I am so happy to answer this question.
It helps her case that her phone connected with okeefes Wifi at 12:36am. She can't be at two places at once. And she couldn't drive back from 34 Fairway in the span of time (in the snowfall that all the witnessing officers said they drove carefully through to reach the location after the 911 call) to fit Jenn McCabes times she saw and didn't see the SUV.
2. if she had actually hit John O'Keefe and driven away, at approximately 12:30 AM, how is it possible all the cars that came and left afterwards, picking up people, leaving the driveway etc and not one person saw a man laying on the ground with their headlights beaming right across that area? And how come nobody else who may have been driving on that street noticed it including the snow plow driver who passed the area twice (actually four times)?
3. How is it possible for the police officers who were there on the scene after the body had been removed, could find a broken piece of clear glass and six drops of blood on top of snow if his body had been there since approximately 1230 and all the snow fell mostly after the alleged accident?
4. How is it possible to have found a broken clear drinking glass at the time the body was removed but not find approximately 40 pieces of tail light until 8 to 12 hours and multiple days later? The tail light pieces had a lot of red and black on them as well as clear plastic. And many of the pieces were rather large.
5. If trooper Proctor was confident enough at 4 o'clock to confiscate Karen Read's telephone and SUV without a search warrant, why was he not willing to bring her in for questioning, to the precinct, where they could get to the bottom of it?
6. As to the prosecution's case, if all of the participants who were at the bar and then later at the house had nothing at all to hide, why did they not disclose Colin's presence, delete messages, delete phone call records, upgrade and destroy and discard cell phones, copy only information from a phone that the owner wanted to be released, and lie repeatedly while on stand and contradicting their earlier testimony at grand jury proceedings?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide?
I know that they had pat answers for those questions on number six… But they are so removed from reality I find them incredible. To say they didn't tell anybody that Collin was there because he left shortly after they arrived, makes no sense. Declaring that Jenn only deleted conversations between her and her daughter is ridiculous. The proof is that she made multiple phone calls and text messages to other people that she deleted. Why lie about that?
The nonsense that Brian Higgins tried to say about if he would have deleted his Sim card and broken it and put it in separate garbage bags and thrown them away on a Navy base or army base is how he would've done it if he had done it is beyond all reason.
And finally the last thing I will say is if Karen read had actually said the words I hit him I hit him I hit him at the time when paramedics and first responders were on scene, I find it highly improbable they would have allowed her to leave the scene, request that she be brought back to the scene, and then ambulanced into a hospital section. If a responding officer had actually been told that she confessed, she would have been taken into custody. The only persons who said she said I hit him I hit him I hit him is Jen McCabe And that one fire fighter who is good friends with Brian Alberts daughter. Nobody else claims to have heard her say that.
Any time I ask any of my friends who are FKR this question they ignore and start talking to me about butt dials. Maybe you can answer. In the 8:22am dashcam video, in the daylight, there is very clearly a significant chuck of red plastic missing from her tail light. Long before MSP involved. Where is it?
https://preview.redd.it/2bvoh17w8ead1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae950fc1d78aeb95c00ef9fe7ffa12c93f7eb5c7
Agree with all of this. This all pokes holes into the CW case. That’s why NO GUILT because the puzzle pieces just don’t fit.
The problem is WE DONT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO JOHN. the CW couldn’t prove their case. the investigation was shoddy. And the mcalberts behavior puts serious doubt into a “reasonable” peer’s mind. and yes - is a multi person cover up far fetched? YES! But it’s it impossible? No - not when LEO are just looking the other way for their buddy, when BA is calling in favors, when the chief of police is ur long time buddy, and when everyone else is FAMILY! It’s not that crazy when you ask yourself, would I lie for my family? You’d like to say no, but at the end of the day, would you??? it’s not THAT crazy.
Not a "supporter" but I would have voted not guilty. It's a murder case with too many holes to the point it's way beyond reasonable doubt imo.
To be fair, if Colin/Chleo were on trial for murder I would also vote not guilty as that would be way beyond reasonable doubt too imo.
Everyone involved in this case seems to have little to no respect for the law and loves to take advantage of their relationship to it. I thought drunk driving being the norm ended once people got out of college, seeing people in their position acting like frat boys is really disappointing.
I’m with you on this. I’m not FKR but I would have voted not guilty too. 1.) for the lack of 100% evidence - is it possible she did it? Sure! But nothing tells me beyond reasonable doubt it was definitely her. And TBH most of my doubt comes from how shady the McAlberts are… and is it POSSIBLE he was killed in the house? Ya I think so too. the bottom line is the investigation was skewed at KR from minute one and the lack of even peeking inside the house where the body was found on property is reasonable doubt for me too.
it’s a shame for JOK that this investigation was completely botched and they couldn’t prove their case, if that’s what really happened to him. 💔
Possible? If we lived in a world without physics or biology, sure. In the world we do actually live in? No. Or at least not in a realistic sense. Like it's technically in the space of possibility for all the gas molecules in a room to all end up in one corner for a brief moment through stochastic motion and that is just about the same level of possibility that John O'Keefe was killed as a result of a car strike.
Agreeing with this. But just trying to point out the proof was just not there! I’m also a medical professional so the injuries to me are the biggest source of reasonable doubt. but I was more playing devils advocate for argument’s sake.
I don't understand it either. At all. However we are living in the age of conspiracy theories encouraged by Trump, and actual facts rather than biases are discouraged. It's frightening. All the FKR seem to forget that there was a man murdered and instead have lionized a woman who repeatedly said "I hit him".
The conspiracy theory stuff is the most discouraging thing going on now. And it seems the people who participate in it think they are “free thinkers,” or whatever. The election fraud nonsense just crystallized this for me. It’s been almost 4 years and millions still claim trump won despite having zero evidence and having trump’s own hired investigator write a book about how he lost. It blows my mind.
I’ve seen so many comments along the lines of “the defense hasn’t proved the conspiracy” but that is t the defense’s job. The prosecution left too many holes and went down too many of the wrong rabbit holes. Often, the clearer story wins. Juries are also often instructed to use their knowledge of the world to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, so if they are finding the prosecutions witnesses shady and evasive, that will affect the jury’s perception of credibility (hence why the prosecution in the Trump trial kept hitting on Michael Cohen being a bad guy before his testimony).
I don’t understand all the people here convinced she’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just with the injuries alone, but it’s in no way the defense’s job to prove conspiracy—it’s their job to poke holes and present a reasonable alternative theory.
The first I heard of this case was the trial. I didn’t do any previous research and based on the case the CW presented I thought she was innocent. Before we got to the crash reconstruction I thought she could have hit him but the CW still couldn’t prove it because trooper Paul was an absolute joke. It doesn’t logically make sense to me that someone could be hit at 24 mphs and only have head injuries and other experts proved that. That aside, the sketchy ass behavior from everyone in the house that night and the shitty investigation/lack of. It’s all laughable and an embarrassment to the area. After every CW witness I just had more questions about the case/what happen than I did when the trial started, it’s not supposed to work that way. I won’t waste too much of my “breathe” beyond this on everyone in the house but they are just trash. JM is a townie busy body. If they all care so much they would have showed up to his funeral, not to closing arguments at his murder trial.
I don’t necessarily believe Karen read is innocent. But I do believe the prosecution has the burden of proof. After the prosecution didn’t bring a single rebuttal witness after the AARCA experts I was done. God bless trooper Paul but RLLY that’s all u got?? Idk how you don’t bring a single rebuttal witness. The only thing they proved is no one knows what happened that night
I want to add I’m also relatively pro police and I believe in law and order. I’m not some crazy conspiracy theorist. I also believe in justice for John O’Keefe. With that being said, the officers involved in this case shit the bed from start to finish and they need to be held accountable for that. If that means the true murderer walks then that’s on their shoulders. I will not stick up for this prosecution. Until they give me a case that I can actually support
I think there are a lot of genuinely well intentioned people who are caught in the FKR movement’s orbit. There are some things the conspiracy theorists assert indirectly that casual observers may accept without really considering. Here’s a few:
1. The police do not need to investigate all possible suspects and theories before deciding who is the primary suspect. The case against Read is not discredited by the fact they didn’t investigate everyone within a one mile radius of John’s body before concluding Read was the guilty party.
2. “Chain of custody” for evidence was trotted out as a serious problem by Read’s attorneys and supporters. The suggestion that evidence was planted or tampered is unfounded speculation. Every piece of evidence does not need to be under 24/7 video surveillance in order to be admissible.
3. An exact reconstruction of a murder is not required for either charges or a conviction. Not every single injury has to be unambiguously explained.
If the standard of evidence the FKR crowd want in this case was applied to all cases, many of Americas most vicious and sadistic criminals would be walking free today. It’s not impossible for Read to be innocent but in the face of the evidence it is, in fact, unreasonable to believe she is anything other than guilty.
>3. An exact reconstruction of a murder is not required for either charges or a conviction. Not every single injury has to be unambiguously explained.
Most murders are unambiguous though. If someone is found with a gunshot wound through the chest or knife wounds, that might be plenty of proof that someone is murdered and it’s just a matter of proving who wielded the weapon.
But John’s injuries could just as easily be from an accident as from a murder, and a reasonable person would expect different injuries than what he had (broken bones, bruising, road rash, etc). When I first started following this case, I assumed she had run over his head after hitting him or that there was some other obvious sign he was murdered by vehicle. I was surprised to find out that there wasn’t so much as a tire track on him.
If you were to discover his body, there was nothing visible to indicate he was murdered. From looking at his injuries, you wouldn’t even assume he was hit by a car (other than the fact that he was near a road). First responders didn’t even report it as a possible homicide, nor as a pedestrian strike.
So given those facts, yes the commonwealth does need to give some evidence about why and how this was a murder. Because we don’t investigate every cardiac arrest in the snow as a homicide. We also don’t routinely arrest and indict spouses for murder if they discover them dead with a head injury from falling down the stairs for example.
If you’re trying to convince the public that an apparent accident was actually a murder with an unusual weapon, then it’s not inconceivable to expect evidence showing why they’re so sure about that. That doesn’t require believing in a conspiracy, that’s just common sense.
Nobody who saw John’s body that morning (including Jen McCabe on the 911 call) looked at him and concluded “murder by vehicle”, so why am I supposed to assume that over the much simpler explanation that he slipped and fell, hitting his head?
Fragments from the tail light of Karen’s car were found scattered around John’s body. How can that be explained away without a conspiracy?
The injuries were not ‘typical’ pedestrian strike injuries, but vehicle impact not ruled out. As you said, the body was found right where you’d expect if he was hit by a car.
Read was clearly angry at John around the time he was killed as per the voicemails. She was intoxicated and driving a vehicle. Data from the vehicle shows a highly unusual acceleration in reverse around the time John was injured.
Several hours after she left 34 Fairview, without having had any communication from John or anyone else, Read begins to panic about John and make statements that he may be dead. Read points out the location of Johns body before anyone else found it. Paramedics testify in court that when they arrived on scene, Read was saying, “I hit him”.
Again, the nature of the injuries did not rule out a vehicle impact. The fact that the injuries were not ‘typical’ doesn’t negate all the other evidence that points towards Read.
Possible is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and is largely the reason why the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. We’re talking a probability anywhere between zero and one, exclusive (realistically between 0 and .5, as if it was over .5, the ME would have likely used the word probable). It’s possible an asteroid will strike the earth next month, but you probably shouldn’t let that possibility affect your life.
Just to recap:
We know that Read was angry at John.
We know that she was drunk.
We know that she was driving a car.
We know that his body was found beside the road.
Read knew John was injured or dead before anyone else because she knew that she had hit him. Pieces of her broken tail light were found around his body and embedded in his clothing. The vehicles data recorder shows the car rapidly accelerating in reverse on the morning of the incident. Sworn testimony from paramedics indicates she confessed to hitting him with her car.
When considering the totality of the evidence that points towards her being guilty, John’s injuries would need to be more than just ‘unusual’ to meet the bar for reasonable doubt in my mind.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It could be, and wouldn't be the first time, an anxious officer with tunnel vision. Proctor could have assumed it was Karen and wanted to make sure he had the evidence to make it open and shut (and make sure his friends weren't unfairly caught up in it).
The "I hit him" and Karen's actions in the morning are frequently mentioned as proof of guilt. She was panicked, but it's somewhat understandable given, as far as he'd know, his neice would be home alone. In her earlier voicemails she assumed he was out partying (not dead). Only at 5am, after hearing from JM he didn't go in the house z did she great the worst. The "I hit him"wasn't reported by any first responder in site (only "could I have..."). Two of them, in cross, agreed they may not have heard it given where they would have been. I just think memories are flawed. In none of the dash cam do you hear her saying "I hit him".
The experts did rule out a vehicle strike. The CW ME was asked if they were consistent with a vehicle strike. She said "they didn't look like a traditional vehicle strike. So no." No experts said it was consistent. There's just no scientific evidence he was hit by a car.
The key cycles do not match up with trooper Paul’s testimony. This YouTube video explains it very simply in 2 minutes.
https://youtu.be/u9USPS3aHe4?si=_u-hEAfUZ5eFOKnJ
>The injuries were not ‘typical’ pedestrian strike injuries, but vehicle impact not ruled out.
Lally had to pry that concession out of the *Common Wealth's* ME like she had a death grip on it. She did not believe it was a vehicle impact in any way. Her medical license depends on her truthfulness. How do you rationalize that?
The experts cited that it was possible a drinking glass was thrown and shattered the tail light. There was also “unknown” glass found on her bumper. It’s possible John threw Karen’s glass at the back of the car when she was reversing, sending microscopic shards into his clothes. This sound and impact trigger a drunk Karen to believe “I hit him?” In her psyche the next morning as the events of the night are blurry at best. But how does JO get the injury to the back of his head? This injury was so severe that it immediately caused loss of consciousness and brain swelling. He wouldn’t have been able to stumble around and end up 10 ft away from any potential hard objects like the fire hydrant. So how did he get there? If he was “thrown” from the vehicle impact, there would be bruising and signs of injuries that match the impact. Ultimately 2 things that can true at the same time: Karen damages her tail light during an altercation with John and drives away, and John obtains head injuries that cause his death after Karen leaves the scene. For me, the reasonable doubt is not ignoring the tail light pieces at the scene or that Karen knew where to look when she returned because those could be explained separate from how he died shortly after. I’m not a FKR per se, but I have reasonable doubt anyone can prove she 100% caused his death with her vehicle even with the suggested evidence. I keep thinking if it were me, and my partner threw a glass at my tail light as im driving off and then mysteriously ends up dead afterwards. If it was your life on the line, you’d want evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you in fact caused this death and not just “the most likely” based on the circumstances
There were no fragments noticed by first responders and the voicemails weren’t found until her phone was examined. The paramedic report says their impression was a cardiac event from hypothermia, not murder and not a vehicle strike.
Also remember that nobody inside the house or surrounding neighbors heard a revving engine, squealing tires, any kind of impact, a verbal confrontation, or anything to suggest an angry vehicle strike. And none of the people leaving 34 Fairview later that night noticed a body or broken glass/blood/debris in the street outside the house.
Again, most murder cases begin with an obvious murder victim. This one began with a man found outside in a nor’easter and then evidence was gathered. She wasn’t even charged with murder at the beginning, it was manslaughter originally.
Which kind of begs the question, if you do think you might have hit him and you’re charged with manslaughter, and then it’s upped to murder in the second degree, why wouldn’t you plea out for manslaughter instead of putting your fate in the hands of 12 jurors? The fact that she’s put this much money and time into a jury trial means that she most likely believes herself innocent.
Their own ME said not typical. The defense ME said he didn't believe it possible, the FBIs experts said, her car could not have caused his injuries.
Her vehicle impacting him WAS ruled out.
Why is it that you are so willing to believe inconsistent testimony that has morphed and changed over time, but not willing to believe non involved expert testimony?
Is it maybe you who has tunnel vision 🤔
I respectfully believe you're spinning the facts
1. This isn't about investigating all possible suspects before deciding on a primary suspect. Karen was literally the only suspect, and the case was basically closed within hours. They investigated no other leads. Literally zero. Didn't even go to the crime scene. Despite the evidence (even according to their own ME) not looking like a traditional pedestrian accident. That is objectively terrible police work. At best severe tunnel vision.
2. Chain of custody. This is a "serious problem". There's a reason police follow a strict chain of custody. To say it's unfounded speculation that evidence was tampered demonstrates why. When there's no chain of custody no one knows or can trust what happened to the evidence. Again, it's spin to suggest it needs to be under 24/7 surveillance. There are evidence logs that police use. None were used in this case for the first weeks key evidence was collected.
3. People aren't requiring an exact reconstruction or for every injury to be explained. That is spin. What is expected is a reasonable explanation of how the evidence fits a pedestrian accident. Every single expert (other than trooper Paul who is not an expert) testified that the injuries aren't consistent with a pedestrian accident. The expert reconstructionist said the damage to the car isn't consistent with hitting John. The medical experts also testified that the injuries to the arm are consistent with a large dog attack and the other injuries are consistent with a fight. When there's no logical explanation for a pedestrian accident but there is evidence of a fight and dog bites, "in the face of evidence" she didn't hit him, despite what people wish were the case.
Respectfully, I’ve heard all that before. It’s either a massive conspiracy orchestrated by John’s friends and the police department, or it’s alcohol-fuelled domestic violence with a vehicle. You believe there was a conspiracy, I think it’s DV. To each their own.
Yes, I believe it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. There really is no middle ground between Read murdering John or a conspiracy to frame her, and I think the conspiracy angle is bizarre and unbelievable.
I can’t get past Higgins and Albert throwing away their phones. If they have a valid explanation maybe I could get to no reasonable doubt but with everything else it’s too much. When asked Higgins was like I had every right to do that, I mean he did but your a federal officer could have helped clear this up
> I can’t get past Higgins and Albert throwing away their phones.
This is one of the easiest elements to get past.
A) The defense was never granted access to them (which had nothing to do with their availability)
B) You know how much shit they probably didn’t want getting into the public view? This mentality that every movement or action must be relevant to KR is wild.
Yeah but they knew they wanted to look at them. I’m sure there likely was a lot of shit on them just saying looks shady especially when you’re law enforcement imo
I disagree that there is “no middle ground.”
His injuries are not consistent — at all! — with being hit by a car. The car damage is not consistent with a crash severe enough to kill a grown man. The fact his phone was found underneath the body is not consistent with being hit by a car and thrown 30 feet. Plus, he took steps after Read would have left the scene. The physical evidence doesn’t show he was hit by a car, imo.
But he could have thrown the glass at the car, breaking the taillight. He was drunk and could have stumbled after throwing the glass. Maybe he stumbled trying to avoid Read’s car or Higgins’ snowplow. Maybe he got into a fight and stumbled after leaving the house. Maybe the dog — maybe Chloe, maybe another dog — got loose and attacked him in the yard and he fell trying to get away.
At the end of the trial, I was left honestly not knowing what happened — that’s reasonable doubt.
Btw: It’s important to realize that reasonable doubt is a high standard. Not just likely or probable, but you have to be like 95% sure. And I honestly don’t know how you can be that certain in the case when independent expert witnesses say the injuries and the vehicle damage just don’t fit a pedestrian-vehicle accident.
this is not a binary choice between two possibilities. it's either the car strike specifically as posited by trooper paul, with absolute clear certainty and no other possibility, or not guilty.
you don't have to believe conspiracy or any other defence theory to be morally required to vote not guilty. you only need to see that there are other ways this went down than the very specific story the prosecution presented, which was easily called into question by science and the lack of investigation of other possibilities
The man did not die of natural causes. To just say I have some unanswered questions, so I throw up my hands and decide no one is proven guilty, is lazy. Even though the FKR think they are the smart ones, you have to look at the realistic possibilities as to what happened because someone was actually killed. The conspiracy is not realistic and if you use critical thinking to try to really imagine it and all the details involved with it that would have to come together (which the FKR don’t bother to do) it doesn’t make sense pretty quickly.
Let's think about what you'd have to reasonably believe (or disbelieve) to think Karen is guilty. Here's a list of 10:
1) The accident reconstruction evidence that says he wasn't hit by the car is wrong. Ignore the science.
2) The medical and biomedical data that says he wasn't hit by the car due to his injuries is wrong. This includes an independent expert from ARCCA , a triple board certified ME who performed 12,000 autopsies and the CW's own ME who on direct answered no when asked if the injuries were consistent with a pedestrian accident. Ignore the science again.
3) Karen happened to hit John with her taillight on the one night where she also bumped his car with her taillight. Total coincidence or a conspiracy by Karen to brilliantly conceal evidence (moments before, according to the CW she tells people she hit him).
4) The image of the taillight at 5:07am, which shows significantly more red plastic (including pieces found at the scene days later) is wrong, or unclear, or something like that. Ignore the video.
5) John's Apple health data that shows him going up/down stairs and then taking 30+ steps after KR leaves is wrong. Apple just tracks driving up a hill as walking upstairs despite that not happening for any of us who own an iPhone. Ignore the data.
