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

[mrjitty]

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

The party opponent statements are hearsay for Karen. The defence can make technical objections about completeness but once the statements are in the defence is not able to refer to other out of court context from Karen.

IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

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

Also any such statement would be hearsay for the the defendant and not admissible. IMO.

 

[SteveS]

The party opponent statements are hearsay for Karen. The defence can make technical objections about completeness but once the statements are in the defence is not able to refer to other out of court context from Karen.

Respectfully, your technical point is accurate (that the BITS interview is technically hearsay), but your application is not.

Yes, the cw introduced the interview and was able to bypass the hearsay barrier because of its content.

But when it is the defense's time to present their case, they have the opportunity to offer exculpatory evidence, which would include showing the very evidence presented by the cw in a different light. This is not limited to the moment when it is presented by the cw as their direct evidence, and imo the entirety of that interview (whatever the def wishes to use for their purposes) could not be excluded as hearsay later, because the cw already opened the door (so to speak) by using some of it. Whether that was a smart move or not remains to be seen.

As a result, the def will have the opportunity (if they wish) to show broader clips with more context to shed a different light on the cw's narrowly tailored clips they selected. I believe they could pretty much use ANYTHING from that show now, if they want, since the cw did and it's no longer unallowable hearsay (since everything in BITS is now a part of the context).

Whether they wish to dig further into that, or just let it lie and use their summation to explain how even KR wasn't quite sure what happened to JOK that night, and no one can really say since JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle and the investigators were too incompetent (or complicit) to find what really happened, we won't know until we get there. imo

 

[Tortoise]

Respectfully, your technical point is accurate (that the BITS interview is technically hearsay), but your application is not.

Yes, the cw introduced the interview and was able to bypass the hearsay barrier because of its content.

But when it is the defense's time to present their case, they have the opportunity to offer exculpatory evidence, which would include showing the very evidence presented by the cw in a different light. This is not limited to the moment when it is presented by the cw as their direct evidence, and imo the entirety of that interview (whatever the def wishes to use for their purposes) could not be excluded as hearsay later, because the cw already opened the door (so to speak) by using some of it. Whether that was a smart move or not remains to be seen.

As a result, the def will have the opportunity (if they wish) to show broader clips with more context to shed a different light on the cw's narrowly tailored clips they selected. I believe they could pretty much use ANYTHING from that show now, if they want, since the cw did and it's no longer unallowable hearsay (since everything in BITS is now a part of the context).

Whether they wish to dig further into that, or just let it lie and use their summation to explain how even KR wasn't quite sure what happened to JOK that night, and no one can really say since JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle and the investigators were too incompetent (or complicit) to find what really happened, we won't know until we get there. imo

I'm not sure this is correct, unless Karen Read testifies.

red colour by me -

(d) Statements that are not hearsay​

A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

[...]

(2) An opposing party’s statement​

The statement is offered against an opposing party and

• (A) was made by the party;
• [...]

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

My reading of that is that for her statements to not be excluded for hearsay, they must be offered in evidence against her interests. I don't believe denials qualify for exclusion, the hearsay exception only relates to her admissions. JMO

 

[Malleeboy]

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-806-attacking-and-supporting-credibility-of-hearsay-declarant

Section 806​

When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Possible Theory:

When John approached the door to go inside the dog, which had been known to be aggressive and not friendly to “strangers” was either outside or laying on porch and was startled…K9 defense mode kicked in , as most all dog have (commonly known as “prey drive/defense drive”) and he showed aggression towards John which caused John to take off running, slipped fell, hit head and broke drink glass possibly falling on it causing glass to impale parts of face area ( per medical examination evidence) and in a dazed , confused manor stumbled out to yard while trying to run away, shoe (black/white sneaker) came off in the process and unfortunately John , possibly trying to run towards Karen’s vehicle pulling off down the street, fell to his final resting place….

Thoughts??

Either way, that’s one more theory that casts more reasonable doubt on the State of Mass very weak, and horribly investigated case

Thanks for your input and welcome aboard!

The only issue is the plow driver went past the house a couple of hours after Karen left and didn’t see a body on the lawn. Then he later went by and there was a ford edge parked in front of the house in the area where his body lay. I think the people inside put together a plan that said they would all say he wasn’t in the house and they threw everything outside, his phone, his drink glass etc. Got rid of Chloe that night since the very honest Jen McCabe said Chloe wasn’t in the Alberts’ bedroom when she went in and woke them up early in the morning.

Throw in the fact that all these loud vehicles with their lights on and with Karen screaming and everyone else talking loudly (paramedics, cops, firefighters) supposedly didn’t wake Brian and Nicole up even though their 2 bedroom windows faces the lawn. There is so much more but it’s early and I need coffee.

 

[mrjitty]

Respectfully, your technical point is accurate (that the BITS interview is technically hearsay), but your application is not.

