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

Status
Not open for further replies.
what if we’re all presuming the basement was ripped out and the phone was destroyed and the dog got rehomed because of the death of JOK but that all happened because of something else that happened in the basement which then in turn led to the death of JOK? Like perhaps we’re looking at it from the wrong angle jmo
 
I have still not seen a reasonable explanation from the people who believe KR ran over JoK as to why Higgins disposed of his phone and SIM card on a military base if he had nothing to do with JoK’s death
That is being explained away as "time for an upgrade", I think. I may be wrong, though, so if someone has his testimony handy that would be great :)
If true, convenient timing. Heck, even if not true, the timing is sus.
IMO.
 
I have still not seen a reasonable explanation from the people who believe KR ran over JoK as to why Higgins disposed of his phone and SIM card on a military base if he had nothing to do with JoK’s death
I think two things can be true:
Karen hit JOK
Higgins and the Alberts are hiding something big but unrelated to Karen. What that is, I have no idea. Buts it’s clear they are shady AF.

IMO, MOO, ETC.
 
That is being explained away as "time for an upgrade", I think. I may be wrong, though, so if someone has his testimony handy that would be great :)
If true, convenient timing. Heck, even if not true, the timing is sus.
IMO.
When you get an upgrade you get everything transferred from one phone to another. I believe one of the Brians also changed their phone number. Who does that?
 
I have still not seen a reasonable explanation from the people who believe KR ran over JoK as to why Higgins disposed of his phone and SIM card on a military base if he had nothing to do with JoK’s death
And called BA from his office at the police station at 2 something am...was seen on BA's phone as a "missed call" and then BA called BH back as his phone records showed.
BA denies hearing the 2 something am call and denied calling BH back.
 
That is being explained away as "time for an upgrade", I think. I may be wrong, though, so if someone has his testimony handy that would be great :)
If true, convenient timing. Heck, even if not true, the timing is sus.
IMO.
BA also testified it was his birthday so he upgraded his phone but also it was within hours after he was notified to preserve it.
He denied knowing he was notified to preserve it.
imo
 
Some cops are bias and should never wear a uniform. There's a lot of bias in the world. It doesn't mean every cop that gets on the stand to testify in the KR case is cut from the same cloth, as the defense would like the jury to think.

Listening to the last testimony, I doubt anyone would call him honest with integrity. He literally said the word theory in his testimony and a minute later asked for the definition. He was purposely obtuse and purposely dodging every question. He was acting more like a bad defense actor.
 
Some cops are bias and should never wear a uniform. There's a lot of bias in the world. It doesn't mean every cop that gets on the stand to testify in the KR case is cut from the same cloth, as the defense would like the jury to think.
The defense sure would not agree with your statement. They are having the bad apples, one fired from the States Police, HARD TO DO, and his supervisor who was also too lightly reprimanded by losing a few days pay. There is also Brian Albert who we do know about his actions on that night and morning. Hiding for one. No, the defense clearly is not or has not shown anyone else that. IMO
 
I listened to part of a podcast this afternoon: Karen the Retrial. Now, my hearing’s not great and the only thing worse than my hearing is my memory, but they played a clip from an interview with KR (A body in the snow?) and I’m pretty sure she said something like “I saw him in the snow….but he wasn’t immobilized…so I left”. That’s not a direct quote, so don’t sue me if I misheard.
However, I know I saw an interview with KR last week where she said, with a smile on her face, that she saw John go into the house. Link is below. So, that leaves me with 2 questions:
1. Did I hear the first clip correctly?
2. How do I reconcile the two statements?
Thanks.

