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

[Wishbone]

Without evidence of a car striking JOK what difference will a timeline make?

Right, the car doesn't show the damage it would if it hit JO and also JO doesn't show the damage of being hit by the Lexus. JMOO

 

[tara83]

@Tortoise



yes - they need to call Trooper Paul if they want to do this.

Basically this is just an attempt to muddy the waters, as Trooper Paul would simply say that the timestamps exist now so he no longer would mix up whether any of his test results were in 1164. Trooper Pauls' report is actually correct about his testing. He just wobbled under pressure from AJ - understandable. I feel this was more for the internet audience than the jury - the jury obviously have no idea about the tow truck theory. Not will they unless AJ has a witness to say it. In comparison to Trial 1 - we are long past the point where AJ got this in last time.

In any event this was all debunked two weeks ago. We know 1162 cannot be the tow truck load since the extraction of the ignition timestamps. DiSogra stated clearly on X yesterday (see my post above) that every key cycle created by ignition on is timestamped.

What is most remarkable to me is how the likes of Mr Bederow somehow never speak to the implications of 1162 being timestamped. The intentional dangerous event (high speed reverse) is one of the biggest legs the CW need to prove, yet it appears to have been conceded pretrial. When they conceded the act, this became a causation case, but the discourse never caught on to that so far.

All IMO based on watching daily testimony to data.

IMO

Does it bother you at all that the CW was scared to call the lead investigator in the case?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

RSBM

I think it is very hard, if not impossible, for some folks to accept the idea that corruption is commonplace in the systems that exist to supposedly 'serve and protect' them.

I agree, I’ve said it before but I think just-world fallacy plays a huge role in this case (the belief that bad things only happen to bad people, and that the legal system naturally sorts good from the guilty). People want to believe that Karen must have done something wrong, because it’s more comfortable than accepting the alternative, that an innocent woman could be framed, railroaded, or blamed to protect others in positions of power.

This bias shows up when people dismiss evidence of police misconduct, or when they brush off inconsistencies in the timeline, DNA questions, or deleted phone records, because facing the full weight of the alternative is disturbing. It means acknowledging that corruption and coverups can happen in real life, not just in movies. But I think believing in justice doesn’t mean assuming the system always gets it right. In fact, true belief in justice means being willing to question the system when it appears to go off the rails. MOO.

 

[themonk]

I agree, I’ve said it before but I think just-world fallacy plays a huge role in this case (the belief that bad things only happen to bad people, and that the legal system naturally sorts good from the guilty). People want to believe that Karen must have done something wrong, because it’s more comfortable than accepting the alternative, that an innocent woman could be framed, railroaded, or blamed to protect others in positions of power.

This bias shows up when people dismiss evidence of police misconduct, or when they brush off inconsistencies in the timeline, DNA questions, or deleted phone records, because facing the full weight of the alternative is disturbing. It means acknowledging that corruption and coverups can happen in real life, not just in movies. But I think believing in justice doesn’t mean assuming the system always gets it right. In fact, true belief in justice means being willing to question the system when it appears to go off the rails. MOO.

You have nailed it right there.

 

[lohrtabitha]

B

Why ever not? Isn't he the cornerstone of the defense's whole SODDI?

Because he is vengeful, lying sack of *****, who has always had the same motive of let's destroy KR . He is not about justice and now that he has been fired he's what people call a loose cannon. His texts have already been read to this court so nobody needs to look at this disgusting waste of a human being. The best thing that happened in this case so far is that he lost his badge! So happy for the citizens of MA. I'm sure it was a long time coming! Mo

 

[lohrtabitha]

According to the officers that interviewed KR at her parents house, sitting on the couch with her mother and father, KR told LE she never saw JO go into the house. Then in the documentary "A Body in the Snow" after her arrest, securing lawyers and during her trial, KR changes her story to...she watched JO walk from the Lexus to the door and walk inside the house.

Massachusetts State Police Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik testimony on Day 8, 9th andx12th. I watched the Live Feed on Law&Crime Network.

https://m.youtube.com/@LawAndCrime

Watch A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read | HBO Max

Watch A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read on HBO Max. Plans start at $9.99/month. This exclusive behind-the-scenes docuseries tells the story of Karen Read, who is on trial for the murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. Read maintains her innocence and argues she's...

www.max.com

Have you hear of PTSD? Annieflowers is correct in saying she was playing with scenarios in order to try to process her feelings. And for the record and several times over, KRs feelings are not facts.

 

[Amber29]

According to the officers that interviewed KR at her parents house, sitting on the couch with her mother and father, KR told LE she never saw JO go into the house. Then in the documentary "A Body in the Snow" after her arrest, securing lawyers and during her trial, KR changes her story to...she watched JO walk from the Lexus to the door and walk inside the house.

Massachusetts State Police Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik testimony on Day 8, 9th andx12th. I watched the Live Feed on Law&Crime Network.

https://m.youtube.com/@LawAndCrime

Watch A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read | HBO Max

Watch A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read on HBO Max. Plans start at $9.99/month. This exclusive behind-the-scenes docuseries tells the story of Karen Read, who is on trial for the murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. Read maintains her innocence and argues she's...

www.max.com

BBM and JMc changed her story. She never told investigators at the time about Karen’s “I hit himx3”, she still didn’t when she testified before the grand jury. Now she suddenly remembers and has embellished her testimony for trials. Lots of changing stories in this case I’d say.

