MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023

[louvillian08]

Morrissey is also trying to get the federal probe moved out of state.

Feds are investigating Karen Read probe, TV station reports. Here's what we know

25 Investigates says DA’s letter confirms that feds are looking into arrest and prosecution of woman accused of killing Braintree native John O'Keefe.

www.patriotledger.com

The most interesting part of that second article, IMO...

"The federal probe began before Read’s lawyers went public with their claims of a cover-up and before the “Free Karen Read” movement began.

On April 12, Read’s lawyers announced a “dramatic” turn in her murder case and claimed new evidence “establishes her innocence” in O’Keefe's death. Read’s lawyers pointed a finger at witnesses in the case, including a party attendee who Googled how “long to die in cold.”

On April 10, people identified as witnesses for the prosecution of Read had received subpoenas to appear before the federal grand jury, according to a source with direct knowledge of the proceedings."

 

[SMK777]

The most interesting part of that second article, IMO...

"The federal probe began before Read’s lawyers went public with their claims of a cover-up and before the “Free Karen Read” movement began.

I agree that’s certainly telling.

 

[SMK777]

On April 12, Read’s lawyers announced a “dramatic” turn in her murder case and claimed new evidence “establishes her innocence” in O’Keefe's death. Read’s lawyers pointed a finger at witnesses in the case, including a party attendee who Googled how “long to die in cold.”

If this is proven to come from someone inside the residence, and before KR was aware of anything, that would seem to be conclusive, right?

 

[SMK777]

Norfolk DA calls federal probe over Karen Read case “an extraordinary step”​

If it is such an extraordinary step, there must be real cause for doubt about the state’s case.

25 Investigates: Norfolk DA calls federal probe over Karen Read case “an extraordinary step”

Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey has called the federal probe into the handling of the Karen Read murder case “extraordinary” – but said he’s “unconcerned.”

www.boston25news.com

 

[HarmonyE.]

If this is proven to come from someone inside the residence, and before KR was aware of anything, that would seem to be conclusive, right?

Yes and no. There's a data dispute involving the time "Hos (sp) long to die in the snow?" was actually googled by the sister-in-law of the cop who owned the house and invited the victim to the house after a night out drinking. If it was around 2:30 am as the defense claims, it's pretty conclusive. If it was 6:25 am as the prosecution contends, it clearly wouldn't be, BUT his body was discovered shorty after 6 am. It's a little that she'd be searching this after the EMTs had arrived and it was clear he was dead or very close to it.

 

[SMK777]

Yes and no. There's a data dispute involving the time "Hos (sp) long to die in the snow?" was actually googled by the sister-in-law of the cop who owned the house and invited the victim to the house after a night out drinking. If it was around 2:30 am as the defense claims, it's pretty conclusive. If it was 6:25 am as the prosecution contends, it clearly wouldn't be, BUT his body was discovered shorty after 6 am. It's a little that she'd be searching this after the EMTs had arrived and it was clear he was dead or very close to it.

Oh, I see. The time definitely makes a difference. Thanks.

 

[louvillian08]

If this is proven to come from someone inside the residence, and before KR was aware of anything, that would seem to be conclusive, right?

This is the part of the case I find super interesting and I have quite a few comments about this a page or 2 back in the discussion. The google search occurring around 2:30am is certainly suspicious but it's definitely not a smoking gun - especially when there are plenty of reasonable reasons why they could have been googling that. It was the eve of a massive blizzard, I wouldn't think it was crazy if someone was looking that up. It also could potentially bolster their story that JO never made it in the house that night. JM easily could have said she was worried about him because he seemed so sure of coming to the after party and she thought she saw his car in the driveway but he never showed up so she was googling that to potentially ease (although we know the information wouldn't) her worries about if he was lost somewhere. Is that a perfect explanation? No, of course not but it's at least somewhat understandable.

