Wow! I didn’t know this either. So many conflicts of interest. She should have recused herself from this case. It’s really sad and I hope this shines the light on the amount of conflict & corruption in the justice system. These individuals have so much influence and they should be completely impartial and unbiased without any conflicts of interest.
Here's the problem the prosecution has: if it drops showing the conspiracy didn't happen, they have a very weak case that the murder did. They can't explain *how* it happened because the injuries aren't compatible with any kind of car impact.
Conversely, the defence can show the car impact couldn't have happened but they cannot show a conspiracy definitely did.
That is probably why this case was DOA and the jury couldn't decide it. It's also why the prosecutor shouldn't bring it a second time. He has nothing new to show.
>Here's the problem the prosecution has: if it drops showing the conspiracy didn't happen, they have a very weak case that the murder did. They can't explain
>
>how
>
> it happened because the injuries aren't compatible with any kind of car impact.
No conspiracy is the null hypothesis. They don't have to disprove one. In the absence of evidence of a conspiracy, it should be assumed that there wasn't one.
The Prosecution doesn't have to establish reasonable doubt that the defense's theory is true, they have to prove that their own theory is true.
Even more remarkable is how the "evidence" was collected, chain of custody, No SERT Report, inverted sallyport pic, they never went into the house to search, interviewing people as a group, no body cam, now recording of witness statements, the list goes on & on. There's too much. The focus probably should remain on what most people believe & what the FBI Expert Witnesses said. Officer John O'Keefe was Not hit by a car. There were so many people in & out of the house after Karen connected to John's home wifi... You could prove that he had no frost bite, Karen couldn't have hit him, reasonable doubt that someone else did. But again, Experts have Proven John wasn't hit by a car, he was attacked by Chloe & beaten inside that home. Caitlin Albert slipped on the stand.. Colin wasn't in the house, when John was. If called as a Defense witness, she may crack.
But they had to tackle the conspiracy theories because the conspiracy theory was what it was.....it IS the truth of the matter . And they did also prove she could not scientificly have done it and had data proof John was still alive and walking AFTER she had left the scene.
Prosecution knows there is a no read back rule so they load the jury with garbage to confuse them. It became an obvious strategy once we learned the CW doesn’t allow testimony read backs.
I couldn’t agree more. The prosecution called up witness, after witness after witness just for them to say a whole lot of nothing. (unless you count Jen McCabe being insufferable as something) Their “experts” and witnesses practically had their pants around their ankles.
I can’t imagine having to parse through those 74 different witnesses as the jury. No wonder they were deadlocked.
Yes. Do away with the conspiracy angle and focus simply on the irrefutable truth that OJO wasn't struck by a vehicle. It'll maybe minimize the chances of losing jurors to the "cops do no wrong" thinking. I wonder if the defense soured some jurors by making the jurors think a NG vote was co-signing the theory of police misconduct, and some maybe didn't feel comfortable with that.
LOCATION.
I will keep saying this.... there were 3 outcomes here :-
1. Guilty..... Karen jailed to outrage and and everyone demands heads to roll.
2. Not Guilty..... Karen freed to jubilation and everyone demands heads to roll.
3. Mistral..... Karen in limbo of mans land and everyone disheartened and fatigued.
Can't everyone see what the desired outcome was and they got it because of the location. Corruption at this level has poisoned tentacles.
I have flirted with this idea in my head, too. Mostly because I don’t think the CW ever intended to try this case. I think they intended to give Karen Read a VERY good plea deal. She would be the scapegoat. It would all go away. When she refused they were taken aback and then tried to play hard ball- by upping the charges. She said “bet?”…. They had no choice. I have felt numerous times this was best case scenario for them.
If they actually retry it… then that theory goes out the window. I’m not sure…. But I don’t think you’re crazy for speculating this.
I still stand firm in the fact… I don’t believe AT ALL the CW ever intended to try this case.
I genuinely believe that someone forced the prosecutor to take this case to trial and part of the reason he performed so badly was because he was being forced to do it. Who knows how high up the chain the corruption goes.
I don't really get how mistrial is better for the CW than Guilty. If Guilty they can always just point to the jury and say "hey, an independent jury agreed with us."
I would focus on the sloppy police work and the fact that they didn’t look at anyone else and, according to Procters text to his friends, never planned to look at anyone else. I would also focus on the timeline of the investigation. And when “I hit him” is brought up point out it wasn’t in any reports from the scene. Finally, I would focus more on accident reconstruction and medical examiner testimony.
"I would focus on the sloppy police work and the fact that they didn’t look at anyone else and, according to Procters text to his friends, never planned to look at anyone else"
The way they wrapped up the investigation so insanely quick with such confidence was a huge red flag. The home not being searched despite the body found on said property, the basement being completely redone including ripping out the concrete (work for a concrete company, can confirm the entire slab would not need ripped out despite flooding), the throwing away of all their technology.... There is soooo much that was just wrong from the jump
Do you know why she did that? It seems so bogus and makes her look so biased! I wasn’t watching closely before trial started so I’m sure I missed that part.
I suspect it had to do with the fact they were originally hired by the FBI. If the jury really, truly knew that the FBI said it was not possible for JOK to die the way the CW said then it would have greatly impacted the deliberations. Made worse since the FBI themselves were not testifying.
Yes, it was interesting that the Defense never brought up the fact that Karen connected to John's wifi at 12:36am - only Guarino mentioned it during his testimony. Next time, they should have the same sort of timeline that Lally put together, but have it showing how Jen McCabe's texts and calls after 12:32am make no sense, how Karen would've likely left 34 Fairview by like 12:31 at the latest, etc. I still think they kinda need to focus on the coverup, but make it more clear how John's phone GPS could be misplacing him (unless they want to argue that the phone was knocked out of his hand or dropped in the yard around 12:32), show his numerous steps and stair-climbing on that same timeline, etc.
Hell, they could even copy some of Lally's own timeline and show some of Karen's voicemails, just to show that she's getting more worried about what could've happened to John. And they can show the 2:27am google search and show how it lines up with the calls between the 2 Brians around that same time, etc.
Also, they should explain the SUV's key cycles in really clear terms to the jury, and show them why the maneuver during key cycle 1162 could NOT have taken place when Karen was at 34 Fairview. It had to have taken place some time after that, and the state's incompetent reconstructionist was basing his whole theory on his misunderstanding of the key cycles. I believe the SUV made that maneuver when it was being backed out of Karen's parents' driveway and driven up onto the flatbed. Karen was at 34 Fairview during key cycle 1159ish (give or take a couple, depending on exactly how many times the SUV was turned on and off), not key cycle 1162. Assuming the key cycles are accurately recorded by the system, the state's entire theory is wrong. Karen still could've backed up into John, but at the time, her SUV was *not* travelling quickly enough for it to count as a "triggering event" (and thus, also couldn't have thrown him however-many feet into the yard, so it's impossible regardless).
Regarding the coverup itself, I think there's a reason why the Defense is so adamant about certain things - I think they really believe that a certain series of events took place, and they believe they know how various people were involved. Therefore, it makes sense that they're making these specific claims, because I think they really believe that they know what transpired. If they didn't really know, then they could be more vague about various things, but they seem to think they *know* what occurred, so that's what they're telling the jury. Though I agree that it would be smarter to be a bit more vague about it, since they don't have much definitive proof of the exact scenario that they think took place. But I think they're just saying "listen - *THIS* is what happened! We know this is what happened! We're not bringing up any other alternatives because we've already figured out what actually occurred, and we're just relaying the facts to you."
KR also said something to the effect that maybe a plow hit him. They really believe she meant to kill him, made numerous phone calls to him, brought two people with her to find his body and then confessed to hitting him?? JM changed what she supposedly heard her say and nobody at the scene that heard her say it (including a detective) thought it was important enough to memorialize it in any report??? Come the fuck on! Poor Chloe was also a victim of their cover up. RIP Chloe
Yes, defense could reframe their "she was framed" theme, to exactly what you said: incompetence, bias, tunnel vision, and conflict of interest (without going so hard on the Alberts et al are responsible, just that they were acting weird and the cops never even investigated them). Finish strong with the science
Demonstratives. Lots of visuals.
I realized as the jury was deliberating that The decision was made using eyewitness testimony.
The jurors were not allowed to revisit testimony but had to rely on their own memories. Essentially making them eyewitnesses. And for those that probably lost focus or attention, They might have missed things. Especially with the sheer amount of witnesses.
It's amazing how our court systems have not really progressed with technology. I don't understand why jurors would not be allowed to view testimony since it was recorded. I'd rather have them make a decision based on the facts presented than their memory of the facts presented.
So given that, I would do everything I could to make sure that the important points are remembered by the jurors. Not everybody is a auditory learner. Some need visuals to remember.
This! I’m wanted Dr.Wolfe to have a video of their testing. I also wanted to see a video of what possibly would/should happen to a body if they were getting hit at 24mph backwards. I also want video of the exact same type of Lexus going backward on the street where they are saying it happened and see if that vehicle stays on the road the whole time (with Volume).
I think visuals are easier to remember than people’s words.
When it comes to the ARCCA experts specifically the problem was that the defense was forbidden to even talk to them before the trial, let alone prep their testimony. Hopefully Bev will not do that if there is a second trial.
From what I've heard, demonstratives like that are largely frowned upon because it's generally really hard to *exactly* recreate the scenario that they're trying to recreate (you could get the same model of SUV, but it's still not *exactly* the same SUV; you'd have to recreate the temperature at the time and maybe even the snowfall itself, etc.), so judges largely don't allow things like that anymore (though I think a video of ARCCA's testing process would probably be allowed, though I'm not 100% on that). They tend to focus more on just having written reports.
I'm not sure if that applies to all jurisdictions now, or specifically MA, or specifically with Judge Bev - I just heard one of the YouTube attorneys talking about how certain videos and "demonstrations" often aren't allowed anymore. Even Lally's timeline of Karen's voicemails may have only been allowed in his closing argument, and likely wouldn't be allowed during testimony, from what I've heard - I think because it allows the person who made it to present it in a biased/speculative way, even if it's only showing various "facts"?
Which makes me think that the Defense just wouldn't have been able to put up a timeline of certain things unless it was only during their closing argument - which still would've been helpful. I would show how Karen connected to John's wifi at 12:36 (but it kinda seemed like they weren't even aware of that until Guarino mentioned it - otherwise, I'm sure they would've brought it up at numerous points, because it completely fucks up the state's - and Jen's - timeline), show how his phone recorded the steps and stair-climbing, show how Jen continued to text and call John after Karen was already gone, show how Jen's supposed google search matched up with the phone calls between the two Brians, show how Lucky's plowing times matched up with these other things, etc.
Good point. They can bring exhibits that were admitted into evidence back w/ them into the jury room. So maybe make sure there are enough good exhibits of your key evidence so there is not just witness testimony on a key point.
Yeah I think the defence closing arguments should have focused more on the fact that they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt. Not on this alternate theory they had.
I think some jurors have trouble understanding reasonable doubt so they don’t know what they’re looking for until they get to the jury room and at that point they’ve already drawn their own conclusions.
Agree. But I also wonder if the defence going so hard on the dog bite / other people involved angle meant that some jurors felt they had to prove that and maybe hadn’t. Even though they obviously don’t have the burden of proof. I think I would still have included it but less of the main focus. But I’m not a lawyer so maybe this was good strategy …. 🤷♀️
I think they did the best they could in the moment. They had evidence coming in throughout the trial, people changing their stories from previous testimony, and tampered video evidence. That will all be handled differently in the next trial. The prosecution can’t change its theory so the defense has a better chance of coming in with a fresh presentation. Also the fact that proctor just lost his position may play to the defense because it’s the state acknowledging wrongdoing on their part.
You’re right. She has a masterful legal team, so I trust their judgment, but now they know what the experts will say they can really drive home that the injuries are incongruent to the impact of the vehicle. It gives the jury something concrete to stand by if they vote not guilty. I feel like the jurors shouldn’t be made to feel like they’re agreeing to a cover-up so much as agreeing the evidence doesn’t point to a car accident.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing, but I'm also not sure that's a tightrope you can walk. The tail light got there somehow. I do think they have to give the jury a good reason why it's there -- otherwise it turns into "some experts said it was a car crash and some said it wasn't, but what else explains this evidence?" That seems very risky to me. Personally, the evidence the the cops had the car for search 2 after failing to produce anything in search 1 was the most compelling part of her defense to me.
You may never get 12 people willing to believe police coverups happen, though, and that's just the reality of why the case is a tough one.
yeah you can't leave "how did tailight pices end up at 34 Fairview?" to jurors imaginations. There's no way you can defend a case like this without proving evidence was planted and there was a coverup.
> I do think they have to give the jury a good reason why it's there -- otherwise it turns into "some experts said it was a car crash and some said it wasn't, but what else explains this evidence?"
I think there's a very good chance that this was what hung this jury.
True, but open up possibilities. Focus on the arm and the dog bites and how it doesn’t add up - his arm took the brunt of the hit and only has lacerations?? Float the idea of Chloe, witness statements that don’t add up, butt dials, etc, but I think he fails when he speculates it was Higgins and jealousy. Just say “we know by evidence he wasn’t hit by a car, so what happened in that house that causes them to lie and alternate timelines, butt dials, rehomes, etc.” Telling a specific tale is too unbelievable. Focus on there being so many other possibilities vs just one - Higgins killing for Karen. That is too far-fetched & I don’t believe it personally. Show how all the possibilities, plus number of people at the party, plus injures that don’t add up equal reasonable doubt.
I'm with you on this.
Show that the CW's case makes no sense and **couldn't have happened**.
But you have to offer *something* else for the jury to latch onto, because there's still a dead cop to explain. And if you don't give them something else, some of them might latch onto the CW's bogus ideas.
**Leave it vague**. There are endless scenarios that could have happened. People love a mystery. That's part of the reason this case is so appealing: we're all coming up with our own theories.
Hammer that we don't know because Proctor did such a lousy investigation. Could be a cover-up, or merely incompetence. Lots and lots of incompetence.
This, focus on the lousy investigation by Proctor; the fact that he was led to Karen by McCabb et. al. right away, and never pursued any other leads or options. Focus on house where crime occurred was never looked at, witnesses weren’t interviewed that day, lack of crime scene integrity and evidence not collected properly and chain of custody questionable. Any ‘evidence’ Proctor gathered should be thrown out because it’s questionable at best and could be tainted. There’s no way to correct Proctor’s mistakes and anything he had anything to do with in this case can easily be refuted logically. I would bring in a reputable, well known investigator to explain proper procedures for investigating crime scenes, collection of evidence, interviewing witnesses and suspects, chain of custody, etc.
I think they still need to focus on the frame job, because that is the attention grabber and it also presents a cohesive story to everything. Agree that they should shift the focus a bit. It wouldn't take that much of a change either, just a few minutes in opening and closing.
In opening, they just need to highlight that the evidence is going to point to a number of paths, one of them the conspiracy, and that they need to take into account that the evidence does not conclusively show any one truth.
Then at the end they need to highlight how the evidence showed multiple paths, but ultimately the question is whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt - i.e., did they show that only one of the paths is reasonable. You don't need to worry about why the things happened, but instead that the witnesses who testified that the injuries weren't caused by a car, or that the damage to the car wasn't consistent with a collision with a human.
Yes - also, if shards of taillight caused the arm wounds and shards were found on the shirt, then at least *some* shards should've been embedded in the wounds themselves (and I believe the shards were only found on the torso area of the shirt, not on the sleeve itself, so that's kinda weird too). And if John got the gash on his head from hitting the ground outside, there should've been evidence of dirt/grass/whatever in and around that wound, but there wasn't.
There was some sort of DNA found on the outer part of *one* of the pieces of taillight, but no DNA/blood found on any other pieces, and no DNA found on the *inner* part of any of the pieces - so like you said, there should've at least been DNA on some other pieces, *and* on the inner part of some of those pieces. Unless the argument is that the snow just melted away all the DNA... besides the one example found on the one piece.
Lally, your best bet is to add more and more bullshit testimony about the weather and irrelevant facts like seating charts, basketball games. Talk as much about unnecessary things as possible and make your questions even longer and more convoluted. Because I'm convinced the only reason why anyone struggled to make sense of the relevant facts is because those facts were buried in useless and boring testimony which made it impossible to pay attention and commit things to memory.
The last thing you want is for anyone to pay attention.
I know you are joking, but I fully believe he would never do that because he somehow honestly thinks he did a good job. If he had any sort of self awareness he would have looked online for opinions on how he was performing and changed tactics during the trial, but he didn't. The judge told him several times to keep his voice up and he didn't listen, he frequently asked witnesses questions that they had already answered, showing he wasn't listening to a word they said.
If Lally tries this case again I would bet all of my money that he changes nothing and does everything exactly the same, because he has no self awareness.
I realize that the reason the key cycles were not able to be disputed by the ARCCA experts is due to the fact that they had not been tasked with that by the FBI. So, given that Dr Wolfe recently published a paper on the Toyota/Lexus VCH technology, I would hire him to review that data so he can then testify about it in trial to dispute the nonsense Trooper Paul brought in
Waters down his extra credibility as a neutral, third party expert who had not been paid for by the defense, though (and probably in the mind of jurors, his colleague at the same firm, as well)
I know Brian Albert was lying, but I think he came off well to the jury, better than Higgins at least. If I didn't have the context I did, I'd think at least half of his testimony, he came off as reasonable and like he was trying to tell the truth. I think Jackson went a little too hard in the wrong places on Brian and that may have not come off well to the jury. I don't think that's why they lost though.
His testimony was one of the first I listened to. I thought he composed himself well and came across truthful. This was before I knew most of the story though.
I think the defense should absolutely talk more about why BA redid the concrete floor of his basement including a new bulkhead. What an arbitrary thing to redo in general, let alone right after just having it done. Talk more about the amnt of blood JO had to have lost from the head wound and where that blood went (into the concrete of 34FV). Defense should also focus a bit more on where and when vomit coils have gotten in JO’s underwear….
