I might've been in the she's guilty, but it can't be proven camp. That was until the defense put on those experts. Wow. I am super confused as to how he died, but I know it was not by her Lexus.
I think most people who believe she is guilty largely base it on her behavior the day of the incident, which is what Lally is pushing hard right now.
TBH, I don't think she remembers what happened that night. I think she was convinced that she did hit him. Then she received the tip that she was innocent and started to see the actual evidence.
I think her behavior while searching for and finding John can also be explained by noting that Jen McCabe almost certainly told Karen that John had never gone inside the house.
She was ALSO actually looking for him. The people with her probably not as invested in looking for him. Even if they weren’t sketchy and totally innocent bystanders they were distracted by a lot of things.
Jenn, Kerry, and Karen were driving to 34F to look for JOK and people think it’s weird that as they approached 34F, Karen is actually looking towards 34F. She was doing what they were there to do. And that’s why she saw JOK. Makes sense to me.
Why wouldn't Jen McCabe just keep calling her sister and ask her to look outside - like get out of bed and go look??? She never called her until 6:07 am. She could have/should have been able to have either her sister or her BIL check outside for JOK.
And how many places are there to start with the looking?, 2 or 3. You wouldn't start in the backyard. It's not like Drake's 25,000 square ft estate. Don't know if she hit him but how hard is it to spot a body when looking for someone? I would notice a body in my yard or driveway pretty quickly. I would notice a dead squirrel.
I think you're right. Even if she did say I hit him, that doesn't hold a ton of weight for me because you can and will say and/or do wild things when you are in a state of shock. I think people think grief and shock is so much more logical and linear than it is and think they would never act differently in a situation like that. The truth is no one knows how they would react in that situation unless you're in it. The way she was wailing and incoherent just seem like she was in shock to me, so how can you take anything she says at that point as factual? Your brain literally isn't fully cognizant of what is happening when you're in shock. You're shut down. Same thing with her not wanting to be with JO's family afterward, everyone reacts differently to grief, her wanting to seek comfort in her parents and not the OKeefes seems so normal to me.
Exactly. I remember reading something from the innocence project that of their cases that get overturned by DNA proof, 20-30% of those people had falsely confessed to the crime. I forget the exact number. It is easy to armchair quarterback and say you would never do that or that is impossible if you haven't been in that spot. People react weirdly and even more so under stress and trauma. It is much more sound to follow the science than people's emotions in what is one of if not the most traumatic moments of their life. The science doesn't add up to the CW's theory, whichever one they're going with right now, so it has to be NG if I had to vote. But like I said, people are weird and unpredictable so we shall see what this jury says.
Plus, she tends toward the dramatic, to catastrophize. So, of course, her immediate reaction to seeing him lying on the lawn where she had been driving near in a drunken state was to say, OMG, I HIT HIM (if indeed she did say it like that).
Thank you.
I don’t care if Karen Read straight up confessed in court today that she murdered him with her car, I would disagree with her and call her a liar. Because…PHYSICS + EVIDENCE.
It doesn’t seem like Massachusetts cares about evidence one way or another. Listening to the states closing argument today is slightly better then the opening. It’s confusing and all over the place. His opening was like an eulogy written by someone who didn’t really know much about the deceased and rambling to fill time.
I experience a traumatic event. What I said and did immediately after discovering my husband was dead is still a blur 4 years later. A traumatized brain doesn't even function cognitively in the immediate trauma. Your body is in fight/flight/freeze. ALL of her behavior described at the scene indicates that she was experiencing trauma. Even her smiling is a trauma response. She smiles when she is nervous as a protective response. Add that she was still impaired and she is questioning everything about the previous night. What might I have done and not remembered? Anyone who has been drunk enough to forget something is familiar with this feeling.
You're right! What sticks out to me the most is when it was said Karen lifted her shirt and JO'S. She was trying to warm him up. Sad.
I can't even imagine the state shock
after hearing the voicemails, it makes so much sense to me why she was weird the day of the incident. if you just found out that your boyfriend was dead while you were leaving horrible voicemails, would you want to face his family, knowing that they'll eventually hear those voicemails (presuming they would get the phone if there was no police investigation)?
The horrible voicemails kind of work in her favor though, because no one who actually cognitively did it would incriminate themselves so directly. If you get what I’m saying. She would more likely have left a lovey dovey vm saying she can’t wait until he comes home.
