MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember the FBI is investigating and has handed over all those papers for the defense. They know a LOT. We just haven't gotten 'to that FBI doing their own investigation to some people' yet. THAT I bet will be very something else. We've seen the look of whaaaaaaaaaat? on JMc and her daughter already. Higgins was sweating it I must say at the very end and he's talked, it sounds, or met with, the FBI, but he still seems very worried now at the end with the phone gone info and having his friend, (now prob in trouble and he looked like he regretted he was brought into this testimony today) help him HELP out the case by extracting the string of comments himself. He was very muddled by, which we asked ourselves same time prob, 'why didn't you give them the phone'? That was true deer in headlights look. I was super scrutinizing his expressions, personality as I was ending up believing him and liking him, poor sod.
 
Remember the FBI is investigating and has handed over all those papers for the defense. They know a LOT. We just haven't gotten 'to that FBI doing their own investigation to some people' yet. THAT I bet will be very something else. We've seen the look of whaaaaaaaaaat? on JMc and her daughter already. Higgins was sweating it I must say at the very end and he's talked, it sounds, or met with, the FBI, but he still seems very worried now at the end with the phone gone info and having his friend, (now prob in trouble and he looked like he regretted he was brought into this testimony today) help him HELP out the case by extracting the string of comments himself. He was very muddled by, which we asked ourselves same time prob, 'why didn't you give them the phone'? That was true deer in headlights look. I was super scrutinizing his expressions, personality as I was ending up believing him and liking him, poor sod.
SO, no, the only jury I'm fit to be on is here ; )
 
I've never seen a prosecution so defensive. It's an absolute farce. We have yet another full day of testimony that showed not one single thread of evidence that KR murdered anyone. ( well except for BH's ego)

All the prosecution has done is play defense for it's own witnesses, who can't seem to remember anything. Maybe, just maybe all the alcohol they ingest has something to do with that.
 

Don’t go after the judge! One way to sink your case
 
I'm thinking the FBI didn't accept his offer of a proffer. And yes, he's has to be in hot water.
Lots more than meets the eye happening here and behind the scenes.
They never thought that they would have "eyes" on them - just business as usual.
The grapevine was alive and the fix was in at Canton PD after JOK was murdered

BH should be in more than hot water - I question how he is still employed
JMO
 
She's awful. The more I watch, the more I'm convinced she's taking very specific marching orders from Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey, who bizarrely inserted himself into this case by releasing a recorded statement vouching for the party goers. He has a lot to lose here.

Never been done before. Arrest Turtleboy? Sure. Tell the entire state the people in the house are 100% innocent? Not kosher.
If District Attorney Morrissey's statement were all I had been told about this case, I would believe everything he said, and I would believe I would be right to believe him. I would think it should be obvious that his position is the rightful one and have no reason to believe otherwise. I would see no problems or contradictions in the story that the prosecution is setting forth.

But since I have now heard more than just his statement, from watching the case in court, from hearing testimony from multiple state witnesses that were given under sworn oath under threat of perjury, I do not believe the DA's statement is the whole truth, and I do see reasons to believe there is more to the story than just what he said, and I do see problems with his statement and with the case against the defendant. And I absolutely see room for reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case against her. I see enough room for reasonable doubt that I would be unable to vote for her conviction on a murder charge, if I were on her jury.

So that's a major problem. It's a major problem with our justice system. Because if I understand it correctly, what I heard just from listening to that DA's statement and nothing else, is essentially what the citizens who were in the grand jury that took place in advance of this case going to trial would have heard. What he said in this statement is about the same thing given to the grand jury, since the grand jury hears only the case laid out from the side of the prosecution, with no chance for the defense to present its side at that time.

Am I correct to think of this statement by the DA to be essentially the same thing that the grand jury heard before this trial (with more said to emphasize the harassment issue)? If this is all they had to go on to decide if this case was strong enough to take it to trial, I can certainly see why they voted to go to trial. I think anyone would have, if this is all they heard.

This seems to me to point out a major flaw in our justice system. It's a wonder that any case ever doesn't go to trial after a grand jury is held. Why would they only allow the case to be presented by one side in such an important and consequential step as a grand jury is? The state (or CW) will never take a case to grand jury if they think they have no case. So when the grand jury hears nothing but their arguments, forcing the defense to wait til trial to present anything to rebut it, the grand jury is operating on too limited information to make their decision.

