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

[mirage1]

Guilty of what? JO was not hit by a car and that is not how he was injured. It amazes me how people lose sight of that. JMOO

As I understand not a single expert ruled out he was hit by a car. The defense played a deceptive game in tricking people into believing they did, which seems to be crucial in creating reasonable doubt. Saying injuries were 'not consistent' is not the same as excluding he was hit by a car!

It should be obvious that being hit at low speed does not necessarily injure someone. You can go on youtube and see people get hit at high speed and fly up in the air and get up uninjured. So the idea John must have had broken bones or bruising because he was knocked over at 20mph is just not true.

 

[mirage1]

BBM
You only watched a documentary to form your synopsis. Watch the entire trial. All the testimonies, evidence, and experts may help you truly understand the case. Cliff notes don't work. Put in the time if you really want the whole truth.

But you you put in the time and you don't know the truth. I never watched any documentary btw. I'm only interested in fact and evidence.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I think it was a very simple case once you swept aside the nonsense. I mean she literally turned up at the crime scene at 6am and confessed she hit him , multiple times which was heard by multiple independent witnesses. Something which has been laughably brushed aside. What innocent person turns up at the scene of a crime and admits they did it? This is unprecedented.

She didn’t admit it. She asked Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Those are questions, not statements and do you really think the cops wouldn’t have separated her from everyone else after hearing this so they could question her? The paramedics who both said she said “I hit him” didn’t include it in their notes and didn’t tell the cops.

 

[Forest_Wood]

It's easy to see how the defense originally considered this case to be a cover-up. Put them all together and it certainly looked suspicious. It's not like the defense team came up with these ideas. They are all true events that occurred.

• The mysterious call to Yannetti from a man saying he is someone else, claiming that Brian Albert is responsible for JOKs death and to check him out
• Karen's taillight going from cracked to smashed in police custody
• Cellphone expert finding Hos long to die in the cold on JMc's phone at 2:27AM
• Colin Albert not mentioned by people as having been at the house
• Inverted sallyport video
• MP's degrading texts
• JA offering a gift to MP "when this is all over"
• Missing videos from library and JOKs home
• MP out drinking w KA
• BH going to the Canton Police after the night of partying
• BH and BA boy-fighting in the bar
• MMc texting "tell them the guy never went in the house"
• MP already labeling Karen guilty within 16 hours
• BA and NA not coming out of their house

 

[mirage1]

She didn’t admit it. She asked Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? Those are questions, not statements and do you really think the cops wouldn’t have separated her from everyone else after hearing this so they could question her? The paramedics who both said she said “I hit him” didn’t include it in their notes and didn’t tell the cops.

The witnesses maintained she said she hit him, not as a question.

<modsnip - rude, personalizing>

 

[Warwick7]

I think it was a very simple case once you swept aside the nonsense. I mean she literally turned up at the crime scene at 6am and confessed she hit him , multiple times which was heard by multiple independent witnesses. Something which has been laughably brushed aside. What innocent person turns up at the scene of a crime and admits they did it? This is unprecedented.

You mean allegedly confessed she hit him.
You mean allegedly was heard multiple by multiple people.
You mean allegedly admits they did it.

 

[HarmonyE.]

As for the "I did it, I did it" silliness (silly, because it was the state's whole case at the end of the day), I'll parphrase one of the jurors. "We didn't believe it because if she'd actually confessed at the scene, why didn't the cops arrest her right then and there and not let her drive her car 35 miles away?"

There was no "confession". Just a confused and very upset woman who found her dead boyfriend lying on a lawn near where she last saw him. Anyone would have wondered the same thing under those circumstances. That they beat him up and left him in the yard woudn't be most peoples' first guess.

 

[lohrtabitha]

But you you put in the time and you don't know the truth. I never watched any documentary btw. I'm only interested in fact and evidence.

If you were truly interested in only facts and evidence , you wouldn't say that one doesn't need to watch the entire trial. I believe that in this case and like the jury, I saw the truth. So did the majority of trial watchers across the world.

