MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #31 Retrial

[Bishop Black]

Professor Was Accused of Hitting Cop Boyfriend with Car, Leaving Him to Die. Does New Evidence Exonerate Her?

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

people.com

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the January 2022 death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe outside a Canton, Mass., home.

She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Leading up to his death, the couple of two years reportedly spent the night drinking and bar hopping with friends before Read, 43, dropped O'Keefe, 46, off at the home of a fellow off-duty police officer for an after-party, PEOPLE previously reported.

Prosecutors say as O'Keefe exited the vehicle, Read allegedly proceeded to make a three-point turn during a winter storm, striking her boyfriend in the process before driving off.

After O'Keefe failed to return home hours later, Read allegedly went looking for him, before finding his body in a snowbank outside the home where she allegedly left him.

Thread #1Thread #2 Thread #3Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25
Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30

 

[Anniesflowers]

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

Is she contradicting her own words, or is she playing out scenarios in her head? I watched the ID documentary. Frankly. I found her refreshingly honest and open. I’m from Massachusetts so maybe I see a kindred spirit where folks from other states and/or countries, might find her abrasive…..I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately….imo.

 

[missy1974]

Brennen, being a donkey's butt to this witness is not a good look to the jury or for his case. He will unra

He is just doing what lawyers do in cross. I always find that we find out all the stuff the sides don't want us to know in cross, so I usually listen carefully This however... Brennan to me, is just highlighting to me that DiSogra used Burgess' and Welcher's reports... DiSogra ... keeps being able to say it's from "their reports" It's highlighting the new report by Burgess... the changes Welcher made... etc.

JMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

She was still impaired and blew a 0.09% BAC.

SBM: Source for a BAC test? It is my understanding that she was not administered a BAC, and blood alcohol levels discussed in this trial have been based on retrograde extraction.

 

[rescuemom]

Is she contradicting her own words, or is she playing out scenarios in her head? I watched the ID documentary. Frankly. I found her refreshingly honest and open. I’m from Massachusetts so maybe I see a kindred spirit where folks from other states and/or countries, might find her abrasive…..I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately….imo.

I repeat, IMO, she said these things because she could not fathom that the people at that party at that house...supposed friends and fellow LE could beat the snot out of him and put him in the cold to die.

 

[keek]

Is she contradicting her own words, or is she playing out scenarios in her head? I watched the ID documentary. Frankly. I found her refreshingly honest and open. I’m from Massachusetts so maybe I see a kindred spirit where folks from other states and/or countries, might find her abrasive…..I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately….imo.

Me too Anniesflowers. She is totally fine and a regular woman, well superwoman to survive all this from that first morning and go forward so strongly with grace and intelligence. Carry on you!! I noticed as well people put off by her, did not like, and worse. Personalization, projecting..jealous, something. I totally agree with you about all. Real human being women here is right. IMO

 

[Younger Sister]

I actually thought Attorney Alessi's cross examination of Dr. Welcher was a very low point for the defense. JMO

I am new to this case but even I was appalled to see the constant interference by the judge during Alessi's cross. He was constantly derailed from completing the track he was on...I wish I had kept a count of the number of side bars and objections that have been against the defense...however, even without a tally it can be seen that there is bias against the defense and favoritism toward the Common Wealth. IMO Alessi is brilliant but attempting to work with the deck stacked against him.

 

[keek]

I repeat, IMO, she said these things because she could not fathom that the people at that party at that house...supposed friends and fellow LE could beat the snot out of him and put him in the cold to die.

Right, thinking out loud, trying to put pieces together, trauma included. I never took it has changing her story, that would be too simplified, have to look at this woman as a whole and the horrible morning onward, drinking out night with the others, massive stress, exhaustion. So much. She sure did not take it as was told to her and live with it..not one bit did she. Not as she thought, thankfully someone there or very in the know, tipped off her atty early on and as these years have gone by, it really does appear true!! imo

 

[Gerald12]

Lawyer You Know

@LawyerYouKnow


Brennan’s cross style is good IMO. He’s a real criminal defense attorney. He’s used to poking holes and chipping at credibility. He makes you wonder if the expert has all the info and what is he really saying or proving? Will that be enough as a prosecutor?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928504924448461311

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Redirect, yay!

AJ is pointing out that he doesn’t need to be a mobile data expert to assess Burgess and Welcher’s report.

OOP! AJ just said ‘have you ever lied to anybody about your credentials?’ SHOCKED that Hank didn’t object

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Lawyer You Know
@LawyerYouKnow


Brennan’s cross style is good IMO. He’s a real criminal defense attorney. He’s used to poking holes and chipping at credibility. He makes you wonder if the expert has all the info and what is he really saying or proving? Will that be enough as a prosecutor?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928504924448461311

He’s good at poking holes in the defense, but the CW has the burden of proof. He should be more concerned with his own leaky ship MOO

 

[Leilei]

snipped by me

The passenger side was facing the house (in both jury visits, although once by the driveway and once nearer the flagpole). I can’t find why he would have any need to walk behind or in front of the car. Wouldn’t he just hop out and head to one of the doors?

Yep!
No need to go around the car at all.
This is something that I hope the jury remembers in their deliberations.
IMO.

 

[keek]

SBM: Source for a BAC test? It is my understanding that she was not administered a BAC, and blood alcohol levels discussed in this trial have been based on retrograde extraction.

