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

[mrjitty]

Yep, while watching that doc, there were a few Scoobie Doo "Rut-Rohh" moments were she just couldn't keep quiet. MO

Of all the foolish things in that doco, I think the defendant's claim that she removed pieces of tail light and dropped them in the driveway will prove the most damaging.

 

[sunshineray]

Of all the foolish things in that doco, I think the defendant's claim that she removed pieces of tail light and dropped them in the driveway will prove the most damaging.

"But in the end truth will out"~Will S

 

[Forest_Wood]

Why is she lying about going to the house? Why did she say what she said to JM, John's mother and within earshot of others at the scene?

I would recommend to people to watch the documentary, "A Body in the Snow" if they can. Very eye-opening about KR, in her own words and actions, MO. It premiered on Investigation Discovery (ID) and is also available on Max thru Sling TV. Additionally, those without cable can watch it via Philo, DirecTV Stream or Hulu + Live TV.

A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read (TV Series 2025) ⭐ 6.8 | Documentary, Crime

A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read: With Karen Read, Alan Jackson, Ted Daniel, David R. Yannetti. On a cold January morning in a sleepy suburb outside of the city, a local police officer named John O'Keefe was found dead on a fellow officer's front lawn.

m.imdb.com

Why not recommend for people to watch the actual trial?

 

[Tortoise]

Why not recommend for people to watch the actual trial?

It gives the accused's version and perspective, to compare and constrast with the trial evidence. That's what's missing from the trial, if Karen chooses, like last time, not to take the stand. IMO

It seems she wanted people to hear what she has to say, but just not in court.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Why is she lying about going to the house? Why did she say what she said to JM, John's mother and within earshot of others at the scene?

I would recommend to people to watch the documentary, "A Body in the Snow" if they can. Very eye-opening about KR, in her own words and actions, MO. It premiered on Investigation Discovery (ID) and is also available on Max thru Sling TV. Additionally, those without cable can watch it via Philo, DirecTV Stream or Hulu + Live TV.

A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read (TV Series 2025) ⭐ 6.8 | Documentary, Crime

A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read: With Karen Read, Alan Jackson, Ted Daniel, David R. Yannetti. On a cold January morning in a sleepy suburb outside of the city, a local police officer named John O'Keefe was found dead on a fellow officer's front lawn.

m.imdb.com

Who lied about going to which house? And when you say others at the scene, if you’re talking about the Alberts, McCabes, Robert’s and O’Keefes, I don’t trust any of them.

 

[Forest_Wood]

It gives the accused's version and perspective, to compare and constrast with the trial evidence. That's what's missing from the trial, if Karen chooses, like last time, not to take the stand. IMO

It seems she wanted people to hear what she has to say, but just not in court.

I understand that. However, Brennan's job is to ensure that information is brought into this trial and to argue its meaning in front of a jury. Watching a documentary or two is not going to give people the full persepctive. There's a reason why a jury is told not the discuss the trial with each other or not to start deliberating until the end of a trial. All information must be considered as a whole, not just cherry picked pieces.
MOO

 

[Wishbone]

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Has there been a publication ban on anything related to this trial or is it all out in the open with the public (with the exception of the FBI of course)? Is there anything we don't know?

No publication ban!

It gives the accused's version and perspective, to compare and constrast with the trial evidence. That's what's missing from the trial, if Karen chooses, like last time, not to take the stand. IMO

It seems she wanted people to hear what she has to say, but just not in court.

I don’t think it’s fair to imply that doing a documentary means she’s somehow being evasive. Giving a personal account outside the courtroom, especially when the defense has no burden to prove anything, isn’t equivalent to dodging scrutiny. It’s a strategic decision. Every defendant has the constitutional right not to testify, and most legal teams would advise against it when the state’s case is already riddled with inconsistencies. Sharing her experience in a documentary is about humanizing her after years of media framing, not somehow evading justice. All MOO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Of all the foolish things in that doco, I think the defendant's claim that she removed pieces of tail light and dropped them in the driveway will prove the most damaging.

I feel like you’re taking her statement wildly out of context. Karen said she picked up what looked like debris during the chaos of looking for John and tossed it near the driveway. That’s a far cry from a confession of tampering or guilt. In fact, the most damaging issue with the tail light isn’t Karen’s statement, but the fact that multiple witnesses, including Proctor, had access to her SUV before evidence photos were taken, and the tail light fragments were found in suspiciously clean condition after police already handled the vehicle. Let’s not pretend her vague, emotional recollection of a traumatic night outweighs the fact that the chain of custody was compromised, her taillight was intact on video after the alleged strike, and Proctor was caught on camera at the sallyport with his hand inside the tail light cavity. MOO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

That is not entirely true, IMO.. There was evidence of trauma (what some believe erroneously, IMO, are dog bites) on John's body. He died from exposure. There was also evidence of a broken tailight found at the scene. There's been absolutely no definitive proof/evidence that Proctor framed KR in any way, shape or form, ALL speculation. She on the other hand has said she hit him AND she lied about even going to the house with John that night. Why'd she do that? Pretty damning evidence, IMO

Let’s break some of your assertions down.