The fact that JM and the prosecution have never tried to diminish the importance of the google search OR claim anything but that it "actually" happened at 6:25am and at the request of KR is conclusive to me. Either the experts they hire will be able to prove that and discount the testimony from the experts for the defense or they won't. And if they can't, I don't see a possible argument to how JM is not involved, thus exonerating KR.

 

[HarmonyE.]

This is the part of the case I find super interesting and I have quite a few comments about this a page or 2 back in the discussion. The google search occurring around 2:30am is certainly suspicious but it's definitely not a smoking gun - especially when there are plenty of reasonable reasons why they could have been googling that. It was the eve of a massive blizzard, I wouldn't think it was crazy if someone was looking that up. It also could potentially bolster their story that JO never made it in the house that night. JM easily could have said she was worried about him because he seemed so sure of coming to the after party and she thought she saw his car in the driveway but he never showed up so she was googling that to potentially ease (although we know the information wouldn't) her worries about if he was lost somewhere. Is that a perfect explanation? No, of course not but it's at least somewhat understandable.

The fact that JM and the prosecution have never tried to diminish the importance of the google search OR claim anything but that it "actually" happened at 6:25am and at the request of KR is conclusive to me. Either the experts they hire will be able to prove that and discount the testimony from the experts for the defense or they won't. And if they can't, I don't see a possible argument to how JM is not involved, thus exonerating KR.

If the search was done at 2:30ish I would argue it is very much a smoking gun. Way too much of a coincidence for me. In my life I've searched for many answers, but never asked such a question. In this case, most people would just assume John and Karen changed their minds and went home. If she thought John slipped and fell and was knocked unconscious outside for some bizarre reason, why not go check on him? Or have her sister in the house check outside? Makes zero sense.

The info came from JM's phone which she handed over to the police after making a number of deletions - calls and messages. The prosecution has proof the search was made, but they're claiming instead the search happened after John's body was found around 6:25. McCabe says Karen told her to google the question at the scene. But this was at least 20 minutes after his body was found. Either the EMTs were still working on him or he was in an ambulance on the way to Brockton at that point. Possible? Maybe. Likely? I'm not so sure.

This will come down to the data experts. If the jury believes the defense expert, I cannot see any chance of a conviction. But even if they think the search was later that morning, there are so many other implausible things about this case and the investigation was so poorly done, it's very hard for me to imagine 12 Norfolk County jurors finding her guilty. The prosecution is probably hoping against hope that Read takes a manslaughter plea.

 

[SMK777]

If the search was done at 2:30ish I would argue it is very much a smoking gun. Way too much of a coincidence for me. In my life I've searched for many answers, but never asked such a question. In this case, most people would just assume John and Karen changed their minds and went home. If she thought John slipped and fell and was knocked unconscious outside for some bizarre reason, why not go check on him? Or have her sister in the house check outside? Makes zero sense.

The info came from JM's phone which she handed over to the police after making a number of deletions - calls and messages. The prosecution has proof the search was made, but they're claiming instead the search happened after John's body was found around 6:25. McCabe says Karen told her to google the question at the scene. But this was at least 20 minutes after his body was found. Either the EMTs were still working on him or he was in an ambulance on the way to Brockton at that point. Possible? Maybe. Likely? I'm not so sure.

This will come down to the data experts. If the jury believes the defense expert, I cannot see any chance of a conviction. But even if they think the search was later that morning, there are so many other implausible things about this case and the investigation was so poorly done, it's very hard for me to imagine 12 Norfolk County jurors finding her guilty. The prosecution is probably hoping against hope that Read takes a manslaughter plea.

I agree with your reasoning, definitely.
I hate to ask a stupid question, and maybe I missed something along the way, but why isn’t it possible for experts to ascertain exactly when the Google search was made? 2:30 am and 6:25 am is a difference of nearly 4 hours. How can it be that vague?

 

[HarmonyE.]

I agree with your reasoning, definitely.
I hate to ask a stupid question, and maybe I missed something along the way, but why isn’t it possible for experts to ascertain exactly when the Google search was made? 2:30 am and 6:25 am is a difference of nearly 4 hours. How can it be that vague?

