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 #38 Retrial

[Malleeboy]

Brian Albert said "woken from a cold sleep", is that a Boston phrase? Never heard that before.
In my mind, if I'm cold when I'm asleep, I am usually in a very light sleep or not fully asleep. "Deep sleep" or "dead asleep" is the normal idiom/phrase,

 

[Soulmagent]

Brian Albert said "woken from a cold sleep", is that a Boston phrase? Never heard that before.
In my mind, if I'm cold when I'm asleep, I am usually in a very light sleep or not fully asleep.

Dont make excuses for him.
Its like he does not care at all other than saving his
NM wrong thread. My bad.

 

[Karin1974]

So you believe a middle of the night conspiracy happened and the Alberts/McCabes devised a scheme to frame Karen? Bc thats the only way KR gets off.

If Jen McCabe was in on it, why would she ever agree to drive with Karen to the Albert house?

IMO - Not even the prosecutors could find an expert to admit there is any evidence to suggest KR hit JOK with her vehicle & if JMc isn’t in on it, why is she googling ‘hos long to die in cold?’ the very same night JOK is ‘supposedly’ lying in snow?

 

[nightowl1975]

You would not only not go to prison in MA if your dog accidentally knocked someone down and killed them, there would be no criminal charges whatsoever. It would be a civil liability matter only and would be covered by the owner's homeowners policy.

Brian Albert knows this. So I personally doubt he'd cover up such a death and risk actual criminal charges. My guess is this was a fully human altercation with Chloe jumping into the fray as it was going on.

Hmm, if that’s the case for MA law, I would agree. There would be no real reason to cover up a dog attack that results in accidental death if this is the case. I’ve suspected CA was the one to throw the punch all along bc it makes the most sense as to why a bunch of adults would be motivated to cover it up. Parents will do just about anything to protect their kids. JMO.

 

[nightowl1975]

Brian Albert said "woken from a cold sleep", is that a Boston phrase? Never heard that before.
In my mind, if I'm cold when I'm asleep, I am usually in a very light sleep or not fully asleep. "Deep sleep" or "dead asleep" is the normal idiom/phrase,

The saying I’m used to is “woken from a dead sleep”, and there seemed to be a slight pause when he said “cold”. I suspect he didn’t want to use the word “dead” given the topic at hand. Just my suspicion though.

 

[LinasK]

I just invested 4 hours of my life in this trial and came away feeling that it was a complete waste. It was a very biased TV presentation- and there was witness tampering. Not impressed with the judge or prosecutor in this case. The jury got it wrong and she got a slap on the wrist! She should have been found guilty of manslaughter at minimum. There's no way that his DNA was planted on the taillight, nor the taillight embedded in his clothing. Those two items seal the deal for me that she was GUILTY. His arm injuries weren't from any dog bite, and there was zero dog DNA found. The police investigation was sloppy- just like Mark Fuhrman in the OJ case, but that doesn't make for a conspiracy, nor her innocence. I hope his family wins their civil suit against her.

 

[LinasK]

IMO - Not even the prosecutors could find an expert to admit there is any evidence to suggest KR hit JOK with her vehicle & if JMc isn’t in on it, why is she googling ‘hos long to die in cold?’ the very same night JOK is ‘supposedly’ lying in snow?

It was proven that she really didn't Google it at 2:30am, she did it when Karen asked her to closer to 6:30am.

 

[Malleeboy]

I just invested 4 hours of my life in this trial and came away feeling that it was a complete waste. It was a very biased TV presentation- and there was witness tampering. Not impressed with the judge or prosecutor in this case. The jury got it wrong and she got a slap on the wrist! She should have been found guilty of manslaughter at minimum. There's no way that his DNA was planted on the taillight, nor the taillight embedded in his clothing. Those two items seal the deal for me that she was GUILTY. His arm injuries weren't from any dog bite, and there was zero dog DNA found. The police investigation was sloppy- just like Mark Fuhrman in the OJ case, but that doesn't make for a conspiracy, nor her innocence. I hope his family wins their civil suit against her.