Yes, the cw introduced the interview and was able to bypass the hearsay barrier because of its content.

But when it is the defense's time to present their case, they have the opportunity to offer exculpatory evidence, which would include showing the very evidence presented by the cw in a different light. This is not limited to the moment when it is presented by the cw as their direct evidence, and imo the entirety of that interview (whatever the def wishes to use for their purposes) could not be excluded as hearsay later, because the cw already opened the door (so to speak) by using some of it. Whether that was a smart move or not remains to be seen.

As a result, the def will have the opportunity (if they wish) to show broader clips with more context to shed a different light on the cw's narrowly tailored clips they selected. I believe they could pretty much use ANYTHING from that show now, if they want, since the cw did and it's no longer unallowable hearsay (since everything in BITS is now a part of the context).

Whether they wish to dig further into that, or just let it lie and use their summation to explain how even KR wasn't quite sure what happened to JOK that night, and no one can really say since JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle and the investigators were too incompetent (or complicit) to find what really happened, we won't know until we get there. imo

Do you have a link to support this? In my opinion this is incorrect.

The BITS interview is not hearsay for the CW, due to the party opponent exception.

It is hearsay for Karen, so it's not admissible by the defence. That's the point. They have to call the primary witness i.e the defendant.

I agree there is the opportunity to object case by case to clips as regards completeness, which might lead to the judge ruling an expanded clip has to come in. Who knows if such objections were made or what the rulings were.

IMO that does not mean the defence can admit any clips they want. The content is hearsay for Karen.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not sure this is correct, unless Karen Read testifies.

red colour by me -

(d) Statements that are not hearsay​

A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

[...]

(2) An opposing party’s statement​

The statement is offered against an opposing party and

• (A) was made by the party;
• [...]

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

My reading of that is that for her statements to not be excluded for hearsay, they must be offered in evidence against her interests. I don't believe denials qualify for exclusion, the hearsay exception only relates to her admissions. JMO

This is correct. In the hands of the CW, the statements are not hearsay.

For Karen, the statements are hearsay.

IMO

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

One thing I just noticed in KR’s texts to BH and her voicemails to JOK on the 29th is that really cares about JOK’s niece and empathizes with BH about how hard it is okay to lose someone you love. She also mentioned that his niece is part of the reason she hasn’t ended the relationship yet and even stayed back at JOK’s that night even though her original plan was to stay at her own place during the blizzard. This does make doubt even more the motive laid out by the prosecution considering it seems difficult to fathom that she even while angry or enraged she would willingly or intentionally force JOK’s niece and nephew lose and bury another parent or care giver.

I also find it interesting that even after finding and trying to resuscitate JOK, KerR, a nurse, did not think, at least at first, that KR struck JOK with her car. Unlike JMc, she also doesn’t mention seeing pieces of taillight glass even though her friend testified that it was all around him.

I am also not understanding how the video depicting the pink drops of snow above darker red blood layers below helps the prosecution? Didn’t the ME testify was likely incapacitated after receiving his TBI? If the wound was caused by a MVA why would there be drops? Wouldn’t he have just remained where he landed after being struck and more likely to have left big pools of blood down his skin and beneath him, like KerR mentioned, rather than little spots next to him since he couldn’t move? Also, even if they want to argue that the drops formed as he lifted 8 to feet away from the curb by being struck, the snow on top is fresher. If JOK was outside unmoving for nearly 6 hours why would his blood be found on fresh surface level snow? Shouldn’t it have all been completely covered or not visible originally at all, like the blood on grass layer?

Did any of the angry voicemails that KR left him demonstrate her maybe mocking the fact that she hit him his vehicle, taunting that he got her or gloating that he got what he deserved? She doesn’t seem to hold back in terms of language or accusations in the few messages detailed in the media so it would be pretty surprising IMO that if she did in fact hit him that she doesn’t mention it at all.

RN and HW’s testimonies this year about not seeing JOK in the car and MMc testifying last year he also did not see him in the car as he noticed JR sitting alone while parked in the mailbox seems to further my impression impression that JOK likely was not in the vehicle or near its vicinity by the time KR parked by the flagpole and then drove off.

Why didn’t JOK have frostbite if he was outside for so long?

Considering the side and placement of KR’s bumper, how did JOK manage not to experience any trauma or fracture of his legs if he was struck by her vehicle considering he would have had to have been struck with a force strong enough to break the taillight and get him 8-10 feet across the lawn?

MA v. Karen Read Murder Retrial: Daily Trial Updates

Karen Read stood trial for a second time on charges she murdered her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.

www.courttv.com

 

[jepop]

Can I get the defintion of theory?

I don't see any explaination that doesn't involve the dog.

Did he startle the dog?
Was the dog protecting someone?

Welcome to websleuths! Your input is appreciated! Please look into getting verfied!

