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

[Forest_Wood]

But it isn’t up for debate that she was angry, jealous, and drunk

It most certainly is up for debate that she was drunk at the time! Please watch the trials for the evidence.

 

[AngTxGal]

It's obvious you have not watched either trials if you are asking all these questions about positioning. You are correct - you don't know - so you can't be clear she is responsible.
MOO

I’m responding to a post that said clearly in the trial that the attorney said ‘we do not know where she began backing from.’
We do not

It sounds like you do- so where did she park, where did she begin backing from?
Does the car black box solidify the car location? No.

KR herself says she saw JO walk into the house.
She also questions if she could have back into him, or run over his foot.
She is contradicting her own words- have you not watched the documentary?

IMO

 

[Soulmagent]

I haven’t seen any of them either, and I’ve been following this case since before trial 1 began.

My name is also Missy btw

We can call you the other Missy. lol.

 

[AngTxGal]

I don't think she hit him and honestly, after 3 years of fighting for her freedom and listening to all of the lies and coverups, I'm not surprised that she isn't showing a lot of emotion. I wouldn't be either. I would be furious with the cops, the "friends," the system as a whole, and even though I would mourn JO's death, after 3 years I wouldn't have the emotions I had when it initially happened.

They were both jealous people as shown in their text messages. They had both been drinking that night as had the whole lot of them. She clearly was angry about something as evidenced in her voice messages. We don't know about what. I do know that I've left some pretty scathing voicemails when I was PO'd that looking back I thought to myself, "Dang girl, calm down. You sound like a lunatic." LOL

KR also opened up a lot of other possibilities for what could have happened. She rattled off a laundry list of scenarios because she obviously didn't know what happened. I would have done the same thing. And among them would have been, "OMG could I have hit him" because that's a reasonable thing to ask when you are frantically searching for answers. However, once a proper investigation had been done (one without a coverup and with correct investigative methods) that showed I had not hit him, and I had to sit through listening to how the keystone cops bungled (even planted?) evidence, and the coverup and lies, I would not be a wilting, emotional flower in court either.

IMO

Agree, the problem is she rattles off all of the possibilities as if she doesn’t know what happened, and then she says she saw him walk into the house.

In the documentary she is contradicting her own words.

IMO

 

[lohrtabitha]

It was

It seems a better reenactment would be one that can break a taillight on a car with the body of a person. I can’t see how an impact of 25 mph in reverse is enough force for a rigid plastic tail light to be broken by the body of a person that is soft tissue and can move back.

Also, why was the glass from the drink with the body. If he went into the house he would have sat it down. If there was a fight, he would have set down the glass. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Trying to go back through the posts here to find evidence that makes sense

This is my speculation: JOK went into that house where he was beat up ,attacked by Chloe, and then fell onto a nike barbell with the swoosh symbol which caused the gash and "j" mark Alessi described during this trial. .The glass was dropped inside that house and broken during the fight. Only 1/2 of that glass was found with JOK because the other half was swept up and thrown away. Then JOK was carried out and placed on the lawn, close to the road, so it would look like a snow plow hit him. Snow plows cause several pedestrian fatalities each year in that state.Then, 1/2 of the glass was planted beside him to show that he was drunk when the plow hit him. The Alberts,Mccabes, and Higgins were all in on it and devising the plan. This explains all the so called buttdials between BA,BH, and JM. We also saw the video of BH talking on his phone when he went to Canton PD after he left 34 Fairview. So when KR early that morning told JM did I hit him on the phone, she called her sister to tell her what KR haf said and their fabricated story changed from the plow to KR hitting him. It wasn't a planned murder by that horrible crew, it was an unfortunate accident that was covered up. The end. MOO

 

[justbeachy]

Agree, the problem is she rattles off all of the possibilities as if she doesn’t know what happened, and then she says she saw him walk into the house.

In the documentary she is contradicting her own words.

IMO

I haven't watched any of the documentaries so I can't speak to any of that.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I think you’ve done a great job creating a story that seems possible, and this may work for the jury to get her off, but that doesn’t mean it is what happened.

KR says she saw JO walk into the house, yet all of the people in the house say they didn’t see him. So that means all of them were willing to perjure themselves in court? I don’t think that is likely.

I don’t think the wounds on his arm look like dog bites. Google dog bites on an arm- they don’t look like that and the side of your arm is not where you get hurt defending yourself. Those bites should be on the underside of his lower arm- not outside of upper arm.