Quote: here's no way that his DNA was planted on the taillight.

Agreed DNA was not planted but it was on the flat external surface of the car, there were three male DNA detected (which included John O'Keefe). John had access to the car for months, I would be utterly gobsmacked if his DNA didn't appear on the outside of the car. There was no DNA, skin or blood on any of the shards that supposedly created the marks on his arms.

Minute pieces of taillight was found on the clothes. Firstly the clothes were left on the floor of the hospital. There existed no proper logs or control of the clothes or the tail light. IMHO the glass that was found on the bumper, which only matched the glass found much latter by Proctor. The testimony of Policeman Barros from Dighton. You may not believe it but the vast majority do believe that evidence was planted in this case.

Again no ME or doctor testified that John had injury that matched a car impact.

Engineers hired by the FBI, and therefore utterly independent, confirmed that John wasn't hit by a car, not did the car hit someone.

Clearly IMHO you appear to have wasted four hours.

 

[bmacmillan1]

I'm currently watching the 'A body in the snow' documentary. It mentions Karen has a sister which I didn't know. Is anything known about her? I see the brother has been quite vocal.

 

[jepop]

Quote: here's no way that his DNA was planted on the taillight.

Agreed DNA was not planted but it was on the flat external surface of the car, there were three male DNA detected (which included John O'Keefe). John had access to the car for months, I would be utterly gobsmacked if his DNA didn't appear on the outside of the car. There was no DNA, skin or blood on any of the shards that supposedly created the marks on his arms.

Minute pieces of taillight was found on the clothes. Firstly the clothes were left on the floor of the hospital. There existed no proper logs or control of the clothes or the tail light. IMHO the glass that was found on the bumper, which only matched the glass found much latter by Proctor. The testimony of Policeman Barros from Dighton. You may not believe it but the vast majority do believe that evidence was planted in this case.

Again no ME or doctor testified that John had injury that matched a car impact.

Engineers hired by the FBI, and therefore utterly independent, confirmed that John wasn't hit by a car, not did the car hit someone.

Clearly IMHO you appear to have wasted four hours.

The mixed dna traces found on the right rear area adjacent to the damaged tail light, along with the little hair that could (collected from a different location on the right rear area and equally not exclusive of John or any relative of his in the female line) are probably some of the most stand out non-evidence 'evidence' presented by the cw in this trial Imo.

If the cw had swabbed for DNA on other areas on the rear of the vehicle, including the rear left hand side near the tail light, the hatch area and surrounds, the window etc etc, I'm sure they would have found traces of John. Ofcourse the cw was not willing to do this because of the risk of normalising the non-evidence. Moo

The defense never insinuated, and it was not part of their defense, that the DNA was planted moo, so I think the OP is mistaken if that is what is being assumed. The jurors were not asked to consider that at all. The point is there was just too much doubt about when the epithelial DNA could have been transferred. It seriously could have happened any time. It's like trying to argue that a victim's DNA found in their partner's home is meaningful evidence that their partner committed a crime against them in that location. Jmo

Ebm a sentence

 

[LinasK]

I'm currently watching the 'A body in the snow' documentary. It mentions Karen has a sister which I didn't know. Is anything known about her? I see the brother has been quite vocal.

That's the exact program that I watched. I came away concluding that she's guilty- NOT a police conspiracy like they want you to believe.

 

[LinasK]

The mixed dna traces found on the right rear area adjacent to the damaged tail light, along with the little hair that could (collected from a different location on the right rear area and equally not exclusive of John or any relative of his in the female line) are probably some of the most stand out non-evidence 'evidence' presented by the cw in this trial Imo.

