I suppose what I'm wondering is if what will matter to the jury is that she's on trial for hitting with her car and they've seen and heard her say alot which supports that. I keep thinking back to the last trial where the jury regarded much other evidence as distractors and they didn't have any of these video clips then. I really don't think any of those interviews have helped her and still can't understand why she did them.
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
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
- Status
I think it could go either way with the clips. I think nowadays most people think that statements are taken out of context all the time, it's an issue with the media, and it has created an increase in mistrust with the general public. A simple google search of 'mistrust in the media poll' will show numerous polls showing that.
The younger they are, the more they may question the selective clips according to the polls. (I thought I read that this jury is fairly young? but I don't know if we know much about them at all)
The only way the defense can counter the clips is to go hard on them in their closing, say they are out of context, they didn't show the whole show, etc. That may resonate with the jury and if the jury is younger, it may have even more impact IMO
I have included a link to a poll, but there are many of them.
I think if that the defense needs to zero in on the phone data... there is some info, even from Whiffins testimony, that need to be explained more. Explain the Waze time issues. Explain the Bluetooth disconnection, explain how climbing stairs is NOT from when he was in the car. Explain in more detail to the jury that the location had a wider range and why that is (being in a building).
They also need to zero in on the fact that she connected to the home wifi at 12:36ish, meaning, she was close enough to the house to connect.
The timing on all these different devices is open to interpretation I think, for all the "experts". Which actually, IMO, makes it even more suspect that Brennan has his experts lining up the times perfectly. If the timing is so imperfect, how did they make it perfect? Any expert can make it "fit" IMO Any of of us can make it fit too haha and we aren't experts! LOL
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 45,147
The case comes down to JO never being hit by that Lexus. JMOO
It will be there accident reconstruction expert, from Aperture.
If anyone is bored before Tuesday, I went and watched ARCCA's Dr. Rentschler's testimony from last year, it was a good refresher of what would and wouldn't happen in different scenarios.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 45,147
I really hope no jury finds her guilty because I have not seen any proof of JO being hit by the Lexus. JMOO
And physics. IMO
Dr. Rentschler: Head form (approx. 11 pounds), struck at 15 mph, 1000 pounds of force would be applied to head (when struck by vehicle).
The ridge above the tail light impacting his upper eye area would...obliterate it? I still can't get over that tweeter forwarding this hypothesis.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 12,982
- Reaction score
- 149,203
BBM
When did the defense admit 1162 was the 34F journey?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 12,982
- Reaction score
- 149,203
Listen to Ryan Nagel's testimony.
Sometime around 12:20am JO
gets off the phone with Jen about directions to 34FV. Somewhere they've done a 3 point turn cause they are lost.
Julie has already texted her brother Ryan to come get her, at about 12:15 AM.
According to the witnesses in Ricky's truck with Ryan, arrive at the same time as KR/JO. All in the truck testified a woman was driving and a man was a passenger.
Julie caused her brother to wait for abit before she came out. Julie and those in the truck testified that this happened around 12:25 or so.
Julie comes out to the truck, visits, then goes back in the house. The truck drives off. Everyone in the truck sees Karen by herself, with the dome light on, in her SUV, with her break lights on.
Jen's first call to John after arriving at 34FV happens at 12:29 AM. For several minutes after this, she states, she is continuing to look out the window at the SUV to see if he's coming in, and continues to text (and "butt dial") John. She looked outside multiple times, multiple minutes at a time. She said she never saw John at any point.
Karen's first call to John after arriving was 12:33am. Ring video at 1 Meadows Ave showed her arriving at 12:41 AM as noted by state troopers. Jen claims to see Karen outside at 12:45. Jen continued to call/text John until about 12:50 AM.
None of the witnesses ever heard screams, the sounds of screeching tires, or a revving SUV.
And none of this makes any mention of the complete and total disaster that was the crash reconstruction "expert", Trooper Paul.
John's phone stops recording movements at 12:32.
KR locks on JO's wifi at 12:36am.
So the car stopped at 12:24, his phone stopped moving at 12:25 and she was at his house by 12:36.
Sometime around 12:20am JO
gets off the phone with Jen about directions to 34FV. Somewhere they've done a 3 point turn cause they are lost.
Julie has already texted her brother Ryan to come get her, at about 12:15 AM.
