MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #35 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 Thread #34

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

What a ridiculous pseudoscience test to fool the jury!!
Anyone associated with Welcher should be embarrassed!
- no measurements?
- no sound science?
- no review of the x rays?

How infuriating to do shabby work and charge tax dollars so you can fool them!!
Welcher is done!
How inhumane to create shabby evidence to frame a person for murder!!
Drop the charges!
Heads in Norfolk County should roll!

IMO

Yes @AngTxGal …… and IMO it seems the other question is how long Burgess and Welcher’s CV and ‘credentials’ remain on the Aperture LLC website. With, or without a “Not For Expert Designation” watermark plastered across them. And before or after this trial concludes? IMO maybe someone is waiting for the ‘check to clear’. SMH.

And FWIW Welcher’s downloadable CV still has an apparent incorrect spelling for the email. See attached just retrieved from the Aperture LLC website. SMH. MOO

Our Digital Forensic Experts

Powered by our people and our partners, we amplify our effectiveness and our impact. We provide unequalled access to services, geographies, and vast expertise and leave nothing unturned, unanalyzed, or unexplained.

www.aperturellc.com

 

[lohrtabitha]

I don't think even with a NG vote that any meaningful attempt will be made to investigate those involved.

Yes and that's the messed up part. People are going to get away with perjury, planting evidence, covering up a death, and ruining a innocent woman's life. It's truly disheartening. Imo

 

[Forest_Wood]

I also don't believe that anything happened on purpose

Except if they failed to report an accident resulting in death, and then tried to frame an innocent person, that would be on purpose, and I would say that's just as bad if not worse than doing something originally on purpose. Very sick people if they did that.
MOO

 

[lohrtabitha]

RBBM

The Honorable Judge Cannone's behavior is the moral low point in this trial, not a witness's birthday shout out to his kid as claimed by another poster.

True that!!!

 

[geevee]

I just do not understand this whatsoever!!! What the heck? CW gets the last word over the defense? Seems so absolutely backwards.

It is likely because the prosecution has the burden of proof therefore they get one last chance to rebut the defense.

Well mzmarymac will be just gobsmacked when she learns that all evidence in this (and every other trial) is viewed "in the light most favorable" to the CW/state. It seems to be of little use to a defendant to be considered 'innocent until proven guilty' when the scales of justice are already weighted in the accuser's favor.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Two guys with PhDs walk into a bar courtroom. One says the car hit him, the other says no way ... defense lawyer says, "If the car didn't hit, you must acquit". The judge says, "Let's have a sidebar".

 

[DropthePuck]

In his new Lexus!

Holy cow, did they say why?
Welcher took the money and ran?
IMO

Hahahaha he's gone AWOL with the test vehicle and some tins of blue paint.

I heard he shot off into space in his new Lexus with some tins of blue paint.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Just finished watching today's cross by HB. Wowzers!
Dr Rentschler wasn't falling for any of Brennan's gimmicks. An extremely powerful witness.
I wonder what the O'Keefe family is thinking about all of these highly educated and experienced witnesses who have declared John O'Keefe was absolutely not hit by a car. <modsnip - family is off limits>
MOO

 

[cocomod]

There are people that are trying to stop this in Massachusetts in 2022

I just do not understand this whatsoever!!! What the heck? CW gets the last word over the defense? Seems so absolutely backwards.

See an article of someone trying to change that and how prejudice it is to the defendant's right.

In criminal trials, defendants deserve rebuttal | Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly​

Structural issues in the criminal justice system took decades — if not centuries — to create, and no one magical piece of legislation or court decision will dismantle them. Instead, it will take constant chiseling, from a variety of angles. One such angle lies with the courts. Rule 24 of the...

masslawyersweekly.com

One such angle lies with the courts.

Rule 24 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure sets up a process in which prosecutors get the “first and last word” in state criminal trials, presenting the initial opening statement but the second closing argument, with no opportunity for rebuttal from the defense.

Amending Rule 24 to give defendants an opportunity to rebut the prosecution’s closing argument might only marginally reduce the number of convictions that Massachusetts juries hand down. But as Appeals Court Judge Peter J. Rubin noted in his concurrence in the case Commonwealth v. Nova, allowing rebuttal would enhance the confidence of the public — and of individual defendants — in those decisions to convict.

 

[justwannahelp]

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

There’s a room with one piece of furniture — what looks to be a marbled top console table. The she if the table could be a ridge. But that doesn’t explain the textured part of the wound Dr. Laposata talked about.

