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

[missy1974]

To think that Karen Read was willing to accept that she hit and killed JOK at face value because all these "friends" and police were saying she did this and said that. Until she began thinking clearly again after the shock, and the fog lifted. Until random strangers started calling in tips to check out the Alberts. Until the so-called evidence didn't match with reality. Until the discovery that the police didn't conduct an adequate investigation from Day 1. Until all the lies were discovered. Until random strangers began to see a pattern of corruption and decided to stand with her.
MOO

THIS!

It's clear that all of them were VERY drunk that night. Everyone else can have moments they can't remember... remembered days later... or whatever it is... but KR cannot? lol

I have purposely avoided watching all the interviews she has done, I am looking forward to listening to them after the trial. I personally don't think KR is likeable to most people, I can understand that, but that is not a reason to convict anyone.

I know that she has medical issues, I would not be shocked to find out she is on some serious anti-anxiety/anti depressants. It is common with people with Crohn's, and helps to keep from having stress related flares. My husband has it, and his sister did too, so I am more then aware of Crohn's and it is actually one of the reasons the case interested me last year, I think I read a headline about Proctor's text messages... and here I am ... lol

 

[Malleeboy]

Can the Karen is guilty folk kindly actually answer some fact questions?

1) Lack of bruises from impact? Now the black eyes are from a head wound from falling down, the only other bruises are on back of knuckles, car hits body with any force it leaves significant bruising.

2) Blood stains on front of shirts? This can only happen from being vertical for a considerable period after head bleeding

3) How does a piece of glass, yet alone a hair survive 60 miles during a blizzard on car?

4) How does a tail light get broken when there is no commensurate body bruising? Exactly which part of the body broke the tail light, if you say the arm it is a hinged body part, it moves. If you say the arm is back against the body then body will bruise.

5) The tail light is no more than 1 foot, the arm injuries are along the whole arm, around 2 feet in length. The wounds go across the arm, can you explain how that injury?

 

[missy1974]

Yanetti and others investigated. There you go. It all changed very fast then. Nothing stayed the same as the first arraignment. Normal. Investigations matter much to the big SURPRISE to all the ones involved in the sham disgrace of the legal powers that be along with the others in Norfolk County. IMO

Right, that is what I got from listening to that pretrial hearing. It was interesting to listen because I didn't follow this case from day 1. I have read in the past and possibly even saw a clip of Yanetti making comments to the press about it being a tragedy, but in that hearing he clearly says what he thought at first.. and how that changed and why!

 

[keek]

Can the Karen is guilty folk kindly actually answer some fact questions?

1) Lack of bruises from impact? Now the black eyes are from a head wound from falling down, the only other bruises are on back of knuckles, car hits body with any force it leaves significant bruising.

2) Blood stains on front of shirts? This can only happen from being vertical for a considerable period after head bleeding

3) How does a piece of glass, yet alone a hair survive 60 miles during a blizzard on car?

4) How does a tail light get broken when there is no commensurate body bruising? Exactly which part of the body broke the tail light, if you say the arm it is a hinged body part, it moves. If you say the arm is back against the body then body will bruise.

5) The tail light is no more than 1 foot, the arm injuries are along the whole arm, around 2 feet in length. The wounds go across the arm, can you explain how that injury?

The small patterned holes through his long sleeved shirt that match up with the teeth and claws that dragged once through the material. Yes, lots of blood all down the front and top of jeans, some down the upper back of shirt. Vomit down into his shorts. He was sat up /leaned up. IMO

 

[missy1974]

Can the Karen is guilty folk kindly actually answer some fact questions?

1) Lack of bruises from impact? Now the black eyes are from a head wound from falling down, the only other bruises are on back of knuckles, car hits body with any force it leaves significant bruising.

2) Blood stains on front of shirts? This can only happen from being vertical for a considerable period after head bleeding

3) How does a piece of glass, yet alone a hair survive 60 miles during a blizzard on car?

4) How does a tail light get broken when there is no commensurate body bruising? Exactly which part of the body broke the tail light, if you say the arm it is a hinged body part, it moves. If you say the arm is back against the body then body will bruise.