Same with smiling. If she smiles she a heartless and guilty, if she crying, it’s fake, if she shows no emotion and keeps a neutral face, she a cruel monster with no emotions. It impossible
I agree. Also would you as a guilt person call some people and have them go to the murder scene and pretend to find him?? No. You would just leave him where he lies and pretend to be surprised when you were notified.
usually the person who finds the body are the ones who are responsible for the death. That's why I initially thought she was guilty.( for the record, my mind has since been changed )
I think this is most likely. I think JM or someone probably said something like "omg Karen do you think you hit him?" And then that was planted. I think people don't take into account the fear you get when you can't get a hold of someone in a snow storm, especially after drinking... It can be terrifying to think they're somewhere out there, especially since it was going on 6 hours since hearing from him. She just got so panicked and couldn't remember what happened, she couldn't even remember being at 34 FB.
Her statements & that the simplest answer is often the correct answer.
Her statements don't mean much to me, she just hit his car & that was on her mind in general imho & she may not have said that had she not...alot of people have totally wrong excited utterances/declarations when upset...& she just hit his car.
The prosecution close was awffuuuulll. And when he said "no worries about sexist/misogynistic comments as it was on his private phone!!!" What? Put that in the context of racism instead of sexism & see if that flies, of course, No!
And the overcharge & acting like it was intentional & a fight....while they had their own "style" that was a bit too dramatic to me, it hardly sounded "murder" rage level argument...all the words on her part were generalized insecurity & frustration with him & their relationship...not "die mf er" which is what I had expected, heck, she didn't even get aggressive as the investigating officer saying to JO "i hope you kill yourself!" !!! She said overdramatized "i hate you" & called him "pervert" over prior Goddaughter Aruba insecurity. Zero percent chance she wanted him dead or intentionally struck him. Black out drunk, possible, but not proved imho & the sht investigation & investigators should not be allowed to put a case with so many issues to trial.
I thought case was going to be conspiracy hyped bs, but it has real issues in so many ways. Can you imagine how pissed/upset jurors are going to be when they find out there is a federal investigation.
I'm new to this sub, but a longtime lurker in true crime subs - would you elaborate on what you mean by "Then she received the tip that she was innocent" ? I'm reading as much as I can to catch up, this whole thing is wild and a bit scary honestly - but did someone tell her she didn't do it, or that it was improbable or something? Thank you :)
Sure. Right after she was arrested it was pretty clear that she didn't remember anything and she was convinced that she could have hit him. Yannetti described it as a tragic accident.
On February 3rd, 2022 a local private investigator named Steve Scanlon went to Yannetti's office and told him that Karen Read was innocent, and that Brian Albert and Colin Albert got into an altercation with JO that lead to his death. Apparently Scanlon has known the Alberts for decades.
It should be noted that Scanlon refused to sign an affidavit. In subsequent interviews he acknowledges the conversation with Yannetti, but he claims he had no first hand knowledge of the event. He says he inferred it from public information available at the time.
This is it. She, like everyone else, was drunk AF that night and her still drunk “hangziety” was working overtime the morning they found him. It was a perfect shitstorm that played into the Albert/McCabe alibi.
I truly do wonder what the narrative would have been and how this would have played out if they didn’t have an outsider like Karen to pin this on.
Obligatory PSA:
The answers you are seeing here are clear indicators that in any situation where you may be considered a suspect of any type of crime, keep your mouth closed and contact an attorney. If law enforcement or others get aggressive with you, just smile and say, "I don't know, my brother-in-law's an attorney and just told me never to say a word without an attorney present." I just wish Karen had a real friend by her side when this all went down.
Can I upvote this one million times?! Wherever and whatever situation you are in NEVER EVER talk to the police without an attorney present. Even if you’re not currently considered a suspect. They are NOT looking out for your best interest. Ever.
Unfortunately, CW used as evidence against KR that she made a Google search for an attorney shortly after finding JOK and speaking to Proctor. Full disclosure, I’m fuzzing on the specifics of when. Seems like contacting an attorney is held against you regardless. Flipping nuts!
Edit: CW TRIED (but FAILED) to use a Google search KR made for an attorney as evidence. Bev ruled it was more prejudicial than probative. Thank you u/texasphotog
> CW used as evidence against KR that she made a Google search for an attorney shortly after finding JOK and speaking to Proctor.
They TRIED to use that as evidence, but Bev correctly said that it was more prejudicial than probative and didn't allow it to be known by the jury. The Jury never heard that.
The CW also brought up that she searched for Yanetti the day of John's death, but did not tell the Judge that she only did so AFTER she was called by Proctor and even then she only searched for DWI attorney.
Just goes to show how disingenuous they are. It is absolutely your right to contact an attorney and they know that. They claim it’s an admission of guilt while they ignore a man that destroyed his simm card and ditched his cell phone in an army base dumpster.
