VERDICT WATCH 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

[Maat99]

Why this is true for some, why didnt Brian Albert and his wife come out to help? I will answer that; because they knew John Okeefe was dead and nothing could be done. Imo

And also because they didn’t want to get caught on record saying something that would later be found to be untrue or incriminating. Better to stay out of it and keep your mouth shut.

 

[nightowl1975]

RSBM

No.1 is a Bowden defence. This was already agreed by Judge Cannone at the hearing on June 12th.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933171343341883719

No.2 is a missing witness jury instruction. This motion was withdrawn by the defence at the hearing on June 12th.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933167896168997362

No.3 was not in the instructions read to the jury by Judge Cannone yesterday, so one can presume it was denied.

IMO

It appears to me the defense opted to include these topics in their closing vs asking the judge to include instructions to the jury about missing witnesses, poor investigation, and calling Hank out on the sweatshirt holes. They could’ve decided they would be able to present it much more impactfully in closing vs whatever lame wording the judge would come up with. IMO

 

[Pipersand]

Not a MA lawyer, but I think MA may have strict liability for dog bites. If death results, the owner can face a wrongful death lawsuit (which could include damages for JOK's future income loss and loss of companionship, etc.). Not all insurance policies will provide liability coverage particularly if there has been a prior claim respecting a dog bite. But ... even if there is liability coverage under the homeowner's policy, it may not be sufficient to indemnify the homeowner as some wrongful death lawsuits can be significant. Not suggesting this is a factor here, just thinking out loud.

 

[mzmarymac]

I don't care how drunk someone is. If your dog accidentally hurts someone, you don't then turn it into a murder because you've been drinking. Do you know of any other cases where this scenario has happened? (and the Alberts ended up getting rid of Chloe anyway so it wasn't for love of the dog or fear she'd be put down for killing someone)

These people know well the difference between civil and criminal penalties. Drunkeness wouldn't have resulted in them losing that understanding.

Please take a look at the history of some of these people. They don't fear consequences in the way normal people do. They drive drunk. Show up at the police station, drunk, in the middle of the night. They destroy phones and sim cards. Their family has killed people in DUIs. They lie. There are many reports of BA being an abusive cop and so above the law even the chief feared him. Drunk with alcohol + drunk with power = a lethal combination. JMO

 

[jepop]

It appears to me the defense opted to include these topics in their closing vs asking the judge to include instructions to the jury about missing witnesses, poor investigation, and calling Hank out on the sweatshirt holes. They could’ve decided they would be able to present it much more impactfully in closing vs whatever lame wording the judge would come up with. IMO

I agree this is the way it happened and is what they were all discussing at side baaaah in the am which delayed the schedule. Jmo

 

[mzmarymac]

Not a MA lawyer, but I think MA may have strict liability for dog bites. If death results, the owner can face a wrongful death lawsuit (which could include damages for JOK's future income loss and loss of companionship, etc.). Not all insurance policies will provide liability coverage particularly if there has been a prior claim respecting a dog bite. But ... even if there is liability coverage under the homeowner's policy, it may not be sufficient to indemnify the homeowner as some wrongful death lawsuits can be significant. Not suggesting this is a factor here, just thinking out loud.

I don't think it was an accident caused by Chloe alone. I think there was some sort of altercation, Chloe jumped in, and the reason why they covered it up was to escape their own culpability.

 

[lohrtabitha]

The only thing that makes me think they are protecting Higgins is they never expected Karen to fight back. They assumed she would get arrested, plead to a lesser charge and it would all be over.

I used ti thinj it was Higgind but I don't now. I don't think he was a good enough friend for BA to protect. I think it was family, and blood protects blood. Mo

 

[Forest_Wood]

When I was a teenager, I drove home drunk from a party. I woke up the next morning in bed and when I got up, my parents told me a couple had found me asleep in my car with the engine running in a bank parking lot. They got me home and even drove my car home for me, walked me up to the door and I was put in bed. I apparently was talking and thanked them and everything. I remembered NOTHING!! (Never did that again!) But as the morning went on and I started to "come to" I did have some flashback type memories pop in and out. I never remember everything, but I was able to put together bits and pieces.

