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

[keek]

The witness list is so long and I hope all do testify and how they compare to previous trial, if they were witnesses then. Lot of very interesting witnesses as well, new ones.

 

[jepop]

Hey everyone! Just a Sunday night check-in after a long weekend! Over the past week or so I have randomly shown the picture of the wounds on JOKs arms to people who did NOT know anything about the KR trial or even who KR was. I asked them if it looked like the person was hit by a car and the pieces from the broken tail light scraped his arm up, or if it looked like he'd been attacked by a dog. Everyone, except for one guy, said the dog. Immediately. No question in their mind. The one that did say tail light did ultimately say that after looking more closely, it probably was a dog bit.

JMO and the O of MANY others....

EAT - Here is the picture I showed them.

View attachment 583727
E

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.

 

[keek]

That makes sense. But could that have happened after JOK was unconscious in the snow?

Picture yourself using your arm to ward off a dog attack. Standing, arm goes up, the photo shows where the teeth bit into the elbow area, while the front claws were on either side of that as the large dog jumped on JOK. There was a time of chaos and violence happening at that time and the dog was there, wherever it took place. The basement area was dug up, cement disposed of along with the rug, dog was taken away, by the sounds or lack of them, per JMc, Her daughter called her bf after midnight to pick her up and bring home. She was planning on staying over per her own testimony or her bf's, as he was going to be out plowing. She had a story thrown in of while driving home, she saw a white dog in the snow walking around, so she took it into the car, brought it to the police station, but said the people who were missing the dog were outside the station so she never went in with a dog to cement her story as true. Yes, I would think the police station had outside cameras to confirm or not. Have not heard a thing on that yet. So IMO

 

[Luna20]

This trial has shown me how compromised judges can be. Judges should be accountable for their actions. IMO

Big thumb on the scale of justice. IMO

She is a reason for appeal, if necessary. She isn’t subtle about who she is protecting.

 

[Warwick7]

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.

BBM
Yes! Also, the butt dials and the "tell 'em he wasnt in the house" and the getting rid of phones and the promised “gift” after the investigation is so suspicious it alone cast a more than reasonable doubt.

As for her drinking and driving, well she was with an agent and two Boston cops, none of them stopped her from driving.

Its not my place to say she was drunk driving or not, BUT they should have stopped her if she was intoxicated, they are held to a higher standard and they didn’t.

On top of that how many LE drove drunk??

Lest we forget JM saying she saw KR outside at 12:45 when infact she was connected to John's wifi at 12:36!

 

[jepop]

I don't think there was a vehicle there. The 3 people who drove up behind Karen's SUV and parked behind her for up to 5 minutes testified there was no jeep between them. It was only JMc who said the jeep was there at that time.

Imo Higgins's jeep with plow attached was somewhere round there but not where JMc said it was. Maybe Infront of No 32 (heading towards Chapman), maybe Infront of No 31 or 33, opposite. Jmo

 

[Warwick7]

@Wishbone posted quite a long time ago a mic drop moment.

Alli McCabe says “Colin Albert wasn’t in the house when JO was there" and breaks down when she describes the harassment she says she and her family have received.

Court video, updates: Key witness Colin Albert testifies in Karen Read murder trial

Read is accused of backing over her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe and leaving him to die in the snow in Canton.

www.yahoo.com

 

[sunshineray]

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.

She said she did it, many times. She was angry, said by her in her documentary and also obvious in the phone calls she made. Pretty simple case really, made ridiculously complex, IMO, by defense lawyers trying to blame everyone but the person who said they did it, KR. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

You asked me why I thought JM was lying and what her motive was. I told you what I THOUGHT.

Now you want proof? Ask Michael Proctor about that, he botched the investigation and compromised the evidence so badly we will never know what truly happened.

Oh, the way you stated she was lying made me think you were referencing evidence of her lies. That's why I was confused. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[sunshineray]

There is zero physical evidence on John's body that he was struck by any vehicle.

And there was no taillight at the scene that morning. Not a single piece.

Taillight didn't show up until now fired and disgraced ex-Trooper Michael Proctor - the lead investigator and friend of the Alberts - got his hands on Read's vehicle.

