MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #32 Retrial

[Tortoise]

My impression is that in order to disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence, everyone has to be lying or not credible, 66 of 68 of the commonwealth's witnesses (two being the weatherman and the brain surgeon) and the prosecutors. It doesn't matter whether they are civilians, paramedics, police, expert witnesses including accident reconstructionists, data experts, cellebrite phone experts, the victim's family, DNA analysts both state and independent, SERT, blood alcohol tests, video evidence, data chips can be altered, mileage cannot be traveled in less time than google maps, etc etc etc.

And Karen Read and the defence team and defence witnesses are not lying, except one who is a policewoman.

It seems to me that it is not possible to seriously evaluate a case when fact and testimony can be changed or misinterpreted, nothing and nobody can be trusted, not even data.

JMO

 

[bobbymkii]

My impression is that in order to disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence, everyone has to be lying or not credible, 66 of 68 of the commonwealth's witnesses (two being the weatherman and the brain surgeon) and the prosecutors. It doesn't matter whether they are civilians, paramedics, police, expert witnesses including accident reconstructionists, data experts, cellebrite phone experts, the victim's family, DNA analysts both state and independent, SERT, blood alcohol tests, video evidence, data chips can be altered, mileage cannot be traveled in less time than google maps, etc etc etc.

And Karen Read and the defence team and defence witnesses are not lying, except one who is a policewoman.

It seems to me that it is not possible to seriously evaluate a case when fact and testimony can be changed or misinterpreted, nothing and nobody can be trusted, not even data.

JMO

That would be the case, if the burden of proof was on Karen Read, and not the CW.

It's not a case of you have to "disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence" in order to find her not guilty, it's a case of you have to believe the commonwealth's evidence in order to find her guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less).

Which means that you have to believe:
- the impact happened at the time they say it did
- his injuries were caused by the car
- the impact caused the taillight to shatter into 47 pieces
- that no-one saw/heard the impact happen
- he was lying on the lawn dead or dying all that time unnoticed by multiple people who were in a position to notice him hours before he was eventually found

In short, it doesn't really matter if you believe/disbelieve the witnesses on a personal level, it's the evidence that has to be believed or not.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

That would be the case, if the burden of proof was on Karen Read, and not the CW.

It's not a case of you have to "disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence" in order to find her not guilty, it's a case of you have to believe the commonwealth's evidence in order to find her guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less).

Which means that you have to believe:
- the impact happened at the time they say it did
- his injuries were caused by the car
- the impact caused the taillight to shatter into 47 pieces
- that no-one saw/heard the impact happen
- he was lying on the lawn dead or dying all that time unnoticed by multiple people who were in a position to notice him hours before he was eventually found

In short, it doesn't really matter if you believe/disbelieve the witnesses on a personal level, it's the evidence that has to be believed or not.

MOO

Yes you have to believe those things, I agree with that, but I don't see how it's related to Karen having burden of proof. I don't suggest that she does.

 

[SteveS]

Judge Cannone:
"I see now how the federal investigation began and when it began"

Adam Lally:
"what is also clear from the federal grand jury is that this was an investigation which was initiated by the defendant and Mr Yannetti.

In case anyone is wondering, those snippets from that hearing are about the broader federal investigation into the KR case, and certainly not any indication of some problem with the def's actions at all.

The cw's decision to (a) be dismissive of the information gleaned from that investigation, and (b) hide those results (which were highly exculpatory) from the def, is being excused by Lally in that quote. The cw isn't allowed to do that. It's wayyyyyyyyy over the legal line.

Lally's argument uses the legally preposterous thesis that the def knowing about the existence of the investigation itself makes it okay that the cw didn't disclose the exculpatory evidence that the feds obtained and then provided. What BS - knowing the investigation existed, and knowing what was found by the feds in their search for answers, is not at all the same thing. In addition, when they did it, this hearing and its paperwork made it clear they hadn't even done so because they knew the def had asked for the investigation, but rather because they just weren't sharing what the feds said (which had SIGNIFICANT exculpatory evidence).

