not convinced. There is a lot of risk to doing that (for anyone) as the deletions would likely be logged on the cloud side.

Might there be another discovery violation where they simply didn't produce videos unhelpful? Possible given the Sallyport video history.

It's strange to me though, that the CW did discover the collision with JOKs car - which is absolutely load bearing evidence for the defendant. If you framing her - why do this?

This all makes no sense to me. Of course very helpful to the D on the botched investigation front.

MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

There were many months in between the extraction of the text messages and the disposal of the phone

I've already posted the detailed timeline based on the trial testimony if you search back.

It matters nothing that there were many months between the extraction and the disposal of the phone. He still destroyed his phone one day before receiving his order in the mail ordering him to hand it over. Insider information was involved IMO. Why might that be? Both Higgins and Albert interfered in a police investigation by destroying their phones. It's really very simple.
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I thought the judge ruled that Colin could not be mentioned during opening statements only?

Colin didn't make the cut for 3rd party at all. The other two might be able to be mentioned in closing depending on how the evidence at trial develops.

 

[mrjitty]

It matters nothing that there were many months between the extraction and the disposal of the phone. He still destroyed his phone one day before receiving his order in the mail ordering him to hand it over. Insider information was involved IMO. Why might that be?

BIB

No this is not correct. I already corrected this multiple times.

The D filed a motion seeking to get his phone on 15 September

He got a new phone the day before he was served with the protective order (sept 29)

The D's motion was denied 5 October i.e, the court said they could not get his phone. He was never ordered to hand it over.

The phone was disposed of in late October (trial testimony BH)

No insider information needed to be involved as the D motion was made in Court in the middle of September.

 

[TristanP]

While I think you have described this hearing fairly accurately, I think you are misreading the ramifications of this hearing.

It needs to be undestood that this hearing is NOT meant to offer up things to later be presented in the trial itself, but rather to dispose of those issues in advance, of how ARCCA came to do testing for this case, without burdening the jury to have to hear and deal with the issue.

That issue will get decided in the hearing AND that genesis will be how ARCCA as a company (or set of experts) is presented to the jury. But then ARCCA's work (and superior expertise in such things) will be allowed to be presented, as the experts they are. They ARE used by FBI and other govt people a lot, because they are so elite. That can now be made apparent.

One other thing that I would suspect will happen in T2 that we did not see in T1. In the original, ARCCA used a very limited set of data, merely testing the physics of car and injuries and whether they aligned. I would wager that in the interim, ARCCA has been asked to also look at, to test, and then be prepared to testify to the specifics of THIS case and how those can alter their conclusions (if at all).

I actually expect ARCCA's evidence to be even more compelling this time around, and more damning to Proctor, and the prosec as a whole, because it will be fully unleashed.

This hearing will indeed be offering up things later to be presented in the trial itself.

Hank Brennan can ask any questions he wants of them. This voir dire is happening instead of discovery being turned over - well, really, in addition to discovery being turned over - because Brennan thinks the defense is lying about everything when it comes to ARCCA.

The issue about whether or not it can be revealed that the Feds hired ARCCA actually may or may not be decided.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It was proven in the last trial. John could access the Ring service through his app or his laptop. We know it wasn't accessed on his phone. His niece and nephew both testified that Karen did not have an account on John's laptop, nor did she know his password to his account on his laptop.

It's certain that if the CW had found evidence of anyone accessing John's laptop after midnight on January 29, 2022, they would have revealed that in the last trial.

Also in the last trial, testimony revealed that Ring sent Proctor all the videos via a dropbox link. Mysteriously, only the videos that support the CW's theory exist. Other videos that we know should exist (such as Karen showing Jen and Kerry the back of her car) are gone.

The children didn’t know if she had password. They’re children, I would not expect them to know everything.
Karen - I’d bet my last dollar she did know his passwords, she’s very resourceful and I can’t see John holding the line if asked. She’d come up with some excuse to use that computer while he was at work.
Look at how resourceful she was getting Higgins phone number!

ALL IMO

 

[TristanP]

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

Abrasions don't bleed? Do you have a source for this?

 

[Forest_Wood]

BIB

No this is not correct. I already corrected this multiple times.

The D filed a motion seeking to get his phone on 15 September

He got a new phone the day before he was served with the protective order (sept 29)

The D's motion was denied 5 October i.e, the court said they could not get his phone. He was never ordered to hand it over.

The phone was disposed of in late October (trial testimony BH)

No insider information needed to be involved as the D motion was made in Court in the middle of September.

You may still need to "correct" this multiple more times. Because it is obvious to many that BH never planned to turn over his phone and fought tooth and nail to keep it out of evidence. He wanted to pick and choose what was handed over, as evidenced by enlisting his other buddy in LE to help him extract what HE chose to extract. He, and his buddy BA, interfered in justice for JOK in relation to their phones. It's so obvious.
MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Karen - I’d bet my last dollar she did know his passwords, she’s very resourceful and I can’t see John holding the line if asked. She’d come up with some excuse to use that computer while he was at work.
Look at how resourceful she was getting Higgins phone number!

Maybe because this is how you operate in your relationships but there is absolutely no evidence Karen accessed his computer that morning. The computer access would have shown up as digital evidence in court. There is no way of accessing a computer without it being traced.
MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I thought the judge ruled that Colin could not be mentioned during opening statements only?

No.

[...]

"Accordingly, evidence that [CA] is a third-party culprit is excluded from trial."

[...]

Order [dated March 31, 2025]

"It is hereby ordered that the defendant is precluded from raising a third-party culprit defense alleging [CA] is culpable for John O'Keefe's death."



Kristina Rex
@KristinaRex
Breaking - Judge Cannone just ruled that the defense can NOT use Colin Albert as a third party culprit in Karen Read’s second trial. They can use Brian Albert and Brian Higgins. #WBZ






8:08 PM · Mar 31, 2025
·
112.9K
Views

 

[TristanP]

Yes. Moo, they were deep 'superficial' abrasions. We've all seen the photographs. There should have been traces of skin and blood on the dog claw like tail light shards that supposedly caused these oddly symmetrical wounds. Jmo

The injuries on John's arm were actually lacerations, by definition.

 

[jepop]

The injuries on John's arm were actually lacerations, by definition.

Thank you! I didn't know how they should be medically defined. Abrasions does seem, as a descriptor, quite obfuscating, kind of suggests they are not as deep as they actually are.

Moo the defense should use a visual every chance they get to impress on the Jury the nature and symmetry of the lacerations. Each time the term abrasion is used improperly. Jmo