 

[Soulmagent]

Without evidence of a car striking JOK what difference will a timeline make?

Right . How they expect us to take it seriously?
I mean maybe he was killed by a spaceship. Or a spaced out cadet.
Also I only came here today to ask if anyone has seen LYK 's new video ,about playing chicken. I have not watched it yet but the title geeked me so hard I had tell you guys ,but yo- probably knew. I dont got time to scroll back today . I have not been doing much with my days except side barring. -UM SIDE BAH-N?. but my kittens is grown up now and my pool is open. kILLIN IT

 

[waldojabba]

Not much benefit in having a hostile witness on the stand. The better question is why didn't the cw call the lead detective in their case?

Exactly.
What case have you followed that goes to trial where the P does not call their LEAD INVESTOGATOR.
Brennan is trying to force the D to call Proctor so Brennan can Cross - bc in cross there are different rules re what he ask etc.
Yanetti argued it all perfectly Friday in the voir dire.
There is no legal reason to not allow Proctor's text messages to come into testimony via the recipients. But you can bet that the Judge has her clerks working overtime this wkend trying to find a way to deny the Defense.
jmo

 

[Warwick7]

No matter how you slice it Disogra testified the tech stream data does not show that a collision happened.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live now.

oh, god.
@ 1:09:00
Peter was asked about a 2nd hung jury and if Judge Cannone could do the re-trial.
Yes, the defense could ask for a new judge but JC would be the default .

 

[geevee]

I think the reverse happened down the road after she left 34 F, she was unfamiliar with that area, came to the house from the opposite direction she was leaving and just like when coming to the house, overshot the road she needed to turn down.

It calculates right for the time it takes her to connect to JOK's wifi with the distance between the two locations (6 minute drive either route she took). She had absolutely no reason to reverse in front of the house, and if BH was being honest his Jeep was parked near the mailbox, so she could not have reversed that distance (~87 ft) without hitting it.

And with all the attention her vehicle being out front seemed to have been drawing from the occupants inside, everyone would have heard or seen a 24 mph reverse right in front of the house, with wheels spinning on the ice (ala SB).

And considering JOK had no injuries attributable to a car collision, it's really the most simple (Occam's Razor) explanation for the reverse.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I wonder if the defence has intel on Proctor’s behaviour right now and that’s why they won’t call him.

 

[Moremarie]

BBM and JMc changed her story. She never told investigators at the time about Karen’s “I hit himx3”, she still didn’t when she testified before the grand jury. Now she suddenly remembers and has embellished her testimony for trials. Lots of changing stories in this case I’d say.

Also the the difference in her presentation in Trial 1.0 compared to Trial 2.0 of JMc. So angry and hateful towards KR in the first trial, it was difficult to not think she was apart of something bigger. To "pin it on the girl".

 

[Linda7NJ]

Also the the difference in her presentation in Trial 1.0 compared to Trial 2.0 of JMc. So angry and hateful towards KR in the first trial, it was difficult to not think she was apart of something bigger. To "pin it on the girl".

Why would Proctor display such animosity towards Karen? Those texts reveal he 100% believed she hit him.

IMO

 

[Wishbone]

Why would Proctor display such animosity towards Karen? Those texts reveal he 100% believed she hit him.

IMO

Those texts reveal what a vulgar, despicable and undisciplined trooper he WAS. JMOO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Imo none of this matters, that is if you are even correct in your assumptions about what the defense has conceded and what you think their strategy is. Moo

For those who watched trial X 1, moo it's rational and reasonable to conclude that the injuries to JOK are not (or it is extremely improbable) the result of vehicular impact. I watched trial X 1 so I know that the defense has sound evidence coming to definitively challenge and overcome the CW's case, such as it is. Imo

What continues to surprise me is the mental gymnastics which seem to be occurring in order to have this digital data from the Lexus etc prove there was an impact. Maybe the focus and compartmentalisation required to eke out a scenario for an impact, makes it easy to ignore the meaning of JOK's injuries and lack thereof, to ignore the absence of biological evidence on the Lexus or the tail light pieces, and finally, to ignore the physics of impact forces which make his injuries a non-fit with the vehicle damage. Moo

(As shown in trial X 1, there are far more reasonable scenarios to account for JOK's injuries; one of these involves a dog causing the arm wounds, with acquisition of the head wound occuring in some other, non car related circumstance. )Jmo

The idea that the CW's current case has met something approaching BARD I find truly phenomenal. Especially for those who watched the first trial. It appears to me that there's some strange block, or hump that cannot be got over, a conviction KR is guilty regardless of the physical evidence to the contrary. Jmo

IMO it’s not reasonable to believe a dog caused those arm injuries. They’re abrasions.
A dog would leave DNA & hair and dogs have a lower jaw. There are no punctures one would expect.

 

[tara83]

IMO it’s not reasonable to believe a dog caused those arm injuries. They’re abrasions.
A dog would leave DNA & hair and dogs have a lower jaw. There are no punctures one would expect.

Yet you can believe a taillight smashed into 47 pieces by hitting an elbow?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Does it bother you at all that the CW was scared to call the lead investigator in the case?

IMO it was strategic

 

[Linda7NJ]

Those texts reveal what a vulgar, despicable and undisciplined trooper he WAS. JMOO

True.
Still Doesn’t negate the point I made.

IMO