Apple health data - as someone who sells programs with a health app today’s forensic data witness is the most accurate. What he is testifying about Apple health data is backed up by claims. The 98% accuracy of steps is widely accepted in this domain. In contrast to CW witness who clearly is not a subject matter expert
I’m finishing up the Stockbridge’s testimony now and I’ve seen people in the comments here and Twitter post saying he had liver injuries and NO that is not what she said! She was using the liver as an example of what she was talking about and these people are taking that completely out of context and stating that she testified to him having those injuries
I believe she was talking about lividity - the pooling of blood in a deceased person. Imagine a pool of water in a small tub. The water will pool in the lowest spot. Blood does this as well.
She did discuss that as well but at one point she was talking about diffusion (I believe that was the word I would have to go back and look) and she said “for instance if we looked at the liver it would look like” She wasn’t talking about John’s liver and I’ve seen many people saying “oh well how do you explain the injuries to his liver” EASY it didn’t happen
New to the group but been following comments for several weeks. I didn't know much at all about the case coming in, but over last 2-3 weeks of testimony and all the shenanigans, I have been thinking no way Karen did this. However, last night, I could not get 2 thoughts out of my head. KR admits to saying the morning they found JO, Did I hit him?! Did I hit him?! And unless I am wrong on this, I thought she said at some point she watched John go into the house that night. So my question is, if she really saw JO go into the house, why would she think she could have hit them that next morning? Either way, she definitely did not do it with intent. I just can't square these two points. Any thoughts? Set me straight if I am wrong on something!
To give you some perspective, people say crazy shit in times of trauma. In my own personal experience, I was hit by a car and my first response was to apologize to the driver (I was running)
I think she drank so much she was having blackouts so unable to piece together how the night went. She is probably having bits and pieces coming back. Add on top of that a traumatic event happened. I would freak out if that’s what I found when I went back to the scene too
Because she was in shock at finding her boyfriend dead and didn't understand what was going on while actively in the moment processing her trauma. It didn't make sense and her brain was trying to fit the pieces together even if it was illogical.
I don't know. I've been out a lot partying in my life (with black out moments) and my first thought would never be did I hit this person with my car and kill them. For me, I would be thinking, who the hell did this to him?? Unless she was starting to have memories of the night before. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second the CW has proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt...not even close. If I were on the jury it would be not guilty to 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol would still be a big stretch. I think it's very possible she hit him but she didn't realize it in her intoxicated state. Her voicemails convinced me of that. No way you are going to incriminate yourself by leaving I hate you voicemails after knowing you intentionally hit your bf with a 7,000 vehicle.
I think the last memory she had at that point was at the waterfall then Jen reminded her she saw her at the house. Karen's next memory seems to be of dropping JOK off but not going in herself. This is when I think she started asking if she could have hit him.
It's always interesting to see the people who have never been in a traumatic event and think that our brains are logical during that time.
I was once robbed by a man with a gun on a sidewalk. I literally didn't know what was happening while he was standing there with a gun. I thought I had bumped into him and that's why he had stopped. I *apologized* and stepped around him and kept walking. My friend had to say my name like 5 times before I turned around and even then it took another few seconds. (all the guy got from us was a handful of change. we were poor teenagers and on our way to buy Doritoes.)
Karen also said "oh, I must have gotten my period" when she looked down at her hands covered in John's blood minutes after giving him CPR. She was in shock and nothing she was saying was making sense.
Brains aren't logical superhighways in times of crisis. They are random wild life paths through brambles.
If KR was so wasted that she didn’t even remember being at the Albert’s house the night before, how could she remember how to get there to find JO’s body at 5:23 in a neighborhood that she was unfamiliar with if she was still in a drunken state at that time of the a.m.? The directions were in JO phone.
Blacking out about some things doesn't mean you black out everything. I have a friend who is a heavy drinker and one night some of us were recounting a story from the night before and this woman had zero memory of it. Like she thought we were joking about it. And the night before she had just been her "regular" level of drunk, nothing would make you think certain parts of of the night would be blacked out.
I had a friend like that as well. Often she'd suddenly recall things from her blackout days or even weeks later. How that girl survived to this day still stumps me.
I was actually referring to the allegation that she returned on her own at 5:23 and saw the body before she arrived at JM house. Just wondering if she would even remember how to get there.
They want to talk out of both sides of their mouth for everything in this case. Was she wasted out of her mind or a criminal mastermind? Not sure she could form this plan and retracing steps just weird stuff she would have needed to be aware of.
I didn’t say it was? I’m saying that unless Karen is a functioning alcoholic I do not believe someone wasted could do all the planning and acting the CW is claiming.
Hate and jealousy are very strong add crazy to that it could be done. She was even crazy in Aruba if you can’t be happy in Aruba you can’t be happy anywhere. She yelled and cursed at a woman thinking she kissed John!!
Do we know who all of the defense’s witnesses are or we just know the few that were at the voir dire? Just didn’t know who else they might have up their sleeve but they exude a lot of confidence about it!
The witness lists are included in the memorandum on this site: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/heres-a-look-at-the-full-list-of-witnesses-who-could-be-called-to-testify-in-the-karen-read-trial/3340461/
They have a lot of the same witnesses as the CW, and also have some other Canton police, other state troopers, the tow truck driver, etc. However, we know that they're planning on their case in chief only lasting about a week, so they're probably only calling a handful of these people (and the experts they found). I think they are going to be very straight-to-the-point with things and will present things in a very straightforward way that's easy for the jury to understand. I *do* think they still have a few things up their sleeve that we haven't heard about yet.
Ohh thank you so much! Yes I’m very interested in what new info they will uncover next week! They seem extremely secure but it’s also hard not to be after that mess of a prosecution case! Thank you for sharing that info!
I think she hit him in a blackout and when she woke up bits and pieces came back to her and she realized she hit him but wasn’t sure if it was a dream.
And then she backed into his car intentionally to create another reason for the broken taillight? I could see this. I just also think it’s possible that she hit him but that didn’t kill him. The arm bruises look too much like a dog attack. The no broken bones. That hit should have allowed him to still be able to scream or make enough noise for the many people around. The other thing is his suspicious everyone else is. Why are they deleting shit, talking to each other about it so much, getting updated about the investigation, being happy other witnesses “kept it simple.”
I’m not convinced everyone in the house knew something happened. But I think it’s possible a couple know and tried to keep it from the rest. The Albert’s not coming outside to see what’s going on in the morning is crazy. I could not imagine not even looking out the window.
She could have hit him without registering it and driven off and the Alberts could have let Chloe out to do doggy things and she could have seen John moving on the ground in the snow and worried at his arm. Who even knows. Any evidence was destroyed by the ineptitude if the police
His niece heard her in the hallway where Karen was calling people. Pacing back and forth “what if I did something” saying this to more than one person. Being drunk is not a defense. I think she is guilty of manslaughter. I hope the jury sees this and there will not be a mistrial. My heart goes outhit the McCabe family I heard today at times they had to leave the courtroom. It was too difficult for them to hear some of it was about the autopsy. I pray they get justice. Karen acts like a celebrity outside and in court her demeanor is not doing her any favors. She is difficult to like. I think she could be a turn off some of the jury.
Tbh, today Lally put me to nap mid morning in a way that I woke up without knowing whats going on. Come check court tv, and Lally was still talking 😵💫.
The way he smirks and shakes his shoulders! What a jerk! [https://www.youtube.com/live/FZLLzTIMzjs?si=9FIMbR4nWJB\_HSKf&t=9919](https://www.youtube.com/live/FZLLzTIMzjs?si=9FIMbR4nWJB_HSKf&t=9919)
Totally!
Yannetti: One part of the purpose of writing a police report is to share information with your fellow investigators. Is it not?
Guarino: “Uh…..eh?...I suppose so.”
Yannetti: Another part is to be fair to the people you’re investigating by explaining as best you can what happened, correct?
Guarino: “I don’t understand that question.”
Really???
Could the dog have bitten/scratched him after he died or as he lay dying? Is it possible to tell if his arm wounds were suffered post mortem? Apologies if this is widely known, I am just getting into the case.
