Take the poll: Is Karen Read Guilty

[susane7]

Guilty

 

[mzmarymac]

Guilty

Respectfully, how do you square this with the fact that the science says it didn't happen. No broken bones, his body would have looked like a pretzel. Add to that all the shenanigans of destroying phones, late night butt dials, drunken 1:30 am visits to the police station, reversed video of sallyport, unrelated police officer testifying the taillight was only cracked a little on the side, videos showing the light working on the tail light at 5 am? Help me understand. Please.

 

[patrod6622]

Then what happened to the guy? Elaborate cover up scheme involving tens of local people?

I believe she is guilty for a couple of main reasons one being that in order for a cover up to happen Proctor would have to have way too much control over everyone involved i dont believe he has that kind of power and two if he was "beat up" then why is their only wounds on his right side anyone that has been or has seen a "fight" knows that that is impossible no defense wounds not signs of a fight did he just stand there and let himself get "beat up"? by the "dog" the conspiracy theory just doesnt make sense

 

[10ofRods]

I don’t think second degree and manslaughter should be together in the same vote. I think she is guilty of manslaughter not second degree murder.

Isn't that how it was presented to the jury in the last trial? And aren't those the actual charges for which she is being tried again? Like the jurors, I guess we need to decide.

I don't feel qualified as a juror in this one, though.

 

[susane7]

DBM

 

[susane7]

Respectfully, how do you square this with the fact that the science says it didn't happen. No broken bones, his body would have looked like a pretzel. Add to that all the shenanigans of destroying phones, late night butt dials, drunken 1:30 am visits to the police station, reversed video of sallyport, unrelated police officer testifying the taillight was only cracked a little on the side, videos showing the light working on the tail light at 5 am? Help me understand. Please.

Sorry and respectfully but I have no patience do discuss this case but I will answer just to your post. It's the most toxic case I ever saw in my life. It's my opinion about the totality of evidence. I wouldn't and I don't want to change your mind and your won't change mine. I don't care about butt dials from drunk people. Sometimes I make butt dials and I have never murdered anyone and most of what you said is barely a thing in this second trial, Barros changed his testimony on cross, the videos show the same damage in her tailight IMO, etc.

What I see is the totality of the evidence: Karen put her car in reverse and he stopped moved at the same time and her tailight broke. She didn't broke the tailight in John's car, the defense didn't even tried to explain how she broke her tailight. They are pieces of tailight embebedd in his clothing. There's was no time to planted that. Same with his shoe. Then her admissions, her thinking he was hit by a vehicle (a snow plow), her changing stories, her in the morning knowing exactly where he was, etc. There are no other explanation IMO.

 

[callmehenry]

Sorry and respectfully but I have no patience do discuss this case but I will answer just to your post. It's the most toxic case I ever saw in my life. It's my opinion about the totality of evidence. I wouldn't and I don't want to change your mind and your won't change mine. I don't care about butt dials from drunk people. Sometimes I make butt dials and I have never murdered anyone and most of what you said is barely a thing in this second trial, Barros changed his testimony on cross, the videos show the same damage in her tailight IMO, etc.

What I see is the totality of the evidence: Karen put her car in reverse and he stopped moved at the same time and her tailight broke. She didn't broke the tailight in John's car, the defense didn't even tried to explain how she broke her tailight. They are pieces of tailight embebedd in his clothing. There's was no time to planted that. Same with his shoe. Then her admissions, her thinking he was hit by a vehicle (a snow plow), her changing stories, her in the morning knowing exactly where he was, etc. There are no other explanation IMO.

Just chiming in with my thoughts: you say you have no patience to discuss the case but that’s what websleuths is all about - discussing the cases and sharing our thoughts and opinions. Sometimes it takes a village of like-minded folks to gather enough tiny crumbs to form the bigger picture and when we all bounce our ideas off of each other then sometimes the picture is much easier to see. Oh, and for what it’s worth, I totally think Karen is innocent and there was some shady stuff going on in that house that evening that caused John to end up on the front lawn

 

[susane7]

Just chiming in with my thoughts: you say you have no patience to discuss the case but that’s what websleuths is all about - discussing the cases and sharing our thoughts and opinions. Sometimes it takes a village of like-minded folks to gather enough tiny crumbs to form the bigger picture and when we all bounce our ideas off of each other then sometimes the picture is much easier to see.

I know and I discussed recently here just another toxic case and full of conspiracies from the defense (Delphi) IMO but for this case in particular I have no patience . It's even more toxic. I don't discuss this in the daily threads. I think the case is boring because it's very simple for me. I posted guilty in a poll thread and I don't expected to be questioned about my opinion because some of others guilty posts weren't so I was hopeful lol but nothing against mzmaryma question.

 

[CherylAoife]

I'm a co-moderator for one of the True Crime journalists covering the trial. I did not watch the first trial, but saw enough press, read enough articles, and watched the documentary that came out just before the second trial started. I've watched the second trial with an open mind.