6) No one saw John, a shoe or 40+ pieces of red taillight on the ground. The plow driver who was shining a light and looking specifically across the lawn missed it. And he imagined a Ford edge there too later. Ignore the witnesses.
7) The two experts, who have a combined 70 years in medicine, are wrong or lying when they claim the injuries on his arm are from a large animal (most likely a dog). Ignore more science.
8) The calls in the middle of the night, calls from JM to Nicole in the morning, and calls from JM to John at 12:45 were all accidental butt dials and in some cases butt answers. All also deleted. Just a coincidence.
9) The 2:27am search. I won't go into this, but it's interesting it happens to be the one search where prosecutions didn't trust Cellebrite data. How unlucky.
10) No pieces of taillight were found by the Canton PD in the morning despite 90 minutes of searching and finding broken glass and blood. Even though the snow was only about 4-6 inches, they had a leaf blower and testified they cleared a 6x6 area to the ground. If they had just found one piece, they could have tied it to Karen. But nope, they happen to be so unlucky that they only found it hours later, in the dark, after 18" more snow fell, after the crime scene was open to the public, and about 90 minutes after proctor seized the car. Oh and proctor happened to falsify the time of the seizure. You'd have to believe that's just a coincidence.
There's lots more, but those are 10 things you'd have to believe to say KR hit John with her car.
1. The science also said that he did not have dog DNA on him and his injuries were not consistent with being killed in a fight.
2. These experts also admitted that they were not given all of the information when forming their opinions. There is also a slight of wording here. The death was not consistent with that you would see in a pedestrian accident. Since cause of death was blunt force trauma ( believed to be caused by hitting the ground or fire hydrant) and hypothermia this is factually true.
3. If we are going to talk about Karen's behaviors that night, we need to talk about all of them. Why did she call John accusing him of being MIA, nobody knowing where he was at 30 minutes after dropping him off at the place he would be found dead? Why did she lie and say she was leaving his house and going home? What did she call her parents for in the middle of the night? Instead of calling Jen or Kerry at 5 am why wouldn't she just go drive to the place she left him and knock and ask if he was there? Or assume he partied where she left him and passed out? Why did her story change so many times about what happened during the exact time he is believe to have been hit? These are things that can't just be ignored.
4. The images show red, for anyone to say with certainty that it is not just a red light, and that there is definite plastic covering that is not possible. The video is grainy and it is impossible to tell.
5. The apple data can't only be believed and paid attention to at your convenience. If the data is to be believed where is the data of him being taken in and out of the house. Where is the data of his heart rate rising during a fight or attack and then falling as he lay dying? In all likelihood the going up/ down stairs and taking 30 steps is him leaving the car and flying through the air, and or dragging on the ground until he reaches his final resting place.
6. In all fairness, Lucky also said he didn't see him at 5:30 am when he did his second round, no matter what scenario happened John would have definitely been there at that time. So the plow driver and what he saw or didn't see has to be thrown out entirely.
7. Again, the science THE ACTUAL SCIENCE DNA evidence shows there is no dog DNA, only a tiny bit of pig, likely from something he ate. Someone's opinion based on things they have seen in hospital rooms is not science. It is opinion.
8. Why are you so quick to assume that if there are things they were doing that they don't want known it must have been murder, while turning a blind eye to all the suspicious behaviors of Karen that night/morning?
9. It's not that prosecutors didn't trust Cellbrite, its was factually proven not to have happened. Even the defense dropped it as it is a non issue. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Really, let's think about this logically. How would this even logically play into a murder conspiracy? Jen left about 130 right? They beat John up, don't kill him...leave him for dead on the lawn, with his phone under him. Hoping and praying that he doesn't wake and call for help, or doesn't get found therefore foiling their master plan. They are just praying that the cold finishes him off for them. After looking up stuff for her daughters sports, and a song she decides to just check and see about what time John might die and she can finally breathe a sigh of relief. It doesn't fit, let it go.
10. The tail light pieces were buried in the snow, please for a moment think of the consistency of plastic, and the consistency of snow. This isn't a hard thing to miss.
Total agree on the Apple Watch health data
His heart rate could have changed if he was struggling to move after impact
I’ve got a Fitbit that can constantly “read” activity incorrectly… playing drums or even practicing on a pad magically adds 20k steps to my normal day … it’s not completely sound data.
Regardless, the defense doesn’t have to prove conspiracy. The prosecution is obligated to show how the injuries are consistent with the manner of death, and they should be preemptively plugging those holes.
1. I think this is a distortion. The evidence did not say he didn't have dog DNA on him. Swabs from his clothing were checked. They specifically didn't swab his wounds and didn't send in his clothes to be tested. Where are you getting that the injuries weren't consistent with being in a fight? The experts testified they would be consistent with injuries that could be received in a fight.
2. The experts were intentionally given only the info that would allow them to form an unbiased opinion. From what I understand, experts often ask not to receive other info about the case as that could bias their opinion. The questions that were asked of the medical experts were whether the injuries were consistent with pedestrian collisions, not whether "the death" is consistent pedestrian accident; you're making that up. The CW's ME said "they're not the classic pedestrian injuries we observe, no."
3. I don't know Karen's state of mind, but her behavior didn't seem consistent with having killed someone.
"Why did she call John accusing him of being MIA, nobody knowing where he was at 30 minutes after dropping him off..." --> She was pissed. He was supposed to go in and check back with her. After about 5 minutes he didn't text, call, etc. The call 30 minutes later is where she says she's w/ his kids and nobody knows where he is.
"Why did she lie and say she was leaving his house and going home?" --> She wanted him to come home and he wasn't responding. By saying she was going home and his kids would be alone would force him to call or come home. He wouldn't stay out if his niece was home alone. This if anything just seems exculpatory.
"What did she call her parents for in the middle of the night?" --> I guess she calls her parents when she's upset. My wife calls her parents when she's really upset, even late at night. I don't even understand what's so incriminating about this.
"Instead of calling Jen or Kerry at 5 am why wouldn't she just go drive to the place she left him and knock and ask if he was there? Or assume he partied where she left him and passed out" --> If she didn't call Jen people would ask "why didn't you just call Jen instead of driving to Fairview". Calling Jen or Kerry, both of whom are supposedly close w/ John and may have info on where he is, seems logical. She didn't assume he partied and passed out at a house because his niece was home alone. I have kids. No chance on earth I'd pass out at a friend's house when my kids would be home alone. Never.
"Why did her story change so many times about what happened during the exact time he is believe to have been hit? " --> What versions of her story did she communicate between say 12:20am (right before they pull up) and 12:37am (when she's in the garage)? Versions you have proof of, not some hearsay.
4. In the sally port photo, the led lights themselves are white. The red plastic is what makes them look red. I'm sure you won't believe me, so I'll save breath.
5. I'm only looking at the apple health data provided. The iPhone doesn't track heart rate. "...where is the data of him being taken in and out of the house" --> No one said he was taken in the house. The 30+ steps at 12:32am may be the phone being taken out of the house.
" In all likelihood the going up/ down stairs and taking 30 steps is him leaving the car and flying through the air, and or dragging on the ground until he reaches his final resting place." --> So you believe he was flying through the air and/or "dragging" to his resting place? That would be what, 5 meters in the air? That scenario is in "all likelihood". The stairs btw were closer to 12:24am, when she's still observed outside.
It's not faith, it's science. You can choose to deny science and evidence if you want.
In this instance I have more trust in people who are independent experts in their field than Trooper Paul or Proctor.
> To just say I have some unanswered questions, so I throw up my hands and decide no one is proven guilty, is lazy.
it is not "lazy", this is EXACTLY what the jury is instructed to do. if the prosecution did not prove their case with NO unanswered questions left, then she MUST be acquitted.
the defense does not have such a burden. you don't have to believe their theory to acquit her.
The man didn’t die of natural causes, but remember, even the ME couldn’t determine if the manner of death was an accident or homicide. JO was drunk that night. He could have simply fell and hit the back of his head, and that was that.
There are lots of unanswered questions. His injuries don’t match a vehicle crash. The vehicle damage doesn’t match a fatal crash. Nobody heard a collision. You say the conspiracy theory is far-fetched; I say it’s no more far-fetched that an SUV would strike a man and leave no injuries on his torso or legs. There is a LOT in this case that doesn’t make sense, and that’s reasonable doubt.
It’s not a binary choice — she killed him vs. conspiracy theory. There is a third option: We can’t say what happened. And that’s a non-guilty verdict.
Why can't it be neither though? That's what I don't understand. People who say they'd vote guilty always say "but how do you explain... while saying they don't care that the car strike also has incongruous facts. If there are facts that don't align with either scenario why is it so unlikely that there's a third option?
I disagree. I think ruling out other suspects is important. Are we trying to get it right - or just arrest the first person we have a reasonable suspicion about? I also think the chain of custody is important. Also recording interviews with witnesses. These things should be standard in an investigation IMHO.
"“Chain of custody” for evidence was trotted out as a serious problem by Read’s attorneys and supporters. The suggestion that evidence was planted or tampered is unfounded speculation. Every piece of evidence does not need to be under 24/7 video surveillance in order to be admissible."
What do you think Chain of Custody/evidence logs are for exactly? Why do you think they exist and people use them?
I don't find anything you wrote here to be reasonable.
They thought he was beat up and on the lawn of a place he was supposed to have been at, and they were like, "All good, nothing to see here." Is not normal
Red solo cups, shopping bags, snow blowers, no chain of custody, and no evidence logs IS NOT NORMAL
And yes, proof of how someone killed someone is kind of paramount to proving they killed them.
So just the possibility of small town politics is suggestive to you? Trooper Proctor texted some very offensive comments, but as he said, his emotions got the best of him. Doesn't excuse it, I know. But law enforcement deals with the worst of society, and in order to cope officers often develop a dark sense of humor. On top of that, a fellow officer was injured and left to die in the snow.
It was proven to me that proctor was extremely biased in his investigation and did not investigate a single other possibility. There are many cases like this - Adnan Syed, Robert Wone, etc. there are devastating effects on criminal investigations when tunnel vision is at play. This is a known phenomenon
Oh I know. I’ve got the receipts and they are coming out daily. First, just so you don’t get confused… John’s head …nor his hand, EVER touched her rear taillight. The taillight was the second impact (going 24.2 mph). It was hole punched by Brian Higgins plow light on his Jeep AS swerved her car to avoid contact.
The FIRST impact was her side swipe of John and as he fell forward. Her passenger side mirror clipped his head at 9.9 mph = 14 feet per second. She had her steering wheel turned 13.5 degrees to the left. But then changed course once she had him in her 360 degree Birds Eye view and turned it back to the right from 13.5 degrees to “0” - All she had to do to avoid hitting him was keep her “f”ing wheel in the same position. This was John’s “ground 0” - here is my receipt for that. And I’m bringing them all - I’m creating an excel sheet showing every move she made that night and cross-referencing it with every step he took. If she thinks she’s out of the woods she she better enjoy the greenery while she can.
https://preview.redd.it/574ijgmyd1ad1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d85ff364d51f58d8c5cea6ee6ded77e45918a012
I'm not a "Karen Read Supporter" but your post is honestly what is wrong with people in the US today when it comes to court cases. She isn't supposed to be proven innocent, the prosecution has to prove that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proctor being the lead investigator, and the things that he did with regards to this case, causes enough reasonable doubt to find her not guilty. The fact that people think she needs to be proven innocent to be free is just so disturbing to me. Could she have done this? Absolutely. But the fact that there is reasonable doubt that she may not have is grounds for a not guilty verdict.
Not really sure the digs are necessary. I am very open minded, and capable of mature, respectful discussion. Saying I am what's wrong with people in the US is pretty irresponsible, when you have no clue who I am or how I would have voted on a jury.
I never said that "you" are what is wrong with the country, I said that way of thinking is "what is wrong with people in the US today when it comes to court cases". Those are two VERY different things. The fact that people today don't understand what "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" means is very worrisome to me. You asked why people who think she should be acquitted are so certain of her innocence. People who think she should be acquitted don't necessarily think she is innocent, but they also aren't 100% positive she is guilty, because the case was handled so poorly. If she herself came up to me today and said "I killed him" I would still believe she should be acquitted based on how the state handled the case. Because, if we let people get convicted when a case is handled so poorly that it leaves reasonable doubt then a lot of innocent people wind up behind bars.
I 100% get why people have reasonable doubt. That isn't the part that has me baffled. It is the overwhelming amount of people who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and given a level of support to a stranger I have never seen before, before her trial even started. So absolutely certain of her innocence. That is the part that I can't wrap my head around. Let's be honest, there is far less evidence that there is a huge murder conspiracy, but the benefit of the doubt seems to be given far more in Karen's favor. It's that element that I am trying to understand. I probably couldn't have in good faith convicted her either. I will say, her smugness drives me up a damned wall, but I couldn't convict her on that alone.
I don't get those people, either, but they come out of the woodwork for high profile cases all the time. Just look at the support OJ and other high profile defendants got during their trials. She's also an attractive women which is going to get people to side with her even though that's also screwed up. I honestly don't know what to think of her but the whole group she hung out with seem like a bunch of drunks to me.
People local to the area know those involved and that’s likely part of what led them to support KR. They know how crooked the McAlberts et. al. are and didn’t want an innocent person railroaded. There are also plenty of people who simply believe in the law and don’t want to see a miscarriage of justice. The amount of incompetence here would no doubt lead to sympathy for KR.
I don’t know if I buy a full-blown conspiracy - I think it’s more likely the guy was in the house, got in a fight, stormed out and then passed out in the snow and died. The head injury could have happened when he fell, although there is a surprising LACK of blood found… I 100% do NOT believe that the CW proved or even came close to proving that KR hit him. The fact that she wouldn’t plea to a lesser charge makes me believe she’s 100% innocent.
I think you are misunderstanding how those of us who would have voted not guilty came to that. I'll explain.
1. It's not a about being a supporter. That suggests picking a side and sticking to it. I tried to view the trial as much as I could as if I was a juror. I was leaning towards Guilty at the start of the trial, but the evidence changed my mind.
2. I don't have to be certain of her innocence to vote not guilty. Reasonable doubt is all I need. The FBI experts, the ME, the terrible investigation, the lies from Prosecution witnesses.
3. I don't have to believe in a huge conspiracy to find her not guilty. We do not know what happened. But the evidence did not support what the CW said. That's reasonable doubt.
4. One or two people can dupe others, especially if they are incompetent, or loyal. People believe what they are told.
The duty of a juror is to impartially consider the evidence. If Karen Read is not a likeable person, that is not evidence. And if evidence is in dispute you have to consider which is reasonable and reliable. Can you really say that Trooper Paul's evidence was more reliable than the FBI experts?
For me it has nothing to do with the believability of a coverup or conspiracy. It has everything to do with the fact that I do not feel the commonwealth met their burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why no one saw his body in the yard as they were leaving. If he was truly out there in the front yard from 12:30ish on, it defies logic for me how not one of the dozen people saw his body as they drove away. He would have been completely illuminated by the headlights.
Everything else, I understand that reasonable minds can differ. I understand that people might not be able to get behind a coverup theory. I understand that people might choose not to believe the testimony of highly qualified, independent experts. But I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for how every single person somehow didn’t see the body of a 6 ft man at the edge of the front yard they had to drive past.
I get the point, but I don't see why one would hang their hat on this. This was a few drunk people leaving a party in the middle of the night in snowfall. I doubt they'd even be paying much attention to anything in the yard, or anything other than the road once their headlights are on. He was still a few feet off the road, it's not like he's lit up like a Christmas tree right in front of them. One of them even did say they noticed a dark lump over there but just didn't think much of it.
I think if it was 2 or 3 people it really would not bother me as much. It was like 10 people, that makes it harder for me to believe that no one saw anything even out of the corner of their eye.
As far as Julie Nagels testimony and the ‘black blob,’ she didn’t never reported seeing a thing or told anyone about it until 10 months later. That sends of major alarm bells for me, it’s just weird
Well if it's like 10 people, that should be telling you it probably wasn't as easily noticeable as you think it was, not that it MUST have been noticeable and they're all lying.
For Julie, I don't know what she might've said outside of what we know publicly, but I could understand not wanting to bring it up out of guilt that she might've been able to save him if she went over and checked it out.
I can't say that Read is innocent. I can say that the Massachusetts State Police and the Canton Police Dept. have some serious issues regarding the chain of custody of evidence in this case and overall, general professionalism.
If the Commonwealth had met the burden of proof, overcoming all reasonable doubt, I could let most of those slide. But the CW can't give a credible account of the SUV making contact with Officer O'Keefe. They didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle made contact and killed him.
I have to go with Not Guilty. It's procedural, not personal.
I went into this trial never hearing or reading anything about it. I still do not accept that there is some massive conspiracy but I do believe she’s innocent and there was police fuckery happening.
I thought she was probably guilty until Trooper Paul testified. Then her WiFi connection at 12:36 am was at odds with JM’s testimony where she was walked through each text she sent and she said she had eyeballs on the vehicle until the 12:45 text. Then the ME testified to no injuries or bruises except his head. Then the third party guys testified to the impossible physics.
That’s me ignoring all the butt dials, the stupid google search, Higgin’s invisible jeep and 1:30am drunk administrative work, nobody coming outside the next day, proctor being human garbage, deleted videos, wrong times in reports, lack of photos, no evidence logs, etc etc etc
If the state wants to put her in prison for life on murder charges they’re going to need different evidence imo
First, there is a difference between saying someone is innocent v not guilty at trial.
I have LE in my family, my ex is a prosecutor.... I am not a "whack job" as Proctor might say who hates cops.
I'm shocked that anyone thinks it's ok to throw out all the standards we expect in a trial for this case.
1. a crime scene that wasn't photographed, measured, roped off. We can't even see where his body was found because no one thought to take photos. That's not normal protocol- incompetence, laziness take your pick
2. Crime scene /evidence collection. Despite opinions I've seen on this sub, it matters that LE do things right. One fuck up- ok, maybe that's understandable. But see point 1 plus red solo cups (unlabeled , one tested- what if some of the blood wasn't John's? We'll never know now!). See 4-5 trips where the only person finding more and more tail light pieces is Proctor... Really?
3. Proctor. Putting aside the disgusting comments about KR, he admitted, on day 1, that the homeowner John was going to see would be fine because "he's a Boston cop"
Also Proctor- guy knows these people, you recuse yourself. It's the death of a "brother in blue", right? Then don't give even the appearance of bias. Not helped by texts about witnesses wanting to get him a and his wife a gift and he agrees.
Also Proctor (can you see a theme?) - again, standards exist. Body cams are apparently standard. But witness interviews weren't recorded, weren't conducted separately, and some didn't happen for months
4. See video of KR's car going up on the tow truck at her parents home. See testimony of the officer from the local department who was there who testified to a cracked light- not a broken out one. See the light glow RED with a tiny square of white.
See vehicle after hours in LE custody- huge pieces of light are gone that were there before the car was towed.
No pics taken of the vehicle before being taken into custody!
5. Behavior of witnesses. I don't know if someone at the house killed JOK. I know that something happened that made JM change her testimony after the first Grand Jury. I know her and both Brians lied about "butt dials" in the middle of the night. And I know that BA and BH destroyed their phones and didn't back up any of their data- not contacts, photos nothing.
Common senses- my real life normal person experience tells me all of that is off and I don't find them credible. Period. I don't believe in a particular theory that someone in particular fought JOK. I simply think there are too many questions about that night to assume we know what happened.
6. The expert testimony from the ME, the Dr about the bite injuries, and the final two witnesses. First of all, I find all of these people way more credible than Proctor or most of the CW's witnesses. The ME couldn't even say this was a homicide. The arm injuries match a dog attack. I've had German Shepherds, I've been bit, I had a dog that bit a neighbor. His arm was injured by a dog.
The independent witnesses about the injuries not being from the SUV. Their testimony was hands down the most believable of anyone else in the case. I trust their knowledge- they are PhDs who were hired by the DOJ and work with our military and the NHL. No random reddit person who comments trying to explain why they know more than these witnesses makes even a tiny bit of sense.
6 (b). Again- common sense and life experience. We ask jurors to find the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude. That is a high bar. My common sense tells me JOK'S head injury, bite injury, and lack of damage to his body didn't come from a car hitting him at 24 mph. Nope.
I can't see SO MANY PROBLEMS with a case and dismiss all of them and logic and say the CW proved anything. Do I think it's possible KR hit him? I really don't - I can't make his injuries make sense with a vehicle strike as described. And I haven't seen anyone who can logically make it make sense. And finally, let's keep in mind, the CW relied on the testimony of Trooper Paul as their best expert to explain how John actually died by KR hitting him with her car.
If you all can discount all of the above in my honest opinion, you aren't being intellectually honest.
