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

[lohrtabitha]

JOK was not hit by a car. Alas, that matters not to the CW.

The CW doesn’t really care if KR is convicted. That’s not the goal of all this nonsense.

The goal is to hide the rot in the system, nothing more.

It’s appalling.

Yes and unfortunately no words could be truer than yours! Well said themonk.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I can hear Alessi now...

Is that Merolli with 2 L's?



No way they call this witness, right? LOL

LOL!


I'd say that Burgess gave Aperture lots of pause across the board on their experts.
The irony that they hired a crash re-constructionist that carried out a hit and run resulting in the death of a beloved family dog is mind-boggling then he lied about it.

imo

 

[Tortoise]

With respect , once again this is from the documentary and we already noted Karen's feelings are not facts. They are merely feelings. In the aftermath of a traumatic event, people naturally process their feelings. Psychiatrists have proven that feelings are not facts. Mo

Who is the 'we' referred to?

These were her thoughts in her own words. A feeling is an emotion, which she doesn't describe.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Just as a general comment, I think driving at such high speed in reverse in a public street meets the standard every day of the week, even if you didn't see the person you hit, or know they are there.

I would never do that, precisely because it creates risks of hitting an unseen pedestrian, or even crashing - causing injury/death. It's just a risk any objective person can foresee.

This is even before being heavily intoxicated is factored in. If you've been drinking you definitely know the risks are elevated!

ETA: The jury instructions hammered out between CW and Defendant's attorneys will explain all this - and there is a lot of boiler plate.

But Mr. J when you watch Chris Alberts testimony about KRs behavior after drinking that night, he said she did not exhibit any signs she was drunk. She wasn't slurring her words or losing her balance. Nor was she angry or loud. We also already know from this trial that she was driving carefully as attested to by Julie Nagels brother and friends. So, it doesn't make sense that she would start driving recklessly in my opinion.it just doesn't.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Now the case boils down to causation. Did the act cause the injury and not in a way that is too remote?

You hit the nail on the head with this sentence Mr. J. The jury is going to have a hard time looking at John's arm and head wound and then say the car did it. I'm wondering what you and everyone else looking at the case would say if the only evidence we had was the photo of his arm? To me, I think an overwhelming majority would say animal attack. It's a common sense evaluation. His arm is all telling in the fact that KR did not hit him with her car to cause his death.

 

[lohrtabitha]

The question of how a single human body, unsupported, could break and shatter a tail light by bumping into it, that's the huge smoking gun AGAINST the cw's case. And there's no way to get past this reality.

We don't need experts to help us understand this.

The problem is that a free-standing 250-lb body doesn't have enough force (mass and resistance) on its own to do damage to a hardened tail light. It would need to be MUCH MUCH heavier, or it would need to be rooted (or backed by something solid), to create MUCH more resistance force.

There's a very easy way to envision the science of that, that we all can easily understand. Instead of proposing that the car goes 24 mph with the human being still, what if we had the human go 24 mph with the car being still? It's the same collision force on the car itself.

24 mph? That's about the speed of a very fast runner in the Olympics or football receiver breaking free for a TD. We see them on TV.

So in your mind's eye, envision that a sprinter runs a sprint to the finish line. But there's a car waiting at the finish line, unavoidable, and they run full speed into its taillight. What will happen to the taillight? Nothing. The human bounces off, hurt, but the car and its tail light will just sit there. The soft and smaller human body won't generate enough force to impact the bigger, more solid, harder, even if the runner tries his hardest to somehow make the collision more forceful. Even if we don't know the science, we generally know how those forces of mass, speed, and resistance tend to work, because we see illustrations happen in other ways all the time. We have even bumped into cars at times, or seen people do so. We generally get it.

So once we understand JOK could not have broken the tail light, because he wasn't that big and he wasn't rooted in place, then how did those tail light pieces get there? They really don't fit at all. Those pieces are not only a huge problem with this case for the cw, but also the smoking gun that something nefarious is in play in all this. LE is corrupt in this jurisdiction, and it all needs to be investigated so that JOK can get real justice.