Others have testified that they never even met the dog and had gone to the house many times. Where was this dog kept that it attacked him but others came in the house and never had seen the dog?

His face wounds do not look like a fist fight- he barely had any skin broken. They look to me like he hit the back of his head on a curb and got a skull fracture and concussion.

Do I think the cops jumped in to try to make the case more ‘solid’ ? Yes, that is possible. But I think the entire situation began with an argument and a drunk woman who was angry and jealous backed up and hit him with her car. Is it in debate if she was angry? No, Drunk? No. Jealous? No. She may have not done it on purpose- still she is responsible

All my opinion

Brian Higgins testified seeing a tall dark haired man enter the house.


Julie Nagel testifies about seeing Chloe the night of JOK's death.

@ 39:00

Chloe

 

[Soulmagent]

RSBM

Reversing at over 23 mph is dangerous driving.

It has been calculated that she would have had to have driven at speeds between 32.5 mph and 39.5 mph (depending on route taken which is not known) to get to his house in 4 mins and 15 secs, and that's not allowing for a WiFi connection before she pulled in to the drive. That is easily doable, IMO, in a modern car, on largely empty roads.

MOO

Would that wild drive NOT have set off even more of those dumb alerts?

 

[lohrtabitha]

I do not understand how he got a big even half-moon shaped gash as the back of his skull

A nike hand weight has the emblem on it and it certainly looks like the J on JOKs head.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So where is the motive for JOK to be killed or even beat up? What was the issue between JOK and JM, or the family, or Canton cops? I’ve not heard JOK was a fighter, had a temper, had a confrontation with anyone. No motive
A coverup could be shotty police work, or even cops feeling threatened trying to make a case more solid. That does not support that he went into the house and they killed him.
JM text to see if he had arrived, no one says he came into the home.
The simplest explanation is she hit him. For some reason on the drive she changed her mind, didn’t want to stay, they argued about something, KR clearly was angry and jealous as per her voicemail and texts- and she was drunk. She blew a 0.093% hours after the incident. She was over the limit of 0.08% the next morning. No way she wasn’t impaired

I actually agree with you that there’s no evidence John O’Keefe was someone who went looking for fights or had enemies at 34 Fairview. That’s exactly why I don’t think this was a premeditated murder. The likelier scenario is that something got out of hand inside that house. whether it was an argument, a shove, a fall, or a fight that went too far. He was seriously injured, and in that moment, the people there had a choice: call 911 and explain what happened, or protect themselves. And IMO, they chose the latter.

As for motive? Self-preservation is a motive. You don’t need a long history of animosity to panic when someone is unconscious or dead in your house after a party, with alcohol and off-duty cops involved. I personally believe the cover-up began after John was already in distress or dead. Jen McCabe’s 5:07 AM call to Nicole Albert seems, in my opinion, like a warning call: Karen’s up, she’s asking about John. That’s when the scramble started.

As for Karen, yes, she was drinking, and no one disputes that. But impairment doesn’t = guilt. What we don’t have is any hard forensic evidence tying her car to John’s injuries. No blood, no fiber transfer. Not on the car, not under it, not anywhere.

To believe that the CW’s case is the ‘simplest explanation’ assumes the prosecution’s case is clean, but those who have followed this trial closely have noted that even the Commonwealth’s own experts have undercut their narrative under cross. Meanwhile, the defense has poked consistent holes in the timeline and introduced plenty of reasonable doubt, especially around the location, nature, and timing of the injuries. There’s a reason we ask for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials. In this case, there is too much reasonable doubt to convict. MOO

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I think you’ve done a great job creating a story that seems possible, and this may work for the jury to get her off, but that doesn’t mean it is what happened.

KR says she saw JO walk into the house, yet all of the people in the house say they didn’t see him. So that means all of them were willing to perjure themselves in court? I don’t think that is likely.

I don’t think the wounds on his arm look like dog bites. Google dog bites on an arm- they don’t look like that and the side of your arm is not where you get hurt defending yourself. Those bites should be on the underside of his lower arm- not outside of upper arm.

Others have testified that they never even met the dog and had gone to the house many times. Where was this dog kept that it attacked him but others came in the house and never had seen the dog?

His face wounds do not look like a fist fight- he barely had any skin broken. They look to me like he hit the back of his head on a curb and got a skull fracture and concussion.

