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

[LaineyJ]

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.

Me thinks there’s pressure on her to handle things the way she is..

 

[Leilei]

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?

The calls after the CW claims he was hit (12:28, wasn't it?) - she denies the 12:29 seven second call. Then she waits over ten minutes, and there are a flurry of missed calls within seconds/minutes of each other. Whatever the reason for those calls, to me it shows that JM was frantic right around 12:41. Why? And if they were "butt dials", who hung up on the call since it shows as missed. Someone had to have hung up. Unless her butt is really talented, she hung up on those calls - or someone else did, using her phone (or JO's phone).
IMO.

 

[LvsAMystry]

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

It’s not technically a MA thing in the way you mean but at same time it’s certainly a MA thing in the way the CW operates here

 

[Bethlamb16]

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

Agreed!

 

[mzmarymac]

It was snowing and the roads were slick. Don't need a full blown snow storm to have slick roads.

I'm from Chicago and it is my experience that the roads are WORSE at the very beginning of storm.

 

[Leilei]

JMc outstanding witness. moo

For the defense, yes, she certainly is
IMO.

 

[Derph]

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

I'm serious when I say that this joke of a judge needs to serve jail time for this. She is completely out of control. This woman needs to be removed from her position immediately. She's an embarrassment to Law.

 

[Forest_Wood]

It was snowing and the roads were slick. Don't need a full blown snow storm to have slick roads.

Yes, and it is a fact that roadways are even slippier in the first 30 minutes after snow begins, especially when near or below freezing. Zooming along to drive a 6-7 minute trip in 4 minutes is not going to be happening IMO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

JM was speaking to officer Mike Lenk on scene. The same guy she tried to deny being at his house until she was told they had GPS records. And the same guy whose home she was driving to when she lied about ‘driving slowly’ past 34 Fairview… for four minutes.

 

[Snoods]

This is from the commentator who is in the courtroom.

 

[LaineyJ]

Idk I just think if a man needs urgent help, I’m probably going to add in that he’s a cop. jmo

 

[nodamselindistress]

Idk I just think if a man needs urgent help, I’m probably going to add in that he’s a cop. jmo

And I'm probably going to wake up BA since he is trained in these matters and ask for his help. But JM nope, she just calls 911

 

[kuromiiiilove]

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.

Every thing you assert here depends on trusting what the CW says as the gospel truth. Meanwhile, almost every one of these points have serious issues:

-She was drunk - did you know there was NEVER a BAC test done on Karen? Her blood was taken at the hospital when she was admitted but IT WAS NEVER USED. The CW hired Nicholas Roberts to retroactively calculate her BAC based on how many drinks she reported and elimination rate. Is that not strange to you, when they could have proven EXACTLY how intoxicated she was?
-She was angry - and? If anger= guilt, half the country would have criminal charges.
-She accelerated in reverse - except the key cycles showed that that reverse most likely happened when the Lexus in Proctor’s possession. The data doesn’t match with alleged time of impact.
-She hit something hard enough to break a tail light - first, there’s video of her backing into John’s car which could explain the damage. Second, the taillight was handled by disc graves Trooper Spector - re: infamous ‘sallyport video’.
-The thing she hit was John - prove it. The ME couldn’t.
-He dies from that impact - except his head injuries are consistent with blunt force trauma, not a glancing blow from a taillight. Also, apple health data shows movement and attempted ambulation and as Whiffen testified, he could not prove John DIDNT go in the house.
-He never went inside - you can’t prove that. And typically in an investigation, if someone is found dead directly outside of a house they were supposed to attend a party at, the house is investigated.
-Dog bites - Honestly, I don’t even care about this. The reasonable doubt is there. And I could get into more strangeness with the possession of John’s shirt, who took the swabs, and who actually tested them, but I’ve said it all before upthread.

In short, it’s not as straightforward as you’re trying to present it to be.

 

[jepop]

View attachment 583262
This is from the commentator who is in the courtroom.

Better for jurors to try and keep poker faces if they don't want to suddenly find themselves ' excused'.

 

[Snoods]

Better for jurors to try and keep poker faces if they don't want to suddenly find themselves ' excused'.

The Canton Cartel will have her disappeared.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

And I'm probably going to wake up BA since he is trained in these matters and ask for his help. But JM nope, she just calls 911

Because he’d be seen with injuries. MOO.

 

[Derph]

She just can't answer a question. Ridiculous. If I was just coming into the case without knowing any of the people involved with this and saw jen's testimony, I would convict jen mcabe of murdering JOK!! She can't answer a simple question and it's been going on FOR DAYS!! She's guilty of something and trying her best to cover it. I have no doubt in my mind.

 

[keek]

Did JMC just say she only knew John was dead on the lawn and tail lights were next to him?????? She is being questioned why she did not go running into her sister's and BRIAN ABERTS' house, so this is at the specific time, tail lights next to him?? Her reason as not why she is concerned if people inside the house may also be harmed.. using the tail lights seen as an excuse, deducting that all is fine inside due to that. THIS is her story thought. IMO

 

[Bethlamb16]

So strange that she didn't go pounding on the door and ringing the bell of her sister's house and just waited in the cold for 6.5 long minutes for ambulance. I don't like to say what I would do in someone else's shoes but seems like at a minimum most people would pound on the door and wake up the owners especially if they knew them.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Idk I just think if a man needs urgent help, I’m probably going to add in that he’s a cop. jmo

Not only that, but if you see a dead man on your sister's lawn, your mind would be racing and expecting the worst. You wouldn't KNOW he hadn't been in the house. You wouldn't KNOW others were not also dead or dying. You'd be running into that house so fast to find out why her sister never picked up at 5:07, and again at 6:03 and 6:04 (or whichever times she called). It makes no sense she wasn't in a panic thinking about why her sister wasn't answering. You'd also be running in screaming for help from them. You'd be screaming as soon as you opened the door HELP HELP HELP.