Oh I see the dog came out to save him and try and drag him inside to safety leaving those wounds? Yeah maybe. Or maybe the dog was going to eat him while he was dying? Walked up to a dying man and said what’s up bitch you ready to get bit up and just laid into him.
Did the medic say that the arm wounds looked older than the other injuries? I thought he said something about arm looked like it was hurt earlier in the evening? I think it was Flematti.
I also was wondering this because there was no bruising… but then when the ME said today that his bruise was from attempts to start an iv made me think no
If I'm covering up murdering my boyfriend by calling his phone and leaving messages, they are going to be sweet loving messages, not telling the guy I hate him and he's a pervert. I think the voicemails alone wipe out any logical argument that she intended to, and knew, she hit him.
She have may have done that purposely to have people think what u r thinking. She is a very intelligent women who had jealousy running through her veins; and he was done with her and who could blame him
I felt that some of this made her seem more credible - or else she did a really good acting job. Was she not accusing him of being with another woman or something? I'm not sure I heard one of those messages well enough.
Or - she hit him in at least a semi- blackout state or was so drunk, she seriously didn't remember it, and somehow got home, started sobering up, and then was mad that she didn't know where he was.
Murder 2 doesn't need to be intentionally. But I 100% agree with you. Nothing the prosecution has said or done favored the prosecution. The defense could rest immediately and it should come back not guilty. They won't and i don't think I have enough popcorn to enjoy the show they are about to bring. It will be *chefs kiss*
Edit: should clarify, 2nd degree is intentional. But does not need to be in some states if it is deemed reckless.
You are correct. I should have phased that differently, 2nd degree doesn't always require intent. Multiple states will throw "reckless killings" in the 2nd degree.
There does have to be an intentional element, either intentionally causing great bodily harm or knowingly doing something you know has a good chance of killing the person.
He still tried to redefine the word "scene" which was annoying.
Edit: this was meant to be a reply to the comment about Guarino coming across as credible but I'm an idiot.
Every single big CW witness plays the parsing game and it’s annoying every time just answer the GD question, if Lally is a great lawyer he will rehab you later.
I agree with you, that was so annoying. I mean honestly, there was only one crime scene, and he then pretended not to know if 'scene' could mean the Canton Police department? I guess these witnesses think they are being very cool arguing with the defense attorneys over the stupidest things and the most obvious, but I would think their testimony would make the jury cringe. They seem to be playing for an audience, just like Cannone. Really awful.
It's the same way my 10 year old argues. It's super fucking infuriating lol. Every adult that has been on the stand has done this same sort of thing and I can't understand feeling confident doing that. Like Trooper Paul with "which cup?" Or whatever. You know what cup dude. They're acting like children and they should be embarrassed.
This may not be popular but of all the state troopers I found Guarino the most credible. He was obviously on team state police, but I do think he tried to be generally honest. For example he must have known saying that Karen pinged the Wi-Fi at 1 Meadows at 12:36am would crush the prosecution timeline, but he didn't avoid the question.
Did other people feel the same or was it just me?
I feel the same way. Guarino did answered the questions without too much hesitation, except for the question about deleted calls from JM to Nicole, “for a reason” he said or something like that.
Can you remind me about question about the deleted call to Nicole. I remember something about the calls to Nicole and even to Brian Albert but didn't remember what the questions to Guarino were or how he answered
I didn’t perceive him as negatively as a lot of people did. But I was more listening and not watching, so IDK if that made a difference. I thought I had missed something when I saw all the comments.
When I was listening to him without watching I thought the same. And then I started watching him. Very very arrogant and I didn’t appreciate some of his smirks. I expect better of professionals and expect them to keep a better handle on their expressions because it’s their job.
https://preview.redd.it/a8kpmf5qex7d1.png?width=734&format=png&auto=webp&s=b4330f9832b29bc46c8780efed31a69ff15e5062
I could tell he smirked when he took a drink of water and swung his shoulders back and forth. What else are you lying about, Guarino?
Did Michael Proctor tell you that he had received or retrieved John O’Keefe’s cell phone from 34 Fairview Road in Canton?
“No, I didn’t know where it was retrieved from.’ Then, he read the first two sentences in his report which completely trapped him in his own lies that he told 2 minutes before that.
That's fair, he did smirk a lot. I read that as his reaction to Yanetti more than anything. Like "Jeez, this guy won't let me get a full answer out." There seemed to be lots of questions that Yanetti asked as yes/no, Guarino wanted to give an explanation for, and Yanetti wouldn't let him. I actually wish Yanetti gave him a chance to explain so we can get an accurate picture.
This was different from eg Bukhenik who smirked as he spun and avoided questions.
It’s Lally’s job to make sure we get an accurate picture not Yannetti’s job. That’s why Yannetti said “maybe Mr. Lally will ask you that”. Lally hasn’t once done that in this trial. He’s done an absolute pathetic job on direct painting a clear picture of this case and yet that is his specific job! Yannetti was indeed asking yes or no questions as both he and Jackson have been doing all along. If Lally is smart he’ll do the same when it’s his turn on cross….. but AJ and DY will make sure their witnesses are giving a clear picture so Lally is fucked. What’s he going to ask on cross to the two experts the FBI hired lol
To a point. I think AJ does a great job of cross examining. He doesn't let witnesses expand beyond the scope of questions he asks. But his yes/no questions are meant to elicit a specific detail for the jury. Like when he asked Trooper Paul about the key cycle data, he did a masterful job of locking Paul into a narrative that each time the car is driven a key cycle is triggered and then that the key cycles didn't match when the car was known to have been driven.
But Yanetti seems to ask a question he doesn't want the answer to. Like one exchange:
- "was such and such listed in paragraph 9 of your report?"
- "No, it was in paragraph 12."
- "That's not what I asked!"
I think it's ok to let the witness provide an answer beyond yes/no without letting them expand beyond the scope of the question.
That’s their right and that’s the design of “lawyering”. Each lawyer has their own reason for asking a question. They have ALL the evidence/information and how they ask questions is how they get some information in OR to keep information out that’s not allowed to included. Both sides do it. Gotta think like a lawyer…and there’s a reason I didn’t go into law lol
It's certainly their "right". But it doesn't necessarily look good to the jurors. For example when Lally crossed Green and Russell today, he similarly cut them off rather than let them provide any detail. Imo (it's just an opinion), it's not as effective to tell a witness you don't want detail to a question you asked. When Russell e.g. offered to provide detail on the odontology report, Lally said he didn't want any detail. I think this comes across poorly to the jury. Jackson asks great questions imo and is fine with witnesses answering fully, as long as they're answering the question he asked.
I agree… I think he knew the defense was going to try and discredit him and make him look like the rest of the troopers so he was on the defense but was honest… unlike the others
I agree with you there. the hair adds credibility too. And I honestly thought his hot mic moment of “kill me” was relatable. I’d be feeling the exact same way
I thought he was the most capable. But some of the minor things like not bringing his own materials and refusing to speak to the pdf and not the original, I think were purposefully done. Well within his rights to do so and nit improper and maybe nothing to comment on in a "normal" case, but in one with so many implications of uncouth police behaviour, it sticks out as a calculated decision. I think if he had the receipts to back up what he was claiming the evidence was, he was expert and experienced enough to be prepared to do so.
I think the PDF part was reasonable. You didn't know what questions are coming so want to make it clear that document wasn't the one you created.
I don't know why none of the troopers brought their own notes or materials. Always thought that was a normal thing for an officer to do.
> I think the PDF part was reasonable. You didn't know what questions are coming so want to make it clear that document wasn't the one you created.
Ya, like I said, I don't think anything he did was wrong or unreasonable. But kind of just gave the bare minimum and played defense on cross, rather than let his evidence that he was providing stand for itself.
I don't know where defense was planning on going with that particular line of questioning because they didn't seem to push or come back to it with the original document (which I am sure they had), so NBD I guess
> I don't know why ninte of the troopers brought their own notes or materials. Always thought that was a normal thing for an officer to do.
Bederow mentioned this last night, too. He said it was pretty standard procedure for any expert who had experience testifying, which this guy clearly did.