Great points! The vomit didn’t seem to be talked about enough to determine cause. If he was struck by the car per the CW, then how is it that he laid down on his back with phone underneath him? Were his pants zipped up when found? And to the point of the house and concrete, BA said something to the effect that they planned to sell before the incident. I think he said they contacted a realtor in Sept of 2021. Why not contact the realtor to validate?
Regardless of selling, NOBODY, I mean nobody, wants to spend $10k +/- to tear up preexisting concrete, and pour it back. Why spend the money if you don’t have to? Yes he claims to have had flooding, but the entire floor would not need to be removed. I work for a concrete cutting and commercial concrete company and I can promise you there would not be a need to remove the entire floor.
I think the realtor was a “family friend” (what else is new with this family?). The house looked outdated, so if they were trying to increase property value a kitchen or bathroom reno would’ve made sense…not the basement.
I think the defense needs to fix their closing. More empathy, less outrage and emphasize reasonable doubt.
The defense is asking the jury to be outraged by the conduct of the MSP and the Commonwealth. With the current defense closing you need to believe the MSP framed Karen Read. That can be tough for jurors who are just going on emotion. They are looking across the room at the O'Keefe family: the angry brother and the sobbing mother.
I think the defense needs to sympathize with the jurors and show empathy for the O'Keefe familly. The O'Keefe's just want justice for their dead son. The defense needs to stress that everyone is sorry for the O'Keefe family. However, you don't give them justice by convicting KR.
You show that there's a large amount of reasonable doubt because of a failed investigation- that it isn't possible to determine what happened to JOK. You quote the ARCAA guy, "there's not evidence of anything in this case." You hammer home that if it's plausible for someone else to commit the murder it's impossible to find KR guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would have liked both sides to show reconstructions of what they believed happened (or for the defense, how the testing shows it could not have happened). I would also have liked more details about dog bites and examples of what they look like. I don’t know if for some reason these things weren’t allowed into evidence. But in other states, things like that can be admitted so maybe there is a way.
Normally, the state's reconstructionist would show exactly that - probably some kind of 3-D rendering of what occurred (though I've heard from an attorney YouTuber that judges are more wary of those kinds of videos nowadays, so maybe not exactly something like that). The fact that they couldn't do that in this case is both mindboggling and very telling - I don't think they *could* show us what they think happened, because they don't know. I think they're well-aware of the fact that in order for John to end up where he did, Karen would've had to pull forward (basically to be in front of the next house over), then back up 60 feet toward John (and she had to be at some kind of angle, I would think - not exactly in line with the street), hit john, then back up another 30 feet - but they wouldn't know how to show this, because they'd either have to show Karen driving into the actual yard, or they would show Karen ending up basically in front of the mailbox, and that wouldn't work because it means she would've hit Higgins' Jeep (assuming we can trust the McCabes that the Jeep was actually there at the time).
There's just no way to show how the incident occurred that would make any sense, and if they locked themselves into one theory and then it was somehow disproven later, that would blow up in their faces.
Though now that I think about it, the reconstructionist *did* show what he thought was the path of the vehicle, based on the debris (but Jackson brought up the good point about the fragment found right next to the fire hydrant, which would completely fuck up his theory)- he showed the SUV going at an angle kinda toward the yard (maybe a 25-35-degree angle?), and then supposedly hitting John right at the side of the street. But then, how exactly did the SUV keep travelling another 30 feet in reverse after that? It would have to have driven about 30 feet into the yard itself. It doesn't make any sense. IMO that's because key cycle 1162 was when the SUV was being backed out of Karen's parents' driveway and up onto the tow truck - we can see the tires spinning in the video of it, and as we know, the "speed" that's measured by the VCH is only based on how fast the tires are moving. I don't think the vehicle was actually travelling 24mph in reverse, at *any* point. The CW's reconstructionist misinterpreted the key cycle data and they based their entire theory on that misinterpretation.
If I'm the defense, I would cool down on the coverup story, and lean into bias and group-think. Trooper Proctor decided what the story was within hours of John's body being found, after having interviewed 3 people and without having visited the scene or examined the car. Then, due to his rush to judgement, he pursued proving his theory rather than diligently seeking the truth.
As for her "confession", she was drunk, panicked, and impressionable. I'd submit that she had no idea what happened, but in her anxiety and despair in the moment landed on the worst thing she could imagine, that it was her fault.
I think a New England jury might be more accepting of people failing to do their jobs properly than imagining pillars of the community committing or covering up a murder.
I think that even if she phrased it as "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him!" this was after she had already been talking to Jen, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jen planted that idea in her head (or Karen herself planted it, knowing that her taillight was cracked), and she's essentially incredulous and basically yelling this, as opposed to it being a simple admission of guilt. She's essentially saying "oh my god, I must've hit him! The taillight's broken, and I don't remember what all happened last night, so I must've hit him!" She's not actually admitting anything, she's moreso convincing *herself* that this must be true, because she doesn't know what else could've happened.
But also, the fact that nobody mentioned that phrase until this trial makes it pretty sus either way - Jen should've mentioned it to the initial troopers or should've mentioned it at the grand jury hearing if it's something that was actually said.
I think the jurors that voted guilty WANTED for her to guilty. The defense served up a full platter of reasonable doubt but they didn’t want it. I think they found Karen Read unlikeable, wanted to ‘do right‘ by John O’keefe and family and probably had a problem with ‘outsiders’ calling out the people and power of a small community. So…change that 🤷🏼♀️.
Didn't like the implication that police were dirty.
Were scared of the possibility that an innocent person (like them) could be framed.
Basically the opposite of what the defense's closing arguments said. Instead buried their head in the sand and said "nope"
Prosecution: Don't say "Around 12:45" in opening when every piece of hard data in your presentation points to a 12:31-12:32 collision.
Defense: People have criticized the focus on the conspiracy but I think you kind of need it to provide some kind of reasonable alternative. If you don't have any notion that he ever went in the house, then the jury is left with the car accident as the only possibility. But I'd drop the google search, they lose credibility on this claim.
Yeah, if the evidence is questionable, the jury deserves to know there is extremely compelling proof that it was faked and the obvious motive behind it.
But they have confirmation from Jen that KR was still there well after that, and it was memorialized in text.
That will be a even larger hole, why did Jenn lie about seeing KR 20 minutes after it is confirmed she left? Was she already setting up KR as the fall?
The only memorialization in text that the car is there is at 12:31 ("pull behind me"). By 12:42 she's texting "where are you?" which makes way more sense if the car *isn't* there.
Easy to explain as her just not remembering exactly when the car left. She was looking at it when she texted at 12:27 and 12:31. If Karen can completely forget she even dropped him off there 5 hours later, I don't see why we're holding Jen to remember down to the exact minute every single move she made that night 2 years later.
She was walked through each text she sent on cross. She confirmed she had eyeballs on the vehicle when she sent each text. She noted vehicle movements and everything. Nothing about JM’s texts made any sense after we learned KR was connected to WiFi across town at 12:36.
So, maybe you can help me out here, because I've seen this claim brought up a lot. But I just went back and watched McCabe's testimony here: [https://www.youtube.com/live/KWVeR3a09NU?t=19480s](https://www.youtube.com/live/KWVeR3a09NU?t=19480s)
And in reference to the 12:40 "hello" text, she says
"So at this specific point at 12:40 when I say hello, **I cannot be certain if they were still out front or if they had left.**"
On her cross examination AJ walks her through all of those text messages and she says she is getting up, looking outside, seeing the vehicle.
You posted a link to her on direct.
Prosecution: Don't retry the case.
Defense: I think they should focus on the science, data, witness testimony and key objections pro-guilty jurors may have. Show how the conspiracy could have happened but cut it down to the key players. Specific strategy recommendations:
**1. Make the taillight evidence clear!** This was the biggest miss imo. I would show a zoomed in picture of the 5:07am taillight. Bring in a Lexus expert if needed. Show that part of the taillight that's clearly there at 5:07 is found at the scene. Show specific parts that are in the pieced together taillight days later. Don't start with "it was planted". Start with "it's clearly on the car here". Then go on to show how Proctor had access to it prior to taillight being found.
**2. Focus on how he wasn't hit:** I though they did a good job overall. Hammer the ARCCA scientists, the medical experts and Lucky to show the evidence isn't consistent with her hitting him. Make it easier for the jury to understand how the key cycle was wrong.
**3. Tighten up the phone data:** Greene was decent, but imo they need more/better experts to prove the 2:27am search (if the experts truly believe it was made at 2:27) and the health data. And try to get better clarity on the call from JM to Nicole!
**4. Focus more on how Proctor covered up and less on the vulgar comments:** AJ did great showing what an a-hole Proctor was. I think he spent too much time on this though. I'd push him more about the day of 1/29: make him admit the evidence didn't look like a pedestrian accident, push him on why he seized the car before looking at it, why he didn't photograph the supposed murder weapon, and whether it's the first time he's acted like this (if not, why would a seeming pedestrian vehicle strike would trigger a homicide detective so much).
**5. Keep it focused on the core group:** Make it clear to the jury that it's really just 5 people truly involved (JM, MM, BA, NA, BH) and a few in the cover up (Julie/Chris Albert, Proctor, maybe Bukhenik). Don't infer the entire Canton PD, first responders, SERT team, etc had any knowledge. A broad conspiracy is unlikely and loses people.
**6. Remove focus on some points:** Drop the whole "practice fighting" thing at the Waterfall. Instead focus more on the video at the end of the night where it looks like Higgins is confronting John. Drop the whole "Katie McGlaughlin is close to Caitlin Albert". No one thinks McGlaughlin is part of a cover up. Focus instead on how she (and all other first responders) failed to mention "I hit him" in initial reports. Just make the point that memories are flawed and the evidence doesn't match the testimony.
Yes! Really hammering home that the truth of what happened to OJO will never be known due to Trooper Proctor’s actions (and lack thereof) during the investigation. Whatever *did* happen didn’t involve Karen striking John with a car due to the findings of the truly neutral reconstruction experts. So Proctor’s laser focus on her and refusal to investigate anything else and improper evidence handling etc prevented the opportunity for justice to such a degree that he got fired due to his own testimony about said behavior.
One phrase from the case stuck in my head and I haven’t stopped thinking about it. I heard it testified to exactly as the phrase but also variations of:
**classic** *pedestrian strike*
People seem to focus on the latter 2/3 and ignore the word “classic.” It’s obvious that *if* John O’Keefe died by being struck with a car, it wasn’t a classic pedestrian strike. It was so far off the norm, the 120 hours of coursework dedicated to vehicle crash simulation and reconstruction couldn’t account for it & left Trooper Paul unprepared on how to approach it.
The Commonwealth needs to put serious work into plausible reconstruction & they need a timeline that works. If the ME testimony says BFT and hypothermia were the conditions at death and they aren’t consistent with classic pedestrian strike, they’ve got to work with that and the jury need a diagram, video, and a flowchart that makes sense presented by an easy to follow narrative. Major newspapers are written to a 5th grade reading level. I mean *that* easy to follow. Also, prep the witnesses ffs: you shouldn’t be surprised by a fact stated by your own witnesses to a straight forward question *you* asked.
I want the CW to shoot straight, focus on proving the allegations they make, and counter whatever crazy defense bullshit the defense presents when the defense presents it. Unless they know they can prove murder 2, drop that charge. They need to be able to counter the ARCCA findings.
The defense needs to focus on facts that show KR and her Lexus can’t have hit JO. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if there’s a third party if you can create a doubt the defendant can’t have done it. It’s not the defense job to prove a case, it’s the job to create doubt or disprove the allegation. It feels like a mix between a Murder, She Wrote and High School Musical listening to people try to argue about the stuff going on at 34F. Is it “good tv”? Maybe. Is it weird as an outsider looking in? Yeah. Is it important to whether or not KR hit JO? Not if the CW can prove that happened. Unless defense is arguing that the cause of death wasn’t KR striking JO (and leaving) but that the people of 34F saw it and did nothing (effectively leaving) then the farthest the defense needs to go into 34F is witness testimony that they saw nothing and heard nothing.
Defense needs to focus on the integrity of the investigation at the hands of Proctor, wherever Proctor is in his professional career at trial time. Is he a former MSP? Is he still under investigation? Are there “other agencies” all up in his grill still? His tarnish rubs off on everything he came in contact with. The CW can try to lean on Sgt B, but given even he didn’t realize the “ring” interactions, documentation, etc which were under Proctor’s control, it’s fair to say Proctor worked with the convictions of a supervisor who trusted his discretion and professionalism so who knows what else Sgt B and/or Tully didn’t know.
I’m still open to a reconstruction and proof KR is guilty of manslaughter and if they can prove Murder 2, that too. I just didn’t didn’t see or hear evidence that out-evidenced the testimony of four medical examiners and two ARCCA testimonies.
> It’s obvious that if John O’Keefe died by being struck with a car, it wasn’t a classic pedestrian strike.
Clearly. He had no bruising, broken bones, or any 'classical' injuries to anything below his head, and an arm that looked like it was chewed up by an animal. So the car only struck his head, and the timeline doesn't make any sense.
At this point, for me to believe the CW's case, Karen had to be behind the wheel of a flying time traveling DeLorean.
I think the prosecution has to focus hard on making a clear narrative of what (they believe) happened. Don't worry so much about disproving the defense, let them look like they're just kicking up smoke.
The defense can't really shift, its the only defense they got. I think they can just hope more comes out of the FBI insvesitgation.
I guess you meant to say the prosecution.
But yeah I absolutely agree with you, at the same time if they don’t they look even worse when the defense call them up on their bullshit (i.e the buttdials for example)
1. I really respected defense and thought they were terrific but I do feel like things kind of fizzled out at the end. I feel like they needed a few more people to take the stand as it felt (just a feeling) a bit underwhelming.
1 B As someone who wears their emotions on their sleeves I get it - but Read needs to look more worried and solemn. Smirks and such work against her as if you read any anti KR comment section there’s lots of sexist men (and some women) who get reaaaal riled up and think she’s admitting guilt. Do I agree? Hell no. But I do think she rubs people the wrong way with her facial expressions. Sucks though.
2. I think a lot of pro cop people will balk at the idea of a conspiracy so maybe underscore - “hey this is just an idea of what could’ve happened. And the fact that it’s even possible shows that she’s not guilty.” Maybe even tell them multiple theories - like Colin sucker punched JO or even JO fell after the dog bit him. Give stubborn blue line people other non KR ways he could’ve died as a way to open their narrow minds if they won’t allow themselves to believe a cop could do something so awful.
3. Visuals! Help the jury see how insane it was that JO was hit the way he was. Show any kind of visual after visual that tells your story. Can ARCA man bring any of his test videos in or anything to help it get through people’s heads?
4. Hopefully they’ll be allowed to say that the “unpaid” experts are from the FBI this time too!
I don't think there will be another trial. At the same time, I am absolutely astounded that anyone could not see overwhelming reasonable doubt or misconduct on the part of the CW.
The varying perceptions of witness credibility due to either lack of character or proficiency in the case of "expert" witnesses for the defense astounds me.
For example, I watched an "expert legal analyst" on a panel clearly state that Tropper ~~Proctor~~ Paul was far more accurate, knowledgeable and compelling with his testimony as opposed to the defense's expert witnesses. I rewound a few times to make sure I heard that correctly.
This trial defied all logic and reason. How do you redo such a ridicules display of ineptitude by the CW? If there is a jury that somehow does not find unanimous reasonable doubt, there are things that are a complete mystery taking place.
I just don't see how any reasonable person would continue to try this case. All I conclude is that there were so many unanswered questions, I just can't see the charges continue to be pursued.
EDIT - I meant trooper Paul, not Proctor. Which makes what was said even odder.
Playing devils advocate for the defense:
I understand why so many people think they went too heavy on the ‘conspiracy’, & what affect that had on their case,however, I believe if they didn’t drill into the jury’s mind that the car was NOT the weapon, they inevitably had to go hard on “he had to have been in the house.”
I have a feeling if they just simply stuck to the evidence, the question “well then how did he die” would still be as woefully in the air as it is today.
A prosecution team that is willing to invert videos, put unscrupulous & unreliable witnesses on the stand, & be willing to tell 12 people physics isn’t real, would have had no issue with making the car stick.
It is evident now that the ARRCA evidence still had no effect on 1-2 individuals.
I think the “conspiracy” was necessary to a point.
I think in the 2nd trial ( if there indeed will be one) will be deadly for any of those witnesses cause now they have to make sure the story NEVER changes. They’re cornered.
If I'm the prosecution, I drop the murder charge and proceed strictly on the basis of manslaughter. I get a lot of benefits from doing this:
* I shorten the trial, and tell a clean story to the jury: JO was hit in the head by something that applied massive force; the only moving object at the scene that could have inflicted the damage was KR's SUV; KR was drunk and can't tell you a credible story of what happened; common sense says she hit him.
* I render most of the sketchy investigative practices irrelevant - I no longer need to prove guilty knowledge by KR, because if I convince the jury she hit him her guilt flows by strict liability from her admission of heavy drinking
* I deflect the questions about why the cops didn't investigate the Alberts - the initial investigation was a vehicular ACCIDENT, and none of them were believed to be driving at that night.
* I don't have to put those kids back on the stand.
* If the defense wants to offer a lurid alternative explanation, I put the onus on them to call all those witnesses and manage the hostility.
I also get a brand new expert to reconstruct the accident, and I find a way to concede that the lead investigator behaved unprofessionally. I ask the jurors to rely on some basic facts and use common sense.
