MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
So far, this has been the only compelling part of the State's case for me. And we didn't even actually hear it.

IMO JMO
I'm not sure it is that particularly compelling when the context is taken into account. The context appears to be a dysfunctional relationship with possible co-dependency. I think this , if it's a factor is more what motivated her movements and her self blame than a consciousness of guilt of some description..
we've all been there probably...
 
Also in this camp.

Zero evidence of a conspiracy.
Lots of evidence of terrible police work and despicable police officers who should be fired.
A good defense attorney is going to tear this case to shreds and we are about to see that.
A good prosecutor would have known not to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
There was absolutely some terrible police work but I don't believe there is a conspiracy. The defense is going to hammer hard on Proctor's lack of professionalism. If he was unprofessional in his messages than what else has he done that walks the line or crosses it.
The thread was moving pretty quick and I haven't caught up. I did ask if the inappropriate text messages were on Proctor's personal phone or his work phone. I don't like his use of the 'R' word but there was nothing else said that I found overly offensive but I am probably more desensitized than a lot of people.
 
OK, and here is my issue with it. I, too, believe that the conspiracy theory is far-fetched and that it is more likely that KR hit him with a car.

But the beauty of US law is that my personal opinion means nothing. There is presumption of innocence and until the jury decides the fate of the case, I have no right to call her “a killer”. A poi, my suspect, the accused. And even “beyond reasonable doubt” is not 100%, it is just a measure of probability and whether you are prepared to send a person to prison based on this very probability.

Trooper Proctor’s is no judge, prosecutor or attorney. He is not a juror. His job was investigative. She was not a killer to him, or shouldn’t have been. Not even the defendant then, a poi, a suspect.

Now in his texts, there were two gross problems, beyond the language itself

- he expressed his opinion of her as the culpable side;
- he indicated that a Boston cop’s house was off-limits;

In short, he was not impartial.

It is really not good for the CW. It is horrible for potentially there being no justice for JO.

He is a 42-year-old man, OMG. He had no business putting it in texts.
I am going to flip this and ask about all the people who are not charged with murder but have been called murderers, eg. Colin Albert. They have been subjected to harassment and there's been some wild stuff said about them on social media. Do they have any recourse i.e. civil suits against Tik Tockers/You Tubers?
 
I am going to flip this and ask about all the people who are not charged with murder but have been called murderers, eg. Colin Albert. They have been subjected to harassment and there's been some wild stuff said about them on social media. Do they have any recourse i.e. civil suits against Tik Tockers/You Tubers?
I dare them to go after anyone.
 
Fair enough -

I believe he started out impartial but the evidence, his experience and instincts all pointed to her culpability. He discussed that privately.
I think when police arrest a suspect and all the evidence leads to that person. They’re allowed to form a personal opinion.

Police are human beings, not robots. They should be allowed to have private conversations. The texts revealed no plan to frame Karen and zero collusion for anyone else to either.


His first text messages claiming her to be responsible were within 18 hours. That is not letting the investigation take him to that conclusion or showing him to be impartial from the beginning
 
I'm still way behind watching the trial. I'm just watching the Colin Albert testimony. Does anyone else get really irritated with the defense nitpicking? I understand they have to do the best job they can. For example, AJ is arguing over whether hitting a bag at the gym is "boxing." Boxing, to me, is hitting someone in a boxing ring. I honestly think showing this video of Colin Albert when he is 15-16 verbally threatening someone works against this defense theory. If you can get that in, you absolutely would have been able to get in testimony that he got in a physical fight with someone at some time. Maybe that is coming, but so far I'm thinking if you had evidence of a physical fight, then you wouldn't play this video of a teenager running his mouth. When watching these trials and when I was a juror, I always struggle with the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence. However, I always catch myself thinking it would be really easy to prove some of these points if you just put on such and such testimony, and the fact that you didn't means it doesn't exist.
 
His first text messages claiming her to be responsible were within 18 hours. That is not letting the investigation take him to that conclusion.