 

[Mmcgirl13]

The witnesses maintained she said she hit him, not as a question. <modsnip - rude, personalizing>

<modsnip - quoted post was removed. The following refers to witnesses>

They don’t have to be part of the conspiracy to have misheard. By their own admission they were more focused on rendering aid than the defendant, as they should be. It was also blizzard conditions and the wind was howling, not to mention the chaos of the scene. People easily could’ve missed the words ‘did’ or could I have.’ Or she could’ve even said ‘I hit him!’ She had at most a handful hours of sleep and was still drunk from the night before, and admitted that she was wracking her brain trying to figure out if she could’ve hit him and not realized. Maybe for a moment there she did convince herself she’d hit him and said it. Frankly, it doesn’t really matter. The statements of a sleepless, drunk defendant reported second-hand by witnesses in a blizzard should not trump inconsistent physical evidence and a horrifically unprofessional police investigation. Plenty of people who firmly believe she did it still understand why there wasn’t nearly enough for a BARD conviction!

 

[Maat99]

I think it was a very simple case once you swept aside the nonsense. I mean she literally turned up at the crime scene at 6am and confessed she hit him , multiple times which was heard by multiple independent witnesses. Something which has been laughably brushed aside. What innocent person turns up at the scene of a crime and admits they did it? This is unprecedented.

Gosh the CW must be a real pack of idiots to bring this to trial and lose this case twice when the evidence is so obvious. Good thing we have made for tv summaries.

 

[missy1974]

As I understand not a single expert ruled out he was hit by a car. The defense played a deceptive game in tricking people into believing they did, which seems to be crucial in creating reasonable doubt. Saying injuries were 'not consistent' is not the same as excluding he was hit by a car!

It should be obvious that being hit at low speed does not necessarily injure someone. You can go on youtube and see people get hit at high speed and fly up in the air and get up uninjured. So the idea John must have had broken bones or bruising because he was knocked over at 20mph is just not true.

You are missing something though... you can be bumped by a car yes, but you cannot shatter that tail light like it was and walk away with no bruises, if you had watched the expert testimony you would know that. You can't have it both ways... she was going slow enough that he wasn't injured, but fast enough that he shattered a tail light and didn't even have a bruise???

The defense provided more than 1 expert that said right out "he was not hit by a car", so I am not sure which show you were watching, but it didn't show you everything apparently.

 

[Warwick7]

As I understand not a single expert ruled out he was hit by a car. The defense played a deceptive game in tricking people into believing they did, which seems to be crucial in creating reasonable doubt. Saying injuries were 'not consistent' is not the same as excluding he was hit by a car!

It should be obvious that being hit at low speed does not necessarily injure someone. You can go on youtube and see people get hit at high speed and fly up in the air and get up uninjured. So the idea John must have had broken bones or bruising because he was knocked over at 20mph is just not true.

BBM
Noooo, as was said by @Malleeboy Over 3 and a half years, and the CW could not find a single ME/pathologists/doctor that would testify that John O'Keefe was hit by a car.

 

[missy1974]

It's easy to see how the defense originally considered this case to be a cover-up. Put them all together and it certainly looked suspicious. It's not like the defense team came up with these ideas. They are all true events that occurred.

• The mysterious call to Yannetti from a man saying he is someone else, claiming that Brian Albert is responsible for JOKs death and to check him out
• Karen's taillight going from cracked to smashed in police custody
• Cellphone expert finding Hos long to die in the cold on JMc's phone at 2:27AM
• Colin Albert not mentioned by people as having been at the house
• Inverted sallyport video
• MP's degrading texts
• JA offering a gift to MP "when this is all over"
• Missing videos from library and JOKs home
• MP out drinking w KA
• BH going to the Canton Police after the night of partying
• BH and BA boy-fighting in the bar
• MMc texting "tell them the guy never went in the house"
• MP already labeling Karen guilty within 16 hours
• BA and NA not coming out of their house

you missed:

all the butt dials. JM to John, BA and BH's a$$es playing phone tag in the middle of the night.

