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

[waldojabba]

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.

I don't know if you are local to Massachusetts but I am sure the Governor would appreciate hearing from you. She was the former AG. That's the way to make yourself heard. JMO

1. Governor Healey's Constituent Services Main Office (617) 725-4005.
2. Toll-free in Massachusetts (888) 870-7770.
3. Springfield Office (413) 784-1200.
4. TTY (617) 727-3666.
5. Washington, D.C. Office (202) 624-3616.

 

[Seattle1]

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

A typical baiting headline. While Kevin Bergin withdrew from the case, his firm still represents them:

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.

 

[Seattle1]

We saw this in the Mallory Beach wrongful death suit against co-defendants Murdaugh and the convenience store (Parkers) that sold alcohol to his underage son. Murdaugh was under-insured for his percentage of liability awarded in the suit, and the convenience store had to cover 100% and couldn't recover from bankrupt Murdaugh. It was huge -- I think Parker was stuck paying about $15M settlement. I'm surprised the bars haven't tried to sever their suit from KR. She must be decently insured ???

Karen Read faces potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit from O'Keefe family despite acquittal

A lawsuit remains pending against Karen Read, and legal experts say it could have significant financial ramifications for Read depending on how it plays out.

www.foxbusiness.com

Spencer Kuvin, chief legal officer at GOLDLAW, told FOX Business the likelihood of the case going to trial or being settled could "depend on whether or not she has insurance that could cover her for this."

[..]

Kuvin said a jury would "determine the total measure of damages" and then the "percentage of fault of each defendant," which would "control who is responsible to pay what."

"But in Massachusetts, even if you only have a small percentage, you’re liable to pay the full amount, but then you can get it back from the other defendants who are only partially at fault as well," he explained.

If a jury were to rule in favor of Read, she "doesn’t have to pay and her name is cleared if she’s only defending herself," according to Wright.

 

[missy1974]

We saw this in the Mallory Beach wrongful death suit against co-defendants Murdaugh and the convenience store (Parkers) that sold alcohol to his underage son. Murdaugh was under-insured for his percentage of liability awarded in the suit, and the convenience store had to cover 100% and couldn't recover from bankrupt Murdaugh. It was huge -- I think Parker was stuck paying about $15M settlement. I'm surprised the bars haven't tried to sever their suit from KR. She must be decently insured ???

Karen Read faces potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit from O'Keefe family despite acquittal

A lawsuit remains pending against Karen Read, and legal experts say it could have significant financial ramifications for Read depending on how it plays out.

www.foxbusiness.com

Spencer Kuvin, chief legal officer at GOLDLAW, told FOX Business the likelihood of the case going to trial or being settled could "depend on whether or not she has insurance that could cover her for this."

[..]

Kuvin said a jury would "determine the total measure of damages" and then the "percentage of fault of each defendant," which would "control who is responsible to pay what."

"But in Massachusetts, even if you only have a small percentage, you’re liable to pay the full amount, but then you can get it back from the other defendants who are only partially at fault as well," he explained.

If a jury were to rule in favor of Read, she "doesn’t have to pay and her name is cleared if she’s only defending herself," according to Wright.

I would think any good lawyer would be looking at this case and wondering if they can even win it?

Can they find an expert or experts that will conclude he was hit by the SUV? and if they can, will it be a reliable one? I don't think you can find a jury that will find the blue paint experiment credible 'evidence'. Or not all of them.

2 criminal trials later and I don't think we have had a believable expert say he was hit by the car. The jury in the 2nd trial did NOT believe the Aperture witnesses.

All JMO

 

[PamCake]

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

So she needs to say things like baaath and caan't, the Boston Brahmin way.

 

[HarmonyE.]

We saw this in the Mallory Beach wrongful death suit against co-defendants Murdaugh and the convenience store (Parkers) that sold alcohol to his underage son. Murdaugh was under-insured for his percentage of liability awarded in the suit, and the convenience store had to cover 100% and couldn't recover from bankrupt Murdaugh. It was huge -- I think Parker was stuck paying about $15M settlement. I'm surprised the bars haven't tried to sever their suit from KR. She must be decently insured ???

Karen Read faces potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit from O'Keefe family despite acquittal

A lawsuit remains pending against Karen Read, and legal experts say it could have significant financial ramifications for Read depending on how it plays out.

www.foxbusiness.com

Spencer Kuvin, chief legal officer at GOLDLAW, told FOX Business the likelihood of the case going to trial or being settled could "depend on whether or not she has insurance that could cover her for this."

[..]

Kuvin said a jury would "determine the total measure of damages" and then the "percentage of fault of each defendant," which would "control who is responsible to pay what."

