MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #24 Retrial

[sunshineray]

Right people make mistakes.
Or they get mad and plow over their most current bf at 25 miles an hour in reverse while leaving zero evidence on his person that it ever happened.
The planting of the evidence was bought about by the action of the planting. I.E the tail light.
I am open to other debates,not the tail light one. It has been shown in the most of current of trials that the tail light was on her truck after jok WAS on the lawn .
Their timeline. Not mine.

There was tail light evidence found on and around his body. I very much disagree with your supposition that it's been shown in either trial that the tail light pieces/shards (big and the tiny ones on JO's clothes) were planted. MO

 

[Soulmagent]

He is was also per his testimony, good friends with Brian Higgins.
So…just spitballing …Brian Higgins I believe went back to police HQ in Canton after he left BA’s. He either stayed there thru out the night or returned again in the am to HQ.
The Lieutenant stopped by the station for gear and then arrived at the scene at 11 am.
Would it be reasonable to assume that while he was at the station he asked what was going on and maybe even ran into BH.
I know he orig said he thought the scene was at Meadows but I’m not sure why he would think that.
JMO

He should have did them a solid and brought back the evidence collection bags. I mean at the least.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The problem with your take is that it treats this case like it’s already been cleanly decided, when it hasn’t. There was a mistrial. The state couldn’t convince twelve jurors beyond a reasonable doubt with all their evidence laid out. That alone should tell you this is not an open-and-shut case.

No one is saying every person involved is a cartoon villain part of a Scooby-Doo gang conspiracy - in fact, that’s a straw man fallacy. What I and many others are saying is that the investigation was botched at best, and at worst, manipulated. When you have deleted texts, late-entered evidence, contradictory statements, and officers admitting under oath they don’t know if their department keeps evidence logs, the issue isn’t just “poor judgment.” It’s incompetence and possible misconduct and deserves to be thoroughly looked into.

If LE is indeed incompetent, that is not, in itself, evidence, much less proof, that KR did not accidentally hit JOK.
Even Barney Fife got it right most of the time.
There will be time to judge and evaluate LE in this case, but, like it or not, KR is the only one on trial here.

 

[mrjitty]

There are zero photos of the pieces at the scene where they were found—who cares if they photographed them back at the station? They were all found in groups that fit together.

RSBM

Not correct.

Timecode 32.12

This is why I kindly request that you provide links. If SERT had not documented recovery, obviously the defence would have made hay out of that on cross. The defence did not do so, and the photographs were accepted into evidence without objection.

Explain how it was intact in the video?

I was responding to @Warwick7 's original statement that there was no evidence the pieces were there before the Lexus was seized. If you want to now debate a different point, I think it is fair for me to ask you to provide a link to what you are referring to.

It takes hours of work to listen back to testimony to find these pieces of evidence.

TYIA

MOO

 

[Soulmagent]

There was tail light evidence found on and around his body. I very much disagree with your supposition that it's been shown in either trial that the tail light pieces/shards (big and the tiny ones on JO's clothes) were planted. MO

It was not from Karens car. Again the Tail light is not something I will fight with you over. I have eyes and they saw.
And the wording was shifty in this part of the testimony IMO..

 

[tara83]

If LE is indeed incompetent, that is not, in itself, evidence, much less proof, that KR did not accidentally hit JOK.
Even Barney Fife got it right most of the time.
There will be time to judge and evaluate LE in this case, but, like it or not, KR is the only one on trial here.

No but it puts their evidence much in doubt. Should a jury really be okay considering evidence from a shopping bag and cups from a neighbor?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

How many people have to be involved in framing someone, and that is the language the defendant and her lawyers have used, before it starts to seem quite ridiculous a concept?

Yet the defendant actually saying she hit the victim (before and while at the scene with his body) and then changing it in a documentary while her trial was happening, is thought of as not possibly being suspect? In light of her saying she was never at the house at all and then backtracking that to...oh yeah I was, did I hit him? Her honesty is not suspect?

IMO this case is a tragic and simple case of hit and run and then lying (she never went to the house at all) to try and cover it up...all during a significant snowstorm that did hamper investigations. There was no planting of evidence or conspiracy to frame her by a multitude of people. That's just a ridiculous notion. AJMO

Preach

 

[Soulmagent]

RSBM

Not correct.

