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

[keek]

Remember JMc deleted all those calls in a row a while after John never came back outside on his own, to his phone. She deleted them at some point later, but of course, thankfully, they were found out. Looking for his phone? It's what we do, using another's phone to find ours. Little big things all add up throughout regarding JMc for ONE. IMO

 

[jepop]

Wow, KR listening to voicemail #8 and watching KR sitting there looking bored with no emotion listening to herself freaking out at the scene of his death discovery. No emotional reaction to any of it. Wow, just wow. JMO

I've never understood the point of ad hominum attacks on a defendant's expressions and appearance whilst attending their own trial. The jury will judge? Maybe. I hope they are above that and endeavour not to, though of course we as outsiders aren't required to be. Jmo

 

[Tragg]

This is a really good thread, with passionate and well informed debate.

IDK how O'Keefe died, but by watching hearings and reading news accounts, IMO a jury finding of reasonable doubt could easily result from the inadequate and manifestly corrupt investigation. If the DOJ had sued local LE with an eye to accountable reform, it could only have improved public safety. No chance it's gonna happen now, of course.

 

[keek]

I've never understood the point of ad hominum attacks on a defendant's expressions and appearance whilst attending their own trial. The jury will judge? Maybe. I hope they are above that and endeavour not to, though of course we as outsiders aren't required to be. Jmo

Listening to part of facts in her trial, focused. Normal, detached with focus. She is well aware of her feelings those couple years ago, she has heard these. Not something to be focusing on that makes a difference to being railroaded or not in a trial one is watching and understanding the enormous importance of the WORDS from witnesses and specialists. ALL that matters here.

 

[ShadyLady]

I've never understood the point of ad hominum attacks on a defendant's expressions and appearance whilst attending their own trial. The jury will judge? Maybe. I hope they are above that and endeavour not to, though of course we as outsiders aren't required to be. Jmo

Know what....never heard KR say anything about hitting John on that last voice mail....only a scared hysterical woman. I am sure she has relived it thousand of times.

 

[Tragg]

I've never understood the point of ad hominum attacks on a defendant's expressions and appearance whilst attending their own trial. The jury will judge? Maybe. I hope they are above that and endeavour not to, though of course we as outsiders aren't required to be. Jmo

If she doesn't testify, Read's in-court demeanor cannot be considered by the jury, and she is entitled to an instruction to that effect. Juries are generally conscientious, and unless this is an exception to that rule such an instruction will help focus the jury on the testimonial and physical evidence in the case.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Paul Gallagher is an odd one. He was a long time cop who climbed the ranks and you’d think he’s been to court many times, but he talks way too much. I can’t believe this guy was a lieutenant.

 

[Angelwatch]

No worries - I was simply interested in who you think might have done it and when.

IDK. I think it's highly suspicious that Trooper Proctor provided inaccurate timing of when the car was seized. And then this false time was repeated in subsequent affidavits. Was it Trooper Proctor who did it? I haven't given it much thought as to the who, but someone did it. The same someone who had access to the car in the unsecured sally port. According to Gallagher, pretty much everyone at the station had access. It wouldn't be the first time evidence was planted to make a case a slam dunk.

 

[rescuemom]

Over 43 tail light fragments were definitely recovered by someone not Trooper Proctor. Absolutely.

The timing and discovery are suspicious. It wasn't found immediately. Gallagher found clear glass but didn't find red reflective tail light? I'm not believing they were there at the time JOK's body was found.

The impounding of Karen's car included no photos to document the tail light. Her vehicle was stored in the sally port unsecured, and again, no photos to document it's condition.

Also, not a single person coming or going that night noticed 40+ pieces of reflective tail light on the ground. Snow wasn't a factor at 12:32am so they weren't hidden.

I find the tail light pieces evidence that supports a false narrative. They were planted to convict KR of a crime she didn't commit, IMO.

Didn't tow truck driver who picked up KRs car from her parents house testify that her tail light was possibly cracked but pretty much intact when he loaded the car on to the flatbed.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I've never understood the point of ad hominum attacks on a defendant's expressions and appearance whilst attending their own trial. The jury will judge? Maybe. I hope they are above that and endeavour not to, though of course we as outsiders aren't required to be. Jmo

And if she WAS emotional, I truly believe the same people would be saying ‘Wow. How bizarre of her to cry three years later. She’s obviously faking and guilty’. There’s no pleasing some folks.