FWIW, IF she did anything wrong at all - and I'm not convinced she did - I think the CW overcharged her. That said, they failed miserably to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did anything let alone commit 2nd degree murder.

The investigation was about the sloppiest and downright stupidest I've ever seen in a decade of covering true crime investigations. The hubris of the investigators did nothing but make it even more apparent that they botched the investigation.

The prosecutors and law enforcement officers involved with this case should be ashamed of themselves. And embarrassed.

The saddest and most infuriating thing is that John O'Keefe has been lost in all of it.

 

[WftRight]

Do you think Karen Read is guilty of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an accident in the death of John O'Keefe?

Ms. Read is absolutely not guilty.

The injuries to Mr. O'Keefe are not consistent with a vehicle versus pedestrian collision. None of the experts on either side has said strongly that the injuries point to that collision. If she hit him with her SUV, the hit was some kind of one-in-a-thousand coincidence to produce those injuries. The injuries alone mean that the prosecution cannot meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's "expert" tried to make a case for how the scratches on Mr. O'Keefe's arm could be caused by the SUV, but even that case was weak.

Five or six witnesses had a chance to see Mr. O'Keefe's body on the lawn that night. None of them saw him. Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. The prosecution can make that excuse, but an excuse is not evidence. Given the nature of people's observations, I don't think that eyewitness testimony is that unreliable. Higgins was a trained law enforcement officer. He should have better than average situational awareness. When he walked out of the Albert house, he would consciously and subconsciously scan his surroundings for anything threatening or unusual. That he didn't notice a body on the lawn within about thirty yards of where he was is hard to believe. When he turned on the lights of his Jeep, they would have been shining directly on Mr. O'Keefe's body if the prosecution hypothesis was correct. He didn't see a body on the lawn. Mr. McCabe's headlights would have shone directly on Mr. O'Keefe's body as he backed out of the driveway, and he didn't see a body. The passengers in the back seat of his car would likely be looking forward, and they didn't see a body. Julie Nagel's claim of seeing something is meaningless. Mr. O'Keefe would not have been covered at the time. I believe some young people left the house, and they didn't see a body. Jen McCabe kept looking out the window at Ms. Read's vehicle, but she never reported hearing the sounds of an SUV driving backwards at a high rate of speed or of hitting someone. She claims to have been hanging around that room to watch, but she never reports unusual lights as an SUV made odd moves. She either didn't look out after Ms. Read left or looked out and didn't see Mr. O'Keefe's body even though she was looking for him. Mr. Loughran passed the house four times that night, twice in each direction. He would see the yard from a different perspective than others and with different lighting. He didn't see a body on the lawn. The eyewitness testimony doesn't support the prosecution hypothesis.

The prosecution has shown incompetence and dishonesty throughout the process. Proctor never had any interest in doing an honest investigation. The prosecution reversed the sally port video in the first trial and edited some portions. Officer Deaver's testimony shows that she's either lying now or is subject to hallucinations. Her "false memory" is just a hallucination if that's what happened. That she told the hallucination to the FBI is difficult to believe. She should be charged with perjury. All of the answers that prosecution witnesses gave in the first trial were evasive. Higgins and Albert are experienced investigators. They knew that the investigation would be interested in the phones of everyone who was at the house that night. Instead of keeping their phones to make them available, they destroyed their phones at the same time about a day before receiving an order to save the phones. As experienced investigators, they knew better. Whether the simultaneous destruction of phones was prompted by inside information about the preservation order is impossible to know. If that simultaneous destruction of phones was just a coincidence, it's a remarkable coincidence.

Some "I hit him" testimony of the first EMT came from a long-time friend of the McCabes who was evasive about how close they were. Other EMT testimony was from people who would be under the power of this powerful family in crooked Canton. Kerry Roberts admitted to giving false testimony in the grand jury. No one should put any real value on the "I hit him" claims.

The taillight was not broken as badly that night as the prosecution claims. When Ms. Read left Mr. O'Keefe's apartment that morning, the taillight was much more intact than it would later prove to be. Video of the SUV being put on the tow truck isn't great, but it shows enough taillight to show that the taillight wasn't as broken as would later be claimed. The testimony of the Deighton police officer is further evidence that the taillight was not as broken as the prosecution claims.

Nothing about this case points to Ms. Read being guilty. I have no doubt that she's factually innocent. An honest jury should easily acquit her.

My concern is that the prosecution has already bought three or four jurors. Those jurors may not be able to force a guilty verdict, but they will be able to force another mistrial. The corrupt judge and corrupt prosecutor are waging a war of attrition. If they win someday, the injustice will be compounded. The real killer or killers of Mr. O'Keefe will never be punished. The investigation was so badly bungled that no case can ever be made against anyone. I'm not even certain of who is really guilty.