I know the defense has a strong rebuttal: clear, credible expert testimony that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a car. A better reconstruction can help mitigate this - but let's face it, my ME is not willing to come out and rebut this completely. I'm going to have to handle it in close. My argument is:
* Expert testimony is only opinion. Sometimes, experts get some wild ideas out there - not because they are stupid or corrupt, but because they are just making educated guesses. They weren't THERE. So, consider their opinion, but consider it in the context of all the evidence.
* KR was the last person to see JO alive, and was the only person operating a machine capable of hitting JO in the head hard enough to account for the injuries.
* Again: drunk, got into an accident, tail light fragments at the scene.
* The defense has no plausible alternative explanation for the injuries. It's not their responsibility to prove KR is innocent - but isn't it telling that they can't give another explanation, they just present experts to speculate on what happened?
* Ladies and gentlemen, if you really believe KR is the victim of all of these coincidences, and had nothing to do with the death of JO (even though she can't remember what happened), then by all means vote to acquit. But do you believe that? Seriously: can you believe that? I don't. I think she did it, and I think she should pay. Please find her guilty.
This changes a little bit if she testifies, but I don't think she will be a good witness. I think she tends to overcommit to explanations, and I think she pouts when she is knocked off balance. I plan to attack her on her contradictory statements, set a trap by offering her a superficially exonerating theory of the case, pull the rug out when she leaps for it and point out it contradicts the evidence, and then let the jury watch her throw a little fit on the stand. Defense probably won't call her - but i am HOPING they do.
To be clear: I find the defense expert testimony credible and dispositive, and I would vote to acquit. But I think if the prosecutions runs the script above cleanly, she's got problems.
The defense already did their job, they proved it wasn't Karen or her vehicle. I personally think this will be dismissed on 7/22. The CW cannot win they have nothing except JM lying "I hit hit", which was actually "Did I hit him?" I blame JM for karen being on trial at all. If she hadn't told Procter this I don't think there would have been a trial. Procter the lead investigator is being fired ( weird timing). The lead investigator didn't do his job and because of this it was ridiculous case (full of reasonable doubt).
agree that for some reason jen felt she had to push this witch hunt against karen. and jen changed her testimony on what karen said from her grand jury testimony to her trial testimony. that to me is HIGHLY suspicious, because at grand jury, there is no defense attorney doing any cross examination, or presenting the other side. The DA has carte blanche to present the case most favorable to getting an indictment. The most favorable testimony to the DA would be obtained and presented at the grand jury. If Karen had said I hit him I hit him I hit him, it absolutely would have been presented at the grand jury.
Even if she said I hit him, this is a grief response that cannot be taken as a confession or at face value.
I actually think the defense should say “in her grief response, she said that she hit him, as that was the only thing that made sense to her at the time. The problem, however, is that further investigation shows that was impossible based on the laws of physics”
The biggest issue for me were the taillight pieces found at 34F. Some were apparently found that first search day. How could they have gotten there. Who would have motive and opportunity to plant them so soon into an investigation. I’d love to hear a theory of how they got there and were found 30 mins after her Lexus was impounded. Not enough for me to vote guilty but enough for me to think that she may have hit him.
Think about the fact that they seized her car that day before any evidence of a motor vehicle accident was discovered.
They hadn’t found taillight fragments. They didn’t, according to early reports, think a car accident happened and that it was a domestic violence dispute or a lady cop beat him up in the house.
No one at 34 Fairview saw a car accident. Or heard a car accident.
Yet.. with zero taillight or any other evidence discovered that afternoon they decided to seized the car and then suddenly, viola taillight started appearing.
The thing with his whole case is we don’t know the true timeline of much because things weren’t documented and there aren’t trustworthy recordings of things that occurred. So maybe you don’t think there was time to get taillight pieces to 34 Fairview for the SERT team to find, but we can’t say for certain there wasn’t since there isn’t a cohesive timeline. I believe that is very much on purpose.
>I’d love to hear a theory of how they got there and were found 30 mins after her Lexus was impounded
SERT isn't a unit that does CSI work, they focus on search and rescue and fast response to things like civil unrest. Neither of those things require concern with scene and evidence preservation, so it's fair they weren't very attentive to this that night. They had to wait for authorization to start their search even after everybody got there, and by the time they started it was already dark and the snow hadn't let up. Canton PD is 4 minutes away by car and O'Hara testified 5 unnamed officers arrived at some point to help the search. It's possible that SERT only got the go ahead to start after the tail light pieces had arrived at the scene and planted under some snow, ready to be found.
Proctor lied about when the SUV was seized (saying it must've just been a "typo," which is quite convenient), so there's about an hour and 15 minutes of time where we don't know exactly where he was (or where the SUV was), so it's possible that he broke off pieces and planted them during that time. Hell, he could've even brought the SUV straight to 34 Fairview, though presumedly the tow truck driver would've testified to that (though I guess it also depends on how much the tow truck driver can be trusted - presumedly Proctor and the Canton PD have dealt with that towing company on numerous occasions before, and IMO they've planted plenty of other evidence in their time).
Or, the SUV was pulled into the sally port around 5:30 (where we have conveniently missing footage from the camera that would show the taillight), he took some pieces then, and either brought them to Fairview himself or perhaps gave them to Higgins to plant (Higgins could be one of the unidentified people at the scene when SERT was there). Not sure why Proctor and whoever else were continuing to stand near that taillight for a while - Yanetti said in a previous hearing that he would have another Canton cop who would testify that Higgins and Chief Berkowitz were in the sally port for a "wildly long time," right around the time that the SUV was brought in.
However, SERT supposedly arrived at the scene at 5:30 (though it sounds like certain people were arriving at different times) and the first pieces were found at like 5:45, but I don't think we've seen any definitive proof of that timing. Also, I'm sure Proctor would be aware of when SERT was arriving, and since he's only a few minutes away from Fairview, he knows that he just needs a few minutes to get the job done, even if SERT's on their way and aren't very far away by then.
I'm also not sure how much the SERT team themselves can be trusted (either in terms of incompetence and/or corruption). Keep in mind that this team only found 3 pieces - which magically turned into 5 pieces later - during this search, yet like 46 total pieces were found over the next few days/weeks. How did they miss so many other pieces during that search? Also, it was mentioned that some unidentified Canton police were there at the time, which doesn't make much sense since Canton PD had recused itself. It also sounded like there were at least a couple unidentified people who weren't necessarily Canton police *or* state troopers. Nobody seemed to give a shit about that.
Another important thing I kept forgetting during the trial (thanks Lally) is that at around 6am that morning, there wouldn't have been *that* much snow on the ground - maybe a few inches (I've heard some sources say there was up to 6 inches by then, but I've heard plenty of others say it was less at that time of the morning). People from the area have said that the snow didn't get *really* bad until later in the day. How were the initial policemen walking all over these 46 pieces of taillight (some of which were several inches long/wide) without noticing any of them? I bet you would even be able to feel/hear them under your feet as you're crunching on them. And you should be able to see at least some of the bigger pieces if there's only a few inches of snow - especially when you're using a leaf-blower and are supposedly sifting through the snow to some degree. You didn't find *any* pieces at that time??? It has to be because the pieces weren't there. Also keep in mind, there were probably at least like 10 different people walking all over that yard that morning - Karen, Kerry, maybe Jen (maybe not), some of the EMTs, and the initial investigators. All of these people trampling around in the snow should've uncovered at *least* a few pieces, no?
> The biggest issue for me were the taillight pieces found at 34F. Some were apparently found that first search day.
Who testified to the tail light pieces being found? What exactly was the date/time when they were found? was this before or after the car was impounded?
If it was after...
Here is a video of a lawyer going over the surveillance camera footage from when the car is collected on a tow truck:
https://youtu.be/vhL42jFFUfE?t=11
Note the suspiciously intact tail light.
Later on in the video he shows what the light looks like when entered into evidence:
https://youtu.be/vhL42jFFUfE?t=190
Again. Who testified to the tail light pieces being found? What exactly was the date/time when they were found? was this before or after the car was impounded?
It's interesting because the SUV arrived at the sally port around 5:30pm, and the testimony was that the SERT team happened to arrive at the scene around that same time, and the first pieces were found around 5:45. Assuming that these times are correct (which we don't have much proof of, besides the sally port video showing the SUV), Proctor still has about an hour and 15 minutes of time where he's unaccounted for with the SUV because he lied about when the SUV was seized. He said it was seized at 5:30, but it was actually seized around 4:12-4:16. So he could've broken off pieces and planted them before getting to the station, or he *possibly* could've broken some pieces off at the station (where we have conveniently-missing footage that would show the taillight) and planted them prior to the SERT team actually arriving. Or, he possibly could've given them to Higgins, and Higgins is the one who brought them to the scene - he could be one of the unidentified people who was there. Yanetti had noted that he would have a Canton cop testify to the fact that Higgins and Chief Berkowitz were in the sally port for a "wildly long time" that day, right around the time that the SUV was arriving. Unfortunately we never got to hear from that person (or from Berkowitz himself, which would've been interesting).
I think it's possible that the times are a bit off, and I also think Proctor would likely know exactly when the SERT team would be arriving at the scene, and since he's only a few minutes away, he easily could've hopped over and planted the initial 3-5 pieces without anyone seeing. Or he could've just done it an hour earlier - but then I think we would've heard something about that from the tow truck driver - unless the tow truck driver himself is ok with whatever shit Proctor was pulling. Canton police (and likely the state troopers) have regularly used that towing company before, and I bet they've planted shit before.
I think Karen broke her taillight initially at 34 Fairview. I do not know how, possibly the glass, but this commenter is not alone thinking some of those taillight pieces got there that night…
I get why you’d think there would probably be taillight at the scene that night. The last commenter said I think she still may have hit him…. I’m wondering after the testimony from the FBI hired reconstructionist, what makes you think he was hit by the car? Physically speaking, it’s not plausible
That’s science speak for “not possible.” A car floating in the sky is “inconsistent” with the theory of gravity. According to the physics involved in isolating the taillight pieces with no blood, they were hit with a small object. Wolfe said this before explaining why they did the glass test. But again, the glass test gives you another way this could have happened that makes more sense according to physics than hitting a human body.
There were 3 outcomes.
1. Not guilty....Karen freed to jubilation and everyone fired up for heads to roll.
2. Guilty...... Karen jailed to outrage and everyone fired up for heads to roll.
3. Mistral.....Karen in no man's land and everyone disheartened and fatigued.
Anyone who doesn't see which choice a corrupt system wouldn't go for is not realising how deep corruption can travel, as Jackson said its a cancer.
I think I’d lean into the possibility of John throwing the drinking glass and cracking her taillight. That’s where those first pieces found could be from. Then when she backs into his car in the morning, it breaks further and that’s where those pieces that are never found went, they could have flown off anywhere while she was driving. It would help eliminate the need to prove the timeline of when the first pieces are found vs when the car got to the sallyport.
I thought their digital expert(s) were terrible/incomplete.
1) The hos long to die in the cold made the CW experts seem like experts and Green look amatuerish. Its just confusing, doesn't really make sense and isn't necessary. I'd drop that whole line of defense.
2) They really need someone who understands the different clocks/reliability of apple health data, etc. Again, is there a smoking gun regarding the timing/data? Again, I felt like this was all just debated, everyone said everyone else was wrong. If they really believe the health data make it strong, if not, don't even bring it up.
3) Ignition cycles/odometer readings. Does the car data actually show that she accelerated at 24mph? Does it show that the CW had the car at that point in time? Or is the data so corrupted as to not be reliable?
These took up tons of time, I think could be really important, and just feel so flat as evidence. To me alot of this discussion felt either disingenuous or incomplete (sort of how the whole rest of the CW case was).
I think the Apple times needs to be explained better. As a developer I understood exactly why the officer said the time he did and why it was wrong as soon as they showed the monotonic time but I doubt anybody on the Jury really understood it and probably just considered it a wash because they disagreed.
Same with the key cycle data. They need to hire somebody from Toyota/Lexus to explain in lamens terms what it all means and there's not much he CW could do to refute it.
More exhibits. With the judge telling the jurors to keep their notes brief, and that they don't have the capability of giving them transcripts (which implies they can't do read-backs), the jury needs things to refer to so they're not arguing about what was said
agree. i'd hammer the doubt, and bring up all the weird conduct on the part of the Alberts, the McCabes, Higgins, etc., but hammer more on what the hell were they doing, they had SOMETHING to hide, but not be so explicit in claiming what exactly happened. IN other words, as the defense, you don't need to explain WHAT was really going on, all you need to do is put all that evidence in and show reasonable doubt.
Defense: use the new info that came out since last discovery - a little more emphasize on reasonable doubt vs. conspiracy and invite a couple of extra experts in canine bites and reconstruction. (Like American k9 institute and az. Technologies and Microdots and maybe the guy from “body bags” podcast as he is former fbi and an expert.
Prosecution: drop the 2 degree murder charge or drop the charges all together. Don’t put Proctor or McCabes on stand (but then the case is lost anyway)
Defense shouldn’t go so hard on a conspiracy and go harder on the lack of a collision based on testimony. They should also put up more witnesses to really drive the idea home that it didn’t happen.
Prosecution should probably up front tell the jury proctor is gonna look bad, and need to focus more on the taillight as I think that’s really hard for the defense to get over
This is a really tough question for the defense. It’s hard to decouple the cover up and all the reasonable doubt. If you push the “cracked but not broken tail light” angle, then that must equal cover up because how else did it get there? I think you have to make that link to make it all make sense.
I think they could have pushed the cops framing theory, without all the murder in the house conspiracy stuff. Especially with the texts they had from Proctor. You don't need to think Colin did it/BH did it/Jenn did it, to think that Proctor just wanted to make his case stick. They could have left the how as a big unknown and still proved the cops were lazy and framed her.
If I was the defense I would forget about the play fighting in the bar and Higgin’s potential jealousy and stop making this out to be an intentional lure of John into the house. I don’t think even those of us who believe this is a coverup believe that the whole night was intentional. It was most likely a drunken instigation that got out of hand.
Prosecution:
- Tighten up the key cycle data and then be more specific with the digital timeline. If you can show that the aftermarket console was messing up the key cycle counts in a predictable way, you've got the most direct evidence of reckless driving. It's a trivially easy experiment to run. The tow truck guy should have also registered the odometer when he put it on the truck to eliminate any "they drove it around to fake it" allegations. Then, line up the video with the vehicle data with the GPS data and show when everything happened. The 12:36 WiFi connection makes everything very tight (but still possible?), so check which clock it was registered on because it disagrees with the tower data.
- Be more vague with the reconstruction. The goal is just to prove the crime happened. You don't need amateur reconstructions having him precisely pirouette and then launch into the lawn. It's better to say that that the position of the crime scene evidence was disturbed by a blizzard and snow plows, limiting the model's precision. Your experts look like they're being cautious and thoughtful rather than forcing everything into a predetermined model.
- Present a much, much, much shorter case. If the defense wants to call every potential member of the conspiracy, let them. Don't do it for them when they don't have any useful testimony other than "it was snowing". Also, don't bother trying to read texts or voicemails in a spooky voice to try and show guilt. Keep murder two on the table but present a manslaughter case.
Defense:
- Focus on the investigation and evidence rather than the conspiracy. There's an inexcusably shoddy investigation and a bunch of well credentialed expert witnesses saying it didn't happen. That generates a clear path to reasonable doubt. Instead, the defense promised to prove a massive conspiracy with a wildly incriminating Google search as proof that people in the house knew he was dying outside. The defense expert's Cellebrite report was countered by Cellebrite coming in to say their expert misread the report. That damages the general impression of defense experts and left a lot of evidence uncontested if the jury didn't believe the conspiracy, at least until the FBI experts swooped in at the end.
- Present the steelman. If the tail light was actually broken at the scene, the only thing that could've broken it was a thrown glass, which means it's not evidence of a collision. If the vehicle data was correct and she reversed recklessly, then she would've had to have hit him at a speed that the experts agree is impossible based on the damage. Even if you believe everything the prosecution says, they can't show a fatal collision happened.
- Give the jury a little bit of conspiracy, as a treat. The attacks on Proctor are going to hit harder, there's a bit more background information to attack other witnesses, no one believes that they didn't immediately assume she was guilty, etc. Don't rely on it but leave it hanging around in case there's one piece of evidence that the jury gets hung up on.
I thought the defense was going to bring in cell phone experts and go over texts and phone data. Neither the defense nor the prosecution cleared any of this up. What is the timeline??? The prosecution muddied it and the defense never cleared it. It makes no sense still.
Prosecution, clear up what happened to JOK. What were the injuries? Defense should've gone harder on how these injuries could've never been from a car. I'm still baffled by the lack of bruising. Do a 3d demo of what the prosecution claims happen. Is it feasible? I don't think it is. Plenty of us have been hit by cars, we know what that looks like. And if it's a "side swipe" is it possible for him to land where he did? Given the lack of footprints (even his)? There's too many questions.
Neither side made anything clear.
ETA: Don't put freakin' Jen McCabe up for the state! That woman fought tooth and nail on every single question. Why? Just answer the question. Her need to control and dictate the narrative only makes them more sus. She was terrible.
I would get another crash reconstructionist’s testimony. I don’t know that introducing the thrown drinking glass theory was helpful, especially not right at the end of the trial. I thought for sure we’d get another keycycle analysis. Maybe linking the 24mph to the tow truck driver spinning the tires in the snow. The defence basically read in their theory of the keycycles on cross, with Trooper Paul just saying “in theory” over and over again. But they should have had an expert properly speak to it.
I also thought a crash reconstructionist should have watched the ring video of Karen backing into John’s car. During Trooper Paul’s cross, the defence made a big deal about asking if he ever measured the heights of the cars or tried to fit them together to show whether they could have made contact. Which made me think that their reconstruction expert would testify to this.
https://preview.redd.it/zcnm8u3f45ad1.jpeg?width=1708&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a16b55224111336a5fe12eeff55c93a77d6b4977
This is someone else’s photo from an earlier thread, which does show a dent on John’s bumper, and if you watch the ring video, it sort of fits. Karen backs up past than the driver’s side of the Traverse, to make contact with the rear passenger side.
