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.
RSBM.

The more I've watched this trial, the more I've realised there is no "occam's razor" and whatever happened it will indeed be bonkers no matter what!

If she didn't do it, then there's the extraordinary situation of the cover up theory.

But if she did do it, that means that LE ran the shoddiest and most incompetent murder investigation I've ever seen in a trial, when you would think they would try extra hard because the victim was one of their fellow police officers!

MOO

i don’t know what to make of it.
 
RSBM.

The more I've watched this trial, the more I've realised there is no "occam's razor" and whatever happened it will indeed be bonkers no matter what!

If she didn't do it, then there's the extraordinary situation of the cover up theory.

But if she did do it, that means that LE ran the shoddiest and most incompetent murder investigation I've ever seen in a trial, when you would think they would try extra hard because the victim was one of their fellow police officers!

MOO
On this we finally agree!
 
Can Proctor be pressured in the future to reveal anything about other party involvement?

Like a deal?

Is that even a thing?

I can't imagine. He's the one who worked so hard to create a false case against Read. He's doomed.

I've always thought the weakest links in the case are Sara Levenson, (the young nurse in the house) Brian Higgins, (he'll likely be facing federal charges and may not have delivered the death blow to John's head) and (believe it or not) Matt McCabe.
 
I’m still reeling from today’s testimony. Even though I was sure KR did not hit JO with her car, I did think that possibly there was a fight and no one in the house realized he was in bad shape until he wandered out to the lawn and died.

But today’s testimony makes even that scenario impossible. JO would have been unconscious as soon as he got hit in the head. So whoever hit him chose not to get him medical attention and literally just let him die. Plus it’s so obvious he was injured in the house because where <modsnip> else would he be for all that time after getting dropped off at the house??

Due to LE corruption, the Albert/McCay cabal may never see formal charges. But I hope all of their friends and neighbors realize the significance of what happened today and treat them how they deserve to be treated. Disgusting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I've asked this before but don't recall an answer. Is there some kind of law, whether case law or statutory law that says that jurors cannot be shown on camera? Or is that just a case-by-case thing? Obviously, the people in the courtroom can see the jury as can all the parties in the case. Just wondering if they do this out of politeness, or if by the judge's orders or what the mechanism is. The reason I ask is that I wonder if say a juror is accidentally shown on camera, does it constitute some kind of mistrial mechanism, or anything like that?
Jurors must absolutely not be shown on camera or identified in any way as it would put them at risk of outside influence, for example death threats if they vote or don't vote a certain way.

During the course this trial one juror was inadvertently shown on camera, but as it happened, it was in the process of that particular juror being dismissed so it was inconsequencial.
The juror dismissal was a result of other factors.

In the event of all or many of the jurors being inadvertently shown on camera, yes it would be likely that a mistrial would be called.
 
I can't imagine. He's the one who worked so hard to create a false case against Read. He's doomed.

I've always thought the weakest links in the case are Sara Levenson, (the young nurse in the house) Brian Higgins, (he'll likely be facing federal charges and may not have delivered the death blow to John's head) and (believe it or not) Matt McCabe.
I will take anyone.

I just want the truth to come out and bad people to be put away.

But what are the chances of anyone being pressured to make a deal?

Can one realistically hope?
 
I can't imagine. He's the one who worked so hard to create a false case against Read. He's doomed.

I've always thought the weakest links in the case are Sara Levenson, (the young nurse in the house) Brian Higgins, (he'll likely be facing federal charges and may not have delivered the death blow to John's head) and (believe it or not) Matt McCabe.
RE: Matt McCabe: Jen McCabe repeatedly said under oath "I did NOT delete any texts. I did NOT delete any phone calls." But who did???
 
I just want the truth to come out and bad people to be put away.
I wouldn't hold your breath. What this trial has shown is that any real evidence was hidden or discarded and that some supposed evidence was likely planted or manufactured. Actually proving who did what at this point is nigh impossible.
 
Jurors must absolutely not be shown on camera or identified in any way as it would put them at risk of outside influence, for example death threats if they vote or don't vote a certain way.

During the course this trial one juror was inadvertently shown on camera, but as it happened, it was in the process of that particular juror being dismissed so it was inconsequencial.
The juror dismissal was a result of other factors.

In the event of all or many of the jurors being inadvertently shown on camera, yes it would be likelyyo that a mistrial would be called.
Thanks. But I guess while I understand all that and the reasoning behind showing their faces, I am just curious if anyone knows if it is a hard and fast "law" or "rule" or what. Or if it is more a matter of courtesy rather than a rule of law.
 
Yannetti and McLaughlin are arguing the jury instructions so it seems Jackson and Lally will do the closings. Judge said defense goes first, the CW after, so I guess no rebuttal by the CW, just one each and done.

No lesser includeds (manslaughter, OUI) beyond what she was already charged with.
 
I'm still disturbing shocked and angered that in this day and age NO ONE used computer generate graphics to show the jury how they believe these crimes happened. The same thing happened in the Murdaugh Trial. It was outside sources with no skin in the game that used their own time a resources to reconstruct the crime and crime scenes based on evidence presented in court.

The same person who did the fantastic Murdaugh scene video has done one with this case. There is also another video that is making the rounds that shows not only the scene outside where JO's body was found, the snow plow drivers route and what he would have seen and a very detailed video of the inside of the Albert's house based on the floor plans and layout of the house available because the house was for sale and a diagram and video walk through was on a Real Estate sight. That whole video( the outside scene, the inside house walk through and the plow POV are part of a longer more comprehensive video that the creator says will be released in whole after the verdict.

My point is WHY aren't these prosecutors and defenders not using their own people to create this videos? The technology is here, right now, today! Yet we are still left to use our imaginations. Further more I would think these tools would be welcomed by everyone. With Murdaugh all we had was a diagram that wasn't even drawn to scale!! That was all that was presented to the jury besides actual video footage. I just don't get it. People are doing this stuff for FREE right now. I'm certain some states and local law enforcement departments can afford such people in order to make their cases better understood. It's very frustrating.

Unless there is some legal reason for it then I'll put on my Emily Litella costume and shout" Nevermind!"


** For you youngsters Emily Litella was a character in the 1st few seasons of SNL played by Gild Radner. Look it up, she was very funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
2,169
Total visitors
2,361

Forum statistics

Threads
600,428
Messages
18,108,586
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top