MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #2

[HarmonyE.]

3) They just didn't know how to do their jobs. I mean, "I'm a 25-year veteran detective but I don't know how to use evidence tape," or "Let's dump the victim's blood into open plastic cups and store them in a grocery bag."

Really?

I know there's an audit going on of the Canton PD and it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of that.

And it's hardly the first murder or serious criminal act that's ever happened in Canton. Canton has a population of about 25,000; hardly Mayberry RFD. I haven't lived in Canton for about 20 years now, but was so happy to see the citizens demanding and getting that audit. Heads need to roll and training needs to happen. A little diversity wouldn't kill them either.

 

[Curiousobserver]

It's a pretty simply story for the prosecution to tell.

She was drinking, he was drinking, he ended up dead on the lawn with injuries that match damage to her car. She was driving that car, therefore, she is guilty of this crime.

It's taking a long time because they just don't have great evidence that this is what happened. The conduct of the investigation, combined with the question about when that Google search for hos long to die in the cold adds more than enough reasonable doubt for any impartial jury.

I do personally think she accidently hit him and this contributed to his demise, LE just doesn't have it.

 

[HarmonyE.]

It's a pretty simply story for the prosecution to tell.

She was drinking, he was drinking, he ended up dead on the lawn with injuries that match damage to her car.

Could not disagree with you more regarding the injuries matching damage to the car. They don't. That's why most people changed their mind about her being guilty when the autopsy photos were leaked by the defense.

 

[themonk]

It's a pretty simply story for the prosecution to tell.

She was drinking, he was drinking, he ended up dead on the lawn with injuries that match damage to her car. She was driving that car, therefore, she is guilty of this crime.

It's taking a long time because they just don't have great evidence that this is what happened. The conduct of the investigation, combined with the question about when that Google search for hos long to die in the cold adds more than enough reasonable doubt for any impartial jury.

I do personally think she accidently hit him and this contributed to his demise, LE just doesn't have it.

And yet there is footage of KR backing her car into another car and there is no footage of her backing into JO at speed.

If the footage of KR backing into the other car had somehow 'gone missing' the prosecution might have an easier job.

I think its existence alone could be enough to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

 

[Curiousobserver]

Could not disagree with you more regarding the injuries matching damage to the car. They don't. That's why most people changed their mind about her being guilty when the autopsy photos were leaked by the defense.

This is why the prosecution is taking so long to tell a 1 hour story.

 

[HarmonyE.]

This is why the prosecution is taking so long to tell a 1 hour story.

It's torture. Lally acts like he's being paid by the word.

 

[Curiousobserver]

And yet there is footage of KR backing her car into another car and there is no footage of her backing into JO at speed.

If the footage of KR backing into the other car had somehow 'gone missing' the prosecution might have an easier job.

I think its existence alone could be enough to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

You're making my point- there is a ton of reasonable doubt. Even though I think this is essentially what happened, I have watched 100 animations on line theorizing how her car could cause those injuries and read all of the thoughtful comments on every true crime board in existence. A jury hopefully hasn't done that. I have a very biased opinion. I don't think they should have gone to trial at all.

 

[themonk]

You're making my point- there is a ton of reasonable doubt. Even though I think this is essentially what happened, I have watched 100 animations on line theorizing how her car could cause those injuries and read all of the thoughtful comments on every true crime board in existence. I don't think they should have gone to trial at all.

ah, i think i misread what you were saying.

that said, i think it is unlikely she hit him. so we disagree there

 

[GoBuckeyes]

It's scary that someone can be tried for murder based on dna evidence collected in what essentially was a Cheetos bag I found in my car.

I'm afraid all of these witnesses are going to be harassed and threatened by the cops after this trial.

This trial should terrify everyone who comes across it. moo

I still can't believe the comments of the main investigator. And I REALLY can't believe this went to trial.

 

[ch_13]

Do you think we've heard the meat of the prosecution's case (the physical evidence, phone, gps, doctors, etc.)? We haven't even heard from what I'd think are the most important players. If all the prosecution had was "some EMT heard her say it" - then a grand jury wouldn't have indicted her in the first place. This is all setting the table stuff.

If they stopped now... of course nobody is going to convict her.

Fine, but how long is this table-setting going to last?

