MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #30 Retrial

[tara83]

I see no such behavior. I think this judge has been extremely unbiased during this trial. Just because the judge rules in favor of the prosecution doesn't mean she's bias against the defense. It means she has found legal cause to do so. AJMO

Most actual lawyers I have heard from seem to disagree with you.

 

[sunshineray]

She is thinking of possibilities, and ‘seeing’ possibilities in her ‘minds eye’, if you will. Pretty common figure of speech.

We can take anything out of context, like Welcher saying he felt like he was ‘talking the jury to death’, in a murder trial. But it doesn’t mean it’s relevant or meaningful. MOO.

Yes but it seems, IMO that...

“He didn’t look mortally wounded, as far as I could see”

sounds not like a supposition but a memory...if she's claiming to have NOT have seen JO injured. I think maybe her mind's eye was a memory. Again JMO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

In the interview from April 10, 2024, for a docuseries, Read said she asked herself if she could have hit O'Keefe and added that her attorney said she has some level of culpability.

"So, I thought, could I have run him over? Did he try to get me as I was leaving, and I didn't know it? I always have the music blasting. It's snowing. I had the wipers going, the heater blasting. Did he come and hit the back of my car, and I hit him in the knee, and he was drunk and passed out and (he) asphyxiated or something, and then when I hired David Yannetti, I asked him those questions. 'The night of Jan. 29, David, what if, I don't know, what if I ran his foot over or what if I clipped him in the knee, and he passed out or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out,' and David said, 'Yeah, then you would have some of element of culpability.'"

'What if I clipped him in the knee?': Karen Read interview played as prosecution rests case

The defendant's own words questioning if she was responsible for the crash that claimed the life of John O'Keefe were played again in court as the commonwealth rested its case Thursday in the Karen Read retrial.

www.wcvb.com

 

[sunshineray]

If she is convicted, it will be her own words in some of these clips that does it. Sadly not the case the CW has put forth because the case is incredibly weak. IMO

I’ve already said I disagree with the prosecution playing these clips as they are taken out of context and perfectly clipped. Honestly though it’s her lawyers fault for allowing her to do these interviews between these 2 trials. I don’t know what they were thinking.

That documentary "Body in the Snow" was filmed getting ready for and includes behind the scenes look at the trial (so during) and after the mistrial.

"In the recently released Investigation Discovery documentary, "A Body in the Snow," Read said that speaking out was her testimony, her version of testifying."

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/karen-read-trial-public-statements-documentary-interviews/

 

[Leilei]

BBM by me. Powerful words from KR herself. Makes me wonder if KR did indeed see JO in her car mirrors as she was angrily and drunkenly maneuvering her vehicle, hitting him and/or if she also saw JO laying there, as she left the scene. AJMO

“Could I have clipped him? Could I have tapped him in the knee and incapacitated him?” she said during an interview for a documentary on the case. “He didn’t look mortally wounded, as far as I could see” but “could I have done something that knocked him out and in his drunkenness and in the cold didn’t come to again.”

Prosecution rests in trial of Karen Read, charged in police officer boyfriend's death

The prosecution is resting in the second trial of Karen Read after attorneys for the state of Massachusetts took a more streamlined approach to try to prove Read’s guilt in the killing of her Boston police officer boyfriend

abcnews.go.com

Fairly certain that the bolded statement was in reference to when JOK was found, not when she was pulling away.
Cherry-picking in that article, bigtime.
Perhaps you can provide a link that shows that she said what you are alleging?
TYIA.
IMO.

 

[Amber29]

That documentary "Body in the Snow" was filmed getting ready for and includes behind the scenes look at the trial (so during) and after the mistrial.

"In the recently released Investigation Discovery documentary, "A Body in the Snow," Read said that speaking out was her testimony, her version of testifying."

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/boston/news/karen-read-trial-public-statements-documentary-interviews/

Right yeh I’ve watched it. Either way filmed during, it shouldn’t have aired between the trials. Again I don’t know what her lawyers were thinking.

 

[sunshineray]

In the interview from April 10, 2024, for a docuseries, Read said she asked herself if she could have hit O'Keefe and added that her attorney said she has some level of culpability.

"So, I thought, could I have run him over? Did he try to get me as I was leaving, and I didn't know it? I always have the music blasting. It's snowing. I had the wipers going, the heater blasting. Did he come and hit the back of my car, and I hit him in the knee, and he was drunk and passed out and (he) asphyxiated or something, and then when I hired David Yannetti, I asked him those questions. 'The night of Jan. 29, David, what if, I don't know, what if I ran his foot over or what if I clipped him in the knee, and he passed out or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out,' and David said, 'Yeah, then you would have some of element of culpability.'"