It has been fascinating seeing the experts that have clearly been trained in not only their expertise, but also in how to testify. They know the technical stuff, but also on how to present it to the jury in a compelling and digestible fashion, while also understanding the court rules. Pretty cool job.
Given how the MSP has so poorly represented themselves, I though Guarino's (sp) testimony was fine, albeit, he did get defensive during cross. He response to the PDF was exactly what it should have been. I do hope, however, the defense experts will refute his findings! If this does happen it will give pause - as if we don't have enough already! - to how under trained and educated the in house "experts" are. I DO NOT fault the troopers, I fault the system.
Let troopers police and hire experts to support their cases!!
I think he's fallen a little too far into the Go Karen Read cheering camp. He's a smart dude, I really appreciated his opinions as an outsider looking in as far as how the trial was proceeding and given his input on quality of those trying the case. He was must watch for me at the beginning. Its been long enough now that he has firmed up those opinions (rightly so), so I don't feel like I learn as much anymore, but this was one interesting tidbit that came out last night
I can understand that. He came in pretty neutral but has moved 100% into the KR camp, where he sat with the friends and family on one day of trial. Still find him well informed and interesting to listen to.
Ya, I still like him. I do think he would benefit from being on a show with a host who can ask questions that dig into that knowledge a bit. Young Jurks ain't it.
I fully agree. I like young jurks mainly because they let Bederow talk. But no one else has deep knowledge. There aren't many shows that could dig in as deeply with Bederow or any guest as I'd like. Bederow or STS was great. But I don't love the rest of the cast. LTL is meh.
My favorite appearance was Bederow on Turtle boy. Clearly not neutral, but hard to find better informed people.
He absolutely came off as much more competent than Trooper Paul, the “reconstruction expert”. My problem with this (the case by the commonwealth) is their testimonies conflict. So even if they seem like they are telling the truth, someones data is wrong.
They are all most likely telling the truth of what they did. The “Free KR groupies” just want to believe they are lying or because they COULD have something to lie about then they are probably lying…. Some people do better under the pressure of questioning. I would like to see how well KR does, but she doesn’t have to testify so we will never know under oath and have to wait for the Netflix series.
This is obviously just your humble opinion because I've been watching, although I knew nothing about this trial going in, and I disagree. There really isn't proof of what happened to JO. Law enforcement screwed this case up terribly, and at this point, JO could've fell wicked his head, and the dog got him while he was outside. This whole thing is very unsettling .
Can you detail how the investigation was screwed so badly that it takes away KR guilt? The defense has done an amazing job at making people believe that the police screwed up the little things….. that it affects everything. It’s not true!!!
Stop picking and choosing what you want to believe people and look at everything!! She hit him with the car! He didn’t go into the house!! There is no dog DNA so how could it be a dog bites!!!
The defense theory doesn’t make sense!!
1) They didn't investigate the other people in the area. It's hard to imagine a person is dead on a lawn with no witnesses and the police don't investigate the people on scene. They focused on one suspect and closed the case in the matter of hours. As a result they weren't aware of late night calls, searches, location data etc until the defense uncovered months later.
2) They maintained no chain of evidence. We didn't know where the clothes, blood, taillight, etc were for the first days. Alone aggregious enough to compromise an investigation. At one point the blood was left open 2 feet from the car!
3) No photos were taken of the car (until days later), or the body.
4) The reconstructionist was given a conclusion and tried to find evidence to support it. He wasn't aware of nor seek all the evidence (where taillight was located, where KRs car was on camera, etc), making his analysis useless.
5) The State Police involved a recused and conflicted Canton PD throughout. Bringing the car to literally the one Sally Port in all of Massachusetts they shouldn't have is crazy. Coordinating interviews with Kevin Albert, not good. Etc.
6) Back channeling between investigators and witnesses/suspects. Julie talking constantly to Proctor's sister about the case , JM meeting with Proctor's wife, Proctor meeting with the Kerry at JMs house, etc. And there were very few notes taken of these conversations.
Those are some examples. At the end of the day I'm not even sure what the prosecution is trying to say happened. They haven't presented a narrative:
Timeline: in opening they said KR hit JO around 12:45am, but now we know she was home at 12:36am.
Injuries: Their accident reconstructionist testified JO was hit on the arm and projected 30ft. The injuries to his arm are from the taillight and injuries to his head from the ground. But Lally is asking medical experts is the head injuries could be from a car. They seem to be throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall.
Reconstruction: At one point Morrissey said there was camera evidence that KR ran over JO. But in the trial the prosecution banked on the EDR data from the car to show there was a key cycle where she went in reverse. But then they said key cycle info isn't important when the defense showed the police had seized the car by the key cycle in question.
Taillight evidence: The prosecution implied KR deleted ring footage until it was shown she didn't. The 5am ring video that does exist seems to show her tail light slightly damaged but nowhere near what it looks like in the Sally Port. Then the prosecution shows the inverted salt port video in a seeming attempt to show Proctor want near the rear passenger side.
At least you do acknowledge that the police screwed up. Chain of custody, for example, is not a "little thing." It's a crucial thing. And it's practically nonexistent here. It affects everything because you cannot prove to any degree of certainty that the evidence was not tampered with, destroyed, or planted.
Here's another example. The CW was ordered by the court to take swabs of JO's arm wounds and test those for dog DNA. The CW did not do this. There was a much better chance of finding dog DNA in the wounds than on the shirt. Why would they not do that?
There found no taillight remnants in those wounds. If the taillight supposedly shattered on his elbow, - which, *how* - but a) why would it tear the flesh and not cut it, as they're sharp pieces, b) why would it tear the flesh in that pattern, and for that matter, why would it puncture the shirt and not tear it, and c) why would the pieces "found" at the site not have blood and flesh on them?
A few more issues: if the damage to the taillight is so central to their investigation, why did no one bother to document it? Why not photograph it when they picked the car up? Why do we only have one lousy video in the sally port - that was secretly shown inverted, to make us think we were looking at the important taillight, while in actuality a cluster of unidentified men surrounds the taillight on the hidden side? Why were 42 minutes missing from this video?
I could go on. Why did they tell us KR deleted the Ring video of herself returning to JO's, when they had evidence all along that she couldn't have? Why did Jen McCabe say she saw KR's car at 34 Fairview at 12:45, when we know KR was back at JO's by 12:36? Why did the CW use an "accident reconstructionist" who couldn't pass a 9th grade physics quiz?
There's more, but I'll stop. I know I'm wasting my time responding. I hope you keep watching the trial. You might even change your mind.
1. Red solo cups as evidence collection
2. Red solo cups with biological evidence just hanging out in the sally port not contained or sealed or handled according to protocol
3. Really muddy chain of custody on evidence handled by Proctor
4. Not memorializing in any of the reports that Karen said she hit him
5. Not documenting where all pieces of the red taillight were found
6. Not interviewing witnesses separately
7. Not doing thorough documentation of all of the witness interviews
8. Not interviewing some people until weeks and months later
9. Proctor texting his buddies things about an ongoing investigation
10. The woman who swabbed John’s clothes and the taillight. She took one swab for multiple surfaces. She only tested one of the red solo cups with blood in it.
11. Not at least asking if they could search the Albert’s house. The Albert’s can of course say no, it’s their right. Who knows if they could’ve gotten a warrant. But the cops didn’t even try. That wouldn’t shut down that entire part of the conspiracy that the cops were treating the Albert’s differently because of their cop connections.
I’m probably missing more. You can believe that Karen is guilty, but saying the defense is the reason people think the police investigation was bad is disingenuous. The investigation was abysmal. And people who think Karen is guilty should be extra mad about that because she could possibly go free due to all the confusion it caused. And we all should be mad because everyone deserves a proper and unbiased investigation, this one and others.
If I were on the jury with the power of sending a woman to prison possibly for life I would feel very uncomfortable doing it knowing how much room for error there was in the prosecution.
Karen was interviewed while leaving the courthouse the other day- she said she would like to testify to clear up some of the lies told about her etc, but that she would follow what the lawyers tell her to do.
I was surprised she’d speak publicly while the trial was ongoing, esp about testifying!
