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

[KSwizzle]

He wasn't hit by a car period. So the CW's whole theory is wrong, if she killed him, it wasn't by striking him with a car and the CW did not present any other theory.

Sure look like dog bites and scratches on his arm, a huge complete lack of injuries outside the arm and the head injury. How did he die? I have no idea and I don't have to necessarily believe in a conspiracy, I can simply say I don't know, the investigation was non existent, the McAlberts are extremely shady, JoK passed away and it was not because Karen Red hit him with a car.

 

[missy1974]

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

you need to watch Dr. Laposata's testimony.

 

[mirage1]

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.

Again, no expert RULED OUT being hit by a car. SOme said they did not believe he was, or injuries were not consistent, which is NOT the same as excluding a car hitting him. This is a super super important point [personalizing]

 

[missy1974]

I don't know why this even matters when her statement was corroborated by 2 first responders? All I am seeing is people trying bury evidence they don't like. Apparently Karen's own friend was part of the conspiracy along with 2 first responders!! Someone needs to make a movie out of this!

How about this. The reason she didn't mention it the first time was because she was trying to protect her close friend?

Can you give a reasonable explaination as to why the LEO's that were there didn't detain or arrest her right away?

 

[bobbymkii]

Again, no expert RULED OUT being hit by a car. SOme said they did not believe he was, or injuries were not consistent, which is NOT the same as excluding a car hitting him. This is a super super important point which clearly many seem to be confused about.

So Karen Read couldn't prove her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so she must be guilty. Right?

 

[mirage1]

you need to watch Dr. Laposata's testimony.

Yes she was laughably biased when she asserted ' it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter'. It should be obvious how unprofessional those words were and how it was over reach to just assert that. Regardless, asserting her opinion is not the same as excluding the possibility of something being possible.

 

[Mmcgirl13]

Yes she was laughably biased when she asserted ' it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter'. It should be obvious how unprofessional those words were and how it was over reach to just assert that. Regardless, asserting her opinion is not the same as excluding the possibility of something being possible.

So, you believe he was hit by Karen’s car because “no one said he wasn’t hit by a car,” but the witness who DID indeed testify to that was being unprofessional?

 

[Warwick7]

● LE NOT taking photos of JO or the measurements.

● Hiding video of the allegeded murder weapon in a “paper file” for two years.

● Waiting hundreds of days to write reports.

● LE body cams turned off while conducting interviews of key witnesses.

● Karen's taillight going from cracked to smashed while in police custody.

● Oh yes, sometimes it was a year or more to interview key witnesses.

● NOT documenting the location of evidence related to a murder weapon AND no chain of custody documented.

● Cellphone expert finding Hos long to die in the cold on JMc's phone at 2:27AM

● Inverted sallyport video

● Lacking knowledge of the need for chain of custody protocols.

● MP's degrading texts.

● An offering a gift to MP "when this is all over"

● Missing videos from library and JOKs home.

● Deleted datta from KR's phone while in LE custody.

● Not disclosing personal relationships with witnesses.

● Driving around in your truck with a bag of clothing that is evidence. Which can comprise evidence.

● Writing down and lying about the WRONG time KR's car was taken by LE. Good thing her Dad had video cameras.

● BH going to the Canton Police after the night of drinking and partying.

● MMc texting "tell them the guy never went in the hous

● Calling suspects “retarded” in texts with your supervisor and your supervisor’s supervisor.

● Looking through a suspect’s phone for “nudes”

● Pressuring a medical examiner to make a homicide finding.

● Leaving evidence lying on the floor for six days.

● MP already labeling Karen guilty within hours.

● BA and NA not coming out of their house. Not even in his underwear.

● Not properly preserving a victim’s cell phone

● LE accessing apps on a victim’s cell phone. Like videos and erasing them.

There is so much more!!

 

[nightowl1975]

Is there a link for this? Thanks.

I believe this has the testimony. Cameras weren’t allowed but audio was.

JO niece testimony

 

[Wishbone]

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.

It's a moot point now that the jury found KR not guilty. They did not believe she was hit by a car and they are the only ones that count.

 

[missy1974]

Yes she was laughably biased when she asserted ' it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter'. It should be obvious how unprofessional those words were and how it was over reach to just assert that. Regardless, asserting her opinion is not the same as excluding the possibility of something being possible.

haha ok.. but you said that no experts said the vehicle didn't hit him... so you agree that a forensic pathologist DID say it.. you just didn't like that she said it, so disregarded it. Those are 2 different things.