This is so wise and so well said. Bravo Steve!

 

[missy1974]

Asking for information please. I haven’t followed this case with much attention except to know that this is the second trial. It’s very confusing to pop in to. I’m curious to know why some think she is not guilty and some think she is.
It seems that her car couldn’t have killed him and yet she was worried she had hit him. So can both sides give me brief explanations of why you think she is guilty or not guilty. I’d really appreciate a list of points on either side, so I can follow the rest of the trial without going nuts. Thank you in advance.

The Commonwealth is just about done with their case. It is being reported that they may only have 1 witness left.

I am a bit of a fence sitter.. I can see a lot of different scenarios happening, and all come up with problems or questions.

The ME did not think he had any signs of being hit by a car. This is a big hurdle for me and some others.

LE did not follow any sort of proper procedure, they didn't take proper photo's, they didn't document where things were found, they didn't interview witnesses in the proper manner or in some cases, didn't interview them at all. And of course, their lead investigator has been fired since the last trial - he is who the defense says planted tail light pieces, glass on the bumper and they believe he didn't investigate any other scenario and instead zeroed in on KR and "helped" the evidence - he was fired for all the vile things he said about KR in the early days in a group message with his fellow LE buddies. The defense has been saying that they think he went into the house, and something happened, resulting in John falling on to something with a ridge/edge and was placed outside later in the morning.

The CW says she backed up at a high speed and hit him, I am not even sure they are saying it was intentional anymore.

All JMO But hope it helps you understand the basics!

ETA: his arm! If you see his arm, it really does look like dog bite/scratches. The Alberts had a dog, that had a history of biting and they got rid of the dog shortly after John died.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Dbm

 

[lohrtabitha]

We is the forum. We have discussed this issue numerous times. Many professional journal articles written by psychiatrists and neurologists can be googled about this topic. I have attached one for educational insight.

https://neurodivergentinsights.com/feelings-are-not-facts/

 

[lohrtabitha]

We is the forum. We have discussed this issue numerous times. Many professional journal articles written by psychiatrists and neurologists can be googled about this topic. I have attached one for educational insight.
https://neurodivergentinsights.com/feelings-are-not-facts/

 

[Soulmagent]

5 Days off .
No telling what can happen today.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Asking for information please. I haven’t followed this case with much attention except to know that this is the second trial. It’s very confusing to pop in to. I’m curious to know why some think she is not guilty and some think she is.
It seems that her car couldn’t have killed him and yet she was worried she had hit him. So can both sides give me brief explanations of why you think she is guilty or not guilty. I’d really appreciate a list of points on either side, so I can follow the rest of the trial without going nuts. Thank you in advance.

Here’s why I believe that, based on reasonable doubt, Karen should not be convicted. The burden of proof in a criminal trial lies solely with the Commonwealth. They must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Karen Read caused John O’Keefe’s death, and did so with the reckless disregard required for second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. That’s a high bar, and for good reason. Someone’s freedom is at stake. Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean no doubt. It means if there’s a plausible alternative explanation supported by the evidence, or if the prosecution’s case leaves you with lingering uncertainty, you must acquit. And that’s exactly the case here. The defense doesn’t need to prove a clean, step-by-step theory of what happened. They only need to show that what the prosecution can’t explain (or is ignoring) is enough to leave a rational person unconvinced.Here are some of the specific points I believe amount to reasonable doubt in this case:

1. No eyewitness saw a hit. No one saw Karen hit John. No surveillance footage. No neighbor reports. Nothing. The timeline is built around inferences, not direct evidence. There’s also no collision event logged by her vehicle, so the ‘1162 cycle’ you’ve probably been seeing is simply a reversal event. In my opinion, there was no collision PERIOD. The CW has no hard evidence of a collision like a collision event logged in Karen’s Lexus, so they’re having to rely on this tech stream event which their own expert admitted was identical to other TSE’s such as sudden braking, a car stopping in front of you, general erratic driving, etc. In fact, there was a TSE 1162-1 that they’re saying was NOT a collision. They are only inferring that 1162-2 WAS a collision - it’s identical to 1162-1.

