MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #33 Retrial

[Wishbone]

So do you think the defense will subpoena him and ask him about that? They'll have to right?

Their main objective is disproving the cw charge against KR that she hit JO with the Lexus. Add to that, why call a hostile witness like lying proctor. He was the lead investigator and if he was to be called the cw should have called him.

 

[lohrtabitha]

But there's been absolutely no proof of anyone planting evidence. Do you think it's coming up?

A single piece of taillight was missing. Not 46 more pieces. Barros testified to that.

 

[Wishbone]

That's actually what his phone's data and the Lexus data proves, MO

The physical evidence does not prove that. JMOO

 

[keek]

Location data is a funny thing. On 2 of my kids' phones I can see their locations to exactly where they are at a location. For example. when they are home, I literally can see that they are in their own rooms. My son and husbands' phones are often WAY off, sometimes showing them blocks away from where I know they are at.

That you know of. (haha kidding, and what a great location finder to see that the others in exactly in their rooms!)

 

[jepop]

It has been very, very obvious and embarrassing really, to watch and see the not so subtle communicating to the jurors that the defense attorneys are a pain in the such and so every chance possible. I assume they can see that and also feel cringed out. THey are there and expect to be treated professionally in a serious case of a person's life, not rushed and treated as children without identities and thoughts of their own. I really assume they can see through all that though. They are adults. IMO

It's so presumptuous and unprofessional it makes the mind boggle. It's quite worrying though. She's an authority figure for the jurors. It's impossible that she isn't having some sort of effect on them via her attitude. Just like trial x 1.

 

[lohrtabitha]

So do you think the defense will subpoena him and ask him about that? They'll have to right?

They don't need to. Barros took care of him.

 

[HarmonyE.]

But there's been absolutely no proof of anyone planting evidence. Do you think it's coming up?

It's Logic 101 and it's already been laid out for the jury.

No one - most especially Lucky in the high truck with the really good lights - saw O'Keefe on the lawn that night, despite the fact that he would have been fully visible before the snow picked up. "Enough to track a cat" was the extent of the snow fall in the early morning hours, said the CW's own witness.

That's 10 people - not including other vehicle traffic - who should have seen him. The witnesses in the Nagel vehicle all said - John was in car at Cedarcrest. John was not in the car at Fairview when Read's light went on. John was not on the lawn when they drove by.

And we have fully independent Dighton police witness Sargeant Barros who insists the taillight was only very minimally cracked (no doubt from the collision between the two SUVs that morning) before Michael Proctor got his hands on it and magically 47 pieces turned up over the following days and weeks.

Proctor is a proven scummy cop who assured his friends that Brian Albert et al would face no scrutiny for what may have happened at the party. No investigation was done beyond what was done to set up Read.

Ergo, the only logical conclusion can be that Proctor planted the so-called physical evidence to assist his pals and make his job easier.

 

[Anniesflowers]

After seeing the prosecution's direct evidence. Especially helpful was the evidence given by Dr Welcher. JO was never in the house. His cell phone synced with the Lexus clock proves that as well as backs up the physical evidence of shards, tail light and glass, found around, under and on JO's clothing, the straw, the shoe and yes the injuries to JO. The defense witnesses, expert and regular, testimonies falling apart under cross just cemented it. Also I cannot overstate just how important KR's own words, her outright lies and then her change of story after being arrested have been in the complete picture too. AJMO

Thank you. I really appreciate your thoughtful answer. We just see the evidence/witnesses differently.

 

[Warwick7]

There are alot of people hot under the collar with the Judge and Brennan all over the internet worldwide. Wowzers!!

 

[BUF]

I saw a tweet elsewhere (that I can’t post) that Brennan was on his phone while the defense team pulled the hoodie out of the plexiglass enclosure and was examining it.

Who was he on the phone with….any guesses?

 

[ShadyLady]

It's Logic 101 and it's already been laid out for the jury.

No one - most especially Lucky in the high truck with the really good lights - saw O'Keefe on the lawn that night, despite the fact that he would have been fully visible before the snow picked up. "Enough to track a cat" was the extent of the snow fall in the early morning hours, said the CW's own witness.

That's 10 people - not including other vehicle traffic - who should have seen him. The witnesses in the Nagel vehicle all said - John was in car at Cedarcrest. John was not in the car at Fairview when Read's light went on. John was not on the lawn when they drove by.

And we have fully independent Dighton police witness Sargeant Barros who insists the taillight was only very minimally cracked (no doubt from the collision between the two SUVs that morning) before Michael Proctor got his hands on it and magically 47 pieces turned up over the following days and weeks.