'What if I clipped him in the knee?': Karen Read interview played as prosecution rests case

The defendant's own words questioning if she was responsible for the crash that claimed the life of John O'Keefe were played again in court as the commonwealth rested its case Thursday in the Karen Read retrial.

www.wcvb.com

Yes, I don't think KR intentional meant to hurt JO but I do believe the evidence shows she did injure him while driving angry and intoxicated. AJMO

 

[justbeachy]

I am in the NG camp, but I do try to be fair when I’m doing my own analysis of how a day went in court. I can acknowledge when I think a CW witness did well or if I think “Yep, that does sound bad for KR and I can see how it doesn’t help her case.” I think most of us are fair and balanced people here. But, dang, there are times when people post and I am gobsmacked. Are some of us even watching the same trial?! I get that people don’t like her as a person, and as someone with RBF (resting b face) I can relate to her facial expressions can be off putting, but some people can’t even seem to acknowledge anything positive about the defense!

IMO and edited to add that this post falls completely at random!!

 

[louvillian08]

Yes but it seems, IMO that...

“He didn’t look mortally wounded, as far as I could see”

sounds not like a supposition but a memory...if she's claiming to have NOT have seen JO injured. I think maybe her mind's eye was a memory. Again JMO

Yes it was a memory. From seeing him at on the ground, in the snow at 6am on January 29th. There's a reason the CW has to play clips cut up and without any context

 

[cocomod]

I see no such behavior. I think this judge has been extremely unbiased during this trial. Just because the judge rules in favor of the prosecution doesn't mean she's bias against the defense. It means she has found legal cause to do so. AJMO

A very high majority of attorneys online disagree with your opinion. It is interesting to see everyone’s opinions though.

 

[tara83]

Yes, I don't think KR intentional meant to hurt JO but I do believe the evidence shows she did injure him while driving angry and intoxicated. AJMO

I'm still trying to figure out how a 4000 pound SUV sideswipes someone so hard the taillight breaks into 47 pieces but just leaves strange markings on his arm that don't match, he's supposed to have laid there for 5 hours in the freezing weather but no frostbite and high body temp.

 

[keek]

Most actual lawyers I have heard from seem to disagree with you.

Seriously, attorneys and lawyers across the board who are watching this or said they have seen enough are very outspoken regarding her behavior in general and towards the Defense in the state of MA courtroom. Love to see what happens once the trial is over. It seems as though she is retiring and she was advised to not take this trial on, the first, which unfortunately turned into this second one. The reason was her close and familiar ties with parties of the trial on the CW side. Shows it for sure. IMO

 

[keek]

In the interview from April 10, 2024, for a docuseries, Read said she asked herself if she could have hit O'Keefe and added that her attorney said she has some level of culpability.

"So, I thought, could I have run him over? Did he try to get me as I was leaving, and I didn't know it? I always have the music blasting. It's snowing. I had the wipers going, the heater blasting. Did he come and hit the back of my car, and I hit him in the knee, and he was drunk and passed out and (he) asphyxiated or something, and then when I hired David Yannetti, I asked him those questions. 'The night of Jan. 29, David, what if, I don't know, what if I ran his foot over or what if I clipped him in the knee, and he passed out or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out,' and David said, 'Yeah, then you would have some of element of culpability.'"

'What if I clipped him in the knee?': Karen Read interview played as prosecution rests case

The defendant's own words questioning if she was responsible for the crash that claimed the life of John O'Keefe were played again in court as the commonwealth rested its case Thursday in the Karen Read retrial.

www.wcvb.com

RIGHT, these were her immediate thoughts, thoughts. Did not happen that way though, timing is everything in this terrible trial. She shortly after was given information, through her atty, that things were very different and as we have all seen, there are the parties of the PARTY who have lied, butt dialed, been found out on many of these fabrications, little did they ever think this would happen. Remember Matt McCabe on the group chat of the Alberts and McCabes, before she was indicted on J.McCabe's words to the fired lead investigator proctor, if she plea's it's over, if she fights it, it's an episode. They all knew exactly what happened. IMO

 

[lohrtabitha]