2. Multiple people were inside the house, but none called 911. Roughly 6–10 adults were inside 34 Fairview that night/morning. No one called for help. No one noticed a body outside in the snow for 6 hours, even while leaving the party? Additionally, Brian Albert, a BPD detective, and his wife Nicole didn’t leave their house the morning John was found? With all that commotion outside? That’s suspicious to me. We can get further in to Brian Albert’s ‘butt dials’ to Brian Higgins, or Jen McCabe’s ‘butt dials’ to her sister Nicole around 5am on 1/29/22, and to John between 12:29-12:50AM, but that’s a whole other can of worms. Needless to say, I find others’ behavior in the wake of John’s death far more suspicious than Karen’s.

3. In my opinion, the single most important point: the autopsy doesn’t match a car strike. The Medical Examiner found no injuries consistent with a low-speed SUV impact, and did not rule John’s death to be caused by a car strike, or his manner of death to be a homicide. Instead, there were:

• Blunt force trauma to the back of the head
• Superficial lacerations on the arms (the defense suggests dog bites or a struggle)
• No spinal damage or crush injuries
• A laceration to his eye and nose caused by a separate blow than his back-of-head injury.

4. No tail light debris in her driveway, but taillight debris at the scene. Prosecution says Karen backed into John’s car intentionally that morning to explain away her broken taillight. But:

• There was no red taillight plastic at 1 Meadows.
• Glass and taillight plastic were found around John’s body instead.
• The taillight pieces are heavily contended pieces of evidence. There were no taillight pieces found by early first responders like Mike Lenk. Additionally, some of the taillight pieces were collected days later - in one particularly unbelievable case IMO, the former chief drove by 34 Fairview and claimed to have spotted an additional tail light piece from his car, in the rain, days after John died. The defense has openly accused Michael Proctor of planting tail light pieces to implicate Karen. I’m not sure how up-to-date you are, but Proctor was dishonorably discharged and fired after Trial 1 due to his behavior on this case and IIRC other cases.

5. Her statements were inconsistent because she was panicking, not guilty. Spontaneous declarations aren’t a ‘case closed’ for a reason. Karen was drunk, shocked, and spiraling the morning they found John’s body. She blurted things like “Could I have hit him?” and “Was he hit by a plow?” That’s not guilt, it’s panic. First responders confirmed she was hysterical, crying, vomiting, not cold or calculated. Importantly, NO first responders reported her saying ‘I hit him’ the day John died. That little story emerged months later.

6. The phone data is not consistent with the CW theory. John’s phone last moved after he got out of the car and walked away. His phone showed signs of pocket movement, and he took steps and even climbed stairs after leaving Karen’s vehicle, and importantly, after the alleged time of impact. The defense argues this shows he didn’t collapse immediately, and it’s consistent with him going inside, then being moved back outside.

7. There’s motive for a cover-up. 34 Fairview was owned by a Boston PD officer’s family. Several partygoers were connected to law enforcement. If something went wrong inside (fight, fall, dog bite, OD), there’s a clear motive to protect careers and reputations, especially in a tight-knit cop community.

8. Colin Albert’s 12:33 a.m. call to Erin Beatty is suspicious. Colin was allegedly seen acting aggressively that night. The call happened minutes after John would have been injured, and Erin never explained what it was about. The defense argues this call and others may show coordination after-the-fact, not Karen’s guilt.

9. No one has explained why she’d kill him. There’s no real motive. They had minor arguments, but no evidence she intended harm. Why would she kill a man she loved, with no witnesses, in a snowstorm, then immediately help “find” his body in front of others?