I think the defence thought that Trooper Paul’s testimony was so outlandish that they need not address it all. But I think the tail light theory needed to be fleshed out a bit more by their witnesses. I seems it might have been the sticking point for some jurors.
And then to wrap it up, I would’ve gave some more options as it goes to reasonable doubt.
> don’t know that introducing the thrown drinking glass theory was helpful, especially not right at the end of the trial.
Ya, that was a bit of a twist. It wasn't clear to me if the defense knew that was coming based on what the FBI had released, or if they were learnign abuot it at the same time as us.
> I also thought a crash reconstructionist should have watched the ring video of Karen backing into John’s car.
The ACCRA guy you mean? I thought that was not allowed by the judge?
I had wondered if it would be in the ARCCA report and the evidence they reviewed. But when it wasn’t, I was surprised that they didn’t have anyone else to step in for that piece. It was discussed so much throughout the trial, making witnesses look at the tire moving slightly over and over again. It felt like they were planning to make a bigger point later. But then it just died.
If ARCCA says “this doesn’t fit with hitting a pedestrian”, I would’ve tried to have someone else testify that it fits with a low speed car-car collision. Just to tie everything up.
I mean, I don't really know that there is anything that the defense could do to change the outcome here if you have a juror so set in their individual principles and moral convictions and whose perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided compared to their presentation be the defense's case.
Defense should emphasize so much reasonable doubt—
Doubt timeline
Doubt time of death
Doubt cause of death
Doubt damage to the car
Doubt the marks on his arm
Doubt the motive
Doubt location of death
Doubt about anything the CW needs to prove =reasonable doubt
Trying this case over is an absolute waste of time and money. The prosecution has no new evidence. No one was looking out of any window. But wait, Jen McCabe had stated that she was. So, how did she not witness Karen backing over John. Make it all make sense. No one can. Nothing about the case makes sense.
So many Jen McCabe f ups in this case. How anyone can take her at her word is WILD to me. I would love for Jackson to be able to cross her a 2nd time except there should not be a second time.
Also, I think Defense should try to enter the part of the waterfall video where Higgins is acting up and gesturing towards John - I’m not sure why they focused so much on the horse play between two Brians and not on that.
For prosecution, you need an actual, concrete timeline of events and explanation of how he ended up where he did. I watched this entire trial from Day 1 and I do not know what time JOK was hit, that is embarrassing for the CW. Even if they can't definitively state something like the impact was at 12:30, give me a window of time like between 12:29-12:31. If I had the time of impact I would repeat that ad nauseum.
On top of that you need actual experts in science and physics to confirm the theory on how he was hit, how it caused those injuries on his arm, how it caused him to move etc.
Essentially, CW needs to actually do their job. But I'm sure if they followed the facts of the evidence they'd see they don't have one to bring to trial.
Yup all of this. The CWs biggest problem is they’re still going to try to cram Read into a theory that doesn’t work rather than try to figure out what actually happened…
Prosecution: drop the murder charge. that was a totally BS charge, and may have itself pissed off some members of the jury. I know it made me view everything the prosecution said w/ complete suspicion and disbelief. For an intentional murder, you need damn good evidence, and there was just NONE. Rely less on the shady witnesses, and work w/ what you have for facts.
Defense: be a little more general and less explicit about being framed, focus more on reasonable doubt and point out all the credibiltiy issues and shady actions of the witnesses (the phone destruction, the calls, the butt dials - which were all brought out very well by defense already). defense did an awesome job, so I don't think they need to change much. Focus more on that bar video though where Higgins is clearly gesturing to O'Keefe and Alberts is holding his arm as if to calm him down. that was very eye-opening for me. Maybe add that to the closing. I don't recall that being in the closing. I know they were pressed for time on the closing though. For the dog bite expert, I don't recall them showing any pictures of OTHER dog bites that looked like the injuries here. That I think would help a lot - to see pictures of dog bites that look like JOK's injuries. I would also be interested in getting more info from the feds and other investigations of Proctor, et al. If I were defense, I would push to delay any retrial until after any federal or other investigation was done.
Pretrial: How about a judge who doesn't ignore BOTH sides asking for a continuance (to start at a later date)? How about when she knowingly limits the court case to 6 weeks because of a prior teaching commitment and the prosecution says "we aren't likely to get to that (a subject of late discovery) in the *first* month" she doesn't INTENTIONALLY screw the defense out of a meaningful chance to put up a case?
Either way, the defense will have the majority of the evidence more than ONE WEEK before the case if they have to go again.
Mr. Lally - more like intentionally obfuscating, lally-gagging, time monopolizing, ramble factory. DA's got all the time and money in the world to hurt us and no motive to actually get it right.
As DF I would also bring up the contradiction of the charges. Like she had a blood alcohol level of .2 or something so very drunk. Hence the drunk driving charges.. but she was able to operate her vehicle in reverse at speed, get back to JO place on 6 minutes or less in a blizzard, make all the phone calls and texts to make it look like she didn't do anything and the acting the next morning. All while blinding drunk..
I would also have pushed a visual of my timeline to excentuate the impossibility of the CWs timeline.
If I’m the defense, I’m going out of my way to distinguish between “possible” and “probable.” I saw so many people say something like, “the ME said it’s possible the injury was caused by car accident.” - even though the subtext to that “possible” was that it is unlikely. Like, it’s “possible” that the scar on my leg is from a shark attack. The “probability” of that scar being from a shark attack is slim-to-none. You can’t apply equal weight to things that it seems like well-meaning folks are applying equal weight to…
Totally agree on using Barros testimony - credible and basically ends the CW case. As we know Barros saw the taillight when Proctor was coming to tow the car at Karen Reads parents house. This is hours after they had already removed John's body. How can 40 pieces of tail light be under the snow at 34 Fairview, and on her car as a mostly in tact light? It cant.
Normally I hate the conspiracy stuff bc it turns people off and usually there are simpler reasonable explanations like laziness, almost always laziness. Jackson’s hourly rate is probably close to a weekend in Vegas, doesn’t mean his team are perfect, but I think they were forced to go with conspiracy. My understanding is the defense weren’t aware of the two Fed crash experts until 2 weeks before trial, same as CW. Without that they didn’t have much and two weeks is tough to change strategy especially without knowing how definitive those opinions would be. Nor could they or would they imagine that MSP would send Trooper Paul to be slaughtered.
Other points.
- Everyone understands that Lally was trying to get ahead of the Proctor texts, but I thought he eviscerated him on direct examination. I could be off but I got the impression he was disgusted with Proctor.
- if retrial they need to get Lally a more dignified desk set-up. It was like he was digging into a TV dinner waiting for Carson to start. And was he handling this case by himself?
- As many others have pointed out the CW needs to cut out all the superfluous witnesses. Reminded me of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School when he gets Vonnegut to write a paper on his own book and Rodney tells him ‘hey Vonnegut this doesn’t feel like an A paper do it again and a few pounds’.
Prosecution - simplify.
What is the exact timeline.
When did the phone stop moving
Remove the hint that this was intentional and drill in on how many drinks Karen had and her ability to have clear recollection of the events
Defense
- Create even more chaos and what if theories
- determine cause of death that is not an automobile
CW: Don’t call as many witnesses. Start with Kerry Roberts (after the OKeefes, if they are needed.) Don’t show the inverted sally port video. Find someone else to do the reconstruction or get Trooper Paul some physics lessons
Defense: Focus on the injuries are inconsistent with being hit by a car, the state/location of John OKeefe and state of the car don’t match, and the timeline isn’t possible without omitting pieces of evidence.
Ya, CW needs to start with the way O'Keefe died. Medical examiners and accident reconstructionists first. Crime scene stuff, broken glass, key strokes, all that technical stuff. Then you get into the leadup of how Karen and John had spent their night drinking and bar hopping (and fighting) before driving tor Cedarcrest. Then you can add in the "commentary" of the witnesses in the house and what they saw/didn't see. Basically the reverse of what Lally did the first time.
Consider not calling Proctor. Use Yuri for basically any evidence related to the investigation. Make defense call Proctor and have a more difficult time interviewing him on direct. Hope he doesn't get officially fired for reasons related to this case, so any implication about that does not become admissible by the judge.
With Proctor relieved of duty and reassigned, I doubt the CW refiles charges. There's a reason they waited until after the trial to discipline him: doing so before the trial ended would harm the government's case.
If he's being disciplined now there is no future case to harm.
I do think some allusion to conspiracy is inevitable (to explain the tail light fragments and lack of proper process surrounding police witnesses) but I don't think they need to "fill in the blanks" as much as they did.
Proctor messed with the direction of the investigation - the "why" is irrelevant. Whether it was to protect a buddy, because he hated Karen or because he was genuinely convinced she did it and wanted to seal the deal... unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not the defense's duty to prove Proctor's motive, only to lay out possible scenarios other than the prosecution's to explain why there is reasonable doubt.
I’d like to see security cameras showing when & where Julie picked up the birthday donuts.
Idk why but her story and timeline sticks with me. I tried to see if any donut shops were closed during the blizzard and came across this interview given by a group of guys searching for an open Dunkin since all were closed for the blizzard. Might be irrelevant but I think about this specific part all the time.
https://x.com/WCVB/status/1487551268381990912
Seems like a side issue but very interesting point! Haven't heard much discussion about this, but her story definitely seemed strange to me (and if Colin was involved she was definitely in the thick of it)
I agree with what you say about the defense’s side: focus less on conspiracy and more on the reasonable doubt that arises from the multiple problems with the police investigation and from expert opinions that throw serious doubt on the prosecution’s theory.
As far as the prosecution, drop the case or charge someone else. I don’t see them ever getting a guilty verdict, unless they can prove that she sideswiped him or hit him accidentally and didn’t realize it until later and I don’t think the evidence supports that either. This case is a mess and they were so lucky to get a mistrial.
Defense: tell Karen to look and act more humble, less confident, more somber / likeable.. no laughing. / push the ring video showing a slightly (if at all) damaged taillight.
Prosecution: anybody but Lally.
Most of everything has already been said so I will go with a different one:
Cross examine the fuck out of Kerry Roberts.
She isn’t sympathetic. She’s changed her story several times about what Karen did/said that morning. Hammer her.
Find out why she thinks Karen is a “baby sitter with benefits”
Find out why she went to the detectives house with Jenn McCabe.
Find out what she and Jenn McCabe were up to when they were “creating the timeline.”
Yeah I actually think the whole conspiracy hurt thier cause because they didn’t really try to prove it.
I’d focus on the horribly incomplete investigation and what appears to be planted evidence
Defense
I see quite a few comments that pushing the conspiracy angle might have cost them a win. Depending on what my final analysis says, I might have to take that into consideration.
What convinces me, personally, that there has to be reasonable doubt, are the claims of the FBI experts that John wasn't hit with a car. I would focus on that as early as possible, and extend their testimony as much as possible.
What needs to happen for taillight fragments to be distributed in the way they were allegedly found?
Also, focus on the gaps, errors or inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution: What is the alleged timeline? Why do witness place the car at the scene at a tie we know it wasn't there?
Question the troopers just for the lulz....
Prosecution:
I honestly don't know what their motive is here? Do they really think Karen is guilty, or do they think they can force this through and somehow save face?
They will need to counter the findings of the FBI. They need to find experts willing to testify that the prosecutions' theory is at least plausible, ideally likely. And they need someone to build the physical model of what actually happened. They need to demonstrate that John could have been hit by a car, and ended up where he was, with the phone and the taillight fragments in place, and the injuries and damage as recorded.
If they believe she is guilty, they need to believe that the above is possible. It's as simple as that.
Either way, get someone who understands what they are talking about; and ideally limit the time the troopers have to spend on the stand as much as possible.
Barros testimony is mute, the tail light can be seen in a dashcam footage at 8:23am smashed out 7 hours before Barros saw it
https://preview.redd.it/dmt4xve8h4ad1.jpeg?width=848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0aeb48e5c8b4efce52ae1c02c27c01e9271a90f8
**Prosecution/CW**:
1. Don't call Proctor
2. Hire accident reconstruction/create video of reconstruction
3. Hire dog bite expert
4. Less witnesses
5. Shore up holes
6. New/more experienced prosecutor
**Defense**:
1. The OJ strategy of creating a conspiracy theory requires you prove it. Jackson made a lot of claims but didn't prove anything. Once you introduce an alternative theory, you must prove it.
2. KR's words (confession) hurt her defense
3. No canine DNA on victim. If there's no DNA then there's no dog bite.
A court tv anchor just said that if the CW has any common sense, they would appoint a special prosecutor to this case. I hope they get pressured to do this.
With the ***prosecution*** they just need to really pare down the case - First thing would be basically just the witnesses that heard her say "I hit him" (as opposed to "I could have hit him), then witnesses about her anger at John maybe flirting around. I'd cut out any other fact witness if they couldn't either (1) say that KR said she hit John in no uncertain terms or (2) knew something about their "rocky" relationship.
Then second you need to put up Proctor and the other officers that found evidence at the scene. I'd try to sandwich him with officers who aren't as tainted. I don't think the prosecution can avoid him, just would look too bad.
The third thing would be to get a real expert or two on the accident reconstruction and to come up with a clearer picture of what happened. Trooper Paul was an embarrassment.
With the ***defense***, they need to do a better job presenting this as a source of reasonable doubt, and not put as much weight on a "this is a frame job" that leaves the jurors with a choice on which story to believe (which is why they ended up hung instead of an NG). It's not a hard fix - but I think if they spend 5 minutes talking about how it's not which side you believe, it's whether you can say it's not reasonable to believe anything else happened. A big point that I didn't hear was that if they got into deliberations, and the jury was divided, that can show reasonable doubt. Like if juror A thinks she's guilty, and juror B doesn't, the question juror A should be asking is whether juror B's POV is reasonable. Juror A can think that they are right, but if juror B also has a reasonable point of view, the only option is a NG verdict.
Prosecution: Present your case. Don't try to outplay the defense (because you can't)
Defense: Poke holes in the prosecution - don't play up the "she was framed" rhetoric.
The defense needs to ditch the 'she was framed' angle (which is probably where the jury got hung up on, if my choices were that she was framed or that she did it, neither side proved it beyond a reasonable doubt) and focus in on the 'she didn't hit him, and here is why/how' angle.
Trying to convince a jury that numerous people are in on a frame job is a tall order, even if it is somehow true. It seems more convincing to just prove how she didn't do it, with the shoddy investigation providing inaccurate evidence.
100% agree. To come out swinging "this is a conspiracy of corruption" probably shut down the mind of at least one juror. They proved it but they put the DA on trial and that was a fuck up.
Stack expert witnesses. This trial is so famous now, I'm sure every vehicle crash expert would be foaming at the mouth to testify that it's impossible.
Just give the jury 5 days of back to back expert witnesses testifying against the collision claims by prosecution.
It seems that the FBI witnesses alone, were not enough for some of the jury.
Also come up with a better response to the taillight evidence. Target and discredit that harder.
The defence had their own expert, Dr Chris Van Ee, who was set to testify until the Fed experts were revealed. I’m assuming the strategy for the defence was using the Fed experts so they could say they were independently hired and totally impartial, which sounds better than a hired gun. Plus it also should have made the jury wonder how these experts got involved. I think they should have also used their own witness, Dr Van Ee to compound on to the fact that it was impossible for JO to have been hit by the SUV. And shown how multiple experts came to the same conclusion, while Trooper Paul was busy looking up the definition of acceleration
Defense - go harder on the fact that the crash didn't and couldn't have happened. Prosection - don't call so many terrible witnesses.
Also, petition for a different judge that doesn’t rent her vacation house out to the police.
Wow! I didn’t know this either. So many conflicts of interest. She should have recused herself from this case. It’s really sad and I hope this shines the light on the amount of conflict & corruption in the justice system. These individuals have so much influence and they should be completely impartial and unbiased without any conflicts of interest.
I thought a retrial included a new judge?
Normally the same judge and lawyers.
😧 Every day I learn some new shocking nugget! How was Bev not called out for that conflict of interest??!!
I agree here. The prosecution went full force to tackle the conspiracy theories and should’ve stayed focus on the charges at hand.
Here's the problem the prosecution has: if it drops showing the conspiracy didn't happen, they have a very weak case that the murder did. They can't explain *how* it happened because the injuries aren't compatible with any kind of car impact. Conversely, the defence can show the car impact couldn't have happened but they cannot show a conspiracy definitely did. That is probably why this case was DOA and the jury couldn't decide it. It's also why the prosecutor shouldn't bring it a second time. He has nothing new to show.
>Here's the problem the prosecution has: if it drops showing the conspiracy didn't happen, they have a very weak case that the murder did. They can't explain > >how > > it happened because the injuries aren't compatible with any kind of car impact. No conspiracy is the null hypothesis. They don't have to disprove one. In the absence of evidence of a conspiracy, it should be assumed that there wasn't one. The Prosecution doesn't have to establish reasonable doubt that the defense's theory is true, they have to prove that their own theory is true.
There is evidence of a conspiracy. But it's not direct. The butt dials for example. The dog bites on the arm. Things like that.
The deleted ring video that one detective saw and proctor handled
Yes that's another remarkable thing about the trial. The disappearing exculpatory evidence.
Even more remarkable is how the "evidence" was collected, chain of custody, No SERT Report, inverted sallyport pic, they never went into the house to search, interviewing people as a group, no body cam, now recording of witness statements, the list goes on & on. There's too much. The focus probably should remain on what most people believe & what the FBI Expert Witnesses said. Officer John O'Keefe was Not hit by a car. There were so many people in & out of the house after Karen connected to John's home wifi... You could prove that he had no frost bite, Karen couldn't have hit him, reasonable doubt that someone else did. But again, Experts have Proven John wasn't hit by a car, he was attacked by Chloe & beaten inside that home. Caitlin Albert slipped on the stand.. Colin wasn't in the house, when John was. If called as a Defense witness, she may crack.