The weights. The bottom of one of the weight “ things” — i think the bench press thing—has metal feet that are kind of shaped like a trestle base and slightly elevated off the floor. So the metal base of that? But that metal would likely be smooth/not textured like galvanized metal.

Just the bar of of one the weights? (Clearly i don’t know weight lifting lingo nor products) but the round metal bar has a kind of rough gripped surface so sweaty hands don’t slip off

The diving board is a “ridge” with a textured surface.

I’m thinking they wouldn’t have shown that console in the pic if it was the marbled top console. So I’m going with the concrete or brick steps in the garage, the diving board, or weight bar thing.

 

[kae27]

There are people that are trying to stop this in Massachusetts in 2022

See an article of someone trying to change that and how prejudice it is to the defendant's right.

In criminal trials, defendants deserve rebuttal | Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly​

Structural issues in the criminal justice system took decades — if not centuries — to create, and no one magical piece of legislation or court decision will dismantle them. Instead, it will take constant chiseling, from a variety of angles. One such angle lies with the courts. Rule 24 of the...

masslawyersweekly.com

One such angle lies with the courts.

Rule 24 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure sets up a process in which prosecutors get the “first and last word” in state criminal trials, presenting the initial opening statement but the second closing argument, with no opportunity for rebuttal from the defense.

Amending Rule 24 to give defendants an opportunity to rebut the prosecution’s closing argument might only marginally reduce the number of convictions that Massachusetts juries hand down. But as Appeals Court Judge Peter J. Rubin noted in his concurrence in the case Commonwealth v. Nova, allowing rebuttal would enhance the confidence of the public — and of individual defendants — in those decisions to convict.

I'm barred in four states, none of which is MA, but I'd expected this was the procedure everywhere in the US. I realize it seems ridiculous in this particular circumstance, but to me it is not shocking nor alarming.

 

[missy1974]

There’s a room with one piece of furniture — what looks to be a marbled top console table. The she if the table could be a ridge. But that doesn’t explain the textured part of the wound Dr. Laposata talked about.

The weights. The bottom of one of the weight “ things” — i think the bench press thing—has metal feet that are kind of shaped like a trestle base and slightly elevated off the floor. So the metal base of that? But that metal would likely be smooth/not textured like galvanized metal.

Just the bar of of one the weights? (Clearly i don’t know weight lifting lingo nor products) but the round metal bar has a kind of rough gripped surface so sweaty hands don’t slip off

The diving board is a “ridge” with a textured surface.

I’m thinking they wouldn’t have shown that console in the pic if it was the marbled top console. So I’m going with the concrete or brick steps in the garage, the diving board, or weight bar thing.

I'd go with steps in the garage haha

This is from a hearing the other day when the defense PI testified about measurements. They also wanted him to testify about the garage... Judge wouldn't allow it.

 

[Malleeboy]

Two guys with PhDs walk into a bar courtroom. One says the car hit him, the other says no way ... defense lawyer says, "If the car didn't hit, you must acquit". The judge says, "Let's have a sidebar".

Problem for prosecution is in this bah...

Two medical doctors said that they cannot confirm he was hit by a car
Two medical doctors say he wasn't hit by a car.
No doctor said he was hit by a car.

One PhD did ghoulish cosplay with paint, and the lawyer who hired him demanded that it wasn't a test of what happened.
The other PhD actually ran tests which gave results that can be evaluated.

 

[justwannahelp]

Wrong . The " A" in BARD is singular and not plural as it's intended usage.

This!

How can people whether they BELIEVE Karen did it or not think it’s ok to put someone(ANYone, not just Karen) away for for life or the majority of his or her life? they have not PROVEN she did this. PERIOD. We have BARD to protect people who MAY be innocent. We CANNOT put someone away for something we aren’t CERTAIN he or she did. I’d be saying this even if the defendant was a seemingly awful individual, someone with a record of some sort. They would need VIDEO to convince me to charge Guilty BARD.

As much as i think the Albert’s and friends are responsible, if they were on trial and i was a juror, i would have to say not guilty because there’s no hardcore evidence on them EITHER. I don’t think I’d be serving justice if i found them guilty based on the information we have — at this moment. Now, if they’d matched DNA or had ring camera footage of them dragging him out, or pics of blood in the house, then I’d be convinced. But that evidence doesn’t exist because they simply didn’t look for it. It’s terrible!

the fact that there are other POTENTIAL suspects is enough BARD.