"But in Massachusetts, even if you only have a small percentage, you’re liable to pay the full amount, but then you can get it back from the other defendants who are only partially at fault as well," he explained.

If a jury were to rule in favor of Read, she "doesn’t have to pay and her name is cleared if she’s only defending herself," according to Wright.

Impossible to know how much insurance she had. Highest limit on a policy in MA is 250k per person, but I'd expect her to also have a personal umbrella policy, which usually start at 1 million. If only because she was a solo homeowner, and as a financial analyst whe was probably pretty savvy about such things. We really can't say for sure though.

We also have no idea how much liability coverage either bar has, but likely each have at least a million, probably more given their dram shop exposures.

MA has a "in for a penny, in for a pound" joint and several statute. Which means if all three parties are found partially liable, they'd contribute equally to any judgement. Insurance limits aside.

With that said, it would be difficult - if not impossible - for the bars to separate their lawsuits from Read's. Courts usually prefer consolidation. And given the NGs on the criminal counts, I don't think it would benefit the bars to do so. If Read didn't hit anyone that night, then the bars have a causality defense. The four necessary elements of negligence are: 1) There had to be a duty owed, 2) There has to be a breach of that duty, 3) There must be damages and 4) There has to be causality between the duty breach and the alleged damages. All four elements must exist for their to be a liability finding.

If we go through the negligence elements for the bars: 1) Yes, the bars had a duty not to endanger lives by overserving a patron. 2) They potentially breached that duty if it's proven they overserved Read. 3) As the plaintiff lost his life, there are damages. 4) (Here's where it falls apart for the estate) If Read did not strike John O'Keefe with her vehicle, there is no causality between the breach and the damages.

The cases against the bars are very much connected to case against Read. If she didn't hit JO, they can't be liable for his death.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

There was not one shred of admissible evidence to show anyone other than KR was there at the time her vehicle, under her control, went in reverse at a velocity nearing 75% on the accelerator with no braking. At that same time JO's phone stops activity, goes dark right in that same area. His phone showed he was NOT in the house at that time but outside in front. That data shows the collision time IMO, logic dictates that fact, IMO. KR took it from there, her actions, her words all logically dictate that she was, and admitted she was, responsible for what happened to JO, according to witness testimony IMO. That is until she was arrested and her story changed to (paraphrazing) I saw him go in the house.

All the above is my opinion and it's also my opinion that the jury disregarded the facts of this case with either already preconceived opinions as to what happened or undue pressure from the rabid cirus-like atmosphere social media created surrounding this case at the courthouse. I say, shame on them. I'm entitled to my opinions as you are entitled to yours. We greatly disagree.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Y

There was not one shred of admissible evidence to show anyone other than KR was there at the time her vehicle, under her control, went in reverse at a velocity nearing 75% on the accelerator with no braking. At that same time JO's phone stops activity, goes dark right in that same area. His phone showed he was NOT in the house at that time but outside in front. That data shows the collision time IMO, logic dictates that fact, IMO. KR took it from there, her actions, her words all logically dictate that she was, and admitted she was, responsible for what happened to JO, according to witness testimony IMO. That is until she was arrested and her story changed to (paraphrazing) I saw him go in the house.

All the above is my opinion and it's also my opinion that the jury disregarded the facts of this case with either already preconceived opinions as to what happened or undue pressure from the rabid cirus-like atmosphere social media created surrounding this case at the courthouse. I say, shame on them. I'm entitled to my opinions as you are entitled to yours. We greatly disagree.

Everyone is well aware that the investigators did not bother to look at others, so of course there will be no evidence. That argument doesn’t stand to scrutiny. Now that KR was acquitted, and many of the jurors are calling for others to be investigated, wouldn’t one interested in justice want that as well?

Those continuing to trash the jury says much more about themselves than the jury. It’s either preconceived notions or a circus-like atmosphere not allowing them to let go. Sad really.

 

[Seattle1]

Impossible to know how much insurance she had. Highest limit on a policy in MA is 250k per person, but I'd expect her to also have a personal umbrella policy, which usually start at 1 million. If only because she was a solo homeowner, and as a financial analyst whe was probably pretty savvy about such things. We really can't say for sure though.

We also have no idea how much liability coverage either bar has, but likely each have at least a million, probably more given their dram shop exposures.

MA has a "in for a penny, in for a pound" joint and several statute. Which means if all three parties are found partially liable, they'd contribute equally to any judgement. Insurance limits aside.

With that said, it would be difficult - if not impossible - for the bars to separate their lawsuits from Read's. Courts usually prefer consolidation. And given the NGs on the criminal counts, I don't think it would benefit the bars to do so. If Read didn't hit anyone that night, then the bars have a causality defense. The four necessary elements of negligence are: 1) There had to be a duty owed, 2) There has to be a breach of that duty, 3) There must be damages and 4) There has to be causality between the duty breach and the alleged damages. All four elements must exist for their to be a liability finding.