5) The tail light is no more than 1 foot, the arm injuries are along the whole arm, around 2 feet in length. The wounds go across the arm, can you explain how that injury?

You forgot ...
adding to 2) AND down his jeans and bottom of his pants.

6) how did he get the other laceration above his right eye? Dr. Wolf said it was NOT from the blunt force trauma to the back of his head.

 

[keek]

Right, that is what I got from listening to that pretrial hearing. It was interesting to listen because I didn't follow this case from day 1. I have read in the past and possibly even saw a clip of Yanetti making comments to the press about it being a tragedy, but in that hearing he clearly says what he thought at first.. and how that changed and why!

Like all of us. The first local news reports only of course, said that JOK was killed and however at the time it was said, that his girlfriend had hit him upon leaving where they were. Open and shut. BUT then no so fast, thankfully, as this lawyer got word. You see where it took everyone to this day, especially the fired from the STATE POLICE OF MA, 'lead investigator'. How would anyone know otherwise they were all friends, personally and socially and all lied about texts, phone calls.. deleted and it goes on. But for the alert to KR's lawyer, most excellent and herself as well, where would she be. Truth for JOK is utmost important as well. Goes without saying and never leaves our minds. His trusted, as far as we know, 'friend' has created all of this narrative. IMO

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I’ve read that someone said there was ring video that showed Karen hit John. Does anyone know how that originated?

 

[shotgun09]

I’ve read that someone said there was ring video that showed Karen hit John. Does anyone know how that originated?

I believe it was a local News station/MSM that originally stated such.

 

[keek]

I believe it was a local News station/MSM that originally stated such.

Probably more of the same 'info' from proctor who thought he had it all tied up and done deal. IMO

 

[JasmineD]

I believe it was a local News station/MSM that originally stated such.

Local TV news report and then repeated by the Boston Globe in an article. Along the lines of "law enforcement says they have the incident on camera".

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Local TV news report and then repeated by the Boston Globe in an article. Along the lines of "law enforcement says they have the incident on camera".

And I wonder, and have a suspicion…… speculation only……. if that might be why the neighbor across the street supposedly deleted that video from his residence? Since, IIRC, in that individual’s view it did not contain anything of substance or relevance.

IMO that leaves an open unanswered question as to what was on that video.

And reflecting on the opposite scenario, just have to believe IMO that had that video captured something of substance - as to the happenings across the street - then that would have been retained and ultimately appear as evidence. MOO

 

[missy1974]

I’ve read that someone said there was ring video that showed Karen hit John. Does anyone know how that originated?

Jen McCabe had to read some texts from her "group" messages while testifying. Reporters were at Chris Alberts pizza shop.

Matt's message in that group .. "tell them the the guy never went in the house"

I would not doubt that someone fed that wrong info to reporters.

JMO


The guy These people were never JOK's friends. IMO

 

[missy1974]

And I wonder, and have a suspicion…… speculation only……. if that might be why the neighbor across the street supposedly deleted that video from his residence? Since, IIRC, in that individual’s view it did not contain anything of substance or relevance.

IMO that leaves an open unanswered question as to what was on that video.

And reflecting on the opposite scenario, just have to believe IMO that had that video captured something of substance - as to the happenings across the street - then that would have been retained and ultimately appear as evidence. MOO

The neighbor... wasn't he LE too? WHO would delete that?? Even if it showed nothing at all.

Crazy!

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The neighbor... wasn't he LE too? WHO would delete that?? Even if it showed nothing at all.

Crazy!

Yes @missy1974 …. I believe that is also true of the neighbor in LE IIRC. And if so, that in itself is also a little too convenient IMO. And with regard to having deleted possible ‘evidence’. SMH. MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Dbm

 

[Forest_Wood]

Assuming for a moment that someone in the Albert house killed JOK, why would BA pressure Morrisey to have another trial? Doing so would only mean more investigation by the defense team, more time on the stand for BA and friends, and an increased likelihood of someone cracking, being found out, or being charged with perjury.
Maybe someone else put pressure on Morrisey. I’m sure the victim’s family and friends do that in a lot of cases. I saw JOK’s red headed boyhood friend in one of the docuseries and he seemed pretty convinced of KR’s guilt. And then there’s JOK’s mother - she (and JOK's brother) must have gone ballistic when KR mocked Peg on national TV. Perhaps they’re the driving force behind T2.