The cw had no legit excuse for violating the discovery rules and they knew it, hoping JudgeB was too dumb to see through their deception (as has repeatedly been the case) about how they were doing things that the law STRICTLY forbids. The def argued for dismissal for the major discovery violation, and JudgeB shrugged her shoulders instead. Of course.

 

[Tortoise]

In case anyone is wondering, those snippets from that hearing are about the broader federal investigation into the KR case, and certainly not any indication of some problem with the def's actions at all.

The cw's decision to (a) be dismissive of the information gleaned from that investigation, and (b) hide those results (which were highly exculpatory) from the def, is being excused by Lally in that quote. The cw isn't allowed to do that. It's wayyyyyyyyy over the legal line.

Lally's argument uses the legally preposterous thesis that the def knowing about the existence of the investigation itself makes it okay that the cw didn't disclose the exculpatory evidence that the feds obtained and then provided. What BS - knowing the investigation existed, and knowing what was found by the feds in their search for answers, is not at all the same thing. In addition, when they did it, this hearing and its paperwork made it clear they hadn't even done so because they knew the def had asked for the investigation, but rather because they just weren't sharing what the feds said (which had SIGNIFICANT exculpatory evidence).

The cw had no legit excuse for violating the discovery rules and they knew it, hoping JudgeB was too dumb to see through their deception (as has repeatedly been the case) about how they were doing things that the law STRICTLY forbids. The def argued for dismissal for the major discovery violation, and JudgeB shrugged her shoulders instead. Of course.

It's not case over just because of ARCCA. The commonwealth don't accept ARCCA's reconstruction and have their own new independent reconstructionist, plus a whole lot more, including cellebrite/Waze, Lexus data, and DNA results. ARCCA wasn't provided with all the evidence the state has.

 

[TDoc72]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed (off topic)

I care about JOK and so do a lot of other people here. I wish that the MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE had cared about him and done a better investigation into the truth of what happened and not the half-assed one they did do. Not because he was a cop but because he was a citizen in their jurisdiction.
IMO
I used to think if I could time travel, I’d go back to watch JonBenet’s house and see if there was an intruder climbing in that window. Now I’d go back to 34 Fairview.

 

[TDoc72]

RSBM

Judge Cannone:
"I see now how the federal investigation began and when it began"


Adam Lally:
"what is also clear from the federal grand jury is that this was an investigation which was initiated by the defendant and Mr Yannetti. So to claim that he was in the dark, or didn't know about this federal investigation, every bit of discovery that the federal government has from the state case was provided by Mr Yannetti. Nothing was asked for from the commonwealth, nothing was asked for from the district attorney's office, the state police, so again, what I was intimating before in reference to the motion to dismiss, I have no idea what they have seen or what they haven't seen, how much of the file, how much of the discovery or anything else, it's all sort of been provided and colored by Mr Yannetti. And this goes back to November of 2022, so to then claim that you were sandbagged or didn't know about an investigation that you initiated over a year before, until late in December of 2023, I think disingenuous, I think disingenuous would be about the nicest term that I can come up with for that."

timestamps for above quotes 1.04 mins and 58.28
Motions hearing March 12, 2024

Is Lally so delusional that he think either KR or Mr. Yannetti have the power to make the FBI do anything? That doesn’t even make sense IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Is Lally so delusional that he think either KR or Mr. Yannetti have the power to make the FBI do anything? That doesn’t even make sense IMO.

He didn't say they have that power.

 

[bobbymkii]

Is Lally so delusional that he think either KR or Mr. Yannetti have the power to make the FBI do anything? That doesn’t even make sense IMO.

We learned yesterday that defense attorneys apparently have the ability to charge people with perjury too!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

“There is no longer any federal investigation into the investigation of John O’Keefe’s death or any related matters,” he said, noting that he had permission from the US Attorney's office to reveal the news. “It is closed. It is over.”