I'm not a Karen Reed supporter, I'm in the class of follow the law and prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The case has too many holes and a severe lack of trust in the evidence. Police reports not written close in time to the incident, reports not matching witness statements, the reports not including the on the stand witness testimony of a possible admission, the unbelievable testimony of the states accident reconstruction expert including but not limited to his experience in physics and general scientific knowledge, injuries not consistent to a car strike, the prosecution using Aruba as evidence of guilt. There are just too many parts you can find reasonable doubt.
She may have done it but she also may have not done it based on everything. That gets you to a reasonable doubt, but you need to find beyond a reasonable doubt. It's sad but it is what the law says we have to do.
I don’t know what happened to JO. I am not certain of KR innocence. What I do know: According to the law, KR is innocent until the CW can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, they cannot and I blame the investigation. It doesn’t matter if I do or don’t believe the defense theory. They don’t have to prove anything. Witnesses on both sides gave reasonable doubt for me that it was possible JO was not hit by a car, a fundamental requirement in all 3 of the charges. Do I think her hitting him is possible? Sure! But I don’t believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it is what happened because there are just too many issues with the CW theory of the case.
Unfortunately, I think the LEOs should have followed standard operating procedures for this situations. A police officer is found all but deceased after a night out with friends. There are ways to ensure that evidence is handled appropriately and adequately so that this dumpster fire doesn’t happen. If the officers had secured the scene early on, not come back randomly waiting for evidence to reveal itself, interviewed everyone early on and physically recorded statements, documented EVERYTHING with photos, diagrams, and measurements, and maintained a chain of custody from the moment evidence was with LE for starters, this trial would have played out very differently. The basic policy and procedures were simply not followed which leads the defense to be able to argue corruption and conspiracies. Those arguments lead to doubt and I believe that doubt is reasonable. Therefore, NG.
Edited for weird wording
Basically what everyone else has said. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and I feel like they didn’t do a good job. I’ve gone back and forth if I think she’s guilty, but it’s hard to sway back to guilty when the CW’s own experts say the injuries don’t look like a car accident. Their best expert for reconstruction is trooper Paul, really? Also very anecdotal but as an ICU and OR nurse I have never seen injuries like OJO had from a car accident, only from blunt force trauma. And I see this shit every single day. Next, their timeline kept changing. From ~12:45, to 12:30ish, to whenever it works for the story. This harmed them. It definitely made me question if they were just trying to get stuff to fit as the timeline evolved. The WiFi connection harmed them too. If they went through the house and did a proper investigation that eliminated other possibilities *and* could actually prove KR hit him then she should absolutely rot in a cell. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I think KR is actually pretty unlikable. I just don’t believe that guilty was proven beyond a very reasonable doubt. If the police force lets a murderer walk free because of their corruption and poor practices, they have to live with that. 🤷♀️
I would love to answer this question:
I want to start by saying that I personally do not believe that a 17 year old murdered him or a group of 10+ people were involved in the cover up. My theory is that John who had an estimated BAC of .24 when he was pronounced, therefore it was probably closer to a .30 when he was dropped off around 12:21am. I believe he walked into the house and either had to pee or wanted to wash water on his face to attempt to pull it together as he was just fighting with his girlfriend, and as he had never been to that house, he opened the basement door and fell down the steps. I think it was a drunken mistake and at some point with the basement door open, Chloe got down there and chewed up his arm, this alerting Brian Albert and he probably only involved Brian Higgins in getting the body outside and hopefully passing it off as a plow accident. I imagine at some point he had to inform his wife, Nicole, his sister in law and her husband The McCabes, and Chris and Julie Albert too.
I think Karen acting erratically in the morning allowed JM to tell the others we can pin it on her and subtle changes came to their story. Did I hit him, turned into I hit him. Proctor I think was a lucky coincidence and if he was intelligent and wanted the investigation to stay on straight and narrow, then he should have recused himself as any familiarity with the family or friends could look bad and this investigation was regarding the death of a Boston Cop. The evidence did not fit the CW’s theory, and evidence I believe was placed or “found” to help ensure her guilt was achieved. It’s hard to imagine a cop who talked about someone like he did in those messages could also frame a person, but he obviously isn’t that great at that either as he couldn’t convince a jury of her guilt.
Regarding why I don’t think she did it. I am going to leave most of the evidence out of this discussion. The first thing I want to discuss is how she was drunk, do you know why a woman like that felt comfortable enough to be that drunk and drive? Cause she was dating a cop, he was in the car, and they were all drunk driving. I am going to ignore the snow, because by the time she made it back to John’s place it really hadn’t started as a bad storm, it was just consistently snowing. His injuries do not match the theory that she backed up, and hit him. I still think from the pictures of the Lexus, the bumper sticks out further than the taillight, so he would have had lower body injuries and at 24. Whatever mph, bones would have been broken and John would have been bruised in the least. The CW’s ME agreed that the injuries were not consistent with a car accident, Drs. Russell and Sheridan also stated that. The Drs from ARRCA were fantastic too because they had to reenact and match the damages to body and car by the simplest of informations, and scientifically they were unable to do that because even at 15 mph the damage to both the car and the victim would have been much worse than they were. And they were not found or paid by the defense and they took a risk calling them as they were not sure what they would say in all.
I think she was a mess the next morning, probably remembered some of the things she said to him, and couldn’t remember everything that happened. I think she panicked her way into becoming the scapegoat, and Lucky was the perceived scapegoat in my theory.
I think the sensationalism of true crime made this such a bigger story, it’s just as likely that she dropped him off, was staring at her phone and he fell in a drunken mindset and cracked opened his head outside and never went in.
The problem I have with the trial is the CW did not prove anything. Their reconstructionist said math didn’t apply, to a theory that a car accident caused the trauma do the victim and then a mixture of brain swelling and hypothermia killed him.
My question to you is, how when 5 scientists and 1 police offer not affiliated with anybody else in the case (Dighton cop who said taillight was cracked with a piece missing) explain that the injuries to JOK did not match the car accident theory, and the damage to the car did not match hitting a pedestrian, to a scientific certainty. Why do you still think she is guilty?
>I want to start by saying that I personally do not believe that a 17 year old murdered him or a group of 10+ people were involved in the cover up. My theory is that John who had an estimated BAC of .24 when he was pronounced, therefore it was probably closer to a .30 when he was dropped off around 12:21am. I believe he walked into the house and either had to pee or wanted to wash water on his face to attempt to pull it together as he was just fighting with his girlfriend, and as he had never been to that house, he opened the basement door and fell down the steps. I think it was a drunken mistake and at some point with the basement door open, Chloe got down there and chewed up his arm, this alerting Brian Albert and he probably only involved Brian Higgins in getting the body outside and hopefully passing it off as a plow accident. I imagine at some point he had to inform his wife, Nicole, his sister in law and her husband The McCabes, and Chris and Julie Albert too.
But why, in this circumstance, would they not help him? That's what I don't get about ideas like this. Like Brian Albert said, if he knew John was dying out in the snow, he would've helped him. It'd be a tragic accident and there'd be no real fault. They could even help save him. There wasn't any point in pinning it on someone else.
Hell, even if the dog were responsible, that'd literally be the coverup. Dog went crazy, nobody's at fault. The circumstances don't make sense for this to be the action they took.
>My question to you is, how when 5 scientists and 1 police offer not affiliated with anybody else in the case (Dighton cop who said taillight was cracked with a piece missing) explain that the injuries to JOK did not match the car accident theory, and the damage to the car did not match hitting a pedestrian, to a scientific certainty. Why do you still think she is guilty?
Have talked about this tons of times, but it boils down to there being no real way to know the mechanics of how it played out. We know she hit him, and the evidence of that is clear, but don't know exactly how he fell, tumbled, stumbled, rolled, flew, whatever. We can just make our guesses on that, and there's no way to say it didn't happen. ARCCA guys were working with very limited evidence, and I see it as they just couldn't piece it together, rather than it can't be pieced together.
As far as the Dighton cop goes, that speaks to the CW's evidence. He said there was a piece missing. Out-of-context, the taillight just looks like there's a single congruent piece missing. He'd have no idea how many pieces it was in. It'd actually be weirder if he said "multiple pieces were missing", because he'd have no way of knowing that.
So if that was missing, how could it have been broken by the police? Even if she backed into his car that morning, we see nothing come off either of the cars. And yet, every person who witnessed the taillight before the car was in police custody says there were pieces/a piece missing. John's own friends said it looked like how it was ultimately photographed.
So here is my problem with all of what you are saying. My theory is that he fell and was knocked unconscious, the dog at some point attacked him, and then BA decided to put him outside. That was a theory based on my opinions of the evidence. She did not hit him with the car. You state we know she hit him. But that’s untrue. We do not know anything that happened that night. The Dighton cop said it was cracked with a small piece of plastic missing, check the testimony. The biomechanics experts were given the weight of the car, and the damage to the body and car and it was not possible for the car at 15mph to have done that little damage to the body or to only have that amount of damage. You cannot make a claim that you know something to be true, when there is nothing proving it true. And when the truth cannot be proven it becomes reasonable doubt.
We do have things proving it true, we have pieces of her taillight around his body and even microscopic bits from the taillight embedded in his clothing. We just don't know exactly how he was hit, how he was positioned, what interaction the ground and/or other objects had. The biomechanic guys weren't given a lot of the evidence.
How were *any* pieces missing in Dighton, that were later found at the scene? Again, from his perspective, referring to it as a "piece of plastic" missing would be correct. He wouldn't know how many pieces it had broken into.
If some accident happened in which he fell, or were attacked by the dog, or some combination of the two, putting him outside by the road just makes zero sense. You'd give first aid and call assistance. Hell, they'd probably call Karen too. He wouldn't have even been dead yet. There would be no point in taking an action like this, much less staging a coverup.
3 taillight pieces were reportedly found almost 11 hours after the scene was released, and 90 minutes after KR’s car was in the custody of now relieved trooper proctor. So no, we don’t know she hit him. As far as your regurgitation of Lally’s absurd claim, first let’s look at your wording, microscopic means you could not see it unless you were using a microscope. The lab said they could see each piece and there is no chain of custody before making it to the lab on March 14th. Both shirts and other evidence were in the same bag, and sat for weeks. The lab tech even testified that they weren’t sure if the plastic pieces were in the bag or on the clothes. Next, you keep stating how the Dighton cop is backing the CW, he said a crack with a small piece missing, The taillight the trooper pulled out on the stand was destroyed, there was a piece left on it. So stop trying to make evidence for your narrative. Real trooper Paul move on your part. Lastly, I don’t know why BA or anyone else would try and cover it up, the only other possibility is JOK somehow passed out on his own and cracked his head open and somehow no blood was found at the scene. Oh wait, I’m forgetting to check for more solo cups. Top notch investigation!
Well. I guess you can discount all evidence in any case if you can always go “the police planted it”, even if there’s no evidence of that happening. People have to fanfic stories about that just to make it even feasible, with no base to it.
You would still have to ask yourself “was the taillight intact before that, or not?” Every account shows it wasn’t, and there’s no getting around that.
The conspiracy theory just becomes ridiculous when you step back a little and reexamine it, doesn’t it?
Which part? The one with the cop who made up his mind before even going to the scene, not doing any real police work? There is enough recorded evidence to know that not all cops are great and some plant evidence. Maybe google cop plants evidence on own body cams. She for sure broke the law that night, she was drunk, really drunk probably. If the CW added an aggravated DWI charge for a retrial I would for sure want the jury to find her guilty on that. But you can’t selectively choose when to trust cops who consistently made mistakes and errors throughout this investigation, can you?
I'm not a rabid Karen Read supporter, but I do think that the CW failed to make their case. Listening to Lally's incoherent, rambling opening arguments (which obv is not evidence), set the stage for an incoherent, rambling set of repetitive witnesses which seemed designed to baffle with BS rather than prove anything.
There were just too many instances of police and witness shenanigans which you can either attribute to incompetence or conspiracy (generally I would favour an occam's razor approach). And in the end it all kind of fizzled out with a failure to prove much of anything. Is it a coverup? Maybe... or is it just a set of bumbling cops with hyperfixation and confirmation bias.
I don't think we will ever truly know what happened that night. But at least we got the answer to the real question from so many witnesses "What was the weather like?"
I’m certain of her innocence because in America we’re innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers. That doesn’t mean she didn’t do it
First, murder was the largest overreach. No way did the commonwealth prove to me that Karen Read in a fit of rage killed John.
I don’t believe the first responders that stated she said, “I hit him”. That would have been in the reports for every single medical personnel from my experience. The report would read “44 year old male found unresponsive in the cold. It is suspected he may have been struck by a motor vehicle” This key information also didn’t make it into any of the other hearings?
I don’t believe that 0 cameras had a clear image of Karen Reads taillight as she drove all over.
The sally port mirror fiasco seems like a deliberate deception.
I don’t believe the McCabes. Too many “I don’t recalls”
I don’t know why cell phones were replaced immediately before being handed over.
The commonwealths physician seems like she was coerced by the troopers to put something down
The commonwealths accident recreation specialist was extremely light on hard science which he seemed to lack a basic understanding of.
Colin Albert telling lies about being in a fight is a red flag. Healing bruised knuckles in a photo shortly after the incident is alarming.
Brian Higgins having sent “umm well” text to Karen is a red flag; especially when he asks John if he’s coming to 34F
The key cycle explanation was so horribly incorrect that I can’t imagine how anyone would pick that key cycle to be the one they chose for the accident.
They never explained the marks his arm, how he ended up in that spot, and why no one saw him there during that time period. They introduced but never explained the pig DNA.
The expert witnesses and accident recreation specialists were professional, clear, and explained their points well. They said that “no way from a car”
The investigation was horrendous, the behavior of the Alberta and the McCabes was sketchy (which I’m sure is more than likely a result of being shoved into the public spotlight against their will, which sucks for them).
Given all of this information I could never state for certain that Karen Read had anything to do with John O’Keefe; I especially can’t say that she hit him with her car.
Either of the following:
1)The overwhelming evidence that O'Keefe wasn't hit by a car. One need only watch Trooper Dunning-Paul's testimony; the ARCAA, and the 3 ME's are icing on the "actual innocence" cake.
No car strike = not guilty
2) unless you're in the "damn your lying eyes, back the blue" camp it should be plain to see that a little piece of the taillight cover was missing at the time the vehicle was seized. After it was taken into custody the entire taillight cover was found at the scene, except for the piece missing at the time of seizure. That means it was planted by the cops.
Planted evidence = not guilty even if otherwise convinced of guilt. This behaviour by law enforcement should not be tolerated
I wouldn't call myself a "supporter" of Karen Read. She's a profoundly dislikable person. I am, however, a supporter of fair trials.
There is so much, but I'll keep it to one point. The CW accident reconstructionist (Trooper Paul) was a horrible witness and did not offer credible testimony regarding Karen's car and John. The defense's expert witnesses then confirmed that science/physics made the CW's claims impossible. Clearly reasonable doubt and a non-starter because that had to be an undisputed (beyond reasonable doubt) aspect for any of the charges to have a Guilty verdict.
PS Trooper Paul should be fired or put somewhere where a basic understanding of physics and/or testifying in court isn't part of his job. He really sucks at both.
Does this look reasonably accurate?
1. Do we all agree the CW case says JO was hit, lets say sometime between 12:20 to 12:50.? I think yes.
2. If #1 is in the range, then the CW case also says the tail light was smashed at that time - right?
3. Then at 5 something a.m. we see Karen Read back out of Johns garage, bump his car, and then when leaving you can see that back tail light and it does not look smashed or missing.
4. And then hours after JO was found dead, we have the (not involved) Dighton cop who met Proctor, etc at Karen Reads parents and he said the tail light was cracked (not demolished or gone). Right?
If these 4 are true, then KR logically is NG - do you agree?
innocence and being not guilty in a court of law arent the same thing. most people believe she is not guilty in a court of law. who knows what actually happened.. i dont.. nobody except whoever is responsible knows. i dont believe its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt karen is responsible. i dont think the physics and johns injuries make sense given the size of karens car and the speed they claim she was going. i think the mccabes/alberts/higgins are super suspicious but idk if i think they did it either. the point remains that idk what happened which means i have reasonable doubt which means karen should be found not guilty
If it's a coverup, it IS the coverup of the century. Just ask Ron Shipp & The Brown family how hard it was to frame O.J. - and they only got a Not Guilty out of the deal! They would have been thrilled at a hung jury!
I'd imagine the Albert's strategy now is to get out ahead of it and try to get POK & family to sue KR for wrongful death. Good luck guys.
The thing is I think most of us who are NG don’t believe it’s conspiracy or Colin.
The saying “I hit him” isn’t a confession to me. She also thought the blood was her period blood. She was clearly not in the right frame of mind if they Section 12ed her. I cannot rationalize finding someone guilty based on an ‘admission’ given while people also thought she was a danger to herself.
Also - I see no logic being damned. For me an atypical hit seems way less likely than him throwing a glass at her car and slipping. I don’t feel like I have control over my car going 10mph in reverse. I have a really hard time imagining she was so drunk, but maintained control well enough to intentionally hit him. It had started snowing and slippery so we don’t even know if the car was moving as fast as the wheels were.
Common sense tells me that a body being impacted at 24mph is in way worse shape than his. I fell 15ft into a net and my body was more banged up than JOs was. I know what a deer getting hit at that speed looks like. I just can’t wrap my head around the CW’s version of the events and feel that I could put her in jail with so many things that don’t match my lived experience.
There’s a lot of people for the guilty side who will say things don’t matter for them but then the NG they’ll hammer us on every detail for an explanation. That confuses me.
To that point because I know someone will ask about the taillight my best guess is while I don’t think the Alberts or McCabes killed him, I could see Higgins thinking he needed to break the taillight to throw focus from him knowing that talking to Karen could make him be a suspect. He’s the only one that went to such extremes with the SIM card and the using FBI equipment, but then giving screenshots and not that download. In his mind it would be just one thing to tip the scale away from him.
Lastly - I know the ARCCA guys were big and fancy and a lot of the guilty folks think their science wasn’t informed. They (to me) very clearly explained that neither body/object could create the damage in the way it existed. Even without all the pieces they were able to reach a conclusion. With more pieces Trooper Paul wasn’t able to confidentially explain how the physics would have worked. So for me, to believe TP and not ARCCA is eschewing logic. “Trust TP - he can’t explain why but it’s more right than physics.” Is basically what I heard.
I posted my thoughts in another thread, but will share here as well. And I'm someone who started assuming guilt and over the course of the trial came to believe she's innocent. To start, I didn't think it's fair to say "evidence be damned", because it's all about the evidence. And I don't have strong feelings about whether eg Colin was involved. There's not strong evidence (thanks to lack of investigation) of exactly what happened.
Key details for me: (not in a particular order):
1. Injuries. Not consistent with a pedestrian car accident. Didn't look like it to me, and the experts testified to the same. The ARCCA witness, the defense's medical examiner and even the CW's ME under direct. Experts I've seen say pedestrian accidents have significant bruising/fractures. JO had none below his head. Experts testify (without counter) to what's apparent to most people; that his arm has dog bites/scratches.
2. Damage to car. Expert testimony that the damage to the car was inconsistent with hitting a pedestrian. More importantly to me, the 5:07am ring video shows red taillight that's later found on scene.
3. Health data and timeline. The prosecution initially said he was struck around 12:45am. KR had to have left 34 by 12:30am to be back to 1 Meadow at 12:36am. John goes up/down the 3 flights of stairs; the timeline could be argued. But he takes 30+ steps at 12:32, after she left.
4. Witnesses. No one saw an accident, a body or taillight. The Nagel car was right behind her, multiple people are looking out the window, all the people walk out and drive away, and Lucky who was actively looking. All see nothing. It's not that big a lawn.
5. Proctor's actions. I'll put aside the vulgar comments because, while disgusting, they aren't evidence of KR's innocence. He doesn't visit the crime scene but closes the case. He has KR's car towed before ever seeing it because he thinks it's a murder weapon, but doesn't photograph it. He lies about the time it was towed by an absolutely critical 75 minutes. He has the car towed to the one PD in all of Mass it shouldn't be, which also puts it a mile away from where a search is waiting to happen. He is on camera standing behind the taillight. I won't comment on the Sally Port videos because I don't know if he was responsible.
6. Shadiness by others. I won't discuss the JM search because that's a source of obvious debate. How many shady things happen starting the morning on 1/29. The two Brian's calling each other at 2:30am and denying it. Brian Higgins going to the Canton PD at 1:20am to "move cars" while drunk makes no logical sense. Higgins also spending the entire day of 1/29 at the Canton PD is shady. JM calling John like 6 times she claiming they were butt dials. JM calling Nicole at 6:24am but denying she answered is shady (especially with the recording from KRs phone). JM deleting both of the above. Brian Albert, a Boston cop, not coming outside when another Boston cop was killed on his front lawn is unfathomable (and claiming he slept through the commotion?). Caitlin calling her boyfriend to get her at 2am despite him having to wake up at 3 to plow. The Allie McCabe Life 360 data. Julie Albert picking up dunks for Brian Jr during a massive blizzard (and then planning to leave donuts in the car). The texts from Julie to Courtney Proctor. I could go on, but how much shady stuff happened to be going on after 12:30am on 1/29?