Not a stupid question at all, because the answer is a little complex, perhaps intentionally so. Jennifer McCabe's phone was turned over to police. When the defense reviewed the data, it appeared "Hos long to die in the cold?" was searched at 2:27 am. In response, however, the prosecution is claiming this is misleading and that at 2:27 she opened a browser and left it open until she used that same browser to search "Hos long to die in the cold" after John's body was found.

I don't know enough about internet browsing time stamps to opine as to whether the prosecution's version makes any sense.

 

[SMK777]

Not a stupid question at all, because the answer is a little complex, perhaps intentionally so. Jennifer McCabe's phone was turned over to police. When the defense reviewed the data, it appeared "Hos long to die in the cold?" was searched at 2:27 am. In response, however, the prosecution is claiming this is misleading and that at 2:27 she opened a browser and left it open until she used that same browser to search "Hos long to die in the cold" after John's body was found.

I don't know enough about internet browsing time stamps to opine as to whether the prosecution's version makes any sense.

Thank you for this. I’m trying to recall with my own search history, if leaving a browser open prevents the time from being stamped. I don’t think so. Does anyone here know how it works for your own searches?

 

[SMK777]

Not a stupid question at all, because the answer is a little complex, perhaps intentionally so. Jennifer McCabe's phone was turned over to police. When the defense reviewed the data, it appeared "Hos long to die in the cold?" was searched at 2:27 am. In response, however, the prosecution is claiming this is misleading and that at 2:27 she opened a browser and left it open until she used that same browser to search "Hos long to die in the cold" after John's body was found.

I don't know enough about internet browsing time stamps to opine as to whether the prosecution's version makes any sense.

Addendum to my first response I sent you above:
I tried it with my own browser left open.
First I searched the hourly weather, then I searched for true crime documentaries. Even with the browser left open on my phone, it still changed the time on the search history:

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

This case does seem quite odd from details available thus far. Perhaps the prosecution shouldn’t be in too much of a rush; unless someone wants to hurry up and ‘sweep the street‘ clean. Perhaps it is too soon to attempt prosecution. Did this case go before a grand jury? Maybe a civil action by the dead officer‘s family could find additional evidence. (And as others noted, why so little information available publicly for this case - contrasted with Ana Walshe also in the state? One difference is the death of an off duty police officer in this case. Are there others?)

It seems customary for defense counsel to complain of discovery matters so that is not surprising. As others indicate, it should be simple enough to conduct testing for canine DNA on the dead officer’s arm wounds, or another contributing factor.

And also odd that the homeowners supposedly sold and moved thereafter and have placed the dog elsewhere? It also isn’t apparent whether external investigation is to be sought because of other police presence at the party earlier in the evening of his death? MOO

 

[DeDee]

When I first heard about this case, I felt KR may have been overcharged by the DA. It seemed at the time that manslaughter was more appropriate. Then, I considered that the intent to murder can be formed within a second. I don't know that KR intended to kill PO JO'K. I do think she was angry because he'd wanted a break so she would stay at her house awhile.

There was likely an argument because KR was tired and intoxicated, she wanted to go home. John exits the vehicle and walks around the rear as we all are taught to do. The vehicle's black box will indicate how far she drove in reverse to reach the speed of 26mph.

John may have been approaching her vehicle in order to say something. However it happened that John was hit, he was knocked out of a shoe. Being hit by a 4000 pound vehicle can send a victim into the air with a hard crash on the pavement. The curb of the home has a sharp edge and not rounded. The wound at the back of his head caused the black eyes because there was hemorrhaging present. His cocktail glass shattered and could have caused flying debris to make the two cuts.

He was wearing two shirts, blue jeans, socks and one black Nike sneaker. On the blanket of snow near his body were shards of glass and splotches of blood.

