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

[HarmonyE.]

In a more light-hearted holiday mood, I have a casting suggesting for the inevitable movie:
To play Judge Beverly Cannone: Rachel Dratch (Debbie Downer on SNL). She has a genuine Boston area accent, too, so managing sidebaaaahs should come easily for her.

Rachel does a more South Boston/Dorchester blue collar type accent. She's need to refine it to sound more fake upper-class Boston.

 

[Morag]

Rachel does a more South Boston/Dorchester blue collar type accent. She's need to refine it to sound more fake upper-class Boston.

Good point.

 

[cocomod]

Not how I saw it at all. There was no evidence to support their SODDI theory so they didn't want to open up a very bad cans of worms for their client.
Judge Cannone was not at all bias during these trials. AJMO

The defense has plenty of evidence to support SODDI . They chose not to pursue this angle in the second trial because their only job is show that the CW could NOT prove BARD that KR hit OJO. That was easy for them as the CW's own expert testimony proved that OJO was not hit by a vehicle. The many, many lies told by the CW witnesses shred their credibility.

She may need to prove that in civil court and the preponderance of evidence is there against her. AJMO

KR will skate in a civil trial because the best evidence in her favor will be used without suppression. They will be able to say the FBI investigated the CW's claims and found them to not be credible. This will seal the case in KR's favor. In the criminal trial, their hands were tied with respect to who hired ARCCA, but in the civil case, they can shout it to the court! Also, the fact that she was found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and not only that, the jury found that her car didn't hit OJO will seal the civil case in her favor as well. This jury has spoken and they were very thoughtful in their deliberations. They listened to all of the evidence and found that the CW couldn't prove a darn thing!

 

[keek]

The defense has plenty of evidence to support SODDI . They chose not to pursue this angle in the second trial because their only job is show that the CW could NOT prove BARD that KR hit OJO. That was easy for them as the CW's own expert testimony proved that OJO was not hit by a vehicle. The many, many lies told by the CW witnesses shred their credibility.




KR will skate in a civil trial because the best evidence in her favor will be used without suppression. They will be able to say the FBI investigated the CW's claims and found them to not be credible. This will seal the case in KR's favor. In the criminal trial, their hands were tied with respect to who hired ARCCA, but in the civil case, they can shout it to the court! Also, the fact that she was found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and not only that, the jury found that her car didn't hit OJO will seal the civil case in her favor as well. This jury has spoken and they were very thoughtful in their deliberations. They listened to all of the evidence and found that the CW couldn't prove a darn thing!

Is there anyone more equipped on everything you can imagine than the FBI wno saw KR as innocent of having her SUV hit a person ? You’d truly believe that wouid send some people and their opinions elsewhere as it’s massively done. Lots of ongoing cases here. IMO

 

[HarmonyE.]

The defense has plenty of evidence to support SODDI . They chose not to pursue this angle in the second trial because their only job is show that the CW could NOT prove BARD that KR hit OJO. That was easy for them as the CW's own expert testimony proved that OJO was not hit by a vehicle. The many, many lies told by the CW witnesses shred their credibility.




KR will skate in a civil trial because the best evidence in her favor will be used without suppression. They will be able to say the FBI investigated the CW's claims and found them to not be credible. This will seal the case in KR's favor. In the criminal trial, their hands were tied with respect to who hired ARCCA, but in the civil case, they can shout it to the court! Also, the fact that she was found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and not only that, the jury found that her car didn't hit OJO will seal the civil case in her favor as well. This jury has spoken and they were very thoughtful in their deliberations. They listened to all of the evidence and found that the CW couldn't prove a darn thing!

Not to mention, her auto insurance carrier and the two bars' liability carriers have deep pockets and can hire ARCCA for themselves if they so choose.

While the liability bar is considerably lower in a civil case vs a criminal one, the burden of proof still rests with John's estate ( Paul O'Keefe). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts with it's unlimited financial resources couldn't prove JO was hit by a car, how is Paul going to manage to do so with, what I assume, far more limited financial resources? And as you say, a jury would also know Read was found not guilty of striking him with her vehicle.

I think this is why Paul was so distressed over the NG on manslaughter. There will be no finanacial bonanza.

