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

[nightowl1975]

Yes, I think it's very possibly she may have seen some sort of activity in the Sally port before the Lexus got there. She very well could have misidentified people walking in or out. It's not like she was sitting in front of that Sally port video feed. She had her own two screens to deal with on an overnight that a blizzard was hitting the area. Year or so later and yes a person could certainly have an incorrect memory. The defense seemed to not want to challenge the officer about the time she left. Why would that be if there was anything nefarious to it? AJMO

So she saw random people and conjured up an image of a big black Lexus SUV that day. Where these folks hung out around the conjured up Lexus for a wildly long time.

The defense’s job is to poke holes. And stop while they’re ahead.

Regardless of anything else this awful attitude woman said on the stand, the fact that she angrily blurted out that SHE CONTACTED THE FBI was more than enough of a win for the defense. Finally, someone said it. Out loud. Couldn’t have happened to a better witness either, short of Jen McCabe blurting it out. That would’ve been even more satisfying.

 

[nightowl1975]

We here have tons of questions related to Devers and the sallyport.
What is the actual significance here? I think we can infer based on the defenses actions.
The jury would understand better if they had this informaiton

Defense could use these things…
Description of how the sallyport doors work
Procedures of use of sallyport, why and how and rules
Floor plan of police station with sallyport
Photo of the desks where people are buzzed into the sally port, what can be seen
Schedules/ timesheets of who worked that day and how long

So is this a defense nothingburger, tossing things against the wall?
Or a bombshell that wasn’t pursued?

IMO

Or a judge that seems intent on the defense being done as expeditiously as possible, telling them to hurry things along at every turn. Do you actually think she would’ve allowed them to go through pulling teeth with Dever to get all of that info in? Please. She claimed to not even remember if there were video cameras or monitors. Yet you think she would’ve testified to how the whole place was laid out and how the doors worked without someone needing to poke their eyeballs out in frustration?

They need to offer up options for reasonable doubt. One needn’t buy into every single option for reasonable doubt that they’ve brought up. Just one is sufficient. They’ve managed to bring up many, many inconsistencies and issues and missing or deleted or inverted things, changed stories, etc etc etc.

 

[nightowl1975]

MOO, Insinuations are not reasonable.There would need to be evidentiary proof for them to be considered.

And that’s fair enough. So some on the jury might disregard this specific issue. I doubt they’ll disregard the fact that the whole false memory was initially reported to the FBI, and later retracted, and start wondering if the FBI is the “outside agency” that’s been talked about all trial. She was worth having on the stand just for those 3 letters alone.

 

[mrjitty]

Because there was a dead cop on the lawn of another cop? And that’s sort of a big deal in the law enforcement world?

Let’s say someone was found dead at your workplace, under suspicious circumstances. It’s near the end of your work day. You’re telling me there’s ZERO chance you’re going to hang around the water cooler, so to speak, past your normal clock out time…. out of curiosity? nosiness? concern? Come on. This isn’t some giant ridiculous leap here.

I agree in general but AJ didn't put it to the witness and thus before the jury.

Let's not forget she already worked her original shift, and then overtime to cover the desk. I think it's quite speculative that she then stayed even longer for free. But in any event, I think it's pretty clear tactically why AJ did not open that box.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

MOO, Insinuations are not reasonable.There would need to be evidentiary proof for them to be considered.

Right. This is a defence witness. I think they established she made the statement to the FBI but then it was later contradicted by timesheet records. We can speculate further, but the jury is not allowed to speculate.

It illustrates the risk of this witness. She raises innuendo, but came with a lot of blowback.

MOO

 

[AngTxGal]

Or a judge that seems intent on the defense being done as expeditiously as possible, telling them to hurry things along at every turn. Do you actually think she would’ve allowed them to go through pulling teeth with Dever to get all of that info in? Please. She claimed to not even remember if there were video cameras or monitors. Yet you think she would’ve testified to how the whole place was laid out and how the doors worked without someone needing to poke their eyeballs out in frustration?