- “He died from exposure” That’s not a medical consensus. Dr. Mindy Hull testified that the cause of death was blunt force trauma, and exposure was only listed as a contributing factor. The injuries to his arm, head, and body are not consistent with being hit by a car, and there’s a legitimate debate among forensic experts about whether those wounds were perimortem or postmortem.
-“Broken taillight found at the scene” Yes, and there’s security footage showing the taillight intact after the alleged hit. Additionally, Sgt. Proctor is seen manipulating that taillight in the sallyport after the SUV had been seized. That’s documented video evidence. The issue isn’t whether tail light fragments were found; it’s how and when they got there, and why the ones “found” were clean, despite snow and melting conditions.
-“No definitive proof Proctor framed KR” There’s rarely “definitive proof” in conspiracy or corruption cases, but we do have multiple examples of altered police reports, missing logs, contradictory testimony, a destroyed phone, and a lead investigator with personal ties to key witnesses. Its a pattern of misconduct that warrants scrutiny, especially when the investigation skipped key steps like obtaining search warrants for 34 Fairview, even though John was supposed to attend a party there, and was found dead directly outside.
-“Karen said she hit him” Wrong. Just wrong. She never definitively said that. Her comment ‘Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?’ was made in panic, while searching for her boyfriend’s frozen body in the snow. She also said, “What if he got hit by a plow?” and “What if he walked somewhere?” - do you think that means she murdered him with a snowplow? No. We don’t convict people based on emotionally distraught hypotheticals uttered in real time, especially when other statements and physical evidence contradict that narrative.
-“She lied about going to the house” Or she was confused, intoxicated, and traumatized, just like EVERY witness in this case who gave inconsistent statements, including officers. The only difference is that Karen’s inconsistencies have been weaponized, while everyone else’s are brushed aside.

 

[Tortoise]

I understand that. However, Brennan's job is to ensure that information is brought into this trial and to argue its meaning in front of a jury. Watching a documentary or two is not going to give people the full persepctive. There's a reason why a jury is told not the discuss the trial with each other or not to start deliberating until the end of a trial. All information must be considered as a whole, not just cherry picked pieces.
MOO

It seems to me we are discussing both on this thread. Although a lot here are still focused on trial 1, and not trial 2 so much.

I'm not sure what you mean about cherry-picking. I think Karen's statements are being discussed alongside the current witness testimony. We don't need to wait until trial is over to discuss it, unlike the jury.

 

[Forest_Wood]

No publication ban!

Thank you !

 

[Leilei]

Not to mention that one single hair

We called it The Little Hair That Could during Trial 1.
IMO.

 

[sunshineray]

Why not recommend for people to watch the actual trial?

I'm sure if they can, they will. They should also watch that doc, KR cooks her own goose, MO.

 

[Wishbone]

The witness seems highly studied in her specific protocol but I am very surprised she didn't know what hematocrit was. JMOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Ryan Nagle, please don't change your testimony!

 

[Soulmagent]

Is this is as close to witch craft as you can get today in Mass?
No one factually knows the amount she drank. I doubt KR herself could answer that. unless the last drink was at the bar. No one knows the time of it either. I just woke up though.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Ryan Nagel taking the stand!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Is this is as close to witch craft as you can get today in Mass?
No one factually knows the amount she drank. I doubt KR herself could answer that. unless the last drink was at the bar. No one knows the time of it either.

Right. Like I said earlier, they could pull tarot cards and read tea leaves for the same result. It’s not Ms. Knowles fault, retrograde BAC extraction is just junk science. MOO.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Moo, there is no way random plastic pieces from a tail light caused these deep symmetrical animal scratch like wounds. No way. I agree with the expert testimony from trial X 1. And there is much more to come this time. The defense has highly qualified professional experts who will testify in much more detail this time around.

In addition to all the appalling stuff ups of the initial investigation, what does it say that investigators (ie Proctor) failed to properly investigate the home owners who owned a large dog, failed to tell the ME who was charged with looking at MOD that the victim was found on the property of a person who owned a large dog. Moo

ETA what inferences could a jury potentially draw from the above, which of course the defense will highlight in coming weeks, depending on when brennan eventually gets around to presenting actual evidence that JO was ever hit by KR's Lexus, or any vehicle for that matter.

I'm sure they will show the video from trial 1 that Karen's taillight was intact. There were no pieces. I posted the video some threads back. IMO simeone else broke that taillight and had pieces placed at that seen.