What you describe here is called a blackout. Some people confuse passing out with blacking out. A blackout is when a person has so much poison (toxins) from alcohol in their bloodstream that their brain and memory is so affected that those memory cells can never be retrieved again. They are gone forever because they were never stored in our brains. People can walk, talk and drive like normal but internally, their physiology has been affected by the alcohol.
That's why when a person is detoxifying, we call it a hangover with all of its symptoms of headache, sore muscles, shaking hand tremors, memory lapses, extreme fatigue, dry mouth, thirst, and so on because the toxin is working its way out of the system.
People might remember bits and pieces of memories, little glimpses of events, but often won't remember big gaps of time.
This is what I believe happened to Karen Read that night. She thought she had left John at the Waterfall but in fact had driven him safely to Fairview, where he at some point got out of the car, and she eventually drove back to Meadows without him. I believe she remembers very little after leaving the Waterfall, due to alcohol and also due to trauma.
Whatever took place we will never know because of a poor investigation.
But we do know he was not hit by her car according to reliable testimony.
MOO

 

[AngTxGal]

How and why did he then end up near the flagpole?

Great question, I’m not sure he ever made it into the house and there are many steps outside that home. The possibilities are many when you are actually looking for explanations for what happeend that fit with the evidence.

The defense team just came up with one-

He could have hit his head on any one of the multiple steps outside, I suppose but I don’t know how far a person with such an injury could stagger before falling down.

IMO

 

[Leilei]

Agree, but there will be more to come even if she is found Not Guilty, especially if she is found guilty of DUI.
She will have avoided the worst of it, but it won’t be over.
I expect the O’Keefe family will file a wrongful death suit and all of her actions that night, the morning of, the voicemails, the evidence from this trial, maybe even texts with BH, and her interviews will not serve her well.
The drama will continue

IMO

The family filed one last August.

John O’Keefe’s family files wrongful death lawsuit against Karen Read, two Canton bars

John O’Keefe’s family files wrongful death lawsuit against Karen Read, two Canton bars

www.bostonherald.com

 

[Forest_Wood]

I don't care how drunk someone is. If your dog accidentally hurts someone, you don't then turn it into a murder because you've been drinking. Do you know of any other cases where this scenario has happened? (and the Alberts ended up getting rid of Chloe anyway so it wasn't for love of the dog or fear she'd be put down for killing someone)

These people know well the difference between civil and criminal penalties. Drunkeness wouldn't have resulted in them losing that understanding.

If they are dog bites as testified to, how might you explain how those happened in your mind?

 

[Forest_Wood]

Agree, but there will be more to come even if she is found Not Guilty, especially if she is found guilty of DUI.
She will have avoided the worst of it, but it won’t be over.
I expect the O’Keefe family will file a wrongful death suit and all of her actions that night, the morning of, the voicemails, the evidence from this trial, maybe even texts with BH, and her interviews will not serve her well.
The drama will continue

IMO

I totally agree with this! A NG saves her from a physical prison but not an emotional prison and not from civil lawsuits and even angrier family members and former cops.
MOO

 

[AngTxGal]

Let's discuss the effects of alcohol for a moment. My husband is a functional alcoholic. Sad to say, but it is what it is and it won't change, as he's 63 years old. I have also been known to abuse alcohol as well, but am not a hugely frequent drinker. (Not bradding realy...lol) Happily, we are well past the years of making the kinds of dumbass decisions that so many of these folks did that night/morning, but I do have a bit of insight into the effects of alcohol on memory and rationality.

When I was a teenager, I drove home drunk from a party. I woke up the next morning in bed and when I got up, my parents told me a couple had found me asleep in my car with the engine running in a bank parking lot. They got me home and even drove my car home for me, walked me up to the door and I was put in bed. I apparently was talking and thanked them and everything. I remembered NOTHING!! (Never did that again!) But as the morning went on and I started to "come to" I did have some flashback type memories pop in and out. I never remember everything, but I was able to put together bits and pieces.

Drunk people make dumb decisions. They say and do stupid things. Look at drunk drivers being pulled over by police. They often make things worse by acting crazy and getting physical with police. Same goes for arguments fueled by alcohol. I have seen my husband and his brothers go to blows after a night of drinking and fun. We even had a couple of fights after our wedding. (Hey-we're Irish ok?)

Anyway, my point is that you cannot apply rational theories to the behaviors of irrational drunk people. Karen, John, all the McAlberts & Higgins - all LOADED! Nobody was thinking clearly that night.