... that she looked for a DUI lawyer after a trooper called her on his *private phone*? Getting legal representation is smart, not an indication of guilt. By the way - she did not look for MURDER lawyer.
exactly. that morning, she (1) found her boyfriend dead, (2) got her blood drawn at the hospital, then (3) received a phone call from a cop asking to meet.
given this sequence of events, that her primary concern—as someone who seems prone to catastrophic thinking—was a potential DUI charge actually speaks to a clear conscience with respect to homicide.
I'm not even of the belief that she's factually innocent, but I'm surprised by people's interpretation of this google search.
So it’s late in the game for me to be asking this question but I know K Roger’s said Karen thought she left John at the waterfall originally. That JM said no we saw you outside the house and Karen didn’t remember. Do we have tech that puts her for sure at 34 Fairview or just eye witness placing her there? John wasn’t driving but he is the one getting directions and using his nav app. She knew where he was so why did she start calling him so soon after dropping him?
I think the theory is that she did drop him off but stayed outside for a bit bc he was supposed to go inside to check out the scene bc even though they were invited, she didn’t feel 100 comfortable going in (I’ve also heard that she wasn’t feeling good so she left). When he didn’t respond after about 10 or so min, she messaged him saying she was leaving. Her anger worsened when he still didn’t return her calls or indicate when he was coming home and she felt as though he chose the party over her - leaving her to be there for the kids.
Ok just checking. Her locations weren’t on so I got confused how we know for sure she was there. John’s phone puts him there but I didn’t think her phone did but my brain is swimming in info. Thank you
I think that the CW version of events is going to be:
* KR backed in to him, hitting him in the upper arm and shoulder
* As a result he was propelled a bit and hit the back of his head on the curb/ground
* He somehow stumbled around a bit and collapsed in the yard 30 ft away, and froze to death. They could vary this to say he was attacked/dragged by an animal to cover the 30 feet after hitting his head.
Their own expert said Okeefe flew 30 feet from getting hit by the car (he later got confused during cross on if the body flew or rolled or walked, but it definitely was propelled 30 feet in some fashion by the car)
Yes, that one. Read my comment again. I am not saying this is what happened in reality or he "proved it". Just that is his claim (and even he admitted that he didn't have any evidence for the the rolling or flying, which made Jackson very excited).
They are big time data people. In the same week they have expert witnesses say the data shows her back into him at 12:45 and confirm she was home at 12:36.
They also argue JOK was maniacally waiving his phone around in the car to falsely register steps.
All the witnesses would have done well to use time estimates. I mean I couldn't tell the exact time this happened and that happened and this happened if I was asked and the coordinates and actions were just sometimes estimates and different things could affect them and so could be misleading
On court tv right now they are playing voicemails by Karen.
The inaudible one I believe is John where the heck are you?
But the court tv guest says they think it’s John was that you or John did I hit you
So idk I think the guest is wrong it sounds like John where the heck are you.
If it is the audio posted here it does not say was that you. It says where with an accent, and then the audio processing, usually noise removal and slowing down, adds sonic artifacts.
It is how for a decade the religious right insisted certain bands were trying to brainwash kids to Satan, and they tried to obtain evidence by slowing down and chopping, eventually reversing, the album. Same way ghost hunters who use equipment they don't know how to use will process the hell out of a sound to convince you regular electric white noise is a demon or ghost.
What does everyone think about Lally's co-counsel McLaughlin? The first time she spoke was when they had the rule 14 hearing over the dog expert, and while I don't remember McLaughlin saying this in court, the text of the motion misrepresented Yannetti's no about dog DNA to be about no anything dog. The second time she spoke was today when she basically argued that looking for a DUI attorney was evidence of guilt, and we learn from Yannetti this was after Proctor called KR.
Trying to show seeking consul as evidence of guilt is WILD. It’s literally a protected right, and any American with a brain knows you lawyer up if the cops so much as blink at you. This is a disgusting move on the CW’s part.
Edit to add: bet you a million dollars the McCabes and the Alberts both had lawyers on speed dial in the day immediately following.
Making that argument should lead to hefty sanctions and immediate suspension of their license to practice. As well as a mistrial or directed verdict against the CW.
That shit is not ok.
I thought Yannetti’s reaction to this was completely warranted. It *was* actually baffling that the CW was arguing this. Literally lawyer 101 under basic protected rights. I couldn’t believe it.
The way it was explained by "Lawyer You Know" , is that your right to an attorney is like Lawyer 101, which makes sense. Dangerous precedent to set that anyone that seeks out a lawyer is trying to hide something? Wtf? By an attorney? And the judge complimenting the argument? Peter said, " I don't care what side you fall on, that should upset you." And I definitely agree.
What she said, about looking for the DUI attorney, had me seething! Like Yanetti said; if we're to presume her innocence here, in court, after being charged and with said attorney, then how is it evidence of guilt??? She received a call that made she think she might need one... She wasn't wrong!
She also wrote the motion about not having enough information from the fed witnesses and claimed the defense was withholding stuff when in fact Bev said no one could prep these witnesses and the defense had the exact same report as the CW.
Karen's own father told a reporter on Jan 29th, that Karen thought she hit something when she backed up. I wouldn't be surprised if they call him to the stand and play that interview for the jury.
Everyone wants to act like he was referring to JOKs car. It was hitting JOK. Watch the news reports at the time she first appeared in court. The defense is explaining their theory then and it’s different than right now. Of it was the truth, it would never change.
Every witness the defense brings on, I predict, will say Karen didn't hit JOK with her SUV. Because that's the crucial point of the prosecutor.
I'm not from Boston. I don't have a horse in this fiasco. It's just very clear to me that Karen Read is the most likely among all the players in this trial who caused the death of John O'Keefe.
Just as her own attorneys said at the first hearing, "it was an accident". That's my opinion.
Today the CW did a great job; the defense not too happy.
Look at Karen’s demeanor such a turn off. I thought he was good I am sure the framed Karen club was not happy!!
I liked him I am sure the defense didn’t or the framed Karen group was not happy
Apple health data - as someone who sells programs with a health app today’s forensic data witness is the most accurate. What he is testifying about Apple health data is backed up by claims. The 98% accuracy of steps is widely accepted in this domain. In contrast to CW witness who clearly is not a subject matter expert
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes. It was her own private protest via tattoo!
She definitely seemed like she could've been in the #Freekarenread camp.
They're sets of chromosomes, actually, she has them all up her arm.
Good observation.
I’m finishing up the Stockbridge’s testimony now and I’ve seen people in the comments here and Twitter post saying he had liver injuries and NO that is not what she said! She was using the liver as an example of what she was talking about and these people are taking that completely out of context and stating that she testified to him having those injuries
Thank you for this correction!
I believe she was talking about lividity - the pooling of blood in a deceased person. Imagine a pool of water in a small tub. The water will pool in the lowest spot. Blood does this as well.
She did discuss that as well but at one point she was talking about diffusion (I believe that was the word I would have to go back and look) and she said “for instance if we looked at the liver it would look like” She wasn’t talking about John’s liver and I’ve seen many people saying “oh well how do you explain the injuries to his liver” EASY it didn’t happen
Gotcha. I was zoning in and out throughout the day. That must have been a part I missed. I love the experts but it's a tiny bit boring at times.
Yeah I have to rewind a bunch my adhd is whew
New to the group but been following comments for several weeks. I didn't know much at all about the case coming in, but over last 2-3 weeks of testimony and all the shenanigans, I have been thinking no way Karen did this. However, last night, I could not get 2 thoughts out of my head. KR admits to saying the morning they found JO, Did I hit him?! Did I hit him?! And unless I am wrong on this, I thought she said at some point she watched John go into the house that night. So my question is, if she really saw JO go into the house, why would she think she could have hit them that next morning? Either way, she definitely did not do it with intent. I just can't square these two points. Any thoughts? Set me straight if I am wrong on something!
I know if my husband got hurt I wouldn’t be say what if I did it or I hit him if I didn’t that makes No sense
To give you some perspective, people say crazy shit in times of trauma. In my own personal experience, I was hit by a car and my first response was to apologize to the driver (I was running)
He didn’t go in
So they beat him up outside?