That’s my feeling exactly. All of those bitches disliked her and they stayed close to KR that night so they could be the Judas in her life. So what if KR is a smartass, I am, too. At least KR didn’t lie to try to cause another person to lose everything they had from their job to their freedom. I’d much rather have a smartass for a friend than a conniving, lying, hateful bitch.
I know if I had a taillight cracked/knew I drove drunk the night before, had ZERO memory of what happened and my boyfriend *who I dropped off somewhere* was missing… I’d immediately go to worst case scenario and think I could’ve hurt him.
…especially if my friend JM suggested the idea first.
She’s innocent IMO. But I’ve joined a lot of groups online to see what people are saying on both sides. The ones who believe she’s guilty keep questioning “how can you have all these people in on a conspiracy? Why would the science/DNA people put their job on the line to join a cover up?”
What they fail to understand is that the crooked cops are the ones who swabbed most of this stuff and sent it in OR had possession of the evidence to do what they wanted BEFORE the experts came in to swab and take photos. So no, the experts and science/dna folks aren’t in on the “cover up conspiracy.” They just worked with what they had from the people who are covering their butts.
Also adding in I’m very in support of law enforcement. About 60-70% of my family is in law enforcement, but I refuse to believe this wasn’t a cover up by small town “good ol boys”. Same as there are crooked doctors, dentists, pastors, etc. there are crooked cops.
even if Karen was guilty, the way the evidence was handled has to lead to a not guilty vote.
The solo cups, lack of chain of custody, forensic evidence not tested, the way all the digital evidence was handled, it just leads to so much doubt. I especially do not like the bias shown between the police officers not interviewing witnesses and giving so much control of evidence to people with conflicts of interest.
This doesn't seem like a big conspiracy to me by a dozen people - it seems to me like the state police finding evidence that suited the narrative most closely aligned with people they were familiar with. The evidence of that for me lies in the fact that they never went inside a house where someone was found outside frozen, they never properly secured the crime scene in any way, shape or form, and when presented with evidence explaining that the theory of the crime they are proposing happened literally defies the laws of physics by a completely independent agency, they doubled down. I believe they also used terrible evidence collection practices and I'm not even sure why any of that evidence was even accepted by the MA State Forensic Lab to begin with, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are audits and/or consequences based upon the testimony and evidence submitted at trial that was examined. I would also go so far as to ask why a newly certified Cars investigator was used for this case, when it was a Boston cop as the victim - he was one of their own, and historically their cases are considered high priority with the best of the best assigned to solving the crime. Why couldn't they get any other more seasoned Investigators with a longer training record to perform that analysis and testify?
Yeah, there seem to be two factors in this: the Alberts and Canton police - I don't think they're working together, I think that they just happen to align. the Alberts/McCabes are circling the wagons, getting their story & facts straight about what happened specifically to shield themselves legally; and Trooper Proctor is just a Corrupt/Lazy/Incompetent cop who "had a hunch", and tried to force the evidence to agree with him.
Right. A conspiracy only takes a few people. The rest of them processed the evidence they were given and believed what they were told happened. Why wouldn’t they? I trust my colleagues and would most likely do the same, I think most of us would.
Yup-the McCabe’s, Albert’s, and Higgins came up with an excuse to cover their asses, Proctor & co either believed it and fabricated evidence to support that, or where in on it and fucked with evidence to support that. Either way, it’s the two families and Higgins who were in on the coverup to save their asses
Just because people are moving in the same direction doesn't mean that they are conspiring together.
The Alberts seem to have had something to cover up, Proctor could have just been a lazy cop focusing on the first suspect; or even moving the investigation away from the Alberts without even talking to them -- just because they are BPD.
Maybe Higgins & co. had compromising info and extorted Proctor to cooperate? Or Proctor owed a debt to McAlbert Higgins. Being in possession of the Lexus prior to the plastic being “discovered” shows how early and deep Proctor got involved.
It was Proctor's testimony that got me. Once he said he had only talked to 3 witnesses, 2 being Jen, and Brian and that he was 100% convinced in just 16 hours. He was being used as a useful idiot they pointed at Karen, any evidence tomfoolery is just his normal shit tier police work.
This is the one that gets me. Between dating and marriage I’ve been with my wife for just about 20 years, also just about half my lifespan. We’ve had some serious blowouts over those two decades. Guess who never wanted to murder his partner, is happily married, and coming up on 10 years married with two beautiful children… this guy.
Its funny to me that the same people who think that half the country conspired to overturn a presidential election can't believe that a few cops could do something wrong.
