VERDICT WATCH MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #13

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember back when this first happened, Karen’s attorney wasn’t even disputing that his client had hit John. He said it was an accident, and said she had been overcharged.
I'm going to Google for early reports regarding this.

When it first happened, maybe they didn't have all the information. <modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe I saw you say it would be a huge miscarriage of justice if KR is found guilty, but you nevertheless believe her to be guilty.

Feel free to disregard, but would you care to share why you think she is guilty?

Just curious TBH
I’m a Mass guy with a similar opinion but not THEE (legendary) Mass Guy. So here’s a consolation prize until he comes around to answering…

1. Prosecutors were sure she would plea out. When she didn’t they upped the charges to put more pressure on her. She called their bluff. MOO

2. Law Enforcement attempted to take a 70% conviction case and “make” it a 99% conviction case. As they were sure very early on of her guilt. MOO.

3. A bunch of people gleefully told their squeaky clean and coordinated version of the truth to a grand jury. After things got a little more complicated they quickly realized they were now locked into that squeaky clean version. And it didn’t hold up to the evidence. IMO little white non-murderous lies about that night now looked like straight up evidence of guilt and they couldn’t change it because: perjury.

MOO

Edit: he already answered. DOH!
 
I'm going to Google for early reports regarding this.

When it first happened, maybe they didn't have all the information.
I found a NY Post article citing Boston Globe reporting (I’m sure you can bypass the paywall and find it there).

Read’s lawyer said his client was in shock and distraught over O’Keefe’s death, which he said was an accident. Defense attorney David Yannetti told the newspaper he thought prosecutors had rushed to charge Read because the victim was a politically connected cop.

“Manslaughter is a tremendous reach in this case,” Yannetti reportedly said in court. “I don’t see any criminal intent … this was my client’s boyfriend, somebody with whom she was in love.”


 
I found a NY Post article citing Boston Globe reporting (I’m sure you can bypass the paywall and find it there).

Read’s lawyer said his client was in shock and distraught over O’Keefe’s death, which he said was an accident. Defense attorney David Yannetti told the newspaper he thought prosecutors had rushed to charge Read because the victim was a politically connected cop.

“Manslaughter is a tremendous reach in this case,” Yannetti reportedly said in court. “I don’t see any criminal intent … this was my client’s boyfriend, somebody with whom she was in love.”

I wonder what the date is on that. ty for the links, they weren't there before.

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to Google for early reports regarding this.

When it first happened, maybe they didn't have all the information. Also, you're a cop, right?

The word is that about a week after the incident, a PI contacted Yannetti and told him the fix was in and there were a lot of discrepancies in the investigation. Before then, Karen didn't remember the actual collision, but from the evidence thought she had hit John.

This is mentioned in the Boston Magazine article that was written about the case last summer.

Supposedly the PI was Steve Scanlon who's also close with Brian Albert, but he now denies he was the whistleblower.


edit - Here's the article...


It wasn’t long before a far more sinister theory of what happened began to emerge. On his drive home after the arraignment, Yannetti says, he returned a call to a tipster who had previously called his office. A man with a gravelly voice—who initially offered up a fake name—picked up the phone and told Yannetti, he recalls, something to the effect of, “Your client is innocent. John was beaten up by Brian Albert and his nephew. They broke his nose, and when O’Keefe didn’t come to, Brian and a federal agent dumped his body on the front lawn.” (An attorney for the man Yannetti identified as the tipster denies Yannetti’s version.)
 
no such thing when a chief investigator is looking at your phone to see if there are any nudes!
Yes, and even better (or should say worse) broadcasting it to his ‘friends’ and cohorts or colleagues IIRC? Via text? Are we sure that investigator graduated from college? High school? SMH. MOO

PS…. correspondence and online courses not included and do not count. Nothing against them; but feel an exception is needed in this case for this investigator. IMO
 
I remember back when this first happened, Karen’s attorney wasn’t even disputing that his client had hit John. He said it was an accident, and said she had been overcharged.