They didn't attend John's funeral.

I'm sure there are more. And I suspect we will hear more as time goes on about what the defense knew or had but couldn't use.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I think it was a very simple case once you swept aside the nonsense. I mean she literally turned up at the crime scene at 6am and confessed she hit him , multiple times which was heard by multiple independent witnesses. Something which has been laughably brushed aside. What innocent person turns up at the scene of a crime and admits they did it? This is unprecedented.

What is unprecedented is a witness like JM whose claim to fame is those 3 little words which she didn't tell to a Grand Jury and can't remember if she told them to other Grand Juries she testified at.
IMO

"I hit him, I hit him, I hit him"​

"One key piece of McCabe's testimony has been what she said she heard Read say shortly after O'Keefe's body was found. McCabe said she heard Read say "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" while she was standing near a female EMT.


"Was it important to you to tell these jurors that you heard my client say 'I hit him' three times?" Jackson asked McCabe.

"I answered the questions and I'm telling the jurors what I know," McCabe said.

During a tense exchange, Jackson noted that during her grand jury testimony on April 26, 2022, McCabe never mentioned that she heard Read say this.

"I have testified a number of times. But I was there the morning of January 29 when your client said 'I hit him, I hit him, I hit him,'" McCabe said.

"Did you tell that to the grand jurors?" Jackson asked, and McCabe said she was not sure.

"That's because you didn't, did you?" Jackson asked, prompting McCabe to respond, "Again, I'm not sure."

"I've spoken in a few grand juries. What I said specifically at different ones I don't recall at this moment. But I do know that morning your client said 'I hit him, I hit him, I hit him' three times, and there was a female EMT there," McCabe said."

Jennifer McCabe faces intense cross-examination in Karen Read trial

Jennifer McCabe, a key witness in the Karen Read trial, was on the stand for hours of tense cross-examination Wednesday.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[mirage1]

BBM
Noooo, as was said by @Malleeboy Over 3 and a half years, and the CW could not find a single ME/pathologists/doctor that would testify that John O'Keefe was hit by a car.

That is not the same as ruling out he was hit by a car. There is a clear distinction.

 

[HarmonyE.]

If you wanted the truth, then offer everyone immunity, gather all their DNA, get fulsome testimony and maybe we might have an idea.

Oh, please not all of them!

I'm thinking Higgins might be the easiest one to break. And we know he broke federal law using FBI equipment to extract data from his phone. Arrest him for that and I'll bet he'll eventually crack like the taillight of one SUV hitting another!

 

[Warwick7]

You are missing something though... you can be bumped by a car yes, but you cannot shatter that tail light like it was and walk away with no bruises, if you had watched the expert testimony you would know that. You can't have it both ways... she was going slow enough that he wasn't injured, but fast enough that he shattered a tail light and didn't even have a bruise???

The defense provided more than 1 expert that said right out "he was not hit by a car", so I am not sure which show you were watching, but it didn't show you everything apparently.

Yep exactly!!

 

[Warwick7]

That is not the same as ruling out he was hit by a car. There is a clear distinction.

In your opinion.

 

[missy1974]

Closing defense statement in the retrial.

“Read is an innocent woman victimized by a police cover‑up in which law enforcement officers sought to protect their own and obscure the real killer.”

The above statement... does not require a 'grand conspiracy'. I was not sure when I first started watching the trial but the defense chipped away at reasonable doubt with every witness and then put on their own experts, even if you still believe there was a chance it could have happened, it's hard to believe someone cannot see reasonable doubt based on what was presented in court. And I'm not talking about all the outside noise, I'm talking about actual testimony and evidence.

 

[Malleeboy]

That is not the same as ruling out he was hit by a car. There is a clear distinction.

2 ME said no to the car, 2 said undetermined. Zero said hit by car.

Independent engineering experts hired by the FBI concluded both John wasn't hit by a car, and also the car didn't hit him.