Timecode 32.12

This is why I kindly request that you provide links. If SERT had not documented recovery, obviously the defence would have made hay out of that on cross. The defence did not do so, and the photographs were accepted into evidence without objection.

I was responding to @Warwick7 's original statement that there was no evidence the pieces were there before the Lexus was seized. If you want to now debate a different point, I think it is fair for me to ask you to provide a link to what you are referring to.

It takes hours of work to listen back to testimony to find these pieces of evidence.

TYIA

MOO

EXCLUSIVE: Security Video Released in Karen Read Case

 

[kuromiiiilove]

How many people have to be involved in framing someone, and that is the language the defendant and her lawyers have used, before it starts to seem quite ridiculous a concept?

Yet the defendant actually saying she hit the victim (before and while at the scene with his body) and then changing it in a documentary while her trial was happening, is thought of as not possibly being suspect? In light of her saying she was never at the house at all and then backtracking that to...oh yeah I was, did I hit him? Her honesty is not suspect?

IMO this case is a tragic and simple case of hit and run and then lying (she never went to the house at all) to try and cover it up...all during a significant snowstorm that did hamper investigations. There was no planting of evidence or conspiracy to frame her by a multitude of people. That's just a ridiculous notion. AJMO

It’s only “ridiculous” if you insist on flattening it to a cartoon version of events. Noone is saying every person involved is a co-conspirator. What’s being pointed out is that some people may have lied to protect themselves, others were coached, and the investigation was so sloppy that it’s impossible to trust the chain of evidence.

Also, you seem to insist on repeatedly stating baseless and sourceless ‘facts’. Karen never definitively said she hit John. NEVER. Not in any police report. Not in any officer’s notes. Not on body cam. And not in her own words. Some witnesses now claim she said it, months later, after major media coverage, and lawyering up, but even that testimony has shifted over time. Kerry Roberts retracted her claim. Katie McLaughlin’s version has changed. Jen McCabe didn’t even bring up the alleged ‘I hit him’ comments in her own grand jury testimony. If this were so clear-cut, why all the revisions?

 

[arielilane]

If I recall correctly the blood collected at the crime scene wasn’t used for a single darn thing to bring charges against the defendant.

I am seeing a pattern in the courtroom. defense trying to discredit witnesses, we get blessed with a karen clip and everything comes tumbling down for the defense. She’s going to convict herself.

The defendant already said "I hit him," so the butt dials, MP, solo cups, leaf blower, doesnt change the evidence. The facts, science, and data matter. Follow the evidence.

There is so much misinformation out there. So glad this case is being tried in a court of law and not by the "court of public opinion”

Alessi talking in circles as usual. Word salad.

Much respect to witness Mr. Gilman.

Just my opinion

 

[OldCop]

I don't think very highly of those "experts" paid by the defense

This statement implies that the ARCCA witnesses conducted their studies at the request of the defense team. This is NOT true.
ARCCA conducted a blind study requested by the FBI. It had nothing to do with this trial. It is a separate investigation. ARCCA was provided with the facts of a body with John’s height and weight and John’s injuries and also the vehicle information and were requested to try and determine if this body was hit by this vehicle. The determination was that JOK did not die from being hit by a, (any) vehicle.
The results of that study were provided to both the CW and the D team prior to T1. The CW elected not to use these test results. The defense team did. As a result, the defense team has paid ARCCA for trial preparation and the associated expenses.
It is disingenuous to repeatedly imply otherwise.
Again, for those that may have missed it:

ARCCA: Expert Forensic, Scientific and Engineering Solutions

Discover the ARCCA advantage with our forensic analysis & engineering, expert witness consulting services, and forensic accident reconstruction solutions.

arcca.com

Andrew Rentschler, Ph.D. | ARCCA Experts & Engineers

Dr. Rentschler is a biomechanist specializing in the study of the forces and mechanics associated with injuries to the human body with ARCCA.

arcca.com

Daniel M. Wolfe, Ph.D., ACTAR | ARCCA Experts & Engineers

Dr. Wolfe is a forensic scientist and accident reconstructionist specializing in the reconstruction of motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions.

arcca.com

 

[sunshineray]

Body count?? I count just one. Does your 'concession' here include KR???