Yes, she was likely drunk and confused, but she did believe she hit him, which is why her attorney would have taken that tact.

It wasn’t until later this conspiracy yarn was spun, which I think was a brilliant strategy, supported by sloppy police work and an incredible bunch of liars.

I have to make way more leaps to believe the latter than I do the former. But there are massive issues that will no matter what, leave what happened open to debate for me.

So “more probable than not,” but not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I agree that KR might have been under the impression she had hit John. She was also under the impression she had started her period when she saw John's blood on her hands.

Karen might not have had a clue as to what was what.

Given that no witness took the stand and definitively said John was hit by a car, and given that two unbiased experts said he was not hit by a car, I have to believe he was in fact not hit by a car. The injuries make zero sense. And the physics are impossible to deny.

Will be interesting to see what happens...
 
I agree that KR might have been under the impression she had hit John. She was also under the impression she had started her period when she saw John's blood on her hands.

Karen might not have had a clue as to what was what.

Given that no witness took the stand and definitively said John was hit by a car, and given that two unbiased experts said he was not hit by a car, I have to believe he was in fact not hit by a car. The injuries make zero sense. And the physics are impossible to deny.

Will be interesting to see what happens...
The injuries certainly don’t make sense, but I don’t buy a violent attack either.

I don’t think the verdict is a forgone conclusion, as I’ve learned my lesson in that regard. But let’s just say I’d be as shocked as I was when OJ was found not guilty, if Karen is found guilty.
 
Pretty sure the FBI involvement changed lots of minds and outlook on issues in this case. How could it not?
I saw it as the final nail in the coffin for the state’s case. I thought it was over well before then, but it’s huge to leave a jury with that.
 
I saw it as the final nail in the coffin for the state’s case. I thought it was over well before then, but it’s huge to leave a jury with that.

Karen's defense wouldn't be remotely as strong if not for the FBI investigation. I don't know how or why the FBI investigation happened, but I'm glad it did.
 
I’m a Mass guy with a similar opinion but not THEE (legendary) Mass Guy. So here’s a consolation prize until he comes around to answering…

1. Prosecutors were sure she would plea out. When she didn’t they upped the charges to put more pressure on her. She called their bluff. MOO

2. Law Enforcement attempted to take a 70% conviction case and “make” it a 99% conviction case. As they were sure very early on of her guilt. MOO.

3. A bunch of people gleefully told their squeaky clean and coordinated version of the truth to a grand jury. After things got a little more complicated they quickly realized they were now locked into that squeaky clean version. And it didn’t hold up to the evidence. IMO little white non-murderous lies about that night now looked like straight up evidence of guilt and they couldn’t change it because: perjury.

MOO

Edit: he already answered. DOH!
Yes, it changed and eyes were opened and then moreso with Proctor trying to up it up till now look at him, pish. FBI on him prev and all. STICK A FORK IN HIM, he is done.
 
Was no one on the prosecution side ever able to address where the dog bites/scratches/etc., on in his arm came from? Did the prosecution claim they were from the tail light all along? Even after it was stated that experts didn't feel a tail light could make those kinds of marks.

And is it true that Chloe (the dog) was rehomed *the next day*? Do we have proof of that? Because rehoming a dog means you know who you gave it to, and if they ever had detected dog DNA on his shirt, skin, etc., they could have tracked Chloe down for analysis but I'm just wondering if the rehoming was a story and that Chloe is no longer on this planet.
 
Yes. That or a lie or a manufactured statement or some such.The jury can review testimony during deliberations and I feel they will review Jen McCabe's for sure given she's proven to have lied numerous times under oath. Moo
I heard the jury can not access witness transcripts, though? Is that true?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,222
Total visitors
2,285

Forum statistics

Threads
599,735
Messages
18,098,844
Members
230,917
Latest member
CP95
Back
Top