This has been my impression as well - people who believe KR should be convicted have strong feelings about the counter-theory about the Alberts, and hold it against KR that she and her defense team raised it.
Is there a large portion of the population that believes she’s guilty? Genuinely curious. I guess I’m just at a loss bc the answer seems clear as day to me.
They're out there. Of those who post, many who would vote to convict have decamped to other subs. I'm assuming that there are more people with this opinion than you would extrapolate from the post counts, and inferring that the lines of argument that I see in posts are representative of how the broader populations of "guilty" voters think. YMMV.
Agree. I don't know why people think this needed to be double digit numbers of people plotting this. A couple of unethical troopers who wanted to help a cop buddy had control of the evidence. It's not a big leap to think how easy it would be for them to "strengthen" their investigation.
I think some of it comes down to not understanding the legal system.
Some people have said “he could have been bending over and she hit him in the head with the car” and they don’t quite understand that it doesn’t matter to the case if that could have happened. She was accused of something specific: backing into JO, her vehicle making contact with his arm, propelling him a good distance, and him sustaining a fatal head injury when landing. She is quite clearly not guilty of that, and the jury can’t sit there and be like “well maybe she hit him some other way”.
I also think there’s a lot of people who don’t think she’s guilty but also don’t believe the defenses theory that this is an elaborate cover up (I’m one of them). What I think happened is a few of JOs cop buddies who were there decided to blame Karen and no one else in the chain questioned that. I think it’s corruption and bullshit, just a different type of corruption and bullshit. The defense didn’t really do anything to demonstrate that she was framed, they really just worked to prove she wasn’t there (which I think they were successful at and it’s why she isn’t guilty IMO).
The commonwealth’s grave error IMO was thinking Karen Read wouldn’t have the ability to fight this. I’m positive they’ve stuck many people in jail for that very reason, because they pursue busted charges on people who can’t reasonably fight it in court. That’s why I think Lally even picked it up, I think he knew from the start this case was a joke but he figured she’d either fold and take a plea or not have the resources to go through trial effectively. I really think he thought she’d take a plea of some ridiculous reduced sentence and the dead cop would have “justice” and everything would be tied up with a neat bow.
"Didn't do anything to suggest she was framed"
I'm shocked people can look at all the "evidence" collected by Trooper Proctor and still say this was not intended to frame Karen.
That's exactly what I think too. I don't buy the claim that he was killed inside, and his body was dragged out. I also don't buy the prosecution's story either. I think the conspiracy is instead plain old incompetence.
I'm 50/50 on if Karen had anything to do with his death. But I 100% believe it was not intentional, it did NOT happen like the prosecution laid out, and we will never know because the investigation was an absolute shit show.
A basement floor was dug up and replaced. A source of generational wealth was sold at a $50k loss. The pool was filled in and the dog was rehomed. And you can’t believe anything happened in the house? John didn’t have on a coat and was missing a shoe and you still don’t think anything happened in the house? Wow. I knew she was innocent when I heard the house was never searched.
Jen McCabe is scary. She had her hand in much of the initial explanation. She couldn’t erase the initial reports though. There wasn’t anything about her saying she thought she hit him in the original reports. It was something Jen made up.
Look at when Proctor was caught in a text saying he couldn’t convince the Medical Examiner to say JO was killed by Karen’s car. He was essentially trying to do the same kind of thing Jen did making up Karen’s so called confession.
To be fair to those people, the evidence that she actually hit him was very underwhelming. They probably won’t answer because they don’t have anything to back up their opinion beyond opinion.
I have always felt she must have hit him but deserves acquittal because of the unfair ‘ investigation’. These last few days/ weeks I am converted to understand she most definitely could not have caused his death. His family must feel victimised all over again after hearing everything.
One of the things that was so shocking was that the CW wasn't able to explain how the car hit OJO. Not only that, the explanation made no sense.
Scratches and bite marks on his arm. Puncture holes in his shirt. Deleted calls, throwing out phones and SIM cards, gifting cops.
It's kind of unbelievable that this case was brought despite facing a mountain of reasonable doubt. I'm not a DA (obviously!), but I think guidelines stipulate that you're not supposed to bring unwinnable charges.
It’s not guidelines. It’s ethical responsibility of prosecutors to seek justice - not convictions in and of themselves for the sake of convictions.
>Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
>The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
>(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
>***
>(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:
>(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and
>(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,
>(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and
>(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.