Do I think the cops jumped in to try to make the case more ‘solid’ ? Yes, that is possible. But I think the entire situation began with an argument and a drunk woman who was angry and jealous backed up and hit him with her car. Is it in debate if she was angry? No, Drunk? No. Jealous? No. She may have not done it on purpose- still she is responsible

All my opinion

Allie McCabe said Colin wasn’t there when John was. Higgins saw a tall man with dark hair go in.

Respectfully, have you watched both trials? So much of this was covered in trial 1 and a lot in this trial.

 

[lohrtabitha]

So where is the motive for JOK to be killed or even beat up? What was the issue between JOK and JM, or the family, or Canton cops? I’ve not heard JOK was a fighter, had a temper, had a confrontation with anyone. No motive
A coverup could be shotty police work, or even cops feeling threatened trying to make a case more solid. That does not support that he went into the house and they killed him.
JM text to see if he had arrived, no one says he came into the home.
The simplest explanation is she hit him. For some reason on the drive she changed her mind, didn’t want to stay, they argued about something, KR clearly was angry and jealous as per her voicemail and texts- and she was drunk. She blew a 0.093% hours after the incident. She was over the limit of 0.08% the next morning. No way she wasn’t impaired

The defense will present the motive now. It's their show. Enjoy and pay close attention as the pieces of the puzzle will all fall into place. Moo

 

[missy1974]

It was

This is my speculation: JOK went into that house where he was beat up ,attacked by Chloe, and then fell onto a nike barbell with the swoosh symbol which caused the gash and "j" mark Alessi described during this trial. .The glass was dropped inside that house and broken during the fight. Only 1/2 of that glass was found with JOK because the other half was swept up and thrown away. Then JOK was carried out and placed on the lawn, close to the road, so it would look like a snow plow hit him. Snow plows cause several pedestrian fatalities each year in that state.Then, 1/2 of the glass was planted beside him to show that he was drunk when the plow hit him. The Alberts,Mccabes, and Higgins were all in on it and devising the plan. This explains all the so called buttdials between BA,BH, and JM. We also saw the video of BH talking on his phone when he went to Canton PD after he left 34 Fairview. So when KR early that morning told JM did I hit him on the phone, she called her sister to tell her what KR haf said and their fabricated story changed from the plow to KR hitting him. It wasn't a planned murder by that horrible crew, it was an unfortunate accident that was covered up. The end. MOO

ohhhh the J... that will definitely have to come up again...

One thing... his hat, was a Nike hat... had a nike symbol on the back of it.

If he flewwwww through the air after being hit, is it feasible that he would land on his head with his hat on? Where was his hat found compared to his body?

dang, I can't find a good picture of it right now, but I came across a pic the other day and it made me I didn't realize his hat had the nike symbol on the back when the J thing came up earlier in testimony.

 

[lohrtabitha]

You an

I don’t believe he was intentionally murdered. Jen tried to separate Karen from John at the bar when they were leaving. Higgins was gesturing to John to come to the house and had to be physically restrained by two of the Alberts. He wanted to confront John and I think he reasoning was he was going to show John the texts between Karen and himself. John went inside, there was pushing and shoving and he likely was punched in the face and fell backwards, opening the wound to the back of his head. Chloe got involved and ripped up his arm because she wasn’t good with strangers and he had never been in the house before. Suddenly they have to figure out what to do and they came up with a plan to put him outside in the middle of the night.

Notice that every single person except Julie N said they didn’t see his 6’1” 216 pound body on the lawn? The plow driver drove past and knew the house. He didn’t see a body on the lawn. A couple of hours later he saw a ford edge parked in front of the house right by the area that the body ended up.

Where was the rest of this glass? Could it be it broke in the house and they swept up the pieces and only left part of it ever so handily on the road? How did the taillight break into 47 pieces? Try knocking on the taillight of your own vehicle and see how hard it is.

There is so much evidence pointing to a coverup but that isn’t the defence’s burden. They are working to get their client freed. Once that hopefully happens, someone above the Canton and state police need to dive in. There won’t be justice for John until that happens.

You and I think alike. I just posted the same thing as you almost. I love it!

 

[AngTxGal]

It most certainly is up for debate that she was drunk at the time! Please watch the trials for the evidence.

I have not the time to watch the entire trials, but I have seen much of he evidence.

