MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #26 Retrial

[Bishop Black]

Professor Was Accused of Hitting Cop Boyfriend with Car, Leaving Him to Die. Does New Evidence Exonerate Her?

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

people.com

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the January 2022 death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe outside a Canton, Mass., home.

She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Leading up to his death, the couple of two years reportedly spent the night drinking and bar hopping with friends before Read, 43, dropped O'Keefe, 46, off at the home of a fellow off-duty police officer for an after-party, PEOPLE previously reported.

Prosecutors say as O'Keefe exited the vehicle, Read allegedly proceeded to make a three-point turn during a winter storm, striking her boyfriend in the process before driving off.

After O'Keefe failed to return home hours later, Read allegedly went looking for him, before finding his body in a snowbank outside the home where she allegedly left him.

Thread #1Thread #2 Thread #3Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25

 

[Knitty]

Please review Best Practices - Dealing with your fellow posters.

 

[Sillybilly]

Please continue discussion here.

 

[mrjitty]

bringing this over

And don’t forget, the crime scene was unsecured without any cameras on or near the property.

Right - I agree! This is exactly the kind of fact that the D could use to support their argument.

But IMO it suggests the staging has to happen before 16:54 (arrival SERT). AJ can't say they left the crime scene unsecured which allows staging, but then choose a staging time when it was secured. He has to choose the time when it wasn't secured. Otherwise the lack of security isn't relevant to his argument.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

bringing this over

The CW's entire argument hinges on a taillight they can’t prove was broken during the incident. No photos, no exact location, a broken chain of custody, and a month long crime lab evidence log delay? That’s not ‘circumstantial evidence it’s unreliable speculation. The defense doesn’t need to ‘prove’ evidence was planted, they only need to show the state’s case is built on a rotten foundation. The burden never shifts to the defense to disprove a claim the prosecution failed to substantiate in the first place. If the jury can’t trust how the evidence was handled, they can’t trust the evidence. IMOO

First we have to take the evidence which is not contested.

Per the testimony of Lt O'Hara of SERT, the tail light pieces that were found were photographed, GPS coordinates noted, and logged in to evidence. The defence did not contest that they were found, and the evidence was entered at trial without objection so I don't believe there were any chain of custody issues there. The photographs were exhibited. The defence did make some arguments as to exact location.

None of that is speculation, in fact it is not contested.

While I agree about the overall burden in the case never shifting, evidential burdens do in fact arise in criminal trials - the 3rd party suspect aspects being to the fore here.

So in practice, given tail light pieces were found at the scene the defence is well aware of the need to establish an evidential foundation for an alternate theory. This is why they have ARCCA to cast doubt on the accident, and dog bite expert to cast doubt on John's injuries. But even after all that, they need the 3rd leg of the chair which is police corruption and staging.

While staging/framing is a common enough allegation, in practice you'll need some foundation if you want the jury to believe it. And to loop back to my original post, I don't think you'll stand that up if you chose a time and mode of staging which isn't reasonably plausible.

tldr; I don't think a jury will believe some shadowy officer can stage the tail light mere moments before Lt O'Hara and his team of 7 find them. O'Hara himself testified the pieces were found under fresh undisturbed snow.

Example Reference: 1.16.37 - O'Hara introduces photo of tail light piece recovered at scene without objection

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

It's been pointed out that AJ made a large blunder on cross yesterday.

Until now, Brennan still needed to call Proctor for some tail light foundation. Proctor found a number of pieces on his own, and Yuri couldn't bring those pieces in. Brennan probably needs all those pieces so the lab tech can testify about putting the tail light back together as happened in T1.

But AJ inadvertently created the foundation by showing Yuri a picture of all the pieces, so then Brennan admitted all the rest of the pieces on redirect.

So now it appears the CW don't have any need to call Proctor as all his evidence is in.

At 6 hours 29

 

[Malleeboy]

I'm really looking forward to Aperture folks, everything I know about newtonian physics from my science degree, says the momentum, angular velocity and force vectors, simply makes no sense for the prosecution case. They are going to have to describe how science ceased to obey our known laws.

Arms have a very movable hinged joint and the head is also on a slightly less movable hinged joint. They are both away from the centre of mass. There is simple no force injuries near the centre of mass. Any force is going to spin the person, not send them several meters at a 90 degree from force being applied.

 

[mrjitty]

Personally it has been clear that Brennan wasn't calling Proctor, so I do not see it as a blunder.

The blunder was laying the foundation for the remaining tail light pieces to come in via YB instead of via Proctor. Brennan wasn't able to get those pieces in until AJ laid a foundation for him to get them in without objection.

 

[Malleeboy]

The blunder was laying the foundation for the remaining tail light pieces to come in via YB instead of via Proctor. Brennan wasn't able to get those pieces in until AJ laid a foundation for him to get them in without objection.

You mean widely absurd "magical tail light" pieces.
Initial searches used the leaf blower to take the snow back to the ground and found none nor did they stand on any of the large pieces, the afternoon search found some pieces, but pieces kept appearing for weeks like the grass was a trans dimensional zone, where pieces mysteriously had passed from all sight and touch, but then suddenly kept rematerializing.

I'm sure if I flew to Canton, I could go and find some pieces, but of course I'm not in Canton PD.

