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

[statt#1]

I don't necessarily think JOK was murdered. It could have been an accidental death, or even simply a drunken stupor leading to the injuries, except for where those non human teeth or claws cut up that arm of his.

And really, in my opinion, only 2 people needed to cover it up, and the lying liars will lie, they'll lie to anybody, and they're loved ones will lie too, to save them from charges of who knows what, 'cuz that'd be bad for their careers and stuff...so, the lying liars that lie could grow to 6 pretty easy in this case, and in my opinion probably did

 

[keek]

OUI!!

AAAAAAAAAARGH.. I wonder if the verdict changer said, no.. wait.. I want her on OUI. SO PETTY. The foreman sounded as if he did not want to say that. He was very soft spoken/quiet about it all. I must of only seen such scenes on movies. THey went through A LOT a long time. THey need a lot of decompression, it is traumatic. IMO

 

[mirage1]

I don’t believe any of that happened and still would have had to vote guilty based on reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this trial did a good job of disproving most of the conspiracy and theories of outright murder in the house for me. Where they fell short was proving that a vehicle hit John O’ Keefe’s body - and based on his lack of injuries, I don’t see how they could have. I think if John had had a broken arm or at least bruising on his side consistent with a car hitting him at 24 miles an hour, I would have voted guilty, sloppy Investigation and all. But he didn’t.

It’s possible that some freak accident happened or Karen accelerated and scared John or maybe he was bent over puking and then stumbled around and hit his head on his own or whatever but that vehicle, at that speed, hit that man? The physics just don’t physics for me.

This is the grey area, the defense exploited. There are too many variables to predict what kind of injuries we should expect from a vehicle impact. There could literally be low evidence of impact if it was slow enough to just knock him over and he was enough padding from clothing.

You can still conclude beyond a reasonable doubt he was knocked over by her car by using all the other evidence in the case. Even the accused considered she might have had hit him. She was the last person confirmed to have seen him. No evidence he left the place she dropped him off. her behaviour that morning was very suspicious. The tail light pieces at the scene of the crime. I don't have any reasonable doubt. There is no other plausible explanation really either.

 

[Florida_marlin]

True story...so there's this guy, he goes to Home Depot, buys (2) 2x4's, has them sticking a couple feet out the passenger side window of his 2 door coupe. He's going around 30mph, and those 2x4's, the first thing they hit is the driver side rear tail light on my 2017 F250. (doing a total of around 16k dollars of damage to the entire driver side of the truck)

Anyway, I'm right in front of the truck, running a sidewalk edger, and hear...WHAMMO!

I mean, solid wood, slamming that tail light. I picked up the plastic, it wasn't anywhere close to 47 pieces, or whatever number they testified to PLUS, there was no damage to the inner reflector(s) bulbs, etc.

That unofficial real life experience led me straightaway to realize the idea that someone's arm blew out a tail light fixture, resulting in shards described as microscopic, simply couldn't be true.

Not to mention what I believe to be the preposterous claim that said jagged shards chewed up the decedent's arm in such manner as the photo's showed...ain't no way this ole boy is buyin' THAT!

Good call, NOT GUILTY, somebody should pick up the ball and do a REAL investigation in to who killed JOK.

This is why I keep asking those that think his arm shattered the light into pieces to do their own experiment. The reason why no one will do it is because they know they will mangle their arm, beat it to death, and still not destroyed the light.

 

[missy1974]

AAAAAAAAAARGH.. I wonder if the verdict changer said, no.. wait.. I want her on OUI. SO PETTY. The foreman sounded as if he did not want to say that. He was very soft spoken/quiet about it all. I must of only seen such scenes on movies. THey went through A LOT a long time. THey need a lot of decompression, it is traumatic. IMO

In this 20/20 show that is on right now, they replayed the verdict at the beginning... for whatever reason the court guy read them in the wrong order, I think that is why there was some confusion.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

This is why I keep asking those that think his arm shattered the light into pieces to do their own experiment. The reason why no one will do it is because they know they will mangle their arm, beat it to death, and still not destroyed the light.

And that’s why blue paint guy did it at 2 mph instead of 24.

 

[Forest_Wood]

OUI!!

Oh, so it's Section 24D for OUI. I get it now. Thanks.