If the cw had swabbed for DNA on other areas on the rear of the vehicle, including the rear left hand side near the tail light, the hatch area and surrounds, the window etc etc, I'm sure they would have found traces of John. Ofcourse the cw was not willing to do this because of the risk of normalising the non-evidence. Moo

The defense never insinuated, and it was not part of their defense, that the DNA was planted moo, so I think the OP is mistaken if that is what is being assumed. The jurors were not asked to consider that at all. The point is there was just too much doubt about when the epithelial DNA could have been transferred. It seriously could have happened any time. It's like trying to argue that a victim's DNA found in their partner's home is meaningful evidence that their partner committed a crime against them in that location. Jmo

Ebm a sentence

Yes they did imply that LE planted the DNA- they implied that the Trooper was fiddling with the tail light in the bay that the car was pulled into in the video.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Brian Albert said "woken from a cold sleep", is that a Boston phrase? Never heard that before.
In my mind, if I'm cold when I'm asleep, I am usually in a very light sleep or not fully asleep. "Deep sleep" or "dead asleep" is the normal idiom/phrase,

Sounds like a script to me. That family likes to meet up and go over their plan.

 

[lohrtabitha]

I just invested 4 hours of my life in this trial and came away feeling that it was a complete waste. It was a very biased TV presentation- and there was witness tampering. Not impressed with the judge or prosecutor in this case. The jury got it wrong and she got a slap on the wrist! She should have been found guilty of manslaughter at minimum. There's no way that his DNA was planted on the taillight, nor the taillight embedded in his clothing. Those two items seal the deal for me that she was GUILTY. His arm injuries weren't from any dog bite, and there was zero dog DNA found. The police investigation was sloppy- just like Mark Fuhrman in the OJ case, but that doesn't make for a conspiracy, nor her innocence. I hope his family wins their civil suit against her.

If you only put in 4 hours, then you didn't watch the whole trial. It's impossible to see the truth unless you watch the whole trial. It also a good educational experience to watch the first trial as well. The first trial exposes you to testimonies that were not seen in trial 2.

 

[lohrtabitha]

It was proven that she really didn't Google it at 2:30am, she did it when Karen asked her to closer to 6:30am.

Nope.

 

[lohrtabitha]

That's the exact program that I watched. I came away concluding that she's guilty- NOT a police conspiracy like they want you to believe.

Therein lies your problem. I watched the show too but it was created for entertainment purposes. You need to watch the actual trials to come away with an educated synopsis.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Yes they did imply that LE planted the DNA- they implied that the Trooper was fiddling with the tail light in the bay that the car was pulled into in the video.

Well he did. The taillight only had one piece missing when they collected the car. Officer Barros testified to that. This means that 46 more pieces were busted out once it was in Proctors possession. Watch the trial.

 

[geevee]

That's the exact program that I watched. I came away concluding that she's guilty- NOT a police conspiracy like they want you to believe.

Thank goodness documentaries are not used to convict people, we'd likely have a whole slew of innocent people in prison.

Maybe should have watched some of the trial, you'd have seen the implausibility of any vehicle having hit JOK. Every doctor who testified said his injuries were "inconsistent" with being hit by a vehicle, and the ME who performed the autopsy could not determine a cause of death.

Science and physics say that the broken tail light pieces, had JOK even been hit by a vehicle, could not have magically flown 10-12 feet to the side and sprinkled themselves in the area JOK was found. Along with a broken glass, that also managed to defy physics.

An expert on dog wounds testified that those gouges on his arm are in fact caused by an animal, and most likely by a dog. A second doctor would have testified to the same but the judge disallowed her to state that to the jury.

I'm sure there's more to add, but I just woke up and coffee hasn't had time to wake all the brain cells. lol

 

[keek]

Brian Albert said "woken from a cold sleep", is that a Boston phrase? Never heard that before.
In my mind, if I'm cold when I'm asleep, I am usually in a very light sleep or not fully asleep. "Deep sleep" or "dead asleep" is the normal idiom/phrase,

No, only him, subconsciously: JOK out in the cold. IMO

 

[MerlinFalcon]

That's the exact program that I watched. I came away concluding that she's guilty- NOT a police conspiracy like they want you to believe.

You should have watched the trials. Especially trial #2 which happened after the show.