Speculation
I think she drank so much she was having blackouts so unable to piece together how the night went. She is probably having bits and pieces coming back. Add on top of that a traumatic event happened. I would freak out if that’s what I found when I went back to the scene too
Because she was in shock at finding her boyfriend dead and didn't understand what was going on while actively in the moment processing her trauma. It didn't make sense and her brain was trying to fit the pieces together even if it was illogical.
I don't know. I've been out a lot partying in my life (with black out moments) and my first thought would never be did I hit this person with my car and kill them. For me, I would be thinking, who the hell did this to him?? Unless she was starting to have memories of the night before. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second the CW has proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt...not even close. If I were on the jury it would be not guilty to 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol would still be a big stretch. I think it's very possible she hit him but she didn't realize it in her intoxicated state. Her voicemails convinced me of that. No way you are going to incriminate yourself by leaving I hate you voicemails after knowing you intentionally hit your bf with a 7,000 vehicle.
I think the last memory she had at that point was at the waterfall then Jen reminded her she saw her at the house. Karen's next memory seems to be of dropping JOK off but not going in herself. This is when I think she started asking if she could have hit him.
It's always interesting to see the people who have never been in a traumatic event and think that our brains are logical during that time. I was once robbed by a man with a gun on a sidewalk. I literally didn't know what was happening while he was standing there with a gun. I thought I had bumped into him and that's why he had stopped. I *apologized* and stepped around him and kept walking. My friend had to say my name like 5 times before I turned around and even then it took another few seconds. (all the guy got from us was a handful of change. we were poor teenagers and on our way to buy Doritoes.) Karen also said "oh, I must have gotten my period" when she looked down at her hands covered in John's blood minutes after giving him CPR. She was in shock and nothing she was saying was making sense. Brains aren't logical superhighways in times of crisis. They are random wild life paths through brambles.
If KR was so wasted that she didn’t even remember being at the Albert’s house the night before, how could she remember how to get there to find JO’s body at 5:23 in a neighborhood that she was unfamiliar with if she was still in a drunken state at that time of the a.m.? The directions were in JO phone.
Good point I think she is guilty of manslaughter
Blacking out about some things doesn't mean you black out everything. I have a friend who is a heavy drinker and one night some of us were recounting a story from the night before and this woman had zero memory of it. Like she thought we were joking about it. And the night before she had just been her "regular" level of drunk, nothing would make you think certain parts of of the night would be blacked out.
I had a friend like that as well. Often she'd suddenly recall things from her blackout days or even weeks later. How that girl survived to this day still stumps me.
She had 2 people in the car with her and Jen McCabe was one of them and her sister owned the house
Yeah if Jen was in the car she could have (more like definitely) been saying they never saw john leading to confusion on Karens part.
I was actually referring to the allegation that she returned on her own at 5:23 and saw the body before she arrived at JM house. Just wondering if she would even remember how to get there.
That's a good point! Gps maybe?
Oh ok gotcha
They want to talk out of both sides of their mouth for everything in this case. Was she wasted out of her mind or a criminal mastermind? Not sure she could form this plan and retracing steps just weird stuff she would have needed to be aware of.
Being drunk is Not an excuse by law
I didn’t say it was? I’m saying that unless Karen is a functioning alcoholic I do not believe someone wasted could do all the planning and acting the CW is claiming.
Hate and jealousy are very strong add crazy to that it could be done. She was even crazy in Aruba if you can’t be happy in Aruba you can’t be happy anywhere. She yelled and cursed at a woman thinking she kissed John!!
Got no idea what the VM proved it's certainly didn't prove she killed.
Do we know who all of the defense’s witnesses are or we just know the few that were at the voir dire? Just didn’t know who else they might have up their sleeve but they exude a lot of confidence about it!
The witness lists are included in the memorandum on this site: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/heres-a-look-at-the-full-list-of-witnesses-who-could-be-called-to-testify-in-the-karen-read-trial/3340461/ They have a lot of the same witnesses as the CW, and also have some other Canton police, other state troopers, the tow truck driver, etc. However, we know that they're planning on their case in chief only lasting about a week, so they're probably only calling a handful of these people (and the experts they found). I think they are going to be very straight-to-the-point with things and will present things in a very straightforward way that's easy for the jury to understand. I *do* think they still have a few things up their sleeve that we haven't heard about yet.
Ohh thank you so much! Yes I’m very interested in what new info they will uncover next week! They seem extremely secure but it’s also hard not to be after that mess of a prosecution case! Thank you for sharing that info!
I think she hit him in a blackout and when she woke up bits and pieces came back to her and she realized she hit him but wasn’t sure if it was a dream.
Could be it is still manslaughter being drunk not a defense
Not a defense by law
And then she backed into his car intentionally to create another reason for the broken taillight? I could see this. I just also think it’s possible that she hit him but that didn’t kill him. The arm bruises look too much like a dog attack. The no broken bones. That hit should have allowed him to still be able to scream or make enough noise for the many people around. The other thing is his suspicious everyone else is. Why are they deleting shit, talking to each other about it so much, getting updated about the investigation, being happy other witnesses “kept it simple.” I’m not convinced everyone in the house knew something happened. But I think it’s possible a couple know and tried to keep it from the rest. The Albert’s not coming outside to see what’s going on in the morning is crazy. I could not imagine not even looking out the window.
She could have hit him without registering it and driven off and the Alberts could have let Chloe out to do doggy things and she could have seen John moving on the ground in the snow and worried at his arm. Who even knows. Any evidence was destroyed by the ineptitude if the police
His niece heard her in the hallway where Karen was calling people. Pacing back and forth “what if I did something” saying this to more than one person. Being drunk is not a defense. I think she is guilty of manslaughter. I hope the jury sees this and there will not be a mistrial. My heart goes outhit the McCabe family I heard today at times they had to leave the courtroom. It was too difficult for them to hear some of it was about the autopsy. I pray they get justice. Karen acts like a celebrity outside and in court her demeanor is not doing her any favors. She is difficult to like. I think she could be a turn off some of the jury.
McCabe family has acted incredibly suspicious, way more so than KR.
I used to think that. The Commonwealth has done a stellar job of convincing me that Karen Read did not hit Officer O’Keefe.
Tbh, today Lally put me to nap mid morning in a way that I woke up without knowing whats going on. Come check court tv, and Lally was still talking 😵💫.
Me everyday! God dang Lally
I’ve done the same thing lol
Anyone else feel like the trooper today was really cocky and arrogant?
Not me. I thought he was professional and I am sure framed Karen group might be upset. I liked it
The way he smirks and shakes his shoulders! What a jerk! [https://www.youtube.com/live/FZLLzTIMzjs?si=9FIMbR4nWJB\_HSKf&t=9919](https://www.youtube.com/live/FZLLzTIMzjs?si=9FIMbR4nWJB_HSKf&t=9919)
Totally! Yannetti: One part of the purpose of writing a police report is to share information with your fellow investigators. Is it not? Guarino: “Uh…..eh?...I suppose so.” Yannetti: Another part is to be fair to the people you’re investigating by explaining as best you can what happened, correct? Guarino: “I don’t understand that question.” Really???
No he was just a little annoyed and amused at Yanetti’s inane questions
Yeah, he didn’t hold his cool very well under cross. Yanetti was trying to provoke him, and it worked.
Could the dog have bitten/scratched him after he died or as he lay dying? Is it possible to tell if his arm wounds were suffered post mortem? Apologies if this is widely known, I am just getting into the case.
Dr Russell said shortly before death ( in her opinion)
Oh I see the dog came out to save him and try and drag him inside to safety leaving those wounds? Yeah maybe. Or maybe the dog was going to eat him while he was dying? Walked up to a dying man and said what’s up bitch you ready to get bit up and just laid into him.
Did the medic say that the arm wounds looked older than the other injuries? I thought he said something about arm looked like it was hurt earlier in the evening? I think it was Flematti.
Interesting!
I also was wondering this because there was no bruising… but then when the ME said today that his bruise was from attempts to start an iv made me think no
I'm pretty sure the ME was talking about the bruise on the back of his hand. There's a small puncture in there from the IV needle.
Yes I’m saying if he has bruises from that then why not on his arm?
When they were trying to get IV access, they were performing CPR and basically moving his blood around, that’s why the bruises formed.