Federal probe of Karen Read case is over, special prosecutor confirms

Boston woman accused of killing her police officer boyfriend in 2022 and argued she was framed to protect other law enforcement officers

www.independent.co.uk

“The Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office was contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Let me make crystal clear, they made clear that I could inform the court there is no longer any federal investigation into the investigation of John O’Keefe’s death or any related matters,” Brennan said. “It is closed, it is over.”

Prosecutor in Karen Read case confirms federal investigation is over, asks for gag order for defense

The federal investigation into the Karen Read murder case is over, special prosecutor Hank Brennan announced during a Tuesday pretrial hearing, confirming what 25 Investigates first reported last week.

www.yahoo.com

Notably, this isn’t actually from the feds…

 

[kuromiiiilove]

My impression is that in order to disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence, everyone has to be lying or not credible, 66 of 68 of the commonwealth's witnesses (two being the weatherman and the brain surgeon) and the prosecutors. It doesn't matter whether they are civilians, paramedics, police, expert witnesses including accident reconstructionists, data experts, cellebrite phone experts, the victim's family, DNA analysts both state and independent, SERT, blood alcohol tests, video evidence, data chips can be altered, mileage cannot be traveled in less time than google maps, etc etc etc.

And Karen Read and the defence team and defence witnesses are not lying, except one who is a policewoman.

It seems to me that it is not possible to seriously evaluate a case when fact and testimony can be changed or misinterpreted, nothing and nobody can be trusted, not even data.

JMO

You absolutely don’t need to believe “everyone is lying” to see that this case has serious problems. The prosecution’s narrative depends on a small circle of key players (not 60+ people) whose credibility actually matters. Most witnesses, like Cellebrite, are peripheral or technical. They testify based on what they were told, the evidence they were handed, or assumptions they made. That doesn’t make them liars, but it means their testimony is only as reliable as the chain of custody, context, and data integrity behind it. Garbage in, garbage out, as AJ says.

I don’t believe the entirety of the Commonwealth’s witness list is lying. I think there are a few people - Brian Higgins, the McAlberts, Proctor, Berkowitz - who show suspicious behavior in their timeline, their phone data, and their behavior. People who deleted call logs. People who lied about what time they woke up. People who made Google searches that conveniently vanished. Follow the pattern of cover-your- behavior from a handful of individuals. This “if you doubt one thing, that means you doubt everything” logic is just lazy IMO. In real life, we know that truth often coexists with manipulation. A case isn’t strong just because a lot of people agree on basic, irrelevant facts. It’s strong when its core foundation holds up under scrutiny, and this one simply doesn’t. The defense isn’t dismissing the entirety of law enforcement, EMS, or scientific evidence. They’re showing how critical parts of it have been misrepresented, mishandled, or selectively applied to build a convenient story. So no, it’s not about distrusting 66 people. It’s about questioning the motives and actions of a few people.

All MOO

 

[justwannahelp]

Quoting/reposting a snippet of Tortoises post:
Motions hearing March 12, 2024

Wow. This is the first I’ve heard them argue all the reasons why the charges should be dropped. BRAVO! At least the unlawfulness has been stated in a court room. Shameful that judge BC allowed this to move forward. The lying by the CW is just ALLLLL over the place

One thing i also heard for the first time is that QUANTICO said JM did INDEED search “hos long to die in cold” at 2:27am NOT 6:30 something am
I’m trusting QUANTICO’s math and science

 

[justwannahelp]

I do not think the investigation is over.
Legally , they have been granted the permissions to lie to the public .
Early 90's ish.
Law enforcement has no obligation out side of hand on bible in court, to tell us the truth.

Something to consider is a lot of these witnesses seem to say one thing to the FBI - something close to truth….
Then they lie and say a completely different thing under oath in the courtroom during trial. Kind of makes you wonder if they were told they can lie in court under oath without consequence???