We DO. NOT. KNOW.

not directed at you, lorabitha. Just agreeing with you on the BARD allllll over the place.

 

[Hazelnutty]

Hank reminds me of a Chihuahua.

Welcher is a whole entire mess that was turned loose with too much paint.

Verdict Wednesday -- after a nice, long lunch. Not guilty.


jmoho

 

[mrjitty]

the fact that there are other POTENTIAL suspects is enough BARD.

RSBM

The defence did not discharge it's evidential burden to even raise the alternate suspects let alone that they establish a reasonable doubt. The CW does not have to disprove every speculative theory the defence can come up with.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Any idea what happened to the missing piece?

There is no missing piece, if you mean never recovered.

The first 6-7 broken pieces were recovered by SERT team in the 5pm hour on the 29th outside 34F. The defence does not contest that recovery. The crime lab ended up reassembling much of Karen's tail light from the full recovery.

Given the uncontested reconstruction evidence that the defendant did not break the tail light reversing into the victim's Traverse at 1mph, the only conclusion available to the jury is she broke it at 34F at 12.32am which is my original point that started that discussion!

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

On the topic of circumstantial evidence, circular reasoning and the logical fallacy of speculating away the facts one by one.

There is a circumstantial web of facts which has no acceptable answer, and has cascading consequences, which falls out of the debunking of the Traverse incident.

The CW clearly established Karen did not break her tail light in the 1mph reversing incident. The tail light did not even contact John's car. The defence also implicitly conceded that Karen drove at high speed in reverse outside 34F. (They just said it was 20-30 secs later).

These two obvious findings have significant consequences by inference.

First it proves the tail light was broken before the 5am hour and thus by inference at 34F where the first 6 or 7 pieces were recovered same day. The defence does not claim any other time or place the tail light was broken, so the jury cannot speculate some other explanation.

Secondly, Law Enforcement cannot have broken the tail light and planted the first 6-7 pieces as they did not have possession of the vehicle at 12.32, or 5am, or 8am when the damage was documented by 2 videos and witnesses and the defendant's own statement. By the time the Lexus arrives at the Sallport after 5.30pm, the SERT team of 8 people is already well into its search and will find the first pieces - all photographed and documented, under the snow just 10 mins later. Not possible they were planted, and that really disposes of the case.

I understand what the defence is trying to do with the "no collision" argument, but there is an obviously logical fallacy in ARCCA ignoring the digital and physical evidence of the crash - the high speed reverse (uncontested), the tail light debris from the lexus at the scene, the debris on the victim and torn off shoe (replicated in Dr Wolfe's own tests), and rather using an end medical conclusion to try to prove in court the evidence was planted, which is effectively what Dr Rentschler ended up claiming. IMO this is simply circular reasoning. Perhaps if Rentschler were able to run exhaustive testing so he could observe many different set ups and variables I could buy into the idea a bit more. But not on the scant testing conducting.

One of the issues is the injury by tail light is so unusual in the first place, I don't see how MEs can speak conclusively to it, which is why the original ME did not. Especially i don't see how an ME can say 'oh that's animal bites' based on experience, unless they also saw dozens of tail light injuries in their career. How does an ME even know what a tail light injury in this case should look like? This is of course why the original ME is inconclusive on the arm injury, whereas the paid defence experts are all sure it can't be.

It's not 'reasonable doubt' that the CW ME is inconclusive though - that is the point of the broader circumstantial evidence. The ME does not have the option to reverse a tail light into a human arm at 24 mph and see if the tail light breaks and what injuries are suffered. Ironically that is the piece of the picture Dr Wolfe filled in - namely broken tail light, debris in shirt, shoe off, yet no contact to the leg or body.

MOO

 

[Younger Sister]

RSBM

The defence did not discharge it's evidential burden to even raise the alternate suspects let alone that they establish a reasonable doubt. The CW does not have to disprove every speculative theory the defence can come up with.

MOO

Back in March of this year Judge Canone limited a third party culprit defense in this case. This was just one of many limitations this Judge imposed for this trial. There were others IMO (ie)…no pictures of the inside of the house, no testimony from a former FBI agent regarding the shoddy investigation, and not allowing Dr. Laposata to testify about dog bites when she was clearly qualified to do so. Also we will never know what limitations she placed on the defense every time she ordered them to a side bar. JMO