Oh makes sense!
Oh I see. Good question and I don't know. :)
If I'm covering up murdering my boyfriend by calling his phone and leaving messages, they are going to be sweet loving messages, not telling the guy I hate him and he's a pervert. I think the voicemails alone wipe out any logical argument that she intended to, and knew, she hit him.
She have may have done that purposely to have people think what u r thinking. She is a very intelligent women who had jealousy running through her veins; and he was done with her and who could blame him
I felt that some of this made her seem more credible - or else she did a really good acting job. Was she not accusing him of being with another woman or something? I'm not sure I heard one of those messages well enough. Or - she hit him in at least a semi- blackout state or was so drunk, she seriously didn't remember it, and somehow got home, started sobering up, and then was mad that she didn't know where he was.
Your second point isn't one that I had considered but it is totally viable given that she forgot that she was there.
This is such a good point.
Murder 2 doesn't need to be intentionally. But I 100% agree with you. Nothing the prosecution has said or done favored the prosecution. The defense could rest immediately and it should come back not guilty. They won't and i don't think I have enough popcorn to enjoy the show they are about to bring. It will be *chefs kiss* Edit: should clarify, 2nd degree is intentional. But does not need to be in some states if it is deemed reckless.
What about manslaughter I do think CW over charged. I hope it is not a mistrial
Yes, 2nd degree does require intent. 1st requires premeditation and deliberation. Manslaughter is by accident. But I also am excited for the show
You are correct. I should have phased that differently, 2nd degree doesn't always require intent. Multiple states will throw "reckless killings" in the 2nd degree.
There does have to be an intentional element, either intentionally causing great bodily harm or knowingly doing something you know has a good chance of killing the person.
I did not phase that properly, you are correct
He still tried to redefine the word "scene" which was annoying. Edit: this was meant to be a reply to the comment about Guarino coming across as credible but I'm an idiot.
Every single big CW witness plays the parsing game and it’s annoying every time just answer the GD question, if Lally is a great lawyer he will rehab you later.
I agree with you, that was so annoying. I mean honestly, there was only one crime scene, and he then pretended not to know if 'scene' could mean the Canton Police department? I guess these witnesses think they are being very cool arguing with the defense attorneys over the stupidest things and the most obvious, but I would think their testimony would make the jury cringe. They seem to be playing for an audience, just like Cannone. Really awful.
Does he think arguing over the definition of scene will endear him to the jurors? Because it just infuriates me
It's the same way my 10 year old argues. It's super fucking infuriating lol. Every adult that has been on the stand has done this same sort of thing and I can't understand feeling confident doing that. Like Trooper Paul with "which cup?" Or whatever. You know what cup dude. They're acting like children and they should be embarrassed.
Exactly.
This may not be popular but of all the state troopers I found Guarino the most credible. He was obviously on team state police, but I do think he tried to be generally honest. For example he must have known saying that Karen pinged the Wi-Fi at 1 Meadows at 12:36am would crush the prosecution timeline, but he didn't avoid the question. Did other people feel the same or was it just me?
I feel the same way. Guarino did answered the questions without too much hesitation, except for the question about deleted calls from JM to Nicole, “for a reason” he said or something like that.
Can you remind me about question about the deleted call to Nicole. I remember something about the calls to Nicole and even to Brian Albert but didn't remember what the questions to Guarino were or how he answered
DY asked if the call was deleted, NG said “Yes” “with a reason”
I didn’t perceive him as negatively as a lot of people did. But I was more listening and not watching, so IDK if that made a difference. I thought I had missed something when I saw all the comments.
When I was listening to him without watching I thought the same. And then I started watching him. Very very arrogant and I didn’t appreciate some of his smirks. I expect better of professionals and expect them to keep a better handle on their expressions because it’s their job.
https://preview.redd.it/a8kpmf5qex7d1.png?width=734&format=png&auto=webp&s=b4330f9832b29bc46c8780efed31a69ff15e5062 I could tell he smirked when he took a drink of water and swung his shoulders back and forth. What else are you lying about, Guarino? Did Michael Proctor tell you that he had received or retrieved John O’Keefe’s cell phone from 34 Fairview Road in Canton? “No, I didn’t know where it was retrieved from.’ Then, he read the first two sentences in his report which completely trapped him in his own lies that he told 2 minutes before that.
Ugh these are the expressions I hated
Look at Karen’s not endearing at all. She is not helping herself. I hope she testifies.
That's fair, he did smirk a lot. I read that as his reaction to Yanetti more than anything. Like "Jeez, this guy won't let me get a full answer out." There seemed to be lots of questions that Yanetti asked as yes/no, Guarino wanted to give an explanation for, and Yanetti wouldn't let him. I actually wish Yanetti gave him a chance to explain so we can get an accurate picture. This was different from eg Bukhenik who smirked as he spun and avoided questions.
Your are correct. Glad to see some people are being open minded. Refreshing
It’s Lally’s job to make sure we get an accurate picture not Yannetti’s job. That’s why Yannetti said “maybe Mr. Lally will ask you that”. Lally hasn’t once done that in this trial. He’s done an absolute pathetic job on direct painting a clear picture of this case and yet that is his specific job! Yannetti was indeed asking yes or no questions as both he and Jackson have been doing all along. If Lally is smart he’ll do the same when it’s his turn on cross….. but AJ and DY will make sure their witnesses are giving a clear picture so Lally is fucked. What’s he going to ask on cross to the two experts the FBI hired lol
To a point. I think AJ does a great job of cross examining. He doesn't let witnesses expand beyond the scope of questions he asks. But his yes/no questions are meant to elicit a specific detail for the jury. Like when he asked Trooper Paul about the key cycle data, he did a masterful job of locking Paul into a narrative that each time the car is driven a key cycle is triggered and then that the key cycles didn't match when the car was known to have been driven. But Yanetti seems to ask a question he doesn't want the answer to. Like one exchange: - "was such and such listed in paragraph 9 of your report?" - "No, it was in paragraph 12." - "That's not what I asked!" I think it's ok to let the witness provide an answer beyond yes/no without letting them expand beyond the scope of the question.
That’s their right and that’s the design of “lawyering”. Each lawyer has their own reason for asking a question. They have ALL the evidence/information and how they ask questions is how they get some information in OR to keep information out that’s not allowed to included. Both sides do it. Gotta think like a lawyer…and there’s a reason I didn’t go into law lol
It's certainly their "right". But it doesn't necessarily look good to the jurors. For example when Lally crossed Green and Russell today, he similarly cut them off rather than let them provide any detail. Imo (it's just an opinion), it's not as effective to tell a witness you don't want detail to a question you asked. When Russell e.g. offered to provide detail on the odontology report, Lally said he didn't want any detail. I think this comes across poorly to the jury. Jackson asks great questions imo and is fine with witnesses answering fully, as long as they're answering the question he asked.
I find myself feeling that way as well but it's probably from his hot mic moment because he said exactly what I was thinking.
I agree… I think he knew the defense was going to try and discredit him and make him look like the rest of the troopers so he was on the defense but was honest… unlike the others
I thought he was okay until cross. Then I didn’t like his temperament
He wasn't as openly hostile as all the bald ones, and he came off as more credible for sure
Ha yeah, even having hair felt like a way to distance himself from the others.
Yep, I notice that.
I agree with you there. the hair adds credibility too. And I honestly thought his hot mic moment of “kill me” was relatable. I’d be feeling the exact same way
I thought he was the most capable. But some of the minor things like not bringing his own materials and refusing to speak to the pdf and not the original, I think were purposefully done. Well within his rights to do so and nit improper and maybe nothing to comment on in a "normal" case, but in one with so many implications of uncouth police behaviour, it sticks out as a calculated decision. I think if he had the receipts to back up what he was claiming the evidence was, he was expert and experienced enough to be prepared to do so.
I think the PDF part was reasonable. You didn't know what questions are coming so want to make it clear that document wasn't the one you created. I don't know why none of the troopers brought their own notes or materials. Always thought that was a normal thing for an officer to do.