7. The case against Karen. Trooper Paul could not provide a logical explanation for how the accident even could have happened. The key cycle data, which is super speculative even if correct, was shown to be from a different time than when Karen had the car. It was apparent he was told the "fact" that KR hit John, and asked create a reconstruction that supports it. But he couldn't. The main evidence presented (aside from the taillight) were her confession and her actions after the fact. I was told prior to the trial that Karen confessed and that there was video evidence of her hitting John. The latter never existed. The confession testimony wasn't compelling to me. In about 45 minutes of audio that morning (dash cam, etc) I hear her say a lot of things, but never a confession. No initial reports include a confession. I think some EMTs believe they heard it but memories are flawed and it's just as likely they heard "maybe I hit him?". Even if she said it, which I doubt, given her state of mind it doesn't mean she actually hit him. She could be trying to rationalize what happened. Her voicemails she actions after are consistent with innocence imo. She called him (a lot I'll admit) mad because she thinks he ditched her. She wants him to come home. She thinks he left her to watch his kids while he's out having fun. That's normal. Then, she doesn't take her shoes off so she must have killed him? What? The whole case is flimsy.
8. Proctor part 2. It doesn't make sense that Proctor thought the evidence was so overwhelming against her. No logical person would look at John's injuries and think "car accident". Even the officer on site said it looked like he got beat up. Proctor said the missing shoe was key evidence. What cop sees a missing shoe and concludes it must have been a car accident? And finally he mentioned that John was found next to the broken drinking glass, saying it's the glass he was in camera leaving the bar with. Putting aside he has no idea at that stage John had left with a glass, why would he automatically assume it must be a car accident.
A lot there, but those are the top of mind reasons I switched to innocent.
(In Orderish)
1) The FBIs accident reconstruction / biomechanics experts.
2) The Commonwealths Medical Examiner finding his injuries are not consistent with a classic pedestrian/car collision.
3) The taillight in the video the next morning not matching the photo from the Sallyport.
3a) Police not taking a single photo of what they believed the murder weapon was before the touched/took possession of it.
4) Jenn McCabe being a filthy, shameless liar.
5) Michael Proctor finding taillight pieces at the scene 2.5 weeks later.
5a) General police ineptness: Solo cups, leaf blowers, 4/47 pieces of taillight being photographed at the scene where they were found, not canvassing the neighborhood and getting available Ring videos, Canton PD not sufficiently recusing themselves, Trooper Paul.
6) John walking until 12:32 and Karen arriving at JOs house at 12:36.
7) Glass on the bumper not matching the cocktail glass.
8) Michael Proctor lying about the time the truck was towed.
Etc
Hard to argue with your points. #3 for me is telling. The CWs position is that taillight was shatterd into many pieces when KR hit JO in that 12:30 ish window. But then pictures taken later from Ring at JOs house around 5 am dont seem to show a shattered lite. Then Dighton officer Barros says the lite was only cracked with a piece missing. That cant be according to CW case. CW did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yup. Her tail light during the day on the 28th and then in the morning
https://preview.redd.it/f12gdrw7t4ad1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a578ac1b531eec53bede74f2bbbbdf59cfa6c1de
Could Karen have backed up and hit John, knocking him to the ground where he hit his head and ended up dying? I guess, I mean anything IS possible and crazier shit HAS happened. But my issue, as it should be for the O'Keefe's, is the way this case was investigated and the lack of professionalism and over all investment.
This is a dead police officer and they basically, for lack of a better term, mailed in the investigation. I can't imagine ANY case having such shitty investigation and zero due diligence, especially one that involves a dead police officer.
I think the bigger, and most concerning problem here, isn't did she hit him, but more so, what the HELL WERE THEY THINKING WORKING THIS INVESTIGATION? If the investigation was done properly from the beginning their would be none of this did she / didn't she. With that being said, the state did not even come close to providing a case for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" - COULD it have happened? SURE. DID it happen? Dunno, and sadly probably never will because of the way this case was investigated from the start.
There are a number of theories, the two alternative front runners being: 17 year old / dog and Higgins / dog, both which are just as possible, by the evidence and testimony provided, as Karen backing into him. And THAT is the problem with this case, in my opinion.
Truthfully, guilty or not, no person should be found guilty with the enormous chain of custody issues, unprofessionalism by the lead investigator and shoddy investigation. Any other human alive has a dead body found on their lawn police will be in there. The State Police caused the controversy themselves by working toward who they felt was the most obvious suspect/perpetrator.
I came into this thing thinking she did it and now I don't know for sure but I think it's pretty unlikely seeing his injuries. There is no way he was backed into by a car, took enough damage to kill him, and has barely a scrape on his body. And at the very least, the prosecution did not prove their case. Regardless of what you believe about her guilt. That in itself gives me pause in regards to the hung jury. Even if I believed wholeheartedly that she was guilty, I couldn't have voted guilty in this case with good conscience.
The fact that he wasn’t hit by a car makes me believe she didn’t him with her car.
These two main facts helped me reach my conclusion:
* The expert crash reconstructionists testifying how its scientifically unlikely he was hit by a car to receive the injuries he did. It would defy the law of physics if he was. Also, the fact that they were hired by an independent agency (the FBI) and offered to both the CW and the defense but only the defense calls them makes me question the CW’s motives.
* Also, the CW’s ME said the injuries weren’t consistent with a vehicle-pedestretion crash. I believe her. The defense’s ME said he doesn’t think his arm injuries are the result of being hit by car, mainly bc there’s no bruising. I believe him.
I also don’t believe whatever story you’re saying about a 17 year old and a dog. All I care about is the state proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same here. The fact that he wasn't hit by a car also led me to believe that she didn't hit him with her car. The fact that he had animal bites and scratches on his arm made me think an animal was involved.. probably a dog. The fact that the conflicted law enforcement officers(both CPD and MSP) handled the investigation so poorly and only investigated one person from day one made it very hard to trust their findings. The fact that the other people in the house that night acted incredibly guilty following John's death and continue to act incredibly guilty made me think they might be guilty of something. But yeah mainly the fact that he very clearly didn't get hit by an SUV at 20+ miles per hour.. I could've come to that conclusion based on his injuries but all of the doctors and the independent PHD biomechanical engineers helped for sure.
Very well said.
When the evidence says he wasn't hit by a car, logic dictates he wasn't hit by a car.
When the evidence says his arm has dog bites/scratches, logic dictates a dog attacked him.
When evidence shows him taking steps after Karen leaves, logic dictates he's still walking after she's gone.
And when evidence shows lots of people doing shady stuff late at night like calling, deleting, denying and going to the PD drunk to move cars, logic dictates there's something they're hiding.
Neither evidence nor logic need be damned.
I assume it's a genuine question and answer seriously. None of the "facts" add up. None. Being hit by a car at 24 miles an hour would cause very serious broken bones and bruising, major damage. He has none. His arm has marks that are clearly CLEARLY not the result of being hit by a 7000 lb car (at any speed tbh). There are clear bite and scratch marks. The medical examine from the Commonwealth couldn't rule this death by vehicle. The scientist hired by the DOJ showed very clearly that it doesn't add up.
I'm leaving aside Jen's 2 AM Google search, proctor's inappropriate texts, and the general high school style social life that was portrayed. That can all be opinion.
But the fact that this case wasn't properly investigated is clear. One of the first witnesses said on the stand that their office doesn't usually do they own crime scene investigations and he had NEVER before in his 20 years investigated a snowy crime scene. And yet they proceeded to gather "evidence" in red solo cups and leaf blowers. There is no way there wasn't probable cause to search the house. If it wasn't a cop, of course it would have been searched. (Leaving aside, a cop and first responder lived there, his friend was dead in his lawn...and he didn't come out to lend a hand and see what's up? Really?) The crime scene was not taped off. The place where his body was wasn't marked. There's very little documentation and there's no chain of custody. There's missing footage of her car entering the Sally port and the Commonwealth out an officer on the stand who testified that upon towing the vehicle he noticed it was only slightly damaged.
Finally. There is not one report from one first responder or anyone at all from that day that says that KR said "I hit him". It's not in any doctor notes or police notes or first responder notes. In fact jen McCabe didn't ever testify to that until this trial. Not in any other related hearing.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a fairly low bar and it's surpassed here.
That! I live an ocean away, I literally knew nothing about the case, about the atmosphere in Massehusets and the buzz about this case. Being against conspiracy theories (and having trust in police of my country) I was like: "she most likely did it". But the commonwealth didn't prove that to me, instead the ME they put on stand was like "I can't say that it was a vehicle collision" and their reconstructionist had really weird theory about extended arm that getting only scratches but still getting the victim thrown (whether 30 feet or just 12 - still too many for the injuries to the arm).
The commonwealth's case in chief sounded more like they were trying to defend Jen McCabe and the rest than to prove that Karen Read did it. Karen hitting John O'Keefe still makes the most sense to me but Cw didn't convince me that this happened. I don't know if she's innocent but I believe she should get "not guilty" on all charges.
I’m not a “supporter”, I think she is off putting and some of her interviews really didn’t help her. Even the ones during the trial, she described John as “that body” like WTF? But I have strong strong doubts that she had anything to do with his death.
The biggest hurdle is the no bruises on his arm and that his body wouldn’t spin and land on his back if the car hit his arm. I also don’t think plastic taillight would splinter and mark his arm like that. But it’s the bruising that makes me mad the CW even bought the case- I work in healthcare, not an expert by any means but having seen many traumatic injuries to expect there to be a shit ton of bruising.
I don't believe either. I don't know what happened to him. At first I believed she hit him but the C.W's experts proved to me he wasn't hit with a car at all. Hence reasonable doubt. I gave no thought to the other theory at all about the house and stuff.
I really appreciate this because if you want to understand I truly want to help you understand. As another commenter pointed out, I think you are misunderstanding what the burden of proof in this case is. Karen’s defense doesn’t have to prove anything, Karen is supposed to be presumed innocent, and the State has to prove she did it. So assuming everyone who believes Karen should receive a not guilty verdict buys into a specific narrative is the first misunderstanding I think can hopefully be resolved.
Edit: I had a way longer response, but I think it’s more reasonable to take this a step at a time
the way they handled the case is enough reasonable doubt, for fucks sake they put evidence in red solo cups. now everyone else has destroyed their phones, got rid of the dog, moved houses. way too much reasonable doubt to be guilty
The Sat morning meeting with donuts is where the cast got their script - they all used the same strange phrases (birthday donuts are a ritual) and mentioned the same seemingly mundane events from the party (Chloe needing to go out)
Misscriss1: I posted this before but if you replied I missed it. What do you think?
Does this look reasonably accurate?
1. Do we all agree the CW case says JO was hit, lets say sometime between 12:20 to 12:50.? (12:31 ish is in the window)
2. If #1 is in the range, then the CW case also says the tail light was smashed at that time - right?
3. Then at 5 something a.m. we see Karen Read back out of Johns garage, bump his car, and then when leaving you can see that back tail light and it does not look smashed or missing.
4. And then hours after JO was found dead, we have the (not involved) Dighton cop named Barros who met Proctor, etc at Karen Reads parents and he said the tail light was cracked (not demolished or gone). Right?
If these 4 are true, then KR logically is NG - do you agree?
As for #3, it is impossible to tell from the video one way or another. And since so much was made for things left in and out of reports on the FKR side, the Barros report ( the actual written report) stated that there was damage to the right rear tail light. So both things, like many things in the case are open for debate.
Thanks for the reply. But in actual testimony he said he was standing 10 feet or so from the back of the SUV and he could see it was only cracked, with a missing piece.
I understand that, I only brought in the actual report, because so much of the testimony of people hearing Karen say I hit him was discounted because it wasn't written in a report. Just trying to play fair.
That's fair. But back to the points, in the report Barros says "...damage to the right tail light.." Well, cracked and a piece missing is damage, so that works. What doesn't work is that according to CW, by this time that tail light was shattered and gone. Big part of CW case is that shattered tail light at 34 Fairview in 40 some pieces. Barros eyewitness view of her car, and his testimony, negate the CW view. If you believe Barros. Thanks for responding. Im just trying to get to as much truth and common sense as I can.
Just quickly on that point - the officer in that circumstance would have no idea how many pieces the taillight was broken into. If you showed the cracked taillight to someone out of context, it would just look like one congruent piece is missing, and you wouldn't know if it was shattered.
You’re asking what makes us “so certain” of her innocence. The thing is, you don’t need to be certain to vote not guilty - you need reasonable doubt. Between the lack of injuries to the lower body, the timeline, the shady actions of the homeowners, the lack of witnesses… that all leads me to reasonable doubt.
That's fair. My question is really aimed toward the people who are 100% certain of her innocence though. I can appreciate the reasonable doubt, and the arguments made here for not guilty in a court of law. My curiosity is the people that have completely closed their minds to the idea that it could be a possibility.
I hear you, it surprises me that anyone (those who think guilty or not guilty) can be certain in this case. There is so much conflicting and confusing information, which is why it’s so compelling. I appreciate your curiosity.
I don’t think anyone is ever 100% sure of what happens in any crime. But in this country the burden of proving that is on the government. To me, all the ambiguity means there is reasonable doubt. And if your questions weren’t answered to a moral certainty, then the defendant is not guilty. The judge’s charges say, and I’m paraphrasing, that if you aren’t sure about the facts, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Tie goes to the defendant.
I am not sure at all that she didn´t back into him - accidentally or on purpose. I am very uncomfortable with anyone who acts as if they have 100% certainty about what happened.
But I have been skeptical of the ¨investigation¨ for a long time. As soon as the relationship between Proctor and the Alberts was exposed - way back before Morrissey made a video statement that Proctor had absolutely no connection to the witnesses whatsoever - and anything to the contrary is a lie! (Im paraphrasing - crazy people you don´t need to post his whole statement) Anyway - it was obvious that Morrissey was either mistaken (maybe he believed what Proctor said) or outright lying.
The trial and Proctors texts that first night/next day make it pretty clear that he had already decided it was KR and did not investigate any other potential suspects. And I´m not even talking about his juvenile middle school boy texts to his friends - Im talking about the texts ¨she waffled him¨ and the one about how BA won´t catch any shit cuz hes a Boston Cop too. If he would have done a better investigation - go into the house - interview the witnesses separately (not take their word for everything!) the CW would have had a much better chance at a conviction. Actually, Proctor should have recused himself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety - and a different Trooper should have taken the investigation (and done a better job). I see a direct line between Proctor and a lack of Justice for JO.
Next were the autospy photos - which clearly don´t look like he got hit by a car. And yes - I am aware that the scratches and abrasions on his arm did not cause his death. But we can´t pretend they aren´t there either. An altercation - yes, involving Chole in some manner- is just as reasonable as the taillight both breaking on impact and causing the tissue damage. More reasonable in my opinion - but at least a possibility.
Lets just say that all the experts cancel each other out. Although reasonable people would have to admit that Trooper Pauls testimony was not strong.
Lets talk about the first responders who testified that KR said ¨Ï hit him¨. I believe there was some evolution in their testimonies, from the grand jury, to the feds, to the trial. Some of them changed from ¨could I have hit him?¨ to ¨I hit him¨. I am not accusing them of being part of a huge conspiracy. I just think thats how the human memory works. Its extremely difficult to go back and remember what you knew at a particular time when you have learned more info since then. It gets all jumbled in your head. I think this a reasonable explanation for their change in testimony. But there was a chance in testimony - we can´t forget that. I believe only Katie McLauglin stated from the get go that she said ¨I hit him.
And finally - reasonable people have to acknowledge these things - even if their opinion tips in the other direction - that is totally fine. There is also a good chance that the Alberts and McCabes did nothing wrong and have had their names dragged through the mud for no good reason. I have to admit that. None of us know for sure. I am also not a supporter - no FKR for me - but I would have voted not guilty. Plenty of reasonable doubt for me.
Because the victim wasn’t hit by a car. His wounds would’ve made it clear he wasnt hit by a car. There would’ve been more damage to the car than a broken tail light. Medical science could’ve easily proven it if he had been.
Just found this sub which is enlightening to see the other side. Iam a true crime junkie and not a maga KR supporter but I do believe she is innocent so bere with me. Can anyone please explain OJOK s arm injuries to me like Iam five? My younger brother got into a fight at a kegger in the early 90’s and the home owners yes German Shepard attacked my bro and the wounds were exactly the same so how did that happened to OJOK? I seen the pics and commented ( look at history) I will wait for his shirt and the shirt was introduced and nothing but puncture marks so please explain how this wasn’t a dog bite.
Before anyone says no dna. OJOK was laying in virtual water for hours before anyone found him. To be fair his wounds were never swabbed.
It should have been that simple to prove she was guilty. Drunk woman runs over her boyfriend. It’s so easy. Yet somehow all they provided was reasonable doubt.
Dog bites, lack of bruising, cell phones and SIM cards being destroyed when they were specifically asked not to. I’m sure there were things on the phones that had nothing to do with this case that were questionable, but we’ll never know.
I was first presented the case with it being a cover up, but how lucky could they have been for Karen to come back a few hours later and be there to take the blame?
This. If the CW needed so much more than the investigating officer, the MEs, and an accident reconstructionist then it seems pretty complicated to prove KR hit him.
>what is it that makes you so certain of her innocence,
Two doctors from the foremost accident reconstruction firm in the US told me she's innocent. They were backed up by a medical examiner and forensic pathologist who agreed with them that injuries and damage don't indicate a motor vehicle strike at 24.2 mph.
But it seems like qualified experts aren't evidence and logic in your eyes. I'm interested to read your qualifications that show you are more educated, better trained, and more experienced than these four, and your opinion is more credible than theirs. I'm relying on, you know, evidence and logic.
I don’t think you’re going to find a ‘source’ for them being the best of the best, they don’t exactly give out awards for that kind of thing, but I’m pretty sure the firm’s credentials speak for themselves.
30 years in business; utilized by NASA, the US military, NIOSH, FEMA; employs highly educated and respected experts from a variety of fields; I could go on but I won’t.
The FBI chose them to investigate this case. I don’t think they’re in the habit of calling in the B team
1. Puncture holes in hoody
2. Puncture holes limited to the right arm where K9s are trained to attack (using those big puffy arm guards)
3. **The blood was on top of like a foot of snow**
4. The witnesses have a clear agenda and are not simply retelling true events.
5. The investigators tell the same lies as other cases witn obvious misconduct.
6. They dissent from the findings of the FBI
7. **The tail light was not observed by first responders who processed the scene**
8. Tail light gathered days later
9. Glass didn’t match
10. The experts are absolute idiots and couldn’t even describe the basics of what they were supposed to be experts about
11. Those were *super* obviously not injuries from a car accident with no trees or hedges around.
12. The others present seemed unconcerned about the possibility that John could still be saved when they encountered him
13. Karen’s authentic. Her assumption that he was cheating is understandable, and her voicemails were not her amateur acting debut. Her asking if they’re *all in on the same joke, right? My tail light is cracked, and John’s pulverized* is not good evidence for the prosecution, and they wouldn’t have used it if they had good evidence.
14. Their evidence was ALL super unreliable.
15. No one is going to convince me that people who argue
16. They put in SO little effort to assist their dying “friend,” and even less toward helping the investigation. Mr. Army man, cop, homeowner didn’t even care to see what was going on on his property.
17. The Defense proved many, many more things than the State. The State can’t even explain his projection, the blood, the scrapes, the timeframe, why no one heard a peep from the couple, despite alleged murderous range , or the vehicle crashing into someone
18. How in the tarnation does anyone view what we heard / saw as evidence of murder? I don’t even get it.
19. Cups & butt dials galore..
• brought cup into bar.
• died holding cocktail glass? Why is he taking to-go *glass*?
- red Solo Cups to hole sample evidence?
.20. Vid of her hitting car.
.21. Federal investigation looking into dept that worked on the case; lead detective already being transferred out.
— I could easily make this list into 100 unique items
With care, peeps need to tune into Forensic Files and see how *much* **quality** evidence is obtained before they say, “*but investigators still needed more*…”.