If JOK was not a cop, and other cops were not implicated, T2 would never be happening IMO. It’s optics and politics driving this trial.
MOO

 

[Luna20]

And I wonder, and have a suspicion…… speculation only……. if that might be why the neighbor across the street supposedly deleted that video from his residence? Since, IIRC, in that individual’s view it did not contain anything of substance or relevance.

IMO that leaves an open unanswered question as to what was on that video.

And reflecting on the opposite scenario, just have to believe IMO that had that video captured something of substance - as to the happenings across the street - then that would have been retained and ultimately appear as evidence. MOO

Phones pitched, house abandoned, dog re-homed and no Ring video. That’s a story in and of itself.

 

[Malleeboy]

Assuming for a moment that someone in the Albert house killed JOK, why would BA pressure Morrisey to have another trial? Doing so would only mean more investigation by the defense team, more time on the stand for BA and friends, and an increased likelihood of someone cracking, being found out, or being charged with perjury.
Maybe someone else put pressure on Morrisey. I’m sure the victim’s family and friends do that in a lot of cases. I saw JOK’s red headed boyhood friend in one of the docuseries and he seemed pretty convinced of KR’s guilt. And then there’s JOK’s mother - she (and JOK's brother) must have gone ballistic when KR mocked Peg on national TV. Perhaps they’re the driving force behind T2.

I posted a long post a while back.
What if there was a altercation inside, BH confronted JOK about his fling with Karen. He hit John and gave cut above eye. John his him and bruised knuckles. Dog then bits John.
John then retreat back to the car upset at Karen, and throws glass at car taillight, breaking it.
He yells that given what she did, he is going to sleep with someone else. Karen reverses to get out of dodge.
John drunk, angry and on wet glass (maybe even throwing the glass unbalanced him) falls and hits his head.
BH, BA or people from the house, hear the glass hitting the car, come out and see John on the ground.
They conclude that Karen has hit him with car.
(I had more in previous post)

Getting a group to lie is hard if someone in the group is actually guilty, but lying and hiding facts, when you think you are ensuring that someone you all firmly believe did the crime is held accountable, is I think easier to believe.

 

[Malleeboy]

THIS!

It's clear that all of them were VERY drunk that night. Everyone else can have moments they can't remember... remembered days later... or whatever it is... but KR cannot? lol

I have purposely avoided watching all the interviews she has done, I am looking forward to listening to them after the trial. I personally don't think KR is likeable to most people, I can understand that, but that is not a reason to convict anyone.

I know that she has medical issues, I would not be shocked to find out she is on some serious anti-anxiety/anti depressants. It is common with people with Crohn's, and helps to keep from having stress related flares. My husband has it, and his sister did too, so I am more then aware of Crohn's and it is actually one of the reasons the case interested me last year, I think I read a headline about Proctor's text messages... and here I am ... lol

Good chance is one anti depressants, given all she is/has gone through, they totally flatten all emotional responses.

 

[cocomod]

The defense will probably call him, but I'm not sure it's a slam dunk they will.

Once the CW's case is over, the defense has to weigh whether it's better to keep Proctor an invisible boogeyman who has disappeared (where is he? Dead, retired, in jail?) vs calling a hostile witness they cannot prep in any way. Lawyers don't like to ask questions they don't already know the answers to and this alone makes Proctor a bit of a wild card for them.

Buhkenik did so badly on the stand. Does the defense leave well enough alone and focus on their obvious third party culprit (Higgins) instead? I don't know, but I don't think it's an easy decision for them.

Can’t they call him to the stand and just ask him to read the text messages he wrote about her - confirming the original bias. Then ask him about his job status. That is all they need from him. The CW then can’t deviate from those two topics since he is not their witness, correct?