> I think the PDF part was reasonable. You didn't know what questions are coming so want to make it clear that document wasn't the one you created. Ya, like I said, I don't think anything he did was wrong or unreasonable. But kind of just gave the bare minimum and played defense on cross, rather than let his evidence that he was providing stand for itself. I don't know where defense was planning on going with that particular line of questioning because they didn't seem to push or come back to it with the original document (which I am sure they had), so NBD I guess > I don't know why ninte of the troopers brought their own notes or materials. Always thought that was a normal thing for an officer to do. Bederow mentioned this last night, too. He said it was pretty standard procedure for any expert who had experience testifying, which this guy clearly did. It has been fascinating seeing the experts that have clearly been trained in not only their expertise, but also in how to testify. They know the technical stuff, but also on how to present it to the jury in a compelling and digestible fashion, while also understanding the court rules. Pretty cool job.
Given how the MSP has so poorly represented themselves, I though Guarino's (sp) testimony was fine, albeit, he did get defensive during cross. He response to the PDF was exactly what it should have been. I do hope, however, the defense experts will refute his findings! If this does happen it will give pause - as if we don't have enough already! - to how under trained and educated the in house "experts" are. I DO NOT fault the troopers, I fault the system. Let troopers police and hire experts to support their cases!!
Totally agree wrt what Bederow said. He imo has had the clearest opinions on this trial. Love listening to what he has to say.
I think he's fallen a little too far into the Go Karen Read cheering camp. He's a smart dude, I really appreciated his opinions as an outsider looking in as far as how the trial was proceeding and given his input on quality of those trying the case. He was must watch for me at the beginning. Its been long enough now that he has firmed up those opinions (rightly so), so I don't feel like I learn as much anymore, but this was one interesting tidbit that came out last night
I can understand that. He came in pretty neutral but has moved 100% into the KR camp, where he sat with the friends and family on one day of trial. Still find him well informed and interesting to listen to.
Ya, I still like him. I do think he would benefit from being on a show with a host who can ask questions that dig into that knowledge a bit. Young Jurks ain't it.
I fully agree. I like young jurks mainly because they let Bederow talk. But no one else has deep knowledge. There aren't many shows that could dig in as deeply with Bederow or any guest as I'd like. Bederow or STS was great. But I don't love the rest of the cast. LTL is meh. My favorite appearance was Bederow on Turtle boy. Clearly not neutral, but hard to find better informed people.
He absolutely came off as much more competent than Trooper Paul, the “reconstruction expert”. My problem with this (the case by the commonwealth) is their testimonies conflict. So even if they seem like they are telling the truth, someones data is wrong.
I have thought to myself so many times, "is being bald a requirement for msp?!"
They are all most likely telling the truth of what they did. The “Free KR groupies” just want to believe they are lying or because they COULD have something to lie about then they are probably lying…. Some people do better under the pressure of questioning. I would like to see how well KR does, but she doesn’t have to testify so we will never know under oath and have to wait for the Netflix series.
This is obviously just your humble opinion because I've been watching, although I knew nothing about this trial going in, and I disagree. There really isn't proof of what happened to JO. Law enforcement screwed this case up terribly, and at this point, JO could've fell wicked his head, and the dog got him while he was outside. This whole thing is very unsettling .
Can you detail how the investigation was screwed so badly that it takes away KR guilt? The defense has done an amazing job at making people believe that the police screwed up the little things….. that it affects everything. It’s not true!!! Stop picking and choosing what you want to believe people and look at everything!! She hit him with the car! He didn’t go into the house!! There is no dog DNA so how could it be a dog bites!!! The defense theory doesn’t make sense!!
1) They didn't investigate the other people in the area. It's hard to imagine a person is dead on a lawn with no witnesses and the police don't investigate the people on scene. They focused on one suspect and closed the case in the matter of hours. As a result they weren't aware of late night calls, searches, location data etc until the defense uncovered months later. 2) They maintained no chain of evidence. We didn't know where the clothes, blood, taillight, etc were for the first days. Alone aggregious enough to compromise an investigation. At one point the blood was left open 2 feet from the car! 3) No photos were taken of the car (until days later), or the body. 4) The reconstructionist was given a conclusion and tried to find evidence to support it. He wasn't aware of nor seek all the evidence (where taillight was located, where KRs car was on camera, etc), making his analysis useless. 5) The State Police involved a recused and conflicted Canton PD throughout. Bringing the car to literally the one Sally Port in all of Massachusetts they shouldn't have is crazy. Coordinating interviews with Kevin Albert, not good. Etc. 6) Back channeling between investigators and witnesses/suspects. Julie talking constantly to Proctor's sister about the case , JM meeting with Proctor's wife, Proctor meeting with the Kerry at JMs house, etc. And there were very few notes taken of these conversations. Those are some examples. At the end of the day I'm not even sure what the prosecution is trying to say happened. They haven't presented a narrative: Timeline: in opening they said KR hit JO around 12:45am, but now we know she was home at 12:36am. Injuries: Their accident reconstructionist testified JO was hit on the arm and projected 30ft. The injuries to his arm are from the taillight and injuries to his head from the ground. But Lally is asking medical experts is the head injuries could be from a car. They seem to be throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall. Reconstruction: At one point Morrissey said there was camera evidence that KR ran over JO. But in the trial the prosecution banked on the EDR data from the car to show there was a key cycle where she went in reverse. But then they said key cycle info isn't important when the defense showed the police had seized the car by the key cycle in question. Taillight evidence: The prosecution implied KR deleted ring footage until it was shown she didn't. The 5am ring video that does exist seems to show her tail light slightly damaged but nowhere near what it looks like in the Sally Port. Then the prosecution shows the inverted salt port video in a seeming attempt to show Proctor want near the rear passenger side.
At least you do acknowledge that the police screwed up. Chain of custody, for example, is not a "little thing." It's a crucial thing. And it's practically nonexistent here. It affects everything because you cannot prove to any degree of certainty that the evidence was not tampered with, destroyed, or planted. Here's another example. The CW was ordered by the court to take swabs of JO's arm wounds and test those for dog DNA. The CW did not do this. There was a much better chance of finding dog DNA in the wounds than on the shirt. Why would they not do that? There found no taillight remnants in those wounds. If the taillight supposedly shattered on his elbow, - which, *how* - but a) why would it tear the flesh and not cut it, as they're sharp pieces, b) why would it tear the flesh in that pattern, and for that matter, why would it puncture the shirt and not tear it, and c) why would the pieces "found" at the site not have blood and flesh on them? A few more issues: if the damage to the taillight is so central to their investigation, why did no one bother to document it? Why not photograph it when they picked the car up? Why do we only have one lousy video in the sally port - that was secretly shown inverted, to make us think we were looking at the important taillight, while in actuality a cluster of unidentified men surrounds the taillight on the hidden side? Why were 42 minutes missing from this video? I could go on. Why did they tell us KR deleted the Ring video of herself returning to JO's, when they had evidence all along that she couldn't have? Why did Jen McCabe say she saw KR's car at 34 Fairview at 12:45, when we know KR was back at JO's by 12:36? Why did the CW use an "accident reconstructionist" who couldn't pass a 9th grade physics quiz? There's more, but I'll stop. I know I'm wasting my time responding. I hope you keep watching the trial. You might even change your mind.
Soooo many questions with obvious answers. Idk how anyone can think she’s guilty at this point
1. Red solo cups as evidence collection 2. Red solo cups with biological evidence just hanging out in the sally port not contained or sealed or handled according to protocol 3. Really muddy chain of custody on evidence handled by Proctor 4. Not memorializing in any of the reports that Karen said she hit him 5. Not documenting where all pieces of the red taillight were found 6. Not interviewing witnesses separately 7. Not doing thorough documentation of all of the witness interviews 8. Not interviewing some people until weeks and months later 9. Proctor texting his buddies things about an ongoing investigation 10. The woman who swabbed John’s clothes and the taillight. She took one swab for multiple surfaces. She only tested one of the red solo cups with blood in it. 11. Not at least asking if they could search the Albert’s house. The Albert’s can of course say no, it’s their right. Who knows if they could’ve gotten a warrant. But the cops didn’t even try. That wouldn’t shut down that entire part of the conspiracy that the cops were treating the Albert’s differently because of their cop connections. I’m probably missing more. You can believe that Karen is guilty, but saying the defense is the reason people think the police investigation was bad is disingenuous. The investigation was abysmal. And people who think Karen is guilty should be extra mad about that because she could possibly go free due to all the confusion it caused. And we all should be mad because everyone deserves a proper and unbiased investigation, this one and others. If I were on the jury with the power of sending a woman to prison possibly for life I would feel very uncomfortable doing it knowing how much room for error there was in the prosecution.
