NOT GUILTY MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #37 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 Thread #35 Thread #36

 

[Forest_Wood]

Plus the testimony by her friend KK is that she didn’t seem drunk at all when leaving the bar.
ETA: I think even JM testified that she didn’t seem drunk when leaving the bar. Jmo

Every single witness who was at the waterfall that night, testified that they did not see Karen drunk or experiencing any signs of being drunk. But I think the best witness of all of them was KK because she was sober, drinking water and talking with Karen for at least an hour before they left the bar, and of course she’s a pharmacist so would be more inclined to notice the signs of impairment.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

If I was a juror, I’d vote not guilty if Cannone wasn’t willing to answer the question. If it’s not crystal clear, it’s not BARD and that includes the jury instructions. For whatever reason, this is the hill Cannone wants to die on, figuratively. She’s not going to amend the verdict slip. All she wants to do is regurgitate her instructions.

I hope that if they do this, they go on Dateline and any other show like it and tells them exactly why they voted as they did. Both the judge and the prosecutor need to be discussed.

 

[mickey2942]

If I was a juror, I’d vote not guilty if Cannone wasn’t willing to answer the question. If it’s not crystal clear, it’s not BARD and that includes the jury instructions. For whatever reason, this is the hill Cannone wants to die on, figuratively. She’s not going to amend the verdict slip. All she wants to do is regurgitate her instructions.

It seems to me, the longer they deliberate, the more this looks like another mistrial or NG.

I wish we had a better choice. I like the "Not Proven", as used in UK.

 

[Younger Sister]

I'm over her sweet talking voice she uses to the jurors ugh. Tomorrow for verdict then??? JMO

I have been away from the thread most of the day. So this may be recycling what some of you already talked about. But, in the end if they get her for a OUI or a DWI then they better dish some out to the rest of the police officers and their wives that were there that night then turned around and drove.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Angelwatch]

I hope that if they do this, they go on Dateline and any other show like it and tells them exactly why they voted as they did. Both the judge and the prosecutor need to be discussed.

It’s so frustrating because the jurors are taking their role seriously and trying to understand her charge instructions.

 

[Malleeboy]

I too think it is interesting. In a way, I was surprised that Hank wanted to go with 12:45 (when AJ said no time) because she was tested much later in the day. I would think that a jury would find it harder to "prove" she was drunk at 12:45 even though she had been drinking on film.

Hank didn't want the stand alone OUI/DUI, he argued against it, it was the Defence that wanted it.

If they hang on the OUI, and cannot return a verdict then the Commonwealth can retry the full charge 2 the vehicle manslaughter. So even though they agree she was not guilty of vehicle manslaughter, if they don't return a verdict, and were only hung on the last of the lesser included, then the whole charge is included.

 

[justwannahelp]

The jury question I found most interesting was about the time of the alleged DUI offense. Paraphrasing, what time is the DUI alleged to have occurrred - at 12:30ish or at around 5 am when she backed into John's vehicle?

Hank wanted the judge to go with 12:45 when he's claiming John was hit by her car. But it's not specified in the charging docs, so the judge wouldn't give a time.

This likely indicates that at least someone on the jury doesn't even want to consider her being legally intoxicated at around 12:30ish, but perhaps would like to consider that (as AJ suggested in his closing) that she drank while at One Meadows overnight, which is why her blood still showed a fairly high alcohol level at the hosptial the next morning.

Not sure what it means overall, but it's interesting.

I’m wondering if there is one, or are maybe 2 jurors ,who are wrestling with involuntary manslaughter. They may have told the rest of the jurors ok fine we will say NG to all bigger charges IF we can at least charge her with an OUI.

Then the jurors in NG camp said ok we can work with that, BUT we need to make sure that checking guilty of OUI doesn’t make her guilty of the bigger charge it is listed under. So then maybe they decided to ask that question as well as the time of drinking CW is alleging IN CASE the judge would have told them yes, if you check guilty OUI then you’re saying she’s guilty of the bigger charge it’s listed under. They may have thought ahead of time, IF that is the case, then we are going to have to convince the 1 or 2 outliers that legally they didn’t prove she was over the limit when she drove from bar to the Albert’s and the Albert’s back to John’s. They only proved she was over the limit after driving to Jen McCabes. she could have drank a bottle of wine at John’s when thinking John was ignoring her.

So maybe that’s why they asked both questions. Wanted to get it all squared away at once in case they needed to convince the outliers??

