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

[nightowl1975]

And i relooked at his head wound and it’s pretty deep if you look very closely. It doesn’t like like the skin split from falling backwards. It DOES look like he hit a “ridge”. I’ve been thinking maybe the edge of a wooden table but now i want to know WHAT is in that garage?

My top guess would be the edge of the steps leading into the house if it did indeed occur in the garage.

 

[Morag]

My top guess would be the edge of the steps leading into the house if it did indeed occur in the garage.

I wonder if the steps from the basement to the cellar door are brick? Would not be uncommon in New England.

 

[Derph]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932756820000452745

 

[lohrtabitha]

RSBM

I was a bit shocked that Dr Wolfe apparently didn't do any work on the Lexus/Traverse incident. The defence has to have that!

IMO

I disagree. All the defense has to have is ONE beyond a reasonable doubt event. They have established many. The law is the law is the law. Imo

 

[lohrtabitha]

A few years ago, I caught myself falling victim to confirmation bias in the aftermath of the Idaho college student murders. Before the suspect was identified, I became convinced without evidence that the survivors were somehow involved. I wanted to believe it, so I did. My theory was wrong; the real perpetrator turned out to be a stranger.

That experience forced me to reflect on how I’d reached such a flawed conclusion. I realized I’d selectively focused on details that supported my preconceived narrative while dismissing anything that contradicted it.

This made me think of the Karen Read trial and the groupthink surrounding her guilt. Recently, I spoke with someone who insists Karen is guilty, despite the lack of concrete evidence. What stood out was how much her belief seemed rooted in personal dislike as she repeatedly cited Karen’s demeanor in court, her past DUI, and media portrayals as reasons to distrust her. She interpreted her behavior (arrogance, emotional detachment, or combativeness) as proof of guilt, ignoring how trauma and stress can distort a person’s reactions.

There’s also an element of moral licensing at play because Karen has flaws (her DUI, relationship issues, etc.), some people feel justified in assuming the worst. It’s easier to condemn someone who’s already been framed as "unlikable."

Beyond that, this case exposes a deeper bias the just world fallacy where people assume misfortunes only happen to those who "deserve" them. If John O’Keefe died violently, some reason, someone must be to blame otherwise, the world feels too chaotic and unjust.

In many ways, the Karen Read case acts like a Rorschach test. People see what they want to see, projecting their own biases onto the facts (or lack thereof). My experience with the Idaho case taught me how dangerous that mindset can be. Confirmation bias doesn’t just lead to wrong conclusions. it can distort justice itself. IMO

Wow! Incredibly well said!

 

[lohrtabitha]

Judge Cannone initially appeared to be fine with Karen Read's request to hire Bederow (Pro hac vice under local attorney Yanetti) until Hank Brennan filed a motion opposing Bederow, and the Judge ruled in CW's favor. Just another typical move here to deprive KR of a fair trial. MOO

Hank couldn't handle another Spank! Imo

 

[rescuemom]

Boy it is tough to watch this judge NOT let the defense present their case. A commentator made the point that it is getting serious in that the jury will want to blame someone for the delays, excessive sidebars and the feeling in general that they are not getting the full story. Who do they blame? The judge? The CW? or possibly the Defense? It is now a real concern. Judge Bev huffs and puffs and stops court again early today and says the are "winding down" with implication that defense is taking too long. I thought it was certain there would be rebuttal and defense still has more witnesses? How can the jury have the case by Friday?

For sure this judge wants this over. She is rushing this defense but I still think they are getting their case in. If the jury takes their resposibility seriously, they should be able to see the differnce in her attitude towards the CW vs Defense. They're not stupid. They also live in the area. If the suspicion that the LE or MM or Governor, etc. is corrupt or shady, then they've heard that and now perhaps are seeing it first hand.

They have to wonder if this is normal for a judge, for a prosecutor and for the decorum in a courtroom. I know this jury is different/younger from T1. Because they show their reactions and even laugh at times, I hope they are serious and have the maturity needed.

Yes, do they wonder if they are getting the full story? No, they are not, but it seems both sides are focusing on just the science to prove or disprove if KR hit JOK with her car. That simple. If so, then the defense has this won.