They tell something like truth to the FEDERAL agents, FBI, but the lie with abandon in front of the STATE.

WHAT is going on in Boston?! It’s like the mafia - something from a movie

 

[SteveS]

It's not case over just because of ARCCA. The commonwealth don't accept ARCCA's reconstruction and have their own new independent reconstructionist, plus a whole lot more, including cellebrite/Waze, Lexus data, and DNA results. ARCCA wasn't provided with all the evidence the state has.

Yes the cw has come up with some so-called experts this time around. As for the quality of their testimony and testing, I'm sure cw fans will shower praise, of course.

Me? I found it really lacking in reliability due to credibility concerns for Burgess (both in his untruths as well as the fact Welcher was dismissive of his claims) as well as in actual substance (particularly by Welcher, who admittedly avoided doing ANY testing that might not help the cw's bias, and ended up in givng us a cheesy demonstration of a cherry-picked scenario that still didn't adequately address the core issues of the vehicle damage vs the lack of bodily injury).

As for how ARCCA will compare, I think the credibility and quality will prove to be night and day better and more persuasive. These are what experts are supposed to be.

BTW your ending statement about ARCCA is woefully out of date. This trial is different, in that ARCCA is now working with the def, not the feds. The def does have every bit of evidence and will have provided ARCCA all of it to consider and analyze its fit (or to figure out how it doesn't) in doing testing, reports, and testimony. The cw was not allowed to withhold anything, so ARCCA has it all.

 

[justwannahelp]

QUOTE="bobbymkii, post: 19411332, member: 323419"]
That would be the case, if the burden of proof was on Karen Read, and not the CW.

It's not a case of you have to "disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence" in order to find her not guilty, it's a case of you have to believe the commonwealth's evidence in order to find her guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less).

Which means that you have to believe:
- the impact happened at the time they say it did
- his injuries were caused by the car
- the impact caused the taillight to shatter into 47 pieces
- that no-one saw/heard the impact happen
- he was lying on the lawn dead or dying all that time unnoticed by multiple people who were in a position to notice him hours before he was eventually found

In short, it doesn't really matter if you believe/disbelieve the witnesses on a personal level, it's the evidence that has to be believed or not.

MOO
[/QUOTE]

The IMPOSSIBLE AND TOTALLY NOT BELIEVABLE claim is him being on the lawn for 5.5 hours and still 80 degrees at the hospital upon arrival.

According to SCIENCE he would have been closer to 32 degrees F / 0 degrees C upon arrival if he was on the lawn for 5.5 hours.

Dr. Rice stated they made efforts to warm him and weren’t successful, so we can assume he stayed at his arrival temp 80 degrees until time of death was called.

The warming efforts, all of which raise core temp by 1-2 degrees Celsius/hour, if successful, were stated to not be successful.

Hypothetically, if we assume he WAS on the lawn 5.5 hours, he would have arrived around 32 degrees F / 0C. AND if we assume hypothetically that the warming methods for 1.5 hours WERE successful, he STILL would have been no where NEAR 80 degrees Fahrenheit. He’d be somewhere around 6 degrees C / 43F.

And I’m being liberal by assuming EACH of the 3 warming methods used raised his temp 2 degrees. so we can say hypothetically his temp would have been raised to 6 degrees C since he would have arrived 0 degrees.

Let’s be even MORE liberal and hypothetically say he arrived 2 degrees C because the heater in the ambulance raised his temp from 0 to 2 degrees C. PLUS we will throw in 6 degrees of warming by efforts at the hospital, he still woukd have been only 8 degrees C / 46F.

The warming methods they used were warm IV fluids, the bear hug, and I’ll throw in the heater in the ambulance as one too.

I hope the prosecution presents this argument. It’s easy to follow and there’s just NO WAY he’d be anywhere NEAR 80 degrees if he was on that lawn for 5.5 hours even with warming efforts.


