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 #39 Retrial

[Seattle1]

KR enters the interview/discussion at about the 18 min mark:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1961127390756892806

 

[Seattle1]

8/29/25

Karen Read's father speaks after her first public interview since acquittal​

 

[rescuemom]

I don't follow the individuals here.. HC or Turtleboy. KR needed to be found innocent because she was innocent and what was in place to frame her needed to be stopped and those really responsible for JOK death be locked up.

IMO, I think it is a bad look for her to sort of 'forget where she came from' and ignore those who helped get this case the attention it got. Instead of making the rounds for interviews why isn't she on that soapbox pushing that narrative for solving his murder.

I'm sure there is an end game in mind here to make her whole after what she has lost but I think there are also those who seek to benefit from the whole thing. In the end, JOK is still dead and his murderer is still free. I would hope these same people who are trying to write books and make TV movies would would use any and all influence to get justice for JOK!

 

[hapakal]

Why I would have voted to convict: I knew Read would be found NG bc this case was disastrous. That said, there is a serious problem that makes her account problematic, to say the least. . Namely: her knowledge of this she could not know unless she was there.


Hear me out: After parting ways with the victim, Ms Read rage callsed him like 5-7 times. Furious that he is out partying without her. (In reality she knows exactly where he was and what had happened to him. We know this because she fell asleep 3 or 4 hours and when she woke, she was on entirely different obsession. . Now, she is sure John is dead! HOW did she change come about? This is crucial to know bc this idea should not even be in her head. She would go on to say some version of 'John is dead' "I think he got hit by a snowplow"" to: "Do you think I hit him (while showing Roberts her broken rear taillight on CCTVV,, at like 5AM). This is the same thing she told Roberts on the phone. She said the same think to John's 16yo niece after waking her., and then to McCabe. She said it so many times on the way thee, such that even after first responders got there, she was still saying it to them!!~Two of them testified that she said exqactly that. Is everyone lying/???

Read, Roberts and McCabe all pile into the car to look for John. As they pass by the Abert house (mind you, she never goes to the house), she claims to spot him from the backseat of the car fifty feet away at dawn in a snowstorm on the outer edge of the lawn!! covered in snow. NO..Impossible! unless she knew he was there,. Even after stopped the case and opening the doors, the other two people inside could not see him. Teri Roberts testified 'Karen threw open the door and ran to a mound in the snow'? All of this shows foreknowledge she could not otherwise have had.

**Hopefully, it it okat to post there here. If not pls let ke know. or delete it. ts

 

[tara83]

Why I would have voted to convict: I knew Read would be found NG bc this case was disastrous. That said, there is a serious problem that makes her account problematic, to say the least. . Namely: her knowledge of this she could not know unless she was there.


Hear me out: After parting ways with the victim, Ms Read rage callsed him like 5-7 times. Furious that he is out partying without her. (In reality she knows exactly where he was and what had happened to him. We know this because she fell asleep 3 or 4 hours and when she woke, she was on entirely different obsession. . Now, she is sure John is dead! HOW did she change come about? This is crucial to know bc this idea should not even be in her head. She would go on to say some version of 'John is dead' "I think he got hit by a snowplow"" to: "Do you think I hit him (while showing Roberts her broken rear taillight on CCTVV,, at like 5AM). This is the same thing she told Roberts on the phone. She said the same think to John's 16yo niece after waking her., and then to McCabe. She said it so many times on the way thee, such that even after first responders got there, she was still saying it to them!!~Two of them testified that she said exqactly that. Is everyone lying/???

Read, Roberts and McCabe all pile into the car to look for John. As they pass by the Abert house (mind you, she never goes to the house), she claims to spot him from the backseat of the car fifty feet away at dawn in a snowstorm on the outer edge of the lawn!! covered in snow. NO..Impossible! unless she knew he was there,. Even after stopped the case and opening the doors, the other two people inside could not see him. Teri Roberts testified 'Karen threw open the door and ran to a mound in the snow'? All of this shows foreknowledge she could not otherwise have had.

**Hopefully, it it okat to post there here. If not pls let ke know. or delete it. ts

He was NOT killed by a car.

 

[sunspun]

Why I would have voted to convict: I knew Read would be found NG bc this case was disastrous. That said, there is a serious problem that makes her account problematic, to say the least. . Namely: her knowledge of this she could not know unless she was there.


Hear me out: After parting ways with the victim, Ms Read rage callsed him like 5-7 times. Furious that he is out partying without her. (In reality she knows exactly where he was and what had happened to him. We know this because she fell asleep 3 or 4 hours and when she woke, she was on entirely different obsession. . Now, she is sure John is dead! HOW did she change come about? This is crucial to know bc this idea should not even be in her head. She would go on to say some version of 'John is dead' "I think he got hit by a snowplow"" to: "Do you think I hit him (while showing Roberts her broken rear taillight on CCTVV,, at like 5AM). This is the same thing she told Roberts on the phone. She said the same think to John's 16yo niece after waking her., and then to McCabe. She said it so many times on the way thee, such that even after first responders got there, she was still saying it to them!!~Two of them testified that she said exqactly that. Is everyone lying/???