According to the witnesses in Ricky's truck with Ryan, arrive at the same time as KR/JO. All in the truck testified a woman was driving and a man was a passenger.
Julie caused her brother to wait for abit before she came out. Julie and those in the truck testified that this happened around 12:25 or so.
Julie comes out to the truck, visits, then goes back in the house. The truck drives off. Everyone in the truck sees Karen by herself, with the dome light on, in her SUV, with her break lights on.
Jen's first call to John after arriving at 34FV happens at 12:29 AM. For several minutes after this, she states, she is continuing to look out the window at the SUV to see if he's coming in, and continues to text (and "butt dial") John. She looked outside multiple times, multiple minutes at a time. She said she never saw John at any point.
Karen's first call to John after arriving was 12:33am. Ring video at 1 Meadows Ave showed her arriving at 12:41 AM as noted by state troopers. Jen claims to see Karen outside at 12:45. Jen continued to call/text John until about 12:50 AM.
None of the witnesses ever heard screams, the sounds of screeching tires, or a revving SUV.
And none of this makes any mention of the complete and total disaster that was the crash reconstruction "expert", Trooper Paul.
John's phone stops recording movements at 12:32.
KR locks on JO's wifi at 12:36am.
So the car stopped at 12:24, his phone stopped moving at 12:25 and she was at his house by 12:36.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 2,940
- Reaction score
- 44,912
Yes to this @lohrtabitha
Not one witness has testified that the car hit him period in this trial.
We know that he was in the car- we know that he got out of the car - and then we know they found him dead.
We know that some of the Lexus the tail light pieces "revealed" themselves over the ensuing days. Scattered around where they located John's body. Bright red tail light pieces not found initially by LE responding with the snowblower when there was even less snow that mornng.
And inexplicably as well as sadly, I think that will be reason enough for at least one person on this jury, who lacks any type of discernment, to be sure Karen must have hit John with her car despite the lack of evidence, mounds of reasonable doubt and what the science says.
ALL JMO / Hung Jury aka Mistrial
JMO
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 12,982
- Reaction score
- 149,203
Shanon did prove something when he testified. He proved that the ring video of Karen arriving home, that they claim was “missing” and deleted by Karen, was at one time, in MSP custody.
Shanon explained how Karen’s SUV shows a “power off” event at 12:42:08am. This means she pulled into the garage and turned the engine off at this time.
This 12:42:08 “power off” confirms that Michael Proctor deleted the ring video of Karen arriving home. M00
Per testimony. David Dicicco from the MSP was reviewing the ring video on JO's phone. He made a note “12:41, I think she arrives home.”
We never knew where he got this number from. But now with this 12:42:08 “power off” knowledge, it makes sense.
Dicicco watched a video of Karen pulling into the garage at 12:41, which is 1 minute before her car shows a “power off” event at 12:42:08.
This means that the ring video that they now claim is “missing” was in fact in MSP custody and viewed by Dicicco.
Explain to me how Karen would be able to get access to JO's phone that was in MSP custody and delete this video, that was already viewed by the MSP?
Shanon explained how Karen’s SUV shows a “power off” event at 12:42:08am. This means she pulled into the garage and turned the engine off at this time.
This 12:42:08 “power off” confirms that Michael Proctor deleted the ring video of Karen arriving home. M00
Per testimony. David Dicicco from the MSP was reviewing the ring video on JO's phone. He made a note “12:41, I think she arrives home.”
We never knew where he got this number from. But now with this 12:42:08 “power off” knowledge, it makes sense.
Dicicco watched a video of Karen pulling into the garage at 12:41, which is 1 minute before her car shows a “power off” event at 12:42:08.
This means that the ring video that they now claim is “missing” was in fact in MSP custody and viewed by Dicicco.
Explain to me how Karen would be able to get access to JO's phone that was in MSP custody and delete this video, that was already viewed by the MSP?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 12,982
- Reaction score
- 149,203
Post in thread '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' 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
***** 1162 can not be the F34 trip.
I drew a chart for myself trying to understand "key cycles." Which I have to call (ignition turnover) just to make heads or tails out of this.
---------------
Ok....here is a part of my chart: using trial testimony:
Ignition is turned over: 1159 Drove from Waterfall Bar to 34 Fairview. The ignition was never shut off. Then KR drove to JO's Home. Then turned ignition off.