Science source here:

Cold Weather Survival Time – Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism

openoregon.pressbooks.pub

 

[Benthic Depths]

This case is strange for WS. I haven't been here as long as a lot of you have, but in most of the threads I've contributed to on this website, the question han't usually been guilty vs not guilty, it's been more along the lines of to-what-exact-extent-is-this-defendant guilty under the law of whichever jurisdiction the trial is taking place in? Murder or Manslaughter? 1st degree intentional or reckless?

But in this one it's more:
- how was the decedent just lying there on the lawn for 6 hours with no-one noticing him?
- why did Brian Higgins randomly decide to go to Canton PD to move some cars around (or not) at 1am?
- did a woman search "hos long to die in cold" at 2:27am or at 6am and was this because the defendant asked her to or not?
- exactly how battered was someone's taillight at various times?

JMO

Don't forget:
1. Who left the 2 different non-victim male blood samples on the victims shirt?
2. Why didn't MSP test people at the party regarding #1
2. Where are the multiple phones multiple LEOs at the party disposed of after being told to preserve said evidence?

 

[bobbymkii]

The IMPOSSIBLE AND TOTALLY NOT BELIEVABLE claim is him being on the lawn for 5.5 hours and still 80 degrees at the hospital upon arrival.

According to SCIENCE he would have been closer to 32 degrees F / 0 degrees C upon arrival if he was on the lawn for 5.5 hours.

Dr. Rice stated they made efforts to warm him and weren’t successful, so we can assume he stayed at his arrival temp 80 degrees until time of death was called.

The warming efforts, all of which raise core temp by 1-2 degrees Celsius/hour, if successful, were stated to not be successful.

Hypothetically, if we assume he WAS on the lawn 5.5 hours, he would have arrived around 32 degrees F / 0C. AND if we assume hypothetically that the warming methods for 1.5 hours WERE successful, he STILL would have been no where NEAR 80 degrees Fahrenheit. He’d be somewhere around 6 degrees C / 43F.

And I’m being liberal by assuming EACH of the 3 warming methods used raised his temp 2 degrees. so we can say hypothetically his temp would have been raised to 6 degrees C since he would have arrived 0 degrees.

Let’s be even MORE liberal and hypothetically say he arrived 2 degrees C because the heater in the ambulance raised his temp from 0 to 2 degrees C. PLUS we will throw in 6 degrees of warming by efforts at the hospital, he still woukd have been only 8 degrees C / 46F.

The warming methods they used were warm IV fluids, the bear hug, and I’ll throw in the heater in the ambulance as one too.

I hope the prosecution presents this argument. It’s easy to follow and there’s just NO WAY he’d be anywhere NEAR 80 degrees if he was on that lawn for 5.5 hours even with warming efforts.


Science source here:

Cold Weather Survival Time – Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism

openoregon.pressbooks.pub

It's quite ironic that one of the best ways to consider that KR is likely innocent is to personally research how long it takes to die in the cold.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

My impression is that in order to disbelieve the commonwealth's evidence, everyone has to be lying or not credible, 66 of 68 of the commonwealth's witnesses (two being the weatherman and the brain surgeon) and the prosecutors. It doesn't matter whether they are civilians, paramedics, police, expert witnesses including accident reconstructionists, data experts, cellebrite phone experts, the victim's family, DNA analysts both state and independent, SERT, blood alcohol tests, video evidence, data chips can be altered, mileage cannot be traveled in less time than google maps, etc etc etc.

And Karen Read and the defence team and defence witnesses are not lying, except one who is a policewoman.

It seems to me that it is not possible to seriously evaluate a case when fact and testimony can be changed or misinterpreted, nothing and nobody can be trusted, not even data.