Proctor is a proven scummy cop who assured his friends that Brian Albert et al would face no scrutiny for what may have happened at the party. No investigation was done beyond what was done to set up Read.

Ergo, the only logical conclusion can be that Proctor planted the so-called physical evidence to assist his pals and make his job easier.

I think some people don't use:

Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

from wiki

 

[arielilane]

@KristinaRex


Alright, summary of what we learned is next: Dr. Laposata: ~1.5 more hours of testimonyDr. Rentschler is next & last for defense (full day)CW rebuttal case: Teri Kuhn (dog DNA), Maureen Hartnett (Crime Lab), Judson Welcher (Aperture)Then closings & jury instructions #WBZ


4:56 PM · Jun 9, 2025

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932180132929688012

 

[LaineyJ]

Location data is a funny thing. On 2 of my kids' phones I can see their locations to exactly where they are at a location. For example. when they are home, I literally can see that they are in their own rooms. My son and husbands' phones are often WAY off, sometimes showing them blocks away from where I know they are at.

Similar here - my son’s location is usually very precise - we’ve been able to find his lost phone in a Supermarket and soccer field easily - but when my best friend is at work it sometimes shows she’s hundreds of feet away, at McDonald’s. And she is absolutely never at McDonald’s lol

 

[LaineyJ]

A single piece of taillight was missing. Not 46 more pieces. Barros testified to that.

Barros…. Someone who was not at 34F the night of the party, and who as far as we know (?) doesn’t have close ties to the Albert’s, McCabe’s, etc. I think that says plenty.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

In 2 trials, there has been no medical experts from the CW that say JOK’s injuries to his arm are from taillight. Only Trooper Paul and Dr. Welcher (not a medical doctor, BTW).

In 2 trials, there has been zero medical experts or any expert saying JOKs injuries to his arm AREN’T from dog bites.

This trial is a sham, IMO

 

[sunshineray]

Their main objective is disproving the cw charge against KR that she hit JO with the Lexus. Add to that, why call a hostile witness like lying proctor. He was the lead investigator and if he was to be called the cw should have called him.

Isn't he the one who'd been previously targeted as planting evidence? So if not him, who would they be calling about the supposed planting of evidence?

 

[sunshineray]

A single piece of taillight was missing. Not 46 more pieces. Barros testified to that.

You and I heard very different testimony then. Barros conceded that what he saw matched the image the CW showed him under cross, did he not? He also admitted the snow could have obstructed his view, didn't he?

 

[sunshineray]

The physical evidence does not prove that. JMOO

In my opinion it very much does.

 

[HarmonyE.]

You and I heard very different testimony then. Barros conceded that what he saw matched the image the CW showed him under cross, did he not? He also admitted the snow could have obstructed his view, didn't he?

He specifically said it was "slightly" damaged.

If we parse every word of every witness without putting those words into their proper context, we can lose the truth in the weeds. Reminder that the Canton PD also did not find a single piece of bright red taillight when searching the scene at around 8 am with a blower. There was no taillight on the site until Proctor got his hands on the SUV.

 

[sunshineray]

It's Logic 101 and it's already been laid out for the jury.

No one - most especially Lucky in the high truck with the really good lights - saw O'Keefe on the lawn that night, despite the fact that he would have been fully visible before the snow picked up. "Enough to track a cat" was the extent of the snow fall in the early morning hours, said the CW's own witness.

That's 10 people - not including other vehicle traffic - who should have seen him. The witnesses in the Nagel vehicle all said - John was in car at Cedarcrest. John was not in the car at Fairview when Read's light went on. John was not on the lawn when they drove by.

And we have fully independent Dighton police witness Sargeant Barros who insists the taillight was only very minimally cracked (no doubt from the collision between the two SUVs that morning) before Michael Proctor got his hands on it and magically 47 pieces turned up over the following days and weeks.

Proctor is a proven scummy cop who assured his friends that Brian Albert et al would face no scrutiny for what may have happened at the party. No investigation was done beyond what was done to set up Read.

Ergo, the only logical conclusion can be that Proctor planted the so-called physical evidence to assist his pals and make his job easier.

Lucky with the really good lights hit a basketball hoop and totally didn't see a huge dumpster on the front lawn across the street. Not a very good witness. No one else leaving had any need to stop and look around when running/quickly walking to get out of the storm and into their cars. The people that pulled up to pick someone up and then drove by couldn't see past the Lexus to the area JO was found. The dome light was on so it's possible JO was right outside the passenger side, also couldn't be seen by the other car passing. Sgt Barros conceded he didn't under the snow and ID'd a CW image as looking like what he saw. Where's the evidence that Proctor got his hands on the shards and planted them and if that's what they still think, why wouldn't they call him? AJMO