 

[nightowl1975]

Again, no expert RULED OUT being hit by a car. SOme said they did not believe he was, or injuries were not consistent, which is NOT the same as excluding a car hitting him. This is a super super important point which clearly many seem to be confused about.

Dr Laposata (sp?) was extremely blunt in saying “he wasn’t hit by a car, so it didn’t matter how fast the car was going”. I’m not sure how much more precise one could possibly be to “rule out” being hit by a car than that. He. Wasn’t. Hit. By. A. Car.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I don't know why this even matters when her statement was corroborated by 2 first responders? All I am seeing is people trying bury evidence they don't like. Apparently Karen's own friend was part of the conspiracy along with 2 first responders!! Someone needs to make a movie out of this!

How about this. The reason she didn't mention it the first time was because she was trying to protect her close friend?

So JM doesn't tell more than one GJ that KR said "I hit him" 3X because she's "trying to protect her close friend."?
The 3 "I hit hims" was an afterthought to JM.
KR was not close friends with JM.

The FF/Medic Katie McLaughlin who also testified KR said "I hit him" 3x never wrote it down and supposedly told an officer(s) at the scene.
The same Katie who said she knew someone named "Caitlin Albert" from high school then we found out they were very close acquaintances for years,

YET at the scene of a dead police officer no officer who KM told that KR said she hit JOK brought KR into custody for questioning.
Go figure.

IMO

 

[HarmonyE.]

Again, no expert RULED OUT being hit by a car. SOme said they did not believe he was, or injuries were not consistent, which is NOT the same as excluding a car hitting him. This is a super super important point which clearly many seem to be confused about.

Again, no one came close to PROVING he was hit by a car. Not even close. His body bore no evidence of being hit by a 6000 plus pound vehicle. His head injury was from a fall backwards and his arm injuries were obviously caused by a dog. Basic physics.

And the taillight wasn't there until late in the day. Facts matter.

 

[JasmineD]

Again, no one came close to PROVING he was hit by a car. Not even close. His body bore no evidence of being hit by a 6000 plus pound vehicle. His head injury was from a fall backwards and his harm injuries were obviously caused by a dog. Basic physics.

And the taillight wasn't there until late in the day. Facts matter.

Yes! Facts. Not feelings.

 

[nightowl1975]

Yes she was laughably biased when she asserted ' it didn't hit him, so it doesn't matter'. It should be obvious how unprofessional those words were and how it was over reach to just assert that. Regardless, asserting her opinion is not the same as excluding the possibility of something being possible.

In the context of her testimony, I suspect her response and how she worded it had more to do with the ridiculous questions and condescending tone Brennen was taking with her more than anything else. He wanted to talk in circles as if that somehow changed facts or her opinion of the facts. She was like, well, he wasn’t hit by a car, so it doesn’t matter how fast the car was going. Even Brennen was like, oh…. ok. It would be funny if the whole thing wasn’t so absurd and KR’s freedom hadn’t been on the line. JMO.

 

[Warwick7]

It's a moot point now that the jury found KR not guilty. They did not believe she was hit by a car and they are the only ones that count.

Bam!! Excellent comment!! So true...

 

[Dawookie]

Dr Laposata (sp?) was extremely blunt in saying “he wasn’t hit by a car, so it didn’t matter how fast the car was going”. I’m not sure how much more precise one could possibly be to “rule out” being hit by a car than that. He. Wasn’t. Hit. By. A. Car.

Didn't Rentschler say it as well but good old Bev ordered it stricken from the record?

 

[KSwizzle]

All the CW's witnesses had admittedly better memories in the second trial than the first, the more time that past the sharper they were, I need to find their brain training regime, maybe it's copious amounts of alcohol moo

 

[Wishbone]

Key takeaways from acquittal of Karen Read in Boston police officer boyfriend's death | What's next​

Karen Read has walked out of a Massachusetts court a free woman after a jury found her not guilty of killing John O'Keefe

Key takeaways from acquittal of Karen Read in Boston police officer boyfriend's death | What's next

Though her criminal case is over, Read still faces civil litigation. O'Keefe's family has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against her and two bars where the couple drank that night.

6abc.com