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

[justwannahelp]

Now onto the sneaker. There’s a stain on the sneaker with AT LEAST FIVE DNA contributors.

Porto says he cannot do any testing on the sneaker because the amount of contributors makes the stain not suitable for comparison. He cannot say if John’s DNA was on the sneaker stain, or who any of the five profiles are.

Now onto stain L on the back bottom of John’s long sleeved shirt. 2 contributors to that stain. John was 1 of them. The other? Porto doesn’t know.

Going over the unstained area of John’s long sleeved shirt. There was a DNA profile with two contributors. John was 1. The other is unknown.

With regard to any of the stains of the upper right jeans leg (five of them), Porto wasn’t never asked to compare those unknown DNA profiles with the DNA of Higgins or Albert.

One more question for Mr. Porto. Who did he send the reports to?

Objection + sustained.

Yanetti: Did you send those reports to Michael Proctor?

Objection + sustained. Jurors told to strike He Who Shall Not be Named from their notes.

I don’t know much about rules when trying a case, but should they get a DNA sample of everyone who was in the house that night? It’s probably Colin Albert’s dna from a fight. They could finally prove he was in the house or at least made contact with people at the house

 

[justwannahelp]

Would the jurors even know that blood doesn't gush after the heart stops? I don't think that has been explained to the jury by any expert. If there was blood that gushed out, does that mean he was still alive with heart pumping after the glass entered the side of his nose, long enough for it to settle at point of entry from the shard of glass.
ETA: And therefore, he wasn't laying there as long as the CW states he was, if the blood wasn't frozen?
MOO

His skin looks rosy in the photos. He doesn’t look dead. I’m NOT saying he’s not, of course. It’s just something i noticed, but I don’t see a lot of dead people….

 

[justwannahelp]

The best-intentioned witnesses don't always give 100% accurate testimony. If there is other evidence (ie. pictures) that seems to show convincingly otherwise (there was an IV or other simple reason), the defense probably isn't going to argue.

What would be the point? Remember, the defense here is that there is a murder conspiracy and an effort to frame KR. Would the defense now be trying to convince the jurors that random doctors are in on it? At some point it would pass into a level of absurdity and could likely hurt KR's chances.

The defense has to pick and choose their battles, wisely.

Along those lines, here are a couple of examples from the first trial that I didn't think helped the defense. I don't know if they have or will go back down these roads, but I'd be curious...

1) Trying to imply Colin Albert could've done it. I think this isn't allowed in the new trial, but I thought it looked bad for the original defense.

2) The plow driver. Not only did his testimony seem dubious, at best, but it also didn't seem to fit other conspiracy narratives.

Couldn’t they get DNA samples from everyone who was in the house that night and say we aren’t trying to prove anyone in the house did anything wrong, but it helps prove he wasn’t hit by Karen if they can prove he was with those people (whether it be in the backyard a few minutes or in the house)

 

[Angelwatch]

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to assume the defense has “anchored” Key Cycle 1162 to the John drop-off just because Alessi emphasized the seconds variance. That argument doesn’t require a concession about when 1162 occurred. It’s a challenge to how the Commonwealth is now trying to reframe the timing after the fact.

Alessi may be holding fire on the placement of 1162 for strategic reasons, or simply hasn’t had the right witness to make that argument yet. It’s not unusual for the defense to preserve ambiguity while attacking the reliability of the state’s interpretation. Also, this idea that he “wouldn’t be arguing seconds if it was 16 hours later” assumes the defense only has one strategy, which I don’t feel is accurate. They’re pushing back on multiple fronts.

All MOO.

I agree with you. They’ve used their cross examinations thus far to create doubt about the timeline and now that’s changing. So whether key cycle 1162 is better for the defense or not, it still impacts how they’ve gone about the cross examination of the witnesses. The questions they asked or didn’t ask.

The defense is likely to attack 1162 on multiple fronts now that’s it’s been reframed by “clock drift.”

 

[Angelwatch]

Couldn’t they get DNA samples from everyone who was in the house that night and say we aren’t trying to prove anyone in the house did anything wrong, but it helps prove he wasn’t hit by Karen if they can prove he was with those people (whether it be in the backyard a few minutes or in the house)

A few of those at 34 Fairview lawyered up and I’m sure they weren’t giving a dna sample without it being court ordered. The problem was disgraced former Trp Proctor wasn’t going to investigate anyone from house party. They weren’t going to catch any heat, wasn’t that what he said?

The clothes were on the floor of the hospital. I don’t know how likely it was that they would have picked up dna from the floor. IMHO, the dna came from the people at 34 Fairview.

 

[Angelwatch]

Same reason they didn’t try to find out whose DNA was on John’s clothes. Same reason they never tested the tailight pieces for DNA. Same reason they never tested the presumed blood in the solo cups.

Because they knew it wouldn’t support their narrative. Because real forensics threaten their fabricated timeline. Because the prosecution was building a story, not a case.

MOO.

IMO, that will be another red flag of the investigation to the jury. Test JOK’s clothes against his own dna. But don’t test the taillight pieces. It makes no sense if they are trying to prove he collided with the taillight.

 

[keek]

proctor made it clear in his texts to the person he was texting that JOK was hit by the girl and she was gong to do some serious time. He had already closed the case so it seems that any of the testing of DNA on JOK's clothing which came much, much later, was just for some sort of 'show'. He was not going to bother the people there at the house that night about anything. Just awaiting his gift to be handed to his wife per his conv with Colin's mother. IMO

 

[nightowl1975]

I don’t know much about rules when trying a case, but should they get a DNA sample of everyone who was in the house that night? It’s probably Colin Albert’s dna from a fight. They could finally prove he was in the house or at least made contact with people at the house

But then how would they say “there’s no evidence he was in the house”? JMO

 

[justwannahelp]

I just don’t understand how this trial is fair if a cop was found murdered on the lawn of a home he allegedly entered yet the home was never investigated and the DNA of the those in the home wasn’t taken when he was clearly punched in the face. Shouldn’t the defense have requested a court order for their DNA or done whatever they needed to do to get their DNA?

