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]

Just speculating, but is there a chance MM was in the vicinity when the event happened?

I don’t know, but I don’t think he needed to be if something happened to John in Nicole’s home. Jen spoke many times during her testimony of how she’s very motherly and ‘went into mom mode’. Seems like she has a tendency of taking on responsibility to help others. MOO

 

[Tortoise]

That’s a vivid short story, but unless you’ve got security cam footage or any tangible evidence of John crawling around in broken glass, a story is all it is. The more details you pile on - down to the timing of his glass placement and the alleged cap trajectory - the further you drifted from any real forensic evidence that was gathered at the scene. MOO.

It's a fairly common misconception that one must have direct evidence, ie video footage, in order to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. The majority of cases go to trial on a vast array of powerful circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is usually better than direct evidence, IMO, because all the pieces combined lead to one reasonable conclusion. For instance, if there was only a video of Karen Read backing into John, one might ask - how do we know she had intent? how do we know she saw him? how do we know she wasn't having a medical episode? But with circumstantial evidence, it might be demonstrated (not in this case but for example) that she'd made multiple attempts to kill him and he'd registered a complaint with police against her, she told her best friend she was going to kill him, someone heard her scream 'I'm gonna kill you!', she took out a life policy on him the week prior, he had told her he was gonna break up with her, she was an advanced driving instructor etc.

In this case the circumstantial evidence from which it could be inferred that John crawled around in broken glass/sharp pieces of plastic, is -

1. broken glass and plastic on the road/grass and on the bumper
2. wounds like scratches and punctures from something sharp enough to leave holes in clothing and take off the skin on his arm
3. broken taillight
4. fragments of broken glass/plastic adhered to his sweater

and circumstantial evidence of glass placement is -

1. John was known to be holding two drinking glasses when he exited the car
2. John was then using his hand/s to read messages and lock his phone, so he had to put a drink down
3. the location of his shoe/cap/broken fragments showing he likely hadn't moved far when he exited the car, corroborated by phone data showing his likely location near the flagpole
5. no one seeing him standing upright next to the vehicle as they drove past

It's not based on thin air, like the defense conspiracy involving scores of people (some having barely any connection with each other before the night) lying to each other in group texts on phones they handed over to the police, and a police officer leaving a dead body outside his own front door, not even knowing that Karen would admit she hit him, would know he would be on the side of the road, and have damage to her taillight.

JMO

 

[OldCop]

Nice to see you here @OldCop.

Not to mention that the investigation was a total disservice to John O’Keefe who was a fellow police officer. I’ve always known and heard LE goes out of their way for one of their own.

Just a head shaker.

IMO They showed John O’Keefe no respect in life and they showed him no respect in death.
He had two strikes against him - he was an outsider to Canton( moved into his sister’s house to take care of the kids) and he was an honest cop.
John was not like BA ( task force /fugitives) or BH (atf) - the two stereotypical seemingly Monday nite RAW types who worked in the margins/off grid. He was a law and order rules type guy.

I think he would be very disappointed in what has transpired with the non existent investigation.

Karen did not want to go the after party. She did not feel well, they were not close friends with this crowd. John wanted to go. To this day I wonder why. It could have just been the booze - let’s keep it going type thing or he wanted to be in the “in” crowd with the men.

Water under the dam as they say.
JMO.

Hi, @waldojabba. You’re right, of course, about the biggest disservice being given to John O’Keefe. This case sticks in my craw. I honestly thought early on that KR probably hit JOK, probably didn’t mean to, and probably didn’t even realize it until the next day.
Then came Trial #1. Wait. What?
I agree that LE will often push a little harder when it is one of their own who has died under unexplained circumstances, but what if the outcome points towards other LE or their family? Do you let chips fall where they may or do you circle the wagons? I do not believe in coincidence in most cases nor am I a conspiracy theorist, but my gosh, how do you explain the things that have gone on in this case?
Now comes Trial 2 (which in MOO should not be happening). Why go ahead with a trial that they knew had resulted in 2 ng verdicts in the last trial? Because if they did not retry Ms. Read, it would necessitate a new investigation to find justice for JOK. Hopefully, more experienced and professional investigators would find out how a decent Boston Police officer really ended up dead on the front lawn of another BPD officer. Maybe certain residents the Town of Canton were afraid of what a new investigation would reveal. So, we head into Trial 2 with a cast of characters from the DA’s Office on down that reads like a twisted tale from the twilight zone. We have the DA who announced his opinion before the last trial started, the judge who should have recused herself and who is lovingly referred to as “Auntie” by several of the witnesses in the case, the fired trooper, the drinking ATF agent who was crushing on MS Read, the missing dog, the sold-under-value home where the body was found that had carpet ripped up and new paint in the basement, the multiplying tail light pieces, and the complete lack of evidence that JOK was ever hit by a car. You can’t make this stuff up.
Was MS Read responsible for the death of JOK? Maybe, but why on earth would this circle of friends have needed to lie, to switch stories, to destroy and/or manufacture evidence, to circle the wagons to protect someone. Who is inside that circle? It certainly isn’t Karen Read.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Does anyone know if someone like Kerry can be brought back as a witness for the defence or is she done for this trial?

