MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Proctor did not kill or leave John out there in a blizzard to die.

He had nothing to do with the death of JO.

This critical most invaluable point will not be lost on a jury.

moo

He may not have killed him or been in the house, but he sure as h311 is a big reason the truth will never be known. He is one of the main ones responsible for such an irresponsible and incomplete and incompetent investigation
 
Really looking forward to the FBI witness testimony - at least if Lord Judge allows them to testify without shushing them.

Back to closing arguments coming soon - I love the idea of a big white board with bullet points!! But, I sincerely hope they touch on every single misconception, every single misstep the investigation took, every single time one of the CW witnesses contradicted each other, and every single time (that’s a lot) the CW witness said something that defies common sense.
 
I wasn't impressed - she seemed unprepared and hadn't even reviewed the phone evidence regarding JO never stepping foot inside the residence. I felt it was a bit of a desperate attempt by the defense to put her on the stand tbh.
I don't understand this statement. The judge only allowed her to testify about the arm injuries and dog bites. How could phone evidence enter into her review?

Also it's established John's phone stopped moving at 12:32. According to eyewitness testimony Karen was alone in the car at 12:24. By 12:36 she was already at John's house as she connected to his wifi then. The timeline proves she couldn't have hit him. As does the forensic data we'll hear about today.
 
I wasn't impressed - she seemed unprepared and hadn't even reviewed the phone evidence regarding JO never stepping foot inside the residence. I felt it was a bit of a desperate attempt by the defense to put her on the stand tbh.
Why would she be looking at phone evidence? She’s an expert on dog bites, not cellphones!
 
I don't understand this statement. The judge only allowed her to testify about the arm injuries and dog bites. How could phone evidence enter into her review?

Also it's established John's phone stopped moving at 12:32. According to eyewitness testimony Karen was alone in the car at 12:24. By 12:36 she was already at John's house as she connected to his wifi then. The timeline proves she couldn't have hit him. As does the forensic data we'll hear about today.
Trooper Nicholas Guarino testified about the data he extracted from JO's phone, which showed that JO's phone remained at the location where his body was found on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton from 12:25 a.m.

She was testifying as an expert witness! Seems very careless not to thoroughly examine both the phone and other evidence to form conclusions based on factual evidence. IMO BBM
 
Trooper Nicholas Guarino testified about the data he extracted from JO's phone, which showed that JO's phone remained at the location where his body was found on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton from 12:25 a.m.

She was testifying as an expert witness! Seems very careless not to thoroughly examine both the phone and other evidence to form conclusions based on factual evidence. IMO BBM
Ah now!!!
I'm afraid that would only be relevant had Chloe had her own phone.. and even then...?
 
On another note, when JO was found around 6 am, the paramedic testified that his body temp was 80f (~26.67c) If he had been laying outside since 12:30 (5.5 hours), shouldn’t his body temp be much lower? The body weight used for this chart is less than JO (167 vs 220) but even so his temp isn’t even close to what it should have been after that length of exposure.
Accounting for his larger size, seems like his body temp (26.67c) is closer to what you would expect if he had only been outside for a couple of hours. Doesn’t this support Luckys testimony that JO was not on the lawn when he came by around 3:30? Imo

View attachment 512652

Nice sleuthing! The defense has expert pathologist in today. I wonder...
 
Did I hit him? is a fair question. I would have asked the same thing under those circumstances.

What Jen is lying about is the "I hit him" with no question mark at the end. She only changed her story removing the question mark much later.

No cop recorded Karen telling them she hit John. It's not in a single report. And she wasn't arrested at the scene.

It's ridiculous to keep saying she confessed at the scene when it's obvious she couldn't have.

<modsnip - no source>
And the problem for Mrs McCabe is that she has been shown to have lied so much under oath already that the jury will have a hard time believing anything she said. moo One of the, if not the most, non credible witnesses in this trial. Moo
 
Absolutely !

And one of my favorite Proctor or Tully isms...
The fact that the CantonPD had recused itself because of knowing the Alberts, but yet....the MSP lead investigator now allows Canton PD Officer KEVIN ALBERT to arrange witness interviews !!??????? Nothing to see here....
:rolleyes:
Make it make sense !!!
All these little but significant instances are nuts and very offensive to law abiding citizens. They just speak to the insidious levels of entitlement, arrogance, built in incompetence, we police are above our own protocols, culture. Mostly the entitlement and disdain for integrity of procedure really gets my goat up!!
 
I can't recall a trial where there was such ambiguity or disagreement surrounding critical issues, including how this officer's injuries occurred.

All of us seem to be "most persuaded" by different "facts". We are all trying to link the "facts" we find reliable into a coherent scenario - one which might dispel the "facts" that may indicate otherwise.

Websleuthers are smart. We look at the totality of the evidence. All of us have followed a multitude of trials. If we are this disparate, do you think a hung jury is possible?
There are maybe 5 people that post a lot and feel she is guilty. I don't think the majority expect a hung jury but anything is possible.
 
I can't recall a trial where there was such ambiguity or disagreement surrounding critical issues, including how this officer's injuries occurred.

All of us seem to be "most persuaded" by different "facts". We are all trying to link the "facts" we find reliable into a coherent scenario - one which might dispel the "facts" that may indicate otherwise.

Websleuthers are smart. We look at the totality of the evidence. All of us have followed a multitude of trials. If we are this disparate, do you think a hung jury is possible?
(ETA - BBM) Unfortunately, yes, I do.

I think there is close to zero chance of conviction, <modsnip - off topic>

I am fully aware that in all of the United States the double jeopardy rule applies to criminal prosecution. If someone is found Not Guilty of a crime, they can never again be tried for that same crime. Therefore there is the possibility, in a case which has divided a community that one or two jurors may decide to force a mistrial.

JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trooper Nicholas Guarino testified about the data he extracted from JO's phone, which showed that JO's phone remained at the location where his body was found on the front lawn of 34 Fairview Road in Canton from 12:25 a.m.

She was testifying as an expert witness! Seems very careless not to thoroughly examine both the phone and other evidence to form conclusions based on factual evidence. IMO BBM
As I explained above she was only allowed to testify about dog bites. You'll have to take any complaints about this up with the judge. It was very clearly addressed during the trial.

John's phone stopped moving at 12:32. This is a fact.
 
(ETA - BBM) Unfortunately, yes, I do.

I think there is close to zero chance of conviction, <modsnip>

I am fully aware that in all of the United States the double jeopardy rule applies to criminal prosecution. If someone is found Not Guilty of a crime, they can never again be tried for that same crime. Therefore there is the possibility, in a case which has divided a community that one or two jurors may decide to force a mistrial.

JMO
<quoting Lucky> God forbid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
1,365
Total visitors
1,509

Forum statistics

Threads
599,277
Messages
18,093,671
Members
230,836
Latest member
a_renee
Back
Top