MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #29 Retrial

[ShadyLady]

More amazing to me was he is supposed to have laid there for hours but no frostbite.

And had lost a lot of blood. And not dressed for the cold. I wonder when they did put him there.

 

[Spider92]

Plows damage things ALL the time. My friend's retaining wall was knocked down by a plow. Sidewalk plows tear up grass because the snow covers ground and the driver can't always see where the sidewalk is. They sideswipe parked cars. Rsbm

Are you suggesting a plow hit JOK? I just don’t see that in the evidence.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Are you suggesting a plow hit JOK? I just don’t see that in the evidence.

No, I believe he was killed in the house. What I said was plows hit things that are close by such as a basketball net that hangs over the road. The retaining wall I referenced took place during a blizzard, not under a few centimeters of snow. The sidewalk plows misjudge sidewalks when the sidewalk jogs a bit. I have never believed he was hit by a plow or any other vehicle. I’ve always felt he was killed in the house and left to die by those who were in there.

 

[HarmonyE.]

And had lost a lot of blood. And not dressed for the cold. I wonder when they did put him there.

I think we have a pretty good rough idea. Lucky the plow guy says he saw a Ford Edge illegally parked on Fairview sometime around 3:30 am. Blocking his view of the flagpole area. We don't know how long the SUV would have remained there (it was gone by the time JO's body was found) but there was no reason for it to be there. Unless it's owner was using it to block passerby's view of the general area because they were up to - to use one of Hank Brennan's favorite words - something nefarious.

About 19 minutes in:

 

[Wishbone]

No, I believe he was killed in the house. What I said was plows hit things that are close by such as a basketball net that hangs over the road. The retaining wall I referenced took place during a blizzard, not under a few centimeters of snow. The sidewalk plows misjudge sidewalks when the sidewalk jogs a bit. I have never believed he was hit by a plow or any other vehicle. I’ve always felt he was killed in the house and left to die by those who were in there.

Agree. JO's body doesn't even carry the injuries the lexus would have inflicted had he been hit by a moving vehicle per ARCCA testimony. JMOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

I think the 5 rounds with Tyson remark was explained today... its normal with the injury to his head. I can accept that.

What it doesn't explain is the other smaller laceration above his right eye. Or the marks on his arm. Or his hands.

The interesting thing is that not one expert is talking about the injuries on his arm!

 

[Forest_Wood]

I presume attempt to explain movement of apple steps after impact.

Would only arm movements explain the steps though? Wasn't his phone lying under him at this point?

 

[Forest_Wood]

Someone should stick a finger though her brain. Might help her remember, or she could just be like
''yeah', got me some digits .''

I was taken aback when the good Dr Wolf said a person could stick their finger through a brain!

 

[iamshadow21]

No, I believe he was killed in the house. What I said was plows hit things that are close by such as a basketball net that hangs over the road. The retaining wall I referenced took place during a blizzard, not under a few centimeters of snow. The sidewalk plows misjudge sidewalks when the sidewalk jogs a bit. I have never believed he was hit by a plow or any other vehicle. I’ve always felt he was killed in the house and left to die by those who were in there.

Yeah, there's no way it was a plow - did y'all read about Jeremy Renner's injuries? There'd be absolutely no doubt if a plow was involved.

MOO

 

[Mony Mony]

I'm just watching today's testimony of Dr Wolf.
He said something interesting about when a person feels pain, they naturally can make one or two movements automatically left over from cave man days as a defense to scare off wild animals. He called it decorticating and decerebrating. I wonder why he would even bring up that topic since it seemed unrelated to his testimony. He doesn't seem to know about the arm wounds that could be from an animal. It's just interesting he was talking about this which seemed to have nothing to do with what he was testifying to.
At 2:40

Decorticate and decerebrate movements are signs that specifically point to severe brain injuries. He was discussing severe brain injuries, so the mention of decorticate/decerebrate movements would be inherent to the discussion.

IMO, and I am not a doctor lol.

 

[arielilane]

Can anyone tell me what happened with bumper glass pieces C and D. I don’t see any results listed on the chart…chalk…

Thanks!

Using attachment from member:

https://websleuths.com/attachments/img_0447-webp.587760/

7-14 glass recovered by MP is not correct. No surprise that the defense again attempts to mislead the jury and mentions MP.

Blame it on the guy, to set the girl free, so she doesnt have to be held accountable for what she did.



On May 14, 2025, Maureen Harnett w/MA State crime lab, testified that she recovered glass from the bumper of KR's Lexus.

Evidence in Karen Read's case under the microscope as forensic scientist testifies at trial

Maureen Hartnett answered questions Wednesday about the damage to Read's SUV and a hair found on its bumper.

www.boston.com

Turning her attention to the SUV’s rear bumper, Hartnett told jurors she spotted scratches and apparent glass shards resting there.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Using attachment from member:

https://websleuths.com/attachments/img_0447-webp.587760/

7-14 glass recovered by MP is not correct. No surprise that the defense again attempts to mislead the jury and mentions MP.

Blame it on the guy, to set the girl free, so she doesnt have to be held accountable for what she did.



On May 14, 2025, Maureen Harnett w/MA State crime lab, testified that she recovered glass from the bumper of KR's Lexus.

Evidence in Karen Read's case under the microscope as forensic scientist testifies at trial

Maureen Hartnett answered questions Wednesday about the damage to Read's SUV and a hair found on its bumper.

www.boston.com

Turning her attention to the SUV’s rear bumper, Hartnett told jurors she spotted scratches and apparent glass shards resting there.