They need to offer up options for reasonable doubt. One needn’t buy into every single option for reasonable doubt that they’ve brought up. Just one is sufficient. They’ve managed to bring up many, many inconsistencies and issues and missing or deleted or inverted things, changed stories, etc etc etc.

So, it was a nothingburger the defense pursued? Why was she called to testify?
We watched hours of the Prosecution literally pulling teeth with Russell…

The Testimony of Devers may have lost jury points for the defense

Devers eluded to the fact that the defense had threatened her with perjury. It is possible some on the jury who feel unsafe in this high profile trial may have issues with a young single rookie cop being pressured.

JMO

 

[Malleeboy]

Why would she stay 2 hours?

If the defence wants to contend all of that in court, they would need to put actual evidence before the Jury. Like for instance, her time record for her shift and overtime on the 29th.

The constitutional burden of proof is so often discussed in this case, but it remains the case that the party saying things in Court needs to actually produce some evidence of them. Given AJ himself did not actually allege she left much later than 3.30 one suspects he knows her overtime did in fact end then.

MOO

I'd agree that this witness added little to the Defence case, whilst I get what they were hoping to get something I'd agree I don't think this will be remembered by the jury. Maybe they have another witness that will add evidence but I doubt it.

 

[AngTxGal]

I agree in general but AJ didn't put it to the witness and thus before the jury.

Let's not forget she already worked her original shift, and then overtime to cover the desk. I think it's quite speculative that she then stayed even longer for free. But in any event, I think it's pretty clear tactically why AJ did not open that box.

IMO

Quite likely Officer Devers hung around after her shift at the desk on Jan 29!

She is a rookie, and stuck to the desk, she wants to do something more
A cop has been found dead under suspicious circumstances

She hung around to learn, hear the buzz, see how things worked, to show initiative!!

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

Quite likely she hung around on Jan 29!

She is a rookie, and stuck to the desk, she wants to do something more
A cop has been found dead under suspicious circumstances

She hung around to learn, hear the buzz, see how things worked, to show initiative!!

IMO

Again maybe - but this was the D's witness, and they did not lead any testimony that she did that. We can speculate, but the jurors are not supposed to speculation such theories into existence.

 

[Malleeboy]

Again maybe - but this was the D's witness, and they did not lead any testimony that she did that. We can speculate, but the jurors are not supposed to speculation such theories into existence.

Prosecution speculation

What speed was KR going when when she hit John?
What was the final speed of KR's car? 0 to 24 mph but that was the end of the recorded speed but not the final speed)
Why are the lower arm cuts, at a different angle to the upper ones?
What force is required to break a taillight?
Why did they not present a single medical expert who identified John's injuries as coming from a car impact? (there has been one who testified it was not, and two who have had testimony submitted saying it is undetermined, so a car impact is a medical speculation.)
Where was John O'Keefe located whilst Karen was alone in the car according to the witnesses?
Where was Brian Albert's car?

 

[Tortoise]

Regardless of anything else this awful attitude woman said on the stand, the fact that she angrily blurted out that SHE CONTACTED THE FBI was more than enough of a win for the defense. Finally, someone said it. Out loud.

RSBM

I don't see this as a big deal, personally. The commonwealth is pursuing charges. If there was anything untoward as far as the police investigation, discovered by the FBI, Karen Read wouldn't be sitting here now. As a juror I would be reassured that the claims of a cover-up haven't been substantiated by an outside agency investigating.

And the reasons for the firing of Proctor are now in evidence, thanks to the defence calling his friend to read his text messages. Another loss to the defence, trying to create the impression he was involved in staging evidence and a cover-up. IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

Something I have been thinking about is at that reversing speed, in the dark and likely poor visibility, you are outdriving your reversing lights - especially if you are backing on your mirrors or a camera ...

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM

I don't see this as a big deal, personally. The commonwealth is pursuing charges. If there was anything untoward as far as the police investigation, discovered by the FBI, Karen Read wouldn't be sitting here now. As a juror I would be reassured that the claims of a cover-up haven't been substantiated by an outside agency investigating.