I agree drunk people do stupid things, I’ve been there, a friend of mine drove through the wall of a Jack In Th Box when she was drinking in college. Another drove through a fence at Sonic because she went forward instead of backing up out of her space. Another drove through a fence into a plowed field when she missed a curve. Drinking and driving do not mix. Yet it appears many of these cops drove drunk- or compromised and their wives were right there with them?
And I agree that maybe a bunch of testosterone fueled cops go to blows more than the rest of the population when alcohol is involved- except the Irish (lol). Guys can get out of hand and brothers can come to blows, or over a woman… I can see that.
But if this was a cover up with a lot of liars and planted evidence- there are women involved here- and also teenagers, and higher ups and a DA, ADA
It is a lot of people acting irrational to coverup mistakes of a handful of drunk cops?

It seems there would have been an adult in the room somewhere.

IMO

 

[AngTxGal]

If they are dog bites as testified to, how might you explain how those happened in your mind?

I don’t think she is contesting if they are dog bites
She is saying if your dog bites someone- it is a stretch to say you coverup a murder.

IMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

He could have hit his head on any one of the multiple steps outside, I suppose but I don’t know how far a person with such an injury could stagger before falling down.

Did you watch the testimony of Dr L?
She specifically stated the head wound did no happen in the yard because there was nothing there that would cause the design of his wound. She was cut off when she brought up going into the garage.

 

[less0305]

Thank you for sharing your reasoning and theory. I really do appreciate you answering. I’m very interested in how/why people can look at the same evidence and come away with wildly different opinions on what happened. It’s quite fascinating to me, actually.

Imo, I live in Massachusetts and it’s been well known that the DA in Norfolk County is corrupt and under FbI investigation. So that definitely made me a bit more suspicious about the CW and their witnesses in this trial. I had ignored most media about the case because I had heard that they had video of her hitting him, so I figured case over. My Mom and one of my sisters watched T1 and would routinely send texts about how crazy it had been getting so, of course, I tuned in. I would say I wasn’t convinced one way or the other until I watched Dr. Wolfe and Dr. R from ARCCA. Like you, I felt the potential collusion/conspiracy between all of those people seemed far-fetched, if not right out of a crazy crime novel. ARCCA’s evidence and impartiality really got me thinking, so I dug in a little more and eventually changed my mind to not guilty.

I thought the defense did a great job. Most of their experts had stellar backgrounds and were able to explain the evidence in a way I could easily understand. I believe Dr. Scordi-Bello when she said John’s body showed no signs of a vehicle strike. I also believed Dr. Russell and Dr, Laposada when they, too, testified about the lack of injuries typically seen in a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Dr. Russell and Dr. Laposada are both highly educated with extensive experience in their fields,

As far as the prosecution, I was bothered by the fact they were unable to prove to me that OJO was ever hit by a vehicle. The only noticeable damage to the back of her Lexus was the smashed tail light. ARCCA proved, through testing, that her tail light did not cause any injuries to OJO. The injuries to his body were inconsistent with the damage to Rescue Randy. The damage to the rear of Karen’s vehicle was insignificant in comparison to the exemplar Lexus. I thought Sgt. Barros’ testimony was the icing on the cake. The tail light damage he saw on the afternoon of 1/29/2022 at the Reads’ home did not match up with the taillight photos he saw after the police towed the vehicle. In addition the video evidence showed me the tail light was mostly intact when it was taken to the Canton salley port. The pictures taken while in police custody show the tail light smashed out. If Karen didn’t smash out her tail light it means someone else did. If I believe my own eyes then that means that someone, almost certainly a LEO, smashed out that tail light and brought it to 34Fairview. It may seem crazy to you, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Moo.

What do you think about the prosecution hiring aperture for 400k and ARCCA was only 50k? That 400k seems strangely high to me.

$400k was very high. I go back and forth on expert testimony because for every defense expert, there's a prosecution expert. I don't live in Massachusetts, so I know nothing about the political environment or corruption. I just continue to come back to one basic train of thought - what is that saying? - something about Oxsam's Razor - the usual most simple explanation is closest to the truth, and I don't think a collusion of up to 20 people (probably more if you count district attorneys, judges), some of whom did not know who the decedent was at the time they responded to the call or knew who KR was, would or could all conspire to frame this woman. To ME (and to me alone apparently), it is more likely she argued with him in the car, quite possibly got physical in the car, hit the man with her car while drunk, and left, maybe not knowing she hit him, or maybe thinking she just tapped him and thought he's okay because, you know, "John, I **g hate you," at that moment, and left.