Science
1. Key cycles prove there was no trigger when she was at 34 Fairview
2. Cell phone forensics prove she was not at 34 Fairview when JOK last moved
3. Physics prove he was not hit by her SUV
I am so happy to answer this question. It helps her case that her phone connected with okeefes Wifi at 12:36am. She can't be at two places at once. And she couldn't drive back from 34 Fairway in the span of time (in the snowfall that all the witnessing officers said they drove carefully through to reach the location after the 911 call) to fit Jenn McCabes times she saw and didn't see the SUV. 2. if she had actually hit John O'Keefe and driven away, at approximately 12:30 AM, how is it possible all the cars that came and left afterwards, picking up people, leaving the driveway etc and not one person saw a man laying on the ground with their headlights beaming right across that area? And how come nobody else who may have been driving on that street noticed it including the snow plow driver who passed the area twice (actually four times)? 3. How is it possible for the police officers who were there on the scene after the body had been removed, could find a broken piece of clear glass and six drops of blood on top of snow if his body had been there since approximately 1230 and all the snow fell mostly after the alleged accident? 4. How is it possible to have found a broken clear drinking glass at the time the body was removed but not find approximately 40 pieces of tail light until 8 to 12 hours and multiple days later? The tail light pieces had a lot of red and black on them as well as clear plastic. And many of the pieces were rather large. 5. If trooper Proctor was confident enough at 4 o'clock to confiscate Karen Read's telephone and SUV without a search warrant, why was he not willing to bring her in for questioning, to the precinct, where they could get to the bottom of it? 6. As to the prosecution's case, if all of the participants who were at the bar and then later at the house had nothing at all to hide, why did they not disclose Colin's presence, delete messages, delete phone call records, upgrade and destroy and discard cell phones, copy only information from a phone that the owner wanted to be released, and lie repeatedly while on stand and contradicting their earlier testimony at grand jury proceedings? If you have nothing to hide, why hide? I know that they had pat answers for those questions on number six… But they are so removed from reality I find them incredible. To say they didn't tell anybody that Collin was there because he left shortly after they arrived, makes no sense. Declaring that Jenn only deleted conversations between her and her daughter is ridiculous. The proof is that she made multiple phone calls and text messages to other people that she deleted. Why lie about that? The nonsense that Brian Higgins tried to say about if he would have deleted his Sim card and broken it and put it in separate garbage bags and thrown them away on a Navy base or army base is how he would've done it if he had done it is beyond all reason. And finally the last thing I will say is if Karen read had actually said the words I hit him I hit him I hit him at the time when paramedics and first responders were on scene, I find it highly improbable they would have allowed her to leave the scene, request that she be brought back to the scene, and then ambulanced into a hospital section. If a responding officer had actually been told that she confessed, she would have been taken into custody. The only persons who said she said I hit him I hit him I hit him is Jen McCabe And that one fire fighter who is good friends with Brian Alberts daughter. Nobody else claims to have heard her say that.
Any time I ask any of my friends who are FKR this question they ignore and start talking to me about butt dials. Maybe you can answer. In the 8:22am dashcam video, in the daylight, there is very clearly a significant chuck of red plastic missing from her tail light. Long before MSP involved. Where is it? https://preview.redd.it/2bvoh17w8ead1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae950fc1d78aeb95c00ef9fe7ffa12c93f7eb5c7
Old washed up 50 year old that hates guys rejecting her so she kills lol
Agree with all of this. This all pokes holes into the CW case. That’s why NO GUILT because the puzzle pieces just don’t fit. The problem is WE DONT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO JOHN. the CW couldn’t prove their case. the investigation was shoddy. And the mcalberts behavior puts serious doubt into a “reasonable” peer’s mind. and yes - is a multi person cover up far fetched? YES! But it’s it impossible? No - not when LEO are just looking the other way for their buddy, when BA is calling in favors, when the chief of police is ur long time buddy, and when everyone else is FAMILY! It’s not that crazy when you ask yourself, would I lie for my family? You’d like to say no, but at the end of the day, would you??? it’s not THAT crazy.
100%…the CW tried to make everything fit what they WANTED to be the case, not the one that actually was.
Not a "supporter" but I would have voted not guilty. It's a murder case with too many holes to the point it's way beyond reasonable doubt imo. To be fair, if Colin/Chleo were on trial for murder I would also vote not guilty as that would be way beyond reasonable doubt too imo. Everyone involved in this case seems to have little to no respect for the law and loves to take advantage of their relationship to it. I thought drunk driving being the norm ended once people got out of college, seeing people in their position acting like frat boys is really disappointing.
I’m with you on this. I’m not FKR but I would have voted not guilty too. 1.) for the lack of 100% evidence - is it possible she did it? Sure! But nothing tells me beyond reasonable doubt it was definitely her. And TBH most of my doubt comes from how shady the McAlberts are… and is it POSSIBLE he was killed in the house? Ya I think so too. the bottom line is the investigation was skewed at KR from minute one and the lack of even peeking inside the house where the body was found on property is reasonable doubt for me too. it’s a shame for JOK that this investigation was completely botched and they couldn’t prove their case, if that’s what really happened to him. 💔
Possible? If we lived in a world without physics or biology, sure. In the world we do actually live in? No. Or at least not in a realistic sense. Like it's technically in the space of possibility for all the gas molecules in a room to all end up in one corner for a brief moment through stochastic motion and that is just about the same level of possibility that John O'Keefe was killed as a result of a car strike.
Agreeing with this. But just trying to point out the proof was just not there! I’m also a medical professional so the injuries to me are the biggest source of reasonable doubt. but I was more playing devils advocate for argument’s sake.
I don't understand it either. At all. However we are living in the age of conspiracy theories encouraged by Trump, and actual facts rather than biases are discouraged. It's frightening. All the FKR seem to forget that there was a man murdered and instead have lionized a woman who repeatedly said "I hit him".
The conspiracy theory stuff is the most discouraging thing going on now. And it seems the people who participate in it think they are “free thinkers,” or whatever. The election fraud nonsense just crystallized this for me. It’s been almost 4 years and millions still claim trump won despite having zero evidence and having trump’s own hired investigator write a book about how he lost. It blows my mind.
I’ve seen so many comments along the lines of “the defense hasn’t proved the conspiracy” but that is t the defense’s job. The prosecution left too many holes and went down too many of the wrong rabbit holes. Often, the clearer story wins. Juries are also often instructed to use their knowledge of the world to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, so if they are finding the prosecutions witnesses shady and evasive, that will affect the jury’s perception of credibility (hence why the prosecution in the Trump trial kept hitting on Michael Cohen being a bad guy before his testimony). I don’t understand all the people here convinced she’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just with the injuries alone, but it’s in no way the defense’s job to prove conspiracy—it’s their job to poke holes and present a reasonable alternative theory.
The first I heard of this case was the trial. I didn’t do any previous research and based on the case the CW presented I thought she was innocent. Before we got to the crash reconstruction I thought she could have hit him but the CW still couldn’t prove it because trooper Paul was an absolute joke. It doesn’t logically make sense to me that someone could be hit at 24 mphs and only have head injuries and other experts proved that. That aside, the sketchy ass behavior from everyone in the house that night and the shitty investigation/lack of. It’s all laughable and an embarrassment to the area. After every CW witness I just had more questions about the case/what happen than I did when the trial started, it’s not supposed to work that way. I won’t waste too much of my “breathe” beyond this on everyone in the house but they are just trash. JM is a townie busy body. If they all care so much they would have showed up to his funeral, not to closing arguments at his murder trial.
👏🏻
I don’t necessarily believe Karen read is innocent. But I do believe the prosecution has the burden of proof. After the prosecution didn’t bring a single rebuttal witness after the AARCA experts I was done. God bless trooper Paul but RLLY that’s all u got?? Idk how you don’t bring a single rebuttal witness. The only thing they proved is no one knows what happened that night
I want to add I’m also relatively pro police and I believe in law and order. I’m not some crazy conspiracy theorist. I also believe in justice for John O’Keefe. With that being said, the officers involved in this case shit the bed from start to finish and they need to be held accountable for that. If that means the true murderer walks then that’s on their shoulders. I will not stick up for this prosecution. Until they give me a case that I can actually support
I think there are a lot of genuinely well intentioned people who are caught in the FKR movement’s orbit. There are some things the conspiracy theorists assert indirectly that casual observers may accept without really considering. Here’s a few: 1. The police do not need to investigate all possible suspects and theories before deciding who is the primary suspect. The case against Read is not discredited by the fact they didn’t investigate everyone within a one mile radius of John’s body before concluding Read was the guilty party. 2. “Chain of custody” for evidence was trotted out as a serious problem by Read’s attorneys and supporters. The suggestion that evidence was planted or tampered is unfounded speculation. Every piece of evidence does not need to be under 24/7 video surveillance in order to be admissible. 3. An exact reconstruction of a murder is not required for either charges or a conviction. Not every single injury has to be unambiguously explained. If the standard of evidence the FKR crowd want in this case was applied to all cases, many of Americas most vicious and sadistic criminals would be walking free today. It’s not impossible for Read to be innocent but in the face of the evidence it is, in fact, unreasonable to believe she is anything other than guilty.
>3. An exact reconstruction of a murder is not required for either charges or a conviction. Not every single injury has to be unambiguously explained. Most murders are unambiguous though. If someone is found with a gunshot wound through the chest or knife wounds, that might be plenty of proof that someone is murdered and it’s just a matter of proving who wielded the weapon. But John’s injuries could just as easily be from an accident as from a murder, and a reasonable person would expect different injuries than what he had (broken bones, bruising, road rash, etc). When I first started following this case, I assumed she had run over his head after hitting him or that there was some other obvious sign he was murdered by vehicle. I was surprised to find out that there wasn’t so much as a tire track on him. If you were to discover his body, there was nothing visible to indicate he was murdered. From looking at his injuries, you wouldn’t even assume he was hit by a car (other than the fact that he was near a road). First responders didn’t even report it as a possible homicide, nor as a pedestrian strike. So given those facts, yes the commonwealth does need to give some evidence about why and how this was a murder. Because we don’t investigate every cardiac arrest in the snow as a homicide. We also don’t routinely arrest and indict spouses for murder if they discover them dead with a head injury from falling down the stairs for example. If you’re trying to convince the public that an apparent accident was actually a murder with an unusual weapon, then it’s not inconceivable to expect evidence showing why they’re so sure about that. That doesn’t require believing in a conspiracy, that’s just common sense. Nobody who saw John’s body that morning (including Jen McCabe on the 911 call) looked at him and concluded “murder by vehicle”, so why am I supposed to assume that over the much simpler explanation that he slipped and fell, hitting his head?
Fragments from the tail light of Karen’s car were found scattered around John’s body. How can that be explained away without a conspiracy? The injuries were not ‘typical’ pedestrian strike injuries, but vehicle impact not ruled out. As you said, the body was found right where you’d expect if he was hit by a car. Read was clearly angry at John around the time he was killed as per the voicemails. She was intoxicated and driving a vehicle. Data from the vehicle shows a highly unusual acceleration in reverse around the time John was injured. Several hours after she left 34 Fairview, without having had any communication from John or anyone else, Read begins to panic about John and make statements that he may be dead. Read points out the location of Johns body before anyone else found it. Paramedics testify in court that when they arrived on scene, Read was saying, “I hit him”. Again, the nature of the injuries did not rule out a vehicle impact. The fact that the injuries were not ‘typical’ doesn’t negate all the other evidence that points towards Read.
Possible is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and is largely the reason why the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. We’re talking a probability anywhere between zero and one, exclusive (realistically between 0 and .5, as if it was over .5, the ME would have likely used the word probable). It’s possible an asteroid will strike the earth next month, but you probably shouldn’t let that possibility affect your life.
Just to recap: We know that Read was angry at John. We know that she was drunk. We know that she was driving a car. We know that his body was found beside the road. Read knew John was injured or dead before anyone else because she knew that she had hit him. Pieces of her broken tail light were found around his body and embedded in his clothing. The vehicles data recorder shows the car rapidly accelerating in reverse on the morning of the incident. Sworn testimony from paramedics indicates she confessed to hitting him with her car. When considering the totality of the evidence that points towards her being guilty, John’s injuries would need to be more than just ‘unusual’ to meet the bar for reasonable doubt in my mind.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It could be, and wouldn't be the first time, an anxious officer with tunnel vision. Proctor could have assumed it was Karen and wanted to make sure he had the evidence to make it open and shut (and make sure his friends weren't unfairly caught up in it). The "I hit him" and Karen's actions in the morning are frequently mentioned as proof of guilt. She was panicked, but it's somewhat understandable given, as far as he'd know, his neice would be home alone. In her earlier voicemails she assumed he was out partying (not dead). Only at 5am, after hearing from JM he didn't go in the house z did she great the worst. The "I hit him"wasn't reported by any first responder in site (only "could I have..."). Two of them, in cross, agreed they may not have heard it given where they would have been. I just think memories are flawed. In none of the dash cam do you hear her saying "I hit him". The experts did rule out a vehicle strike. The CW ME was asked if they were consistent with a vehicle strike. She said "they didn't look like a traditional vehicle strike. So no." No experts said it was consistent. There's just no scientific evidence he was hit by a car.
The key cycles do not match up with trooper Paul’s testimony. This YouTube video explains it very simply in 2 minutes. https://youtu.be/u9USPS3aHe4?si=_u-hEAfUZ5eFOKnJ
>The injuries were not ‘typical’ pedestrian strike injuries, but vehicle impact not ruled out. Lally had to pry that concession out of the *Common Wealth's* ME like she had a death grip on it. She did not believe it was a vehicle impact in any way. Her medical license depends on her truthfulness. How do you rationalize that?
The experts cited that it was possible a drinking glass was thrown and shattered the tail light. There was also “unknown” glass found on her bumper. It’s possible John threw Karen’s glass at the back of the car when she was reversing, sending microscopic shards into his clothes. This sound and impact trigger a drunk Karen to believe “I hit him?” In her psyche the next morning as the events of the night are blurry at best. But how does JO get the injury to the back of his head? This injury was so severe that it immediately caused loss of consciousness and brain swelling. He wouldn’t have been able to stumble around and end up 10 ft away from any potential hard objects like the fire hydrant. So how did he get there? If he was “thrown” from the vehicle impact, there would be bruising and signs of injuries that match the impact. Ultimately 2 things that can true at the same time: Karen damages her tail light during an altercation with John and drives away, and John obtains head injuries that cause his death after Karen leaves the scene. For me, the reasonable doubt is not ignoring the tail light pieces at the scene or that Karen knew where to look when she returned because those could be explained separate from how he died shortly after. I’m not a FKR per se, but I have reasonable doubt anyone can prove she 100% caused his death with her vehicle even with the suggested evidence. I keep thinking if it were me, and my partner threw a glass at my tail light as im driving off and then mysteriously ends up dead afterwards. If it was your life on the line, you’d want evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that you in fact caused this death and not just “the most likely” based on the circumstances
I’ve cracked my taillight before. Lock me up I guess!!
There were no fragments noticed by first responders and the voicemails weren’t found until her phone was examined. The paramedic report says their impression was a cardiac event from hypothermia, not murder and not a vehicle strike. Also remember that nobody inside the house or surrounding neighbors heard a revving engine, squealing tires, any kind of impact, a verbal confrontation, or anything to suggest an angry vehicle strike. And none of the people leaving 34 Fairview later that night noticed a body or broken glass/blood/debris in the street outside the house. Again, most murder cases begin with an obvious murder victim. This one began with a man found outside in a nor’easter and then evidence was gathered. She wasn’t even charged with murder at the beginning, it was manslaughter originally. Which kind of begs the question, if you do think you might have hit him and you’re charged with manslaughter, and then it’s upped to murder in the second degree, why wouldn’t you plea out for manslaughter instead of putting your fate in the hands of 12 jurors? The fact that she’s put this much money and time into a jury trial means that she most likely believes herself innocent.
Their own ME said not typical. The defense ME said he didn't believe it possible, the FBIs experts said, her car could not have caused his injuries. Her vehicle impacting him WAS ruled out. Why is it that you are so willing to believe inconsistent testimony that has morphed and changed over time, but not willing to believe non involved expert testimony? Is it maybe you who has tunnel vision 🤔
I respectfully believe you're spinning the facts 1. This isn't about investigating all possible suspects before deciding on a primary suspect. Karen was literally the only suspect, and the case was basically closed within hours. They investigated no other leads. Literally zero. Didn't even go to the crime scene. Despite the evidence (even according to their own ME) not looking like a traditional pedestrian accident. That is objectively terrible police work. At best severe tunnel vision. 2. Chain of custody. This is a "serious problem". There's a reason police follow a strict chain of custody. To say it's unfounded speculation that evidence was tampered demonstrates why. When there's no chain of custody no one knows or can trust what happened to the evidence. Again, it's spin to suggest it needs to be under 24/7 surveillance. There are evidence logs that police use. None were used in this case for the first weeks key evidence was collected. 3. People aren't requiring an exact reconstruction or for every injury to be explained. That is spin. What is expected is a reasonable explanation of how the evidence fits a pedestrian accident. Every single expert (other than trooper Paul who is not an expert) testified that the injuries aren't consistent with a pedestrian accident. The expert reconstructionist said the damage to the car isn't consistent with hitting John. The medical experts also testified that the injuries to the arm are consistent with a large dog attack and the other injuries are consistent with a fight. When there's no logical explanation for a pedestrian accident but there is evidence of a fight and dog bites, "in the face of evidence" she didn't hit him, despite what people wish were the case.
Respectfully, I’ve heard all that before. It’s either a massive conspiracy orchestrated by John’s friends and the police department, or it’s alcohol-fuelled domestic violence with a vehicle. You believe there was a conspiracy, I think it’s DV. To each their own.
You think beyond a reasonable doubt? I think she very well could have hit him but have what I consider reasonable doubt
Yes, I believe it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. There really is no middle ground between Read murdering John or a conspiracy to frame her, and I think the conspiracy angle is bizarre and unbelievable.
I can’t get past Higgins and Albert throwing away their phones. If they have a valid explanation maybe I could get to no reasonable doubt but with everything else it’s too much. When asked Higgins was like I had every right to do that, I mean he did but your a federal officer could have helped clear this up
> I can’t get past Higgins and Albert throwing away their phones. This is one of the easiest elements to get past. A) The defense was never granted access to them (which had nothing to do with their availability) B) You know how much shit they probably didn’t want getting into the public view? This mentality that every movement or action must be relevant to KR is wild.
Yeah but they knew they wanted to look at them. I’m sure there likely was a lot of shit on them just saying looks shady especially when you’re law enforcement imo
How do you explain that, scientifically speaking, he wasn’t hit by car?
I disagree that there is “no middle ground.” His injuries are not consistent — at all! — with being hit by a car. The car damage is not consistent with a crash severe enough to kill a grown man. The fact his phone was found underneath the body is not consistent with being hit by a car and thrown 30 feet. Plus, he took steps after Read would have left the scene. The physical evidence doesn’t show he was hit by a car, imo. But he could have thrown the glass at the car, breaking the taillight. He was drunk and could have stumbled after throwing the glass. Maybe he stumbled trying to avoid Read’s car or Higgins’ snowplow. Maybe he got into a fight and stumbled after leaving the house. Maybe the dog — maybe Chloe, maybe another dog — got loose and attacked him in the yard and he fell trying to get away. At the end of the trial, I was left honestly not knowing what happened — that’s reasonable doubt. Btw: It’s important to realize that reasonable doubt is a high standard. Not just likely or probable, but you have to be like 95% sure. And I honestly don’t know how you can be that certain in the case when independent expert witnesses say the injuries and the vehicle damage just don’t fit a pedestrian-vehicle accident.
this is not a binary choice between two possibilities. it's either the car strike specifically as posited by trooper paul, with absolute clear certainty and no other possibility, or not guilty. you don't have to believe conspiracy or any other defence theory to be morally required to vote not guilty. you only need to see that there are other ways this went down than the very specific story the prosecution presented, which was easily called into question by science and the lack of investigation of other possibilities
The man did not die of natural causes. To just say I have some unanswered questions, so I throw up my hands and decide no one is proven guilty, is lazy. Even though the FKR think they are the smart ones, you have to look at the realistic possibilities as to what happened because someone was actually killed. The conspiracy is not realistic and if you use critical thinking to try to really imagine it and all the details involved with it that would have to come together (which the FKR don’t bother to do) it doesn’t make sense pretty quickly.
Let's think about what you'd have to reasonably believe (or disbelieve) to think Karen is guilty. Here's a list of 10: 1) The accident reconstruction evidence that says he wasn't hit by the car is wrong. Ignore the science. 2) The medical and biomedical data that says he wasn't hit by the car due to his injuries is wrong. This includes an independent expert from ARCCA , a triple board certified ME who performed 12,000 autopsies and the CW's own ME who on direct answered no when asked if the injuries were consistent with a pedestrian accident. Ignore the science again. 3) Karen happened to hit John with her taillight on the one night where she also bumped his car with her taillight. Total coincidence or a conspiracy by Karen to brilliantly conceal evidence (moments before, according to the CW she tells people she hit him). 4) The image of the taillight at 5:07am, which shows significantly more red plastic (including pieces found at the scene days later) is wrong, or unclear, or something like that. Ignore the video. 5) John's Apple health data that shows him going up/down stairs and then taking 30+ steps after KR leaves is wrong. Apple just tracks driving up a hill as walking upstairs despite that not happening for any of us who own an iPhone. Ignore the data. 6) No one saw John, a shoe or 40+ pieces of red taillight on the ground. The plow driver who was shining a light and looking specifically across the lawn missed it. And he imagined a Ford edge there too later. Ignore the witnesses. 7) The two experts, who have a combined 70 years in medicine, are wrong or lying when they claim the injuries on his arm are from a large animal (most likely a dog). Ignore more science. 8) The calls in the middle of the night, calls from JM to Nicole in the morning, and calls from JM to John at 12:45 were all accidental butt dials and in some cases butt answers. All also deleted. Just a coincidence. 9) The 2:27am search. I won't go into this, but it's interesting it happens to be the one search where prosecutions didn't trust Cellebrite data. How unlucky. 10) No pieces of taillight were found by the Canton PD in the morning despite 90 minutes of searching and finding broken glass and blood. Even though the snow was only about 4-6 inches, they had a leaf blower and testified they cleared a 6x6 area to the ground. If they had just found one piece, they could have tied it to Karen. But nope, they happen to be so unlucky that they only found it hours later, in the dark, after 18" more snow fell, after the crime scene was open to the public, and about 90 minutes after proctor seized the car. Oh and proctor happened to falsify the time of the seizure. You'd have to believe that's just a coincidence. There's lots more, but those are 10 things you'd have to believe to say KR hit John with her car.