The medical examiner had noted several bloody abrasions etched into O’Keefe’s right arm, two swollen black eyes, a small cut above his right eye, a cut to the left side of his nose, an approximately 2-inch laceration to the back of the head, and multiple skull fractures that resulted in bleeding of the brain. His pancreas was dark red, indicating hypothermia had contributed to his death.

I see motive, means and opportunity. Since his niece and nephew said John wanted a break, she may have been angry enough to want to kill him for wasting the past two years together. What I'm not seeing is remorse.

McCabe allegedly told investigators that Read stated, “Could I have hit him?” and “Did I hit him?” Prosecutors also said a first responder at the scene reported hearing Read say, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

“I said ‘I hit him.’ It was preceded by a ‘did’ and proceeded by a question mark,” Read told “Nightline.” “What I thought could have happened was that, ‘Did I incapacitate him unwittingly, somehow, and then in his drunkenness, [he] passed out?’”

All moho and speculations

 

[ch_13]

Not a stupid question at all, because the answer is a little complex, perhaps intentionally so. Jennifer McCabe's phone was turned over to police. When the defense reviewed the data, it appeared "Hos long to die in the cold?" was searched at 2:27 am. In response, however, the prosecution is claiming this is misleading and that at 2:27 she opened a browser and left it open until she used that same browser to search "Hos long to die in the cold" after John's body was found.

I don't know enough about internet browsing time stamps to opine as to whether the prosecution's version makes any sense.

The defense used Cellebrite to find the google search and time stamp it. This is the standard forensic software used by law enforcement to examine cell phone data. Whenever you hear about a suspect making suspicious google searches on their mobile device, it was most likely uncovered by Cellebrite. If the forensic software is giving incorrect timestamps, that should be a very big deal.

The defense expert also claims that in addition to using Cellebrite, he did a low-level analysis which confirms the timestamps. Here's his affidavit:

https://imgur.com/a/lpg5f5u

 

[SMK777]

The defense used Cellebrite to find the google search and time stamp it. This is the standard forensic software used by law enforcement to examine cell phone data. Whenever you hear about a suspect making suspicious google searches on their mobile device, it was most likely uncovered by Cellebrite. If the forensic software is giving incorrect timestamps, that should be a very big deal.

The defense expert also claims that in addition to using Cellebrite, he did a low-level analysis which confirms the timestamps. Here's his affidavit:

https://imgur.com/a/lpg5f5u

Ok, so that’s very technical. I’m surprised because to me timestamps in a search history are accurate and commonplace.

So maybe the forensic software is off, and yes, massive consequences to that. Is this what caused the FBI to become involved?

 

[HarmonyE.]

So maybe the forensic software is off, and yes, massive consequences to that. Is this what caused the FBI to become involved?

Some think the Feds were already investigating the Canton Police because of the Sandra Birchmore matter at the time of O'Keefe's murder. Birchmore was a young woman who was raped through her teen years by neighboring Stoughton cops and allegedly killed herself shortly after she showed ultrasound pics to the cop who got her pregnant. She was most likely murdered by him but the Canton cops did a sloppy and incomplete investigation.

 

[Charlot123]

Addendum to my first response I sent you above:
I tried it with my own browser left open.
First I searched the hourly weather, then I searched for true crime documentaries. Even with the browser left open on my phone, it still changed the time on the search history:
View attachment 467150

I searched local crime news then "why is it easy to steal a Kia?" then "what does a shot in the mouth mean?". And tons of historical events in the midst of it...

 

[SMK777]

Some think the Feds were already investigating the Canton Police because of the Sandra Birchmore matter at the time of O'Keefe's murder. Birchmore was a young woman who was raped through her teen years by neighboring Stoughton cops and allegedly killed herself shortly after she showed ultrasound pics to the cop who got her pregnant. She was most likely murdered by him but the Canton cops did a sloppy and incomplete investigation.

Wow, I didn’t know that!

 

[SMK777]

I searched local crime news then "why is it easy to steal a Kia?" then "what does a shot in the mouth mean?". And tons of historical events in the midst of it...

And were the searches all separately time stamped with your browser open?