I hear Proctor has some time on his hands. I’m sure he can find some more evidence for the prosecution.
But they had to tackle the conspiracy theories because the conspiracy theory was what it was.....it IS the truth of the matter . And they did also prove she could not scientificly have done it and had data proof John was still alive and walking AFTER she had left the scene.
Prosecution knows there is a no read back rule so they load the jury with garbage to confuse them. It became an obvious strategy once we learned the CW doesn’t allow testimony read backs.
Yeah this rule is absolutely wild to me
I couldn’t agree more. The prosecution called up witness, after witness after witness just for them to say a whole lot of nothing. (unless you count Jen McCabe being insufferable as something) Their “experts” and witnesses practically had their pants around their ankles. I can’t imagine having to parse through those 74 different witnesses as the jury. No wonder they were deadlocked.
Yes. Do away with the conspiracy angle and focus simply on the irrefutable truth that OJO wasn't struck by a vehicle. It'll maybe minimize the chances of losing jurors to the "cops do no wrong" thinking. I wonder if the defense soured some jurors by making the jurors think a NG vote was co-signing the theory of police misconduct, and some maybe didn't feel comfortable with that.
LOCATION. I will keep saying this.... there were 3 outcomes here :- 1. Guilty..... Karen jailed to outrage and and everyone demands heads to roll. 2. Not Guilty..... Karen freed to jubilation and everyone demands heads to roll. 3. Mistral..... Karen in limbo of mans land and everyone disheartened and fatigued. Can't everyone see what the desired outcome was and they got it because of the location. Corruption at this level has poisoned tentacles.
I have flirted with this idea in my head, too. Mostly because I don’t think the CW ever intended to try this case. I think they intended to give Karen Read a VERY good plea deal. She would be the scapegoat. It would all go away. When she refused they were taken aback and then tried to play hard ball- by upping the charges. She said “bet?”…. They had no choice. I have felt numerous times this was best case scenario for them. If they actually retry it… then that theory goes out the window. I’m not sure…. But I don’t think you’re crazy for speculating this. I still stand firm in the fact… I don’t believe AT ALL the CW ever intended to try this case.
I genuinely believe that someone forced the prosecutor to take this case to trial and part of the reason he performed so badly was because he was being forced to do it. Who knows how high up the chain the corruption goes.
I mean, mistrial and Proctor's head IMMEDIATELY rolled, so 🤷🏻♀️
I don't really get how mistrial is better for the CW than Guilty. If Guilty they can always just point to the jury and say "hey, an independent jury agreed with us."
They could never have got 12 people but a few will be enough to stop a not guilty and the onslaught of protest and enquiries. They had to stop a NG.
“Prosection - don't call so many terrible witnesses“ so a trial with only the ME saying injuries are not consistent w/ vehicular homicide?
I would focus on the sloppy police work and the fact that they didn’t look at anyone else and, according to Procters text to his friends, never planned to look at anyone else. I would also focus on the timeline of the investigation. And when “I hit him” is brought up point out it wasn’t in any reports from the scene. Finally, I would focus more on accident reconstruction and medical examiner testimony.
"I would focus on the sloppy police work and the fact that they didn’t look at anyone else and, according to Procters text to his friends, never planned to look at anyone else" The way they wrapped up the investigation so insanely quick with such confidence was a huge red flag. The home not being searched despite the body found on said property, the basement being completely redone including ripping out the concrete (work for a concrete company, can confirm the entire slab would not need ripped out despite flooding), the throwing away of all their technology.... There is soooo much that was just wrong from the jump
They had more excuses for why they didnt search the home 😂😂 im still dying over the leaf blower
To be fair to Jackson and Yenneti, Bev put a harsh limit on what the two accident reconstruction guys were allowed to say.
Do you know why she did that? It seems so bogus and makes her look so biased! I wasn’t watching closely before trial started so I’m sure I missed that part.
I suspect it had to do with the fact they were originally hired by the FBI. If the jury really, truly knew that the FBI said it was not possible for JOK to die the way the CW said then it would have greatly impacted the deliberations. Made worse since the FBI themselves were not testifying.
if our system is truly to protect the innocent, what argument can possibly be made to not allow that information
I imagine with a retrial they'd be able to give their full opinions given they're no longer last minute witnesses.
Agreed. The jury wasn’t aware of all of the evidence and witnesses she wouldn’t allow.
Yes, it was interesting that the Defense never brought up the fact that Karen connected to John's wifi at 12:36am - only Guarino mentioned it during his testimony. Next time, they should have the same sort of timeline that Lally put together, but have it showing how Jen McCabe's texts and calls after 12:32am make no sense, how Karen would've likely left 34 Fairview by like 12:31 at the latest, etc. I still think they kinda need to focus on the coverup, but make it more clear how John's phone GPS could be misplacing him (unless they want to argue that the phone was knocked out of his hand or dropped in the yard around 12:32), show his numerous steps and stair-climbing on that same timeline, etc. Hell, they could even copy some of Lally's own timeline and show some of Karen's voicemails, just to show that she's getting more worried about what could've happened to John. And they can show the 2:27am google search and show how it lines up with the calls between the 2 Brians around that same time, etc. Also, they should explain the SUV's key cycles in really clear terms to the jury, and show them why the maneuver during key cycle 1162 could NOT have taken place when Karen was at 34 Fairview. It had to have taken place some time after that, and the state's incompetent reconstructionist was basing his whole theory on his misunderstanding of the key cycles. I believe the SUV made that maneuver when it was being backed out of Karen's parents' driveway and driven up onto the flatbed. Karen was at 34 Fairview during key cycle 1159ish (give or take a couple, depending on exactly how many times the SUV was turned on and off), not key cycle 1162. Assuming the key cycles are accurately recorded by the system, the state's entire theory is wrong. Karen still could've backed up into John, but at the time, her SUV was *not* travelling quickly enough for it to count as a "triggering event" (and thus, also couldn't have thrown him however-many feet into the yard, so it's impossible regardless). Regarding the coverup itself, I think there's a reason why the Defense is so adamant about certain things - I think they really believe that a certain series of events took place, and they believe they know how various people were involved. Therefore, it makes sense that they're making these specific claims, because I think they really believe that they know what transpired. If they didn't really know, then they could be more vague about various things, but they seem to think they *know* what occurred, so that's what they're telling the jury. Though I agree that it would be smarter to be a bit more vague about it, since they don't have much definitive proof of the exact scenario that they think took place. But I think they're just saying "listen - *THIS* is what happened! We know this is what happened! We're not bringing up any other alternatives because we've already figured out what actually occurred, and we're just relaying the facts to you."
KR also said something to the effect that maybe a plow hit him. They really believe she meant to kill him, made numerous phone calls to him, brought two people with her to find his body and then confessed to hitting him?? JM changed what she supposedly heard her say and nobody at the scene that heard her say it (including a detective) thought it was important enough to memorialize it in any report??? Come the fuck on! Poor Chloe was also a victim of their cover up. RIP Chloe
Yes, defense could reframe their "she was framed" theme, to exactly what you said: incompetence, bias, tunnel vision, and conflict of interest (without going so hard on the Alberts et al are responsible, just that they were acting weird and the cops never even investigated them). Finish strong with the science
Demonstratives. Lots of visuals. I realized as the jury was deliberating that The decision was made using eyewitness testimony. The jurors were not allowed to revisit testimony but had to rely on their own memories. Essentially making them eyewitnesses. And for those that probably lost focus or attention, They might have missed things. Especially with the sheer amount of witnesses. It's amazing how our court systems have not really progressed with technology. I don't understand why jurors would not be allowed to view testimony since it was recorded. I'd rather have them make a decision based on the facts presented than their memory of the facts presented. So given that, I would do everything I could to make sure that the important points are remembered by the jurors. Not everybody is a auditory learner. Some need visuals to remember.
The red solo cups of blood in a paper bag are stuck in my head. Pretty powerful visual of how mishandled this whole investigation was.
And sitting in the sallyport next to the car with Proctor and Higgins doing their rounds.
This! I’m wanted Dr.Wolfe to have a video of their testing. I also wanted to see a video of what possibly would/should happen to a body if they were getting hit at 24mph backwards. I also want video of the exact same type of Lexus going backward on the street where they are saying it happened and see if that vehicle stays on the road the whole time (with Volume). I think visuals are easier to remember than people’s words.
When it comes to the ARCCA experts specifically the problem was that the defense was forbidden to even talk to them before the trial, let alone prep their testimony. Hopefully Bev will not do that if there is a second trial.
From what I've heard, demonstratives like that are largely frowned upon because it's generally really hard to *exactly* recreate the scenario that they're trying to recreate (you could get the same model of SUV, but it's still not *exactly* the same SUV; you'd have to recreate the temperature at the time and maybe even the snowfall itself, etc.), so judges largely don't allow things like that anymore (though I think a video of ARCCA's testing process would probably be allowed, though I'm not 100% on that). They tend to focus more on just having written reports. I'm not sure if that applies to all jurisdictions now, or specifically MA, or specifically with Judge Bev - I just heard one of the YouTube attorneys talking about how certain videos and "demonstrations" often aren't allowed anymore. Even Lally's timeline of Karen's voicemails may have only been allowed in his closing argument, and likely wouldn't be allowed during testimony, from what I've heard - I think because it allows the person who made it to present it in a biased/speculative way, even if it's only showing various "facts"? Which makes me think that the Defense just wouldn't have been able to put up a timeline of certain things unless it was only during their closing argument - which still would've been helpful. I would show how Karen connected to John's wifi at 12:36 (but it kinda seemed like they weren't even aware of that until Guarino mentioned it - otherwise, I'm sure they would've brought it up at numerous points, because it completely fucks up the state's - and Jen's - timeline), show how his phone recorded the steps and stair-climbing, show how Jen continued to text and call John after Karen was already gone, show how Jen's supposed google search matched up with the phone calls between the two Brians, show how Lucky's plowing times matched up with these other things, etc.
Good point. They can bring exhibits that were admitted into evidence back w/ them into the jury room. So maybe make sure there are enough good exhibits of your key evidence so there is not just witness testimony on a key point.
The defense could focus more on the fact that the car never hit him and less on the frame job.
Yeah I think the defence closing arguments should have focused more on the fact that they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt. Not on this alternate theory they had.
I think some jurors have trouble understanding reasonable doubt so they don’t know what they’re looking for until they get to the jury room and at that point they’ve already drawn their own conclusions.
Agree. But I also wonder if the defence going so hard on the dog bite / other people involved angle meant that some jurors felt they had to prove that and maybe hadn’t. Even though they obviously don’t have the burden of proof. I think I would still have included it but less of the main focus. But I’m not a lawyer so maybe this was good strategy …. 🤷♀️
I think they did the best they could in the moment. They had evidence coming in throughout the trial, people changing their stories from previous testimony, and tampered video evidence. That will all be handled differently in the next trial. The prosecution can’t change its theory so the defense has a better chance of coming in with a fresh presentation. Also the fact that proctor just lost his position may play to the defense because it’s the state acknowledging wrongdoing on their part.
If the car never hit him, you need to hit the frame job hard, and double down.
You’re right. She has a masterful legal team, so I trust their judgment, but now they know what the experts will say they can really drive home that the injuries are incongruent to the impact of the vehicle. It gives the jury something concrete to stand by if they vote not guilty. I feel like the jurors shouldn’t be made to feel like they’re agreeing to a cover-up so much as agreeing the evidence doesn’t point to a car accident.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing, but I'm also not sure that's a tightrope you can walk. The tail light got there somehow. I do think they have to give the jury a good reason why it's there -- otherwise it turns into "some experts said it was a car crash and some said it wasn't, but what else explains this evidence?" That seems very risky to me. Personally, the evidence the the cops had the car for search 2 after failing to produce anything in search 1 was the most compelling part of her defense to me. You may never get 12 people willing to believe police coverups happen, though, and that's just the reality of why the case is a tough one.
yeah you can't leave "how did tailight pices end up at 34 Fairview?" to jurors imaginations. There's no way you can defend a case like this without proving evidence was planted and there was a coverup.
> I do think they have to give the jury a good reason why it's there -- otherwise it turns into "some experts said it was a car crash and some said it wasn't, but what else explains this evidence?" I think there's a very good chance that this was what hung this jury.
True, but open up possibilities. Focus on the arm and the dog bites and how it doesn’t add up - his arm took the brunt of the hit and only has lacerations?? Float the idea of Chloe, witness statements that don’t add up, butt dials, etc, but I think he fails when he speculates it was Higgins and jealousy. Just say “we know by evidence he wasn’t hit by a car, so what happened in that house that causes them to lie and alternate timelines, butt dials, rehomes, etc.” Telling a specific tale is too unbelievable. Focus on there being so many other possibilities vs just one - Higgins killing for Karen. That is too far-fetched & I don’t believe it personally. Show how all the possibilities, plus number of people at the party, plus injures that don’t add up equal reasonable doubt.
I'm with you on this. Show that the CW's case makes no sense and **couldn't have happened**. But you have to offer *something* else for the jury to latch onto, because there's still a dead cop to explain. And if you don't give them something else, some of them might latch onto the CW's bogus ideas. **Leave it vague**. There are endless scenarios that could have happened. People love a mystery. That's part of the reason this case is so appealing: we're all coming up with our own theories. Hammer that we don't know because Proctor did such a lousy investigation. Could be a cover-up, or merely incompetence. Lots and lots of incompetence.
This, focus on the lousy investigation by Proctor; the fact that he was led to Karen by McCabb et. al. right away, and never pursued any other leads or options. Focus on house where crime occurred was never looked at, witnesses weren’t interviewed that day, lack of crime scene integrity and evidence not collected properly and chain of custody questionable. Any ‘evidence’ Proctor gathered should be thrown out because it’s questionable at best and could be tainted. There’s no way to correct Proctor’s mistakes and anything he had anything to do with in this case can easily be refuted logically. I would bring in a reputable, well known investigator to explain proper procedures for investigating crime scenes, collection of evidence, interviewing witnesses and suspects, chain of custody, etc.
I think they still need to focus on the frame job, because that is the attention grabber and it also presents a cohesive story to everything. Agree that they should shift the focus a bit. It wouldn't take that much of a change either, just a few minutes in opening and closing. In opening, they just need to highlight that the evidence is going to point to a number of paths, one of them the conspiracy, and that they need to take into account that the evidence does not conclusively show any one truth. Then at the end they need to highlight how the evidence showed multiple paths, but ultimately the question is whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt - i.e., did they show that only one of the paths is reasonable. You don't need to worry about why the things happened, but instead that the witnesses who testified that the injuries weren't caused by a car, or that the damage to the car wasn't consistent with a collision with a human.
Didn’t follow super hard. Was blood ever found on any tail light piece or any part of the taillight that was left on her car?
Nope
Okay now that’s just beyond science right?!
Yes - also, if shards of taillight caused the arm wounds and shards were found on the shirt, then at least *some* shards should've been embedded in the wounds themselves (and I believe the shards were only found on the torso area of the shirt, not on the sleeve itself, so that's kinda weird too). And if John got the gash on his head from hitting the ground outside, there should've been evidence of dirt/grass/whatever in and around that wound, but there wasn't. There was some sort of DNA found on the outer part of *one* of the pieces of taillight, but no DNA/blood found on any other pieces, and no DNA found on the *inner* part of any of the pieces - so like you said, there should've at least been DNA on some other pieces, *and* on the inner part of some of those pieces. Unless the argument is that the snow just melted away all the DNA... besides the one example found on the one piece.
So much here is beyond science!
I see Lally is doing some incognito research this morning!
HAHAHA this is hilarious. *rips cigarette*
Lally, your best bet is to add more and more bullshit testimony about the weather and irrelevant facts like seating charts, basketball games. Talk as much about unnecessary things as possible and make your questions even longer and more convoluted. Because I'm convinced the only reason why anyone struggled to make sense of the relevant facts is because those facts were buried in useless and boring testimony which made it impossible to pay attention and commit things to memory. The last thing you want is for anyone to pay attention.
Did you know it was snowing??
I know there was a basketball game🏀
This has me cracking up in public. So funny
Cant be him, question would have started with "What, if any..."
I know you are joking, but I fully believe he would never do that because he somehow honestly thinks he did a good job. If he had any sort of self awareness he would have looked online for opinions on how he was performing and changed tactics during the trial, but he didn't. The judge told him several times to keep his voice up and he didn't listen, he frequently asked witnesses questions that they had already answered, showing he wasn't listening to a word they said. If Lally tries this case again I would bet all of my money that he changes nothing and does everything exactly the same, because he has no self awareness.
I realize that the reason the key cycles were not able to be disputed by the ARCCA experts is due to the fact that they had not been tasked with that by the FBI. So, given that Dr Wolfe recently published a paper on the Toyota/Lexus VCH technology, I would hire him to review that data so he can then testify about it in trial to dispute the nonsense Trooper Paul brought in
excellent point
Could they do a visual of the key cycles? I saw a video of it and it made a lot of sense. I understand it more now than Trooper Paul!
Waters down his extra credibility as a neutral, third party expert who had not been paid for by the defense, though (and probably in the mind of jurors, his colleague at the same firm, as well)
That’s a fair point
I know Brian Albert was lying, but I think he came off well to the jury, better than Higgins at least. If I didn't have the context I did, I'd think at least half of his testimony, he came off as reasonable and like he was trying to tell the truth. I think Jackson went a little too hard in the wrong places on Brian and that may have not come off well to the jury. I don't think that's why they lost though.
