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

[Snoop Sister]

What I like about ADA Brennan, is that he wants the witness to own their testimony- he doesnt put words into their mouths. He doesnt want them to assume anything. If they dont know it, then they dont know it, thats okay with him. in my opinion he only wants a conviction on facts, not to simply win a case.

ADA Brennan is brilliant and compassionate.

My opinion

I totally agree.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Yes. There's no point in splitting hairs We haven't heard from Proctor yet, but both JMc and Proctor imo will be be shown to be unreliable in their own unique ways. It isn't necessary to pretend their questionable actions/ testimony have to be mutually exclusive. Jmo

When JMc spoke with Proctor he probably recorded what she said without embellishment. Because, do we really think Proctor would not have written down "I hit him" x3 in his report if JMc had really relayed those words to him at the time she claims she did?!

Of course he would have. Probably would have written it down 3x!

At the end of the day, John's body bore no evidence whatsoever that he was struck by a motor vehicle. And there's no way that poor Trooper Paul's replacement will be able to come up with a reconstruction theory that will be able show he was.

 

[arielilane]

I asked him those questions the night of Jan, 29th. ‘Like David what if, I don't know, what if I ran his foot over, or, or, what if I clipped him in the knee and he passed out and or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out and David said, ‘Yeah then you have some element of culpability.’

 

[Anniesflowers]

They haven't got to the accident reconstruction/Lexus data/medical evidence/taillight evidence yet.

But the evidence is stronger than Karen thought she had hit him just because he was missing. She knew where to expect to find him, and it was exactly where she'd left him, near the flagpole, on the side of the road, outside 34 Fairview. MOO

These are her words shown in court today:


Defendant’s Interview with ID Docuseries

April 13, 2024

Clip 16

Karen Read: "I was with Jen McCabe and Kerry Roberts in Kerry Roberts’s Ford Explorer, and I’m in the back, leaning over the front two seats, Kerry’s driving and Jen’s in the passenger seat, and uh, I, I’ve described this to everyone, so you’ve probably heard this before, but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie, it was just a lawn and a heap that wasn’t a bush or a hydrant or a dog, it was, it was a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road, I was expecting I’d find him and the fear of what I was gonna see is the worst feeling I’ve ever experienced, the anticipation of what, what is a [waiting ?] was as extreme a feeling, was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realizing what happened to him."

Timestamp 6.25.15

Corroborated by Ian Whiffin, Cellebrite expert:

Q. Do you have an opinion on where John O’Keefe’s cell phone was from around 12.24.33 on the evening of January 29th 2022 through at least 6am and after that morning?

A. Yes, based on the totality of all of the information that we’ve described, my opinion is that the device never moved far away from the flagpole.

Timestamp 3.50.34

Thanks, Tortoise! A really appreciate her response. Did the prosecution offer up any scientific evidence in T1 that he had been hit by a vehicle? The only scientific evidence I saw was the testimony from ARCCA. I have a hard time believing, BARD, that he was hit by a car. JMc was caught in lies on the stand, admits to confusion, and believes her memory is better NOW than on the day of the crime. To me, that memory claim seems far-fetched, if not an outright lie. Oddly, Whiffen from cellebrite admitted his memory gets better after time.
So far, in T2, it seems like the defense has blown holes in both KRoberts and JMc’s testimonies. KRoberts admitted she didn’t testify truthfully to the GJ.

 

[Anniesflowers]

Can anyone tell me why Karen jumps up and joins the lawyers during side bars? I have never seen a defendant act like a lawyer when on trial.

She is participating in her own defense. Her freedom is on the line, and she’s doing everything she can to defend herself. Moo

 

[Forest_Wood]

What I like about ADA Brennan, is that he wants the witness to own their testimony- he doesnt put words into their mouths. He doesnt want them to assume anything. If they dont know it, then they dont know it, thats okay with him. in my opinion he only wants a conviction on facts, not to simply win a case.

ADA Brennan is brilliant and compassionate.

My opinion

I like ADA Brennan also. I like the way he asks simple and straightforward questions. I don't know how brilliant or compassionate he is since I've never seen him in action before like you have. I think he will be thorough, which is what is needed to get a fair judgment in this case. I did not like how he treated the ARCCA witness behind closed doors, but I suppose that's just what some lawyers do.
MOO.

 

[Angelwatch]

I agree with you, she did hold her own.
But why would she need to hold her own as a witness? This makes her look so much more ridiculous, since she is not the one on trial. A witness relaying information doesn't need to hold their own. They simply need to tell the truth and not get defensive or argumentative with the defense lawyer asking. That in itself illustrates how messed up Jen is. She acts like she's on trial when the lawyers are simply trying to understand what was said and when... She clearly hates Karen Read and like another poster suggested, likely for a long time due to jealousy.
MOO.

