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

[LvsAMystry]

Says who, the defense?

You clearly didn’t see Trial 1 and can’t have followed this case very much.

 

[Derph]

Agree 100%. Competent and professional. Gallagher was excellent on the stand.

The man came off as a complete buffoon and moron to me. No report?... Check. Leaf blower on a crime scene?... .check. Solo cups and shopping bags as a solid evidence gathering tool?... check. Missing 47 pieces of tail light....check. Kevin Albert as a top cop??? Bwaaahahaaaaaaa!!! PUUUUUUUHLEAAAAAASE!!!!! The man lost his badge and gun because he was a drunken fool!!! Hell, Barney Fife would have done a better job here and I'd trust him over this idiot!! Seriously? Canton needs to get it's money back from this guy because he may be one of the worst frauds of a law enforcement officer I've ever seen!

 

[Warwick7]

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

@sunshineray as much as I respect you, can you link this: unprofessional actions violating a sequestration court order about testimony?

 

[sunshineray]

You clearly didn’t see Trial 1 and can’t have followed this case very much.

That was actually more of a rhetorical question.

 

[DropthePuck]

"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."

Proctor's "investigation" went way beyond flawed and he is the epitome of Keystone cop. IMO

 

[Seni]

I think the only reason Prosecution brought the hopelessly incompetent Gallagher (only interviewed recently) into play was to admit, in spite of everything, that there were non-corrupt officers involved, not associated with the Albert clique.


Altho, AJ already got him on Proctor.

Tomorrow will be interesting

 

[HMSHood]

The Karen Read case is probably the most polarizing case I have seen in a long time. Regardless, it is one of Boston area's biggest trial.

 

[LvsAMystry]

That was actually more of a rhetorical question.

And mine was a responding rhetorical thought!

 

[Seni]

I watched the first trial, like many, my initial thoughts changed greatly. So incredibly "unsafe"

Feel now, at least for the moment, that it has become "neater", or more focussed

 

[Mony Mony]

The man came off as a complete buffoon and moron to me. No report?... Check. Leaf blower on a crime scene?... .check. Solo cups and shopping bags as a solid evidence gathering tool?... check. Missing 47 pieces of tail light....check. Kevin Albert as a top cop??? Bwaaahahaaaaaaa!!! PUUUUUUUHLEAAAAAASE!!!!! The man lost his badge and gun because he was a drunken fool!!! Hell, Barney Fife would have done a better job here and I'd trust him over this idiot!! Seriously? Canton needs to get it's money back from this guy because he may be one of the worst frauds of a law enforcement officer I've ever seen!

Really? Gallagher lost his badge and gun due to drunkenness? Do you have a link? Not disputing but haven’t heard this.

 

[Wishbone]

Really? Gallagher lost his badge and gun due to drunkenness? Do you have a link? Not disputing but haven’t heard this.

It wasn't gallagher.

 

[Warwick7]

Redirect Notice

However, that's not the end of the matter.

"With dozens of text messages between experts at the ARCCA crash reconstruction firm and defense counsel unaccounted for, and missed discovery deadlines, Cannone said she understood the prosecution's complaints but ruled against them anyway."

"I understand completely the commonwealth's argument, the ambush that has been set upon here," she said. "However, a defendant's right to a fair trial is paramount to everything. So I'm going to allow the ARCCA witnesses to testify. I'm going to allow what I expect will be a very robust cross-examination."

Karen Read scores major win as judge allows crash reconstruction testimony

Judge Beverly Cannone will allow experts from ARCCA, a crash reconstruction firm, to testify at Karen Read's second trial in the murder of John O'Keefe.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Derph]

Really? Gallagher lost his badge and gun due to drunkenness? Do you have a link? Not disputing but haven’t heard this.

No it wasn't Gallagher, it was Kevin Albert who he praised as being one of his best officers, that lost his badge and gun while out drinking with Disgraced, former trooper proctor.

 

[Bodhi]

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

Juries are the finders of fact in our legal system. In appeals, the higher court decides questions of law; but it cannot address questions of fact. That's the purview of juries. In other words, juries determine what the facts are in coming to a verdict.

In common parlance, facts are neutral. Facts reflect our commonly accepted understanding of reality, something concrete and definite. And that works in our everyday lives.

In a trial, the facts are in dispute. Each side presents witnesses/evidence that support its case. What one side presents as fact conflicts with what the other side presents as fact. The jurors deliberate based on their evaluation (opinion) of the evidence presented. Like in the OJ case, for instance, the glove with the victim's blood on it was recovered on the defendant's property. That's a fact. Both sides agreed the glove was recovered there. But the significance of the evidence was disputed. The prosecution introduced it as evidence of OJ's guilt; they contended OJ dropped it there. The defense maintained that evidence was planted by a police officer to incriminate OJ.

Hope that explains what I meant.

 

[Wishbone]

Juries are the finders of fact in our legal system. In appeals, the higher court decides questions of law; but it cannot address questions of fact. That's the purview of juries. In other words, juries determine what the facts are in coming to a verdict.

In common parlance, facts are neutral. Facts reflect our commonly accepted understanding of reality, something concrete and definite. And that works in our everyday lives.

In a trial, the facts are in dispute. Each side presents witnesses/evidence that support its case. What one side presents as fact conflicts with what the other side presents as fact. The jurors deliberate based on their evaluation (opinion) of the evidence presented. Like in the OJ case, for instance, the glove with the victim's blood on it was recovered on the defendant's property. That's a fact. Both sides agreed the glove was recovered there. But the significance of the evidence was disputed. The prosecution introduced it as evidence of OJ's guilt; they contended OJ dropped it there. The defense maintained that evidence was planted by a police officer to incriminate OJ.

Hope that explains what I meant.

NO, it doesn't. JMOO

 

[lohrtabitha]

Her tail light pieces are on his shirt, his DNA is on her taillight, other tail light pieces found under the snow in front of the house.

And her own interview with Gretchen Voss where she said she noticed her broken tail light at 5am.

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.

I watched the documentary too and what I recall in the Season 1 episode 2 that Karen said to which she does not deny, Did I hit him? I'm not sure what you heard when watching it but I think you may have transposed her words into I hit him which is not in the documentary. If I'm wrong, by all means upload the clip here to enlighten me.

 

[Bodhi]

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

Please see my reply to @tara83 for a longer explanation.

In short, juries are the finders of fact. As you say, a fact is what is proven to be true. The evidence from one side conflicts with evidence presented by the other. Who decides what the facts are? The jury. That's their role. The jury evaluates the evidence and determines what has been proven as factual beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Wishbone]

Says who, the defense?

No, it came from the FBI when they notified the cw and the defense of their involvement. This was way before the first trial. You were not aware of that?

 

[DustysMom]

No but the defence paid them $24,000

Wasn’t this for travel expenses - flight, hotel and meals?

 

[LvsAMystry]

Wasn’t this for travel expenses - flight, hotel and meals?

This is it exactly. The FBI hired them for expert analysis and they provided expert findings. These findings were provided to both defense and CW but only defense chose to use their analysis at trial. Since defense chose to use them at trial they are thus responsible for payment of time and expenses incurred for the experts to testify pertaining to their findings. Defense did NOT pay for their original findings and opinion the FBI did. Had the CW chose to use them at trial they’d be footing the testimony bill.