MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #25 Retrial

[Izzylizzy]

Really, we can only assume he said no and then started saying that they talked to one another but he was cut off by the defense attorney... In M00 that is only an assumption.

I just posted the exchange between AJ and YB and didn't see YB continue to say or try to say anything after agreeing with AJ that KR didn't text BH back.

 

[iQuill]

There is this idea that some big fight happened, and the entire house had to be in on it including the kids there for a sleepover. I don't think that at all. Maybe John and one or two people had a fight and one punch is thrown, and it rattles JOK. Maybe there are no punches thrown, but a verbal altercation happens and the dog jumps on him because when people are fighting or even wrestling around dogs can get protective. They tell him to get out and he does. He wanders out front looking for his ride because he thinks she's still going to be out there, and she isn't. He slips in the snow or sits down because his head is hurting, and he dies. I am not saying this is exactly what I think happened, but it is possible there was not much of a disturbance inside so not everyone was aware as it happened, and they might not know JOK was hurt as badly as he was when he left. That sure would be a reason to keep quiet once you realize that he's dead on the front lawn you know because nobody checked on him or thought to help him so fault just might be on the homeowner having the party.

We don't know because no LEO went inside to look or question anyone inside the house, no SW of the house was done, and lots of things were deleted or disposed of after that night.

my 2cents ... I support your theory about a verbal altercation or even a punch or two ... dog jumps JOK, back of his head hits on something, he scrambles out, drunk and stumbling, navigates towards the side yard (flag pole area) to vomit (it was on his pants), gets his phone from his back pocket, falls on his belly (phone underneath), passes out ... and dies ... IANAL but this is a reasonable explanation of events, supports the LE cover up theory and clearly requires the jury to find KR Not Guilty BARD. MOO

 

[rescuemom]

At the end of yesterday, I thought back over the week and thought that the CW case was a bunch of nothing so far and what is the jury thinking?

What has been proven that will likely convict KR???

The CW has tried to narrow it's case down so much , sadly because of who and what they have to work with.

There is so much that they do not want the jury to hear.

They are scraping the bottom of the barrel to bring in experts that are laughable.

Their case as presented is without facts and reasonable testimony.

The D has made more points in cross and introduced more doubt and their case has yet to be presented. AJMO.

 

[Teche]

Like I said, we aren't privy to her medical records. Cancer, colitis, Chron's, plus MS, are all horrible diseases.
Her health issues have zero to do with her case and certainly shouldn't be used as a big negative "gotcha" against her.
I'm frankly appalled.
IMO.

I totally agree about not being privy to her medical diagnoses. You are you referring to about using it against her?
My 2 siblings and my father had resections and faced the possibility of needing a colostomy. My sibling had numerous surgeries related to 2 cancer diagnoses. I recognize and understand the fight to thrive.

 

[cocomod]

Like I said, I've met some very unlikable cops, we're talking crude-mouthed and obnoxious in their personal lives. That doesn't mean everything they do on the job is suspect. I've met lots of professionals that I'd not care to associate with personally. Doesn't mean they're not good at their jobs. Some very well could be straight-up bad people but I don't cookie-cut their professions as having all bad people because of them. AJMO

If you are not absolutely flabbergasted at the lack of not only professionalism, but the lack of actual investigation, then there is little we can say. I am pro-LE, but I am totally disgusted in the LE for this case and the Birchmore case. There is absolutely NO excuse for the lack of investigation, the lack of care for a fellow police officer, let alone human being that died.

 

[Izzylizzy]

 

[ShadyLady]

And Higgins seemed angry when yelling and gesturing to John. Chris Albert can be seen physically holding him back.

The Waterfall video is hugely important. Jackson likely cannot wait to start questioning Higgins all about it.

I thought it looked like BH was ready to walk out without yelling back at John, and after CA grabbed him did he wave and yell back at John to make sure he was coming. Did Chris say, "Hey make sure he's coming!"

 

[ShadyLady]

I think BH was drunk and itching to get into/expose to JOK what KR and him had been texting about until she ghosted him on the 23rd.

imo

Or did BH share with KevinA and BA the texts between them on the long ride back from funeral?

And that got shared with all the Alberts and Mccabes? I still think Jen was in the middle of this, maybe she thought she could get John to call it off with Karen.

Were John and Karen invited to Waterfall????

 

[waldojabba]

And did you catch his excuse for using the like emoji? He stated he was directing traffic and checked his messages quickly, and liked the comment to indicate he had read the thread, not because he was liking the comments. His story is unbelievable, given his attitude and testimony on the stand about Proctor conducting the investigation with integrity and honor. IMO Bukhenic is as bad as Proctor in conduct. I doubt he would have missed those 5 vacation days either, likely banked overtime at time and a half where he worked 3 days but got paid for 5 days, a total of maybe $1500 out of his pocket. A slap in the wrist !
MOO

Is his Apple Watch hooked into his msp phone. Does msp provide watches? JMO

 

[waldojabba]

I don't know if he testified to that.
Who told him that, BH?
Hearsay?

I don’t think so out happened. JMO.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

T1 testimony of YB.

Thank you @Forest_Wood ….. for locating and sharing this information from the first trial. This includes the exact segment that I referred to and had recollected.

That occurs at ~1:18:30 and includes YB indicating to AJ that although evidence was indicated as being in his name, and on an evidentiary collection bag, he did not actually do so. And he appears to concede it was likely trooper proctor - that had labeled it in another individual’s name (I.e.YB). And that included IIUC red, black, and clear plastic items. I do not believe that YB or AJ makes reference to any other glass, taillight bulb glass, or cocktail glass fragments as having been recovered.

