MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #34 Retrial

[Bishop Black]

Professor Was Accused of Hitting Cop Boyfriend with Car, Leaving Him to Die. Does New Evidence Exonerate Her?

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

people.com

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the January 2022 death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe outside a Canton, Mass., home.

She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Leading up to his death, the couple of two years reportedly spent the night drinking and bar hopping with friends before Read, 43, dropped O'Keefe, 46, off at the home of a fellow off-duty police officer for an after-party, PEOPLE previously reported.

Prosecutors say as O'Keefe exited the vehicle, Read allegedly proceeded to make a three-point turn during a winter storm, striking her boyfriend in the process before driving off.

After O'Keefe failed to return home hours later, Read allegedly went looking for him, before finding his body in a snowbank outside the home where she allegedly left him.

MEDIA, MAPS, TIMELINE THREAD *NO DISCUSSION*

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33

 

[missy1974]

The way that Hank Brennan held up that transparent board with JOKs hoodie, and pretty much covered it so the jury couldn't see it, then put it right back within a few seconds, showed me everything there was to know about his motives and his dishonesty. The way he presented that was so ... devious and conniving. There's no other way to see it. The jury would have been shaking their heads too. Brennan is a huge disappointment for his lack of character or integrity IMO.

That was no mistake IMO

This is how he showed Dr. Wolfe, not even close to allowing the jurors to see, if this was Brennan's"mic drop" moment with Dr. Wolfe, why not display it to the jury?

Link cued up to when it was in testimony.

 

[Lost mittens]

Interesting @kuromiiiilove ….. and IANAL.

Maybe these matters will also come up in the event an appeal becomes necessary? IMO certain conduct has assuredly been on display in this trial.

And if not, perhaps as a matter of course they will be referred for investigation to the correct MA legal entities and jurisdictions once this trial concludes. After watching several other recent trials or murder cases and following them here in these threads (I.e. Alex Murdaugh, Judge Clifton Newman presiding; Michelle Troconis, Judge Kevin Randolph presiding; Ashley Benefield, Judge Stephen Matthew Whyte presiding), I have been aghast at some of the conduct displayed by the judge and prosecution in this trial. And that also extends to the first trial resulting in a mistrial. MOO

I loved Judge Kevin Randolph and often think of how this trial would be different if he were presiding over it!

 

[Angelwatch]

The prosecutor in the Jodi Arias trial ended up disbarred for misconduct. I can only hope that Brennan is eventually held accountable since he won’t be from Cannone. IMO

 

[anglolawyer]

IMO Brennan’s misuse of the hoodie was likely inadvertent. It would be utterly crass to expect to get away with it if he knew how the holes were made. He could not hope to fool the defence. It would (maybe will) be regarded as serious professional misconduct.

OTOH it’s remarkable the defence did not object DURING the cross. Don’t they know by now where & to what extent the hoodie was damaged? It should be seared into their brains! Why weren’t they instantly on their feet?

Finally, the judge made far too little of it & her perfunctory & non self-explanatory instruction to the jury will have occasioned confusion to them & relief to Brennan.

 

[ShadyLady]

The prosecutor in the Jodi Arias trial ended up disbarred for misconduct. I can only hope that Brennan is eventually held accountable since he won’t be from Cannone. IMO

And judge will be looked at.
Can judges be disbarred?

 

[mrjitty]

IMO Brennan’s misuse of the hoodie was likely inadvertent. It would be utterly crass to expect to get away with it if he knew how the holes were made. He could not hope to fool the defence. It would (maybe will) be regarded as serious professional misconduct.

Agreed. This ought to be obvious and you'd expect trial pundits to reflect that but sadly the thirst for internet drama is what it is these days.

OTOH it’s remarkable the defence did not object DURING the cross. Don’t they know by now where & to what extent the hoodie was damaged? It should be seared into their brains! Why weren’t they instantly on their feet?

Agreed. This is why I argue that their preference is for grandstanding to the cameras, than effective representation. They could and should have objected immediately. I assume the reason they didn't is because AJ is too light on the detail. One suspects it was Little or Yannetti who twigged, (perhaps also they had to check it).

Finally, the judge made far too little of it & her perfunctory & non self-explanatory instruction to the jury will have occasioned confusion to them & relief to Brennan.

Which is why the defence ought to have sought to stipulate a better instruction as opposed to seeking a dismissal!

IMO/MOO

 

[anglolawyer]

Agreed. This ought to be obvious and you'd expect trial pundits to reflect that but sadly the thirst for internet drama is what it is these days.


Agreed. This is why I argue that their preference is for grandstanding to the cameras, than effective representation. They could and should have objected immediately. I assume the reason they didn't is because AJ is too light on the detail. One suspects it was Little or Yannetti who twigged, (perhaps also they had to check it).



Which is why the defence ought to have sought to stipulate a better instruction as opposed to seeking a dismissal!

IMO/MOO

On your 2nd point, Brennan pipes up with objections as a reflex, with the judge’s support usually. The defence, had it been awake, should have done likewise, expecting no sympathy but chalking up another point for a possible future appeal.

And on your third, the defence annoyed the judge by conducting an internal discussion while she was suggesting a draft jury instruction. She took offence & settled something anodyne in a huff. She is biased against the defence IMO but (hopefully) not so much as to nobble the jury. Badly played by the defence & deftly brushed off by Brennan.

 

[mrjitty]

On your 2nd point, Brennan pipes up with objections as a reflex, with the judge’s support usually. The defence, had it been awake, should have done likewise, expecting no sympathy but chalking up another point for a possible future appeal.