If we go through the negligence elements for the bars: 1) Yes, the bars had a duty not to endanger lives by overserving a patron. 2) They potentially breached that duty if it's proven they overserved Read. 3) As the plaintiff lost his life, there are damages. 4) (Here's where it falls apart for the estate) If Read did not strike John O'Keefe with her vehicle, there is no causality between the breach and the damages.

The cases against the bars are very much connected to case against Read. If she didn't hit JO, they can't be liable for his death.

Thanks. I understood the lawyer cited in the MSM differently.

 

[Seattle1]

After two criminal trials, what’s next for Karen Read? - The Boston Globe

The wrongful death suit filed by John O'Keefe's family will continue after being largely on pause during Read's second criminal trial.

www.bostonglobe.com

6/20/25

Thomas Merrigan, a retired attorney and state judge, said Read’s acquittals on murder and manslaughter charges deprive the plaintiffs in the wrongful death suit of powerful evidence. Read’s conviction for operating under the influence will likely have a “limited value” in the suit, Merrigan said.

“The civil case is about connecting the death of John O’Keefe to her operation of a motor vehicle,” he said. “I think the outcome of the criminal case certainly illustrates the difficulty, evidentiary-wise, of proving that connection.”

But the lower standard of proof in civil lawsuits — a “preponderance of the evidence,” rather than a criminal trial’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — means the family faces a lower burden in making its case, Merrigan said.

[..]

No trial date has been set in the civil case.

 

[cocomod]

There was not one shred of admissible evidence to show anyone other than KR was there at the time her vehicle, under her control, went in reverse at a velocity nearing 75% on the accelerator with no braking. At that same time JO's phone stops activity, goes dark right in that same area. His phone showed he was NOT in the house at that time but outside in front. That data shows the collision time IMO, logic dictates that fact, IMO. KR took it from there, her actions, her words all logically dictate that she was, and admitted she was, responsible for what happened to JO, according to witness testimony IMO. That is until she was arrested and her story changed to (paraphrazing) I saw him go in the house.

All the above is my opinion and it's also my opinion that the jury disregarded the facts of this case with either already preconceived opinions as to what happened or undue pressure from the rabid cirus-like atmosphere social media created surrounding this case at the courthouse. I say, shame on them. I'm entitled to my opinions as you are entitled to yours. We greatly disagree.

John’s phone was used after KR left. He also took enough steps to have reached the house. This was proven in the trial. It was not proven that his phone never went in the house or garage. In fact, the CW witness agreed that it was in a general area, but he could not pinpoint the actual location. There was much made regarding the phone, but in testimony, under cross examination, he couldn’t pinpoint or say it didn’t reach the house.

No snark intended, but if what the FBI agent says is true, if Google could definitively pinpoint the Google search as 2:27 am, how would your opinion change?

 

[sapphire blue]

John’s phone was used after KR left. He also took enough steps to have reached the house. This was proven in the trial. It was not proven that his phone never went in the house or garage. In fact, the CW witness agreed that it was in a general area, but he could not pinpoint the actual location. There was much made regarding the phone, but in testimony, under cross examination, he couldn’t pinpoint or say it didn’t reach the house.

No snark intended, but if what the FBI agent says is true, if Google could definitively pinpoint the Google search as 2:27 am, how would your opinion change?

Re the 2.27am search - why is that the ONLY search that was deleted? Add all the ‘butt dials’ around that time and in the morning, how does anyone explain all of that as innocent actions by the McCabe/ Albert clan?

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Re the 2.27am search - why is that the ONLY search that was deleted? Add all the ‘butt dials’ around that time and in the morning, how does anyone explain all of that as innocent actions by the McCabe/ Albert clan?

Just like how Jen deleted all those calls to John’s phone. They only found out about it because they got the info from HIS phone.

 

[keek]

So she needs to say things like baaath and caan't, the Boston Brahmin way.

UM, that's how I pronounce those words per evvvvveryone younger or not from MA, Boston area that is. Boston parents pass it on I'd say. It's 'normal' prob of a generation. It will saddddddddly be gone as people move about, the old guard no longer with us and speaking to and with us as children so that it carried on.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I am watching A Body in the Snow. In Ep 1, Karen talks about how she found Alan Jackson and Liza Little. After hiring David Yannetti, he realized it was going to be a lot of work for him to take on by himself, so Karen called the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute and a Professor suggested she look into the attorneys who defended the Kevin Spacey case. When AJ saw the first email from Karen with photos of John's arm, he and Liza knew they wanted to take on the case.