Read, Roberts and McCabe all pile into the car to look for John. As they pass by the Abert house (mind you, she never goes to the house), she claims to spot him from the backseat of the car fifty feet away at dawn in a snowstorm on the outer edge of the lawn!! covered in snow. NO..Impossible! unless she knew he was there,. Even after stopped the case and opening the doors, the other two people inside could not see him. Teri Roberts testified 'Karen threw open the door and ran to a mound in the snow'? All of this shows foreknowledge she could not otherwise have had.

**Hopefully, it it okat to post there here. If not pls let ke know. or delete it. ts

Perhaps unfortunately, the issue (in this case as in every criminal trial), is not "whether she did it or not", but whether or not the prosecutors were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that she did. And this jury voted unanimously that they failed in doing that. As you said, "this case was disastrous", and whatever you meant by that is most likely the very reason they failed. imo!

 

[ch_13]

Why I would have voted to convict: I knew Read would be found NG bc this case was disastrous. That said, there is a serious problem that makes her account problematic, to say the least. . Namely: her knowledge of this she could not know unless she was there.


Hear me out: After parting ways with the victim, Ms Read rage callsed him like 5-7 times. Furious that he is out partying without her. (In reality she knows exactly where he was and what had happened to him. We know this because she fell asleep 3 or 4 hours and when she woke, she was on entirely different obsession. . Now, she is sure John is dead! HOW did she change come about? This is crucial to know bc this idea should not even be in her head. She would go on to say some version of 'John is dead' "I think he got hit by a snowplow"" to: "Do you think I hit him (while showing Roberts her broken rear taillight on CCTVV,, at like 5AM). This is the same thing she told Roberts on the phone. She said the same think to John's 16yo niece after waking her., and then to McCabe. She said it so many times on the way thee, such that even after first responders got there, she was still saying it to them!!~Two of them testified that she said exqactly that. Is everyone lying/???

Read, Roberts and McCabe all pile into the car to look for John. As they pass by the Abert house (mind you, she never goes to the house), she claims to spot him from the backseat of the car fifty feet away at dawn in a snowstorm on the outer edge of the lawn!! covered in snow. NO..Impossible! unless she knew he was there,. Even after stopped the case and opening the doors, the other two people inside could not see him. Teri Roberts testified 'Karen threw open the door and ran to a mound in the snow'? All of this shows foreknowledge she could not otherwise have had.

**Hopefully, it it okat to post there here. If not pls let ke know. or delete it. ts

Out of curiosity, did you actually watch the trial, or did you watch one of the "documentaries" out there that purports to explain what happened.

It's important to keep in mind that these programs are not made to tell the complete story or give the victim justice. They are developed as entertainment, trying to tell a compelling narrative with a heavy focus on drama and twist and turns. But, on the other hand, they give short shrift to the technical evidence. Who wants to watch some engineer discuss crash analysis? Or a technician compare glass shards? Or a doctor talk about abrasions and scratches? Boring!

Most people watch these things and believe them without question, but you really need to take them with a grain of salt. Specifically in the Karen Read's case, as far as I know, they were all made before the second trial. There was a lot of new exculpatory evidence in the second trial that wasn't in the first, but none of that was in any of the documentaries.

There's a reason that pretty much every legal analyst that watched the trial thought she was not guilty, and most thought she was completely innocent. (I'm only talking about the analysts who actually watched the trial gavel-to-gavel. Not the talking heads on CourtTV, etc. who aren't really watching and just reacting to news reports.) For example, Peter Travos (Lawyer You Know) and Emily Baker are both former prosecutors who did daily coverage. They both thought KR was being railroaded.

I won't suggest you watch the trial, because that would be an incredible time commitment. But I suggest you watch the closing arguments. Both prosecution and defense. It may not change your mind, but it will give you some perspective about the evidence in the "true-life" program you watched versus the evidence in the actual trial.

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone.
We will be discussing this case for a long time to come.
Please remember it is OK to disagree with the verdict. People see things differently. That is what Websleuths is all about.
Tricia

 

[Florida_marlin]

Why I would have voted to convict: I knew Read would be found NG bc this case was disastrous. That said, there is a serious problem that makes her account problematic, to say the least. . Namely: her knowledge of this she could not know unless she was there.