And the reasons for the firing of Proctor are now in evidence, thanks to the defence calling his friend to read his text messages. Another loss to the defence, trying to create the impression he was involved in staging evidence and a cover-up. IMO.

Speaking of ethical violations - this person was the US Attorney at DOJ for the opening phase of the FBI probe and had to resign. Of course that may be of no relevance.

Rachael Rollins - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AngTxGal]

Something I have been thinking about is at that reversing speed, in the dark and likely poor visibility, you are outdriving your reversing lights - especially if you are backing on your mirrors or a camera ...

MOO

Exactly, out driving your reverse lights if there is no other light on the road- darkness.
I wondered if she could have hit her taillight on something else?

Those trees are the only thing tall enough I can see in the yard- and there is yard between the road and that tree line.

I don’t know the nature of frozen ground to know what kind/ if any signs would be left if she did back across a yard and hit a tree.

Physics of Car in Reverse with that debris field
If KR hit JO backing up on the road, how did she not back into the yard?
Was he standing in the street?
The defense should be asking…
Why was JO and the taillight and the bar glass out in the yard? The debris field has to follow physics. The debris field would be in the opposite direction of the movement of KR’s car.
My guess would be-
The direction of car would have to be perpendicular to the street- to get a debris field in the yard.
The location of impact would be on the edge of the street.

Now I’m seeing why Welcher had to add the spin? It explains JO’s body location, and is an attempt at lack of arm wounds, but it doesn’t explain the location of the debris field!

ARCCA will sort it out for us- today I hope!

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Something I have been thinking about is at that reversing speed, in the dark and likely poor visibility, you are outdriving your reversing lights - especially if you are backing on your mirrors or a camera ...

MOO

Her closest admission yet -

I found it quite chilling to watch Karen Read saying, last year, while demonstrating with her hand hitting the side of the table -

..."did he come and hit the back of my car and I hit him in the knee"...

She has accounted for his arm/hand and knee injuries in that one sentence. The demonstration of sound, the bang she makes against the table, I think, is an admission of hearing him hit. That is also, IMO, her admission that she was reversing, because she wouldn't clip him anywhere if she'd been stationary or in forward drive, driving away from him.

The noise she describes inside the car ("I mean I’ve always got the music blasting, it’s snowing, I’ve got the wipers going, the heater blasting") is, IMO, her attempt at an excuse, but she hides that she was reversing towards him by not overtly mentioning that, and at a dangerous speed.

Plus why would she be reversing towards him at 23 mph 75% gas pedal without looking? John's not going to approach her car, reversing towards him that fast, to tap the back to get her attention, especially while holding a drinking glass. IMO

clip 26 - day 23

timestamp 2.39.00

My opinion

 

[Tortoise]

Exactly, out driving your reverse lights if there is no other light on the road- darkness.
I wondered if she could have hit her taillight on something else?

Those trees are the only thing tall enough I can see in the yard- and there is yard between the road and that tree line.

I don’t know the nature of frozen ground to know what kind/ if any signs would be left if she did back across a yard and hit a tree.

I also don’t know if how she hit him if she didn’t back into the yard?
Where was he standing, would then have to be in the road?
Why was he and the taillight and the bar glass not in the road? That was the debris field

IMO

I think his shoe shows where he was standing, in the road. The first taillight pieces found by SERT were in the same area of the road, on the asphalt. They didn't search the grass because their primary focus was the road, to try to avoid losing any evidence to road traffic.

 

[AngTxGal]

Her closest admission yet -

I found it quite chilling to watch Karen Read saying, last year, while demonstrating with her hand hitting the side of the table -

..."did he come and hit the back of my car and I hit him in the knee"...

She has accounted for his arm/hand and knee injuries in that one sentence. The demonstration of sound, the bang she makes against the table, I think, is an admission of hearing him hit. That is also, IMO, her admission that she was reversing, because she wouldn't clip him anywhere if she'd been stationary or in forward drive, driving away from him.

The noise she describes inside the car ("I mean I’ve always got the music blasting, it’s snowing, I’ve got the wipers going, the heater blasting") is, IMO, her attempt at an excuse, but she hides that she was reversing towards him by not overtly mentioning that, and at a dangerous speed.