 

[Wishbone]

This is the grey area, the defense exploited. There are too many variables to predict what kind of injuries we should expect from a vehicle impact. There could literally be low evidence of impact if it was slow enough to just knock him over and he was enough padding from clothing.

You can still conclude beyond a reasonable doubt he was knocked over by her car by using all the other evidence in the case. Even the accused considered she might have had hit him. She was the last person confirmed to have seen him. No evidence he left the place she dropped him off. her behaviour that morning was very suspicious. The tail light pieces at the scene of the crime. I don't have any reasonable doubt. There is no other plausible explanation really either.

The cw couldn't prove vehicle impact to JO and that is why the verdict was Not Guilty for KR.

 

[justbeachy]

This 20/20 episode was frustrating to me. They didn’t seem to show much of the compelling evidence that lead to the NG verdicts. If I hadn’t followed the trial and only had that episode to go by, I would be left wondering how the jury came to their verdicts. IMO

 

[Vaderman]

Oh, so it's Section 24D for OUI. I get it now. Thanks.

I assume(d) it's an intervention program in place of jail. My state has a "hotel stay" where you're essentially locked in for a certain amount of time and do intensive programming for substance abuse and driving education.

 

[Anniesflowers]

AAAAAAAAAARGH.. I wonder if the verdict changer said, no.. wait.. I want her on OUI. SO PETTY. The foreman sounded as if he did not want to say that. He was very soft spoken/quiet about it all. I must of only seen such scenes on movies. THey went through A LOT a long time. THey need a lot of decompression, it is traumatic. IMO

He was quiet. In addition the crowds’ roar from outside was quite loud in that tiny courtroom, so it was hard to hear him. That was from Sue O’Connell on to ight’s Canton Confidential.

 

[jesse]

Are you sure?

No. Judge Cannone agreed with the recommendation and sentenced her to 1 year probation. It's over. No "later sentencing date".

 

[MerlinFalcon]

This 20/20 episode was frustrating to me. They didn’t seem to show much of the compelling evidence that lead to the NG verdicts. If I hadn’t followed the trial and only had that episode to go by, I would be left wondering how the jury came to their verdicts. IMO

They could make a ten part mini series at 2 hours per episode and still not show enough.

 

[justwannahelp]

I don’t believe any of that happened and still would have had to vote guilty based on reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this trial did a good job of disproving most of the conspiracy and outright murder in the house for me. Where they fell short was proving that a vehicle hit John O’ Keefe’s body - and based on his lack of injuries, I don’t see how they could have. I think if John had had a broken arm or at least bruising on his side consistent with a car hitting him at 24 miles an hour, I would have voted guilty, sloppy Investigation and all. But he didn’t.

It’s possible that some freak accident happened or Karen accelerated and scared John or maybe he was bent over puking and then stumbled around and hit his head on his own or whatever but that vehicle, at that speed, hit that man? The physics just don’t physics for me.

Also just for the record this is the first time in my time at Websleuths that I’ve not just completely tuned out 90 percent of the defense arguments. I was intrigued by the FBI investigating this case, don’t follow podcasts on either side but am almost always pro-Prosecution. I was appalled that this case went to trial for a second time honestly.

Yes!

I can honestly say that even if i had never heard of the police conspiracy, michael proctor’s texts, throwing away phones, the sallyport shenanigans, and the “butt” dials…..
if i was a juror, i would have STILL voted NG simply because of the all the other things that exist (or don’t):
- dog bites
- cut on eye
- lacerated/ bit tongue
- core body temp
- every doc testifying no evidence of being struck by a vehicle
- blood and vomit dripping down shirt and pants (he was likely vertical for a while)
- not much blood in the snow (though head injuries bleed profusely)
- not one witness seeing a body on the lawn (ESPECIALLY the snowplower with a PERFECT & well lit view during MULTIPLE passes)
- no blood on car or taillight (one hair on bumper does NOT count as convincing IMO)
- I’d think the damage to taillight was more likely from hitting John’s car, not HIM (the only crash I would KNOW actually occurred)
- no ring camera footage of the alleged strike and no ring camera footage of her driving home when we KNOW there were a LOT of cameras along her route would create a lot of doubt in my mind (even if i didn’t think the police were hiding something on purpose)
- LACK of investigating the house and those inside of the house where he was found (this would create doubt even if it i thought it was simply negligence/ not a coverup)
- break in chain of custody w/ the evidence would create a lot of doubt in my mind as well - even if i didn’t think they were in on it. I wouldn’t KNOW whether the 2 rice grained sized pieces of taillight on/ in his shirt were from an accident or from his shirt being in a bag with taillight fragments

Even if i thought failing to investigate the home and those inside was just incompetence and NOT nefarious, i STILL would have felt like too much evidence was lacking. And chain of custody not being followed properly as well - whether nefarious or not - those rules are there for a reason, and they failed to adhere to them. I don’t believe in letting rules slide when someone’s life is on the line. The rules are there for a reason.