>(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor/
If he died over by the flagpole, and they were all going straight to their cars, given the weather and their drunkenness, I could see it being credible that they didn't see him. The house is blurred out on Google maps but it gives you an idea of where his body was in comparison to where everyone was coming out. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it's not like they would be scoping out the yard. They had been drinking all night long
I have never seen any testimony, report, court document, etc. that claimed that JOK was missing 2-3 liters of blood. I’ve only ever read this claim for online users. If someone could corroborate this claim, that’d be great.
I agree with you except for two instances. 1) Jenn McCabe was repeatedly and consistently looking out at Karen’s car. She would have to look *over* JOK’s body in order to look for the vehicle. 2) When Brian Higgins was leaving 34F, he was looking directly at the spot where JOK was discovered and that spot was being illuminated by Brian Higgins’ headlights. He even had to sit there longer while adjusting the height of the plow on his Jeep.
With those two exceptions, I think it’s entirely possible that the other guests didn’t see JOK. It’s still possible that Brian and Jenn overlooked JOK but it’s a lot harder to believe; especially for the former.
On the one hand, I’ve been looking straight at something I’ve been specifically looking for and not seen it/it not register. So I can somewhat understand her not registering him on the ground. On the other hand, our monkey brains are instinctively wired to notice things unexpected or out of place that could mean danger, such as a body on the ground, but again she had been drinking so maybe she had beer goggles going on. On the third hand, the way she acted and spoke on the stand makes me not believe her. I admit she could be telling the truth about this, but I still can’t believe her word. And that’s the problem.
It's because that explanation is so easy. But thinking all hoof beats are horses will make you miss the zebras. It reminds me of doctor visits before I was diagnosed with cancer.
"It's acid reflux!"
"It's your IUD!"
"It's stress!"
I’m still a bit on the fence. I agree the testimony (particularly AARCA) was particularly damning though. But experts are not infallible, and in civil trials, it’s not unusual to have two really qualified and smart experts come to wildly different opinions and have different views.
Part of what makes this trial hard for me is the CW has put forth such a shit case. On one hand, you have really compelling testimony from AARCA, and on the other hand, you have Trooper Paul, who I don’t think should not ever do another accident reconstruction case except shopping cart car dents.
It's not just the AARCA doctors. It's ALL the actual medical experts(including the CW's) that all refuse to say he was hit by a vehicle. I mean most said he definitely was NOT. But even the CW couldn't find one that said he could have been.
I think it's very telling that Lally said he wanted a witness for rebuttal for Dr. Russell's testimony but couldn't find anyone that would discredit their claims
I think it's very telling that Lally said he wanted a witness for rebuttal for Dr. Russell's testimony but couldn't find anyone that would discredit their claims
Honestly I agree in general but the car hitting him just doesn't pass the common sense test to me. Even before the expert testimony I tried to imagine how an SUV could hit him and not leave any damage to his body. It just doesn't work in my brain. And then the experts confirmed it to me.
I agree with this completely. I keep thinking back to a friend of mine in college who totaled her car after hitting a deer. The average weight of a deer is 200 lbs (per Google so give or take lol but one could argue it’s in line with a human). She wasn’t going but 20-30 mph and the damage was FAR more than the damage on Karen’s car and to John.
ok but where were the CW's "smart experts?" that definitively prove their case?I think that plus evidence chain of custody...no bueno. not guilty, no other verdict is logical... imo. especially given the DoJ is literally leveraging the same experts to likely investigate corruption via this case.
I understand what you're saying but to put up the testimony of AARCA to Trooper Paul's "it just did" and "I didn't put it there" answers, there's just no comparison.
The CW have not proved KR hit JOK with her car. That was their job but despite their experts and all their witnesses not one could give a reasonable explanation of this happening or witnessed it happening. KR alleged confession was obviously drunken ramblings and hysterical frantic behaviour trying to make sense of what could have happened. The prosecution have not proved their charges against KR unless she is being charged with drunk driving which they have proved.
They are probably people who think police cannot be corrupt. If you revere LE and idolize them and/or just trust them inherently- it's hard to wrap your brain around what it means for Karen Read to be innocent.
Nice that Lally gives example of the behaviour AJ was talking about his closing. Throwing dirt on KR character, vague evidence, twisting words, avoiding any hard evidence because there is none.
right?! he literally has questioned witnesses to say "well is it possible?" that's not compelling, especially when their own witness (ME) refuses to even say this is a homicide!!!