Jen McCabe has massive credibility problems. Jurors will be left with a person who lied to agents knowing it’s a felony. Her statements are contradicted by numerous law enforcement officers and her own under oath statements. There’s no reason for jurors to actually think she got on the stand and presented truthful testimony. She had to be the worst witness for the CW so far. Hoping Karen Read sleeps a little better this weekend knowing Jen McCabe was a terrific disaster for the CW.

 

[ShadyLady]

Thanks, Tortoise! A really appreciate her response. Did the prosecution offer up any scientific evidence in T1 that he had been hit by a vehicle? The only scientific evidence I saw was the testimony from ARCCA. I have a hard time believing, BARD, that he was hit by a car. JMc was caught in lies on the stand, admits to confusion, and believes her memory is better NOW than on the day of the crime. To me, that memory claim seems far-fetched, if not an outright lie. Oddly, Whiffen from cellebrite admitted his memory gets better after time.
So far, in T2, it seems like the defense has blown holes in both KRoberts and JMc’s testimonies. KRoberts admitted she didn’t testify truthfully to the GJ.

Does Whiffin work directly for Cellebrite, or does he just have a software to make Cellebrite information easier to format? Does his software have a backdoor to change Cellebrite information?

 

[ShadyLady]

I like ADA Brennan also. I like the way he asks simple and straightforward questions. I don't know how brilliant or compassionate he is since I've never seen him in action before like you have. I think he will be thorough, which is what is needed to get a fair judgment in this case. I did not like how he treated the ARCCA witness behind closed doors, but I suppose that's just what some lawyers do.
MOO.

I did not like his opening statement....

 

[Gerald12]

I suppose the jury knows by now that this is a retrial? I don't know if the lawyers have mentioned another trial explicitly but certainly they've referred to other proceedings and given dates. I'm wondering what's going through their minds after week 2. We have the benefit of knowing what previous testimony said and can see the discrepancies.

The truth is I suppose, we have no idea what they're thinking. Was watching back some interviews last night with the Juror from the first trial and it seemed that they started off with the idea she probably was guilty because she was on trial and they viewed the information presented by the prosecution as facts. In contrast, they viewed any evidence from the defence as' Distractors.' He spoke about how they thought Proctor's evidence was unreliable and they were actually laughing at him at times but it didn't really matter. In the public discourse at the time it was all about the conspiracy and Jen Mc Cabe and the Alberts but he said the jury thought they were all fine. They were not giving any importance to what the public thought were big talking points at the time.
They kept going back to the simple explanation of she was drunk, she drove there and left him off and he was dead in the same place when she returned.
The concept of reasonable doubt and the onus being on the prosecution to prove the case didn't seem to get much focus either, they seemed to subconsiously think the onus should be on the defence to prove she didn't. LYK said this is very common with juries.

 

[HarmonyE.]

The concept of reasonable doubt and the onus being on the prosecution to prove the case didn't seem to get much focus either, they seemed to subconsiously think the onus should be on the defence to prove she didn't. LYK said this is very common with juries.

I think the defense sees this and will do more this time to focus on the issue.

I experienced this first hand. I sat on a criminal case in Dedham a few years ago and proseuction didn't have evidence the defendant committed the crime. Seemed to me that the judge at the last minute kept out some evidence they were expecting to have. I walked into the jury room expecting everyone one would agree there was reasonable doubt all over the place, but kept hearing from a couple of jurors that "the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty".

That's not how the system is supposed to work, of course, but in the absence of proof that someone else committed the crime, some jurors are quite happy to let the police decide who is guilty.

When did we stop teaching basic Civics in American high schools?

 

[arielilane]

I like ADA Brennan also. I like the way he asks simple and straightforward questions. I don't know how brilliant or compassionate he is since I've never seen him in action before like you have. I think he will be thorough, which is what is needed to get a fair judgment in this case. I did not like how he treated the ARCCA witness behind closed doors, but I suppose that's just what some lawyers do.
MOO.

Thats okay. I am not here to change anyone's mind about anything.

I have no problem with the treatment toward ARCCA. No one likes to be lied to, and the use of Signal, deleting messages, and trying to hide that you were paid is misleading.