Yes. Definitely would have been better immediate! Contrary to popular opinion, the Judge is actually pretty focussed on protecting this trial from appealable issues, and where they arise, she gets them on the record. Curative instruction protects this proceeding IMO.

And on your third, the defence annoyed the judge by conducting an internal discussion while she was suggesting a draft jury instruction. She took offence & settled something anodyne in a huff. She is biased against the defence IMO but (hopefully) not so much as to nobble the jury. Badly played by the defence & deftly brushed off by Brennan.

<modsnip - no link>

As to her annoyance or otherwise i do tend to agree she carries a high degree of scepticism which is a cost you bring on yourself when you play as close to the line as AJ has done.

This will be a controversial view, but I personally wonder if the defendant's decision to proceed with AJ as counsel and not jettison him pre-trial will come to be seen as a mistake.

For the life of me I cannot understand the sidelining of Yannetti, who is local, and is a better attorney for a murder case than Alessi for example.

MOO

 

[Malleeboy]

In regards to the hoody issue, surely Lally was aware of the fact, I wonder why he didn't highlight to Brennan? This was the big gotcha moment at the end of probably the second or maybe first most important defence witness, surely it was discussed?

Lally is probably the one lawyer who wins no matter what happens, prosecution wins he is on the winning side, defence wins he can say the big shot lawyer couldn't win it.

 

[mrjitty]

Interesting but not surprising Green has been ditched from the defence expert lineup.

 

[Malleeboy]

I was thinking KR's Lexus 570 2021 and I was thinking it would have side lights when the door was open/ed. The Nagle's sitting behind would surely see a door being open or being opened.
When Julie Nagle walked out to the car she certainly would seen an open door.
It isn't that large but on a dark night it would be noticeable,

 

[jepop]

In regards to the hoody issue, surely Lally was aware of the fact, I wonder why he didn't highlight to Brennan? This was the big gotcha moment at the end of probably the second or maybe first most important defence witness, surely it was discussed?

Lally is probably the one lawyer who wins no matter what happens, prosecution wins he is on the winning side, defence wins he can say the big shot lawyer couldn't win it.

Moo he was aware. There would be ample evidence to show that as more likely than not. Harnett is Brennan's own witness and she had already testified, FG'sS. Lally must have known too and he sat there and did nothing. This was either an intentional mislead hoping to get away with it, or reckless disregard ( the term used by legal commentators such as Bederow and Peter Tragos who absolutely know what they are talking about). Either of those merits severe sanctions which we are not seeing to date.

People on sm putting their heads in the sand for reasons (confirmation bias, blindness, disingenuity, inanity?) can try and spin it as an 'unfortunate mistake' all they like, but that is a gross misrepresentation Imo and in the opinion of the appropriately learned US legal community as far as I can tell, though ultimately of course this is JMO.

 

[Warwick7]

Interesting but not surprising Green has been ditched from the defence expert lineup.

My guess? It's because Judge Cannone can't be trusted.

 

[Warwick7]

"Many people believe the case against Karen Read is flawed and rigged. Many people believe she cannot get a fair trial and have little confidence in the Norfolk County DA and the criminal justice system as a whole. Days like today further these beliefs. What a horrible display in front of a national and international audience."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932164941420613725

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932225777325560005

 

[jepop]

Interesting but not surprising Green has been ditched from the defence expert lineup.

Not relevant. Imo attaching negative insinuations to the defense's exercise of flexible judgement over calling listed potential witnesses is what is interesting. The CW has also foregone calling a number of witnesses for strategic purposes. Afaia this is standard depending on how a trial unfolds. Jmo

The defense no longer needs Green. The salient points of contention in this case lie elsewhere. In their case in chief, the cw failed to show a collision happened. Not even close to BARD. Alternately, despite Brennan's best efforts which include blatant ethical violations Imo, the defense line up is currently and systematically doing the CW's job in reverse and demonstrating BARD that JOK was not hit by a vehicle. Jmo

 

[Tortoise]

Interesting but not surprising Green has been ditched from the defence expert lineup.

Need to have a missing witness jury instruction I reckon.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes. Definitely would have been better immediate! Contrary to popular opinion, the Judge is actually pretty focussed on protecting this trial from appealable issues, and where they arise, she gets them on the record. Curative instruction protects this proceeding IMO.



<modnip - no link>

As to her annoyance or otherwise i do tend to agree she carries a high degree of scepticism which is a cost you bring on yourself when you play as close to the line as AJ has done.

This will be a controversial view, but I personally wonder if the defendant's decision to proceed with AJ as counsel and not jettison him pre-trial will come to be seen as a mistake.

For the life of me I cannot understand the sidelining of Yannetti, who is local, and is a better attorney for a murder case than Alessi for example.

MOO

Interesting points about the judge. Maybe I’ve been drinking too much defence KoolAde. I’ll keep an open mind. I still think she was too soft on Brennan. Wittingly or not, he damaged an important defence witness (who dealt with it well but likewise didn’t question the holes) & her softball instruction to the jury was less than the defence might reasonably have expected to repair it.

 

[mrjitty]

Need to have a missing witness jury instruction I reckon.

It is an interesting admission that the foundational plank to the Jen conspiracy has collapsed. I actually don't know why Judge Cannone allowed the "Hos long" search to be discussed at this trial at all. It should have been removed via motion in limine pre-trial as it's 100% clear and testified to by Cellebrite, that no such search took place at 2.27am

Now the jury has heard confusing stuff from AJ in opening, and debunked by Ian Whiffin, that the defence cannot stand up. No doubt AJ will continue to claim it in closing.

MOO