 

[wackyw]

The defense has plenty of evidence to support SODDI . They chose not to pursue this angle in the second trial because their only job is show that the CW could NOT prove BARD that KR hit OJO. That was easy for them as the CW's own expert testimony proved that OJO was not hit by a vehicle. The many, many lies told by the CW witnesses shred their credibility.




KR will skate in a civil trial because the best evidence in her favor will be used without suppression. They will be able to say the FBI investigated the CW's claims and found them to not be credible. This will seal the case in KR's favor. In the criminal trial, their hands were tied with respect to who hired ARCCA, but in the civil case, they can shout it to the court! Also, the fact that she was found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and not only that, the jury found that her car didn't hit OJO will seal the civil case in her favor as well. This jury has spoken and they were very thoughtful in their deliberations. They listened to all of the evidence and found that the CW couldn't prove a darn thing!

Yeah, ..... but if a civil case fails then can they drop down to the Witchcraft courts? Is that still the way they can still do it in MA if those laws still on the books? ? I think there's quite a lot of prosecution leeway in those trials.

 

[keek]

Rachel does a more South Boston/Dorchester blue collar type accent. She's need to refine it to sound more fake upper-class Boston.

I don't know what that is, but all I heard was a souse. IMO

 

[keek]

Not to mention, her auto insurance carrier and the two bars' liability carriers have deep pockets and can hire ARCCA for themselves if they so choose.

While the liability bar is considerably lower in a civil case vs a criminal one, the burden of proof still rests with John's estate ( Paul O'Keefe). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts with it's unlimited financial resources couldn't prove JO was hit by a car, how is Paul going to manage to do so with, what I assume, far more limited financial resources? And as you say, a jury would also know Read was found not guilty of striking him with her vehicle.

I think this is why Paul was so distressed over the NG on manslaughter. There will be no finanacial bonanza.

My immediate impression when he put his head in his hands!! IMO

 

[LittleSeaTree]

Nothing. Opposite has been shown, signed, sealed and DELIVVVVERED. imo

Signed, sealed and Devered. Or is it Deevered

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1940800561403629916

 

[Luna20]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1940800561403629916

He may think there is no point in it

 

[keek]

He may think there is no point in it

Hoping he knows the O'K's are dropping the matter. McCarthy's does not deserve this. Chris McCarthy, who the restaurant is named for was the polar opposite of Alberts and McCabe's type of ..people. IMO

 

[Luna20]

Hoping he knows the O'K's are dropping the matter. McCarthy's does not deserve this. Chris McCarthy, who the restaurant is named for was the polar opposite of Alberts and McCabe's type of ..people. IMO

It bothers me that they got pulled in to it to the degree that they did. I didnt see anyone in the group who was so drunk that they couldn’t walk out of there.

 

[keek]

It bothers me that they got pulled in to it to the degree that they did. I didnt see anyone in the group who was so drunk that they couldn’t walk out of there.

A way to money grab off JOK's death, assumption and hoping as far as they are concerned. IMO

 

[SteveS]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1940800561403629916

Some of you seem to be misunderstanding this mundane (non-)-news story. Reporter is reading court filings and turning minor stuff into "news" and it's little more than that.

Maybe a summary will help.

1 OK family's lawsuit is unchanged.
2 Ones being sued are all still the same.
3 All still have attorneys.
4 But the bar (who is being sued by OK family) apparently hired a law firm to handle their case, who assigned the case to 3 of its lawyers. One of them will no longer be working the case (this belongs in the "minor details" department) and whoa, news flash, tell the world (!!), it was made official with the court!!!!!!!!!!
5 It's possible, perhaps likely, that their firm simply will be adding a different lawyer to work the case.

And don't read much into a particular lawyer dropping out (or if one is added, either) -- lawyers have lives beyond one specific case, and who knows why this one could not continue, but life happens.

A lawyer for a Canton bar facing a wrongful death lawsuit brought by John O’Keefe’s family has withdrawn from the case, while Karen Read has added three civil attorneys to her legal team to defend her against the suit, records show.

Kevin M. Bergin, who had been representing C.F. McCarthy’s, one of two Canton bars O’Keefe and Read visited on the night of O’Keefe’s death, filed his withdrawal Wednesday in Plymouth Superior Court, according to legal filings.