Seriously, attorneys and lawyers across the board who are watching this or said they have seen enough are very outspoken regarding her behavior in general and towards the Defense in the state of MA courtroom. Love to see what happens once the trial is over. It seems as though she is retiring and she was advised to not take this trial on, the first, which unfortunately turned into this second one. The reason was her close and familiar ties with parties of the trial on the CW side. Shows it for sure. IMO

Yes, I agree with you Keek. I also found out that If the defense believes Judge Cannone engaged in misconduct by being biased, they could file a grievance with the court system. If the court system finds such misconduct valid, then she can be disciplined. But, I think you nailed it by saying she will retire. So, what's the point of filing. One more crooked judge to add in with the crooked LE there. So sorry citizens of Canton. MOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I see no such behavior. I think this judge has been extremely unbiased during this trial. Just because the judge rules in favor of the prosecution doesn't mean she's bias against the defense. It means she has found legal cause to do so. AJMO

There are multiple posters on this thread who have made note of the Judge's bias. This many people can't be mistaken. JMO

 

[Soulmagent]

So today ,I parked next to one of these suv's . The 570 is huge. Dwarfed my friends minivan. If the tail light had teeth it could have bite me in the shoulder.
I could not reach the top spoiler with my hand . I am 5 '4.

 

[Maat99]

I was just reviewing Welcher’s cross and noticed he has an interesting ear digging habit. Is it a tell? Here are the topics that elicited ear digging:

• What is confirmation bias (1:02:00)
• When did you create updated presentation (1:24:47)
• Is outstretching arm for blue paint test an example of confirmation bias? (6:01:00)
• Where is testing of any alternative hypothesis to blue paint position documented? (6:02:50)
• Established that image in report came from Trooper Paul folder. Now lets look at your slides (6:19:39)

Given all of our posts around the weakness of his testimony on these very topics, seems like he might be unconsciously demonstrating that he feels the same way. Jmo.

Helpful visual aid:

 

[mzmarymac]

For those of you that feel that the CWs theory that JOK was sideswiped by the Lexus driven by KR, is it definitive? Has the defense (or will they in their own case) be able to provide a reasonable alternative explanation? I'm not saying a car fell from the moon. I'm saying, could a reasonable person feel that they might just be some other reasonable explanation for what happened?

Someone else ran him over (lots of drunk drivers that night)
He was drunk and fell over and hit his head and maybe some animal was messing with him in the middle of the night, perhaps thinking they were trying to help him?
Someone, perhaps even someone not at the party, stopped him before he went in and pulled him off to the side and jumped him?
Or maybe some other unknown theory. Maybe JOK was so drunk, he wandered down the street instead of going in the house, maybe the girl he knew or used to date, and met some unfortunate end there, i.e. a jealous husband or boyfriend.
Or maybe, some form of what the defense is suggesting, i.e. a cover up of an incident in the home

The reason I ask is that the CW theory is far from concrete. There are so many convolutions and pseudoscience involved that there is no definitive 100% BARD that he was hit in the way the CW contends. Too many things just don't add up. No DNA on the plastic pieces. What happened to the white Jeep? Why didn't anyone hear or see the collision or JOK lying on the ground? Why no broken bones? Why wasn't there more blood?

My point is no matter how much you think she may have done it, there is no way a jury is going to believe that it happened the way the CW says it happened. And the whole charge of 2nd degree murder is beyond ridiculous.

JMO

 

[mzmarymac]

I was just reviewing Welcher’s cross and noticed he has an interesting ear digging habit. Is it a tell? Here are the topics that elicited ear digging:

• What is confirmation bias (1:02:00)
• When did you create updated presentation (1:24:47)
• Is outstretching arm for blue paint test an example of confirmation bias? (6:01:00)
• Where is testing of any alternative hypothesis to blue paint position documented? (6:02:50)
• Established that image in report came from Trooper Paul folder. Now lets look at your slides (6:19:39)

Given all of our posts around the weakness of his testimony on these very topics, seems like he might be unconsciously demonstrating that he feels the same way. Jmo.

Helpful visual aid:
View attachment 589750

Maybe he's a big fan of Carol Burnett and hopes she is watching the trial?

 

[TDoc72]

Yes but it seems, IMO that...

“He didn’t look mortally wounded, as far as I could see”

sounds not like a supposition but a memory...if she's claiming to have NOT have seen JO injured. I think maybe her mind's eye was a memory. Again JMO

If one didn’t see the head wound, I don’t think he would look mortally injured either. He didn’t have many other injuries and even his own brother thought he gotten into a fist fight. The scratches or bites on his arm don’t seem deadly, regardless of how one thinks he got them.