 

[OldCop]

Imagine how much quicker it would have been if she answered truthfully and kept it to yes or no?

True, but then she couldn’t get HER truth out.

 

[ShadyLady]

Hi, @waldojabba. You’re right, of course, about the biggest disservice being given to John O’Keefe. This case sticks in my craw. I honestly thought early on that KR probably hit JOK, probably didn’t mean to, and probably didn’t even realize it until the next day.
Then came Trial #1. Wait. What?
I agree that LE will often push a little harder when it is one of their own who has died under unexplained circumstances, but what if the outcome points towards other LE or their family? Do you let chips fall where they may or do you circle the wagons? I do not believe in coincidence in most cases nor am I a conspiracy theorist, but my gosh, how do you explain the things that have gone on in this case?
Now comes Trial 2 (which in MOO should not be happening). Why go ahead with a trial that they knew had resulted in 2 ng verdicts in the last trial? Because if they did not retry Ms. Read, it would necessitate a new investigation to find justice for JOK. Hopefully, more experienced and professional investigators would find out how a decent Boston Police officer really ended up dead on the front lawn of another BPD officer. Maybe certain residents the Town of Canton were afraid of what a new investigation would reveal. So, we head into Trial 2 with a cast of characters from the DA’s Office on down that reads like a twisted tale from the twilight zone. We have the DA who announced his opinion before the last trial started, the judge who should have recused herself and who is lovingly referred to as “Auntie” by several of the witnesses in the case, the fired trooper, the drinking ATF agent who was crushing on MS Read, the missing dog, the sold-under-value home where the body was found that had carpet ripped up and new paint in the basement, the multiplying tail light pieces, and the complete lack of evidence that JOK was ever hit by a car. You can’t make this stuff up.
Was MS Read responsible for the death of JOK? Maybe, but why on earth would this circle of friends have needed to lie, to switch stories, to destroy and/or manufacture evidence, to circle the wagons to protect someone. Who is inside that circle? It certainly isn’t Karen Read.

Great synopsis.

And absolute PANIC when FBI got involved.

 

[shotgun09]

Just speculating, but is there a chance MM was in the vicinity when the event happened?

I have been thinking about Matt. Just went back to look through his testimony last year. He works for an 'Information Technology Solutions Firm'. Just the guy who can help delete suspicious, questionable and unwanted texts, searches and phone calls on your wife's phone, before she "willingly" hands in her phone to the LE. ( On the same day that they all were monitoring and 'watching' the witnesses and LE )

Same guy who was on the group text discussing LE's movements as well as the famous "Tell them he never went in the house".

This is all so bonkers

 

[sunshineray]

Not the OP, moo probably your best bet is to read back through this thread, watch her testimony on direct and cross in trial x1, watch her testimony from the other day. For someone coming in without context the answer is not simple. Jmo

If you don't want to reach your on conclusions from the testimony, then there are several detailed posts outlining what occurred during this witnesses' cross not too far back. Moo

ETA. If you conclude that this witness does lie on the stand (which she does) then I guess you have to come to your own conclusions on the motive. Jmo

I'm fairly up to date and have read and watched a lot about the case. I believe JM is telling the truth and was wondering why the OP thought she was not. What evidence is there really tgat she's lying? I haven't seen it, just a lot of speculation with no nexus in fact. JMO

 

[keek]

JMc said she thought the FBI agents (I bet she knew they were in some sort of official legal capacity) were trying to sell her something, salespeople. She immediately gave her sister's name when asked. This would be HER response to a situation like that. Instant instinct is lie, for 'no reason' even if she did think it was salespeople. Please. Her character shows. IMO

 

[OldCop]

A few questions for the die hards:
1.) Was it ever explained why the door bell camera footage from the cop who lived across the street wasn't available?
2.) Was it ever explained why the door bell camera footage from JOKs house was missing?
3.) Was it ever explained why the camera footage from the library was missing?
4.) Is it true that there are parts of the sallyport video that are missing?

TIA

Massachusetts is known for having huge pot holes. I guess all these missing things fell into one of those potholes and the Town of Canton paved right over them.

 

[keek]

[QUAOTE="shotgun09, post: 19367694, member: 50998"]
I have been thinking about Matt. Just went back to look through his testimony last year. He works for an 'Information Technology Solutions Firm'. Just the guy who can help delete suspicious, questionable and unwanted texts, searches and phone calls on your wife's phone, before she "willingly" hands in her phone to the LE. ( On the same day that they all were monitoring and 'watching' the witnesses and LE )

Same guy who was on the group text discussing LE's movements as well as the famous "Tell them he never went in the house".

This is all so bonkers
[/QUOTE]
Another convenient asset the Alberts had and of course JMc. She did get found out though. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

She lied in comparison to her testimony in trial 1. She was adamant that Karen’s SUV was outside at 12:45 but we know she was at John’s at 12:36 which is when she connected to John’s wifi.

