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

[ShadyLady]

What kind of ham? Was it Polish Ham? Brown Sugar ham? Spiced ham? Was it lo-cal or low sodium? What kind of bread was used? Toasted or untoasted? Was it cut in triagles or squares? What kind of condiments were used? Lettuce? Tomato? ONION??? Did you have a side of chips and if so what kind? How did it taste? Did you eat the whole thing there, or get a to-go box?

I am embarrassed for Brennan....obviously no self awareness.

 

[LittleSeaTree]

What kind of ham? Was it Polish Ham? Brown Sugar ham? Spiced ham? Was it lo-cal or low sodium? What kind of bread was used? Toasted or untoasted? Was it cut in triagles or squares? What kind of condiments were used? Lettuce? Tomato? ONION??? Did you have a side of chips and if so what kind? How did it taste? Did you eat the whole thing there, or get a to-go box?

I’m a goner

 

[missy1974]

But we are probably supposed to think that KR, who they say was super drunk, somehow created a plan to purposely hit JOK’s car to cover up the broken tail light from hitting him at 12:30am.

Curious if there’s any ring footage of KR getting home at 12:30 and getting out to inspect her tail light. Or even in that later video when she goes to look for him. I mean, if she used that JOK car hit as a cover, she had to have known her tail light had damage from supposedly hitting JOK at 34F.

But the CW hasn’t shown that….
Because imo nothing they say has happened, actually happened.

jmo

the video of her returning to Johns is "missing" ... the video of her showing Kerri and JMc the tail light early in the morning is also "missing".

 

[LittleSeaTree]

Love that he’s looking at the jurors.

 

[Leilei]

Yep, and rude... and Rentschler just looked at the jury with a 'laugh-like smile" as they go to another sidebar.



View attachment 594294

"Unbothered" in a picture.
Love it.
IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932831345006231792

 

[missy1974]

CV.. Brennan: you can put down whatever you would like?
Dr. R: I suppose so.


Burgess enters the courtroom... bahaha

 

[LittleSeaTree]

Taking that sip of water looking at them, Superhero. IMO

 

[mzmarymac]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932831345006231792

There was no collision.

 

[LaineyJ]

the video of her returning to Johns is "missing" ... the video of her showing Kerri and JMc the tail light early in the morning is also "missing".

Wonder why……

And who had access….

Yup.

 

[louvillian08]

Right - it's a circumstantial case where the broad sweep of evidence is highly incriminating.

It's not seriously denied anymore that Karen drove 24mph in reverse or seriously contended she broke her tail light at 1 meadows.

The defence wants to engage in a form of circular reasoning whereby one can assume the ultimate answer (no collision) and thus sweep aside all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The basis for this is a bunch of people they hired to say it.

Rentschler for me is by far the best defence witness. But he is severely hindered because Wolfe already demonstrated an accident that looks a lot like the one alleged. Is it exactly the same? Or course not - because we can never know all those variables.

IMO

bbm. Hank Brennan himself disputed this during his cross of Wolfe

ETA: apologies, I believe that was actually the cross of DiSogra I was thinking of

 

[missy1974]

xrays... does it show tissue damage, ligament tears, etc. No.

BUT from Dr. L's tesimony yesterday, the extremities were examined internally as well as externally.

 

[Dawookie]

Holy cheese and rice, how many times does he's have to say that was the medical diagnosis

 

[Baba O'Riley]

• KR admitted being angry with John. She’s extremely intoxicated.
  • Digital data (GPS and Apple Health Data) are clear that John did not go inside 34F.
  • John got out of the Lexus
  • The Lexus pulled forward
  • Backup maneuver (53 ft) occurred between 12:32:04 AM and 12:32:12 AM
  • 74% throttle hitting John
  • John's (Apple Health Data) locked at 12:32:09
    • Broken taillight (its possible to break taillight - courtesy of defense team via RR)
    • John’s injuries are consistent with being struck by Lexus, hitting hard ground.
    • She said "I know I said, I hit him.”
    • The Karen clips: self explanatory.
    • At the February 2, 2022, bond hearing attorney DY advised: my client KR had no criminal intent, it was an accident.
    • In addition, KR herself told media: I asked David, what if I clipped him in the knee and he passed out and or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out and David said, ‘Yeah then you have some element of culpability.’ So that's how I thought about things for about three days.
  • And... to avoid culpability she hasn't stopped blaming everybody and anybody. Takes no accountability.

My own opinion as well as court testimony and news articles

I haven't been following the case as closely as many of you, and I did not follow the first trial. A friend from that area told me about the case. The friend thought she was not guilty, so I started following it with that in mind. However, I am leaning toward "guilty" for several of the reasons @arielilane listed above. Especially because KR said : "I hit him." Like @mrjitty said, the experts are being paid to testify, so I largely discount that testimony. I believe it was a drunken accident, and she may have convinced herself she didn't hit him. I also don't believe there was a conspiracy by the friends. I think the friends think/know she hit him, and they wanted to make sure that the authorities knew that. I thought Jen McCabe was believable. I say this even though I am disgusted by the drinking culture in that area.

There is also another question I have. I think early in this trial it was testified that KR tried to call her parents at least three times in the hours after she returned to John's house? Has it been testified as to why a 40ish year old woman would call her elderly parents in the wee hours of the night after returning home very drunk after she dropped her boyfriend off at a friend's house? Was she very troubled about something? Maybe she kept thinking, "Did I hit him? I think I may have hit him! Should I go back to see if I hit him? Let me call daddy, he'll tell me what to do!"? Does anyone know anything else about these calls? Or have an opinion as to why she would make them?

Even though I think she's guilty, I am not very invested in the outcome. Certainly, the last three years have been very punishing for her. I think she will get off, or there will be a hung jury.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Holy cheese and rice, how many times does he's have to say that was the medical diagnosis

Agreed. Talk about wasting the jurors time. Hank is asking all these meaningless questions.

 

[jepop]

I'm putting closed captions on as I can't listen to Brennan's whiny, pesky, voice anymore.

Good option. I'll do the same and tune in. Thanks.

 

[Bethlamb16]

Agreed. Talk about wasting the jurors time. Hank is asking all these meaningless questions.

He should stick to this case and what is going on. He is all over the place and his demeanor and accusatory tone is so unprofessional. This is an expert.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Right - it's a circumstantial case where the broad sweep of evidence is highly incriminating.

It's not seriously denied anymore that Karen drove 24mph in reverse or seriously contended she broke her tail light at 1 meadows.

The defence wants to engage in a form of circular reasoning whereby one can assume the ultimate answer (no collision) and thus sweep aside all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The basis for this is a bunch of people they hired to say it.

Rentschler for me is by far the best defence witness. But he is severely hindered because Wolfe already demonstrated an accident that looks a lot like the one alleged. Is it exactly the same? Or course not - because we can never know all those variables.

IMO

BBM - huh? That’s not circular reasoning. It’s basic logic. If there’s no physical evidence of a collision, and multiple medical experts refused to call John’s death a vehicle strike, then it’s entirely reasonable to question whether a collision ever occurred. Circumstantial evidence only matters if it meaningfully supports a theory. If there’s psychical evidence that contradicts that theory, it’s not circular reasoning to rely on physical evidence. It’s just weighing the stronger evidence, IMO.

Edit: spellcheck

 

[Wishbone]

Why are suppositions being posted as facts and worse than that, why are some believing this false information. What has become of EVIDENCE AND BARD? MO

 

[geevee]

HB he said he does not remember!! MOVE ON. Where is the Judge???

I can't believe we don't have a plethora of 'asked and answered' objections!