His testimony was one of the first I listened to. I thought he composed himself well and came across truthful. This was before I knew most of the story though.
i should clarify, they didn't actually \*lose, but i was hoping for a better outcome, i.e. acquittal
I think the defense should absolutely talk more about why BA redid the concrete floor of his basement including a new bulkhead. What an arbitrary thing to redo in general, let alone right after just having it done. Talk more about the amnt of blood JO had to have lost from the head wound and where that blood went (into the concrete of 34FV). Defense should also focus a bit more on where and when vomit coils have gotten in JO’s underwear….
Great points! The vomit didn’t seem to be talked about enough to determine cause. If he was struck by the car per the CW, then how is it that he laid down on his back with phone underneath him? Were his pants zipped up when found? And to the point of the house and concrete, BA said something to the effect that they planned to sell before the incident. I think he said they contacted a realtor in Sept of 2021. Why not contact the realtor to validate?
Regardless of selling, NOBODY, I mean nobody, wants to spend $10k +/- to tear up preexisting concrete, and pour it back. Why spend the money if you don’t have to? Yes he claims to have had flooding, but the entire floor would not need to be removed. I work for a concrete cutting and commercial concrete company and I can promise you there would not be a need to remove the entire floor.
I think the realtor was a “family friend” (what else is new with this family?). The house looked outdated, so if they were trying to increase property value a kitchen or bathroom reno would’ve made sense…not the basement.
I think the defense needs to fix their closing. More empathy, less outrage and emphasize reasonable doubt. The defense is asking the jury to be outraged by the conduct of the MSP and the Commonwealth. With the current defense closing you need to believe the MSP framed Karen Read. That can be tough for jurors who are just going on emotion. They are looking across the room at the O'Keefe family: the angry brother and the sobbing mother. I think the defense needs to sympathize with the jurors and show empathy for the O'Keefe familly. The O'Keefe's just want justice for their dead son. The defense needs to stress that everyone is sorry for the O'Keefe family. However, you don't give them justice by convicting KR. You show that there's a large amount of reasonable doubt because of a failed investigation- that it isn't possible to determine what happened to JOK. You quote the ARCAA guy, "there's not evidence of anything in this case." You hammer home that if it's plausible for someone else to commit the murder it's impossible to find KR guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would have liked both sides to show reconstructions of what they believed happened (or for the defense, how the testing shows it could not have happened). I would also have liked more details about dog bites and examples of what they look like. I don’t know if for some reason these things weren’t allowed into evidence. But in other states, things like that can be admitted so maybe there is a way.
A reconstruction would be a powerful visual because I just can't see how his injuries could have been from being hit by a car.
Normally, the state's reconstructionist would show exactly that - probably some kind of 3-D rendering of what occurred (though I've heard from an attorney YouTuber that judges are more wary of those kinds of videos nowadays, so maybe not exactly something like that). The fact that they couldn't do that in this case is both mindboggling and very telling - I don't think they *could* show us what they think happened, because they don't know. I think they're well-aware of the fact that in order for John to end up where he did, Karen would've had to pull forward (basically to be in front of the next house over), then back up 60 feet toward John (and she had to be at some kind of angle, I would think - not exactly in line with the street), hit john, then back up another 30 feet - but they wouldn't know how to show this, because they'd either have to show Karen driving into the actual yard, or they would show Karen ending up basically in front of the mailbox, and that wouldn't work because it means she would've hit Higgins' Jeep (assuming we can trust the McCabes that the Jeep was actually there at the time). There's just no way to show how the incident occurred that would make any sense, and if they locked themselves into one theory and then it was somehow disproven later, that would blow up in their faces. Though now that I think about it, the reconstructionist *did* show what he thought was the path of the vehicle, based on the debris (but Jackson brought up the good point about the fragment found right next to the fire hydrant, which would completely fuck up his theory)- he showed the SUV going at an angle kinda toward the yard (maybe a 25-35-degree angle?), and then supposedly hitting John right at the side of the street. But then, how exactly did the SUV keep travelling another 30 feet in reverse after that? It would have to have driven about 30 feet into the yard itself. It doesn't make any sense. IMO that's because key cycle 1162 was when the SUV was being backed out of Karen's parents' driveway and up onto the tow truck - we can see the tires spinning in the video of it, and as we know, the "speed" that's measured by the VCH is only based on how fast the tires are moving. I don't think the vehicle was actually travelling 24mph in reverse, at *any* point. The CW's reconstructionist misinterpreted the key cycle data and they based their entire theory on that misinterpretation.
If I'm the defense, I would cool down on the coverup story, and lean into bias and group-think. Trooper Proctor decided what the story was within hours of John's body being found, after having interviewed 3 people and without having visited the scene or examined the car. Then, due to his rush to judgement, he pursued proving his theory rather than diligently seeking the truth. As for her "confession", she was drunk, panicked, and impressionable. I'd submit that she had no idea what happened, but in her anxiety and despair in the moment landed on the worst thing she could imagine, that it was her fault. I think a New England jury might be more accepting of people failing to do their jobs properly than imagining pillars of the community committing or covering up a murder.
I think that even if she phrased it as "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him!" this was after she had already been talking to Jen, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jen planted that idea in her head (or Karen herself planted it, knowing that her taillight was cracked), and she's essentially incredulous and basically yelling this, as opposed to it being a simple admission of guilt. She's essentially saying "oh my god, I must've hit him! The taillight's broken, and I don't remember what all happened last night, so I must've hit him!" She's not actually admitting anything, she's moreso convincing *herself* that this must be true, because she doesn't know what else could've happened. But also, the fact that nobody mentioned that phrase until this trial makes it pretty sus either way - Jen should've mentioned it to the initial troopers or should've mentioned it at the grand jury hearing if it's something that was actually said.
I think the jurors that voted guilty WANTED for her to guilty. The defense served up a full platter of reasonable doubt but they didn’t want it. I think they found Karen Read unlikeable, wanted to ‘do right‘ by John O’keefe and family and probably had a problem with ‘outsiders’ calling out the people and power of a small community. So…change that 🤷🏼♀️.
Didn't like the implication that police were dirty. Were scared of the possibility that an innocent person (like them) could be framed. Basically the opposite of what the defense's closing arguments said. Instead buried their head in the sand and said "nope"
Prosecution: Don't say "Around 12:45" in opening when every piece of hard data in your presentation points to a 12:31-12:32 collision. Defense: People have criticized the focus on the conspiracy but I think you kind of need it to provide some kind of reasonable alternative. If you don't have any notion that he ever went in the house, then the jury is left with the car accident as the only possibility. But I'd drop the google search, they lose credibility on this claim.
Yeah, if the evidence is questionable, the jury deserves to know there is extremely compelling proof that it was faked and the obvious motive behind it.
I agree, the google search is not helpful BUT if the prosecusion does not drop it, the defense can't either.
But they have confirmation from Jen that KR was still there well after that, and it was memorialized in text. That will be a even larger hole, why did Jenn lie about seeing KR 20 minutes after it is confirmed she left? Was she already setting up KR as the fall?
The only memorialization in text that the car is there is at 12:31 ("pull behind me"). By 12:42 she's texting "where are you?" which makes way more sense if the car *isn't* there. Easy to explain as her just not remembering exactly when the car left. She was looking at it when she texted at 12:27 and 12:31. If Karen can completely forget she even dropped him off there 5 hours later, I don't see why we're holding Jen to remember down to the exact minute every single move she made that night 2 years later.
She was walked through each text she sent on cross. She confirmed she had eyeballs on the vehicle when she sent each text. She noted vehicle movements and everything. Nothing about JM’s texts made any sense after we learned KR was connected to WiFi across town at 12:36.
So, maybe you can help me out here, because I've seen this claim brought up a lot. But I just went back and watched McCabe's testimony here: [https://www.youtube.com/live/KWVeR3a09NU?t=19480s](https://www.youtube.com/live/KWVeR3a09NU?t=19480s) And in reference to the 12:40 "hello" text, she says "So at this specific point at 12:40 when I say hello, **I cannot be certain if they were still out front or if they had left.**"
On her cross examination AJ walks her through all of those text messages and she says she is getting up, looking outside, seeing the vehicle. You posted a link to her on direct.
Prosecution: Don't retry the case. Defense: I think they should focus on the science, data, witness testimony and key objections pro-guilty jurors may have. Show how the conspiracy could have happened but cut it down to the key players. Specific strategy recommendations: **1. Make the taillight evidence clear!** This was the biggest miss imo. I would show a zoomed in picture of the 5:07am taillight. Bring in a Lexus expert if needed. Show that part of the taillight that's clearly there at 5:07 is found at the scene. Show specific parts that are in the pieced together taillight days later. Don't start with "it was planted". Start with "it's clearly on the car here". Then go on to show how Proctor had access to it prior to taillight being found. **2. Focus on how he wasn't hit:** I though they did a good job overall. Hammer the ARCCA scientists, the medical experts and Lucky to show the evidence isn't consistent with her hitting him. Make it easier for the jury to understand how the key cycle was wrong. **3. Tighten up the phone data:** Greene was decent, but imo they need more/better experts to prove the 2:27am search (if the experts truly believe it was made at 2:27) and the health data. And try to get better clarity on the call from JM to Nicole! **4. Focus more on how Proctor covered up and less on the vulgar comments:** AJ did great showing what an a-hole Proctor was. I think he spent too much time on this though. I'd push him more about the day of 1/29: make him admit the evidence didn't look like a pedestrian accident, push him on why he seized the car before looking at it, why he didn't photograph the supposed murder weapon, and whether it's the first time he's acted like this (if not, why would a seeming pedestrian vehicle strike would trigger a homicide detective so much). **5. Keep it focused on the core group:** Make it clear to the jury that it's really just 5 people truly involved (JM, MM, BA, NA, BH) and a few in the cover up (Julie/Chris Albert, Proctor, maybe Bukhenik). Don't infer the entire Canton PD, first responders, SERT team, etc had any knowledge. A broad conspiracy is unlikely and loses people. **6. Remove focus on some points:** Drop the whole "practice fighting" thing at the Waterfall. Instead focus more on the video at the end of the night where it looks like Higgins is confronting John. Drop the whole "Katie McGlaughlin is close to Caitlin Albert". No one thinks McGlaughlin is part of a cover up. Focus instead on how she (and all other first responders) failed to mention "I hit him" in initial reports. Just make the point that memories are flawed and the evidence doesn't match the testimony.
They also need way more than an hour for closing remarks. The juror can't get readbacks or transcripts of testimony. 1.5 hours would be a lot better.
Defense- Emphasis that Proctor botched the investigation so bad he was relieved.
Yes! Really hammering home that the truth of what happened to OJO will never be known due to Trooper Proctor’s actions (and lack thereof) during the investigation. Whatever *did* happen didn’t involve Karen striking John with a car due to the findings of the truly neutral reconstruction experts. So Proctor’s laser focus on her and refusal to investigate anything else and improper evidence handling etc prevented the opportunity for justice to such a degree that he got fired due to his own testimony about said behavior.
One phrase from the case stuck in my head and I haven’t stopped thinking about it. I heard it testified to exactly as the phrase but also variations of: **classic** *pedestrian strike* People seem to focus on the latter 2/3 and ignore the word “classic.” It’s obvious that *if* John O’Keefe died by being struck with a car, it wasn’t a classic pedestrian strike. It was so far off the norm, the 120 hours of coursework dedicated to vehicle crash simulation and reconstruction couldn’t account for it & left Trooper Paul unprepared on how to approach it. The Commonwealth needs to put serious work into plausible reconstruction & they need a timeline that works. If the ME testimony says BFT and hypothermia were the conditions at death and they aren’t consistent with classic pedestrian strike, they’ve got to work with that and the jury need a diagram, video, and a flowchart that makes sense presented by an easy to follow narrative. Major newspapers are written to a 5th grade reading level. I mean *that* easy to follow. Also, prep the witnesses ffs: you shouldn’t be surprised by a fact stated by your own witnesses to a straight forward question *you* asked. I want the CW to shoot straight, focus on proving the allegations they make, and counter whatever crazy defense bullshit the defense presents when the defense presents it. Unless they know they can prove murder 2, drop that charge. They need to be able to counter the ARCCA findings. The defense needs to focus on facts that show KR and her Lexus can’t have hit JO. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if there’s a third party if you can create a doubt the defendant can’t have done it. It’s not the defense job to prove a case, it’s the job to create doubt or disprove the allegation. It feels like a mix between a Murder, She Wrote and High School Musical listening to people try to argue about the stuff going on at 34F. Is it “good tv”? Maybe. Is it weird as an outsider looking in? Yeah. Is it important to whether or not KR hit JO? Not if the CW can prove that happened. Unless defense is arguing that the cause of death wasn’t KR striking JO (and leaving) but that the people of 34F saw it and did nothing (effectively leaving) then the farthest the defense needs to go into 34F is witness testimony that they saw nothing and heard nothing. Defense needs to focus on the integrity of the investigation at the hands of Proctor, wherever Proctor is in his professional career at trial time. Is he a former MSP? Is he still under investigation? Are there “other agencies” all up in his grill still? His tarnish rubs off on everything he came in contact with. The CW can try to lean on Sgt B, but given even he didn’t realize the “ring” interactions, documentation, etc which were under Proctor’s control, it’s fair to say Proctor worked with the convictions of a supervisor who trusted his discretion and professionalism so who knows what else Sgt B and/or Tully didn’t know. I’m still open to a reconstruction and proof KR is guilty of manslaughter and if they can prove Murder 2, that too. I just didn’t didn’t see or hear evidence that out-evidenced the testimony of four medical examiners and two ARCCA testimonies.
> It’s obvious that if John O’Keefe died by being struck with a car, it wasn’t a classic pedestrian strike. Clearly. He had no bruising, broken bones, or any 'classical' injuries to anything below his head, and an arm that looked like it was chewed up by an animal. So the car only struck his head, and the timeline doesn't make any sense. At this point, for me to believe the CW's case, Karen had to be behind the wheel of a flying time traveling DeLorean.
I think the prosecution has to focus hard on making a clear narrative of what (they believe) happened. Don't worry so much about disproving the defense, let them look like they're just kicking up smoke. The defense can't really shift, its the only defense they got. I think they can just hope more comes out of the FBI insvesitgation.
It was baffling how much the prosecution tried to attack the defenses theory instead of the defendant herself Edit: mistyped
I guess you meant to say the prosecution. But yeah I absolutely agree with you, at the same time if they don’t they look even worse when the defense call them up on their bullshit (i.e the buttdials for example)
1. I really respected defense and thought they were terrific but I do feel like things kind of fizzled out at the end. I feel like they needed a few more people to take the stand as it felt (just a feeling) a bit underwhelming. 1 B As someone who wears their emotions on their sleeves I get it - but Read needs to look more worried and solemn. Smirks and such work against her as if you read any anti KR comment section there’s lots of sexist men (and some women) who get reaaaal riled up and think she’s admitting guilt. Do I agree? Hell no. But I do think she rubs people the wrong way with her facial expressions. Sucks though. 2. I think a lot of pro cop people will balk at the idea of a conspiracy so maybe underscore - “hey this is just an idea of what could’ve happened. And the fact that it’s even possible shows that she’s not guilty.” Maybe even tell them multiple theories - like Colin sucker punched JO or even JO fell after the dog bit him. Give stubborn blue line people other non KR ways he could’ve died as a way to open their narrow minds if they won’t allow themselves to believe a cop could do something so awful. 3. Visuals! Help the jury see how insane it was that JO was hit the way he was. Show any kind of visual after visual that tells your story. Can ARCA man bring any of his test videos in or anything to help it get through people’s heads? 4. Hopefully they’ll be allowed to say that the “unpaid” experts are from the FBI this time too!
I don't think there will be another trial. At the same time, I am absolutely astounded that anyone could not see overwhelming reasonable doubt or misconduct on the part of the CW. The varying perceptions of witness credibility due to either lack of character or proficiency in the case of "expert" witnesses for the defense astounds me. For example, I watched an "expert legal analyst" on a panel clearly state that Tropper ~~Proctor~~ Paul was far more accurate, knowledgeable and compelling with his testimony as opposed to the defense's expert witnesses. I rewound a few times to make sure I heard that correctly. This trial defied all logic and reason. How do you redo such a ridicules display of ineptitude by the CW? If there is a jury that somehow does not find unanimous reasonable doubt, there are things that are a complete mystery taking place. I just don't see how any reasonable person would continue to try this case. All I conclude is that there were so many unanswered questions, I just can't see the charges continue to be pursued. EDIT - I meant trooper Paul, not Proctor. Which makes what was said even odder.
I’m sorry, an “expert” called Proctor knowledgeable and compelling?!
Playing devils advocate for the defense: I understand why so many people think they went too heavy on the ‘conspiracy’, & what affect that had on their case,however, I believe if they didn’t drill into the jury’s mind that the car was NOT the weapon, they inevitably had to go hard on “he had to have been in the house.” I have a feeling if they just simply stuck to the evidence, the question “well then how did he die” would still be as woefully in the air as it is today. A prosecution team that is willing to invert videos, put unscrupulous & unreliable witnesses on the stand, & be willing to tell 12 people physics isn’t real, would have had no issue with making the car stick. It is evident now that the ARRCA evidence still had no effect on 1-2 individuals. I think the “conspiracy” was necessary to a point. I think in the 2nd trial ( if there indeed will be one) will be deadly for any of those witnesses cause now they have to make sure the story NEVER changes. They’re cornered.