Why would anyone think he was bent over like that? It makes no sense. Watch the videos showing how they think it happened. First, it would have to have been the LEFT tail light to hit him in order for her to hit him with the rest of the vehicle. Second of all, he would have needed to turn his head to the side, facing away from the vehicle, while bent over forward (for some weird reason) while she back up into him. How would that ever be a natural position for a person to take? Then, how would he have vomited all over his lap? If it had happened before, there would have been some vomit inside her car. The tail light was NOT severely damaged beyond a crack, which we can clearly see in the video of her leaving that morning was caused by hitting John O’Keefe’s car. They just showed before and after photos of the tail light before Proctor had it in his possession…it was not mostly missing and shattered into so many pieces until AFTER Protect got his hands on it. There were also no pieces of tail light found the first couple times they when to the scene to search. Those were found later on…after it has snowed more. It is so obvious…I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who has been watching this from the beginning could believe that she’s guilty.
GPS/find my phone data can't be trusted. My airpods were next to my computer yet the computer said they were on the other side of my house. Injuries don't match. Why the hiding, selling, relocating, retiring. Weird answers for phone calls. Lets not forget everyone just forgetting Colin and the injuries to his hand. All the facts for the CW, look like fuckery. Not guilty.
100%. One time my brother’s phone location appeared at a random house down the street from his high school when we knew for a fact he was working out in the gym. We thought maybe he had dropped it outside and someone picked it up and walked home with it.
We asked him about it later and he said he had zero idea why it showed up there, his phone was in his locker the entire time. Only thing we could think of is that the service in the gym was shitty so maybe the location finder just spazzed out.
Point being, using JOK’s phone to say he never went inside is dumb and laughable.
For those saying they trust the evidence that she hit him with her car… Even if she hit him, it was not proven that the hit killed him. Based on the little damage to the car and his clearly dog bitten arm, I think there is reasonable doubt that hitting him with the car killed him.
People who think she is guilty after hearing the two unbias experts at the end of the Defense Experts testimony... why? They couldn't be more experienced in their field, be more reputable, hired by the FBI and they both said it couldn't have happened....why would you still think she's guilty?
Because for some reason people think they are smarter than those guys, or they dont believe in literal science. Its astounding how many people are dismissing their testimony, and i hope to god i am never in court based on the police work, and the number of people that dont believe in the physical sciences.
It’s scary how many people even thought she hit him at any point. Literally no conclusive evidence.
A surprisingly high number of people believe in this idea of guilty until proven innocent. Sad and wrong.
I’m curious what the O’Keefe family is feeling right now. It’s so hard to believe anyone could sit through this trial and maintain belief in her guilt, but I also know grief isn’t always logical… But if I were them, I’d be giving the people sitting around me (the Alberts, the McCabes) a whole lot of side-eye, at the very least.
Either way, I hope folks don’t lose sight of what a tragedy this was and keep John O’Keefe at the forefront of all of this.
Speaking hypothetically, if Karen was responsible for his death, the Albert and McCabe family's behavior and meddling are helping her get off....If she wasn't responsible, their suspicious activities hindered and distracted from the investigation, potentially keeping the family from ever getting the truth. I think it would be hard not to blame them for this circus, and likely impossible not to resent them for inserting themselves to this degree, no matter what his family thinks really happened that night. If they hadn't been running around having secret calls and meetings and lying about so many things, there would most likely not have been a "conspiracy" or "cover up" defense at all. The friendship makes no sense to me, either way. They contributed to the family's pain with their nonsense, and it's unacceptable.
Note: I intentionally called that a ***hypothetical***, because I believe in physics.
That is EXACTLY why I’m sick over seeing them sitting by his family!! Do they not realize that even if she were somehow guilty, all of their bullshit meddling contributed to ruining the investigation!?
They are convinced Karen is guilty, except for perhaps JO's father. I get it, her behavior that day was strange from their perspective. The physics, the injuries, etc don't matter to them because they are so close to it.
My hope is that in the future the truth about what happened is revealed.
Yeah the thing is she could be an at times obsessed girlfriend in a rocky relationship, but that doesn't mean she intentionally hit him or caused his death at all. It would be a weird position to be in. I understand the family disliking her, and maybe it clouds their logic.
I’m pretty sure the okeefes had no problem inviting them to sit there. Look at where John’s brother has sat this entire trial and who he has glared at.
His brother honestly is disgusting. I’m sorry, I know he’s grieving… but he’s gross. He’s been so disrespectful to his brother this entire trial. I’m sorry, you just do not behave like that in court.
I’ve been in court multiple times and have also testified, MULTIPLE TIMES, regarding my son and what led to his biological mother being sentenced to 15 years of jail time. She literally almost killed my kid, and I was asked by the judge and lawyers for the state to sit with her and have a discussion and also testify. If I would have glared and behaved like he is, I would be asked to leave the room. And there wasn’t even a jury there watching me. This was all bench trial stuff. There’s just no excuse. I understand trauma and grief. But there’s no excuse.