 

[rescuemom]

unfair but I think it can impact their deliberations. This is a long trial with many witnesses ...many long ago. Not going to be easy to review all of the evidence. I don't think this will be super fast unless they are all 100% on board from the start.

Like alot of jurors and it has been proved in some cases, they have their mind made up long before deliberations

 

[waldojabba]

One possibility is the defense doesn’t have unlimited taxpayer money to work with here. The defense paid ARCCA $50K for the work done, plus they’ll be on the hook for travel & lodging expenses yet again. If they set out to have ARCCA prove even more, that’s going to cost even more.

If I think about it
-They have Barrios - the Dighton Police officer who indicated the actual condition the tail light was in before it got to the sallyport.
- They have multiple credible people who are all credentialed saying Johns injuries are not a result of being hit by a car

If I am the D - Why get all tangled up in the weeds about key cycles and how fast the car backed up when no one can even say he was hit by a car ....except Welcher.

And Welcher, who I found not credible, cannot even tell you where John was /where the car was/how fast the car was going when it hit him /Just that he decided John was hit. The 400k did not buy the P what they needed
Lets see what Welcher says in round 2

JMO

JMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

For those who've ever sat on a jury before ... do jurors have to give each other their reasons for the way they vote? Can they simply say, I'm voting G or NG but not have to explain why? Do they discuss every piece of evidence and then vote? Do they vote first before discussing anything to see where they land? When they vote, do they have to tell which way they voted, or is it anonymous voting? Can anyone explain how the process works behind the scenes in a jury room? I'm very curious how the process works behinds closed doors.

 

[rescuemom]

Question: Can Karen speak at the sidebars? Also what is story with a juror asking baliff what "strike" means? He then went to judge. "Strike that" seems pretty obvious.

IMO, makes me wonder if the jury can follow this. Judge is trying to help Hank by picking and choosing what to present to the jury. They know they are being spoon fed. This is not a fair trial

 

[rescuemom]

Apologies if this is a stupid question, as I have not been watching the trial but have followed all your comments (thank you all for keeping those of us who are just reading updated).

My question is: How is it that we are suddenly talking/hearing about the judge and jury's potential (or certain) frustration with the delays and the trial "dragging out," when I can distinctly recall reading more than once very recently that the trial was ahead of schedule, and hence a shortened or off day was declared?

MOO

All to make the judge comfortable and for the CW to get their act together. Both are spinning out of control.

 

[lohrtabitha]

For those who've ever sat on a jury before ... do jurors have to give each other their reasons for the way they vote? Can they simply say, I'm voting G or NG but not have to explain why? Do they discuss every piece of evidence and then vote? Do they vote first before discussing anything to see where they land? When they vote, do they have to tell which way they voted, or is it anonymous voting? Can anyone explain how the process works behind the scenes in a jury room? I'm very curious how the process works behinds closed doors.

I have served twice. 1st time we wrote are votes on pieces of paper and after they were read, we ( the ones who weren't scared of speaking our minds) discussed more. Some jurrors didn't say anything. The 2nd time we voted we announced our vote and then discussed. Once again some jurrors didn't say anything and 2 were mad because they wanted to get to a baseball game. That was irritating to me.

 

[missy1974]

She was great! The wishkenewsy spots
(i misspelled) commonly found in stomach lining of hypothermic patients was a great new info to “chew on”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X13003168

96% hypothermic patients at death have. Very good to know!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X13003168

And i relooked at his head wound and it’s pretty deep if you look very closely. It doesn’t like like the skin split from falling backwards. It DOES look like he hit a “ridge”. I’ve been thinking maybe the edge of a wooden table but now i want to know WHAT is in that garage?

A cement step.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/34-Fairview-Rd_Canton_MA_02021_M39682-88235

Dropping the house pics from 34 Fairview when it was on sale, that Dr L started to talk about yesterday until the panic alarm set in with Hank and Bev. They don't want us /the jurors to see the inside of the house....
So lets take another look... anything to make that head wound inside?
(Sorry if these have been posted I am not yet caught up )
IMO

 

[Slebby]

Harping on some more about this dang business with the hoodie, the defence could have objected at once for lack of foundation, forcing Brennan to set it out & then kneecapping him when it turned out there was none and this would all have been seen by the jury!

