MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #23 Retrial

[kuromiiiilove]

And even with their timeline, Kerry and Jen are now contradicting each other.

ETA for clarity: Jen JUST testified on the stand that she and Kerry discussed Karen asking Jen to make the ‘hos long’ search. But Kerry testified last week that she denied EVER having heard that statement from Karen.

 

[Soulmagent]

Now AJ is talking to JM about her phone calls with JOK the night of his death. The calls ranged from 12:14 AM to 12:50 AM.
12:14 - JM calls JOK - answered - call lasts 49 seconds.
12:18:47 - JOK calls JM - answered - call lasts 36 seconds.
12:29:44 - JM calls JOK - answered - call lasted 7 seconds. JM denies THIS call, although she does not deny the other 2.
12:41:10 - JM calls JOK - missed
12:41:59 - JM calls JOK - missed
12:43:19 - JM calls JOK - missed
12:46:16 - JM calls JOK - missed
12:47:52 - JM calls JOK - missed
12:50:47 - JM calls JOK - missed

Why call him SEVEN times? Also, I believe this puts to rest whether or not the call went through, since the record is showing which calls were answered and which were missed. MOO though. So why acknowledge 12:14 and 12:18 but deny the 12:27 call?

Is that the famous 36 second call the expert not could tell was answered or not? But the 8 second call he could?

 

[justtrish]

Goodness this is painful. Yes or No. It isn't THAT difficult to understand what this means.

I feel like when someone needs to elaborate on every single question asked.. Yes, but or explaining away something before they say yes or no.. then I do wonder why?

 

[LaineyJ]

What’s the point of her saying she didn’t do the search at that time? Is she saying the 6am one? I’m so confused. Is she talking about the sports stuff she looked up?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

There is ZERO proof Karen requested Jen to make that search. And now that assertion is ONLY made by Jen, not Kerry. Huge.

 

[justbeachy]

I have never in my life seen a judge not allow an attorney to effectively question a witness on discrepancies between their current and previous statements. Is this some weird Massachusetts thing?? This is infuriating to me! The judge's tone, excessive sighing, and choice of words leave no room for doubt regarding her disdain for the defense. It is completely unprofessional and, in my opinion, prejudicial in a way that could very easily affect the jury. This is making my blood boil. IMO MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

What’s the point of her saying she didn’t do the search at that time? Is she saying the 6am one? I’m so confused. Is she talking about the sports stuff she looked up?

She is denying making the 2:27 am ‘hos long’ search.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Goodness this is painful. Yes or No. It isn't THAT difficult to understand what this means.

I feel like when someone needs to elaborate on every single question asked.. Yes, but or explaining away something before they say yes or no.. then I do wonder why?

Gotta be careful not to contradict her former testimony. IMO.

 

[LaineyJ]

Was that search deleted? I can’t remember.

If so that would be a search deleted and calls deleted off her phone

eta ok yes it was deleted although she’s denying it

 

[arielilane]

Defense has nothing at this time.

The 2:27 am debunked by Cellebrite.
Jackson wanted the witness to point out her sister.
He calls her out for saying sorry.

They got absolutely nothing.
moo

 

[justtrish]

Gotta be careful not to contradict her former testimony. IMO.

Seems the more talking one does the bigger chance they have to say something they didn't say before. I would want to keep it short and simple.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Was that search deleted? I can’t remember.

If so that would be a search deleted and calls deleted off her phone

eta ok yes it was deleted although she’s denying it

Yes, she deleted it. That was the ONLY one deleted - not the sports searches around 6am she was trying to distract AJ with.

 

[Snoods]

JM’s faux naivety and little baby deer confusion over single got darn question, like it’s the first time she’s ever heard about any of these silly words, butt dials, and searches and not actually heard and gone over them a couple hundred times is maddening.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Yes, she deleted it. That was the ONLY one deleted - not the sports searches she was trying to distract AJ with.

JM just denied deleting it. But it shows as deleted in the Cellebrite extractions. As many others have said, tech is great evidence!

 

[arielilane]

JMc outstanding witness. moo

 

[Bethlamb16]

JMc outstanding witness. moo

I wouldn't say outstanding. IMO

 

[jepop]

I have never in my life seen a judge not allow an attorney to effectively question a witness on discrepancies between their current and previous statements. Is this some weird Massachusetts thing?? This is infuriating to me! The judge's tone, excessive sighing, and choice of words leave no room for doubt regarding her disdain for the defense. It is completely unprofessional and, in my opinion, prejudicial in a way that could very easily affect the jury. This is making my blood boil. IMO MOO

Yeah, and the legal community is not oblivious. Moo many, many view her actions as highly inappropriate.

And at some point the question has to be asked; why? Because she must be doing this on more than a stylistic whim, knowing that appellate issues could potentially come from it. Jmo she knows how inappropriate she is being.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Been waiting on JM to go off with the alleged witness intimidation and what her whole family has been through..... feels like it is getting close!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I wouldn't say outstanding. IMO

I mean, she’s certainly doing an outstanding job at helping AJ expose all the lies from the Fairview Crew.. lol

 

[Curiousobserver]

So far nothing the defense has presented negates the following facts:

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, witness testimony that is where Karen's car was, battery temperature data
John never entered 34 Fairview- Evidence is the testimony of multiple witnesses
John was not bitten by any dog- Evidence is the lack of canine DNA on his bite wounds or clothing and the lack of reciprocal tooth marks on the other side of his arms.

Karen has benefited from an excellent defense team. The defenses strategy of pointing out that it is possible all the inconsistencies in the evidence and in witness testimony could be because there was a conspiracy is masterfully executed. I couldn't be more impressed.

However, inconsistencies do not make that conspiracy any more probable, especially if there is strong evidence against it.