Next
Ignition is turned over: 1160 KR backs out of JO's driveway hitting his Traverse. (5am or so). She drives to JM's home. The ignition isn't shut off. She drives back to JO's home. She shuts off the ignition.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1161 KR drives from JO's house to her parents’ home in Dighton. The ignition is turned off.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1162 Her car is loaded onto the tow truck while at her parents' home in Dighton.
From testimony, at 10 minutes and 19 minutes after the ignition is turned over, the milage is documented at 12,629. Then ignition is turned off.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1163 LE drives it off the tow truck and into Sally Port. Then the ignition is turned off.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1164 Trooper Paul says this is his Testing (whatever that means). His testimony says the mileage read at 12,665. Then ignition is turned off.
---------------------------
1. This shows it is absolutely NOT evidence that 1162 is the F34 trip.
2. Why in the he!! did KR's car gain 36 miles while it was in LE (Proctor's) control???!!
***** 1162 can not be the F34 trip.
I drew a chart for myself trying to understand "key cycles." Which I have to call (ignition turnover) just to make heads or tails out of this.
---------------
Ok....here is a part of my chart: using trial testimony:
Ignition is turned over: 1159 Drove from Waterfall Bar to 34 Fairview. The ignition was never shut off. Then KR drove to JO's Home. Then turned ignition off.
Next
Ignition is turned over: 1160 KR backs out of JO's driveway hitting his Traverse. (5am or so). She drives to JM's home. The ignition isn't shut off. She drives back to JO's home. She shuts off the ignition.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1161 KR drives from JO's house to her parents’ home in Dighton. The ignition is turned off.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1162 Her car is loaded onto the tow truck while at her parents' home in Dighton.
From testimony, at 10 minutes and 19 minutes after the ignition is turned over, the milage is documented at 12,629. Then ignition is turned off.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1163 LE drives it off the tow truck and into Sally Port. Then the ignition is turned off.
Next
The ignition is turned over: 1164 Trooper Paul says this is his Testing (whatever that means). His testimony says the mileage read at 12,665. Then ignition is turned off.
---------------------------
1. This shows it is absolutely NOT evidence that 1162 is the F34 trip.
2. Why in the he!! did KR's car gain 36 miles while it was in LE (Proctor's) control???!!
Good question. Planing their targeting of Karen??
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 2,770
- Reaction score
- 23,006
What is it about this video that makes you think it's powerful? To me, it's a bunch of details of her perspective that night, but nothing really concrete where we can say, "oh, that's it, she confessed".
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 2,770
- Reaction score
- 23,006
It makes no sense that her car gained 36 miles unless LE made so many tests to add up to those extra miles. That's about an hour of driving at average speed so I can't see LE testing it that many times.
So I understood the ignition cycles (key cycles) only registered if a trigger event of some kind happened? Or is this something else? It was confusing listening to Joe Paul explain the difference between them. Even AJ was confused.
Also, who is to know if her car had been turned off and back on at another time on Jan 29? Such as for stopping for gas for instance. How did LE know how many times she stopped and started the car to confirm their theory?
ETA: That's a really good job you did with that btw.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2023
- Messages
- 534
- Reaction score
- 5,562
I don’t know but in my opinion none of the clips shown from KR’s interview seem that incriminating. They seem rather, IMO, to depict a woman who was in full-blown panic as she looked for her missing boyfriend while also getting overwhelmed and confused by feelings of guilt as she tries to rationalize why a small piece of her taillight was broken, why didn’t he make it home and then why later does she find in a spot exactly right next to where she remembers parking earlier? It does seem to make sense that she would probably start to blame herself given she was in a panic, knew she was drinking earlier, her memory is still shoddy from the alcohol, JOK was injured and her own car also had some slight damage?
She even asks could she have hit him? Did something occur that was emotionally charged between them and in her intoxicated stated it led her to horrifically harm John with her car? Was she playing her music too loud as normal and that led her not to hear John as he approached her vehicle from behind as she maneuver it to drive off or accidentally hit him afterwards?
It seems like she is just trying to put the pieces together. And again this is already on top of feeling terrible because her boyfriend was injured, alone and out in the cold for some people it is natural for them to think that somehow it is their fault when a loved one they cared about was hurt and they felt like they should have responded or checked earlier or been more responsible.