JMO

The part i am struggling with in particular, and this is a sea change since T1, is that the defence have not contested that 1162-Trigger 2 is from Fairview. Rather they adopted the analysis and data, and contested the precise timestamps within seconds, and the exact start point within feet

So as far as the Jury is concerned, not having experienced Trial 1, that means there is no evidence to contest that the defendant was driving 24mph in reverse within seconds of John's final movements.

And personally, unlike the jury, I know the defendant did not concede this at T1, so it's a huge red flag because the proof of this means she did lie about it for 3 years.

Its extremely unusual for such a seismic shift in trial strategy - yet it's one forced by the evidence.

It seems like Burgess's data extraction dropped like a bomb in the defence trial prep because this is a huge departure from last time. Not least because it concedes to the CW a significant part of the charging language.

This is only a causation case now, and that boils down to whether you believe Karen was framed. I think that answers why AJ called Devers - a move Peter Tragos questioned. I suspect AJ had to, because he doesn't have the Proctor mini-trial. Why they squished out of calling Proctor is still mysterious to me, but I guess they felt Brennan could hurt them too much on cross?



MOO

 

[Tortoise]

You absolutely don’t need to believe “everyone is lying” to see that this case has serious problems. The prosecution’s narrative depends on a small circle of key players (not 60+ people) whose credibility actually matters. Most witnesses, like Cellebrite, are peripheral or technical. They testify based on what they were told, the evidence they were handed, or assumptions they made. That doesn’t make them liars, but it means their testimony is only as reliable as the chain of custody, context, and data integrity behind it. Garbage in, garbage out, as AJ says.

I don’t believe the entirety of the Commonwealth’s witness list is lying. I think there are a few people - Brian Higgins, the McAlberts, Proctor, Berkowitz - who show suspicious behavior in their timeline, their phone data, and their behavior. People who deleted call logs. People who lied about what time they woke up. People who made Google searches that conveniently vanished. Follow the pattern of cover-your- behavior from a handful of individuals. This “if you doubt one thing, that means you doubt everything” logic is just lazy IMO. In real life, we know that truth often coexists with manipulation. A case isn’t strong just because a lot of people agree on basic, irrelevant facts. It’s strong when its core foundation holds up under scrutiny, and this one simply doesn’t. The defense isn’t dismissing the entirety of law enforcement, EMS, or scientific evidence. They’re showing how critical parts of it have been misrepresented, mishandled, or selectively applied to build a convenient story. So no, it’s not about distrusting 66 people. It’s about questioning the motives and actions of a few people.

All MOO

So, Cellebrite is peripheral to the case and the data lacks integrity? It is central to the case and the data is an extraction from John's phone. This is what I mean about having to disbelieve everything.

In general, I don't think a lot of people have cottoned on that cycle 1162 is undisputed now. It has been since Aperture's data download from the SD card, and DiSogra reported to the defence on very minor discrepancies in the clock drift, according to the commonwealths' experts. They are arguing over whether 3 seconds from ignition to infotainment switching on were overlooked by Aperture.

So we now know Karen reversed at high speed with her foot on the pedal 75 degrees, 19 minutes after leaving Waterfall, 8 minutes after her three-point turn on Cedarcrest. And that John's phone locking event (relevant data from his phone) happened in those same seconds, before according to the commonwealth, after according to the defence. The defence argument is extremely weak, because DiSogra used data to work out clock variances at a time when the Lexus was not powered on, and also the trigger event did not end when the 5-10 second window captured on the SD card ended.

The defence case is now that Karen reversed but John's phone data (not moving again within those same seconds) is just a coincidence.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

It's not case over just because of ARCCA. The commonwealth don't accept ARCCA's reconstruction and have their own new independent reconstructionist, plus a whole lot more, including cellebrite/Waze, Lexus data, and DNA results. ARCCA wasn't provided with all the evidence the state has.

As Bederow said on Tragos's show, ARCCA and Aperture may well cancel each other out in the minds of the jury. But who knows - perhaps they will pull it out of the fire.

IMO