If it wasn’t correct, why didn’t Lally correct it on redirect?

The glass shards from Karen’s bumper are 3-3, not 7-14. You may be confused on the evidence numbers. MH collected item 3-3, as the article linked states.

7-14 was the single piece collected at 34 Fairview by Proctor. It matches 3-3(e), one of the shards of glass on Karen’s bumper. It does not match John’s glass, item 3-2, or the glass Buhkenik collected from the lawn, 7-12. Furthermore, as Ms. Hanley testified, none of the glass from 3-2 or 3-14 matches any glass from 3-3 - Karen’s bumper. So John’s glass was not on Karen’s bumper.

So:
3-2: John’s ‘cup’ - the drinking glass
3-3: five pieces of glass collected by MH that were resting on Karen’s bumber
7-12: nine pieces of glass collected by YB
7-14: a single piece of glass collected by Proctor.

 

[arielilane]

Begin Timestamp 3:02:20

Alessi: so none of your typical days none of the past typical months
um have involved forensic pathology have they you haven't acted as a forensic pathologist in

Dr. Wolf: I am I am if you're you could have asked that question very straightforward i am not a forensic
pathologist i'm a brain surgeon

Alessi: right and you don't perform autopsies correct sir you're a brain surgeon

Dr. Wolf:correct in other words I see more brains than the forensic pathologist

Alessi: right and and is it correct to say that the brains that you see are of living people

Dr. Wolf: correct

Alessi: okay

End Timestamp 3:03:04

 

[waldojabba]

<modsnip - not an approved source>
There have been many posts through out these threads with attached articles highlighting corruption in Massachusetts.
To get a flavor of the environment you can even google Massachusetts police corruption /Sandra Birchmore ( many overlapping LE players with Karens case) etc. there really is not a lot of heavy lifting involved to understand what is meant about corruption in Massachusetts.
Or you can look the other way and say what corruption ?
Everybody makes their own choices
JMO

 

[arielilane]

#KarenRead As I look at jury, I notice two of the jurors appear to have switched seats. A man who was seated nearest the witness stand is now seated in the back row near the middle. The woman who was in that seat has moved to the one closest to the witness stand.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1925317146176868427

 

[Warwick7]

Totally agree.
There have been many posts through out these threads with attached articles highlighting corruption in Massachusetts.
To get a flavor of the environment you can even google Massachusetts police corruption /Sandra Birchmore ( many overlapping LE players with Karens case) etc. there really is not a lot of heavy lifting involved to understand what is meant about corruption in Massachusetts.
Or you can look the other way and say what corruption ?
Everybody makes their own choices
JMO

The Birchmore case broke my heart. After awhile, because of LE I had to stop reading. It was so hurtful and overwhelming.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Does Peter say the Judge is corrupt?

Again the reason why i replied to @Warwick7 's post is that Attorney appeared to allege judicial corruption which is a far more serious allegation.

So I am wondering what form of corruption there is supposed to be?

Even if you accept Peter's argument on the merits, so long as the Judge reached the decision on her best interpretation of the law that is far short of corruption - even if it is eventually overturned on appeal. Judges get the law wrong all the time.

I tend to agree on that decision, that the Judge was incorrect. I tend to disagree with Peter that it's bias - but in any event, bias is nowhere near corruption.

IMO

I find all these online lawyers' shows to be the real distraction. This trial is not about what online lawyers claim. Why not watch the trial(s) yourself and be your own judge/jury rather than deferring to these lawyers who are making big $$$$ off of you.
MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Begin Timestamp 3:02:20

Alessi: so none of your typical days none of the past typical months
um have involved forensic pathology have they you haven't acted as a forensic pathologist in

Dr. Wolf: I am I am if you're you could have asked that question very straightforward i am not a forensic
pathologist i'm a brain surgeon

Alessi: right and you don't perform autopsies correct sir you're a brain surgeon

Dr. Wolf:correct in other words I see more brains than the forensic pathologist

Alessi: right and and is it correct to say that the brains that you see are of living people

Dr. Wolf: correct

Alessi: okay

End Timestamp 3:03:04

Great cross by Alessi. Dr Wolf wasn’t the ME, he didn’t examine the body or the brain. He had only secondhand knowledge of the case, and basically only stated what we already knew, that John died from blunt force injury to his head. Crucially, he made no assertion of a car causing the impact, nor can he say that Karen ‘sideswiped’ him to cause the impact. MOO.

 

[waldojabba]

The Birchmore case broke my heart. After awhile, because of LE I had to stop reading. It was so hurtful and overwhelming.

Once again I totally agree - so morally depraved - if these guys could do that - well its not a leap to anything frankly
JMO

 

[Oakland CA]

I think we have a pretty good rough idea. Lucky the plow guy says he saw a Ford Edge illegally parked on Fairview sometime around 3:30 am. Blocking his view of the flagpole area. We don't know how long the SUV would have remained there (it was gone by the time JO's body was found) but there was no reason for it to be there. Unless it's owner was using it to block passerby's view of the general area because they were up to - to use one of Hank Brennan's favorite words - something nefarious.

About 19 minutes in:

Thanks for posting this. First time I've seen this testimony.

Is this a prosecution witness?
If so, doesn't his testimony (from 18.00-26.00 mins approx.) help the defense?
It seems odd that the Ford Edge suddenly appeared (for over 3 hours) to block or obscure something from view.
Just because the driver couldn't see anything/anyone on other side of the parked car, doesn't mean there wasn't something there.