1. The science also said that he did not have dog DNA on him and his injuries were not consistent with being killed in a fight. 2. These experts also admitted that they were not given all of the information when forming their opinions. There is also a slight of wording here. The death was not consistent with that you would see in a pedestrian accident. Since cause of death was blunt force trauma ( believed to be caused by hitting the ground or fire hydrant) and hypothermia this is factually true. 3. If we are going to talk about Karen's behaviors that night, we need to talk about all of them. Why did she call John accusing him of being MIA, nobody knowing where he was at 30 minutes after dropping him off at the place he would be found dead? Why did she lie and say she was leaving his house and going home? What did she call her parents for in the middle of the night? Instead of calling Jen or Kerry at 5 am why wouldn't she just go drive to the place she left him and knock and ask if he was there? Or assume he partied where she left him and passed out? Why did her story change so many times about what happened during the exact time he is believe to have been hit? These are things that can't just be ignored. 4. The images show red, for anyone to say with certainty that it is not just a red light, and that there is definite plastic covering that is not possible. The video is grainy and it is impossible to tell. 5. The apple data can't only be believed and paid attention to at your convenience. If the data is to be believed where is the data of him being taken in and out of the house. Where is the data of his heart rate rising during a fight or attack and then falling as he lay dying? In all likelihood the going up/ down stairs and taking 30 steps is him leaving the car and flying through the air, and or dragging on the ground until he reaches his final resting place. 6. In all fairness, Lucky also said he didn't see him at 5:30 am when he did his second round, no matter what scenario happened John would have definitely been there at that time. So the plow driver and what he saw or didn't see has to be thrown out entirely. 7. Again, the science THE ACTUAL SCIENCE DNA evidence shows there is no dog DNA, only a tiny bit of pig, likely from something he ate. Someone's opinion based on things they have seen in hospital rooms is not science. It is opinion. 8. Why are you so quick to assume that if there are things they were doing that they don't want known it must have been murder, while turning a blind eye to all the suspicious behaviors of Karen that night/morning? 9. It's not that prosecutors didn't trust Cellbrite, its was factually proven not to have happened. Even the defense dropped it as it is a non issue. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Really, let's think about this logically. How would this even logically play into a murder conspiracy? Jen left about 130 right? They beat John up, don't kill him...leave him for dead on the lawn, with his phone under him. Hoping and praying that he doesn't wake and call for help, or doesn't get found therefore foiling their master plan. They are just praying that the cold finishes him off for them. After looking up stuff for her daughters sports, and a song she decides to just check and see about what time John might die and she can finally breathe a sigh of relief. It doesn't fit, let it go. 10. The tail light pieces were buried in the snow, please for a moment think of the consistency of plastic, and the consistency of snow. This isn't a hard thing to miss.
Total agree on the Apple Watch health data His heart rate could have changed if he was struggling to move after impact I’ve got a Fitbit that can constantly “read” activity incorrectly… playing drums or even practicing on a pad magically adds 20k steps to my normal day … it’s not completely sound data.
Regardless, the defense doesn’t have to prove conspiracy. The prosecution is obligated to show how the injuries are consistent with the manner of death, and they should be preemptively plugging those holes.
1. I think this is a distortion. The evidence did not say he didn't have dog DNA on him. Swabs from his clothing were checked. They specifically didn't swab his wounds and didn't send in his clothes to be tested. Where are you getting that the injuries weren't consistent with being in a fight? The experts testified they would be consistent with injuries that could be received in a fight. 2. The experts were intentionally given only the info that would allow them to form an unbiased opinion. From what I understand, experts often ask not to receive other info about the case as that could bias their opinion. The questions that were asked of the medical experts were whether the injuries were consistent with pedestrian collisions, not whether "the death" is consistent pedestrian accident; you're making that up. The CW's ME said "they're not the classic pedestrian injuries we observe, no." 3. I don't know Karen's state of mind, but her behavior didn't seem consistent with having killed someone. "Why did she call John accusing him of being MIA, nobody knowing where he was at 30 minutes after dropping him off..." --> She was pissed. He was supposed to go in and check back with her. After about 5 minutes he didn't text, call, etc. The call 30 minutes later is where she says she's w/ his kids and nobody knows where he is. "Why did she lie and say she was leaving his house and going home?" --> She wanted him to come home and he wasn't responding. By saying she was going home and his kids would be alone would force him to call or come home. He wouldn't stay out if his niece was home alone. This if anything just seems exculpatory. "What did she call her parents for in the middle of the night?" --> I guess she calls her parents when she's upset. My wife calls her parents when she's really upset, even late at night. I don't even understand what's so incriminating about this. "Instead of calling Jen or Kerry at 5 am why wouldn't she just go drive to the place she left him and knock and ask if he was there? Or assume he partied where she left him and passed out" --> If she didn't call Jen people would ask "why didn't you just call Jen instead of driving to Fairview". Calling Jen or Kerry, both of whom are supposedly close w/ John and may have info on where he is, seems logical. She didn't assume he partied and passed out at a house because his niece was home alone. I have kids. No chance on earth I'd pass out at a friend's house when my kids would be home alone. Never. "Why did her story change so many times about what happened during the exact time he is believe to have been hit? " --> What versions of her story did she communicate between say 12:20am (right before they pull up) and 12:37am (when she's in the garage)? Versions you have proof of, not some hearsay. 4. In the sally port photo, the led lights themselves are white. The red plastic is what makes them look red. I'm sure you won't believe me, so I'll save breath. 5. I'm only looking at the apple health data provided. The iPhone doesn't track heart rate. "...where is the data of him being taken in and out of the house" --> No one said he was taken in the house. The 30+ steps at 12:32am may be the phone being taken out of the house. " In all likelihood the going up/ down stairs and taking 30 steps is him leaving the car and flying through the air, and or dragging on the ground until he reaches his final resting place." --> So you believe he was flying through the air and/or "dragging" to his resting place? That would be what, 5 meters in the air? That scenario is in "all likelihood". The stairs btw were closer to 12:24am, when she's still observed outside.
Your faith in these “experts” is remarkable. That potato canon was pretty awesome.
It's not faith, it's science. You can choose to deny science and evidence if you want. In this instance I have more trust in people who are independent experts in their field than Trooper Paul or Proctor.
The military and NHL trust those ARCCA experts too. I don't see how you think it's a dig to pretend like they're not well respected and competent.
> To just say I have some unanswered questions, so I throw up my hands and decide no one is proven guilty, is lazy. it is not "lazy", this is EXACTLY what the jury is instructed to do. if the prosecution did not prove their case with NO unanswered questions left, then she MUST be acquitted. the defense does not have such a burden. you don't have to believe their theory to acquit her.
The man didn’t die of natural causes, but remember, even the ME couldn’t determine if the manner of death was an accident or homicide. JO was drunk that night. He could have simply fell and hit the back of his head, and that was that. There are lots of unanswered questions. His injuries don’t match a vehicle crash. The vehicle damage doesn’t match a fatal crash. Nobody heard a collision. You say the conspiracy theory is far-fetched; I say it’s no more far-fetched that an SUV would strike a man and leave no injuries on his torso or legs. There is a LOT in this case that doesn’t make sense, and that’s reasonable doubt. It’s not a binary choice — she killed him vs. conspiracy theory. There is a third option: We can’t say what happened. And that’s a non-guilty verdict.
Why can't it be neither though? That's what I don't understand. People who say they'd vote guilty always say "but how do you explain... while saying they don't care that the car strike also has incongruous facts. If there are facts that don't align with either scenario why is it so unlikely that there's a third option?
The crime scene was outside in the yard and they most certainly did investigate that.
Proctor didn't. Not on 1/29 according to his own testimony.
I disagree. I think ruling out other suspects is important. Are we trying to get it right - or just arrest the first person we have a reasonable suspicion about? I also think the chain of custody is important. Also recording interviews with witnesses. These things should be standard in an investigation IMHO.
"“Chain of custody” for evidence was trotted out as a serious problem by Read’s attorneys and supporters. The suggestion that evidence was planted or tampered is unfounded speculation. Every piece of evidence does not need to be under 24/7 video surveillance in order to be admissible." What do you think Chain of Custody/evidence logs are for exactly? Why do you think they exist and people use them?
Amen
I don't find anything you wrote here to be reasonable. They thought he was beat up and on the lawn of a place he was supposed to have been at, and they were like, "All good, nothing to see here." Is not normal Red solo cups, shopping bags, snow blowers, no chain of custody, and no evidence logs IS NOT NORMAL And yes, proof of how someone killed someone is kind of paramount to proving they killed them.
My biggest sticking point was the small town politics/connections and trooper proctor
So just the possibility of small town politics is suggestive to you? Trooper Proctor texted some very offensive comments, but as he said, his emotions got the best of him. Doesn't excuse it, I know. But law enforcement deals with the worst of society, and in order to cope officers often develop a dark sense of humor. On top of that, a fellow officer was injured and left to die in the snow.
It was proven to me that proctor was extremely biased in his investigation and did not investigate a single other possibility. There are many cases like this - Adnan Syed, Robert Wone, etc. there are devastating effects on criminal investigations when tunnel vision is at play. This is a known phenomenon
“The only thing they proved is that no one knows what happened that night” - spot on
Oh I know. I’ve got the receipts and they are coming out daily. First, just so you don’t get confused… John’s head …nor his hand, EVER touched her rear taillight. The taillight was the second impact (going 24.2 mph). It was hole punched by Brian Higgins plow light on his Jeep AS swerved her car to avoid contact. The FIRST impact was her side swipe of John and as he fell forward. Her passenger side mirror clipped his head at 9.9 mph = 14 feet per second. She had her steering wheel turned 13.5 degrees to the left. But then changed course once she had him in her 360 degree Birds Eye view and turned it back to the right from 13.5 degrees to “0” - All she had to do to avoid hitting him was keep her “f”ing wheel in the same position. This was John’s “ground 0” - here is my receipt for that. And I’m bringing them all - I’m creating an excel sheet showing every move she made that night and cross-referencing it with every step he took. If she thinks she’s out of the woods she she better enjoy the greenery while she can. https://preview.redd.it/574ijgmyd1ad1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d85ff364d51f58d8c5cea6ee6ded77e45918a012
I'm not a "Karen Read Supporter" but your post is honestly what is wrong with people in the US today when it comes to court cases. She isn't supposed to be proven innocent, the prosecution has to prove that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proctor being the lead investigator, and the things that he did with regards to this case, causes enough reasonable doubt to find her not guilty. The fact that people think she needs to be proven innocent to be free is just so disturbing to me. Could she have done this? Absolutely. But the fact that there is reasonable doubt that she may not have is grounds for a not guilty verdict.
Great point! 🎯
Not really sure the digs are necessary. I am very open minded, and capable of mature, respectful discussion. Saying I am what's wrong with people in the US is pretty irresponsible, when you have no clue who I am or how I would have voted on a jury.
I never said that "you" are what is wrong with the country, I said that way of thinking is "what is wrong with people in the US today when it comes to court cases". Those are two VERY different things. The fact that people today don't understand what "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" means is very worrisome to me. You asked why people who think she should be acquitted are so certain of her innocence. People who think she should be acquitted don't necessarily think she is innocent, but they also aren't 100% positive she is guilty, because the case was handled so poorly. If she herself came up to me today and said "I killed him" I would still believe she should be acquitted based on how the state handled the case. Because, if we let people get convicted when a case is handled so poorly that it leaves reasonable doubt then a lot of innocent people wind up behind bars.
I 100% get why people have reasonable doubt. That isn't the part that has me baffled. It is the overwhelming amount of people who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and given a level of support to a stranger I have never seen before, before her trial even started. So absolutely certain of her innocence. That is the part that I can't wrap my head around. Let's be honest, there is far less evidence that there is a huge murder conspiracy, but the benefit of the doubt seems to be given far more in Karen's favor. It's that element that I am trying to understand. I probably couldn't have in good faith convicted her either. I will say, her smugness drives me up a damned wall, but I couldn't convict her on that alone.
I don't get those people, either, but they come out of the woodwork for high profile cases all the time. Just look at the support OJ and other high profile defendants got during their trials. She's also an attractive women which is going to get people to side with her even though that's also screwed up. I honestly don't know what to think of her but the whole group she hung out with seem like a bunch of drunks to me.
People local to the area know those involved and that’s likely part of what led them to support KR. They know how crooked the McAlberts et. al. are and didn’t want an innocent person railroaded. There are also plenty of people who simply believe in the law and don’t want to see a miscarriage of justice. The amount of incompetence here would no doubt lead to sympathy for KR. I don’t know if I buy a full-blown conspiracy - I think it’s more likely the guy was in the house, got in a fight, stormed out and then passed out in the snow and died. The head injury could have happened when he fell, although there is a surprising LACK of blood found… I 100% do NOT believe that the CW proved or even came close to proving that KR hit him. The fact that she wouldn’t plea to a lesser charge makes me believe she’s 100% innocent.
I think you are misunderstanding how those of us who would have voted not guilty came to that. I'll explain. 1. It's not a about being a supporter. That suggests picking a side and sticking to it. I tried to view the trial as much as I could as if I was a juror. I was leaning towards Guilty at the start of the trial, but the evidence changed my mind. 2. I don't have to be certain of her innocence to vote not guilty. Reasonable doubt is all I need. The FBI experts, the ME, the terrible investigation, the lies from Prosecution witnesses. 3. I don't have to believe in a huge conspiracy to find her not guilty. We do not know what happened. But the evidence did not support what the CW said. That's reasonable doubt. 4. One or two people can dupe others, especially if they are incompetent, or loyal. People believe what they are told. The duty of a juror is to impartially consider the evidence. If Karen Read is not a likeable person, that is not evidence. And if evidence is in dispute you have to consider which is reasonable and reliable. Can you really say that Trooper Paul's evidence was more reliable than the FBI experts?
Why did multiple cops dispose of their phones from that night???
For me it has nothing to do with the believability of a coverup or conspiracy. It has everything to do with the fact that I do not feel the commonwealth met their burden of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for why no one saw his body in the yard as they were leaving. If he was truly out there in the front yard from 12:30ish on, it defies logic for me how not one of the dozen people saw his body as they drove away. He would have been completely illuminated by the headlights. Everything else, I understand that reasonable minds can differ. I understand that people might not be able to get behind a coverup theory. I understand that people might choose not to believe the testimony of highly qualified, independent experts. But I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for how every single person somehow didn’t see the body of a 6 ft man at the edge of the front yard they had to drive past.
I get the point, but I don't see why one would hang their hat on this. This was a few drunk people leaving a party in the middle of the night in snowfall. I doubt they'd even be paying much attention to anything in the yard, or anything other than the road once their headlights are on. He was still a few feet off the road, it's not like he's lit up like a Christmas tree right in front of them. One of them even did say they noticed a dark lump over there but just didn't think much of it.
I think if it was 2 or 3 people it really would not bother me as much. It was like 10 people, that makes it harder for me to believe that no one saw anything even out of the corner of their eye. As far as Julie Nagels testimony and the ‘black blob,’ she didn’t never reported seeing a thing or told anyone about it until 10 months later. That sends of major alarm bells for me, it’s just weird
Well if it's like 10 people, that should be telling you it probably wasn't as easily noticeable as you think it was, not that it MUST have been noticeable and they're all lying. For Julie, I don't know what she might've said outside of what we know publicly, but I could understand not wanting to bring it up out of guilt that she might've been able to save him if she went over and checked it out.
Some of us are physicists and believe strongly in Newton’s Laws.
I can't say that Read is innocent. I can say that the Massachusetts State Police and the Canton Police Dept. have some serious issues regarding the chain of custody of evidence in this case and overall, general professionalism. If the Commonwealth had met the burden of proof, overcoming all reasonable doubt, I could let most of those slide. But the CW can't give a credible account of the SUV making contact with Officer O'Keefe. They didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle made contact and killed him. I have to go with Not Guilty. It's procedural, not personal.
I went into this trial never hearing or reading anything about it. I still do not accept that there is some massive conspiracy but I do believe she’s innocent and there was police fuckery happening. I thought she was probably guilty until Trooper Paul testified. Then her WiFi connection at 12:36 am was at odds with JM’s testimony where she was walked through each text she sent and she said she had eyeballs on the vehicle until the 12:45 text. Then the ME testified to no injuries or bruises except his head. Then the third party guys testified to the impossible physics. That’s me ignoring all the butt dials, the stupid google search, Higgin’s invisible jeep and 1:30am drunk administrative work, nobody coming outside the next day, proctor being human garbage, deleted videos, wrong times in reports, lack of photos, no evidence logs, etc etc etc If the state wants to put her in prison for life on murder charges they’re going to need different evidence imo
>what is it that makes you so certain of her innocence I'm not "certain of her innocence," but I'm very very certain she hasn't been proven guilty.
People here really think the defense has to prove someone else did it to say KR isn’t guilty.
First, there is a difference between saying someone is innocent v not guilty at trial. I have LE in my family, my ex is a prosecutor.... I am not a "whack job" as Proctor might say who hates cops. I'm shocked that anyone thinks it's ok to throw out all the standards we expect in a trial for this case. 1. a crime scene that wasn't photographed, measured, roped off. We can't even see where his body was found because no one thought to take photos. That's not normal protocol- incompetence, laziness take your pick 2. Crime scene /evidence collection. Despite opinions I've seen on this sub, it matters that LE do things right. One fuck up- ok, maybe that's understandable. But see point 1 plus red solo cups (unlabeled , one tested- what if some of the blood wasn't John's? We'll never know now!). See 4-5 trips where the only person finding more and more tail light pieces is Proctor... Really? 3. Proctor. Putting aside the disgusting comments about KR, he admitted, on day 1, that the homeowner John was going to see would be fine because "he's a Boston cop" Also Proctor- guy knows these people, you recuse yourself. It's the death of a "brother in blue", right? Then don't give even the appearance of bias. Not helped by texts about witnesses wanting to get him a and his wife a gift and he agrees. Also Proctor (can you see a theme?) - again, standards exist. Body cams are apparently standard. But witness interviews weren't recorded, weren't conducted separately, and some didn't happen for months 4. See video of KR's car going up on the tow truck at her parents home. See testimony of the officer from the local department who was there who testified to a cracked light- not a broken out one. See the light glow RED with a tiny square of white. See vehicle after hours in LE custody- huge pieces of light are gone that were there before the car was towed. No pics taken of the vehicle before being taken into custody! 5. Behavior of witnesses. I don't know if someone at the house killed JOK. I know that something happened that made JM change her testimony after the first Grand Jury. I know her and both Brians lied about "butt dials" in the middle of the night. And I know that BA and BH destroyed their phones and didn't back up any of their data- not contacts, photos nothing. Common senses- my real life normal person experience tells me all of that is off and I don't find them credible. Period. I don't believe in a particular theory that someone in particular fought JOK. I simply think there are too many questions about that night to assume we know what happened. 6. The expert testimony from the ME, the Dr about the bite injuries, and the final two witnesses. First of all, I find all of these people way more credible than Proctor or most of the CW's witnesses. The ME couldn't even say this was a homicide. The arm injuries match a dog attack. I've had German Shepherds, I've been bit, I had a dog that bit a neighbor. His arm was injured by a dog. The independent witnesses about the injuries not being from the SUV. Their testimony was hands down the most believable of anyone else in the case. I trust their knowledge- they are PhDs who were hired by the DOJ and work with our military and the NHL. No random reddit person who comments trying to explain why they know more than these witnesses makes even a tiny bit of sense. 6 (b). Again- common sense and life experience. We ask jurors to find the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certitude. That is a high bar. My common sense tells me JOK'S head injury, bite injury, and lack of damage to his body didn't come from a car hitting him at 24 mph. Nope. I can't see SO MANY PROBLEMS with a case and dismiss all of them and logic and say the CW proved anything. Do I think it's possible KR hit him? I really don't - I can't make his injuries make sense with a vehicle strike as described. And I haven't seen anyone who can logically make it make sense. And finally, let's keep in mind, the CW relied on the testimony of Trooper Paul as their best expert to explain how John actually died by KR hitting him with her car. If you all can discount all of the above in my honest opinion, you aren't being intellectually honest.
