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

[Forest_Wood]

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

AJ her attorney explained her statement. I'm not sure where I saw it.
ETA: Found it at 35:10 of Opening Statement.

 

[Tortoise]

AJ her attorney explained her statement. I'm not sure where I saw it.

She explained it herself - it was when she dropped him off, not when she found him.

 

[Leilei]

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

Can you please explain what I'm supposed to glean from this?
TYIA.

 

[tara83]

She explained it herself - it was when she dropped him off, not when she found him.

So explain to me how an independent study said he was not hit by a car?

 

[Tortoise]

Can you please explain what I'm supposed to glean from this?
TYIA.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. It's a transcript of Karen Read's words on Dateline, which was referred to in the post I responded to.

 

[Tortoise]

So explain to be how an independent study said he was not hit by a car?

If that was a fact there would be no trial.

Different experts have different opinions, and firstly we haven't heard those opinions or cross-examinations in this trial yet, and secondly, it is a decision for the jury to make.

 

[Malleeboy]

I have a few questions.

Why do you think KR lied about leaving JO at the Waterfall that night? Or why did she lie about ever going to the Albert's house? Why did she say at first she didn't see JO go into the house and then change it later, after her arrest, to she DID see him go in?

Drunk tired, and stressed out. I have lived with a guy who got blotto drunk several times, when he first woke he had now idea of what happened but some memories do come back as the alcohol fades. Jen Mccabe had to be reminded by her hubbie about seeing KR's car.

 

[Malleeboy]

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?

"A drunk mind speaks a sober heart" is not the best quote for what you wanted to say, should have used "in vino veritas" which is latin for "in wine, there is truth"

 

[Tortoise]

You do realize this was sought out by the FBI and by neither side?

It makes no difference to what I have already posted. It's not a fact, it's opinion. The jury will decide.

 

[Leilei]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. It's a transcript of Karen Read's words on Dateline, which was referred to in the post I responded to.

You posted the clip.
Dateline is not testimony in court.
I'm not understanding what this proves?
IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

You posted the clip.
Dateline is not testimony in court.
I'm not understanding what this proves?
IMO.

It's Karen Read's words. It was played in court, I haven't said it was testimony.

 

[Forest_Wood]

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.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7502239955750538538

AJ explains it in the opening statement starting at 35:10.

 

[Luna20]

But still they knew better than to come outside. mOO

This is one of the most incriminating parts to the story. Who doesn’t come out to see what’s going on on their front lawn? Just out of curiosity but especially to find out if you need to evacuate for any reason.

It could be a serial killer that LE is tracking on the ground or if it’s an accident that you can help with indirectly. Whatever it is, it’s your house and you want to know.

If I see anyone on my front lawn during the day it’s going to get my immediate attention, much more in the evening and early morning hours. If it’s not the police, I’m going to call the police to report that something is happening on my property.

 

[jepop]

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.

Correct.Jmo

 

[tara83]

It's Karen Read's words. It was played in court, I haven't said it was testimony.

So you think this proves she is guilty?

 

[Leilei]

It's Karen Read's words. It was played in court, I haven't said it was testimony.

I'm still not understanding what this proves.
Just like I don't understand what the clips in court prove. Why folks are attached to a doc on an entertainment channel is beyond me.
Seems like the CW cherry-picked through the documentary to try to prove their case.
They should have focused on their own witnesses instead, because they're sinking their case worse than that iceberg sunk the Titanic.
IMO, as always.

 

[Tortoise]

So you think this proves she is guilty?

I have not stated that.

 

[Izzylizzy]

BH tries over and over to convince AJ that KR did not ignore him at Waterfalls and it's quite funny because she didn't greet him when she got there, never said hello, etc.
KR ignored BH's text "umm,well" that he sent her at the bar.
What I don't get is we know that JOK & BH were not buddies and I've heard nothing about them ever having texted each other so why did BH text JOK after he arrived at the Alberts at 12:22 am saying , "are you coming???"

@7:05

 

[DropthePuck]

I see it as being very careful on the stand, as I would expect. If the defense wants to nit pick in their questions on cross examination, which in my opinion EVERY defense lawyer does... then the witness is totally correct in making the defense lawyer clarify EXACTLY what they want them to answer yes, no etc...to. Do you see how many sidebars are called by both sides and sometimes the instructions by the judge to the jury. Being as exact as possible goes both ways...the questions from the lawyer and the answering from the witness. It's also why you've heard "objection" and the "sustained" so much during cross., the defense lawyer trying to run rough shot over the witness and failing. It's all part of the trial. I believe YB has been truthful and very careful, as he should be. AJMO

Absolutely disagree. He was not being truthful and careful. He was being deliberately obtuse and lied like a cheap rug. He used 'theory' in a sentence and then asked AJ to define theory. Who does that? And AJ would not have had to run "rough shot" over him if he had just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS. YB is the one that failed here, not AJ. But I don't even know why I took the time to write this because you clearly hate KR, hate her attorneys, hate the defense witnesses, and think everyone the prosecution puts on the stand is a fine, upstanding, truthful citizen. SMH.

*edited for spelling because I'm a nerd like that

 

[Forest_Wood]

Alan Jackson to the Jury:
"Your job will be to make sure that the evidence isn't presented to you too cute by half."