We're almost done with another mind-numbing day where nothing has happened. Is Lally going to call every single person in the bar to testify? What is the point of all this? Is this helping the prosecution make their case? Maybe the jury doesn't know how bad the weather was that night so Lally needs more people to say that it was snowing.

And then the defense gets the witness to admit that they liked Karen and thought she had a good relationship with John.

If I was on the jury, I would be pissed off with all this irrelevant testimony.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

It's a pretty simply story for the prosecution to tell.

She was drinking, he was drinking, he ended up dead on the lawn with injuries that match damage to her car. She was driving that car, therefore, she is guilty of this crime.

It's taking a long time because they just don't have great evidence that this is what happened. The conduct of the investigation, combined with the question about when that Google search for hos long to die in the cold adds more than enough reasonable doubt for any impartial jury.

I do personally think she accidently hit him and this contributed to his demise, LE just doesn't have it.

I don't think his injuries match up at all to a partially broken taillight. And I think if she'd hit him hard enough to cause skull fractures, there'd be a whole lot more damage to the vehicle. amoo omoo

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Do you think we've heard the meat of the prosecution's case (the physical evidence, phone, gps, doctors, etc.)? We haven't even heard from what I'd think are the most important players. If all the prosecution had was "some EMT heard her say it" - then a grand jury wouldn't have indicted her in the first place. This is all setting the table stuff.

If they stopped now... of course nobody is going to convict her.

I do think this is a somewhat tough situation for the defense. In a lot of crimes, reasonable doubt covers a bunch of possibilities. In this case, because of the storm... purported evidence... it doesn't seem like many other options are on the table (which brings me back to the either/or scenario) - so I think that's why the defense is leaning hard into the other idea.

A hard motive isn't a requirement. I think she was really drunk (and believe we'll have evidence on this later). They had a somewhat volatile relationship. They were fighting about something in the car sitting out in front of the house (maybe even if they should keep the party going or call it a night - who knows) he triggers her... he gets out... she rams into him and takes off. I don't think it was planned. I don't think it was intentional to kill him. Maybe she didn't even mean to hit him - just meant to scare him. Left without thinking or realizing she had hurt him badly. And... regretfully as indicated by her behavior later that morning (to me) she kind of sobered up some and remembered/realized something bad may have happened. Then, we then get her odd subsequent actions.

That's it. Nothing more.

So we are supposed to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt because we haven't heard the "meat" of their case yet, but we are labeling people as "conspiracy theorists" even though we have heard NONE of the defense's presentation aside from the openings (but I think we have already established that isn't the "meat" of a case so we shouldn't base anything on it)?

 

[thebedbug]

Fine, but how long is this table-setting going to last?

We're almost done with another mind-numbing day where nothing has happened. Is Lally going to call every single person in the bar to testify? What is the point of all this? Is this helping the prosecution make their case? Maybe the jury doesn't know how bad the weather was that night so Lally needs more people to say that it was snowing.

And then the defense gets the witness to admit that they liked Karen and thought she had a good relationship with John.

If I was on the jury, I would be pissed off with all this irrelevant testimony.

I guess until it's done. I don't know if it's good lawyering or not... I've reached out to a friend that is a former NY prosecutor for his opinion... haven't heard back, yet.

But, I'm sure they aren't worried about the schedules of various true crime fans, etc..

 

[Ray_of_hope]

I think only the female firefighter testified she specifically heard Read say "I hit him". Someone can correct me if I'm wrong though. Someone else said she said, "Could I have hit him?" Which is a very different statement. I mean, I'd have asked same question under the circumstances.

And that firefighter appears to have lied on the stand about how close a relationship she had with the daughter of Brian Albert who was also in the house that night. Since her testimony that she barely knew Caitlin Albert a bunch more of photos of them together have turned up, including one from about 6 months before O'Keefe died. The internet always wins!

I agree @HarmonyE. Being in shock and thinking out loud after finding a loved one deceased and wondering if you were to blame for any of it. I would have wondered the same thing and tried to go over every second by second part of it. I believe she said “could I have hit him?” And not “I hit him”.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I agree @HarmonyE. Being in shock and thinking out loud after finding a loved one deceased and wondering if you were to blame for any of it. I would have wondered the same thing and tried to go over every time art of it. I believe she said “could I have hit him?” And not “I hit him”.