Exactly. For those saying, “it was just inappropriate jokes, they have nothing to do with the case at hand”, you are completely wrong. Beyond the great point cocomod made, there were texts saying JOK was found on a property but the homeowner has nothing to worry about because he’s Boston PD, there were texts about making the ME change his ruling. You can defend it all you want, but it’s right there in writing. He came to the conclusion KR did it before finding any taillights or evidence. Biased investigation from the jump. And who knows what kind of texts we would have seen if Higgins gave his phone for extraction instead of throwing it away on a military base and destroying the SIM card.

JMO
 
Last edited:
Have you seen the evidence about the glass on Karen's bumper that does not match John O'Keefe's cocktail glass?

It hasn't gotten a lot of attention in the media for some reason, but to me it's the closest thing we have to a smoking gun. I discuss it here:

People are anticipating Jackson's cross of Proctor over all the texts. But I really want to know what Proctor says about the glass he claims to have found. How did he randomly find a single piece of glass at 34 Fairview that matches the one on Karen's car? Where did it come from? If he planted it, then it's direct evidence of a coverup.
Aren’t bar glasses typically really bottom heavy and thick? I imagine the bottom of a bar glass is the hardest to break and the most obvious piece to look for.
That’s the piece I’d look for.
 
I'm still way behind watching the trial. I'm just watching the Colin Albert testimony. Does anyone else get really irritated with the defense nitpicking? I understand they have to do the best job they can. For example, AJ is arguing over whether hitting a bag at the gym is "boxing." Boxing, to me, is hitting someone in a boxing ring. I honestly think showing this video of Colin Albert when he is 15-16 verbally threatening someone works against this defense theory. If you can get that in, you absolutely would have been able to get in testimony that he got in a physical fight with someone at some time. Maybe that is coming, but so far I'm thinking if you had evidence of a physical fight, then you wouldn't play this video of a teenager running his mouth. When watching these trials and when I was a juror, I always struggle with the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence. However, I always catch myself thinking it would be really easy to prove some of these points if you just put on such and such testimony, and the fact that you didn't means it doesn't exist.
Agree with every word -
 
Exactly. For those saying, “it was just inappropriate jokes, they have nothing to do with the case at hand”, you are completely wrong. Beyond the great point cocomod made, there were texts saying JOK was found on a property but the homeowner has nothing to worry about because he’s Boston PD, there were texts about making the ME change his ruling. You can defend it all you want, but it’s right there in writing. He came to the conclusion KR did it before finding any taillights or evidence. Biased investigation from the jump. And who knows what kind of texts we would have seen if Higgins gave his phone for extraction instead of throwing it away on a military base and destroying the SIM card.

JMO
You’re forgetting Proctor knows a lot more than you do. He interviewed Karen Read and heard what first responders and others interviewed said
ALL OF the evidence points to her.
 
I'm still way behind watching the trial. I'm just watching the Colin Albert testimony. Does anyone else get really irritated with the defense nitpicking? I understand they have to do the best job they can. For example, AJ is arguing over whether hitting a bag at the gym is "boxing." Boxing, to me, is hitting someone in a boxing ring. I honestly think showing this video of Colin Albert when he is 15-16 verbally threatening someone works against this defense theory. If you can get that in, you absolutely would have been able to get in testimony that he got in a physical fight with someone at some time. Maybe that is coming, but so far I'm thinking if you had evidence of a physical fight, then you wouldn't play this video of a teenager running his mouth. When watching these trials and when I was a juror, I always struggle with the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence. However, I always catch myself thinking it would be really easy to prove some of these points if you just put on such and such testimony, and the fact that you didn't means it doesn't exist.
AJ nitpicks to a fault. Wait until you watch the cross of the women that work in the lab. They are the forensic lab techs yet AJ attempts to make them sound stupid or that they is something? questionable because they don't know who dropped off the evidence. How would they? They work on whatever is in their queue or is assigned to them. He tries to get people locked into yes/no answers and not allow them to explain their answer. It's word games. He's good at what he does but he comes across at being overly aggressive. It's probably the most aggressive defense team I have ever seen.
 
AJ nitpicks to a fault. Wait until you watch the cross of the women that work in the lab. They are the forensic lab techs yet AJ attempts to make them sound stupid or that they is something? questionable because they don't know who dropped off the evidence. How would they? They work on whatever is in their queue or is assigned to them. He tries to get people locked into yes/no answers and not allow them to explain their answer. It's word games. He's good at what he does but he comes across at being overly aggressive. It's probably the most aggressive defense team I have ever seen.

