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

[Wishbone]

This would prove, in my opinion, that these jurors didn't do their jobs, if they were considering what wasn't presented to them as evidence. IF in fact that was the case.

Most damning were the offensive text messages that Mr. Proctor sent to friends, and that he read aloud on the witness stand at the first trial. In them, he disparaged Ms. Read’s appearance, mocked her health problems and said that he hoped she would kill herself.

He also implied that the party’s host, another Boston officer, would not be scrutinized, after a friend asked him in one message if the homeowner would receive attention.

“Nope,” Mr. Proctor replied. “Homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”

Karen Read Acquittal Exposes Flaws in Police Practices, Supporters and Critics Say

Both sides agreed that the investigation into the death of Ms. Read’s boyfriend, a Boston police officer, was flawed and plagued by unethical and unprofessional conduct.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ShadyLady]

I so much wanted to hear a lot more about that!

I hope someone is able to let the public know what evidence the judge tried to hide.

 

[sunshineray]

I beg to differ. Cliff notes do not account for the whole story. The documentary is a money making opportunity for the entertainment business. It plays on viewers emotions to gain a large audience. It's show biz and that's all folks.

Well it was more than that since the defendant called it her testimony.

 

[ShadyLady]

Most damning were the offensive text messages that Mr. Proctor sent to friends, and that he read aloud on the witness stand at the first trial. In them, he disparaged Ms. Read’s appearance, mocked her health problems and said that he hoped she would kill herself.

He also implied that the party’s host, another Boston officer, would not be scrutinized, after a friend asked him in one message if the homeowner would receive attention.

“Nope,” Mr. Proctor replied. “Homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”

Karen Read Acquittal Exposes Flaws in Police Practices, Supporters and Critics Say

Both sides agreed that the investigation into the death of Ms. Read’s boyfriend, a Boston police officer, was flawed and plagued by unethical and unprofessional conduct.

www.nytimes.com

How did Proctor know about Karen's health issues?????

 

[Wishbone]

Well it was more than that since the defendant called it her testimony.

Her statements may be considered as evidence but are not testimony.

Testimony. § 18b.52 Testimony. Testimony shall be given orally under oath or affirmation by witnesses at the hearing; but the presiding officer, in the officer's discretion, may require or permit that the direct testimony of any witness be prepared in writing and served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

Global search | LII | Legal Information Institute

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[sunshineray]

Most damning were the offensive text messages that Mr. Proctor sent to friends, and that he read aloud on the witness stand at the first trial. In them, he disparaged Ms. Read’s appearance, mocked her health problems and said that he hoped she would kill herself.

He also implied that the party’s host, another Boston officer, would not be scrutinized, after a friend asked him in one message if the homeowner would receive attention.

“Nope,” Mr. Proctor replied. “Homeowner is a Boston cop, too.”

Karen Read Acquittal Exposes Flaws in Police Practices, Supporters and Critics Say

Both sides agreed that the investigation into the death of Ms. Read’s boyfriend, a Boston police officer, was flawed and plagued by unethical and unprofessional conduct.

www.nytimes.com

All not evidence of anyone framing KR, innuendos and suppositions so not admissable. Proctor said some nasty things about a woman in a text chain with friends. Proctor implying anything, again is subjective, not evidence. AJMO

 

[ShadyLady]

Drive to the body-meaning She was int he car w/Kerry and Jen.
If she left John in the house, I woudl think she would call Jenn at 5 am and say “Jenn, I left John at the house with you and the Alberts. He never came home. Can you call the Alberts to see if he is there”?
Not take the women to the place where he was laying dying on the ground…

oh, and Jen did call her sister right after Karen called her. She called Julie and Nicole. BUT claimed they did not answer.

 

[sunshineray]

Her statements may be considered as evidence but are not testimony.

Testimony. § 18b.52 Testimony. Testimony shall be given orally under oath or affirmation by witnesses at the hearing; but the presiding officer, in the officer's discretion, may require or permit that the direct testimony of any witness be prepared in writing and served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

Global search | LII | Legal Information Institute

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes but she considered it her testimony...and of course her daily talks with reporters too. MO

 

[missy1974]

This would prove, in my opinion, that these jurors didn't do their jobs, if they were considering what wasn't presented to them as evidence. IF in fact that was the case.

I encourage you to go and look for the interviews. It is clear to me that they did exactly what a jury is supposed to do. They didn't even take a vote for a few days. They went through testimony and evidence together, discussed everything and all came to the same conclusions.

 

[Wishbone]

Yes but she considered it her testimony...and of course her daily talks with reporters too. MO

Still doesn't make it testimony. I posted the definition of testimony up thread.

 

[Wishbone]

All not evidence of anyone framing KR, innuendos and suppositions so not admissable. Proctor said some nasty things about a woman in a text chain with friends. Proctor implying anything, again is subjective, not evidence. AJMO

“Nope,” Mr. Proctor replied. “Homeowner is a Boston cop, too.” Clear enough IMO that the cop would not be incriminated.