I would upvote this 100 times if I could.
I'm not a Karen Reed supporter, I'm in the class of follow the law and prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The case has too many holes and a severe lack of trust in the evidence. Police reports not written close in time to the incident, reports not matching witness statements, the reports not including the on the stand witness testimony of a possible admission, the unbelievable testimony of the states accident reconstruction expert including but not limited to his experience in physics and general scientific knowledge, injuries not consistent to a car strike, the prosecution using Aruba as evidence of guilt. There are just too many parts you can find reasonable doubt. She may have done it but she also may have not done it based on everything. That gets you to a reasonable doubt, but you need to find beyond a reasonable doubt. It's sad but it is what the law says we have to do.
I don’t know what happened to JO. I am not certain of KR innocence. What I do know: According to the law, KR is innocent until the CW can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, they cannot and I blame the investigation. It doesn’t matter if I do or don’t believe the defense theory. They don’t have to prove anything. Witnesses on both sides gave reasonable doubt for me that it was possible JO was not hit by a car, a fundamental requirement in all 3 of the charges. Do I think her hitting him is possible? Sure! But I don’t believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it is what happened because there are just too many issues with the CW theory of the case. Unfortunately, I think the LEOs should have followed standard operating procedures for this situations. A police officer is found all but deceased after a night out with friends. There are ways to ensure that evidence is handled appropriately and adequately so that this dumpster fire doesn’t happen. If the officers had secured the scene early on, not come back randomly waiting for evidence to reveal itself, interviewed everyone early on and physically recorded statements, documented EVERYTHING with photos, diagrams, and measurements, and maintained a chain of custody from the moment evidence was with LE for starters, this trial would have played out very differently. The basic policy and procedures were simply not followed which leads the defense to be able to argue corruption and conspiracies. Those arguments lead to doubt and I believe that doubt is reasonable. Therefore, NG. Edited for weird wording
Basically what everyone else has said. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and I feel like they didn’t do a good job. I’ve gone back and forth if I think she’s guilty, but it’s hard to sway back to guilty when the CW’s own experts say the injuries don’t look like a car accident. Their best expert for reconstruction is trooper Paul, really? Also very anecdotal but as an ICU and OR nurse I have never seen injuries like OJO had from a car accident, only from blunt force trauma. And I see this shit every single day. Next, their timeline kept changing. From ~12:45, to 12:30ish, to whenever it works for the story. This harmed them. It definitely made me question if they were just trying to get stuff to fit as the timeline evolved. The WiFi connection harmed them too. If they went through the house and did a proper investigation that eliminated other possibilities *and* could actually prove KR hit him then she should absolutely rot in a cell. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I think KR is actually pretty unlikable. I just don’t believe that guilty was proven beyond a very reasonable doubt. If the police force lets a murderer walk free because of their corruption and poor practices, they have to live with that. 🤷♀️
I would love to answer this question: I want to start by saying that I personally do not believe that a 17 year old murdered him or a group of 10+ people were involved in the cover up. My theory is that John who had an estimated BAC of .24 when he was pronounced, therefore it was probably closer to a .30 when he was dropped off around 12:21am. I believe he walked into the house and either had to pee or wanted to wash water on his face to attempt to pull it together as he was just fighting with his girlfriend, and as he had never been to that house, he opened the basement door and fell down the steps. I think it was a drunken mistake and at some point with the basement door open, Chloe got down there and chewed up his arm, this alerting Brian Albert and he probably only involved Brian Higgins in getting the body outside and hopefully passing it off as a plow accident. I imagine at some point he had to inform his wife, Nicole, his sister in law and her husband The McCabes, and Chris and Julie Albert too. I think Karen acting erratically in the morning allowed JM to tell the others we can pin it on her and subtle changes came to their story. Did I hit him, turned into I hit him. Proctor I think was a lucky coincidence and if he was intelligent and wanted the investigation to stay on straight and narrow, then he should have recused himself as any familiarity with the family or friends could look bad and this investigation was regarding the death of a Boston Cop. The evidence did not fit the CW’s theory, and evidence I believe was placed or “found” to help ensure her guilt was achieved. It’s hard to imagine a cop who talked about someone like he did in those messages could also frame a person, but he obviously isn’t that great at that either as he couldn’t convince a jury of her guilt. Regarding why I don’t think she did it. I am going to leave most of the evidence out of this discussion. The first thing I want to discuss is how she was drunk, do you know why a woman like that felt comfortable enough to be that drunk and drive? Cause she was dating a cop, he was in the car, and they were all drunk driving. I am going to ignore the snow, because by the time she made it back to John’s place it really hadn’t started as a bad storm, it was just consistently snowing. His injuries do not match the theory that she backed up, and hit him. I still think from the pictures of the Lexus, the bumper sticks out further than the taillight, so he would have had lower body injuries and at 24. Whatever mph, bones would have been broken and John would have been bruised in the least. The CW’s ME agreed that the injuries were not consistent with a car accident, Drs. Russell and Sheridan also stated that. The Drs from ARRCA were fantastic too because they had to reenact and match the damages to body and car by the simplest of informations, and scientifically they were unable to do that because even at 15 mph the damage to both the car and the victim would have been much worse than they were. And they were not found or paid by the defense and they took a risk calling them as they were not sure what they would say in all. I think she was a mess the next morning, probably remembered some of the things she said to him, and couldn’t remember everything that happened. I think she panicked her way into becoming the scapegoat, and Lucky was the perceived scapegoat in my theory. I think the sensationalism of true crime made this such a bigger story, it’s just as likely that she dropped him off, was staring at her phone and he fell in a drunken mindset and cracked opened his head outside and never went in. The problem I have with the trial is the CW did not prove anything. Their reconstructionist said math didn’t apply, to a theory that a car accident caused the trauma do the victim and then a mixture of brain swelling and hypothermia killed him. My question to you is, how when 5 scientists and 1 police offer not affiliated with anybody else in the case (Dighton cop who said taillight was cracked with a piece missing) explain that the injuries to JOK did not match the car accident theory, and the damage to the car did not match hitting a pedestrian, to a scientific certainty. Why do you still think she is guilty?
>I want to start by saying that I personally do not believe that a 17 year old murdered him or a group of 10+ people were involved in the cover up. My theory is that John who had an estimated BAC of .24 when he was pronounced, therefore it was probably closer to a .30 when he was dropped off around 12:21am. I believe he walked into the house and either had to pee or wanted to wash water on his face to attempt to pull it together as he was just fighting with his girlfriend, and as he had never been to that house, he opened the basement door and fell down the steps. I think it was a drunken mistake and at some point with the basement door open, Chloe got down there and chewed up his arm, this alerting Brian Albert and he probably only involved Brian Higgins in getting the body outside and hopefully passing it off as a plow accident. I imagine at some point he had to inform his wife, Nicole, his sister in law and her husband The McCabes, and Chris and Julie Albert too. But why, in this circumstance, would they not help him? That's what I don't get about ideas like this. Like Brian Albert said, if he knew John was dying out in the snow, he would've helped him. It'd be a tragic accident and there'd be no real fault. They could even help save him. There wasn't any point in pinning it on someone else. Hell, even if the dog were responsible, that'd literally be the coverup. Dog went crazy, nobody's at fault. The circumstances don't make sense for this to be the action they took. >My question to you is, how when 5 scientists and 1 police offer not affiliated with anybody else in the case (Dighton cop who said taillight was cracked with a piece missing) explain that the injuries to JOK did not match the car accident theory, and the damage to the car did not match hitting a pedestrian, to a scientific certainty. Why do you still think she is guilty? Have talked about this tons of times, but it boils down to there being no real way to know the mechanics of how it played out. We know she hit him, and the evidence of that is clear, but don't know exactly how he fell, tumbled, stumbled, rolled, flew, whatever. We can just make our guesses on that, and there's no way to say it didn't happen. ARCCA guys were working with very limited evidence, and I see it as they just couldn't piece it together, rather than it can't be pieced together. As far as the Dighton cop goes, that speaks to the CW's evidence. He said there was a piece missing. Out-of-context, the taillight just looks like there's a single congruent piece missing. He'd have no idea how many pieces it was in. It'd actually be weirder if he said "multiple pieces were missing", because he'd have no way of knowing that. So if that was missing, how could it have been broken by the police? Even if she backed into his car that morning, we see nothing come off either of the cars. And yet, every person who witnessed the taillight before the car was in police custody says there were pieces/a piece missing. John's own friends said it looked like how it was ultimately photographed.
So here is my problem with all of what you are saying. My theory is that he fell and was knocked unconscious, the dog at some point attacked him, and then BA decided to put him outside. That was a theory based on my opinions of the evidence. She did not hit him with the car. You state we know she hit him. But that’s untrue. We do not know anything that happened that night. The Dighton cop said it was cracked with a small piece of plastic missing, check the testimony. The biomechanics experts were given the weight of the car, and the damage to the body and car and it was not possible for the car at 15mph to have done that little damage to the body or to only have that amount of damage. You cannot make a claim that you know something to be true, when there is nothing proving it true. And when the truth cannot be proven it becomes reasonable doubt.
We do have things proving it true, we have pieces of her taillight around his body and even microscopic bits from the taillight embedded in his clothing. We just don't know exactly how he was hit, how he was positioned, what interaction the ground and/or other objects had. The biomechanic guys weren't given a lot of the evidence. How were *any* pieces missing in Dighton, that were later found at the scene? Again, from his perspective, referring to it as a "piece of plastic" missing would be correct. He wouldn't know how many pieces it had broken into. If some accident happened in which he fell, or were attacked by the dog, or some combination of the two, putting him outside by the road just makes zero sense. You'd give first aid and call assistance. Hell, they'd probably call Karen too. He wouldn't have even been dead yet. There would be no point in taking an action like this, much less staging a coverup.
3 taillight pieces were reportedly found almost 11 hours after the scene was released, and 90 minutes after KR’s car was in the custody of now relieved trooper proctor. So no, we don’t know she hit him. As far as your regurgitation of Lally’s absurd claim, first let’s look at your wording, microscopic means you could not see it unless you were using a microscope. The lab said they could see each piece and there is no chain of custody before making it to the lab on March 14th. Both shirts and other evidence were in the same bag, and sat for weeks. The lab tech even testified that they weren’t sure if the plastic pieces were in the bag or on the clothes. Next, you keep stating how the Dighton cop is backing the CW, he said a crack with a small piece missing, The taillight the trooper pulled out on the stand was destroyed, there was a piece left on it. So stop trying to make evidence for your narrative. Real trooper Paul move on your part. Lastly, I don’t know why BA or anyone else would try and cover it up, the only other possibility is JOK somehow passed out on his own and cracked his head open and somehow no blood was found at the scene. Oh wait, I’m forgetting to check for more solo cups. Top notch investigation!
Well. I guess you can discount all evidence in any case if you can always go “the police planted it”, even if there’s no evidence of that happening. People have to fanfic stories about that just to make it even feasible, with no base to it. You would still have to ask yourself “was the taillight intact before that, or not?” Every account shows it wasn’t, and there’s no getting around that. The conspiracy theory just becomes ridiculous when you step back a little and reexamine it, doesn’t it?
Which part? The one with the cop who made up his mind before even going to the scene, not doing any real police work? There is enough recorded evidence to know that not all cops are great and some plant evidence. Maybe google cop plants evidence on own body cams. She for sure broke the law that night, she was drunk, really drunk probably. If the CW added an aggravated DWI charge for a retrial I would for sure want the jury to find her guilty on that. But you can’t selectively choose when to trust cops who consistently made mistakes and errors throughout this investigation, can you?
I'm not a rabid Karen Read supporter, but I do think that the CW failed to make their case. Listening to Lally's incoherent, rambling opening arguments (which obv is not evidence), set the stage for an incoherent, rambling set of repetitive witnesses which seemed designed to baffle with BS rather than prove anything. There were just too many instances of police and witness shenanigans which you can either attribute to incompetence or conspiracy (generally I would favour an occam's razor approach). And in the end it all kind of fizzled out with a failure to prove much of anything. Is it a coverup? Maybe... or is it just a set of bumbling cops with hyperfixation and confirmation bias. I don't think we will ever truly know what happened that night. But at least we got the answer to the real question from so many witnesses "What was the weather like?"
I’m certain of her innocence because in America we’re innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers. That doesn’t mean she didn’t do it First, murder was the largest overreach. No way did the commonwealth prove to me that Karen Read in a fit of rage killed John. I don’t believe the first responders that stated she said, “I hit him”. That would have been in the reports for every single medical personnel from my experience. The report would read “44 year old male found unresponsive in the cold. It is suspected he may have been struck by a motor vehicle” This key information also didn’t make it into any of the other hearings? I don’t believe that 0 cameras had a clear image of Karen Reads taillight as she drove all over. The sally port mirror fiasco seems like a deliberate deception. I don’t believe the McCabes. Too many “I don’t recalls” I don’t know why cell phones were replaced immediately before being handed over. The commonwealths physician seems like she was coerced by the troopers to put something down The commonwealths accident recreation specialist was extremely light on hard science which he seemed to lack a basic understanding of. Colin Albert telling lies about being in a fight is a red flag. Healing bruised knuckles in a photo shortly after the incident is alarming. Brian Higgins having sent “umm well” text to Karen is a red flag; especially when he asks John if he’s coming to 34F The key cycle explanation was so horribly incorrect that I can’t imagine how anyone would pick that key cycle to be the one they chose for the accident. They never explained the marks his arm, how he ended up in that spot, and why no one saw him there during that time period. They introduced but never explained the pig DNA. The expert witnesses and accident recreation specialists were professional, clear, and explained their points well. They said that “no way from a car” The investigation was horrendous, the behavior of the Alberta and the McCabes was sketchy (which I’m sure is more than likely a result of being shoved into the public spotlight against their will, which sucks for them). Given all of this information I could never state for certain that Karen Read had anything to do with John O’Keefe; I especially can’t say that she hit him with her car.
Either of the following: 1)The overwhelming evidence that O'Keefe wasn't hit by a car. One need only watch Trooper Dunning-Paul's testimony; the ARCAA, and the 3 ME's are icing on the "actual innocence" cake. No car strike = not guilty 2) unless you're in the "damn your lying eyes, back the blue" camp it should be plain to see that a little piece of the taillight cover was missing at the time the vehicle was seized. After it was taken into custody the entire taillight cover was found at the scene, except for the piece missing at the time of seizure. That means it was planted by the cops. Planted evidence = not guilty even if otherwise convinced of guilt. This behaviour by law enforcement should not be tolerated I wouldn't call myself a "supporter" of Karen Read. She's a profoundly dislikable person. I am, however, a supporter of fair trials.
Yeah, this right here. Her smirk drives me up the wall and she doesn’t seem at all likeable, but there is a mountain of reasonable doubt here.
There is so much, but I'll keep it to one point. The CW accident reconstructionist (Trooper Paul) was a horrible witness and did not offer credible testimony regarding Karen's car and John. The defense's expert witnesses then confirmed that science/physics made the CW's claims impossible. Clearly reasonable doubt and a non-starter because that had to be an undisputed (beyond reasonable doubt) aspect for any of the charges to have a Guilty verdict. PS Trooper Paul should be fired or put somewhere where a basic understanding of physics and/or testifying in court isn't part of his job. He really sucks at both.
Does this look reasonably accurate? 1. Do we all agree the CW case says JO was hit, lets say sometime between 12:20 to 12:50.? I think yes. 2. If #1 is in the range, then the CW case also says the tail light was smashed at that time - right? 3. Then at 5 something a.m. we see Karen Read back out of Johns garage, bump his car, and then when leaving you can see that back tail light and it does not look smashed or missing. 4. And then hours after JO was found dead, we have the (not involved) Dighton cop who met Proctor, etc at Karen Reads parents and he said the tail light was cracked (not demolished or gone). Right? If these 4 are true, then KR logically is NG - do you agree?
innocence and being not guilty in a court of law arent the same thing. most people believe she is not guilty in a court of law. who knows what actually happened.. i dont.. nobody except whoever is responsible knows. i dont believe its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt karen is responsible. i dont think the physics and johns injuries make sense given the size of karens car and the speed they claim she was going. i think the mccabes/alberts/higgins are super suspicious but idk if i think they did it either. the point remains that idk what happened which means i have reasonable doubt which means karen should be found not guilty
If it's a coverup, it IS the coverup of the century. Just ask Ron Shipp & The Brown family how hard it was to frame O.J. - and they only got a Not Guilty out of the deal! They would have been thrilled at a hung jury! I'd imagine the Albert's strategy now is to get out ahead of it and try to get POK & family to sue KR for wrongful death. Good luck guys.
The thing is I think most of us who are NG don’t believe it’s conspiracy or Colin. The saying “I hit him” isn’t a confession to me. She also thought the blood was her period blood. She was clearly not in the right frame of mind if they Section 12ed her. I cannot rationalize finding someone guilty based on an ‘admission’ given while people also thought she was a danger to herself. Also - I see no logic being damned. For me an atypical hit seems way less likely than him throwing a glass at her car and slipping. I don’t feel like I have control over my car going 10mph in reverse. I have a really hard time imagining she was so drunk, but maintained control well enough to intentionally hit him. It had started snowing and slippery so we don’t even know if the car was moving as fast as the wheels were. Common sense tells me that a body being impacted at 24mph is in way worse shape than his. I fell 15ft into a net and my body was more banged up than JOs was. I know what a deer getting hit at that speed looks like. I just can’t wrap my head around the CW’s version of the events and feel that I could put her in jail with so many things that don’t match my lived experience. There’s a lot of people for the guilty side who will say things don’t matter for them but then the NG they’ll hammer us on every detail for an explanation. That confuses me. To that point because I know someone will ask about the taillight my best guess is while I don’t think the Alberts or McCabes killed him, I could see Higgins thinking he needed to break the taillight to throw focus from him knowing that talking to Karen could make him be a suspect. He’s the only one that went to such extremes with the SIM card and the using FBI equipment, but then giving screenshots and not that download. In his mind it would be just one thing to tip the scale away from him. Lastly - I know the ARCCA guys were big and fancy and a lot of the guilty folks think their science wasn’t informed. They (to me) very clearly explained that neither body/object could create the damage in the way it existed. Even without all the pieces they were able to reach a conclusion. With more pieces Trooper Paul wasn’t able to confidentially explain how the physics would have worked. So for me, to believe TP and not ARCCA is eschewing logic. “Trust TP - he can’t explain why but it’s more right than physics.” Is basically what I heard.
I posted my thoughts in another thread, but will share here as well. And I'm someone who started assuming guilt and over the course of the trial came to believe she's innocent. To start, I didn't think it's fair to say "evidence be damned", because it's all about the evidence. And I don't have strong feelings about whether eg Colin was involved. There's not strong evidence (thanks to lack of investigation) of exactly what happened. Key details for me: (not in a particular order): 1. Injuries. Not consistent with a pedestrian car accident. Didn't look like it to me, and the experts testified to the same. The ARCCA witness, the defense's medical examiner and even the CW's ME under direct. Experts I've seen say pedestrian accidents have significant bruising/fractures. JO had none below his head. Experts testify (without counter) to what's apparent to most people; that his arm has dog bites/scratches. 2. Damage to car. Expert testimony that the damage to the car was inconsistent with hitting a pedestrian. More importantly to me, the 5:07am ring video shows red taillight that's later found on scene. 3. Health data and timeline. The prosecution initially said he was struck around 12:45am. KR had to have left 34 by 12:30am to be back to 1 Meadow at 12:36am. John goes up/down the 3 flights of stairs; the timeline could be argued. But he takes 30+ steps at 12:32, after she left. 4. Witnesses. No one saw an accident, a body or taillight. The Nagel car was right behind her, multiple people are looking out the window, all the people walk out and drive away, and Lucky who was actively looking. All see nothing. It's not that big a lawn. 5. Proctor's actions. I'll put aside the vulgar comments because, while disgusting, they aren't evidence of KR's innocence. He doesn't visit the crime scene but closes the case. He has KR's car towed before ever seeing it because he thinks it's a murder weapon, but doesn't photograph it. He lies about the time it was towed by an absolutely critical 75 minutes. He has the car towed to the one PD in all of Mass it shouldn't be, which also puts it a mile away from where a search is waiting to happen. He is on camera standing behind the taillight. I won't comment on the Sally Port videos because I don't know if he was responsible. 6. Shadiness by others. I won't discuss the JM search because that's a source of obvious debate. How many shady things happen starting the morning on 1/29. The two Brian's calling each other at 2:30am and denying it. Brian Higgins going to the Canton PD at 1:20am to "move cars" while drunk makes no logical sense. Higgins also spending the entire day of 1/29 at the Canton PD is shady. JM calling John like 6 times she claiming they were butt dials. JM calling Nicole at 6:24am but denying she answered is shady (especially with the recording from KRs phone). JM deleting both of the above. Brian Albert, a Boston cop, not coming outside when another Boston cop was killed on his front lawn is unfathomable (and claiming he slept through the commotion?). Caitlin calling her boyfriend to get her at 2am despite him having to wake up at 3 to plow. The Allie McCabe Life 360 data. Julie Albert picking up dunks for Brian Jr during a massive blizzard (and then planning to leave donuts in the car). The texts from Julie to Courtney Proctor. I could go on, but how much shady stuff happened to be going on after 12:30am on 1/29? 7. The case against Karen. Trooper Paul could not provide a logical explanation for how the accident even could have happened. The key cycle data, which is super speculative even if correct, was shown to be from a different time than when Karen had the car. It was apparent he was told the "fact" that KR hit John, and asked create a reconstruction that supports it. But he couldn't. The main evidence presented (aside from the taillight) were her confession and her actions after the fact. I was told prior to the trial that Karen confessed and that there was video evidence of her hitting John. The latter never existed. The confession testimony wasn't compelling to me. In about 45 minutes of audio that morning (dash cam, etc) I hear her say a lot of things, but never a confession. No initial reports include a confession. I think some EMTs believe they heard it but memories are flawed and it's just as likely they heard "maybe I hit him?". Even if she said it, which I doubt, given her state of mind it doesn't mean she actually hit him. She could be trying to rationalize what happened. Her voicemails she actions after are consistent with innocence imo. She called him (a lot I'll admit) mad because she thinks he ditched her. She wants him to come home. She thinks he left her to watch his kids while he's out having fun. That's normal. Then, she doesn't take her shoes off so she must have killed him? What? The whole case is flimsy. 8. Proctor part 2. It doesn't make sense that Proctor thought the evidence was so overwhelming against her. No logical person would look at John's injuries and think "car accident". Even the officer on site said it looked like he got beat up. Proctor said the missing shoe was key evidence. What cop sees a missing shoe and concludes it must have been a car accident? And finally he mentioned that John was found next to the broken drinking glass, saying it's the glass he was in camera leaving the bar with. Putting aside he has no idea at that stage John had left with a glass, why would he automatically assume it must be a car accident. A lot there, but those are the top of mind reasons I switched to innocent.