I'd agree that the initial plant is a difficult sell. However the wrongful pickup time, failure to photo the vehicle at the scene, and the absurdity of pieces just turning up for weeks afterward whilst not arranging a thorough and properly run and documented search when the additional first documented piece turns up. Makes it seem IMHO that something fishy may have been up, and that from my persective is reasonable doubt.

 

[Deleted member 363696]

Maybe the dog attacked O'Keefe because it was guarding its territory, and he started hitting it and it incensed Brian Albert enough to retaliate by assaulting him. It's kinda shady how they sent the dog away, and Jen isn't credible at all. Just my two cents.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Maybe the dog attacked O'Keefe because it was guarding its territory, and he started hitting it and it incensed Brian Albert enough to retaliate by assaulting him. It's kinda shady how they sent the dog away, and Jen isn't credible at all. Just my two cents.

My guess is the dog entered the fray after the humans began fighting.

The sparks of the altercation can be seen in the Waterfall video, from just a few minutes before everyone converged atvFairview.

 

[Warwick7]

I don't think a jury will believe some shadowy officer can stage the tail light mere moments before Lt O'Hara and his....

Snipped by me.

Seriously, I don't think a jury is believing what the CW is attempting to ladle out.

● The scratches on human arm but only one small tear on the hoodie arm?
● The pig dna on hoodie.
● Homeowners never coming out even after being alerted with no reasonable explanation WHY.
● The weird trip BHs did to the station that night.
● Cell phones destroyed and disposed of.
● JM telling FBI she was her sister?
● Proctor said no plows were out and gps was broke down on plows. It was shown he lied...
● Ryan says nobody in the passenger seat, nor yard.
ETC......

 

[mrjitty]

Snipped by me.

Seriously, I don't think a jury is believing what the CW is attempting to ladle out.

● The scratches on human arm but only one small tear on the hoodie arm?
● The pig dna on hoodie.
● Homeowners never coming out even after being alerted with no reasonable explanation WHY.
● The weird trip BHs did to the station that night.
● Cell phones destroyed and disposed of.
● JM telling FBI she was her sister?
● Proctor said no plows were out and gps was broke down on plows. It was shown he lied...
● Ryan says nobody in the passenger seat, nor yard.
ETC......

Well that could be but I don't see how any of this is responsive to my post.

The defence requires someone to have staged the tail light. So who was it, and at what time did they do it? AJ seems to be making the argument that it was Proctor at the Sallyport but it just doesn't seem plausible to me, which gives him an issue on closing

If you want to argue that staging is simply implied from everything else, then obviously AJ could make that argument but i don't think that is what he is doing, and I think it's weaker than a specific theory.

MOO

 

[tara83]

I think some are confused what the defense has to prove. They don't have to prove who killed John just reasonable doubt that it wasn't KR. If some don't see that at this point when an independent study proved he wasn't hit by a car and cops are caught in lies left and right I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Tortoise]

While staging/framing is a common enough allegation, in practice you'll need some foundation if you want the jury to believe it. And to loop back to my original post, I don't think you'll stand that up if you chose a time and mode of staging which isn't reasonably plausible.

RSBM

And then there's the other aspect, there needs to be a reason for staging, at a time when the defendant did not tell anyone that she saw John going into the house, continued not to make that claim for months, and had not denied hitting him.

IMO

 

[tara83]

RSBM

And then there's the other aspect, there needs to be a reason for staging, at a time when the defendant did not tell anyone that she saw John going into the house, continued not to make that claim for months, and had not denied hitting him.

IMO

So why are the cops getting caught in lies? What do they have to hide?

 

[Lilbirdie]

Were the taillight pieces found on the lawn or in the street? I’m having a hard time buying they were planted, but I also don’t think KR hit JOK with her car. So what are the other possibilities? She hit something else and he coincidentally ended up near the taillight pieces? He threw his cocktail glass at her taillight after they got in a fight? Any other theories? Defense would have a better shot with the jury if they introduced some other possibilities.

 

[mrjitty]

Were the taillight pieces found on the lawn or in the street? I’m having a hard time buying they were planted, but I also don’t think KR hit JOK with her car. So what are the other possibilities? She hit something else and he coincidentally ended up near the taillight pieces? He threw his cocktail glass at her taillight after they got in a fight? Any other theories? Defense would have a better shot with the jury if they introduced some other possibilities.

I think this is why Dr Wolfe from ARCCA did his glass cannon experiment.

I personally have not ruled out the possibility that there is some very unusual combination of events here.

 

[Tortoise]

So why are the cops getting caught in lies? What do they have to hide?

That's not addressing the substance of my post.

Do you have a specific lie in mind, relevant to the pieces of taillight found by SERT on 29th? Staging is what the defence needs to establish for Karen not to have broken her taillight at the scene where she told people on 29th she hit him and where she has also said since that she expected to find him.

 

[tara83]

That's not addressing the substance of my post.

Do you have a specific lie in mind, relevant to the pieces of taillight found by SERT on 29th? Staging is what the defence needs to establish for Karen not to have broken her taillight at the scene where she told people on 29th she hit him and where she has also said since that she expected to find h

An independent study already proved John was not hit by a car.So you have no explanation about why the LE is telling lies in this case? Okay.