That's my last post on this topic. I didn't know I was the lone wolf when I regretfully posted anything yesterday. I should have done what I'd done all along, kept my thoughts to myself. I'm not trying to convince anyone that their thoughts are wrong. I guess I'd have to see a video of the beating or whichever person in the house everyone believes did the beating would have to come out and say, "Yes, I beat the man to death and staged this whole thing" to change my mind. So, continuing to go back and forth is serving no purpose. Because the one fact I think everyone can agree on is that my opinion or anyone else's outside of that jury doesn't amount to much.

I appreciate your explanations regarding your thoughts.

 

[Snoods]

Oh no, my apologies to Silly Billy for all the extra work you had to put in last night and my part in it. I think it was a combination of relief the trial was finally over and the stress as we now await a verdict. We were all a little giddy!

Trying to be vague in the hope this post will remain and not cause Silly Billy any more work, but the theories of an alligator, a shark who escaped an aquarium, Sharknado, bears, boars and one of our very own posters with a mysterious broken rear right taillight were a bit funny lol.

 

[Forest_Wood]

$400k was very high. I go back and forth on expert testimony because for every defense expert, there's a prosecution expert. I don't live in Massachusetts, so I know nothing about the political environment or corruption. I just continue to come back to one basic train of thought - what is that saying? - something about Oxsam's Razor - the usual most simple explanation is closest to the truth, and I don't think a collusion of up to 20 people (probably more if you count district attorneys, judges), some of whom did not know who the decedent was at the time they responded to the call or knew who KR was, would or could all conspire to frame this woman. To ME (and to me alone apparently), it is more likely she argued with him in the car, quite possibly got physical in the car, hit the man with her car while drunk, and left, maybe not knowing she hit him, or maybe thinking she just tapped him and thought he's okay because, you know, "John, I **g hate you," at that moment, and left.

That's my last post on this topic. I didn't know I was the lone wolf when I regretfully posted anything yesterday. I should have done what I'd done all along, kept my thoughts to myself. I'm not trying to convince anyone that their thoughts are wrong. I guess I'd have to see a video of the beating or whichever person in the house everyone believes did the beating would have to come out and say, "Yes, I beat the man to death and staged this whole thing" to change my mind. So, continuing to go back and forth is serving no purpose. Because the one fact I think everyone can agree on is that my opinion or anyone else's outside of that jury doesn't amount to much.

I appreciate your explanations regarding your thoughts.

There is zero evidence that she got physical with him in the car.

It was proven by highly respected experts that Karen Read's vehicle did not hit JOK.

Oh, woe is me.

MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

Yes, I could see how something like that could have happened. Maybe John went into the garage and Chloe was being kept out there after she was let outside. BA said he stood in his kitchen and watched her outside and took her back upstairs right away, (who does that at your own house when you have a fenced yard!). I could see him putting her in the garage while all those guests were partying inside the house. If John opened the garage door and Chloe attacked, he fell back, hit his head on a ridged and raised surface, and someone found him later when they went to bring Chloe back inside after everyone was leaving. And the plan was then put into place ... what do we do with this body?
MOO

I dont think John would have gone into a garage door unless he was directed there. This man takes his shoes off in his house. He would have headed to the front door, unless called elsewhere. Maybe to the family room where BA and BH where "looking at photos".

 

[AngTxGal]

Did you watch the testimony of Dr L?
She specifically stated the head wound did no happen in the yard because there was nothing there that would cause the design of his wound. She was cut off when she brought up going into the garage.

I did-
Dr L described the wound as being consistent with a raised surface with a texture pattern.
It is not a fact that inside the house is the only location with this description.

I’m not saying the wound was caused by a fall into the yard on dirt- I’m saying there are several raised ledges consistent with what she describes.

She should not have pointed to the garage when there are several steps outside the home, unless she examined and compared them all to the wound.

Would steps down into a garage look exceptionally different than the steps up to the porch?
I don’t know
They would be raised ledges with a texture from brick or concrete, unless they are wooden.

In the images of the house I see
- four brick steps on the outside of the front door
- two brick steps on the outside of the door into the home near the garage
- a brick walkway from the drive to the doors
- and a door to the right into the garage- which the PI that measured distances in the yard evidently saw steps going down

A forensic expert could likely distinguish between these types of steps to see if one of them matches the patterns on the head wound. That would be solid science

IMO