I’d have no choice but to say to the prosecution the evidence you presented doesn’t convince me he was hit by a car and was on that lawn injured from 12:30-6am. and what you failed to present creates more reasonable doubt. Officers not following the rules creates more reasonable doubt as well. And the wounds simply leave me with tons of questions, therefore MORE reasonable doubt. You have not met the burden you were tasked with. Period.

You don’t NEED a conspiracy to find her NG.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I wanted to throw something at my tv when he said “hope she kills herself” is just a figure of speech.

And he wasn't called out on that by whoever was interviewing him?
That is not a "figure of speech"
IMO

 

[jesse]

Of course...

The CW cannot appeal.

 

[Anniesflowers]

This is the grey area, the defense exploited. There are too many variables to predict what kind of injuries we should expect from a vehicle impact. There could literally be low evidence of impact if it was slow enough to just knock him over and he was enough padding from clothing.

You can still conclude beyond a reasonable doubt he was knocked over by her car by using all the other evidence in the case. Even the accused considered she might have had hit him. She was the last person confirmed to have seen him. No evidence he left the place she dropped him off. her behaviour that morning was very suspicious. The tail light pieces at the scene of the crime. I don't have any reasonable doubt. There is no other plausible explanation really either.

IMO, Nope.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I assume(d) it's an intervention program in place of jail. My state has a "hotel stay" where you're essentially locked in for a certain amount of time and do intensive programming for substance abuse and driving education.

I looked it up:
Section 24D. Any person convicted of or charged with operating a motor vehicle with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, controlled substance or while under the influence from smelling or inhaling the fumes of any substance having the property of releasing toxic vapors as defined in section 18 of chapter 270, may if such person consents, be placed on probation for not more than two years and shall, as a condition of probation, be assigned to a driver alcohol education program as provided herein and, if deemed necessary by the court, to an alcohol or controlled substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation program or to both, and such person's license or right to operate shall be suspended for a period of no less than forty-five nor more than ninety days...

 

[Angelwatch]

This is the grey area, the defense exploited. There are too many variables to predict what kind of injuries we should expect from a vehicle impact. There could literally be low evidence of impact if it was slow enough to just knock him over and he was enough padding from clothing.

You can still conclude beyond a reasonable doubt he was knocked over by her car by using all the other evidence in the case. Even the accused considered she might have had hit him. She was the last person confirmed to have seen him. No evidence he left the place she dropped him off. her behaviour that morning was very suspicious. The tail light pieces at the scene of the crime. I don't have any reasonable doubt. There is no other plausible explanation really either.

It is predictable. The expert medical examiners were all in agreement that JOK was not hit by a vehicle based on the totality and pattern of his injuries. They’ve gone to medical school. They have experience examining injuries. They are well qualified in a way the average person is not. Bruising and broken bones were absent. There was no site of impact.

If he was gently tapped and knocked over, you wouldn’t get a shattered taillight. Yet, if he’s hit harder, you get bruising and broken bones. He wasn’t hit by a vehicle as testified by several medical experts, bioengineers and reconstruction experts, and beyond a reasonable doubt according to a jury who all sat through weeks of testimony and heard every piece of evidence.

 

[acutename]

This is the grey area, the defense exploited. There are too many variables to predict what kind of injuries we should expect from a vehicle impact. There could literally be low evidence of impact if it was slow enough to just knock him over and he was enough padding from clothing.

You can still conclude beyond a reasonable doubt he was knocked over by her car by using all the other evidence in the case. Even the accused considered she might have had hit him. She was the last person confirmed to have seen him. No evidence he left the place she dropped him off. her behaviour that morning was very suspicious. The tail light pieces at the scene of the crime. I don't have any reasonable doubt. There is no other plausible explanation really either.

how do you explain no one leaving the house (7, 8 people?) or the plow driver seeing him?