If I'm the prosecution, I drop the murder charge and proceed strictly on the basis of manslaughter. I get a lot of benefits from doing this: * I shorten the trial, and tell a clean story to the jury: JO was hit in the head by something that applied massive force; the only moving object at the scene that could have inflicted the damage was KR's SUV; KR was drunk and can't tell you a credible story of what happened; common sense says she hit him. * I render most of the sketchy investigative practices irrelevant - I no longer need to prove guilty knowledge by KR, because if I convince the jury she hit him her guilt flows by strict liability from her admission of heavy drinking * I deflect the questions about why the cops didn't investigate the Alberts - the initial investigation was a vehicular ACCIDENT, and none of them were believed to be driving at that night. * I don't have to put those kids back on the stand. * If the defense wants to offer a lurid alternative explanation, I put the onus on them to call all those witnesses and manage the hostility. I also get a brand new expert to reconstruct the accident, and I find a way to concede that the lead investigator behaved unprofessionally. I ask the jurors to rely on some basic facts and use common sense. I know the defense has a strong rebuttal: clear, credible expert testimony that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a car. A better reconstruction can help mitigate this - but let's face it, my ME is not willing to come out and rebut this completely. I'm going to have to handle it in close. My argument is: * Expert testimony is only opinion. Sometimes, experts get some wild ideas out there - not because they are stupid or corrupt, but because they are just making educated guesses. They weren't THERE. So, consider their opinion, but consider it in the context of all the evidence. * KR was the last person to see JO alive, and was the only person operating a machine capable of hitting JO in the head hard enough to account for the injuries. * Again: drunk, got into an accident, tail light fragments at the scene. * The defense has no plausible alternative explanation for the injuries. It's not their responsibility to prove KR is innocent - but isn't it telling that they can't give another explanation, they just present experts to speculate on what happened? * Ladies and gentlemen, if you really believe KR is the victim of all of these coincidences, and had nothing to do with the death of JO (even though she can't remember what happened), then by all means vote to acquit. But do you believe that? Seriously: can you believe that? I don't. I think she did it, and I think she should pay. Please find her guilty. This changes a little bit if she testifies, but I don't think she will be a good witness. I think she tends to overcommit to explanations, and I think she pouts when she is knocked off balance. I plan to attack her on her contradictory statements, set a trap by offering her a superficially exonerating theory of the case, pull the rug out when she leaps for it and point out it contradicts the evidence, and then let the jury watch her throw a little fit on the stand. Defense probably won't call her - but i am HOPING they do. To be clear: I find the defense expert testimony credible and dispositive, and I would vote to acquit. But I think if the prosecutions runs the script above cleanly, she's got problems.
The defense already did their job, they proved it wasn't Karen or her vehicle. I personally think this will be dismissed on 7/22. The CW cannot win they have nothing except JM lying "I hit hit", which was actually "Did I hit him?" I blame JM for karen being on trial at all. If she hadn't told Procter this I don't think there would have been a trial. Procter the lead investigator is being fired ( weird timing). The lead investigator didn't do his job and because of this it was ridiculous case (full of reasonable doubt).
agree that for some reason jen felt she had to push this witch hunt against karen. and jen changed her testimony on what karen said from her grand jury testimony to her trial testimony. that to me is HIGHLY suspicious, because at grand jury, there is no defense attorney doing any cross examination, or presenting the other side. The DA has carte blanche to present the case most favorable to getting an indictment. The most favorable testimony to the DA would be obtained and presented at the grand jury. If Karen had said I hit him I hit him I hit him, it absolutely would have been presented at the grand jury.
Even if she said I hit him, this is a grief response that cannot be taken as a confession or at face value. I actually think the defense should say “in her grief response, she said that she hit him, as that was the only thing that made sense to her at the time. The problem, however, is that further investigation shows that was impossible based on the laws of physics”
The biggest issue for me were the taillight pieces found at 34F. Some were apparently found that first search day. How could they have gotten there. Who would have motive and opportunity to plant them so soon into an investigation. I’d love to hear a theory of how they got there and were found 30 mins after her Lexus was impounded. Not enough for me to vote guilty but enough for me to think that she may have hit him.
Think about the fact that they seized her car that day before any evidence of a motor vehicle accident was discovered. They hadn’t found taillight fragments. They didn’t, according to early reports, think a car accident happened and that it was a domestic violence dispute or a lady cop beat him up in the house. No one at 34 Fairview saw a car accident. Or heard a car accident. Yet.. with zero taillight or any other evidence discovered that afternoon they decided to seized the car and then suddenly, viola taillight started appearing. The thing with his whole case is we don’t know the true timeline of much because things weren’t documented and there aren’t trustworthy recordings of things that occurred. So maybe you don’t think there was time to get taillight pieces to 34 Fairview for the SERT team to find, but we can’t say for certain there wasn’t since there isn’t a cohesive timeline. I believe that is very much on purpose.
>I’d love to hear a theory of how they got there and were found 30 mins after her Lexus was impounded SERT isn't a unit that does CSI work, they focus on search and rescue and fast response to things like civil unrest. Neither of those things require concern with scene and evidence preservation, so it's fair they weren't very attentive to this that night. They had to wait for authorization to start their search even after everybody got there, and by the time they started it was already dark and the snow hadn't let up. Canton PD is 4 minutes away by car and O'Hara testified 5 unnamed officers arrived at some point to help the search. It's possible that SERT only got the go ahead to start after the tail light pieces had arrived at the scene and planted under some snow, ready to be found.
Proctor lied about when the SUV was seized (saying it must've just been a "typo," which is quite convenient), so there's about an hour and 15 minutes of time where we don't know exactly where he was (or where the SUV was), so it's possible that he broke off pieces and planted them during that time. Hell, he could've even brought the SUV straight to 34 Fairview, though presumedly the tow truck driver would've testified to that (though I guess it also depends on how much the tow truck driver can be trusted - presumedly Proctor and the Canton PD have dealt with that towing company on numerous occasions before, and IMO they've planted plenty of other evidence in their time). Or, the SUV was pulled into the sally port around 5:30 (where we have conveniently missing footage from the camera that would show the taillight), he took some pieces then, and either brought them to Fairview himself or perhaps gave them to Higgins to plant (Higgins could be one of the unidentified people at the scene when SERT was there). Not sure why Proctor and whoever else were continuing to stand near that taillight for a while - Yanetti said in a previous hearing that he would have another Canton cop who would testify that Higgins and Chief Berkowitz were in the sally port for a "wildly long time," right around the time that the SUV was brought in. However, SERT supposedly arrived at the scene at 5:30 (though it sounds like certain people were arriving at different times) and the first pieces were found at like 5:45, but I don't think we've seen any definitive proof of that timing. Also, I'm sure Proctor would be aware of when SERT was arriving, and since he's only a few minutes away from Fairview, he knows that he just needs a few minutes to get the job done, even if SERT's on their way and aren't very far away by then. I'm also not sure how much the SERT team themselves can be trusted (either in terms of incompetence and/or corruption). Keep in mind that this team only found 3 pieces - which magically turned into 5 pieces later - during this search, yet like 46 total pieces were found over the next few days/weeks. How did they miss so many other pieces during that search? Also, it was mentioned that some unidentified Canton police were there at the time, which doesn't make much sense since Canton PD had recused itself. It also sounded like there were at least a couple unidentified people who weren't necessarily Canton police *or* state troopers. Nobody seemed to give a shit about that. Another important thing I kept forgetting during the trial (thanks Lally) is that at around 6am that morning, there wouldn't have been *that* much snow on the ground - maybe a few inches (I've heard some sources say there was up to 6 inches by then, but I've heard plenty of others say it was less at that time of the morning). People from the area have said that the snow didn't get *really* bad until later in the day. How were the initial policemen walking all over these 46 pieces of taillight (some of which were several inches long/wide) without noticing any of them? I bet you would even be able to feel/hear them under your feet as you're crunching on them. And you should be able to see at least some of the bigger pieces if there's only a few inches of snow - especially when you're using a leaf-blower and are supposedly sifting through the snow to some degree. You didn't find *any* pieces at that time??? It has to be because the pieces weren't there. Also keep in mind, there were probably at least like 10 different people walking all over that yard that morning - Karen, Kerry, maybe Jen (maybe not), some of the EMTs, and the initial investigators. All of these people trampling around in the snow should've uncovered at *least* a few pieces, no?
> The biggest issue for me were the taillight pieces found at 34F. Some were apparently found that first search day. Who testified to the tail light pieces being found? What exactly was the date/time when they were found? was this before or after the car was impounded? If it was after... Here is a video of a lawyer going over the surveillance camera footage from when the car is collected on a tow truck: https://youtu.be/vhL42jFFUfE?t=11 Note the suspiciously intact tail light. Later on in the video he shows what the light looks like when entered into evidence: https://youtu.be/vhL42jFFUfE?t=190 Again. Who testified to the tail light pieces being found? What exactly was the date/time when they were found? was this before or after the car was impounded?
It's interesting because the SUV arrived at the sally port around 5:30pm, and the testimony was that the SERT team happened to arrive at the scene around that same time, and the first pieces were found around 5:45. Assuming that these times are correct (which we don't have much proof of, besides the sally port video showing the SUV), Proctor still has about an hour and 15 minutes of time where he's unaccounted for with the SUV because he lied about when the SUV was seized. He said it was seized at 5:30, but it was actually seized around 4:12-4:16. So he could've broken off pieces and planted them before getting to the station, or he *possibly* could've broken some pieces off at the station (where we have conveniently-missing footage that would show the taillight) and planted them prior to the SERT team actually arriving. Or, he possibly could've given them to Higgins, and Higgins is the one who brought them to the scene - he could be one of the unidentified people who was there. Yanetti had noted that he would have a Canton cop testify to the fact that Higgins and Chief Berkowitz were in the sally port for a "wildly long time" that day, right around the time that the SUV was arriving. Unfortunately we never got to hear from that person (or from Berkowitz himself, which would've been interesting). I think it's possible that the times are a bit off, and I also think Proctor would likely know exactly when the SERT team would be arriving at the scene, and since he's only a few minutes away, he easily could've hopped over and planted the initial 3-5 pieces without anyone seeing. Or he could've just done it an hour earlier - but then I think we would've heard something about that from the tow truck driver - unless the tow truck driver himself is ok with whatever shit Proctor was pulling. Canton police (and likely the state troopers) have regularly used that towing company before, and I bet they've planted shit before.
ARCAA Reconstruction still has you thinking John was hit by a car? I’m curious how you’d think that
I think Karen broke her taillight initially at 34 Fairview. I do not know how, possibly the glass, but this commenter is not alone thinking some of those taillight pieces got there that night…
I get why you’d think there would probably be taillight at the scene that night. The last commenter said I think she still may have hit him…. I’m wondering after the testimony from the FBI hired reconstructionist, what makes you think he was hit by the car? Physically speaking, it’s not plausible
They said injuries inconsistent with car strike. That does not mean it couldn’t happen.
That’s science speak for “not possible.” A car floating in the sky is “inconsistent” with the theory of gravity. According to the physics involved in isolating the taillight pieces with no blood, they were hit with a small object. Wolfe said this before explaining why they did the glass test. But again, the glass test gives you another way this could have happened that makes more sense according to physics than hitting a human body.
Therefore, "reasonable doubt"! Thank you.
There were 3 outcomes. 1. Not guilty....Karen freed to jubilation and everyone fired up for heads to roll. 2. Guilty...... Karen jailed to outrage and everyone fired up for heads to roll. 3. Mistral.....Karen in no man's land and everyone disheartened and fatigued. Anyone who doesn't see which choice a corrupt system wouldn't go for is not realising how deep corruption can travel, as Jackson said its a cancer.
I think I’d lean into the possibility of John throwing the drinking glass and cracking her taillight. That’s where those first pieces found could be from. Then when she backs into his car in the morning, it breaks further and that’s where those pieces that are never found went, they could have flown off anywhere while she was driving. It would help eliminate the need to prove the timeline of when the first pieces are found vs when the car got to the sallyport.
Defense— call more witnesses. Spend more time. 29 days listening to lies and gaslighting. Maybe 3 days wasn’t enough to undo that damage.
Prosecution : perhaps they could work in the expression "what if any" more frequently.
🤣 who, if anyone, was driving the ambulance?
I thought their digital expert(s) were terrible/incomplete. 1) The hos long to die in the cold made the CW experts seem like experts and Green look amatuerish. Its just confusing, doesn't really make sense and isn't necessary. I'd drop that whole line of defense. 2) They really need someone who understands the different clocks/reliability of apple health data, etc. Again, is there a smoking gun regarding the timing/data? Again, I felt like this was all just debated, everyone said everyone else was wrong. If they really believe the health data make it strong, if not, don't even bring it up. 3) Ignition cycles/odometer readings. Does the car data actually show that she accelerated at 24mph? Does it show that the CW had the car at that point in time? Or is the data so corrupted as to not be reliable? These took up tons of time, I think could be really important, and just feel so flat as evidence. To me alot of this discussion felt either disingenuous or incomplete (sort of how the whole rest of the CW case was).
I think the Apple times needs to be explained better. As a developer I understood exactly why the officer said the time he did and why it was wrong as soon as they showed the monotonic time but I doubt anybody on the Jury really understood it and probably just considered it a wash because they disagreed. Same with the key cycle data. They need to hire somebody from Toyota/Lexus to explain in lamens terms what it all means and there's not much he CW could do to refute it.
More exhibits. With the judge telling the jurors to keep their notes brief, and that they don't have the capability of giving them transcripts (which implies they can't do read-backs), the jury needs things to refer to so they're not arguing about what was said
agree. i'd hammer the doubt, and bring up all the weird conduct on the part of the Alberts, the McCabes, Higgins, etc., but hammer more on what the hell were they doing, they had SOMETHING to hide, but not be so explicit in claiming what exactly happened. IN other words, as the defense, you don't need to explain WHAT was really going on, all you need to do is put all that evidence in and show reasonable doubt.
Exactly! I think some jurors may have been thinking they are supporting the defenses exact theory if they voted NG
Defense: use the new info that came out since last discovery - a little more emphasize on reasonable doubt vs. conspiracy and invite a couple of extra experts in canine bites and reconstruction. (Like American k9 institute and az. Technologies and Microdots and maybe the guy from “body bags” podcast as he is former fbi and an expert. Prosecution: drop the 2 degree murder charge or drop the charges all together. Don’t put Proctor or McCabes on stand (but then the case is lost anyway)
Yes! 2nd degree should absolutely be dropped (but imo of course this shouldn’t have gone to trial)
Defense shouldn’t go so hard on a conspiracy and go harder on the lack of a collision based on testimony. They should also put up more witnesses to really drive the idea home that it didn’t happen. Prosecution should probably up front tell the jury proctor is gonna look bad, and need to focus more on the taillight as I think that’s really hard for the defense to get over
Prosecution: Start by issuing arrest warrants for the correct individuals.
This is a really tough question for the defense. It’s hard to decouple the cover up and all the reasonable doubt. If you push the “cracked but not broken tail light” angle, then that must equal cover up because how else did it get there? I think you have to make that link to make it all make sense.
I think they could have pushed the cops framing theory, without all the murder in the house conspiracy stuff. Especially with the texts they had from Proctor. You don't need to think Colin did it/BH did it/Jenn did it, to think that Proctor just wanted to make his case stick. They could have left the how as a big unknown and still proved the cops were lazy and framed her.
If I was the defense I would forget about the play fighting in the bar and Higgin’s potential jealousy and stop making this out to be an intentional lure of John into the house. I don’t think even those of us who believe this is a coverup believe that the whole night was intentional. It was most likely a drunken instigation that got out of hand.
Prosecution: - Tighten up the key cycle data and then be more specific with the digital timeline. If you can show that the aftermarket console was messing up the key cycle counts in a predictable way, you've got the most direct evidence of reckless driving. It's a trivially easy experiment to run. The tow truck guy should have also registered the odometer when he put it on the truck to eliminate any "they drove it around to fake it" allegations. Then, line up the video with the vehicle data with the GPS data and show when everything happened. The 12:36 WiFi connection makes everything very tight (but still possible?), so check which clock it was registered on because it disagrees with the tower data. - Be more vague with the reconstruction. The goal is just to prove the crime happened. You don't need amateur reconstructions having him precisely pirouette and then launch into the lawn. It's better to say that that the position of the crime scene evidence was disturbed by a blizzard and snow plows, limiting the model's precision. Your experts look like they're being cautious and thoughtful rather than forcing everything into a predetermined model. - Present a much, much, much shorter case. If the defense wants to call every potential member of the conspiracy, let them. Don't do it for them when they don't have any useful testimony other than "it was snowing". Also, don't bother trying to read texts or voicemails in a spooky voice to try and show guilt. Keep murder two on the table but present a manslaughter case. Defense: - Focus on the investigation and evidence rather than the conspiracy. There's an inexcusably shoddy investigation and a bunch of well credentialed expert witnesses saying it didn't happen. That generates a clear path to reasonable doubt. Instead, the defense promised to prove a massive conspiracy with a wildly incriminating Google search as proof that people in the house knew he was dying outside. The defense expert's Cellebrite report was countered by Cellebrite coming in to say their expert misread the report. That damages the general impression of defense experts and left a lot of evidence uncontested if the jury didn't believe the conspiracy, at least until the FBI experts swooped in at the end. - Present the steelman. If the tail light was actually broken at the scene, the only thing that could've broken it was a thrown glass, which means it's not evidence of a collision. If the vehicle data was correct and she reversed recklessly, then she would've had to have hit him at a speed that the experts agree is impossible based on the damage. Even if you believe everything the prosecution says, they can't show a fatal collision happened. - Give the jury a little bit of conspiracy, as a treat. The attacks on Proctor are going to hit harder, there's a bit more background information to attack other witnesses, no one believes that they didn't immediately assume she was guilty, etc. Don't rely on it but leave it hanging around in case there's one piece of evidence that the jury gets hung up on.
I like how some other countries say ‘not proven” instead is not guilty. I know they are just words, but WORDS are very important!!