She told the grand jury and some officers that Karen kept asking did I hit him and could I have hit him but has changed that testimony to Karen saying I hit him 3 times. She was forced to read her testimony to the grand jury and she also tried to blame the cops for taking her information incorrectly.

So it's 9 minutes difference in when JM looked out the window? That's why she's lying? What about KR saying she left John at the bar, never drive in a snowstorm and went to the house? Oh now I don't remember even doing that, when you catch me in an outrageous bald-faced lie. It's plain to me who's telling the truth and who's not. MO

 

[Wishbone]

JMc said she thought the FBI agents (I bet she knew they were in some sort of official legal capacity) were trying to sell her something, salespeople. She immediately gave her sister's name when asked. This would be HER response to a situation like that. Instant instinct is lie, for 'no reason' even if she did think it was salespeople. Please. Her character shows. IMO

It's my understanding that FBI agents usually show their badges when approaching someone they want to interview, not always, but usually. JMOO

 

[Maat99]

It's a fairly common misconception that one must have direct evidence, ie video footage, in order to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. The majority of cases go to trial on a vast array of powerful circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is usually better than direct evidence,

JMO

Snipped

Not even the prosecution is claiming the events that you are claiming. Their “experts” have testified to something other than what you wrote. Circumstantial evidence still needs to be backed by some evidence or science, or some logical interpretation that doesn’t ignore evidence or science. Jmo.
You also incorrectly summed up the defense case - if that was a honest mistake, maybe go review the testimony of the defense experts. Jmo.

 

[PamCake]

Exactly why do you think she's lying? What's her motive for that? I understand KR's motive for lying but not JM's.

I think the whole motive is to protect one person, (who was a minor at the time) a person that the court is not allowed to bring into the case, CA. Something must've happened with him to cause John's injuries. A family protecting one of their own will do most anything.

 

[sunshineray]

JMc is lying to save her "family", simple as that. Something happened that night that would cause irreversible lifelong damage to one of hers (either CA or BA) and she was doing her best to cover it up and throw it all off on KR. Examples of her lies are plentiful, and some examples have been given above.

Where's the proof of that, not speculation, proof? There is none. It's seems it was KR who was out of control angry that night, those calls she made to John highlight that perfectly. KR was the one repeatedly saying she hit him, not the people in the house. There are other witnesses to that not just JM. Are they ALL lying? I don't believe so. JMO KR knew she'd hit John, she was angry and drunk. I don't believe it's second degree murder but I sure believe it's her doing, her fault. AJMO

 

[Snoop Sister]

It's a fairly common misconception that one must have direct evidence, ie video footage, in order to prove a case, beyond reasonable doubt. The majority of cases go to trial on a vast array of powerful circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is usually better than direct evidence, IMO, because all the pieces combined lead to one reasonable conclusion. For instance, if there was only a video of Karen Read backing into John, one might ask - how do we know she had intent? how do we know she saw him? how do we know she wasn't having a medical episode? But with circumstantial evidence, it might be demonstrated (not in this case but for example) that she'd made multiple attempts to kill him and he'd registered a complaint with police against her, she told her best friend she was going to kill him, someone heard her scream 'I'm gonna kill you!', she took out a life policy on him the week prior, he had told her he was gonna break up with her, she was an advanced driving instructor etc.

In this case the circumstantial evidence from which it could be inferred that John crawled around in broken glass/sharp pieces of plastic, is -

1. broken glass and plastic on the road/grass and on the bumper
2. wounds like scratches and punctures from something sharp enough to leave holes in clothing and take off the skin on his arm
3. broken taillight
4. fragments of broken glass/plastic adhered to his sweater

and circumstantial evidence of glass placement is -

1. John was known to be holding two drinking glasses when he exited the car
2. John was then using his hand/s to read messages and lock his phone, so he had to put a drink down
3. the location of his shoe/cap/broken fragments showing he likely hadn't moved far when he exited the car, corroborated by phone data showing his likely location near the flagpole
5. no one seeing him standing upright next to the vehicle as they drove past

It's not based on thin air, like the defense conspiracy involving scores of people (some having barely any connection with each other before the night) lying to each other in group texts on phones they handed over to the police, and a police officer leaving a dead body outside his own front door, not even knowing that Karen would admit she hit him, would know he would be on the side of the road, and have damage to her taillight.

JMO

Awesome post!

 

[keek]

I think the whole motive is to protect one person, (who was a minor at the time) a person that the court is not allowed to bring into the case, CA. Something must've happened with him to cause John's injuries. A family protecting one of their own will do most anything.

Judge not allowing C to be brought into this it sounded. Why not? Complicity, her. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

I think the whole motive is to protect one person, (who was a minor at the time) a person that the court is not allowed to bring into the case, CA. Something must've happened with him to cause John's injuries. A family protecting one of their own will do most anything.

Total speculation and nothing more. There's been no evidence. But there's been a lot of evidence that KR is at fault. MO

 

[tara83]

Total speculation and nothing more. There's been no evidence. But there's been a lot of evidence that KR is at fault. MO

I've seen zero evidence KR hit J with a car either. The first jury agreed and I have zero doubt this jury will also.