 

[justwannahelp]

Everyone talks about the dog. What about the people? Again, i know the people in the home aren’t on trial. However, their dna on John’s clothes can prove he was indeed in the home or in contact with (the backyard or back patio of those at that house) . The dog didn’t punch him in the face. A human did

 

[shotgun09]

Everyone talks about the dog. What about the people? Again, i know the people in the home aren’t on trial. However, their dna on John’s clothes can prove he was indeed in the home or in contact with (the backyard or back patio of those at that house) . The dog didn’t punch him in the face. A human did

IMO, the answer as to "why didn't they?" lies fully at the hands of Michael Proctor. He was full on protecting his friends, and fully engaged in targeting Karen Read, ( whack job #$** ) and also showing his feelings for Yanetti and alternate theories and investigation with any requests he made ( "I hate that man, I truly hate him" )

There was no investigation !

 

[DustysMom]

Im
Confused about the glasses. JO left Waterfall with a glass. KR had a glass of alcohol drink in her car. JO was drinking beer that night - did he leave bar with a drink for Karen?
BH testified in T1 that KR arrived at Waterfall with a glass of what is presumed as alcoholic beverage. KR left the Waterfall with JMc and had no visible glass in her hand, right? Where is this 2nd drink coming from?
Even if there WERE 2 glasses of booze in the car, why would JO take both with him when he intended to run up to the door at Fairview and knock on it? Makes more sense he would take one, open and close the car door with other hand, then knock or open the Fairview door with his free hand.
Please direct me to testimony that sheds some light on this.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Did Dr. SB put a time of death on the autopsy report or was that undetermined?

 

[lohrtabitha]

Everyone talks about the dog. What about the people? Again, i know the people in the home aren’t on trial. However, their dna on John’s clothes can prove he was indeed in the home or in contact with (the backyard or back patio of those at that house) . The dog didn’t punch him in the face. A human did

Seems to me, if the Alberts, Mccabes, and Proctor want to clear their names in the public eye, they should volunteer to give their dna for testing . It will never happen.

 

[Angelwatch]

Im
Confused about the glasses. JO left Waterfall with a glass. KR had a glass of alcohol drink in her car. JO was drinking beer that night - did he leave bar with a drink for Karen?
BH testified in T1 that KR arrived at Waterfall with a glass of what is presumed as alcoholic beverage. KR left the Waterfall with JMc and had no visible glass in her hand, right? Where is this 2nd drink coming from?
Even if there WERE 2 glasses of booze in the car, why would JO take both with him when he intended to run up to the door at Fairview and knock on it? Makes more sense he would take one, open and close the car door with other hand, then knock or open the Fairview door with his free hand.
Please direct me to testimony that sheds some light on this.

There is the video evidence of JOK leaving waterfall with a glass. That speaks for itself.

KR stated in the ID and the clip was played in court that JOK got out of the car with “her” glass, IIRC.

An extra non-matched glass piece was found on the bumper along with glass found by the body. People are now speculating he had two glasses to make sense of the non-matched glass piece on the bumper that wasn’t embedded and somehow survived driving in a snowstorm. The other explanation is that it was planted, IMO.

 

[HarmonyE.]

IMO, the answer as to "why didn't they?" lies fully at the hands of Michael Proctor. He was full on protecting his friends, and fully engaged in targeting Karen Read, ( whack job #$** ) and also showing his feelings for Yanetti and alternate theories and investigation with any requests he made ( "I hate that man, I truly hate him" )

There was no investigation !

The Canton PD was also very deferential to the famous Brian Albert and (literal) brother of one of their own. I'm not suggesting they were all in on framing Karen, just that they clearly did not wish to cause him any inconvenience, which was the beginning of a compromised investigation. Someone should have been banging on that door asking 1) if everyone was okay and 2) Can we take a full look around? At that point all they had was the sketchy Jen McCabe telling them he never went in the house. If either Albert (or Brian Jr. for that matter) was evasive, they should have gotten a court order.

They didn't arrest Read at the scene. If they'd actually heard a "confession", they would never have allowed the "murder weapon" to be brought all the way to Dighton without processing/impounding.

But I have wondered why a State cop would "truly hate" a criminal defense attorney. Did Proctor have a prior history with Yannetti? I've not heard anything about this, but I hope every single case on which Michael Proctor was the lead investigator gets a thorough review.

 

[Marah]

Everyone talks about the dog. What about the people? Again, i know the people in the home aren’t on trial. However, their dna on John’s clothes can prove he was indeed in the home or in contact with (the backyard or back patio of those at that house) . The dog didn’t punch him in the face. A human did

Was the ME asked if it is possible he could have been punched in the face?

 

[shotgun09]

Thinking back. Bukhenic and Proctor were at the hospital, saw JOK's right arm ( Helen Keller would have said it was a dog bite/scratch ), and didn't go back to 34 Fairview and say, " Hey? You's guys gotta dog ? "
Nope. Sketch as evah

 

[Angelwatch]

Was the ME asked if it is possible he could have been punched in the face?

The closest the ME came was when asked about the small cut above his right eyelid and the scratches to the left of his nose. On redirect, Scordi-Bello said they could be caused by blunt force trauma, including a punch to the face. But she stated she didn’t find signs of a major altercation, IIRC.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Was the ME asked if it is possible he could have been punched in the face?

She was asked if the lacerations to John’s nose and eyelid could have been caused by a punch. She said it was possible.