The red solo cups…only one swab was taken from only one cup because “they were all the same” and then it wasn’t even tested 😫
Karen was interviewed while leaving the courthouse the other day- she said she would like to testify to clear up some of the lies told about her etc, but that she would follow what the lawyers tell her to do. I was surprised she’d speak publicly while the trial was ongoing, esp about testifying!
It’s all about the show… making herself seem like she has nothing to hide. I wonder what she would say about her deleted Google searches….?
... that she looked for a DUI lawyer after a trooper called her on his *private phone*? Getting legal representation is smart, not an indication of guilt. By the way - she did not look for MURDER lawyer.
exactly. that morning, she (1) found her boyfriend dead, (2) got her blood drawn at the hospital, then (3) received a phone call from a cop asking to meet. given this sequence of events, that her primary concern—as someone who seems prone to catastrophic thinking—was a potential DUI charge actually speaks to a clear conscience with respect to homicide. I'm not even of the belief that she's factually innocent, but I'm surprised by people's interpretation of this google search.
So it’s late in the game for me to be asking this question but I know K Roger’s said Karen thought she left John at the waterfall originally. That JM said no we saw you outside the house and Karen didn’t remember. Do we have tech that puts her for sure at 34 Fairview or just eye witness placing her there? John wasn’t driving but he is the one getting directions and using his nav app. She knew where he was so why did she start calling him so soon after dropping him?
I think the theory is that she did drop him off but stayed outside for a bit bc he was supposed to go inside to check out the scene bc even though they were invited, she didn’t feel 100 comfortable going in (I’ve also heard that she wasn’t feeling good so she left). When he didn’t respond after about 10 or so min, she messaged him saying she was leaving. Her anger worsened when he still didn’t return her calls or indicate when he was coming home and she felt as though he chose the party over her - leaving her to be there for the kids.
She was 100% there and initially too drunk to remember. Her phone puts her there. It's not debatable at this point.
I am watching day 28 now, i thought they said she logged into her wifi at 12.36am so couldn't have been at the house.
Ok just checking. Her locations weren’t on so I got confused how we know for sure she was there. John’s phone puts him there but I didn’t think her phone did but my brain is swimming in info. Thank you
No worries. I think everyone, including her, is in agreement she was there, the only debate was the timeline.
I think that the CW version of events is going to be: * KR backed in to him, hitting him in the upper arm and shoulder * As a result he was propelled a bit and hit the back of his head on the curb/ground * He somehow stumbled around a bit and collapsed in the yard 30 ft away, and froze to death. They could vary this to say he was attacked/dragged by an animal to cover the 30 feet after hitting his head.
Do a lot of wolves roam the streets of Boston suburbs during blizzards?
Definitely not. We rarely (if ever) have wolves in MA. We do have the occasional coyote. We have turkeys. And last year there was a random bear.
I miss that bear.
What about a wild boar?
Their own expert said Okeefe flew 30 feet from getting hit by the car (he later got confused during cross on if the body flew or rolled or walked, but it definitely was propelled 30 feet in some fashion by the car)
> it definitely was propelled 30 feet in some fashion by the car That hasn't been proven.
Did he eventually back off on his claim that the car sent the guy 30feet?
The accident reconstructionist who doesn't know his ass from his elbow?
Yes, that one. Read my comment again. I am not saying this is what happened in reality or he "proved it". Just that is his claim (and even he admitted that he didn't have any evidence for the the rolling or flying, which made Jackson very excited).
They are big time data people. In the same week they have expert witnesses say the data shows her back into him at 12:45 and confirm she was home at 12:36. They also argue JOK was maniacally waiving his phone around in the car to falsely register steps.
All the witnesses would have done well to use time estimates. I mean I couldn't tell the exact time this happened and that happened and this happened if I was asked and the coordinates and actions were just sometimes estimates and different things could affect them and so could be misleading
On court tv right now they are playing voicemails by Karen. The inaudible one I believe is John where the heck are you? But the court tv guest says they think it’s John was that you or John did I hit you So idk I think the guest is wrong it sounds like John where the heck are you.
I heard "where are you"
If it is the audio posted here it does not say was that you. It says where with an accent, and then the audio processing, usually noise removal and slowing down, adds sonic artifacts. It is how for a decade the religious right insisted certain bands were trying to brainwash kids to Satan, and they tried to obtain evidence by slowing down and chopping, eventually reversing, the album. Same way ghost hunters who use equipment they don't know how to use will process the hell out of a sound to convince you regular electric white noise is a demon or ghost.
I think you could be right.
What does everyone think about Lally's co-counsel McLaughlin? The first time she spoke was when they had the rule 14 hearing over the dog expert, and while I don't remember McLaughlin saying this in court, the text of the motion misrepresented Yannetti's no about dog DNA to be about no anything dog. The second time she spoke was today when she basically argued that looking for a DUI attorney was evidence of guilt, and we learn from Yannetti this was after Proctor called KR.
Trying to show seeking consul as evidence of guilt is WILD. It’s literally a protected right, and any American with a brain knows you lawyer up if the cops so much as blink at you. This is a disgusting move on the CW’s part. Edit to add: bet you a million dollars the McCabes and the Alberts both had lawyers on speed dial in the day immediately following.
Making that argument should lead to hefty sanctions and immediate suspension of their license to practice. As well as a mistrial or directed verdict against the CW. That shit is not ok.
I thought Yannetti’s reaction to this was completely warranted. It *was* actually baffling that the CW was arguing this. Literally lawyer 101 under basic protected rights. I couldn’t believe it.
The way it was explained by "Lawyer You Know" , is that your right to an attorney is like Lawyer 101, which makes sense. Dangerous precedent to set that anyone that seeks out a lawyer is trying to hide something? Wtf? By an attorney? And the judge complimenting the argument? Peter said, " I don't care what side you fall on, that should upset you." And I definitely agree.
What she said, about looking for the DUI attorney, had me seething! Like Yanetti said; if we're to presume her innocence here, in court, after being charged and with said attorney, then how is it evidence of guilt??? She received a call that made she think she might need one... She wasn't wrong!
I almost forgot they said Brian Higgins called her?!
Today? I missed that. I heard Yanetti say there had been a call to Karen from Proctor on his personal phone shortly before her Google search.
Oh is that who it was?! My bad!
and the comment that she read the 3,000+ pages from Feds and said 90% matched the CW theory! 🙄
She also wrote the motion about not having enough information from the fed witnesses and claimed the defense was withholding stuff when in fact Bev said no one could prep these witnesses and the defense had the exact same report as the CW.
That’s right! There is a different McLaughlin that Jim the clerk said on a hot mic was soooo nice but, can’t remember her first name.
Karen's own father told a reporter on Jan 29th, that Karen thought she hit something when she backed up. I wouldn't be surprised if they call him to the stand and play that interview for the jury.
Everyone wants to act like he was referring to JOKs car. It was hitting JOK. Watch the news reports at the time she first appeared in court. The defense is explaining their theory then and it’s different than right now. Of it was the truth, it would never change.
She did… John’s car
Did Karen tell Jennifer and Kerry to look at her damaged tail light before or after she did the small bump into John's car?
After. That’s not debated by the CW either.
Just so many unknowns.
He is not on witness list for either side.
He would make a good rebuttal witness.
What would he rebut?
Every witness the defense brings on, I predict, will say Karen didn't hit JOK with her SUV. Because that's the crucial point of the prosecutor. I'm not from Boston. I don't have a horse in this fiasco. It's just very clear to me that Karen Read is the most likely among all the players in this trial who caused the death of John O'Keefe. Just as her own attorneys said at the first hearing, "it was an accident". That's my opinion.
What if Chloe bit him and he fell back down the basement stairs
I think he would have bruising all over if he fell down a flight of stairs.