Bergin did not detail why he was withdrawing from the case. The bar is also represented by two other attorneys from his firm, records show.

 

[Warwick7]

Some of you seem to be misunderstanding this mundane (non-)-news story. Reporter is reading court filings and turning minor stuff into "news" and it's little more than that.

Maybe a summary will help.

1 OK family's lawsuit is unchanged.
2 Ones being sued are all still the same.
3 All still have attorneys.
4 But the bar (who is being sued by OK family) apparently hired a law firm to handle their case, who assigned the case to 3 of its lawyers. One of them will no longer be working the case (this belongs in the "minor details" department) and whoa, news flash, tell the world (!!), it was made official with the court!!!!!!!!!!
5 It's possible, perhaps likely, that their firm simply will be adding a different lawyer to work the case.

And don't read much into a particular lawyer dropping out (or if one is added, either) -- lawyers have lives beyond one specific case, and who knows why this one could not continue, but life happens.

A lawyer for a Canton bar facing a wrongful death lawsuit brought by John O’Keefe’s family has withdrawn from the case, while Karen Read has added three civil attorneys to her legal team to defend her against the suit, records show.

Kevin M. Bergin, who had been representing C.F. McCarthy’s, one of two Canton bars O’Keefe and Read visited on the night of O’Keefe’s death, filed his withdrawal Wednesday in Plymouth Superior Court, according to legal filings.

Bergin did not detail why he was withdrawing from the case. The bar is also represented by two other attorneys from his firm, records show.

No, I'm not misunderstanding this mundane (non-)-news story. Instead I'm just a link posting person.

 

[sunshineray]

I still have no idea what this opinion is based on apart from a fictional narrative with no basis in fact or reality. Moo, I find it quite insulting to the jurors. I feel consistently insisting on something so entirely speculative undermines faith in the jury system, especially as those who have spoken have made abundantly clear they considered the evidence in detail and reached a verdict applying the faculty of reason to it. Jmo

Yes my faith in the jury system was rocked to it's foundation by this case. I do not share your beliefs that the jury did their job without bias. It's not abundantly clear they considered only the evidence, IMO, in fact the opposite is what I've heard from listening to those interviewed.
The above is all just my opinion.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Yes my faith in the jury system was rocked to it's foundation by this case. I do not share your beliefs that the jury did their job without bias. It's not abundantly clear they considered only the evidence, IMO, in fact the opposite is what I've heard from listening to those interviewed.
The above is all just my opinion.

This is one of the most egregious attempts to frame someone for a murder that I have actually witnessed (instead of just reading about it or watching a documentary after the fact). Witnessed by watching both trials. Not only egregious, but almost laughingly amateurish and clownish. The fact that this BS even got to trial TWICE has reinforced my total, 100% support of trial by jury in our justice system. Jurors are empowered to stop the government in its tracks when they see an injustice right before their eyes. And thank the framers of the Constitution and our continued insistence on it. In fact, the very reason for trial by jury IS to stop the tyranny of the empowered and the elite. In this case, all the jurors had to do was honestly review the evidence that was presented. Nothing beyond that was needed. The CW evidence was that bad, However, if any case was begging for jury nullification and a message to the CW, to wit, “We won’t put up with this BS”, this was it.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Yes my faith in the jury system was rocked to it's foundation by this case. I do not share your beliefs that the jury did their job without bias. It's not abundantly clear they considered only the evidence, IMO, in fact the opposite is what I've heard from listening to those interviewed.
The above is all just my opinion.

If the only acceptable outcome is one you agree with, then of course you’re going to feel like the system failed. But IMO, that says more about your emotional investment than it does about the jury. Twelve people took an oath, listened to every single piece of evidence, and were bound by the law - not public sentiment, not social media theories, and certainly not hindsight bias. Claiming they were biased simply because they didn’t reach your preferred verdict is just sour grapes, IMO.

 

[sapphire blue]

Even the subfloors in most of the basement were ripped out.

Unless there was a massive flood, I'm not sure why anyone would do that.

According to environmental section of realtor com for 34 Fairview "This property has no flood risk in the Flood Factor™ model"

Curiouser and curiouser

Two possible reasons

1. Termites or rotten timbers
2. Hiding evidence, imo that is removing blood evidence and imo also the most likely reason