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

 

[sunshineray]

No. She was impeached just yesterday. You can say it's speculation if you want but that is a misrepresentation and untrue. Moo

Impeached about what, specifically?

 

[sunshineray]

I agree with you.
KR was very drunk and trying to drive in a snowstorm. John was very drunk and trying to walk in a snowstorm. She accidentally hit him. A tragedy.
The biggest crime here is that the prosecutor over charged her. Murder implies intent which there absolutely was none that I can see. She should have been charged with whatever Massachusetts calls driving while intoxicated causing bodily harm or death.
KR and her attorneys should have been fighting to change the charges not spinning wild conspiracies. Some are saying people are lying to “save their own”, but KR et al are doing the same it seems to me.
What a mess. KR did not murder John, but she is responsible for his death.
Shame on the prosecutors and shame on the defense attorneys. That’s as I see it.

That’s just my opinion. I will now retire to my foxhole to await the incoming grenades that will be tossed my way.

That's exactly how I see the case too.

 

[sunshineray]

Jen was adamant that she saw Karen’s SUV was outside the Albert’s’ home. Karen connected to John’s wifi at 12:36. How can she be at the Albert home and at John’s at the same time? As far as thinking she last saw him at the waterfall, who knows? Karen was obviously drunk and then woke up in a panic.

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

 

[sunshineray]

Did you watch the first trial or are you trying to catch up by watching documentaries, pod casts, etc. If so, you are no way up to date. IMO

Yes, I've watched summaries of the first trial and a behind the scenes documentary, "A Body in the Snow".

 

[mrjitty]

dbm

 

[mrjitty]

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

There were taillight fragments in Johns shirt material recovered in the evidence lab.

That is conclusive evidence of the strike and why the defence requires you to believe they were planted in yet another part of the conspiracy.

MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

Impeached about what, specifically?

The problem for the D is Karen went and confirmed the two most important parts of Jens testimony on video.

 

[mrjitty]

Brennan's focus on Karen's fabricated version will be a big theme in closing.

In T1 the defendant had no positive/extensive version - in part a strange tactical decision by Lally not to use her out of court statements, and in part the subsequent release of Body in the Snow (BITS). So whereas the defence could exist in the ambiguity, now Brennan can seek to actively disprove Karen's version and show that the CW version is to be preferred.

It's clear that Karen made a major error in her version in using the 12.41 arrival at Meadows (heels on garage floor etc). The 12.36 router connection is the same issue for both sides, but the problem is Karen now boxed herself in with a timeline.

The defendant knows the 12.24 arrival time in inescapable due to the corroboration of the GPS/vehicle data for the 3 point turn. She also knew her vehicle was seen by the flagpole with John allegedly not coming in, despite followup messages and calls. How to explain why her car is sitting there and she is not coming inside?

In her BITS version, Karen claims John went immediately inside, then she waits 10 minutes getting more and more annoyed. She calls John and he does not answer so she gets mad and leaves. The defence likely thought based on 12.41 at Meadows that this all aligned nicely to the available 17 mins (10 mins wait + 7 mins drive).

Brennan will illustrate that this is a fabrication that is not possible on the evidence

First, Karen doesn't have enough time to call John before heading back to Meadows for 12.36. Even allowing for some tolerance due to using a different clock, it's clear she lied about calling John before she left. That 12.33 call has to happen while she is already driving back to Meadows. Why the lie?

Second, Johns phone data shows he does not immediately get out and take steps after arriving at 12.24 - rather he is sitting in the Lexus until 12.31, and he does not even read Jen's message "pull behind me" until 12.32. So even if you believe John took those final 30 odd steps towards the front door of the house, it's clear the defendant was lying that she was waiting for John.

Indeed she did not wait for him at all - she clearly has to leave immediately he gets out.

Sources:

Karen's BITS version

Whiffin: Timeline 3.39.45

Post is my interpretation of Brennan's trial strategy/opinion only etc

 

[sunshineray]

The problem for the D is Karen went and confirmed the two most important parts of Jens testimony on video.

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

 

[Izzylizzy]

54K views 6 hours ago Karen Read