 
When you get an upgrade you get everything transferred from one phone to another. I believe one of the Brians also changed their phone number. Who does that?
BH said someone hacked his number. Don't know what BA's excuse was, probably that time for an upgrade thing. Don't know why Higgins had to trash his phone in a very secretive way along with his sim card separate. He also had a buddy there do something that was not kosher with that phone sim card I believe, meaning it was extreme. WE would cut up the sim card and dispose. Not the whole phone as he said he did. Plenty have changed phones and numbers, not like he did. He was told to hold on to it along with BA. The day before that was due to be relinquished, they got a heads up obviously, BOTH of them and away went the phones. This was in trial ONE. JMO
 
I think two things can be true:
Karen hit JOK
Higgins and the Alberts are hiding something big but unrelated to Karen. What that is, I have no idea. Buts it’s clear they are shady AF.

IMO, MOO, ETC.
I agree two things can be true. Even three. Except for in this case there is the science. ARCCA, the accident reconstructionist testified in the first trial that no vehicle hit John. We will have to wait and see what the P and D present this time.
JMO
 
I listened to part of a podcast this afternoon: Karen the Retrial. Now, my hearing’s not great and the only thing worse than my hearing is my memory, but they played a clip from an interview with KR (A body in the snow?) and I’m pretty sure she said something like “I saw him in the snow….but he wasn’t immobilized…so I left”. That’s not a direct quote, so don’t sue me if I misheard.
However, I know I saw an interview with KR last week where she said, with a smile on her face, that she saw John go into the house. Link is below. So, that leaves me with 2 questions:
1. Did I hear the first clip correctly?
2. How do I reconcile the two statements?
Thanks.

I think those are two different times she's referring to. She has said she saw him go into the house. She also said she saw him in the snow on the morning he was found and he didn't look mortally wounded. That's my understanding anyway.
 
BH said someone hacked his number. Don't know what BA's excuse was, probably that time for an upgrade thing. Don't know why Higgins had to trash his phone in a very secretive way along with his sim card separate. He also had a buddy there do something that was not kosher with that phone sim card I believe, meaning it was extreme. WE would cut up the sim card and dispose. Not the whole phone as he said he did. Plenty have changed phones and numbers, not like he did. He was told to hold on to it along with BA. The day before that was due to be relinquished, they got a heads up obviously, BOTH of them and away went the phones. This was in trial ONE. JMO
I just upgraded mine. Hubby transferred everything over, wiped my old one, sending the old one back for our credit.
But... we've seen in the Maddie Soto case that resetting your phone does NOT mean that you erase everything. SS tried to factory reset and is still sitting in jail and awaiting trial for CSAM/CSA and murder. However, SS is not a cop and more than likely didn't realize that LE could still recover his bad deeds. BH would know what could be recovered, and may have made sure that nobody could find it, since he disposed of the whole danged phone.

IMO.
 
I think those are two different times she's referring to. She has said she saw him go into the house. She also said she saw him in the snow on the morning he was found and he didn't look mortally wounded. That's my understanding anyway.
Clip 1 from trial

Interview with Dateline
Air date October 18, 2024
Clip 1

Karen Read: “I mean I didn’t think I’d ‘hit him hit him’ but could I have clipped him, could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him, um he, he didn’t look mortally wounded as far as I could see, but could I have done something that knocked him out and, and in his, in drunkenness and in the cold didn’t come to again.”

Q. "And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party?"

A. “Yeah, yeah, it would have had to have been”

timestamp 2.08.52
 
Clip 1 from trial

Interview with Dateline
Air date October 18, 2024
Clip 1

Karen Read: “I mean I didn’t think I’d ‘hit him hit him’ but could I have clipped him, could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him, um he, he didn’t look mortally wounded as far as I could see, but could I have done something that knocked him out and, and in his, in drunkenness and in the cold didn’t come to again.”

Q. "And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party?"

A. “Yeah, yeah, it would have had to have been”

timestamp 2.08.52
Once again there is proof he was NOT hit by a car. Why do people keep ignoring this fact? IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
435
Total visitors
552

Forum statistics

Threads
625,002
Messages
18,493,216
Members
240,741
Latest member
ellugh
Back
Top