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

Status
Not open for further replies.
That doesn’t make any sense to me, imo. If I knew that I hit my bf in a drunken stupor, the last thing I’d do is leave nasty messages. KK, who was completely sober, was with her for the last hour they were at the Waterfall and said KR didn’t not appear intoxicated. IMO.
As I said I don't agree with it and unless the prosecution has particularly stated why they charged Second Degree Murder, I'm just discussing, as my opinion, about what it might be. KR herself did describe in the documentary, A Body in the Snow, just how much she had to drink. Logic dictates, considering her physical size, she was intoxicated. That's JMO
 
IMO, I’m still wondering HOW all of those taillight shards made it to 34 Fairview when Sgt. Barros saw the vehicle in Dighton as it was being towed from her parents’ home. He said there was a small, 6” x 2” piece missing. The video played in court showed that KR’s taillight was mostly intact at the time it was removed to travel to Canton.
That's the main point. We know it's impossible that JO's arm caused the tail light to shatter. So what did? And when did it happen? Barros provided some insight into the second question. Dever and Bukhenic ( re Proctor) provided insight for who and where. Moo
 
To apply that logic equally, why did the CW not pull that footage to prove that Devers couldn’t have seen what she told the FBI?

The reality is that we do not know that that video exists still. MOO

I see the D calling Dever as a purely tactical move to get one key phrase in the juror's minds....and it was only the question that needed to be aired, any objections or move to strike was expected and did not stop the bell from ringing. AJ's question was about the Blue Wall of Silence: per....
Just after Min 57:00
And the jurors are all from the same county. They know exactly what the phrase meant and they had just seen an example of the duplicity that keeps the wall from crumbling. Canton PD, MSP, BPD all adopt the color scheme even if their uniforms are different.
JMO
 
Snipped and bolder by me
What knee injuries? IIRC he had one tiny bruise on one knee.
I didn't say knee injuries, I wrote arm/hand and knee injuries, because that's two different areas of injury, making it plural.
 
As I said I don't agree with it and unless the prosecution has particularly stated why they charged Second Degree Murder, I'm just discussing, as my opinion, about what it might be. KR herself did describe in the documentary, A Body in the Snow, just how much she had to drink. Logic dictates, considering her physical size, she was intoxicated. That's JMO
They haven’t even proven he was hit by a car, let alone the intent to cause him bodily harm. IMO, you’d best have all your T’s crossed and i’s dotted before you charge someone with murder.
There’s no way to tell how drunk Karen was at the time of the alleged vehicle strike. I hate that so many people drove drunk that night. It seems pretty obvious that there are many folks in Canton who like to drive while intoxicated. I’ll never understand that mentality.
 
That's the main point. We know it's impossible that JO's arm caused the tail light to shatter. So what did? And when did it happen? Barros provided some insight into the second question. Dever and Bukhenic ( re Proctor) provided insight for who and where. Moo
Cant wait till the physical damage to Randy come in.
 
I see the D calling Dever as a purely tactical move to get one key phrase in the juror's minds....and it was only the question that needed to be aired, any objections or move to strike was expected and did not stop the bell from ringing. AJ's question was about the Blue Wall of Silence: per....
Just after Min 57:00
And the jurors are all from the same county. They know exactly what the phrase meant and they had just seen an example of the duplicity that keeps the wall from crumbling. Canton PD, MSP, BPD all adopt the color scheme even if their uniforms are different.
JMO
Yes, I’ve been struggling to figure out why the Defense called Dever to the stand!!

This is why!!

IMO
 
They haven’t even proven he was hit by a car, let alone the intent to cause him bodily harm. IMO, you’d best have all your T’s crossed and i’s dotted before you charge someone with murder.
There’s no way to tell how drunk Karen was at the time of the alleged vehicle strike. I hate that so many people drove drunk that night. It seems pretty obvious that there are many folks in Canton who like to drive while intoxicated. I’ll never understand that mentality.
I forgot to mention that the jury in T1 found her not guilty of Murder 2. That carries quite a bit of weight for me. The jury heard all of the evidence and could not find her guilty of Murder 2. IMO, in T2, I’ve seen no evidence presented by the CW to show Karen had intent to cause him bodily harm.
 