Plus why would she be reversing towards him at 23 mph 75% gas pedal without looking? John's not going to approach her car, reversing towards him that fast, to tap the back to get her attention, especially while holding a drinking glass. IMO

clip 26 - day 23

timestamp 2.39.00

My opinion

I just watched that clip as I had seen it and did not remember what you had described.

KR doesn’t hit the table to mimic the sound of the car hitting JO (which to me would be sick and overthetop psycho creep level).
She does tap the table to mimic him tapping the back of her car to get her attention.

To make it all work these actions or something similar would need to be present.
JO stepped out of the car and walked into the tree line to pee
Thinking about their argument he changed his mind- maybe thought ‘Let’s just go home?’
JO walked back toward KR’s car and she did a 3 pt turn to head back the way she came?
The 3 pt turn makes her curve perpendicular to the road- which would leave the debris field in the yard. Her impact to JO would have to be at the end of her backing.
There are several objects she could have hit if she backed too far into the yard- fire hydrant, trees, cable hookups- bushes- farther is flag pole.
KR hits JO with the rear of her car- doesn’t hear it, doesn’t see it,
Why was she backing in the first place if not a 3pt turn? Had she moved to far forward and didn’t think she could see him from her car if he came to tell her to come on in?
Navigation info showing she changed direction and returned to his home going N on Fairview and not S on Fairview

I’m not sure- there would need to be evidence of this nature
- digital evidence of a 3 pt turn captured on Lexus black box
- evidence you could get to 24 mph in reverse during a 3 pt turn in an SUV on that width of road- I doubt it
- knee injuries consistent with bumper at 24 mph
- hand/ arm injuries consistent with blunt force at 24 mph
- evidence taillight would break at 24 mph to human arm

What else?

IMO

 

[lohrtabitha]

Dever's shift ended at 3:45. She wasn't there when the tow truck with Read's vehicle arrived.

I thought she has a false memory? How does she know?

 

[Forest_Wood]

I read a comment somewhere, that made me go look at the videos that Brennan showed Lucky... it has a different view from a police dash cam that I had not watched before... the comment said you can see where Lucky had to go around a vehicle to plow... I have watched it a few times now and can't unsee it... so... looking to see what you all see....

And a link to when the Brennan starts showing him the videos, I don't see it right away, it's when the LE car backs up that I can see it. And surely the other vehicles are not parked on the grass.

View attachment 592245

View attachment 592247

I can't see what you're referring to?

But I only see Lucky's Frankentruck once at the top of the screen. The rest of those trucks going by on Cedarview are smaller trucks with smaller plows. It's a snow storm at the start of the day. Local plows would have been out early to clean up people's driveways, just like in any city that's experiencing a snow storm.

Brennan's trying to imply Lucky driving back and forth as being unusual. But the thing is, so what if it was Lucky's truck that went back and forth a couple of times? It's a small community where everyone knows everyone. It's human nature to want to see what's happening when a bunch of police, fire and ambulance vehicles have blocked off a street, especially one you just traveled down twice in the past 3.5 hours, and on a street where you know people who live on it.

MOO

 

[AngTxGal]

I think his shoe shows where he was standing, in the road. The first taillight pieces found by SERT were in the same area of the road, on the asphalt. They didn't search the grass because their primary focus was the road, to try to avoid losing any evidence to road traffic.

Yes, the location of the shoe that came off would show where he was standing- if he was impacted.

That is another must- the impact would have to be such that he could be pulled out of his shoe.
There are other possible explanations- stepping off balance on that raised curb.

For him to have been in the road and approach to the rear of the car…
- KR would have to be further up on the road- or he would walk up to the passenger/side
- KR would have had to back and turn at the same time (if 3 pt turn)- and then stop near contact.
Or she would have backed over him, and wouldn’t be turned enough to flip around the other direction.

Looking for a map with location of shoe, cap, body, taillight fragments, bar glass pieces… if there is one

IMO