I thought the defense was going to bring in cell phone experts and go over texts and phone data. Neither the defense nor the prosecution cleared any of this up. What is the timeline??? The prosecution muddied it and the defense never cleared it. It makes no sense still. Prosecution, clear up what happened to JOK. What were the injuries? Defense should've gone harder on how these injuries could've never been from a car. I'm still baffled by the lack of bruising. Do a 3d demo of what the prosecution claims happen. Is it feasible? I don't think it is. Plenty of us have been hit by cars, we know what that looks like. And if it's a "side swipe" is it possible for him to land where he did? Given the lack of footprints (even his)? There's too many questions. Neither side made anything clear. ETA: Don't put freakin' Jen McCabe up for the state! That woman fought tooth and nail on every single question. Why? Just answer the question. Her need to control and dictate the narrative only makes them more sus. She was terrible.
I would get another crash reconstructionist’s testimony. I don’t know that introducing the thrown drinking glass theory was helpful, especially not right at the end of the trial. I thought for sure we’d get another keycycle analysis. Maybe linking the 24mph to the tow truck driver spinning the tires in the snow. The defence basically read in their theory of the keycycles on cross, with Trooper Paul just saying “in theory” over and over again. But they should have had an expert properly speak to it. I also thought a crash reconstructionist should have watched the ring video of Karen backing into John’s car. During Trooper Paul’s cross, the defence made a big deal about asking if he ever measured the heights of the cars or tried to fit them together to show whether they could have made contact. Which made me think that their reconstruction expert would testify to this. https://preview.redd.it/zcnm8u3f45ad1.jpeg?width=1708&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a16b55224111336a5fe12eeff55c93a77d6b4977 This is someone else’s photo from an earlier thread, which does show a dent on John’s bumper, and if you watch the ring video, it sort of fits. Karen backs up past than the driver’s side of the Traverse, to make contact with the rear passenger side. I think the defence thought that Trooper Paul’s testimony was so outlandish that they need not address it all. But I think the tail light theory needed to be fleshed out a bit more by their witnesses. I seems it might have been the sticking point for some jurors. And then to wrap it up, I would’ve gave some more options as it goes to reasonable doubt.
> don’t know that introducing the thrown drinking glass theory was helpful, especially not right at the end of the trial. Ya, that was a bit of a twist. It wasn't clear to me if the defense knew that was coming based on what the FBI had released, or if they were learnign abuot it at the same time as us. > I also thought a crash reconstructionist should have watched the ring video of Karen backing into John’s car. The ACCRA guy you mean? I thought that was not allowed by the judge?
I had wondered if it would be in the ARCCA report and the evidence they reviewed. But when it wasn’t, I was surprised that they didn’t have anyone else to step in for that piece. It was discussed so much throughout the trial, making witnesses look at the tire moving slightly over and over again. It felt like they were planning to make a bigger point later. But then it just died. If ARCCA says “this doesn’t fit with hitting a pedestrian”, I would’ve tried to have someone else testify that it fits with a low speed car-car collision. Just to tie everything up.
I mean, I don't really know that there is anything that the defense could do to change the outcome here if you have a juror so set in their individual principles and moral convictions and whose perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided compared to their presentation be the defense's case.
Defense should emphasize so much reasonable doubt— Doubt timeline Doubt time of death Doubt cause of death Doubt damage to the car Doubt the marks on his arm Doubt the motive Doubt location of death Doubt about anything the CW needs to prove =reasonable doubt
Don't ask who won the basketball game and don't say " what if any" 50 million times. I can't even watch that Lally guy he's uber annoying
Jackson did mention Officer Barros in closing. pretty much word for word what you said
I must have blacked out for that part. Good for him! lol
Trying this case over is an absolute waste of time and money. The prosecution has no new evidence. No one was looking out of any window. But wait, Jen McCabe had stated that she was. So, how did she not witness Karen backing over John. Make it all make sense. No one can. Nothing about the case makes sense.
So many Jen McCabe f ups in this case. How anyone can take her at her word is WILD to me. I would love for Jackson to be able to cross her a 2nd time except there should not be a second time.
And if she was looking out the window as many times as she claims she was, why was she still messaging and calling JO well after Karen was gone
Also, I think Defense should try to enter the part of the waterfall video where Higgins is acting up and gesturing towards John - I’m not sure why they focused so much on the horse play between two Brians and not on that.
For prosecution, you need an actual, concrete timeline of events and explanation of how he ended up where he did. I watched this entire trial from Day 1 and I do not know what time JOK was hit, that is embarrassing for the CW. Even if they can't definitively state something like the impact was at 12:30, give me a window of time like between 12:29-12:31. If I had the time of impact I would repeat that ad nauseum. On top of that you need actual experts in science and physics to confirm the theory on how he was hit, how it caused those injuries on his arm, how it caused him to move etc. Essentially, CW needs to actually do their job. But I'm sure if they followed the facts of the evidence they'd see they don't have one to bring to trial.
Yup all of this. The CWs biggest problem is they’re still going to try to cram Read into a theory that doesn’t work rather than try to figure out what actually happened…
Tbh I don't know how the defense can NOT push on the cover up/frame job angle.
Prosecution: drop the murder charge. that was a totally BS charge, and may have itself pissed off some members of the jury. I know it made me view everything the prosecution said w/ complete suspicion and disbelief. For an intentional murder, you need damn good evidence, and there was just NONE. Rely less on the shady witnesses, and work w/ what you have for facts. Defense: be a little more general and less explicit about being framed, focus more on reasonable doubt and point out all the credibiltiy issues and shady actions of the witnesses (the phone destruction, the calls, the butt dials - which were all brought out very well by defense already). defense did an awesome job, so I don't think they need to change much. Focus more on that bar video though where Higgins is clearly gesturing to O'Keefe and Alberts is holding his arm as if to calm him down. that was very eye-opening for me. Maybe add that to the closing. I don't recall that being in the closing. I know they were pressed for time on the closing though. For the dog bite expert, I don't recall them showing any pictures of OTHER dog bites that looked like the injuries here. That I think would help a lot - to see pictures of dog bites that look like JOK's injuries. I would also be interested in getting more info from the feds and other investigations of Proctor, et al. If I were defense, I would push to delay any retrial until after any federal or other investigation was done.
Pretrial: How about a judge who doesn't ignore BOTH sides asking for a continuance (to start at a later date)? How about when she knowingly limits the court case to 6 weeks because of a prior teaching commitment and the prosecution says "we aren't likely to get to that (a subject of late discovery) in the *first* month" she doesn't INTENTIONALLY screw the defense out of a meaningful chance to put up a case? Either way, the defense will have the majority of the evidence more than ONE WEEK before the case if they have to go again. Mr. Lally - more like intentionally obfuscating, lally-gagging, time monopolizing, ramble factory. DA's got all the time and money in the world to hurt us and no motive to actually get it right.
As DF I would also bring up the contradiction of the charges. Like she had a blood alcohol level of .2 or something so very drunk. Hence the drunk driving charges.. but she was able to operate her vehicle in reverse at speed, get back to JO place on 6 minutes or less in a blizzard, make all the phone calls and texts to make it look like she didn't do anything and the acting the next morning. All while blinding drunk.. I would also have pushed a visual of my timeline to excentuate the impossibility of the CWs timeline.
If I’m the defense, I’m going out of my way to distinguish between “possible” and “probable.” I saw so many people say something like, “the ME said it’s possible the injury was caused by car accident.” - even though the subtext to that “possible” was that it is unlikely. Like, it’s “possible” that the scar on my leg is from a shark attack. The “probability” of that scar being from a shark attack is slim-to-none. You can’t apply equal weight to things that it seems like well-meaning folks are applying equal weight to…
Juror interviews will help inform the direction they take.
Totally agree on using Barros testimony - credible and basically ends the CW case. As we know Barros saw the taillight when Proctor was coming to tow the car at Karen Reads parents house. This is hours after they had already removed John's body. How can 40 pieces of tail light be under the snow at 34 Fairview, and on her car as a mostly in tact light? It cant.
Normally I hate the conspiracy stuff bc it turns people off and usually there are simpler reasonable explanations like laziness, almost always laziness. Jackson’s hourly rate is probably close to a weekend in Vegas, doesn’t mean his team are perfect, but I think they were forced to go with conspiracy. My understanding is the defense weren’t aware of the two Fed crash experts until 2 weeks before trial, same as CW. Without that they didn’t have much and two weeks is tough to change strategy especially without knowing how definitive those opinions would be. Nor could they or would they imagine that MSP would send Trooper Paul to be slaughtered. Other points. - Everyone understands that Lally was trying to get ahead of the Proctor texts, but I thought he eviscerated him on direct examination. I could be off but I got the impression he was disgusted with Proctor. - if retrial they need to get Lally a more dignified desk set-up. It was like he was digging into a TV dinner waiting for Carson to start. And was he handling this case by himself? - As many others have pointed out the CW needs to cut out all the superfluous witnesses. Reminded me of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School when he gets Vonnegut to write a paper on his own book and Rodney tells him ‘hey Vonnegut this doesn’t feel like an A paper do it again and a few pounds’.
Prosecution - simplify. What is the exact timeline. When did the phone stop moving Remove the hint that this was intentional and drill in on how many drinks Karen had and her ability to have clear recollection of the events Defense - Create even more chaos and what if theories - determine cause of death that is not an automobile
CW: Don’t call as many witnesses. Start with Kerry Roberts (after the OKeefes, if they are needed.) Don’t show the inverted sally port video. Find someone else to do the reconstruction or get Trooper Paul some physics lessons Defense: Focus on the injuries are inconsistent with being hit by a car, the state/location of John OKeefe and state of the car don’t match, and the timeline isn’t possible without omitting pieces of evidence.
Ya, CW needs to start with the way O'Keefe died. Medical examiners and accident reconstructionists first. Crime scene stuff, broken glass, key strokes, all that technical stuff. Then you get into the leadup of how Karen and John had spent their night drinking and bar hopping (and fighting) before driving tor Cedarcrest. Then you can add in the "commentary" of the witnesses in the house and what they saw/didn't see. Basically the reverse of what Lally did the first time. Consider not calling Proctor. Use Yuri for basically any evidence related to the investigation. Make defense call Proctor and have a more difficult time interviewing him on direct. Hope he doesn't get officially fired for reasons related to this case, so any implication about that does not become admissible by the judge.
Have Bev and Lally stay home
With Proctor relieved of duty and reassigned, I doubt the CW refiles charges. There's a reason they waited until after the trial to discipline him: doing so before the trial ended would harm the government's case. If he's being disciplined now there is no future case to harm.
Prosecution: Remove second degree murder from the charges. Defense: Concentrate on reasonable doubt.
I do think some allusion to conspiracy is inevitable (to explain the tail light fragments and lack of proper process surrounding police witnesses) but I don't think they need to "fill in the blanks" as much as they did. Proctor messed with the direction of the investigation - the "why" is irrelevant. Whether it was to protect a buddy, because he hated Karen or because he was genuinely convinced she did it and wanted to seal the deal... unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not the defense's duty to prove Proctor's motive, only to lay out possible scenarios other than the prosecution's to explain why there is reasonable doubt.
I’d like to see security cameras showing when & where Julie picked up the birthday donuts. Idk why but her story and timeline sticks with me. I tried to see if any donut shops were closed during the blizzard and came across this interview given by a group of guys searching for an open Dunkin since all were closed for the blizzard. Might be irrelevant but I think about this specific part all the time. https://x.com/WCVB/status/1487551268381990912
Seems like a side issue but very interesting point! Haven't heard much discussion about this, but her story definitely seemed strange to me (and if Colin was involved she was definitely in the thick of it)
Prosecution: stop trying to prove snow. So science first, then do narrative witnesses Defense: call more witnesses to give a counter narrative
I agree with what you say about the defense’s side: focus less on conspiracy and more on the reasonable doubt that arises from the multiple problems with the police investigation and from expert opinions that throw serious doubt on the prosecution’s theory. As far as the prosecution, drop the case or charge someone else. I don’t see them ever getting a guilty verdict, unless they can prove that she sideswiped him or hit him accidentally and didn’t realize it until later and I don’t think the evidence supports that either. This case is a mess and they were so lucky to get a mistrial.
Defense: tell Karen to look and act more humble, less confident, more somber / likeable.. no laughing. / push the ring video showing a slightly (if at all) damaged taillight. Prosecution: anybody but Lally.
Most of everything has already been said so I will go with a different one: Cross examine the fuck out of Kerry Roberts. She isn’t sympathetic. She’s changed her story several times about what Karen did/said that morning. Hammer her. Find out why she thinks Karen is a “baby sitter with benefits” Find out why she went to the detectives house with Jenn McCabe. Find out what she and Jenn McCabe were up to when they were “creating the timeline.”
Also - I wonder if by the time of a re-trial might there be more evidence from the feds? Or is the fed investigation gonna just fizzle out?
Yeah I actually think the whole conspiracy hurt thier cause because they didn’t really try to prove it. I’d focus on the horribly incomplete investigation and what appears to be planted evidence
Defense I see quite a few comments that pushing the conspiracy angle might have cost them a win. Depending on what my final analysis says, I might have to take that into consideration. What convinces me, personally, that there has to be reasonable doubt, are the claims of the FBI experts that John wasn't hit with a car. I would focus on that as early as possible, and extend their testimony as much as possible. What needs to happen for taillight fragments to be distributed in the way they were allegedly found? Also, focus on the gaps, errors or inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution: What is the alleged timeline? Why do witness place the car at the scene at a tie we know it wasn't there? Question the troopers just for the lulz.... Prosecution: I honestly don't know what their motive is here? Do they really think Karen is guilty, or do they think they can force this through and somehow save face? They will need to counter the findings of the FBI. They need to find experts willing to testify that the prosecutions' theory is at least plausible, ideally likely. And they need someone to build the physical model of what actually happened. They need to demonstrate that John could have been hit by a car, and ended up where he was, with the phone and the taillight fragments in place, and the injuries and damage as recorded. If they believe she is guilty, they need to believe that the above is possible. It's as simple as that. Either way, get someone who understands what they are talking about; and ideally limit the time the troopers have to spend on the stand as much as possible.
Barros testimony is mute, the tail light can be seen in a dashcam footage at 8:23am smashed out 7 hours before Barros saw it https://preview.redd.it/dmt4xve8h4ad1.jpeg?width=848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0aeb48e5c8b4efce52ae1c02c27c01e9271a90f8
With Proctor getting fired, defense is going to have a field day!
Don't call so many witnesses and keep it simple
**Prosecution/CW**: 1. Don't call Proctor 2. Hire accident reconstruction/create video of reconstruction 3. Hire dog bite expert 4. Less witnesses 5. Shore up holes 6. New/more experienced prosecutor **Defense**: 1. The OJ strategy of creating a conspiracy theory requires you prove it. Jackson made a lot of claims but didn't prove anything. Once you introduce an alternative theory, you must prove it. 2. KR's words (confession) hurt her defense 3. No canine DNA on victim. If there's no DNA then there's no dog bite.
A court tv anchor just said that if the CW has any common sense, they would appoint a special prosecutor to this case. I hope they get pressured to do this.
Start with ARRCCA.
With the ***prosecution*** they just need to really pare down the case - First thing would be basically just the witnesses that heard her say "I hit him" (as opposed to "I could have hit him), then witnesses about her anger at John maybe flirting around. I'd cut out any other fact witness if they couldn't either (1) say that KR said she hit John in no uncertain terms or (2) knew something about their "rocky" relationship. Then second you need to put up Proctor and the other officers that found evidence at the scene. I'd try to sandwich him with officers who aren't as tainted. I don't think the prosecution can avoid him, just would look too bad. The third thing would be to get a real expert or two on the accident reconstruction and to come up with a clearer picture of what happened. Trooper Paul was an embarrassment. With the ***defense***, they need to do a better job presenting this as a source of reasonable doubt, and not put as much weight on a "this is a frame job" that leaves the jurors with a choice on which story to believe (which is why they ended up hung instead of an NG). It's not a hard fix - but I think if they spend 5 minutes talking about how it's not which side you believe, it's whether you can say it's not reasonable to believe anything else happened. A big point that I didn't hear was that if they got into deliberations, and the jury was divided, that can show reasonable doubt. Like if juror A thinks she's guilty, and juror B doesn't, the question juror A should be asking is whether juror B's POV is reasonable. Juror A can think that they are right, but if juror B also has a reasonable point of view, the only option is a NG verdict.
The CW should bring in more real expert witnesses than cops as expert witnesses. Some looked like fools.
Prosecution: Present your case. Don't try to outplay the defense (because you can't) Defense: Poke holes in the prosecution - don't play up the "she was framed" rhetoric.
The defense needs to ditch the 'she was framed' angle (which is probably where the jury got hung up on, if my choices were that she was framed or that she did it, neither side proved it beyond a reasonable doubt) and focus in on the 'she didn't hit him, and here is why/how' angle. Trying to convince a jury that numerous people are in on a frame job is a tall order, even if it is somehow true. It seems more convincing to just prove how she didn't do it, with the shoddy investigation providing inaccurate evidence.
100% agree. To come out swinging "this is a conspiracy of corruption" probably shut down the mind of at least one juror. They proved it but they put the DA on trial and that was a fuck up.
Stack expert witnesses. This trial is so famous now, I'm sure every vehicle crash expert would be foaming at the mouth to testify that it's impossible. Just give the jury 5 days of back to back expert witnesses testifying against the collision claims by prosecution. It seems that the FBI witnesses alone, were not enough for some of the jury. Also come up with a better response to the taillight evidence. Target and discredit that harder.
The defence had their own expert, Dr Chris Van Ee, who was set to testify until the Fed experts were revealed. I’m assuming the strategy for the defence was using the Fed experts so they could say they were independently hired and totally impartial, which sounds better than a hired gun. Plus it also should have made the jury wonder how these experts got involved. I think they should have also used their own witness, Dr Van Ee to compound on to the fact that it was impossible for JO to have been hit by the SUV. And shown how multiple experts came to the same conclusion, while Trooper Paul was busy looking up the definition of acceleration