 

[TristanP]

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.

Who biased the jury?

 

[TristanP]

There was not one shred of admissible evidence to show anyone other than KR was there at the time her vehicle, under her control, went in reverse at a velocity nearing 75% on the accelerator with no braking. At that same time JO's phone stops activity, goes dark right in that same area. His phone showed he was NOT in the house at that time but outside in front. That data shows the collision time IMO, logic dictates that fact, IMO. KR took it from there, her actions, her words all logically dictate that she was, and admitted she was, responsible for what happened to JO, according to witness testimony IMO. That is until she was arrested and her story changed to (paraphrazing) I saw him go in the house.

All the above is my opinion and it's also my opinion that the jury disregarded the facts of this case with either already preconceived opinions as to what happened or undue pressure from the rabid cirus-like atmosphere social media created surrounding this case at the courthouse. I say, shame on them. I'm entitled to my opinions as you are entitled to yours. We greatly disagree.

There was not one shred of evidence to show that Karen's vehicle struck John, and that's a fact - not anyone's opinion. The CW's own expert witness, Jud Welcher, showed a photo of what a human's arm looks like after it is struck by a vehicle, and John's arm looked nothing like that. The state's medical examiner stated his injuries are not consistent with a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Two other medical examiners stated his injuries are not consistent with a pedestrian/vehicle collision. But you're mad at the jury because the opinions you hold were not proven to be facts in the trial, and were in fact directly disputed by the facts that were presented at the trial.

At some point one has to take a step back and be honest with themselves about who is truly biased.

This is a perfect example of exactly why things went wrong in this case in the first place. Michael Proctor formed an opinion that was not based on facts, and instead of seeking facts to prove or disprove his opinion, only sought out evidence that would prove his opinion. A professional investigator is supposed to gather as many facts as possible, and then see where those facts lead.

Michael Easter has done a couple of interviews on YouTube about proper investigations - one with Lawyer You Know, and another with Justice Served, that were both really interesting and informative. (He's been on Justice Served more than once - the first interview focused more specifically on investigative techniques IIRC.)

Everyone who is upset about the verdict in this case really must focus that energy and direct it to the law enforcement agencies who did not handle things appropriately from Day One. People want to blame Turtleboy and people who chanted Free Karen Read while wearing pink shirts - but the jury didn't know who Turtleboy was, and they couldn't hear anyone chanting anything - they only heard and saw the testimony that was presented.

And no small amount of that energy should be directed to Hank Brennan, for doing things like trying to trick the jury into thinking the cuts on the back of John's hoodie were from road rash, when he knew quite well that they were from the lab. And Lally, for the intentional deception with the inverted Sally Port video.

 

[lohrtabitha]

We saw this in the Mallory Beach wrongful death suit against co-defendants Murdaugh and the convenience store (Parkers) that sold alcohol to his underage son. Murdaugh was under-insured for his percentage of liability awarded in the suit, and the convenience store had to cover 100% and couldn't recover from bankrupt Murdaugh. It was huge -- I think Parker was stuck paying about $15M settlement. I'm surprised the bars haven't tried to sever their suit from KR. She must be decently insured ???

Karen Read faces potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit from O'Keefe family despite acquittal

A lawsuit remains pending against Karen Read, and legal experts say it could have significant financial ramifications for Read depending on how it plays out.

www.foxbusiness.com

Spencer Kuvin, chief legal officer at GOLDLAW, told FOX Business the likelihood of the case going to trial or being settled could "depend on whether or not she has insurance that could cover her for this."

[..]

Kuvin said a jury would "determine the total measure of damages" and then the "percentage of fault of each defendant," which would "control who is responsible to pay what."

"But in Massachusetts, even if you only have a small percentage, you’re liable to pay the full amount, but then you can get it back from the other defendants who are only partially at fault as well," he explained.

If a jury were to rule in favor of Read, she "doesn’t have to pay and her name is cleared if she’s only defending herself," according to Wright.

I wonder how the Okeefes have the money to pay Mark Diller to represent them. Is he taking the case pro Bono and then collect money if he wins? If he doesn't win then he gets nothing? I don't see how he can when this because KR didn't cause JOKs death.

 

[lohrtabitha]

So if the civil trial moves forward, can the lawyers use the findings in the criminal case or do they have to start from scratch?

 

[keek]

UM, that's how I pronounce those words per evvvvveryone younger or not from MA, Boston area that is. Boston parents pass it on I'd say. It's 'normal' prob of a generation. It will saddddddddly be gone as people move about, the old guard no longer with us and speaking to and with us as children so that it carried on.

It's really: bahth cahn't.