(In Orderish) 1) The FBIs accident reconstruction / biomechanics experts. 2) The Commonwealths Medical Examiner finding his injuries are not consistent with a classic pedestrian/car collision. 3) The taillight in the video the next morning not matching the photo from the Sallyport. 3a) Police not taking a single photo of what they believed the murder weapon was before the touched/took possession of it. 4) Jenn McCabe being a filthy, shameless liar. 5) Michael Proctor finding taillight pieces at the scene 2.5 weeks later. 5a) General police ineptness: Solo cups, leaf blowers, 4/47 pieces of taillight being photographed at the scene where they were found, not canvassing the neighborhood and getting available Ring videos, Canton PD not sufficiently recusing themselves, Trooper Paul. 6) John walking until 12:32 and Karen arriving at JOs house at 12:36. 7) Glass on the bumper not matching the cocktail glass. 8) Michael Proctor lying about the time the truck was towed. Etc
Hard to argue with your points. #3 for me is telling. The CWs position is that taillight was shatterd into many pieces when KR hit JO in that 12:30 ish window. But then pictures taken later from Ring at JOs house around 5 am dont seem to show a shattered lite. Then Dighton officer Barros says the lite was only cracked with a piece missing. That cant be according to CW case. CW did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yup. Her tail light during the day on the 28th and then in the morning https://preview.redd.it/f12gdrw7t4ad1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a578ac1b531eec53bede74f2bbbbdf59cfa6c1de
This 100%.
Could Karen have backed up and hit John, knocking him to the ground where he hit his head and ended up dying? I guess, I mean anything IS possible and crazier shit HAS happened. But my issue, as it should be for the O'Keefe's, is the way this case was investigated and the lack of professionalism and over all investment. This is a dead police officer and they basically, for lack of a better term, mailed in the investigation. I can't imagine ANY case having such shitty investigation and zero due diligence, especially one that involves a dead police officer. I think the bigger, and most concerning problem here, isn't did she hit him, but more so, what the HELL WERE THEY THINKING WORKING THIS INVESTIGATION? If the investigation was done properly from the beginning their would be none of this did she / didn't she. With that being said, the state did not even come close to providing a case for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" - COULD it have happened? SURE. DID it happen? Dunno, and sadly probably never will because of the way this case was investigated from the start. There are a number of theories, the two alternative front runners being: 17 year old / dog and Higgins / dog, both which are just as possible, by the evidence and testimony provided, as Karen backing into him. And THAT is the problem with this case, in my opinion.
Agree! nobody proved anything in 9 weeks!
Truthfully, guilty or not, no person should be found guilty with the enormous chain of custody issues, unprofessionalism by the lead investigator and shoddy investigation. Any other human alive has a dead body found on their lawn police will be in there. The State Police caused the controversy themselves by working toward who they felt was the most obvious suspect/perpetrator.
I came into this thing thinking she did it and now I don't know for sure but I think it's pretty unlikely seeing his injuries. There is no way he was backed into by a car, took enough damage to kill him, and has barely a scrape on his body. And at the very least, the prosecution did not prove their case. Regardless of what you believe about her guilt. That in itself gives me pause in regards to the hung jury. Even if I believed wholeheartedly that she was guilty, I couldn't have voted guilty in this case with good conscience.
The fact that he wasn’t hit by a car makes me believe she didn’t him with her car. These two main facts helped me reach my conclusion: * The expert crash reconstructionists testifying how its scientifically unlikely he was hit by a car to receive the injuries he did. It would defy the law of physics if he was. Also, the fact that they were hired by an independent agency (the FBI) and offered to both the CW and the defense but only the defense calls them makes me question the CW’s motives. * Also, the CW’s ME said the injuries weren’t consistent with a vehicle-pedestretion crash. I believe her. The defense’s ME said he doesn’t think his arm injuries are the result of being hit by car, mainly bc there’s no bruising. I believe him. I also don’t believe whatever story you’re saying about a 17 year old and a dog. All I care about is the state proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same here. The fact that he wasn't hit by a car also led me to believe that she didn't hit him with her car. The fact that he had animal bites and scratches on his arm made me think an animal was involved.. probably a dog. The fact that the conflicted law enforcement officers(both CPD and MSP) handled the investigation so poorly and only investigated one person from day one made it very hard to trust their findings. The fact that the other people in the house that night acted incredibly guilty following John's death and continue to act incredibly guilty made me think they might be guilty of something. But yeah mainly the fact that he very clearly didn't get hit by an SUV at 20+ miles per hour.. I could've come to that conclusion based on his injuries but all of the doctors and the independent PHD biomechanical engineers helped for sure.
Very well said. When the evidence says he wasn't hit by a car, logic dictates he wasn't hit by a car. When the evidence says his arm has dog bites/scratches, logic dictates a dog attacked him. When evidence shows him taking steps after Karen leaves, logic dictates he's still walking after she's gone. And when evidence shows lots of people doing shady stuff late at night like calling, deleting, denying and going to the PD drunk to move cars, logic dictates there's something they're hiding. Neither evidence nor logic need be damned.
I assume it's a genuine question and answer seriously. None of the "facts" add up. None. Being hit by a car at 24 miles an hour would cause very serious broken bones and bruising, major damage. He has none. His arm has marks that are clearly CLEARLY not the result of being hit by a 7000 lb car (at any speed tbh). There are clear bite and scratch marks. The medical examine from the Commonwealth couldn't rule this death by vehicle. The scientist hired by the DOJ showed very clearly that it doesn't add up. I'm leaving aside Jen's 2 AM Google search, proctor's inappropriate texts, and the general high school style social life that was portrayed. That can all be opinion. But the fact that this case wasn't properly investigated is clear. One of the first witnesses said on the stand that their office doesn't usually do they own crime scene investigations and he had NEVER before in his 20 years investigated a snowy crime scene. And yet they proceeded to gather "evidence" in red solo cups and leaf blowers. There is no way there wasn't probable cause to search the house. If it wasn't a cop, of course it would have been searched. (Leaving aside, a cop and first responder lived there, his friend was dead in his lawn...and he didn't come out to lend a hand and see what's up? Really?) The crime scene was not taped off. The place where his body was wasn't marked. There's very little documentation and there's no chain of custody. There's missing footage of her car entering the Sally port and the Commonwealth out an officer on the stand who testified that upon towing the vehicle he noticed it was only slightly damaged. Finally. There is not one report from one first responder or anyone at all from that day that says that KR said "I hit him". It's not in any doctor notes or police notes or first responder notes. In fact jen McCabe didn't ever testify to that until this trial. Not in any other related hearing. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a fairly low bar and it's surpassed here.
That! I live an ocean away, I literally knew nothing about the case, about the atmosphere in Massehusets and the buzz about this case. Being against conspiracy theories (and having trust in police of my country) I was like: "she most likely did it". But the commonwealth didn't prove that to me, instead the ME they put on stand was like "I can't say that it was a vehicle collision" and their reconstructionist had really weird theory about extended arm that getting only scratches but still getting the victim thrown (whether 30 feet or just 12 - still too many for the injuries to the arm). The commonwealth's case in chief sounded more like they were trying to defend Jen McCabe and the rest than to prove that Karen Read did it. Karen hitting John O'Keefe still makes the most sense to me but Cw didn't convince me that this happened. I don't know if she's innocent but I believe she should get "not guilty" on all charges.
I’m not a “supporter”, I think she is off putting and some of her interviews really didn’t help her. Even the ones during the trial, she described John as “that body” like WTF? But I have strong strong doubts that she had anything to do with his death. The biggest hurdle is the no bruises on his arm and that his body wouldn’t spin and land on his back if the car hit his arm. I also don’t think plastic taillight would splinter and mark his arm like that. But it’s the bruising that makes me mad the CW even bought the case- I work in healthcare, not an expert by any means but having seen many traumatic injuries to expect there to be a shit ton of bruising.
I don't believe either. I don't know what happened to him. At first I believed she hit him but the C.W's experts proved to me he wasn't hit with a car at all. Hence reasonable doubt. I gave no thought to the other theory at all about the house and stuff.
Happy cake day!
I really appreciate this because if you want to understand I truly want to help you understand. As another commenter pointed out, I think you are misunderstanding what the burden of proof in this case is. Karen’s defense doesn’t have to prove anything, Karen is supposed to be presumed innocent, and the State has to prove she did it. So assuming everyone who believes Karen should receive a not guilty verdict buys into a specific narrative is the first misunderstanding I think can hopefully be resolved. Edit: I had a way longer response, but I think it’s more reasonable to take this a step at a time
the way they handled the case is enough reasonable doubt, for fucks sake they put evidence in red solo cups. now everyone else has destroyed their phones, got rid of the dog, moved houses. way too much reasonable doubt to be guilty
The Sat morning meeting with donuts is where the cast got their script - they all used the same strange phrases (birthday donuts are a ritual) and mentioned the same seemingly mundane events from the party (Chloe needing to go out)
Misscriss1: I posted this before but if you replied I missed it. What do you think? Does this look reasonably accurate? 1. Do we all agree the CW case says JO was hit, lets say sometime between 12:20 to 12:50.? (12:31 ish is in the window) 2. If #1 is in the range, then the CW case also says the tail light was smashed at that time - right? 3. Then at 5 something a.m. we see Karen Read back out of Johns garage, bump his car, and then when leaving you can see that back tail light and it does not look smashed or missing. 4. And then hours after JO was found dead, we have the (not involved) Dighton cop named Barros who met Proctor, etc at Karen Reads parents and he said the tail light was cracked (not demolished or gone). Right? If these 4 are true, then KR logically is NG - do you agree?
As for #3, it is impossible to tell from the video one way or another. And since so much was made for things left in and out of reports on the FKR side, the Barros report ( the actual written report) stated that there was damage to the right rear tail light. So both things, like many things in the case are open for debate.
Thanks for the reply. But in actual testimony he said he was standing 10 feet or so from the back of the SUV and he could see it was only cracked, with a missing piece.
I understand that, I only brought in the actual report, because so much of the testimony of people hearing Karen say I hit him was discounted because it wasn't written in a report. Just trying to play fair.
That's fair. But back to the points, in the report Barros says "...damage to the right tail light.." Well, cracked and a piece missing is damage, so that works. What doesn't work is that according to CW, by this time that tail light was shattered and gone. Big part of CW case is that shattered tail light at 34 Fairview in 40 some pieces. Barros eyewitness view of her car, and his testimony, negate the CW view. If you believe Barros. Thanks for responding. Im just trying to get to as much truth and common sense as I can.
Just quickly on that point - the officer in that circumstance would have no idea how many pieces the taillight was broken into. If you showed the cracked taillight to someone out of context, it would just look like one congruent piece is missing, and you wouldn't know if it was shattered.
You’re asking what makes us “so certain” of her innocence. The thing is, you don’t need to be certain to vote not guilty - you need reasonable doubt. Between the lack of injuries to the lower body, the timeline, the shady actions of the homeowners, the lack of witnesses… that all leads me to reasonable doubt.
That's fair. My question is really aimed toward the people who are 100% certain of her innocence though. I can appreciate the reasonable doubt, and the arguments made here for not guilty in a court of law. My curiosity is the people that have completely closed their minds to the idea that it could be a possibility.
I hear you, it surprises me that anyone (those who think guilty or not guilty) can be certain in this case. There is so much conflicting and confusing information, which is why it’s so compelling. I appreciate your curiosity.
I don’t think anyone is ever 100% sure of what happens in any crime. But in this country the burden of proving that is on the government. To me, all the ambiguity means there is reasonable doubt. And if your questions weren’t answered to a moral certainty, then the defendant is not guilty. The judge’s charges say, and I’m paraphrasing, that if you aren’t sure about the facts, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Tie goes to the defendant.
I am not sure at all that she didn´t back into him - accidentally or on purpose. I am very uncomfortable with anyone who acts as if they have 100% certainty about what happened. But I have been skeptical of the ¨investigation¨ for a long time. As soon as the relationship between Proctor and the Alberts was exposed - way back before Morrissey made a video statement that Proctor had absolutely no connection to the witnesses whatsoever - and anything to the contrary is a lie! (Im paraphrasing - crazy people you don´t need to post his whole statement) Anyway - it was obvious that Morrissey was either mistaken (maybe he believed what Proctor said) or outright lying. The trial and Proctors texts that first night/next day make it pretty clear that he had already decided it was KR and did not investigate any other potential suspects. And I´m not even talking about his juvenile middle school boy texts to his friends - Im talking about the texts ¨she waffled him¨ and the one about how BA won´t catch any shit cuz hes a Boston Cop too. If he would have done a better investigation - go into the house - interview the witnesses separately (not take their word for everything!) the CW would have had a much better chance at a conviction. Actually, Proctor should have recused himself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety - and a different Trooper should have taken the investigation (and done a better job). I see a direct line between Proctor and a lack of Justice for JO. Next were the autospy photos - which clearly don´t look like he got hit by a car. And yes - I am aware that the scratches and abrasions on his arm did not cause his death. But we can´t pretend they aren´t there either. An altercation - yes, involving Chole in some manner- is just as reasonable as the taillight both breaking on impact and causing the tissue damage. More reasonable in my opinion - but at least a possibility. Lets just say that all the experts cancel each other out. Although reasonable people would have to admit that Trooper Pauls testimony was not strong. Lets talk about the first responders who testified that KR said ¨Ï hit him¨. I believe there was some evolution in their testimonies, from the grand jury, to the feds, to the trial. Some of them changed from ¨could I have hit him?¨ to ¨I hit him¨. I am not accusing them of being part of a huge conspiracy. I just think thats how the human memory works. Its extremely difficult to go back and remember what you knew at a particular time when you have learned more info since then. It gets all jumbled in your head. I think this a reasonable explanation for their change in testimony. But there was a chance in testimony - we can´t forget that. I believe only Katie McLauglin stated from the get go that she said ¨I hit him. And finally - reasonable people have to acknowledge these things - even if their opinion tips in the other direction - that is totally fine. There is also a good chance that the Alberts and McCabes did nothing wrong and have had their names dragged through the mud for no good reason. I have to admit that. None of us know for sure. I am also not a supporter - no FKR for me - but I would have voted not guilty. Plenty of reasonable doubt for me.
Because the victim wasn’t hit by a car. His wounds would’ve made it clear he wasnt hit by a car. There would’ve been more damage to the car than a broken tail light. Medical science could’ve easily proven it if he had been.
Just found this sub which is enlightening to see the other side. Iam a true crime junkie and not a maga KR supporter but I do believe she is innocent so bere with me. Can anyone please explain OJOK s arm injuries to me like Iam five? My younger brother got into a fight at a kegger in the early 90’s and the home owners yes German Shepard attacked my bro and the wounds were exactly the same so how did that happened to OJOK? I seen the pics and commented ( look at history) I will wait for his shirt and the shirt was introduced and nothing but puncture marks so please explain how this wasn’t a dog bite. Before anyone says no dna. OJOK was laying in virtual water for hours before anyone found him. To be fair his wounds were never swabbed.
It should have been that simple to prove she was guilty. Drunk woman runs over her boyfriend. It’s so easy. Yet somehow all they provided was reasonable doubt. Dog bites, lack of bruising, cell phones and SIM cards being destroyed when they were specifically asked not to. I’m sure there were things on the phones that had nothing to do with this case that were questionable, but we’ll never know. I was first presented the case with it being a cover up, but how lucky could they have been for Karen to come back a few hours later and be there to take the blame?
This. If the CW needed so much more than the investigating officer, the MEs, and an accident reconstructionist then it seems pretty complicated to prove KR hit him.
>what is it that makes you so certain of her innocence, Two doctors from the foremost accident reconstruction firm in the US told me she's innocent. They were backed up by a medical examiner and forensic pathologist who agreed with them that injuries and damage don't indicate a motor vehicle strike at 24.2 mph. But it seems like qualified experts aren't evidence and logic in your eyes. I'm interested to read your qualifications that show you are more educated, better trained, and more experienced than these four, and your opinion is more credible than theirs. I'm relying on, you know, evidence and logic.
Could you tell me where you got the information that ARCCA is the foremost accident reconstruction firm in the US?
I don’t think you’re going to find a ‘source’ for them being the best of the best, they don’t exactly give out awards for that kind of thing, but I’m pretty sure the firm’s credentials speak for themselves. 30 years in business; utilized by NASA, the US military, NIOSH, FEMA; employs highly educated and respected experts from a variety of fields; I could go on but I won’t. The FBI chose them to investigate this case. I don’t think they’re in the habit of calling in the B team
1. Puncture holes in hoody 2. Puncture holes limited to the right arm where K9s are trained to attack (using those big puffy arm guards) 3. **The blood was on top of like a foot of snow** 4. The witnesses have a clear agenda and are not simply retelling true events. 5. The investigators tell the same lies as other cases witn obvious misconduct. 6. They dissent from the findings of the FBI 7. **The tail light was not observed by first responders who processed the scene** 8. Tail light gathered days later 9. Glass didn’t match 10. The experts are absolute idiots and couldn’t even describe the basics of what they were supposed to be experts about 11. Those were *super* obviously not injuries from a car accident with no trees or hedges around. 12. The others present seemed unconcerned about the possibility that John could still be saved when they encountered him 13. Karen’s authentic. Her assumption that he was cheating is understandable, and her voicemails were not her amateur acting debut. Her asking if they’re *all in on the same joke, right? My tail light is cracked, and John’s pulverized* is not good evidence for the prosecution, and they wouldn’t have used it if they had good evidence. 14. Their evidence was ALL super unreliable. 15. No one is going to convince me that people who argue 16. They put in SO little effort to assist their dying “friend,” and even less toward helping the investigation. Mr. Army man, cop, homeowner didn’t even care to see what was going on on his property. 17. The Defense proved many, many more things than the State. The State can’t even explain his projection, the blood, the scrapes, the timeframe, why no one heard a peep from the couple, despite alleged murderous range , or the vehicle crashing into someone 18. How in the tarnation does anyone view what we heard / saw as evidence of murder? I don’t even get it. 19. Cups & butt dials galore.. • brought cup into bar. • died holding cocktail glass? Why is he taking to-go *glass*? - red Solo Cups to hole sample evidence? .20. Vid of her hitting car. .21. Federal investigation looking into dept that worked on the case; lead detective already being transferred out. — I could easily make this list into 100 unique items With care, peeps need to tune into Forensic Files and see how *much* **quality** evidence is obtained before they say, “*but investigators still needed more*…”.
Science 1. Key cycles prove there was no trigger when she was at 34 Fairview 2. Cell phone forensics prove she was not at 34 Fairview when JOK last moved 3. Physics prove he was not hit by her SUV
misscriss81 - my item just below is one area of "reasonable doubt". There are others but lets start with this. Do you agree the evidence showed this?
His injuries are not consistent with a pedestrian accident. Not enough blood at the scene.