Yes the body count of all the people in on KR's supposed framing. All the people in the house and all their connected friends in LE, the first responders (local and state police, paramedics etc...). That firefighter paramedic who KR said, "I hit him" to repeatedly, well she knew an A-family member, went to school with her, so she's in on it too? MO, ridiculous.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

If LE is indeed incompetent, that is not, in itself, evidence, much less proof, that KR did not accidentally hit JOK.
Even Barney Fife got it right most of the time.
There will be time to judge and evaluate LE in this case, but, like it or not, KR is the only one on trial here.

Yes, and criminal convictions in the USA depend on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Incompetent police investigations raise the question of reasonable doubt. Hope that helps.

 

[sunshineray]

They were hired and paid by the FBI to do the reconstruction.

And then they were paid by the defense to discuss and tweak their testimony, JMO.

 

[Angelwatch]

So important to know that it was cold and it snowed and I would guess he will say the ground was frozen. JMOO

I think the importance will come in later. Snow provides an insulating factor. To accurately estimate the temp of JOK's body, one will need to include the snow accumulation in the data. His body was prone with his back to the frozen ground. His chest was exposed to the wind, at first supposedly, and then was later covered with snow. I believe the snow, the temp, and the wind are going to be used for later calculations.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

This statement implies that the ARCCA witnesses conducted their studies at the request of the defense team. This is NOT true.
ARCCA conducted a blind study requested by the FBI. It had nothing to do with this trial. It is a separate investigation. ARCCA was provided with the facts of a body with John’s height and weight and John’s injuries and also the vehicle information and were requested to try and determine if this body was hit by this vehicle. The determination was that JOK did not die from being hit by a, (any) vehicle.
The results of that study were provided to both the CW and the D team prior to T1. The CW elected not to use these test results. The defense team did. As a result, the defense team has paid ARCCA for trial preparation and the associated expenses.
It is disingenuous to repeatedly imply otherwise.
Again, for those that may have missed it:

ARCCA: Expert Forensic, Scientific and Engineering Solutions

Discover the ARCCA advantage with our forensic analysis & engineering, expert witness consulting services, and forensic accident reconstruction solutions.

arcca.com

Andrew Rentschler, Ph.D. | ARCCA Experts & Engineers

Dr. Rentschler is a biomechanist specializing in the study of the forces and mechanics associated with injuries to the human body with ARCCA.

arcca.com

Daniel M. Wolfe, Ph.D., ACTAR | ARCCA Experts & Engineers

Dr. Wolfe is a forensic scientist and accident reconstructionist specializing in the reconstruction of motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions.

arcca.com

Thank you! So many people attempt to deceive others on the nature of ARCCA’s findings. The reality is that they were independently hired by the federal government, came to an independent conclusion, and offered those findings to CW and Defense - and notably, have not changed their findings since their trial 2 expenses were paid by the defense. If CW had taken them on as an expert witness, CW would have paid the trial 2 invoice. It’s very simple.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not sure why to some this is so hard to understand. They were hired and paid for by the FBI.

Both things are true.

They were originally working for the FBI. Later they were paid by the defence.

The contentious invoice came after they provided trial support and testimony for the defence and rendered an 'unexpected' invoice for it, after the trial. AJ did not disclose this to the court - a serious breach which led the Judge to consider if he should be thrown off the case, but it was too close to trial.

In T2, they are a defence expert, providing evidence to rebut aperture, for which the defence is paying them.

As such, only the original work can be regarded as independent - but that work won't be the focus in the trial if I understood Dr Wolfe's voir dire correctly.

Karen Read hearing could have Alan Jackson in the hot seat. All the details we know so far.

 

[tara83]

And then they were paid by the defense to discuss and tweak their testimony, JMO.

Can you provide the link where anyone claimed the defense had them tweak their testimony?

 

[arielilane]

-- Opinion - all my own

Defendant apparently is a functional drinker. I still cant believe someone could drive under the influence with all that liquid in her. I recall her pushing to drink in the afternoon via text messages with John - John telling her she doesnt need to announce going for a drink. Wonder if she’s been enabled in life...

 

[RatFace]

No but it puts their evidence much in doubt. Should a jury really be okay considering evidence from a shopping bag and cups from a neighbor?

I'm not understanding why the blood evidence was important. Wasn't it just JOK's blood or was there more to it?