 

[shotgun09]

All not evidence of anyone framing KR, innuendos and suppositions so not admissable. Proctor said some nasty things about a woman in a text chain with friends. Proctor implying anything, again is subjective, not evidence. AJMO

Evidence is not required to imply reasonable doubt. imo

 

[Butt dials r us]

I'm just listening to Sarah levinson's testimony in trial 1 she has said JMC phone was charging in the wall behind her so how did Jen do these butt dials?
22.46

 

[mzmarymac]

Dear Hank & McAlberts:

How DARE you come after the jury that you helped choose. Go ahead and die on the hill of doing your own "independent investigation" and still taking on this loser of a case. How dare these people go on TV and throw mud at jurors who gave up their lives for this trial and all came to a 100% agreement of NOT GUILTY - just like the first jury!

How dare any of you say that the criminal justice system has failed YOU! You ARE the criminal justice system! And whether you like it or not, you are not just private citizens. Brian, you are a police officer, paid for by taxpayer money. You are a public figure (you were even on a TV show!) Chris, you are a murderer, who killed a young man in a drunken hit and run. Maybe sit this one out. Plus, you are a selectman. You literally ARE the government! Who exactly failed you?

I know Karen didn't hit John with her car. Not possible. So I don't care if you are all 100% innocent of this, you are not above anyone. I don't care if Bigfoot wandered into your front yard that night and hit JOK over the head and scratched his arm. Don't complain to anyone when your own actions show massive suspicious activity. Everything from driving drunk, to manslaughter convictions, to "rehoming" your family pet, to destroying phones, to lying about butt dials, to not coming outside in even, yes, your underwear! If not the murder of JOK, then what exactly are you all hiding?

I have ZERO sympathy for any of these people. JOK was the victim here as was Karen Read.

RIP Officer O'Keefe

 

[missy1974]

Well it was more than that since the defendant called it her testimony.

my understand is... that the jury understood that they were her words but also understood that they were selectively "clipped" (which they were), so they weighed them cautiously.

Just look at the shows since the verdict, they are edited, they are 'selective'. Does anyone nowadays believe everything they see on TV? or the news? I certainly do not, but that is JMO

 

[Warwick7]

I'm just listening to Sarah levinson's testimony in trial 1 she has said JMC phone was charging in the wall behind her so how did Jen do these butt dials?
22.46

I wanted so bad to post this earlier but couldn't remember if it was testimony or social media. Glad you posted!

 

[jepop]

I continue to be disgusted with Brennan. Sore loser.

Hank Brennan is scum Imo. This unprofessional statement simply confirms it. Everything he does and says comes from a place of self interest and is driven by a need for personal preservation. IMO

Ebm grammar

 

[Anniesflowers]

Juror 11, Paula, has been speaking out the most, she is great! In a podcast last night with TB and Bederow, she was asked about techstream data and timing... she said that Burgess and the info about timing and data... because it was changed mid-trial, she just didn't trust it. (she is a licensed lawyer in Brazil and knew that was not "normal")

She concluded that he went in the house... how? Whiffen's testimony. His phone was going in a westerly direction and then the location data was more unreliable and was a wider area, she said because he was in the house. Even mentioned that we have all had that problem, go in a building and your signal is not as good.

Corruption/cops involved - she agreed with the foreman... if a body was found on her front lawn, they cops would have been banging on her door and wanting to come in. She thinks the Alberts could have slept through all the noise, since they were drinking the night before.. BUT.. she says no way the dog wouldn't have been barking and going nuts. Being from Brazil, she said police corruption is a thing, she said no cop wants other cops poking around their house, she sees the same thing in this case and is more aware of it in the area now (not sure she was before this case)

Her whole interview was about 2 hours long.... she really did sound like 'one of us'. She drew from personal experiences to make common sense conclusions.

She talks a bit about the deliberations, it sounds like they did exactly what a jury is supposed to do, they went through evidence, they went through testimony - witness by witness. Oh and one tidbit she said... the foreman didn't take any notes, but he knew everything, every number, every detail.

It was great to see her reactions as TB and Bederow told her things that she had no clue about, from the 1st trial, and other things they were not allowed in court. AND.. things that happened during the 2nd trial that she had no idea about yet.

If anyone wants to listen to it... you can find it on TB's X or youtube.

Thanks for the suggestion! I’m watching now. This is the first trial that I’ve followed so closely, so forgive my question. Is there usually such an online backlash against jurors by people who disagree with their verdict? I can’t believe AKR people are doxxing, threatening, and lying about the jurors. Their reactions are so over the top that even if I believed KR had anything to do with JOK’s death, I would be disgusted by their behavior and try to distance myself from them. MOO.

 

[sunshineray]

Evidence is not required to imply reasonable doubt. imo

Considering if a juror made a decision of guilt or innocence because they thought information was being hidden from them, by either side, or were considering information known by other means than what was presented to them in this trial in court, to help imply reasonable doubt is not what the jurors were charged to do. I was replying to a particularly worded post.

 

[sunshineray]

my understand is... that the jury understood that they were her words but also understood that they were selectively "clipped" (which they were), so they weighed them cautiously.

Just look at the shows since the verdict, they are edited, they are 'selective'. Does anyone nowadays believe everything they see on TV? or the news? I certainly do not, but that is JMO

I believe when a defendant contradicts herself it should be seriously considered, JMO