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

[Spider92]

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

Thanks @Forest_Wood ~ that’s helpful

 

[Tortoise]

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.

The commonwealth is entitled to admit her statements as evidence.

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-801-definitions

 

[jepop]

Absolutely disagree. He was not being truthful and careful. He was being deliberalty 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.

Agree. Moo it was pretty obvious he was being obtuse, stupidly and in many parts of the cross, to cringe worthy proportions. I'm guessing the jury must have realised he was lying point blank about not recognising Proctor's hand writing. That was one of the more absurdly stupid lies. God only knows how many other lies, half-truths and misleads were in the mix. There are probably some trial watchers doing counts of that sort of thing. Jmo

 

[Forest_Wood]

Just watching that opening statement again and I missed this before at about 42:15. AJ said that 3 male's DNA was found on the outside of the taillight housing - JOK's and 2 other unidentified males. We already knew no DNA was found on the shards of taillight that the CW says scratched him.

 

[tara83]

The commonwealth is entitled to admit her statements as evidence.

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-801-definitions

Sure. Just like the defense can point out that statements are being cherry picked and doesn't show the contest of the statements.

 

[jepop]

Just watching that opening statement again and I missed this before at about 42:15. AJ said that 3 male's DNA was found on the outside of the taillight housing - JOK's and 2 other unidentified males.

And on JO's shoe. From memory, five unidentified DNA profiles. I'm looking forward to hearing more about this during defense's case in chief. Assuming at this point the CW never lifted a finger to attempt to identify that DNA. Jmo

 

[Tortoise]

Sure. Just like the defense can point out that statements are being cherry picked and doesn't show the contest of the statements.

In what way didn't they show the context of the clip?

Alan Jackson should have shown the clip that said she meant it was when she found him, if he had one.

What attorneys say is not evidence.

 

[Izzylizzy]

There's much speculation that the CW will not be calling Brian Higgins to testify and if not the defense most certainly will.

BH tells AG that he left the Alberts after an hour because they had no whisky and had to drink beer which he doesn't like.
He also told AG that before getting to the Waterfall he had 3-4 drinks at another bar then I gather he was drinking at the Waterfall too?
He left the Alberts to go to the police station where he had an office to do "administration work" and then at later date he added to "move vehicles", driving under the influence too.

Is that not against police policy, working and driving police vehicles under the influence?

BH changed his story on why he went to the police station throughout.


@35:00

 

[tara83]

In what way didn't they show the context of the clip?

Alan Jackson should have shown the clip that said she meant it was when she found him, if he had one.

It's not a confession so sorry but I honestly don't understand your point.

 

[Leilei]

Sure. Just like the defense can point out that statements are being cherry picked and doesn't show the contest of the statements.

You said it before I could, and I appreciate that you did.
It's a sad state of affairs when this type of thing, in addition to the absolute messiness of their witnesses, is all the CW has. Even sadder that this fiasco is considered a huge win for them. Far, far from it.
Throwing out random statements with no context as some sort of proof of... what, exactly?
IMO.

 

[Leilei]

It's not a confession so sorry but I honestly don't understand your point.

Tara, SAME.
IMO.

 

[Leilei]

In what way didn't they show the context of the clip?

Alan Jackson should have shown the clip that said she meant it was when she found him, if he had one.

What attorneys say is not evidence.

The CW has not rested their case yet.
The Defense will do what they do when it is their turn to present.
IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

The CW has not rested their case yet.
The Defense will do what they do when it is their turn to present.
IMO.

I doubt the defense will be able to find a 'context' clip of Karen saying she meant John didn't look mortally wounded when she found him, buried under snow, as per AJ's explanation.

She was giving him CPR and asking if he was dead.

JMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

IIRC didn't YB testify that KR and BH talked at that Waterfall, on video? Guess she didn't need to text him back. MO

From the horse's mouth, BH testified himself he had no interaction with Karen Read that night. At about 7:40.

 

[jepop]

From the horse's mouth, BH testified himself he had no interaction with Karen Read that night. At about 7:40.

RBBM

 

[tara83]

I doubt the defense will be able to find a 'context' clip of Karen saying she meant John didn't look mortally wounded when she found him, buried under snow.

She was giving him CPR and asking if he was dead.

JMO

We will see when he presents his case. Right now he is focused on a cop who said a corrupt cop fired from his job has integrity and doesn't know what theory mean even if he used it 5 minutes before. Or the cop before who used a paper bag and cups for evidence.How about not interviewing witness until 100 or 400 days after the death.Or letting John's shirt lay on the hospital floor to be contaminated. Yes I can't see any reasonable doubt at this point at all.

 

[Leilei]

I doubt the defense will be able to find a 'context' clip of Karen saying she meant John didn't look mortally wounded when she found him, buried under snow, as per AJ's explanation.

She was giving him CPR and asking if he was dead.

JMO

They don't have to.
Burden of proof is on the CW.
And so far, and so very close to them resting, they've proved nothing as far as KR killing JOK.
They have proven, though, that the investigation was, at best, a total cluster.
I won't even go into the star witness testimony.
IMO.

 

[Anniesflowers]

I wonder if the Norfolk County DA’s office will start seeing legal challenges to any of the cases proctor and YB investigated? This trial is getting so much more attention than the last. Who knows what the extra attention will bring?
YB painted the ENTIRE MSP in that area of the state as lazy, inept, easily corrupted, unprofessional, and uncaring. If a sergeant is comfortable with that behavior from their subordinates, they are toxic to the overall workplace. That behavior can spread.
ETA: Moo

 

[jepop]

They don't have to.
Burden of proof is on the CW.
And so far, and so very close to them resting, they've proved nothing as far as KR killing JOK.
They have proven, though, that the investigation was, at best, a total cluster.
I won't even go into the star witness testimony.
IMO.

This happened at the first trial too. It was as if the defense were doing the CW's job but in reverse and doing it so well ( in reverse) that it was forgotten periodically that the CW owned the burden of proof. Jmo

 

[missy1974]

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

I think that the question "And this would have been the moment you dropped him off at the party?" and her answer “Yeah, yeah, it would have had to have been” is in reference to when she could have hit him and why she would even ask herself or out loud, did I hit him?

The 'he didn't look mortally wounded', can mean when she saw him in the snow that morning. That is how I read it before I even heard how Jackson explained it in the opening statement.

I didn't watch opening statements, and I have not watched any of the interviews, other then the small clips they have played between witness testimony. When the trial is over, I will go watch them