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

[Elliot_Alderson]

There is video of John carrying a glass out of Waterfall, then Karen says he took her vodka glass with him when he got out of the car.

We don't know that he had his phone in his hand at the same time as holding the glasses. It is possible to put drinks down on the kerb, for example, while checking messages.

IMO

Isn't it also possible then that he took his glass out of the Waterfall, drank it all on the way to 34F, left and empty one in the car and took Karen's so he had another drink, henceforth, one glass?

 

[lohrtabitha]

RSBM

About 6.5 inches of snow had fallen by 8am, according to the meteorologist, which was not disputed by the defence.

If you live in snow country like me(Northern Id) that is nothing. A big piece of taillight would have been sticking up or found in that. (1/2 of a ruler) Our students go to school even if it snows 12 inches or more.

 

[HarmonyE.]

We don't know that he had his phone in his hand at the same time as holding the glasses. It is possible to put drinks down on the kerb, for example, while checking messages.

IMO

Aside from the fact that not a single person (and there were 3 witnesses in the vehicle that parked behind Karen shortly after she got there) saw John take out time to put drinks down on the curb while he checked messages, his phone was found underneath him.

When asked how that could have happened, Trooper Joe Paul famously replied he had no idea. "It just did".

 

[louvillian08]

So when he got out of the car at 34F with two glasses in his hands?

AND holding his phone in his hand. Don't forget that

 

[Angelwatch]

Yes, that cup. But since first trial we learned he was potentially holding two glasses, including Karen's.

That mistates the evidence. In the ID clip, Karen says JOK left the car with her glass. She didn't say glasses. He wasn't double fisting cocktail glasses.

If two glasses had been shattered, you'd find multiple pieces of both. IIRC, the piece on the bumper was a single piece of unmatched glass that somehow managed to survive driving back to 1 meadows and then driving around the following morning, and then driving to her parents house. All in the middle of storm with wind. It wasn't wedged in. Just sitting casually on the bumper, you know, like it was placed there. Maybe someone has an evidence photo of how it looked

181K views · 1.1K reactions | The Cocktail Glass Mystery | A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read | ID | A broken cocktail glass found near John O’Keefe’s body became a key piece of evidence—but what does it really prove? Competing theories coul

A broken cocktail glass found near John O’Keefe’s body became a key piece of evidence—but what does it really prove? Competing theories could change...

www.facebook.com

 

[Tortoise]

Aside from the fact that not a single person (and there were 3 witnesses in the vehicle that parked behind Karen shortly after she got there) saw John take out time to put drinks down on the curb while he checked messages, his phone was found underneath him.

When asked how that could have happened, Trooper Joe Paul famously replied he had no idea. "It just did".

No witness was there to study what John was doing. No one saw him get out of the vehicle, but he did. He wasn't checking messages while the phone was underneath his body, it was locked after checking messages.

 

[Spectrix]

There's simply no way for a person to get hit on their arm hard enough it flings them out of their shoe and not end up with bruising or broken bones.

This is why I just can't understand how this ridiculous circus ever made it to trial. Blind Freddy can see that JOK wasn't hit by a car.

It's precisely the reason why in Trial One, the CW tried to skim right over the medical examiner waaaay after subjecting the jury to (several hundred? several thousand? I lost count) completly irrelevant witnesses.

Because they know full well that JOK's blunt force trauma to the back of the head and dog bitten arm aren't consistent with with being mown over by a 6000 pound SUV. They're consistent with being struck on the back of the head and bit by a dog.

It seems preposterous to me that anyone could think otherwise, but in the end, it's only my opinion and I'm not qualified to know any better, because the only experience I have is too many years of watching motor vehicle accident patients come through an emergency department and, of course, their injuries were completly different. So what would I know?

 

[Tortoise]

IIRC, the piece on the bumper was a single piece of unmatched glass

"The glass found on the bumper of Read’s SUV “consisted of five clear pieces ... all with broken or irregular edges,” she said.
Hanley said she examined the glass microscopically. She said she checked to see if there was a physical match between the pieces; some matched and some did not, she testified.
The items that did match, she said, “were at one time together as one unit.”
Hanley said the drinking glass matched with some of the glass pieces found at the crime scene on Fairview Road. Glass pieces found on the bumper of Read’s SUV were also consistent with glass pieces found at the scene."

‘I don’t know, it happened last night.’ State police investigator recounts initial interview of Karen Read at trial. - The Boston Globe

Earlier Wednesday, a forensic scientist at the State Police crime lab testified that plastic found in John O’Keefe’s clothes was "consistent with" Read’s broken taillight.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Tortoise]

That mistates the evidence. In the ID clip, Karen says JOK left the car with her glass. She didn't say glasses. He wasn't double fisting cocktail glasses.

I didn't misstate the evidence, I said potentially, bearing in mind the glass discovered in the vicinity of John's body had a thick base (referred to in trial 1) and was presumed to be the glass John left Waterfall with.

 

[lohrtabitha]

"The glass found on the bumper of Read’s SUV “consisted of five clear pieces ... all with broken or irregular edges,” she said.
Hanley said she examined the glass microscopically. She said she checked to see if there was a physical match between the pieces; some matched and some did not, she testified.
The items that did match, she said, “were at one time together as one unit.”
Hanley said the drinking glass matched with some of the glass pieces found at the crime scene on Fairview Road. Glass pieces found on the bumper of Read’s SUV were also consistent with glass pieces found at the scene."

‘I don’t know, it happened last night.’ State police investigator recounts initial interview of Karen Read at trial. - The Boston Globe

Earlier Wednesday, a forensic scientist at the State Police crime lab testified that plastic found in John O’Keefe’s clothes was "consistent with" Read’s broken taillight.

www.bostonglobe.com

And Proctor had that glass found by Gallagher didn't he. Would it have been hard for him to take a pair of tweezers and break a little more off? I think so.

 

[lohrtabitha]

"The glass found on the bumper of Read’s SUV “consisted of five clear pieces ... all with broken or irregular edges,” she said.
Hanley said she examined the glass microscopically. She said she checked to see if there was a physical match between the pieces; some matched and some did not, she testified.
The items that did match, she said, “were at one time together as one unit.”
Hanley said the drinking glass matched with some of the glass pieces found at the crime scene on Fairview Road. Glass pieces found on the bumper of Read’s SUV were also consistent with glass pieces found at the scene."

‘I don’t know, it happened last night.’ State police investigator recounts initial interview of Karen Read at trial. - The Boston Globe

Earlier Wednesday, a forensic scientist at the State Police crime lab testified that plastic found in John O’Keefe’s clothes was "consistent with" Read’s broken taillight.

www.bostonglobe.com

And Proctor had that glass found by Gallagher didn't he. Would it have been hard for him to take a pair of tweezers and break a little more off? I think so.

 

[waldojabba]

If you live in snow country like me(Northern Id) that is nothing. A big piece of taillight would have been sticking up or found in that. (1/2 of a ruler) Our students go to school even if it snows 12 inches or more.

Even for Massachusetts that was not a paralyzing storm. I remember it. If you have good tires you are good to go - especially with any size suv. We get less snow as the years march on but cmon.
All these big manly LE talking like it’s a big deal to shovel their driveways. Boohoo. They prob have snowblowers they neglect to mention etc.
They are just trying to emphasize why they had to wait for the evidence to “reveal” itself.
It’s gas lighting at its finest watching these guys.
JMO.

 

[justtrish]

I will forever be baffled at someone that even IF they think KR is guilty, they have no problems with the LE lying under oath. Even IF they think she is guilty, they are okay with LE bias and laser focus on one person without investigation of the circumstances.

Exactly! There is a very clear tone here for those that think she is guilty, and I don't understand it. There seems to be a lack of outrage over ALL these witnesses lying under oath. I don't see very many around the internet claiming she intentionally did anything that night. I don't even think the CW is saying she wanted to kill him and did this on purpose. If she did back into him and it somehow resulted in his death, then it was a tragic accident IMO. She didn't say I'm going to kill you and then later back over him and pull forward and back again to make sure. She was drinking and so was he, she was upset with him, and they had been arguing earlier that day. Their relationship was not good it seems from the texts it was both of them that caused that. I don't understand the outrage toward her. She didn't cause LE to lie, to delete things, to behave in ways that show a lack of integrity, she didn't ask them to not investigate this incident. They are responsible for all their lies and lack of investigation. THAT is what should cause all of us to be upset. If they did their job the way they should have, then it would be a lot clearer exactly what did happen to JOK that night.

 

[Marah]

80 steps is a lot of steps, especially with his height. That would probably be up to the door and back to the car. Has anyone gone and measured what 80 steps would be out of the car? Has this been talked about somewhere that I can read up on it?

 

[nightowl1975]

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.

I think it’s possible a lot of people don’t need to have every single question in their minds answered satisfactorily in order to say they have reasonable doubts as to what actually happened.

 

[cocomod]

Well the man managed to get hit so hard by a car that a taillight broke into 40 pieces but he didn't even suffer one broken bone.

But, he performed a pirouette!!! I will never forget the unbelievable explanations from the CW's "expert" Paul; and of course AJ !

 

[Sarg]

Exactly! There is a very clear tone here for those that think she is guilty, and I don't understand it. There seems to be a lack of outrage over ALL these witnesses lying under oath. I don't see very many around the internet claiming she intentionally did anything that night. I don't even think the CW is saying she wanted to kill him and did this on purpose. If she did back into him and it somehow resulted in his death, then it was a tragic accident IMO. She didn't say I'm going to kill you and then later back over him and pull forward and back again to make sure. She was drinking and so was he, she was upset with him, and they had been arguing earlier that day. Their relationship was not good it seems from the texts it was both of them that caused that. I don't understand the outrage toward her. She didn't cause LE to lie, to delete things, to behave in ways that show a lack of integrity, she didn't ask them to not investigate this incident. They are responsible for all their lies and lack of investigation. THAT is what should cause all of us to be upset. If they did their job the way they should have, then it would be a lot clearer exactly what did happen to JOK that night.

This....This is exactly how I feel. First off I could see how Karen Reed is not a likable person...but that in no way equates to her murdering someone. At first I thought she was probably guilty but not intentionally...now I don't even think she is guilty...to much shady police work (or lack of).

 

[Izzylizzy]

 

[Anniesflowers]

Yes, that cup. But since first trial we learned he was potentially holding two glasses, including Karen's.

So why didn’t it match the glassware at Waterfall?? Karen’s would’ve come from the Waterfall, too. Imo. ETA: fix spelling.

 

[RatFace]

Well the man managed to get hit so hard by a car that a taillight broke into 40 pieces but he didn't even suffer one broken bone.

He had multiple skull fractures in the back of his head.