Hospital drawn blood at 9AM 0.093%. The legal limit in Mass is 0.08%.
If she was 0.093% at 9AM, that explains why she backed up and hit JO’s car when she went to go look for him. Her driving is on video.
If she was 0.093% at 9AM, and had stopped drinking before driving home- her BAC must be higher than 0.093% when she left to drive to JO’s house. So, she was drunk

The scientist NR estimated her BAC at 12:45 was between 0.135-0.292% wow that could be three times the legal limit- yes that would be drunk.

If she wasn’t drunk- why does she say she could have hit him- in the documentary she gives a long list of possible scenarios that involve her hitting him with her car.
Why is it easy to watch her clip a car the next morning and drive away and not possible for her to have clipped a person that night and drive away- intoxicated?

IMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Agree, the problem is she rattles off all of the possibilities as if she doesn’t know what happened, and then she says she saw him walk into the house.

You've got that backwards. She says she saw him go towards the door of the house, and into the house, and then she asks could she have hit him, as in, did he return to her car without her seeing him and could she have nicked him without realizing it. She never said the second part before the first part. Or maybe that's how it's portrays on the documentary ...

 

[arielilane]

Curious if the defense's expert mechanical engineer will claim that JMc deleted text/phone messages. Of course she did not! But, that's been defense's song and dance. Very sorry they have targeted JMc, all she did was try to help that fateful day.

Keep in mind that witness intimidation is a part of this case, even though it hasn't been mentioned in trial; and I suspect Lucky man (not so lucky) possibly threatened. I recently re-reviewed Lucky's testimony from trial one and he's not credible, imo.

My own opinion.

 

[arielilane]

@KristinaRex


Good morning. It's Day 24 of Karen Read's retrial. Today, the defense begins presenting its case. A reminder, the defense has no burden to present a case -- but has said its case will be 1.5-2 weeks. Follow this thread for general updates, stream on all #WBZ platforms.

Karen Read told reporters the defense's first witness will be Matthew DiSogra, a car data expert.

 

[arielilane]

They allegedly communicated directly for more than 40 hours during 189 phone calls. Police also allege Read and Kearney interacted via intermediaries and the Signal messaging app.

Court doc alleges Karen Read sent confidential info to blogger ‘Turtleboy'

A new twist came Wednesday in the high-profile case against a woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend in Canton, Massachusetts, with authorities alleging she fed confidential information to a well-known blogger. Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder in the January...

www.nbcboston.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

I actually agree with you that there’s no evidence John O’Keefe was someone who went looking for fights or had enemies at 34 Fairview. That’s exactly why I don’t think this was a premeditated murder. The likelier scenario is that something got out of hand inside that house. whether it was an argument, a shove, a fall, or a fight that went too far. He was either seriously injured, and in that moment, the people there had a choice: call 911 and explain what happened, or protect themselves. And IMO, they chose the latter.

As for motive? Self-preservation is a motive. You don’t need a long history of animosity to panic when someone is unconscious or dead in your house after a party, with alcohol and off-duty cops involved. I personally believe the cover-up began after John was already in distress or dead. Jen McCabe’s 5:07 AM call to Nicole Albert seems, in my opinion, like a warning call: Karen’s up, she’s asking about John. That’s when the scramble started.

As for Karen, yes, she was drinking, and no one disputes that. But impairment doesn’t = guilt. What we don’t have is any hard forensic evidence tying her car to John’s injuries. No blood, no fiber transfer. Not on the car, not under it, not anywhere.

To believe that the CW’s case is the ‘simplest explanation’ assumes the prosecution’s case is clean, but those who have followed this trial closely have noted that even the Commonwealth’s own experts have undercut their narrative under cross. Meanwhile, the defense has poked consistent holes in the timeline and introduced plenty of reasonable doubt, especially around the location, nature, and timing of the injuries. There’s a reason we ask for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials. In this case, there is too much reasonable doubt to convict. MOO

We don't know if Brian Higgins was discussed while KR & JOK were driving from the Waterfall to 34 Fairvew.
Had JOK ever seen the texts between them?
Did JOK see the text BH sent KR while at the Waterfall, "ummm well" ?
By BH's actions which look like their directed at JOK right before leaving the Waterfall and CA talking to him and grabbing his arm it's likely that a drunk BH was jealous and mad at being ignored by KR and itching to tell JOK about KR.
Maybe he did and it led to a fight?
imo