To be clear, experts are paid all the time for their opinion. But, to lie and hide info, being deceptive, you have to ask why? What is the defendant's defense team hiding?

moo

Link attached

Judge scolds Karen Read’s defense for discovery violations on federal crash experts

Karen Read's defense has found itself in hot water for the second time in two months.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MerlinFalcon]

The truth is I suppose, we have no idea what they're thinking. Was watching back some interviews last night with the Juror from the first trial and it seemed that they started off with the idea she probably was guilty because she was on trial and they viewed the information presented by the prosecution as facts. In contrast, they viewed any evidence from the defence as' Distractors.' He spoke about how they thought Proctor's evidence was unreliable and they were actually laughing at him at times but it didn't really matter. In the public discourse at the time it was all about the conspiracy and Jen Mc Cabe and the Alberts but he said the jury thought they were all fine. They were not giving any importance to what the public thought were big talking points at the time.
They kept going back to the simple explanation of she was drunk, she drove there and left him off and he was dead in the same place when she returned.
The concept of reasonable doubt and the onus being on the prosecution to prove the case didn't seem to get much focus either, they seemed to subconsiously think the onus should be on the defence to prove she didn't. LYK said this is very common with juries.

Excellent input. Welcome to Websleuths!

 

[Tortoise]

Oddly, Whiffen from cellebrite admitted his memory gets better after time.

RSBM

Do you have a link please.

 

[rescuemom]

10 minutes in and she is already on my nerves.

The first trial was bad enough with the bias, etc. This one is really hard to watch. Do these people think that they are above ANY law:?? including the LE, judge, etc. For how long do they are going to be protected. I'm so thankful to not live in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. It's a twilight zone.

 

[Angelwatch]

The truth is I suppose, we have no idea what they're thinking. Was watching back some interviews last night with the Juror from the first trial and it seemed that they started off with the idea she probably was guilty because she was on trial and they viewed the information presented by the prosecution as facts. In contrast, they viewed any evidence from the defence as' Distractors.' He spoke about how they thought Proctor's evidence was unreliable and they were actually laughing at him at times but it didn't really matter. In the public discourse at the time it was all about the conspiracy and Jen Mc Cabe and the Alberts but he said the jury thought they were all fine. They were not giving any importance to what the public thought were big talking points at the time.
They kept going back to the simple explanation of she was drunk, she drove there and left him off and he was dead in the same place when she returned.
The concept of reasonable doubt and the onus being on the prosecution to prove the case didn't seem to get much focus either, they seemed to subconsiously think the onus should be on the defence to prove she didn't. LYK said this is very common with juries.

I should go watch the juror interview. I believe Karen Read is innocent and I appreciate Turtleboy is furthering her case in the media, but he’s below my standard of behavior. I’ve avoided watching anything with him but it probably would be useful info.

 

[Wishbone]

I like ADA Brennan also. I like the way he asks simple and straightforward questions. I don't know how brilliant or compassionate he is since I've never seen him in action before like you have. I think he will be thorough, which is what is needed to get a fair judgment in this case. I did not like how he treated the ARCCA witness behind closed doors, but I suppose that's just what some lawyers do.
MOO.

Insulting Dr Wolfe's integrity did not earn any points from me. The FBI hired his firm without him having any knowledge of who what or why, other than to prove or disprove a person with stated injuries was hit by the Lexus to include if the damage to the car supported the event. I found brennan disgusting.JMOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

Thats okay. I am not here to change anyone's mind about anything.

I have no problem with the treatment toward ARCCA. No one likes to be lied to, and the use of Signal, deleting messages, and trying to hide that you were paid is misleading.

To be clear, experts are paid all the time for their opinion. But, to lie and hide info, being deceptive, you have to ask why? What is the defendant's defense team hiding?

moo

Link attached

Judge scolds Karen Read’s defense for discovery violations on federal crash experts

Karen Read's defense has found itself in hot water for the second time in two months.

www.yahoo.com

Lying, hiding info and being deceptive, I thought you were talking about Jen for a moment.

The ARCCA thing is a nothing burger. The defense paid for their expenses after the last trial and then some wires got crossed this time around. Happens sometimes when there are a lot of attorneys involved in a single case.

At the end of the day, they are cream-of-the-crop biomechanical experts who concluded JO was not hit by a car. Brennan knows this, which is why he's been beyond desperate to keep them out or otherwise limit their ability to testify.

 

[rescuemom]

If it’s going to take JMc ten minutes of back and forth to finally admit that yes, she did indeed say the exact words written on the paper in front of her eyes for every single question I’m going to open a window and flop out of it. The jury must be going nuts. She is extremely combative, it’s ridiculous.

True, so the jury will have a very bad impression of her and see through her antics and the constant and consistant lying. She thinks that she is smarter than everyone else. She's used to controlling people and situations.

 

[rescuemom]

Jen is claiming she did not speak to her sister for 38 seconds at 5:07, and did not leave a voicemail. She cannot explain why the phone records are showing a 38 seconds connection.

Wow, Jen’s phone must be possessed!

How does she remember that????