To be clear:

You can believe Karen made mistakes that night. You can believe she was messy, erratic, even self-involved.But that’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed second-degree murder. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove she did it. The defense doesn’t have to prove who did. They only need to prove she might not have, and IMO, they’ve done that.

All MOO

 

[Alcina]

I wonder what Mr. Alessi is up to. This is a very long sidebar. He's so brilliant, I would love to know what is going on right now.

 

[missy1974]

Here’s why I believe that, based on reasonable doubt, Karen should not be convicted. The burden of proof in a criminal trial lies solely with the Commonwealth. They must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Karen Read caused John O’Keefe’s death, and did so with the reckless disregard required for second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. That’s a high bar, and for good reason. Someone’s freedom is at stake. Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean no doubt. It means if there’s a plausible alternative explanation supported by the evidence, or if the prosecution’s case leaves you with lingering uncertainty, you must acquit. And that’s exactly the case here. The defense doesn’t need to prove a clean, step-by-step theory of what happened. They only need to show that what the prosecution can’t explain (or is ignoring) is enough to leave a rational person unconvinced.Here are some of the specific points I believe amount to reasonable doubt in this case:

1. No eyewitness saw a hit. No one saw Karen hit John. No surveillance footage. No neighbor reports. Nothing. The timeline is built around inferences, not direct evidence. There’s also no collision event logged by her vehicle, so the ‘1162 cycle’ you’ve probably been seeing is simply a reversal event. In my opinion, there was no collision PERIOD. The CW has no hard evidence of a collision like a collision event logged in Karen’s Lexus, so they’re having to rely on this tech stream event which their own expert admitted was identical to other TSE’s such as sudden braking, a car stopping in front of you, general erratic driving, etc. In fact, there was a TSE 1162-1 that they’re saying was NOT a collision. They are only inferring that 1162-2 WAS a collision - it’s identical to 1162-1.

2. Multiple people were inside the house, but none called 911. Roughly 6–10 adults were inside 34 Fairview that night/morning. No one called for help. No one noticed a body outside in the snow for 6 hours, even while leaving the party? Additionally, Brian Albert, a BPD detective, and his wife Nicole didn’t leave their house the morning John was found? With all that commotion outside? That’s suspicious to me. We can get further in to Brian Albert’s ‘butt dials’ to Brian Higgins, or Jen McCabe’s ‘butt dials’ to her sister Nicole around 5am on 1/29/22, and to John between 12:29-12:50AM, but that’s a whole other can of worms. Needless to say, I find others’ behavior in the wake of John’s death far more suspicious than Karen’s.

3. In my opinion, the single most important point: the autopsy doesn’t match a car strike. The Medical Examiner found no injuries consistent with a low-speed SUV impact, and did not rule John’s death to be caused by a car strike, or his manner of death to be a homicide. Instead, there were:

• Blunt force trauma to the back of the head
• Superficial lacerations on the arms (the defense suggests dog bites or a struggle)
• No spinal damage or crush injuries
• A laceration to his eye and nose caused by a separate blow than his back-of-head injury.

4. No tail light debris in her driveway, but taillight debris at the scene. Prosecution says Karen backed into John’s car intentionally that morning to explain away her broken taillight. But:

• There was no red taillight plastic at 1 Meadows.
• Glass and taillight plastic were found around John’s body instead.
• The taillight pieces are heavily contended pieces of evidence. There were no taillight pieces found by early first responders like Mike Lenk. Additionally, some of the taillight pieces were collected days later - in one particularly unbelievable case IMO, the former chief drove by 34 Fairview and claimed to have spotted an additional tail light piece from his car, in the rain, days after John died. The defense has openly accused Michael Proctor of planting tail light pieces to implicate Karen.

