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

[sunshineray]

Well they didn't convict her in the first trial and to say that the wool was pulled over the jurors eyes is saying that they are unintelligent and were easily duped. I think that is beyond an inaccurate judgment of their capabilities. Even those who live there in Canton, know the police have done corrupt things, that is why the citizens demanded an audit. This case and another tragic case 4 miles away, are why the FBI initially jumped in. The FBI doing this was rare! I'm sure they had some great intell!

I think if KR's own words and actions in that documentary of her first trial are played for the jury, it will be very impactful against her defense. I think more should be done to quell the bizarre fan club atmosphere outside the courthouse too, for the jury's sake. Every PD can have corrupt players within their ranks. That does not mean conspiracy SODDI defenses should be allowed in the courtroom without evidentiary proof. That's how I view this case. There's an inequity being shown about the victim, his family and friends.
As always, AJMO.

 

[Bodhi]

Some majorly fallacious thinking here.
- False dilemma - ‘If the people in the house weren’t cops, this would be a simple hit and run.” That’s not how facts work. Affiliation doesn’t determine guilt or innocence, evidence does.
- Straw man - No one is claiming the house party guests are MS-13 killers. That’s an exaggeration you’re using to mock alternative theories rather than engage with the actual concerns: conflicting witness testimony, missing evidence, and troubling investigative conduct.
-Appeal to incredulity - “Why would his friends hurt him?” isn’t proof of anything. People harm people they know all the time. Especially when alcohol, power dynamics, or fights are involved. Saying “it doesn’t make sense” isn’t the same as proving it didn’t happen.
- Misuse of data - The GPS and temp data? The CW fought to keep those out of the first trial - and lost credibility for it. Cherry-picking the parts that sound damning while ignoring context (like when and how the black box triggered) is a little obtuse.
- Circular reasoning - ‘She was worried she hit him, so she must’ve hit him.” Simply illogical.

"Some majorly fallacious thinking here" could be applied to your post. Please consider that objective people like @DustysMom can follow the evidence presented, evaluate it, and come to different conclusions than you do. No leaps of logic required.

Facts don't determine guilt or innocence. Verdicts are based on the jury's evaluation of conflicting testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. It's interpretation. How jurors weigh evidence and deliberate is fundamentally based in the subjective.

I'll just sum up by saying that the points you think are logical fallacies from those who are not convinced of KR's innocence could equally be applied to KR supporters. It's all about one's perspective.

This post is all my opinion, just as yours is your opinion.

 

[sunshineray]

Expert testimony by ARCCA says JO was not hit by a car.

The experts are not what I would consider reliable in their testimony, MO

 

[Bodhi]

It's a good idea to research exactly how the ARCCA works.

Yes, they receive payment---that's how it works.

KR hired reconstructionists, and they're finally allowed to testify. They are a team of 52 experts. They are objective and were hired initially by the U.S. government.

As I said before, the annual income of the ARCCA firm would be in the millions. If you told me it was in the hundreds of millions I’d believe you. There's no way these guys are taking a quick payday to lie for KR. Putting their reputation and firm in jeopardy? Probably excluding them from ever testifying at any trial ever again? For a measly $23,000 payday no less. No.

The issue was lack of disclosure. After denial of connection.

 

[tara83]

That's your opinion, not mine.

It's the fact from the experts who examined it.

 

[Wishbone]

That's your opinion, not mine.

It is ARCCA's determination after accident reconstruction.

 

[sunshineray]

The FBI hired ARCCA without defense knowledge. Fact.

I don't really care who hired them, I care about unprofessional actions violating a sequestration court order about testimony, MO.

 

[tara83]

"Some majorly fallacious thinking here" could be applied to your post. Please consider that objective people like @DustysMom can follow the evidence presented, evaluate it, and come to different conclusions than you do. No leaps of logic required.

Facts don't determine guilt or innocence. Verdicts are based on the jury's evaluation of conflicting testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. It's interpretation. How jurors weigh evidence and deliberate is fundamentally based in the subjective.

I'll just sum up by saying that the points you think are logical fallacies from those who are not convinced of KR's innocence could equally be applied to KR supporters. It's all about one's perspective.

This post is all my opinion, just as yours is your opinion.

Facts don't determine guilt or innocence? I'm confused at your point on this.

 

[Bodhi]

Kevin Albert a "best detective"?????? The guy who lost his gun while out drinking with disgraced, former, trooper proctor? THE kevin Albert who was known as one of the laziest people in the entire department? Thanks for the comedic relief there guy!