There were problems with accuracy at the hospital based on her MS, other medications and did she make herself a drink or more once back at JOK's, upset. That seems most realistic to me. ALL said she was not falling down drunk, did not appear drunk at all, that night when at Mc's. She was functioning physically to Fairview, back to JOK's. IMO NO.. of course she may of presented differently than what was consumed and a BAC that NIGHT. She was not though. IMO

 

[BUF]

Love how AJ got that dig in about Burgess’ lying about his education without even mentioning Burgess’ name

 

[kuromiiiilove]

AJ is now talking about the 12:32:16 steps - 32 steps over 86 feet. DiSogra says if the phone event moves from 12:32:09 to 12:32:16, then of the 30 possibilities, all of them would become positive - after the end of the tech stream event.

 

[AngTxGal]

Best advice and information would be to watch the actual trial from the first one. You would find realistic information there, timelines, and most likely be able to come to different thoughts than the basic one of hit him because she was said to be intoxicated and angry. He was not hit by a car, nor the plow which was the assumed plan by the house party people. He was not out there till after 3 AM. Lots to learn. IMO

Agree, and I intend to do that. My questions do not stop if she is found guilty or not guilty.

IMO

 

[PamCake]

According to the trial board, MP’s behavior was unacceptable not because he was suspected of being a crooked officer that framed KR but because he failed to uphold the ethical and professional standards of which he was expected to uphold and abide by as an law enforcer whose position bestowed trust, privileges and power by his fellow community members.

He violated policy by drinking while operating a department vehicle while on the job, jeopardized the integrity of the case by sharing sensitive and confidential information about JOK’s case, including his suspect KR, with friends, family and coworkers, he jeopardized justice for JOK and his loved ones by allowing his biasness to make him short-sighted and perform subpar investigative work and the gathering of evidence and exploited and then allowed his hostility and focus on KR to overshadow his responsibilities to the law, to his team members, JOK, the court of law and her property and privacy.

If not JOK, than at least for the integrity of the uniform he wore he should have done a much better job of storing and marking all the evidence collected to keep it safe from contamination until it could be fully assessed by the lab or forensics. He should have had the respect and the knowledge to know that the ME was not being ‘stupid’ when she refused to change JOK’s cause of death to MVA but rather adhering to the professional and scientific standards for which she trained and educated for. He should have evaluated everyone who was at the house that night back in the his office, one at a time and recorded and he should have kept an open-mind and made sure he investigated and ruled out all other possibilities besides settling on JOK got hit by a car before setting down that path to arrest KR.

Even he said he was under the impression that JOK got into a fight when he learned of his injuries from the EMT. Not to mention his friend asked him via text if JOK was attacked by another police officer when he first told him what he suspected. Why was he so quick to believe JMc? And how could he draw the conclusion that KR waffled JOK with her car? Such deadly maneuvers killed Freddie Grey and usually involve the victims sitting unrestrained in a fast moving car before it comes to a stop multiple so that their bodies or heads shame against the frame or dashboards. How did he propose KR did that to JOK from outside the vehicle? Even his friend said something stunk about the proposed scenario because told to them but PR either lacked the care, brain-span or integrity to notice or engage further on it. Why did PR think he was worthy of the job, let alone be the one to investigate and get answers for JOK and his loved ones? He anlready implied to his friends that the property owner where JO was found was a fellow cop and thus would not experience type of trouble or bother because a fellow officer died on his lawn? Meaning PR was willing to deprioritize getting answers and justice for one cop just to protect the one he knew better and yet somehow he the audacity to demean, villainize and dehumanize everybody else who oppose or stand against him.

IIRC, he or his family say his termination was not fair. But no, what’s not fair is that he was ever a officer of the law in the first place when the people of Canton and MA deserve better and there have been men and women who gave their lives, blood, sweat and tears as officers of the law and performed their job with dignity, kindness and respect. He like other officers who have abused the job rewarded to them are not worthy to inherit the same shield as them.

MOO/speculation of course

Michael Proctor fired by Massachusetts State Police for actions in Karen Read investigation

Michael Proctor was fired by Massachusetts State Police Wednesday for his actions in the Karen Read investigation.

www.cbsnews.com

Well stated Apple!

 

[missy1974]

Brennan asked DiSogra a ton of questions about this graphic as if DiSogra made it... the only thing DiSogra added was the green box.

 

[bobbymkii]

OK I'll hold my hands up and admit that I didn't understand a single word of that cross examination, either the questions asked or the answers or if that was a win for Hank and the CW or not. If that makes me a dumb stinky idiot whose opinion is worthless to you, then move on and read the next comment instead.

All I will say is:

No spreadsheet is going to convince me that JO'K's injuries were caused by a car
No spreadsheet is going to convince me that JO'K lay unnoticed on a lawn for over 5 hours
No spreadsheet is going to convince me that it took LE over a week to discover bright red taillight pieces on the lawn
No spreadsheet is going to convince me that Karen said "I hit him" out loud at the scene in front of witnesses

Hank Brennan is sinister on cross examination. I thought he would tone it down in front of a jury as opposed to voir dire. Nope!

JMO

 

[Anniesflowers]

So true @ShadyLady ….. and it is also IMO noteworthy to recall that the two Aperture LLC ‘expert witness’ testifying had those “Not For Expert Designation” watermarks flashed across their downloadable CVs. Like this one for Dr. Welcher which is still available on their website links. SMH. MOO

Our Digital Forensic Experts

Powered by our people and our partners, we amplify our effectiveness and our impact. We provide unequalled access to services, geographies, and vast expertise and leave nothing unturned, unanalyzed, or unexplained.

www.aperturellc.com

Oops! They should probably return their 300K payment that was provided by the CW for ‘expert testimony’. If I wasn’t watching this trial myself, I’d never believe some of the shenanigans the CW has been up to. IMO