Or maybe they ALL think she was proven to be guilty of OUI, but only when she drove from John’s to Jen mccabes. Maybe they thought but wait if we check guilty OUI will she be found guilty of the bigger charge it’s listed under? So they asked for clarification hoping the CW was referencing OUI while driving from bar to John’s, so they could check NG for OUI therefore NG for the bigger charge.

 

[Tricia]

Don't forget to take our Karen Read poll RIGHT HERE.
You can vote once a day and change your vote as often as you like.
I think she will be found not guilty of all the charges except the DUI charge. Then again, I have been wrong once before. LOL

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Karen Read jury asks question indicating they could acquit on most charges

Read, 45, is accused of striking her Boston cop boyfriend with her car and leaving him for dead outside a house party.

nypost.com

‘The jury in the high-profile Karen Read murder trial asked the presiding judge a question that suggests they might be leaning toward an acquittal on most charges.’

 

[HarmonyE.]

Or maybe they ALL think she was proven to be guilty of OUI, but only when she drove from John’s to Jen mccabes. Maybe they thought but wait if we check guilty OUI will she be found guilty of the bigger charge it’s listed under? So they asked for clarification hoping the CW was referencing OUI while driving from bar to John’s, so they could check NG for OUI therefore NG for the bigger charge.

I think this is exactly what they're confused about. And I understand it. The way the slips are presented, some considering the "compromise" of stand alone DUI without murder 2 or manslaughter - whatever the time - might be afraid they'd be convicting her on the whole count.

What they likely don't understand is that if they don't find her either guilty or not guilty on the standalone DUI, the Commowealth will again bring her up on Manslaughter charges.

It seems to me the court is happy is keep them confused. Horrifying to me.

 

[Leilei]

I think this is exactly what they're confused about. And I understand it. The way the slips are presented, some considering the "compromise" of stand alone DUI without murder 2 or manslaughter - whatever the time - might be afraid they'd be convicting her on the whole count.

What they likely don't understand is that if they don't find her either guilty or not guilty on the standalone DUI, the Commowealth will again bring her up on Manslaughter charges.

It seems to me the court is happy is keep them confused. Horrifying to me.

Big red Sharpie, write NG on any of this garbage next to everything but the OUI.
That'll send a message.
And the great thing is the verdict forms will be scanned into the database exactly as they are, for all to see and print out if they so choose.
IMO.

 

[browneyes]

Big red Sharpie, write NG on any of this garbage next to everything but the OUI.
That'll send a message.
And the great thing is the verdict forms will be scanned into the database exactly as they are, for all to see and print out if they so choose.
IMO.

I was wondering if it would invalidate the verdict form if you added comments. In this case, your example is certainly warranted.

 

[Younger Sister]

IMO if you only came into my garage...if asked I would say you never came into my house.

 

[Warwick7]

I can't remember who said it in the last thread, but if I was on the jury, if the Judge wouldn't answer my questions the way I needed them answered for that Jury slip, I am voting not guilty. Done over!

 

[skyedaze]

I streamed the verdict watch from work today on my phone. So ridiculous there is the same kind of confusion all over again.
And if I were a juror required to sit through all of this for over a month, wait around over and over and over again to go into the courtroom, I would be super M-A-D if I asked a question and the judge wouldn't answer it.
Obviously they need clarification. Why wouldn't you want a jury to have a clear understanding of the charges and how to deliver their verdict accurately whatever it may be?

 

[Leilei]

John Depetro is getting roasted on Court TV right now.
Love this for him.
IMO.

 

[ShadyLady]

WHO can understand this, D.J. now allowed:

 

[missy1974]

I hope we get a verdict tomorrow!

Thinking tonight...

The one question today about her BAC and timing... I think it's telling that they used 12:45am and not 12:32... maybe reading too much into it?

I hope that dumb verdict slip doesn't cause another mistrial.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I hope we get a verdict tomorrow!

Thinking tonight...

The one question today about her BAC and timing... I think it's telling that they used 12:45am and not 12:32... maybe reading too much into it?

I hope that dumb verdict slip doesn't cause another mistrial.

If they decide the OUI to be 12:45, that means she was already back to John's home and the alleged collision had already taken place. It should have been 12:32 at the time he was allegedly hit. 12:45 means nothing anymore like it did in the first trial.
If they decide the OUI was 05:00 (or thereabouts), the collision had allegedly already occurred 4.5 hours earlier and she most likely drank after she got home at 12:36. So if they find her guilty on this time, it really has nothing to do with JOK.
This case has left so many discrepancies for a jury to have to figure out on their own.
MOO