And I feel the same way after listening to this statement by DA Morrissey. It was a mistake imo for him to put out this statement. It shows an obvious, undeniable bias for the state in regard to this case. The DA himself is the state (or CW in this case). It's such an obvious conflict of interest, especially when so many of the people in this case are also in various ways, representatives of the same body or of the various agencies etc, underneath it, that I'm amazed he felt it was right for him to insert himself into this case like he did by issuing this statement. He should have left it up to those involved in the trial to be the influencers here and not him. It's only in the trial where both sides are able to present their case so that everyone can decide for themselves basing their decision on ALL the evidence, and not just evidence from one side.
 
If District Attorney Morrissey's statement were all I had been told about this case, I would believe everything he said, and I would believe I would be right to believe him. I would think it should be obvious that his position is the rightful one and have no reason to believe otherwise. I would see no problems or contradictions in the story that the prosecution is setting forth.

But since I have now heard more than just his statement, from watching the case in court, from hearing testimony from multiple state witnesses that were given under sworn oath under threat of perjury, I do not believe the DA's statement is the whole truth, and I do see reasons to believe there is more to the story than just what he said, and I do see problems with his statement and with the case against the defendant. And I absolutely see room for reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case against her. I see enough room for reasonable doubt that I would be unable to vote for her conviction on a murder charge, if I were on her jury.

So that's a major problem. It's a major problem with our justice system. Because if I understand it correctly, what I heard just from listening to that DA's statement and nothing else, is essentially what the citizens who were in the grand jury that took place in advance of this case going to trial would have heard. What he said in this statement is about the same thing given to the grand jury, since the grand jury hears only the case laid out from the side of the prosecution, with no chance for the defense to present its side at that time.

Am I correct to think of this statement by the DA to be essentially the same thing that the grand jury heard before this trial (with more said to emphasize the harassment issue)? If this is all they had to go on to decide if this case was strong enough to take it to trial, I can certainly see why they voted to go to trial. I think anyone would have, if this is all they heard.

This seems to me to point out a major flaw in our justice system. It's a wonder that any case ever doesn't go to trial after a grand jury is held. Why would they only allow the case to be presented by one side in such an important and consequential step as a grand jury is? The state (or CW) will never take a case to grand jury if they think they have no case. So when the grand jury hears nothing but their arguments, forcing the defense to wait til trial to present anything to rebut it, the grand jury is operating on too limited information to make their decision.

And I feel the same way after listening to this statement by DA Morrissey. It was a mistake imo for him to put out this statement. It shows an obvious, undeniable bias for the state in regard to this case. The DA himself is the state (or CW in this case). It's such an obvious conflict of interest, especially when so many of the people in this case are also in various ways, representatives of the same body or of the various agencies etc, underneath it, that I'm amazed he felt it was right for him to insert himself into this case like he did by issuing this statement. He should have left it up to those involved in the trial to be the influencers here and not him. It's only in the trial where both sides are able to present their case so that everyone can decide for themselves basing their decision on ALL the evidence, and not just evidence from one side.

Even the judge said that it "crossed the line of permissible extrajudicial statements by a prosecutor," although she denied the defense's request to disqualify the DA's office.

I believe there's a complaint before the bar about his statement as well. Although I doubt he'll get much more than an admonition not to do it again.

There's a mound of appealable issues in this trial in the event that Read loses. Just add this one to the list.
 
He's not from the area. But the Alberts and the McCabes have been spotted several times drinking in a divey Chinese restaurant in Stoughton that generally only hosts late night drunken college students. I'll be driving by in an hour or so. May pop my head in. Must be hard finding places they feel safe enough to show their drunk faces that's also close enough to home to risk driving drunk.

Oh no after trial party tonight? Tuesday and Wednesday there were 20 cars deep at the McCabe abode. White claws flowing I’m sure.
 
I googled images of knuckle injuries from punching. (Google must have a very Intersting profile on me) . Just suffice to say that I saw some very similar injuries on a witness in the trial.

Often when people concoct a story (this is in general and not related specifically to one person), they introduce elements of truth. It was snowy and icy out that day.
 
I’ve rewinded to listen to the texts btwn the defendant and Brian Higgins. These text exchanges are quite revealing about the defendant’s personality. Esp with respect to men. Wow.

JMO
Karen was lonely, sad, and wanted to feel wanted after seeing her boyfriend act inappropriately with another woman while she was taking care of his children. Add that to the fact that ALL of these people, KR included, seemed to drink to excess multiple times a week. Did you expect Karen to be the most moral, saintly, wonderful human being of all time? Doesn't matter what she did, she didn't murder her bf. IMO.

Feds have stated that he was not killed from being hit by a vehicle (NOT IMO, factual and something a few members taking part on this thread seem to not acknowledge for some reason... I will link it for the 3rd time...).


“The damage on the car was inconsistent with having made contact with John O’Keefe’s body. In other words, the car didn’t hit him, and he wasn’t hit by the car. Period. Full stop,” Read’s attorney Alan Jackson said.
 