5. Her statements were inconsistent because she was panicking, not guilty. Spontaneous declarations aren’t a ‘case closed’ for a reason. Karen was drunk, shocked, and spiraling the morning they found John’s body. She blurted things like “Could I have hit him?” and “Was he hit by a plow?” That’s not guilt, it’s panic. First responders confirmed she was hysterical, crying, vomiting, not cold or calculated. Importantly, NO first responders reported her saying ‘I hit him’ the day John died. That little story emerged months later.

6. The phone data is not consistent with the CW theory. John’s phone last moved after he got out of the car and walked away. His phone showed signs of pocket movement, and he took steps and even climbed stairs after leaving Karen’s vehicle, and importantly, after the alleged time of impact. The defense argues this shows he didn’t collapse immediately, and it’s consistent with him going inside, then being moved back outside.

6. There’s motive for a cover-up. 34 Fairview was owned by a Boston PD officer’s family. Several partygoers were connected to law enforcement. If something went wrong inside (fight, fall, dog bite, OD), there’s a clear motive to protect careers and reputations—especially in a tight-knit cop community.

7. Colin Albert’s 12:33 a.m. call to Erin Beatty is suspicious. Colin was allegedly seen acting aggressively that night. The call happened minutes after John would have been injured, and Erin never explained what it was about. The defense argues this call and others may show coordination after-the-fact, not Karen’s guilt.

8. No one has explained why she’d kill him. There’s no real motive. They had minor arguments, but no evidence she intended harm. Why would she kill a man she loved, with no witnesses, in a snowstorm, then immediately help “find” his body in front of others?

To be clear:

You can believe Karen made mistakes that night. You can believe she was messy, erratic, even self-involved.But that’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed second-degree murder. The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove she did it. The defense doesn’t have to prove who did. They only need to prove she might not have, and IMO, they’ve done that.

All MOO

Great post and on that... I would vote not guilty. Not because I don't believe it "could" have happened, but being a fence sitter means they haven't proven it to me.

Who is Erin Beatty? (I didn't watch all of Season 1 lol)

 

[Warwick7]

Who is the 'we' referred to?

These were her thoughts in her own words. A feeling is an emotion, which she doesn't describe.

I'm apart of that 'we'!

 

[nodamselindistress]

I wonder what Mr. Alessi is up to. This is a very long sidebar. He's so brilliant, I would love to know what is going on right now.

My thoughts exactly!

I understand the Judge called a recess after sidebar, so whatever Alessi brought up to her seems to require research.

 

[missy1974]

This seems like a long delay today...

Sidebar and now we are back to the ceiling fan.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Great post and on that... I would vote not guilty. Not because I don't believe it "could" have happened, but being a fence sitter means they haven't proven it to me.

Who is Erin Beatty? (I didn't watch all of Season 1 lol)

Erin Beatty is one of Collin’s friends. Colin claimed in Trial 1 he asked her to pick him up. But the call was at 12:33 and Colin testified he left around 12:10 so… make that one make sense. Erin is interesting to me because when John was still missing, it was suggested he may have gone to Tom Beatty’s house, Erin’s father. Jen said that Karen asked her to call Tom that morning before they found John’s body. But she also said that Karen asked her to do the ‘hos long’ search, which I don’t believe, so… Maybe a coincidence, but I do wonder if Tom was an early ‘coverup candidate’ for them in the way I believe they were eyeing Lucky.

Another interesting tidbit from Colin’s phone - after the night John died, his messages with Allie McCabe, Jen’s daughter, go dark for almost a month. No texts from 1/29/22-2/20-22. Colin was questioned about this trial 1. He said that they switched to Snapchat. AJ implied that they did that to discuss things without a permanent ‘paper trail’, but Colin denied it. Still interesting. They were even texting on 1/28 into the early hours of 1/29, so it’s not like they normally only used Snapchat.

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1926772859243758033

 

[ShadyLady]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1926772859243758033

I was really looking forward to a defense. Wondering if what Karen's lawyers found will stop this trial in it's tracks.