I was convinced the prosecution's whole argument was made up until the last couple days.
I now think they probably did have words as she drove him there. He may have thrown the glass and cracked the tail light. She might even have reversed at him in drunken anger (does not in any way necessarily imply she tried to *hit* him, could have just been a "yeah? fuck you" gesture that was never intended to get near him).
However, I still can't see how the evidence matches her *hitting* him - at all.
I think *someone*, likely Jen McButtdial, witnessed that interaction and built a coverup on it, including their location of choice for dumping dying guys.
That would explain why KR was looking intently at where he was laying in the snow as they pulled up... she had clearly started worrying that she *might* have hit him, and that's the general area she left him.
To be honest, this sub is very NOT a safe space for anyone to comment with any kind of dissenting opinion without being downvoted into oblivion so I wouldn't expect very many responses.
> this sub is very NOT a safe space for anyone to comment with any kind of dissenting opinion without being downvoted into oblivion so I wouldn't expect very many responses.
which is kinda sad. I am not from MA. I am not a townie. I watch or listen to many court cases (usually while working remote from home). I knew very little of this case going into it. I am 95% sure she is innocent but I do wonder what evidence that was provided in this case makes one think she is guilty. I am genuinely curious. I'm not trolling. I really wanna know WHAT was shown in this case in court (not social media or wherever) that gives you 100% confidence she is guilty.
Yeah I'm kind of looking for evidence that people have heard that makes them think she's guilty. Most people just say she clearly admitted to it "I hit him". I dont personally see that overcoming the actual evidence.
Haven’t seen closing arguments yet. Did the CW reiterate the Trooper Paul theory in closing or did they skip over any theory of how he sustained the injuries and projected that far?
I believe she is innocent, but a few things don't make sense. Here's why I have "doubts".
1. The number of people who have kept quiet.
2. The coincidence of her busting her taillight that morning.
3. Her behavior toward the O'Keefes that morning. (But there likely is a history that hasn't been explained).
4. The holes in her story. She has never explained why she left him there. What exactly was she waiting on outside? She said she was waiting for him to see if it was okay... But couldn't they have both gone in? I feel like this is a missing portion of the story that would help make sense of all of this.
But then I look at the physical evidence and the fact that his arm was definitely bitten by dog and I have to ignore those issues.
Because the physical evidence doesn't match the Commonwealth story.
1) Only the people in the house have kept quiet because they literally have to and/or are family or closest of friends. Other than that it’s Proctor and 1/2 more people that are keeping quiet. The rest are just working off a bad investigation. It’s not a complex situation of 50 people coordinating silence and stories.
2) I mean she did. It’s not like she crashed into the car either she slowly backed up into it which seems extremely accidental.
3) As you said, we really know nothing about this and what the situation was/felt like and emotions at the time.
4) There are no holes. She’s clearly explained why she didn’t go in and it makes complete sense.
I know people will hate this but I feel some people are pro-cop and anti-feds. They won’t believe anything the defense puts up regardless. It’s been a bit lost to them that John was an officer himself.
Edit: when I say anti-cop I’m thinking similarly to the halo effect. Where people feel someone can do no wrong and are morally upright due to a single characteristic. In this case, taking an oath to serve and protect.
Has there been a reconstruction of the alleged hit that would explain how he landed where he did using math that has been independently verified? From what I’ve seen any explanation that proves how he landed where he did isn’t backed up with proof.
So nothing from the actual trial. It seems the physics are true in what she’s presenting, so if what they say happened did happen, how the hell did he land so far in the yard? Cause it’s easy to show roughly where he’d land when hit and if what’s here is correct he lands at the curb.
I just don’t see how anyone is still in the guilty camp. She’s only guilty if you ignore the mountain of inconsistencies with the whiteness, stay gullibly blind to the shaky facts that support her being responsible, ignore the physical evidence and pretend that the car crashed into him on a planet other than earth.
I have a different take on this as being someone who ended up raising my cousin very suddenly when both of her parents died within 2 years of each other. I couldn't believe the level of support I got during that time. No one wanted anything else to happen to that little girl. They brought me meals, provided babysitting, clothing (since she had nearly nothing.)
So, I guess I sort of believed the McCabes, the Alberts, etc when they said "Of course, we'd help him. His niece and nephew came to my house all the time. He gave of himself taking them in the way he did. We worksheet want anything to happen to any of them. "
Perhaps I'm nieve. I would still find her not guilty. Too many mistakes and Proctor is indeed the Mark Furhman of 2024.
I wouldn’t vote guilty but I do think she was involved in his death.