Right. And the one of the last things that would probably come to my mind would be, "I can't believe they beat him and left him on the lawn with a broken cocktail glass hoping the plow guy or some other random driver would get blamed!"

 

[ch_13]

I'm more confused about motive than ever. Before this trial the rumor was that the couple were on the verge of breaking up and they were constantly fighting.

Now we had a prosecution witness state that about just before they left the bar that night KR was "singing John's praises", stating that she admired him and how much she was looking forward to their upcoming vacation. Then as they walked out they were acting very lovey-dovey.

I have no idea how they're going to show intent. The prosecution is going to have to argue that just a few minutes later KR got mad enough to kill him.

 

[housewife]

It's a pretty simply story for the prosecution to tell.

She was drinking, he was drinking, he ended up dead on the lawn with injuries that match damage to her car.

RSBM
The defense has numerous expert witnesses in biomechanics and accident reconstruction that will prove JO's injuries were not caused by KR's car. Did the commonwealth ever find anyone to dispute this science?

 

[cocomod]

I wish the defense could just stand up and say, "Look, can we both just stipulate that it was snowing very hard that morning. We will also stipulate that they went to a bar and had drinks that night. Now, can we get down to the case and skip the rest of the witnesses admitting that it was snowing!"

 

[HarmonyE.]

I'm more confused about motive than ever. Before this trial the rumor was that the couple were on the verge of breaking up and they were constantly fighting.

Now we had a prosecution witness state that about just before they left the bar that night KR was "singing John's praises", stating that she admired him and how much she was looking forward to their upcoming vacation. Then as they walked out they were acting very lovey-dovey.

I have no idea how they're going to show intent. The prosecution is going to have to argue that just a few minutes later KR got mad enough to kill him.

The kids. Lally gave a hint of it when he asked one of the friends today "But you have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, do you?" The only people who can speak to what went on behind closed doors are John's niece and nephew

So they're going to try to use the two teen kids to talk about fights/arguments in the house. Kids who have been living with John's parents since John died. I"m not sure about his father, but his mother and brother believe Karen murdered John. Feel terrible for them but they're all Lally has.

 

[Weki]

Do you think we've heard the meat of the prosecution's case (the physical evidence, phone, gps, doctors, etc.)? We haven't even heard from what I'd think are the most important players. If all the prosecution had was "some EMT heard her say it" - then a grand jury wouldn't have indicted her in the first place. This is all setting the table stuff.

If they stopped now... of course nobody is going to convict her.

I do think this is a somewhat tough situation for the defense. In a lot of crimes, reasonable doubt covers a bunch of possibilities. In this case, because of the storm... purported evidence... it doesn't seem like many other options are on the table (which brings me back to the either/or scenario) - so I think that's why the defense is leaning hard into the other idea.

A hard motive isn't a requirement. I think she was really drunk (and believe we'll have evidence on this later). They had a somewhat volatile relationship. They were fighting about something in the car sitting out in front of the house (maybe even if they should keep the party going or call it a night - who knows) he triggers her... he gets out... she rams into him and takes off. I don't think it was planned. I don't think it was intentional to kill him. Maybe she didn't even mean to hit him - just meant to scare him. Left without thinking or realizing she had hurt him badly. And... regretfully as indicated by her behavior later that morning (to me) she kind of sobered up some and remembered/realized something bad may have happened. Then, we then get her odd subsequent actions.

That's it. Nothing more.

This makes sense to me. Although I’m skeptical that she didn’t do it intentionally in the moment. IOW, I think it was intentional. Intentional can be a split second decision. That’s why she’s charged with murder.

But I agree this case is moving way too slooooooow! Geez. They don’t need 6-8 weeks. But it sounds like everybody in Canton is going to testify. The state is erring by being extremely thorough because you can lose/confuse a jury by throwing unnecessary facts at them. I wonder if they’re just being reactionary to the dumpster fire the defense created around this case.

Re: motive - state absolutely does not have to prove motive but it would help in this case and I think they will show motive. The motive is the impending breakup.

Also, those ppl at the scene didn’t THINK they heard her say she hit him. They testified she said it!

(This is not directed at you specifically @thebedbug)

JMO