WHAT A DAY!!

It was overheard in a YouTube court stream that KR approached the stand at the end because AJ can’t be in court to finish cross on Tuesday, and Karen had to sign off on Yanetti taking over for the one day they’re in court next week.
Jmo
 
RSBM You seem to give Karen a lot of credit for someone you seem to really despise.
It is not personal for me. I am old and weathered. Been around the world a time or two. We have this lady in the news who's never married but living with a bachelor w/ two children that do not belong to her. She's attractive and well educated. Successful professionally, too. She's checking almost all the boxes.
How could she KNOW that after hitting him (not getting out to check on him) that he would die and not be found?
Karen knew John would die because the temps were in the 20s with strong winds, a blizzard with white out conditions on its way -- it was upon them.

Karen waited 5.5 hours before seeking help for John. She took two of his best friends with her to uncover John's face from the snow and her hysteria. If Karen had driven back by, he would not have frozen to death. Imagine a blunt force impact with a head injury and one's body is shivering as frostbite sets in the fingers and hands first. When John was recovered, his core temperature was 80 degrees down from normal 98.6.
How could she know in a group party situation that someone wouldn't have come out of the house and found him??
John gets out -- exits the SUV near where he was found only he was tossed into the air and landed for the placement away from the road near the bushes, fire hydrant and flag pole. Hence, he's out of her SUV when she drives 62 feet forward and stops. Then, the SUV is placed into reverse and driven at 24mph for 62 feet. Boom -- busted tail light, scratches and dings, cocktail glass fragments embedded in the bumper, metal is sticking out, according to KRogers. John is on the grass.

Her SUV can scoot 0 to 60 in 6.7 seconds. It took 2 seconds to hit John, then she was gone.
Count it: One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Boom! It happened in an instant. No one saw John fly through the air or laying on the grass in the snow or he wouldn't be dead. They would have rescued him.
Also, I have heard you mention that she is a cop killer. He was her boyfriend - her significant other - even IF she did kill him, she didn't kill him because he was a cop.
I don't recall ever writing she was a cop killer but maybe you can point that comment out to me. TIA
You are correct though. John's death was not police related at all. It was personal between Karen and John.
I have to take into account her being drunk that night and into the next morning when I look at her actions / hysteria. I also am looking at the even more interesting/damning evidence/actions of the others at the party (destroying phones, getting rid of a dog, telling others what the story is, bullying) much later than that night.
Me and mine, we're an Apple family. We update our phones mostly at Christmas and birthdays. Phones are factory reset. Channel 4 news was at one of the Albert's businesses in town asking questions. A group text, from Matt, said: "Tell them the guy didn't come in the house." It was the truth. John did not enter 34 Fairview. He didn't make it past the flag pole.

I do feel an innocent dog named Chloe has been named a suspect in a hit and run case. Chloe was 7yo. Large dogs like GSs, don't typically have an extended lifetime. Following an incident that happened some time later, Chloe went to VT to run in the woods is my understanding. The Albert's downsized.
I personally think that the case against her is so weak, I couldn't convict.
Lally's made this trial seem so slow with the times of arrivals and departures of all of the players, where each one sat or stood, the vehicles' locations, the drinks ordered, the multiple phones, who heard what, how much snow was present. I'm not proselytizing. I've listened for exoneration. I haven't finished listening to BH. Those texts though...
However, I am watching the trial to see if the prosecution has evidence I am unaware of. But, I can see that others have already made up their mind - and that is okay for them to do. I am looking at this trial as a juror would and there is no way I could convict with the prosecutions case so far. JMO
MOO and JMOO
 
Karen was lonely, sad, and wanted to feel wanted after seeing her boyfriend act inappropriately with another woman while she was taking care of his children. Add that to the fact that ALL of these people, KR included, seemed to drink to excess multiple times a week. Did you expect Karen to be the most moral, saintly, wonderful human being of all time? Doesn't matter what she did, she didn't murder her bf. IMO.
rsbm

exactly.
Everything wasn't hunky dory with Karen.

She was a ticking time bomb.
That exploded.

IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
don't forget the alcohol, lots of alcohol.JMO
White Claws and Jameson & Gingers galore!!
rsbm

exactly.
Everything wasn't hunky dory with Karen.

She was a ticking time bomb.
That exploded.
Again (ad nauseum), the feds have stated John did not have injuries that aligned with being hit by a vehicle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
293
Guests online
1,539
Total visitors
1,832

Forum statistics

Threads
597,570
Messages
18,066,602
Members
230,392
Latest member
@ttentive
Back
Top