If I ever am on trial for my life, I’ll gladly take a defense attorney that “nitpicks”. I don’t know what people expect. Should he just decline to cross examine any witnesses and affirm to the jury the CW’s case? If that was the deal then he would have took a plea. It’s a murder trial FFS. JMO
 
You’re forgetting Proctor knows a lot more than you do. He interviewed Karen Read and heard what first responders and others interviewed said
ALL OF the evidence points to her.

That completely ignores him saying the homeowner doesn’t need to worry because he’s a cop. Selectively ignoring things I guess.
 
Look at all the evidence collected in those first 18 hours
Start with it's a common scenario: a drinking while driving incident.

Then she admits to basic facts: she was drinking, she dropped him off there, she made a turn around in a blizzard, in the dark, with him nearby

Then her tailight is broken

Sure all of this was poorly documented by bafoons but the evidence is all there.
 
Start with it's a common scenario: a drinking while driving incident.

Then she admits to basic facts: she was drinking, she dropped him off there, she made a turn around in a blizzard, in the dark, with him nearby

Then her tailight is broken

Sure all of this was poorly documented by bafoons but the evidence is all there.
ah yes, the taillight

how much of the trial have you watched?
 
I'm still way behind watching the trial. I'm just watching the Colin Albert testimony. Does anyone else get really irritated with the defense nitpicking? I understand they have to do the best job they can. For example, AJ is arguing over whether hitting a bag at the gym is "boxing." Boxing, to me, is hitting someone in a boxing ring. I honestly think showing this video of Colin Albert when he is 15-16 verbally threatening someone works against this defense theory. If you can get that in, you absolutely would have been able to get in testimony that he got in a physical fight with someone at some time. Maybe that is coming, but so far I'm thinking if you had evidence of a physical fight, then you wouldn't play this video of a teenager running his mouth. When watching these trials and when I was a juror, I always struggle with the fact that the absence of evidence is not evidence. However, I always catch myself thinking it would be really easy to prove some of these points if you just put on such and such testimony, and the fact that you didn't means it doesn't exist.

It's not the defenses job to "prove" their theory. It IS the prosecutions job to PROVE theirs! They have been so busy defending the defenses theory, they have YET to PROVE their case. Court is about innocent until proven GUILTY. They have yet to even prove how he was killed or that he was killed by her.


Start with it's a common scenario: a drinking while driving incident.

Then she admits to basic facts: she was drinking, she dropped him off there, she made a turn around in a blizzard, in the dark, with him nearby

Then her tailight is broken

Sure all of this was poorly documented by bafoons but the evidence is all there.


The worst part is, we wouldn't likely be here discussing this if the DA hadn't upped the charge to murder- which indicates intent to kill. The thing about it is - ALL of them were drinking. All of them were driving home drunk. They have not proven it was her car that hit and killed him. Quite the opposite, when the Federal investigator comes up for the defense, he will testify that it was NOT an auto accident. There is remarkably no surveillance video of her doing anything of the sort that night - or of backing up at a high rate of speed around a bend in the road - drunk!!

Her taillight being broken is NOT proof that he was killed by her car. It is proof that it was cracked that night; and there is video surveillance of her hitting JO's car that night. The tire literally moves. There is no proof that she didn't crack it on his vehicle because she barely hit it and if a taillight his his car it is less likely to damage his (taillight is not as strong as the body of a car).
 
Isn't it funny that Proctor has a beautiful picture of the back of JO's vehicle, but not one of KR's? That is not proof that she didn't hit it.

Also, for those claiming that he had a reason to suspect her from the beginning - he didn't even TRY to investigate ANY OTHER theory!! They didn't even go IN the house where the victim was found to investigate anything. They didn't separate and question anyone else. He said in his own words - Nope, it is a Boston cop's house - nothing to see here. That is reasonable to assume he came in with bias and didn't investigate his "brothers"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
1,524
Total visitors
1,691

Forum statistics

Threads
599,274
Messages
18,093,626
Members
230,836
Latest member
a_renee
Back
Top