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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,121
  • #1,122
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!
 
  • #1,123
  • #1,124
God even this guy can't answer a simple question.

WALL.webp
 
  • #1,125
No matter what way you break it down, KR's own actions and words are what will convict her, MO.
It's plain to see, IMO, that the SODDI defense concocted of irrelevant accusations, with no proof, will not pull the wool over the jury's eyes this time because KR just couldn't keep quiet. I believe she's guilty but not of 2nd degree murder. That's an error in judgement by the Prosecution, IMO. But KR did in fact cause John's death, MO.
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!
 
  • #1,126
  • #1,127
It is not about the first trial anymore. This is a new trial and new witnesses and evidence hopefully. Too much imo is based on T1.
No.
That does not negate that facts were brought out at the first trial. Everyone's testimony is matter of printed record.
 
  • #1,128
This is turning into a disaster for the P - once again. JMO
 
  • #1,129
Whats up with all the extra conversation ?
Answer the question.
question is asked and then an explanation is Offered?
You guys try this on the stand in a trial. It would not happen.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,130
He was not in the car, he was inside the house.
Absolutely! He was not beside the car and talking to Karen. According to the testimony today, she was looking straight ahead and her hands were at 10 & 2 on the wheel.
 
  • #1,131
AJ is asking Paul Gallagher If you were the first to see the glass and blood spots, why not write a report on what you found?

He points out that documenting the details of evidence recovery is standard in such investigations.

No diagrams or notes/reports from Gallagher.
 
  • #1,132
Whats up with all the extra conversation ?
Answer the question.
question is asked and then an explanation is Offred?
You guys try this on the stand in a trial. It would not happen.
What do we know about the glass? Did it come from the house? Did it have prints on it?
 
  • #1,133
No.
That does not negate that facts were brought out at the first trial. Everyone's testimony is matter of printed record.
Of course there is printed record of the first trial. However, what is presented in this trial will be what the jury will base their decision on.
 
  • #1,134
AJ notes that Gallagher nor Lenk NOR Sgt. Goode actually saw John at the scene.
 
  • #1,135
AJ notes that Gallagher nor Lenk NOR Sgt. Goode actually saw John at the scene.
So Gallagher, who didn’t see John on scene, showed the crash accident reconstruction team where John was found.
 
  • #1,136
Who's experts are those? The defense guy who violated a sequestration order by being filled in on other expert witnesses's testimony before testifying himself? That's a big no-no, but he didn't know, wasn't informed that wasn't allowed? It seems there's been a lot of games being played by the defense and their ARCCA "experts". Doesn't help with their believability and objectivity factors at all, MO. The judge even told them to stop with the nonsense, more than once IIRC?
Oh my, please do all of the homework by watching the first trial and do not just use the cliff notes documentary. ARRCA was recommended for use by the FBI. Their findings were shared with both the defense and the prosecution. The prosecution chose not to utilize them.
 
  • #1,137
Watching and using docu as a whole is the WRONG approach and misleading as to where thus trial will go.

More importantlly to note, the docu is simply not trial evidence. Each side may bring bits and pieces that they like -- and may ignore ones they don't like -- to the jury. But ONLY what is presented at trial will have any bearing on the verdict.

In addition, both sides have to be careful what they pull from the docu, as there can be a danger that they end up contradicting their own claims as to what happened and when. You can't have it both ways, in the testimony you present as factual, which is of extra concern to the cw as their story has to hold up to being true BARD.
Watching a documentary/series to prove guilt or innocence so not ok. In 2022 Casey Anthony put out a docu series how she was innocent and to share her version of what she says led to Caylee's death.

She can take a flying leap...
 
  • #1,138
One more question, I didn't follow her first trial.
Did JO's clothing on his arm have rips in the fabric indicating that the cuts underneath were from a dog's bites?
Thanks..
If it did ,I really want to know why we are all watching a 2nd trial.
 
  • #1,139
Cheese and rice. Gallagher is arguing whether filming the scene with a drone counts as ‘documenting’ the team.
 
  • #1,140
Watching a documentary/series to prove guilt or innocence so not ok. In 2022 Casey Anthony put out a docu series how she was innocent and to share her version of what she says led to Caylee's death.

She can take a flying leap...

Wait, so you mean the movie Titanic isn't the way the events of that disaster happened?!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
821
Total visitors
877

Forum statistics

Threads
635,747
Messages
18,683,511
Members
243,381
Latest member
salmadrid
Back
Top