Hear me out: After parting ways with the victim, Ms Read rage callsed him like 5-7 times. Furious that he is out partying without her. (In reality she knows exactly where he was and what had happened to him. We know this because she fell asleep 3 or 4 hours and when she woke, she was on entirely different obsession. . Now, she is sure John is dead! HOW did she change come about? This is crucial to know bc this idea should not even be in her head. She would go on to say some version of 'John is dead' "I think he got hit by a snowplow"" to: "Do you think I hit him (while showing Roberts her broken rear taillight on CCTVV,, at like 5AM). This is the same thing she told Roberts on the phone. She said the same think to John's 16yo niece after waking her., and then to McCabe. She said it so many times on the way thee, such that even after first responders got there, she was still saying it to them!!~Two of them testified that she said exqactly that. Is everyone lying/???

Read, Roberts and McCabe all pile into the car to look for John. As they pass by the Abert house (mind you, she never goes to the house), she claims to spot him from the backseat of the car fifty feet away at dawn in a snowstorm on the outer edge of the lawn!! covered in snow. NO..Impossible! unless she knew he was there,. Even after stopped the case and opening the doors, the other two people inside could not see him. Teri Roberts testified 'Karen threw open the door and ran to a mound in the snow'? All of this shows foreknowledge she could not otherwise have had.

**Hopefully, it it okat to post there here. If not pls let ke know.

So you’re saying she was there and witnessed him being murdered by someone and is just not telling? Because he was not killed by a car. That is obvious

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Article on the insane cost of the second trial

 

[jepop]

Article on the insane cost of the second trial

....50K trial x1, 1.4 mill ( !!) trial x2. Nutso.

 

[ch_13]

It's behind a paywall, but the gist of the article is that KR will soon be getting her Lexus back and a local auto body repair shop has offered to restore it for free.

Karen Read set to receive her SUV months after being cleared of murder

Karen Read is set to have her car finally returned to her from the Massachusetts State Police, months after a jury cleared her of using the vehicle to kill her Boston Police officer boyfriend.

www.bostonherald.com

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963250793823244645

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963604766233092577

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963653279885172970

 

[Forest_Wood]

It's behind a paywall, but the gist of the article is that KR will soon be getting her Lexus back and a local auto body repair shop has offered to restore it for free.

Karen Read set to receive her SUV months after being cleared of murder

Karen Read is set to have her car finally returned to her from the Massachusetts State Police, months after a jury cleared her of using the vehicle to kill her Boston Police officer boyfriend.

www.bostonherald.com

Does she get to drive now with her 1 year DWI probation verdict? I can't see her ever driving that vehicle again with all the tragedy associated with it. She could sell it once it's repaired and then get herself a new vehicle that doesn't have all the negativity attached.
MOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

Does she get to drive now with her 1 year DWI probation verdict? I can't see her ever driving that vehicle again with all the tragedy associated with it. She could sell it once it's repaired and then get herself a new vehicle that doesn't have all the negativity attached.
MOO

I'd sell it too. As for the license, I don't think it's too difficult to get a hardship license on a first offense.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963604766233092577

Wow….. wow….. wow…. that bill total. SMH.

And for the Aperture LLC expense - where IIRC both ‘experts’ had their CV emblazoned and updated or changed with a “Not For Expert Designation” placard across them mid-trail. Welcher and Burgess IIRC.

Any legal minds that can tell whether that change might have disqualified any representations given and might negate or render any contract or agreement with the CE or prosecution null and void? I hope so if at all possible.

And Burgess’ CV and credentials were updated and largely diminished during the trial. And his information was then stripped from the Aperture LLC website. (I wonder if that was done after a final payment was made by the CW?) Isn’t anyone in MA investigating this? Same questions as above.

Was ‘interested’ to see just now that a “We exist to shine a light on the truth.” note appears on their website. I best stop here.

Aperture / Forensic Experts and Specialized Analysis

Aperture is a national portfolio of best-in-class forensic companies providing full-service expert analysis. Aperture’s mission is driven by a Partnership Model that provides strength, consistency and scale.

www.aperturellc.com

Will add that it still appears that Mr. Judson Welcher’s email is incorrectly spelled on his CV. MOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963604766233092577

Here's a fun story. Lawtuber Melanie Little said on her show that
she ran into Laura McLaughlin, the third prosecutor on the case on a ferry to Block Island and they chatted about the trial. According to McLaughlin, during the second trial she and Lally weren't allowed to speak to Brennan unless he spoke to them first.

I strongly suspect both she and Lally were thrilled with the defense verdict.



















































































































.............................................

 

[waldojabba]

Boston police officer who testified in Karen Read retrial resigns

A Boston police officer who testified in Karen Read’s retrial has resigned, the department said Friday.

www.nbcboston.com

Officer Kelly Dever resigned, effective Sept. 1. Police didn't share more information on the circumstances around her resignation, saying only that the personnel order on the resignation was released Friday.