 

[jepop]

Listening to part of facts in her trial, focused. Normal, detached with focus. She is well aware of her feelings those couple years ago, she has heard these. Not something to be focusing on that makes a difference to being railroaded or not in a trial one is watching and understanding the enormous importance of the WORDS from witnesses and specialists. ALL that matters here.

Yeah, seems pretty likely. It's an abysmal quagmire speculating and micro analysing a defendant's expressions and reactions when attending their own trial.. That's why the jury is instructed, please don't. It's easy to see why. Jmo

 

[sunshineray]

It's my opinion just like you have your opinion. No proof necessary as it is JMOO

Are there no LE facts or testimony at trial that you can point to, to describe your theory in mor detail? I'm curious as to who you think placed JO there and why?

 

[waldojabba]

They informed both sides to their findings.

IIRC The FBI/DOJ actually sent or had the doc sent to the Prosecutor.
The P then shared the information with the Defense during discovery in a document dump.

The Prosecutor for whatever reason chose to not use ARCCA ( maybe bc it did not fit their agenda/charges). If the Prosecutor had phoned ARCCA and chatted about their results /report, we might not be here in this mess right now.

So much confusion about ARCCA I think here and in general - as well as distrust. Is it an anti science bias or maybe bc of the confusion around the FBI's role and why were they hired?
Thoughts?

It's another head shaker for me.

JMO

 

[iusedtofloat]

Photo of premier evidence collection. JMOO

Photos: Jurors in Karen Read's retrial see evidence from scene of John O'Keefe's death

www.boston25news.com

View attachment 584033

Then not covering the cups so they aren't contaminated further, along with not writing on the cups at bare minimum where that blood was located on the scene. Truly incredible work. If anything happened to any one of us, we should all be so lucky to have Canton PD on the case

 

[jepop]

If she doesn't testify, Read's in-court demeanor cannot be considered by the jury, and she is entitled to an instruction to that effect. Juries are generally conscientious, and unless this is an exception to that rule such an instruction will help focus the jury on the testimonial and physical evidence in the case.

Thank you. I agree.

 

[Wishbone]

Are there no LE facts or testimony at trial that you can point to, to describe your theory in mor detail? I'm curious as to who you think placed JO there and why?

I can, but choose not to mainly because the information is available and is yours to make of it as you wish. The subject has been discussed by many on here from both camps and opinions have not changed. Just as the cw and defense both have their own views. JMOO

 

[detectivewannab]

This is a really good thread, with passionate and well informed debate.

IDK how O'Keefe died, but by watching hearings and reading news accounts, IMO a jury finding of reasonable doubt could easily result from the inadequate and manifestly corrupt investigation. If the DOJ had sued local LE with an eye to accountable reform, it could only have improved public safety. No chance it's gonna happen now, of course.

I think when this trial is over we will see many lawsuit. Guilty or not. John deserved better and actually Karen deserved better. I go back and forth on the verdict.

 

[shotgun09]

Why did they skip the cross of Trooper Guarino?

 

[Angelwatch]

If she doesn't testify, Read's in-court demeanor cannot be considered by the jury, and she is entitled to an instruction to that effect. Juries are generally conscientious, and unless this is an exception to that rule such an instruction will help focus the jury on the testimonial and physical evidence in the case.

According to the juror from trial 1, some jurors did take note of her facial expressions.

I would have to be medicated to sit through this circus and not make facial expressions. Her freedom is on the line. She's going to have outward feelings. This is impossibly hard and I have a huge amount of empathy for her.

 

[sunshineray]

I've never understood the point of ad hominum attacks on a defendant's expressions and appearance whilst attending their own trial. The jury will judge? Maybe. I hope they are above that and endeavour not to, though of course we as outsiders aren't required to be. Jmo

A defendant's demeanor is certainly evaluated by the jurors and comes into play. I was in jury selection once and the defendant stared acting up at the defense table, huffing, puffing, slapping the table, getting antsy in his seat. The judge had to tell them to quiet down. The defense lawyer asked for all 24 prospective jurors present to be dismissed because they would now be prejudice against their client. We were all dismissed. My point being, it certainly does matter how the defendant presents themself to jurors in the courtroom. MO from my experience.