My opinion on this - yes, the defense should know about what holes are in the hoodie and why. I think this line of questioning by the prosecution took the defense by surprise. Their first instinct was not to suspect that the prosecution was pulling a fast one. Instead, they may have wondered, “wait a minute! Did we miss something?” But not wanting to ask about it in the moment in case they had missed something, which could backfire on them, make them look bad. You know, the old “don’t ask a question if you’re not sure of the answer?”
IMO

 

[missy1974]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932756820000452745

in case someone can't or doesn't want to click on that, Bederow says...

There are 4, not 2, possibilities about Whelcher and the curious case of the right arm x rays that Whelcher claims do not exist but in have do exist and have been in the prosecution’s possession, custody and control since mis 2022:

(1) Brennan concealed this exculpatory evidence by removing it from the x-rays and failing to provide them to Whelcher, which would be another intentional manipulation of the evidence by the prosecution.

(2) Whelcher reviewed the x rays and lied about it, in which case Brennan, Lally and McLaughlin were obligated under Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Massachusetts rules of professional conduct to notify the court and defense of a material misrepresentation by their witness. This seems unlikely.

(3) Whelcher was incompetent/careless and simply missed the x-rays, in which case the prosecution’s 3.3(a)(1) obligation to correct the record also arose, and

(4) like he claimed in the hoodie fiasco, Brennan was unfamiliar with his own key evidence and “mistakenly” didn’t provide all of the x-rays to Whelcher, which is the least likely scenario.

In all situations, Whelcher’s testimony and prior opinion on a critical issue is substantially undermined. In situations 1, 2 and 3, the prosecution engaged in egregious misconduct and should be sanctioned.

 

[ShadyLady]

Yeah, last year Jen searched 'hos long...', even though John wasn't dying in the cold, and now John jumps out of the Lexus at the driveway while it's still travelling at 15 mph, not recording any steps, so he must have flown into that garage. And then his phone magically stops moving and lands in the snow by the flagpole, where he will end up on top of it, the same few seconds Karen is reversing up dangerously just down the street where she took a wrong turn. And she didn't break her taillight at Meadows, but she shows Kerry and Jen it's broken, so wherever she broke it Proctor must have discovered it and put the pieces in his pocket to plant at Fairview, before he got there, to frame Karen, while Karen was conveniently saying she hit him. And even now says she expected to find him there.

And Karen is coincidentally mad with John, and tells the paramedics her last conversation with him was an argument. Couldn't happen right, because they were on video only a few hours earlier all lovey dovey. What a crock. MOO

Lexus STOPPED at the driveway, John jumped out, Ryan gets there does not see John as there were cars in the driveway blocking the view. THEN as Ryan gets there Karen pulls up a car length to wait. John is already in the house. Whatever happened goes down quickly. John does not recover and a decision is made to put him outside if he does not wakeup. Cleanup begins with bleach. Music gets turned up. People start leaving. Jen gets home and does the google search at 2:30ish knowing that there is a plan. Butt dials between BA and BH plan goes forward. 3:30ish John's body gets put by the road. Jen does not sleep much, and as soon as Karen calls her, Jen calls Julie and Nicole....gets them ready for what is coming. Karen feeling guilty that she was mad at John wonders if she could have done anything. Jen gets an idea, it was not the snow removal people....let's blame it on Karen!

Karen, Jen and Keri get to 34th Jen avoids the Albert's home. But, has a lot to say to LE. Wonder what all she was saying. She never said, "hey my brother-in-law is a cop and first responder and he lives right here!!"

Of course just an opinion.

 

[pcrum12]

And, Immediately, Sidebah

 

[rescuemom]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932756820000452745

Wanna bet that if Welcher is questioned about the Xrays, he will throw Hank under the bus. Welcher was paid, he's done with this. He has his own reputation and futrue to worry about.