Also of interest from this portion testimony of YB and upon defense cross in the first trial:

at ~51:19 YB indicates that civilian witness began questioning included JMcC at her own residence, and not at the 34 Fairview location.

~1:11:00 and thereafter the Albert connection to the case by virtue of one individual being within the CPD and also the connection to a residence at 34 Fairview.

~1:15:00 YB testimony under cross by AJ that no specific location or coordinates were noted for the plastic fragments and items later retrieved from 34 Fairview.

It is also interesting IMO to contrast the nature of the testimony and responses by YB under questioning during the first trial, with that occurring in the second trial.

MOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Days from 1/29/22 until interview:
0-Jen McCabe
0-Matt McCabe
0-Brian Albert
0-Kerry Roberts
1-Officer Saraf
1-Katie McLaughlin
3-Jen McCabe #2
5-Michael Trotta
5-Nicole Albert
5-Brian Higgins
9-Ryan Nagel
10-Timothy Nuttal
10-Marietta Sullivan
10-Laura Sullivan
12-Julie Albert & Chris Albert
249-Julie Nagel
265-Sarah Levinson
524-Caitlin Albert
536-Brian Albert Jr.
536-Colin Albert
559-Brian “Lucky” Loughlin
574-Allie McCabe
581-Heather Maxon
796-Paul Gallagher
830-Tristan Morris

Stupid question— they never interviewed Karen? Or she was already lawyered up?

 

[Leilei]

Or did BH share with KevinA and BA the texts between them on the long ride back from funeral?

And that got shared with all the Alberts and Mccabes? I still think Jen was in the middle of this, maybe she thought she could get John to call it off with Karen.

Were John and Karen invited to Waterfall????

BA didn't go to the funeral, from what I remember.
IMO.

 

[ShadyLady]

BA didn't go to the funeral, from what I remember.
IMO.

Oh, I thought he had. And then dropped off. Does anyone remember who all went on that trip?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Stupid question— they never interviewed Karen? Or she was already lawyered up?

She was interviewed - I think only once. By Buhkenik and Proctor on 2/3/22 in her parents home in Dighton.

 

[Warwick7]

Too many shenanigans with LE.
Getting rid of the dog,
lies lies lies,
getting rid of phones,
SIM cards,
unusually high amount of “butt dials,"
delete delete delete texts...

(KR did not at any time delete any texts, not one).

M00

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

BH drove far to rehome his phone to the top secret army base phone destroyer machine JMO

Yes @Elliot_Alderson , and what puzzles me on that….. IIRC it was his personal phone, yes? Not related to his employ?

IANAL but IIUC there could be federal or possible state charges for destruction of personal property in such a manner? And if that is the case, aren’t there destruction and certification requirements for doing so?

And another key aspect of this IIRC….. BH destroyed that phone, during inclement weather, and had it seems IMO done so prior to a request that was forthcoming for it or something related to it? If that is the case, who gave him notice of that impending action?

Wonder if any of that is being investigated? And if so, what the outcome will be?

MOO

 

[shotgun09]

Yes @Elliot_Alderson , and what puzzles me on that….. IIRC it was his personal phone, yes? Not related to his employ?

IANAL but IIUC there could be federal or possible state charges for destruction of personal property in such a manner? And if that is the case, aren’t there destruction and certification requirements for doing so?

And another key aspect of this IIRC….. BH destroyed that phone, during inclement weather, and had it seems IMO done so prior to a request that was forthcoming for it or something related to it? If that is the case, who gave him notice of that impending action?

Wonder if any of that is being investigated? And if so, what the outcome will be?

MOO

I suspect that it was the DA's office (personnel? ) that gave Higgins and Brian Albert the heads up on the pending request to release their phones. It was done in the nick of time also. I believe one day?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The LE that I have seen that have covered this case, including FBI, disagree with this statement. A dead man on the lawn is probable cause.

Exactly @cocomod ….. and add to it that it was an off duty police officer! This entire case and YB recent testimony in trial 2 about the investigation and evidence just boggles the mind.

And makes one wonder, if maybe this is why those that first called 911 about JOK presence on the lawn (‘a man on the front lawn’ IIRC) did not make reference to his avocation? An attempt to distance any initial investigation because of the nature of the victim?

And contrasting YB demeanor and responses under questioning during trial 2 and cross by AJ with his testimony in trial 1 is astounding IMO. MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Yes she was drunk ergo the charge of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene. So her being intoxicated turned her into a lair? Until after she was arrest, then she was telling the truth?

There's a saying, "A drunk mind speaks a sober heart". Maybe the alcohol made KR a less inhibited in her words? Maybe the alcohol made her more focused on her immediate emotions and not on the later consequences of what she was saying? Maybe that's why she changed her story, after she challenged by JM and after she was arrested? Just some thoughts, AJMO

Aren't there also other expert opinions that say his injuries are consistent with a vehicle strike?

Respectfully, yes. In the first trial Dr. Frank Sheridan testifying for the defense spoke at length about the nature of the victim’s wound. And how and what might, and what might not, have caused them.

If that has not been viewed, strongly suggest to locate it and watch it. I am not sure whether or not he is a planned witness for this trial. One would hope that he is planned for calling.

And unfortunately I won’t be able to locate all or good sources for his testimony. It is available online I believe and AFAIK. I did find this one example of some of his testimony from the first trial. Posted in a video from Law & Crime. MOO