Ditto, 100% on Chloe involvement. ATM I have Higgins as very likely involved in some capacity. 90-100% odds on BA also knowing something/ being involved. Moo

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Ditto, 100% on Chloe involvement. ATM I have Higgins as very likely involved in some capacity. 90-100% odds on BA also knowing something/ being involved. Moo

If it was only Higgins they probably would have called the cops and an ambulance. I do think Higgins was involved but they’re protecting a family member.

What would have happened if Karen had gone in the house when John didn’t come out? She would have freaked out and wanted to call 911. Would they have polished her off, too?

 

[Leilei]

If it was only Higgins they probably would have called the cops and an ambulance. I do think Higgins was involved but they’re protecting a family member.

What would have happened if Karen had gone in the house when John didn’t come out? She would have freaked out and wanted to call 911. Would they have polished her off, too?

BBM - 100% this.
A family member who had already had some troubling issues prior to that night.
IMO.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Knowing that YB was the one who testified to the court that he traveled to the location of Chloe aka Cora who supposedly is now living with it's second owner, a veterinarian, I want to know how this was actually verified to the acceptance of the defense beginning with was it actually Chloe?
Then comes the DNA sample and the dog's mouth mold?

Karen Read trial: Judge OKs second dog-bite expert to testify

Another disputed expert in dog bite wounds will be permitted to testify at Karen Read's upcoming second trial.

www.wcvb.com

 

[arielilane]

According to Karen (her words)

KR: she said they joined friends for drinks, we were happy having fun, laughing, just very normal.

Yet, her defense team want you to believe no one liked John; and Karen’s being framed.


Karen and John were invited to the home of a fellow Boston cop.
Karen stated they pulled up to the house and she waited in her SUV while John went to check things out.
She watched him go to the door, put his head inside and then nothing.
She texted him
She called him and within minutes of him exiting her car, he’s not answering- SO, she leaves……..
Drove home. Fell asleep.


Video 2+ minutes

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[arielilane]

This case is not about whether you're pro-LE (whatever that means), "dirty cops,” or the Sandra Birchmore case. This case as are all cases I decide about a case according to my research (deep dive (exclude all the fluff), court documents, facts, science, and digital forensic data. Deciding to throw a case to the wayside based on faulty police work then we must free a majority of convicted criminals right now. There is no perfect investigation. There is science and facts, which do not lie. The jury will decide.


Video shows that KR’s father, bro, and SIL were at John’s house after she was released from the hospital and she went up to her and John’s room (her words). Wonder why she did not go into her own room, as supposedly she did not share a room with John (her words via text messages).

I suspect theres an upcoming Ring expert to testify this week, based on filing last week. There were several missing/deleted Ring videos recordings. In KR’s own words via text messages (thank you, Jackson) she knew where the Ring cameras were in John's house.

Matter of opinion

Justice for John O'Keefe

 

[Izzylizzy]

I'm curious as to why Chloe is now with a second owner.
YB said she was not with "Riley" anymore who was said to live on a farm in Vermont and is now with a veterinarian.

 

[shotgun09]

Knowing that YB was the one who testified to the court that he traveled to the location of Chloe aka Cora who supposedly is now living with it's second owner, a veterinarian, I want to know how this was actually verified to the acceptance of the defense beginning with was it actually Chloe?
Then comes the DNA sample and the dog's mouth mold?

Karen Read trial: Judge OKs second dog-bite expert to testify

Another disputed expert in dog bite wounds will be permitted to testify at Karen Read's upcoming second trial.

www.wcvb.com

Judge Cannone says: " I'll allow it".
That's how.
MOO

( This is why Alan Jackson went there on Friday, to get ahead of the preposterous Chloe Mold testimony and planted a big fat Reasonable Doubt directly to the jury)

 

[HarmonyE.]

If it was only Higgins they probably would have called the cops and an ambulance. I do think Higgins was involved but they’re protecting a family member.

I agree. I think the Waterfall video is a good indicator that Higgins was the likely catalyst for an altercation that happened soon after John entered the house. But John died from that head injury that likely came from being hit from behind. A backwards fall would be unlikely to cause a wound that deep.

Perhaps a drunken person who thought he'd break up said altercation? With Chloe/Cora (is that her new name?) getting involved in the mix and causing those lacerations up and down John's entire arm.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

It's just weird. The one about her not liking children seems especially odd to me as the same person has brought it up at least 4 times.

I can't help but think of the contrast here with how often Jen dropped into her testimony that she was a normal mother and how shocking this all is to her. It's all about evoking personal judgements, where's the actual evidence CW?

It's very telling to me when a prosecution spend more time on someone's "character". It jusr shows they do not have the evidence to support their theory...JMO.

 

[arielilane]

Finally, someone that will speak the truth and isn’t worried about staying relevant, getting clicks, views, following the crowd; and making money, like some of the other YTubers.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies