MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #27 Retrial

[HanniBJeter]

Fact is - the ME admitted the knee injury could have been caused by a swipe or clip from a vehicle.

Or could NOT have been

 

[Izzylizzy]

I admit I did not know this and have used "lawyer" and "attorney" interchangeably.
And for some crazy reason I just looked to see if there is a difference.
Huge difference. lol

Is There a Difference Between a Lawyer and an Attorney?

What is the difference between a lawyer and an attorney? Find out once and for all in this blog post.

www.clio.com

 

[Forest_Wood]

I’d love to know where the ME got that info from.

Someone from the emergency room...
Karen was never in the emergency room.
So it couldn't have been her saying that...

 

[Angelwatch]

The prosecution has still not shown how hard plastic carbon fiber tail lights can splinter by coming into contact with human skin. Does not compute. Not just crack, but splinter.

And don’t forget the ME stated the abrasions on JOK’s arm were superficial. It’s beyond plausible to shatter the light into splinters and only cause superficial abrasions.

 

[jepop]

Dead man on lawn where I am sure EVENTUALLY Jen Mc said that he was supposed to be coming in to their party, but 'did not'. PROBABLE CAUSE to any LE one would think, but it was THAT particular group and dept. It really is beyond belief to LE that I also know, standard procedure. IMO.

Plus a large dog was resident there and the deceased had unexplained animal attack like wounds on his right arm. There's another reason for a search and for a warrant, if anyone had had even a modicum of minimal competency and impartiality to make some basic enquiries about those wounds. An utter show and pro LE bias filled investigation from the get go. Jmo.

 

[Warwick7]

There are two things I don't understand about the Karen Read Trial. Following the dramatic hearing, Read spoke to reporters for the first time.
"We know who did it. We know. And we know who spearheaded this coverup. You all know,"

If they and we all know who did it and who spearheaded this coverup, why aren't these mystery persons or person being arrested, since everybody knows?

Also, Karen Read lied in the interview (I think 20/20) about how much she drank that evening/morning (she said 4 drinks and didn't finish them). Shouldn't this be brought up in court, since her blood alcohol level was over the limit? The video at the Waterfall shows her drinking alcohol, and adding shots to her drinks. After she added the shots, John O'Keefe stirred them into her drink.

How much did the cops drink and drink and drive that night?!

 

[Warwick7]

He didn’t have access-

IMO

That is not true.
It was proven through testimony he did have access.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Plus a large dog was resident there and the deceased had unexplained animal attack like wounds on his right arm. There's another reason for a search and for a warrant, if anyone had had even a modicum of minimal competency and impartiality to make some basic enquiries about those wounds. An utter show and pro LE bias filled investigation from the get go. Jmo.

So true @jepop ….. and IIRC weren’t there also some early statements or remarks in the early investigation attributed to trooper proctor…… questions to proctor along the lines of ‘I imagine someone might catch some flack (my word choice) over this matter of an individual found deceased on their lawn’ …… to which proctor apparently said ‘no, home of a local police officer’….. (or the like)? SMH.

That sure IMO seems an attempt to try and avert or extinguish so-called probable cause. Which IMO is troubling that it occurred early during the ‘investigation’. SMH. IANAL. MOO

 

[jepop]

Thank you @lonetraveler …. for highlighting this. I also was confused and puzzled at what I understood of that testimony. Looking at the pictures of wounds to JOK arm sure IMO appeared to be furrows, cuts, tears, otherwise compromised skin. And to a point where blood was drawn IMO.

And yet IIUC that witness was trying to differentiate between an abrasion and a cut IIUC? And hadn’t measured those furrow’s depths? That seems alarming IMO. Did someone seek certain testimony on that for the trial?

I was alarmed by that testimony and wonder how it aligns with others or even from that given in the first trial?

I am not a pathologist, doctor, or medical, examiner…… but IMO if the skin is perforated, torn, or cut to a point of bleeding or compromise of the epidermis that is not an abrasion IMO. MOO

I think ME was just using official medical language to categorise the wounds.

The jury saw the pictures and it is very clear that they penetrate the skin, they were red and open, clearly patterned and symmetrical. On direct I believe she said she did not measure their depth. No reason was elicited as to why. Jmo

Imo there was also a more puncture type looking wound around the elbow area, about which I recall both Drs Russell and Sheridan briefly opined during trial X 1. Their conclusions were it appeared to be the result of a glancing animal bite (the others being symmetrical scratches from claws). Jmo but source is trial 1 testimony of Dr Russell and Dr Sheridan.

Moo the proper experts to testify about these wounds, given the ME said in testimony she did not know what could have caused them nor did she apparently seek to find out some answers, are still to come in the form of the dog attack/bite/clawing experts to be introduced by the defense. Moo

 

[Warwick7]

“Yannetti said” isn’t evidence

IMO

Not true.

He gave testimony in a court of law. His testimony is considered a form of evidence. And it definitely plays a crucial role in trials, often being the primary source of information for the judge or jury.

 

[Forest_Wood]

So true @jepop ….. and IIRC weren’t there also some early statements or remarks in the early investigation attributed to trooper proctor…… questions to proctor along the lines of ‘I imagine someone might catch some flack (my word choice) over this matter of an individual found deceased on their lawn’ …… to which proctor apparently said ‘no, home of a local police officer’….. (or the like)? SMH.

That sure IMO seems an attempt to try and avert or extinguish so-called probable cause. Which IMO is troubling that it occurred early during the ‘investigation’. SMH. IANAL. MOO

"I’m sure the owner of the house will receive some s***.”
"Nope, homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”

Written within 24 hours after JOK's body was found.

 

[jepop]

Just an observation on my part, but none of this high technology seems to be definitive in this particular trial. So what will the next time or the one after that be? Or are the experts interpreting it in error. So many doubts and questions about all this. And in the long run, none of it proves JO was hit by the car. Seems to me to be more like distraction and diversion. JMOO

Yep, I view it as the ultimate distraction from the evidence still to come about the arm wounds and the physics of impact forces the prosecution will be unable to answer to or explain. Jmo

 

[keek]

"I’m sure the owner of the house will receive some s***,”
"Nope, homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”

Written within 24 hours after JOK's body was found.

What did that even mean? No questions will be asked, even though one is dead? Not right. IMO

 

[jepop]

"I’m sure the owner of the house will receive some s***.”
"Nope, homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”

Written within 24 hours after JOK's body was found.

Yep. Says it all

 

[Forest_Wood]

What did that even mean? No questions will be asked, even though one is dead? Not right. IMO

A biased investigation right from the beginning. Proctor blamed Karen right away.
He wasn't investigating a crime from the start. He had already found Karen guilty on Day 1.
Why bother going through the motions!
And since homeowner was also a cop, there's no way he's going to catch any s***.
I wonder how Proctor feels about that today!
MOO

 

[Warwick7]

He didn’t lose his job for planting evidence -
Or some grand conspiracy to frame Karen

IMO

No.
She didn't say he lost his job because of planting evidence. She said a cop actually lost their job because of behavior in this case. The lead investigator in the case no less.

 

[Hazelnutty]

Here we go. One other ‘very important’ instruction from Judge Cannone. She is telling the jury to not make faces, mutter under their breath, etc.

She should follow her own instructions!

JMO

 

[jepop]

Indeed. One might go as far expressing the valid opinion that she ought to be disbarred.

Along with Brennan. Jmo

 

[jepop]

She should follow her own instructions!

JMO

Extremely ironic.

 

[Hazelnutty]

The nail clippings that were taken from John, in conjunction with the fact that the emergency physician had apparently told the ME there was some kind of altercation, makes me think that medical staff definitely thought he got in a fight. Fingernail clippings are usually taken to check if anyone else’s DNA is under the victims nails, indicative of a struggle. I wonder if the clippings were ever tested.

JMO

Were his wounds swabbed? The scratches , cuts, etc for human or canine DNA?