She also reiterated that a small portion of her taillight was broken and that threw broken on the ground because she was worried about them causing damage ( KerRob also mentioned doing something similar in her testimony in T1). This leads me to wonder were those pieces picked up or collected by LE? I can’t recall but I will double check later.
Not to mention she elaborates that the three point occurred when she missed the original left turn she was supposed to make on Fairview and thus had to make one by pulling the car up on a driveway on the opposite side of the road and then pulling up and making right hand turn at the intersection instead. (This is likely the same point and time where RN and HW first see her car getting ready to turn down the same street as them).
Also, I can relate to her awkwardness when interacting with JOK’s mother. If I harmed or felt like I was the cause or responsible for the death of someone’s else’s loved one or child I don’t know how I could live with myself let alone face or answer them in them moment so soon after such loss. As much I know deep down I need to hold myself accountable I would also want to curl into a burl as the shame, grief and self-hatred took over. I found her reaction at least relatable when she self-isolated at JOK’s before deciding it was best to leave them or give them space.
Nothing as of yet seems to point towards consciousness of guilt, at least not when compared to other possibilities like the mixture of emotional turmoil, panic, distress, short-term memory loss and confusion and the after-effects of excess or not yet metabolized alcohol in one’s system.
I think ultimately, as others have commented, it will hinder down to can it be proven that JOK was hit by a car, can it be proven that he was hit by Karen’s car, what evidence is or isn’t there and when it comes to challenging the clips being shown the defense reminding the jury that context matters.
I think the CSI effect may be beneficial or strong point that can be used by the defense.
www.nbcnews.com
JMO/MOO
She even asks could she have hit him? Did something occur that was emotionally charged between them and in her intoxicated stated it led her to horrifically harm John with her car? Was she playing her music too loud as normal and that led her not to hear John as he approached her vehicle from behind as she maneuver it to drive off or accidentally hit him afterwards?
It seems like she is just trying to put the pieces together. And again this is already on top of feeling terrible because her boyfriend was injured, alone and out in the cold for some people it is natural for them to think that somehow it is their fault when a loved one they cared about was hurt and they felt like they should have responded or checked earlier or been more responsible.
She also reiterated that a small portion of her taillight was broken and that threw broken on the ground because she was worried about them causing damage ( KerRob also mentioned doing something similar in her testimony in T1). This leads me to wonder were those pieces picked up or collected by LE? I can’t recall but I will double check later.
Not to mention she elaborates that the three point occurred when she missed the original left turn she was supposed to make on Fairview and thus had to make one by pulling the car up on a driveway on the opposite side of the road and then pulling up and making right hand turn at the intersection instead. (This is likely the same point and time where RN and HW first see her car getting ready to turn down the same street as them).
Also, I can relate to her awkwardness when interacting with JOK’s mother. If I harmed or felt like I was the cause or responsible for the death of someone’s else’s loved one or child I don’t know how I could live with myself let alone face or answer them in them moment so soon after such loss. As much I know deep down I need to hold myself accountable I would also want to curl into a burl as the shame, grief and self-hatred took over. I found her reaction at least relatable when she self-isolated at JOK’s before deciding it was best to leave them or give them space.
Nothing as of yet seems to point towards consciousness of guilt, at least not when compared to other possibilities like the mixture of emotional turmoil, panic, distress, short-term memory loss and confusion and the after-effects of excess or not yet metabolized alcohol in one’s system.
I think ultimately, as others have commented, it will hinder down to can it be proven that JOK was hit by a car, can it be proven that he was hit by Karen’s car, what evidence is or isn’t there and when it comes to challenging the clips being shown the defense reminding the jury that context matters.
I think the CSI effect may be beneficial or strong point that can be used by the defense.
As Karen Read's retrial zeroed in on a possible murder weapon, an expert's credibility was challenged
A forensic analyst who examined key evidence for Read's retrial was subjected to hours of interrogation-like questions about his resume and analysis.
JMO/MOO
Last edited:
I think it’s been determined that the camera across the street was not programmed to record anything further than 10 feet or so from the front door. Most folks program them to recognize motion on their front porches, not any further. Of course if someone had been on that person’s porch, their motion would be detected, then the video would show actions across the street.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Guardians Monthly Goal
Staff online
-
CarlK90245UID Moderator -
SillybillyAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 155
- Guests online
- 2,464
- Total visitors
- 2,619