Can you provide a source that Kevin Albert was known as one of the laziest people in the department?

 

[sunshineray]

You left out the keystone cop investigation. Regardless, I believe the expert accident reconstructionist that JO was not hit by a car. JMOO

"Keystone cops" is a very derogatory phrase, IMO. I support LE investigations. Do they ever occur without mistakes or flaws? I'd say rarely, MO. But like my Gram used to say, "You don't throw the baby out with the bath water." AJMO

 

[Angelwatch]

You pay someone enough they will say anything. KR said she paid them alot of money.

I think there’s truth to this statement in general. Both sides pay experts a lot of money to come to conclusions that are favorable to their side. What one needs to do though is to look at the credentials and experience to see if this person or firm is a hired gun and will say whatever to make some money.

KR did not pay ARCCA to perform the first round of testing. They would be considered independent at the time the first report was written. Their conclusions weren’t influenced by her legal team. She has most definitely paid them to run additional testing, but their credentials stand for themselves. These are well regarded and educated experts who have a good reputation and have been hired globally. You can argue they didn’t have all the facts in regard to their trial one conclusions, but it’s nonsense to say they were influenced by KR’s money.

Now the CW on the other hand, has hired an expert to dispute their own medical examiner. So if you want to look at questionable, hired gun testimony, that’s the one to watch.

 

[Warwick7]

The issue was lack of disclosure. After denial of connection.

What?

 

[Wishbone]

"Some majorly fallacious thinking here" could be applied to your post. Please consider that objective people like @DustysMom can follow the evidence presented, evaluate it, and come to different conclusions than you do. No leaps of logic required.

Facts don't determine guilt or innocence. Verdicts are based on the jury's evaluation of conflicting testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense. It's interpretation. How jurors weigh evidence and deliberate is fundamentally based in the subjective.

I'll just sum up by saying that the points you think are logical fallacies from those who are not convinced of KR's innocence could equally be applied to KR supporters. It's all about one's perspective.

This post is all my opinion, just as yours is your opinion.

Since a fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true I don't see how it can be evaluated away. JMOO

 

[sunshineray]

The FBI hired ARCCA without defense knowledge. Fact.

Says who, the defense?

 

[keek]

Can you provide a source that Kevin Albert was known as one of the laziest people in the department?

I'd say that is the very least of his poor LE behavior while on duty. Drinking while on duty, caught, who knows if it was the first and only time? IMO

 

[tara83]

"Keystone cops" is a very derogatory phrase, IMO. I support LE investigations. Do they ever occur without mistakes or flaws? I'd say rarely, MO. But like my Gram used to say, "You don't throw the baby out with the bath water." AJMO

I don't support a LE who uses random bags and cups to store evidence and has zero notes or chain of evidence. My stepbrother is a cop and said this is the most pathetic police behavior he has ever seen.

 

[Wishbone]

I don't really care who hired them, I care about unprofessional actions violating a sequestration court order about testimony, MO.

I am not aware of what order you are referring to or who violated it.

 

[sunshineray]

Her words and actions are the ONLY evidence you're using to decide she's guilty. I certainly hope members of the jury don't feel this way, she'll never get a fair trial.

No it's not but yes they are very important and telling, MO. KR actually called her doing the documentary are her being able to testify. Why then shouldn't her words and demeanor be enveloped into my opinion? I actually believe JM. There was no guile in her testimony, anger yes but I believe she told her truth of events, MO

 

[keek]

"Keystone cops" is a very derogatory phrase, IMO. I support LE investigations. Do they ever occur without mistakes or flaws? I'd say rarely, MO. But like my Gram used to say, "You don't throw the baby out with the bath water." AJ

You do when a person has died, a well respected and honorable man and LE himself of all people. ON the lawn of a LEO even, who made sure he didn't show himself at alllllll, just joined in group texts that are inflammatory towards themselves, that were forced to be entered into evidence. OH it goes onnnnnnnnnnnnnn. IMO

 

[Wishbone]

"Keystone cops" is a very derogatory phrase, IMO. I support LE investigations. Do they ever occur without mistakes or flaws? I'd say rarely, MO. But like my Gram used to say, "You don't throw the baby out with the bath water." AJMO

I don't support sloppy LE investigations and this investigation was just that and worse. And the shoe fits(keystone cops) as to their botched investigation. JMOO