My concern with the jury is this. I can imagine that even if they acknowledged that there was some reasonable doubt established, some may opt for a compromised verdict of convicting her on at leaser one count simply because she was drunk and driving and that there was a possibility she hit him. But I don't see how 12 jurors could possibly agree that there isn't at least reasonable doubt in this case on all counts. Remember that all 3 counts rest on the fact that the CW establishes she hit him BARD.
There were jurors last time who basically came down to “well, we don’t know how it happened but she was drunk and they were both there, so she must have done something.”

Odds are highest for a hung jury again, comments in this thread alone prove that. There are people who simply are not willing to believe she didn’t have something to do with his death.
 
I forgot to mention that the jury in T1 found her not guilty of Murder 2. That carries quite a bit of weight for me. The jury heard all of the evidence and could not find her guilty of Murder 2. IMO, in T2, I’ve seen no evidence presented by the CW to show Karen had intent to cause him bodily harm.
Murder 2 is not intent to cause bodily harm.

This is the relevant law -

c) intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree
 
There were jurors last time who basically came down to “well, we don’t know how it happened but she was drunk and they were both there, so she must have done something.”

Odds are highest for a hung jury again, comments in this thread alone prove that. There are people who simply are not willing to believe she didn’t have something to do with his death.
I was watching either Bederow or LYK on YouTube, I can’t remember which said that if it ends up in another mistrial, they believe the CW would refile. IMO. ☹️
 
Murder 2 is not intent to cause bodily harm.

This is the relevant law -

c) intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree

Same link as yours. Please see section 2b:
1749244464116.webp
 
I am new to this forum. After following this case and listening to the witnesses, I have to ask why did this trial make it to court? IMO, Garbage in is Garbage out. The Incompetence of the major Police departments involved in this investigation cries for No Trial since you don’t have a Proper Investigation from the beginning. The Preferential Treatment of the Prosecution by the Judge is so obvious. Clearly, any defendant desiring an Honest and fair Court, would quickly realize they came to the Wrong Court . IMO

WELCOME @WildBill51 !!
 
The pieces were underneath snow which could have been driven over or crushed underfoot.
The pieces of the taillight that was still intact when they towed it from Dighton to the sallyport? Those pieces?
Photos, video and testimony in evidence from the past few days showing that the taillight was not in pieces.
IMO.
 
But in this case it's 2C not 2B. Note the word 'OR' between clauses A, B and C.

For confirmation of this see commonwealth's opening speech, and the argument commonwealth made after the defence filed a motion for finding of not guilty, which was denied.


PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

1.21.00

"There are three charges against the defendant in this case. The first one’s second-degree murder. When most people hear murder they instantly think shooting somebody, stabbing somebody, … premeditation. I’m not going to instruct you on the law, I’m not going to trample on that area, but I can tell you clearly we are not going to try to prove that Karen read tried to kill John O’Keefe, we’re not going to try to prove to you that she intended or wanted him dead, that’s not second-degree murder. What we’ll prove to you is she engaged in an intentional act, driving back at him, at that speed, in the storm in the dark knowing that he’d just gotten out of her Lexus. She intended that act that can cause a plain strong likelihood of death. That’s what we’ll prove to you second-degree murder. Also operating under the influence of alcohol, manslaughter we’ll prove to you that she drove her Lexus recklessly, she hit John O’Keefe, and because she hit him and he fell back she caused his death. The third charge is leaving the scene after knowingly causing a death, again she hit Mr O’Keefe with her car, she knew he was injured, she left him behind and he died."

 
Last edited:
The pieces of the taillight that was still intact when they towed it from Dighton to the sallyport? Those pieces?
Photos, video and testimony in evidence from the past few days showing that the taillight was not in pieces.
IMO.
No, the light was already broken out, as seen in the dashcam at 1 Meadows at 8am that morning, agreed by Sgt. Barros.

IMO

edited to add link requested

segment starts from timestamp 6.43.53

Attorney Brennan - Is that consistent with what you saw around 3.27 on January 29th 2022?

Sgt Barros - Yes.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
533
Total visitors
720

Forum statistics

Threads
625,593
Messages
18,506,777
Members
240,819
Latest member
Berloni75
Back
Top