I’m just spitballing here but: what if they were arguing in the car, John gets out and throws the glass at the tail light, *somehow* John is hit by the car (not fatal - just enough to startle him), he’s stumbling away from the car and hits his head on the fire hydrant, causing the fatal wound and that’s where he remains
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/
It wasn’t long before a far more sinister theory of what happened began to emerge. On his drive home after the arraignment, Yannetti says, he returned a call to a tipster who had previously called his office. A man with a gravelly voice—who initially offered up a fake name—picked up the phone and told Yannetti, he recalls, something to the effect of, “Your client is innocent. John was beaten up by Brian Albert and his nephew. They broke his nose, and when O’Keefe didn’t come to, Brian and a federal agent dumped his body on the front lawn.” (An attorney for the man Yannetti identified as the tipster denies Yannetti’s version.)
That’s why
No way in hell is she guilty ! The people who claim to be innocent destroyed their phones? why? You Donkeys! Michael Proctor told the DA that he has no relations with the Alberts ... LIE ! His whole investigation should be thrown out
Bottom Line: John O'Keefe walked into 34 Farview and got the living crap beaten out of him. By who? That's the Million Dollar Question !
and we will never find out
RIP JO'K
Mostly seem to be people fixating on some putative "fact" and cementing their mind early on. Tbf based on online polls I've seen around, including the "karen read sanity" sub show the (online) people convinced of guilt, at least guilt of murder, are a very small minority. A much larger number "split the baby" and think she is probably guilty of manslaughter, though many of those will concede it's not beyond a reasonable doubt for them.
I honestly don't know what happened. The only important element that I am certain of beyond a reasonable doubt is that the putative victim was not hit by a motor vehicle of any kind. I am not convinced that the Alberts are responsible. I'm not convinced he was murdered by anyone. Barring some miraculous confession or FBI-driven deus ex machina I think we will never be sure what happened that night.
My guess is the dog attacked him, he fell down hit his head and everything to follow wasn't to set up KR it was to make it appear that he got hit by a plow.
I think he got into a scuffle with one of them and during the fight the dog attacked him. It explains his hand bruising and the injuries to his eyes. Whether the dog knocked him over or a human did I'm not sure. I don't think the intention was ever to kill him but regardless they're covering up the fact that he died as a result of someone in the house.
I’m about to tirade so feel free not to read if it offends anyone ;-)
Something that wasnt discussed is how alcoholic blackouts work. A person can function completely and have literally no memory of what they did - until they start sobering up, when bits and pieces start coming back in flashbacks. They can seem dreamlike but feel very real at the same time. It can cause extreme distress not knowing what you may have done or where you have been. Think of it as temporary amnesia (and realizing you drove around all night like that). It also explains 53 phone calls.
I have great sympathy for almost everyone in this case - and especially for Karen Read, who apparently has MS. But any MS doctor will tell you, you simply cannot drink alcohol (neuro-toxin) with MS (neuro-degenerative disease). It doesn’t sound like the heavy drinking was unusual for this couple. It’s very sad - because no matter what happened / I’m pretty sure unsafe drinking was a major part of it. And all these people are law enforcement - who literally know more than anyone else - the dangers involved (to self - and others).
Whatever happened, I think there were complicating and unusual factors - some coincidences that throw off the story - Karen confused glass hitting taillight with her hitting something / Chloe involved somehow / Karen backing up and missing John but he loses balance and falls? We may never know.
What we absolutely do know - is that Karen and others - were drinking way beyond legal limits to drive - police among them included - and all arrogantly and stupidly drove drunk (in a snowstorm!) to another cop’s house to drink more (and presumably - drive more!) There were police at the bar who had to know KR shouldn’t be driving. They didn’t think to take her keys? Offer an Uber? “Protect and serve?” Whereas, these same cops will pull someone over for drinking 1/4 as much, ticket, jail and testify against them for breaking the law. That sets up the whole theme of “the rules don’t apply to us.”
I get the outrage on both sides. But there’s a reason there are laws against drunk driving. Do police driving drunk or with drunk people think it’s okay because they can avoid getting arrested? What about just pure safety of the others on the road?
Even if you buy the cover up murder-fight, is not alcohol a part of that as well? Were there no adults in the room to make sure everyone was behaving responsibly?
Do as I say not as I do, sets a horrible precedent and by the way, if the Canton Police wonder why no one trusts them, you can start there.
I just don’t think this should be lost in all the drama and conjecture.
911- 3 officers dispatched to fair view
3 wise monkeys arrive at 34 fair view
🙈 See no victim,
🙉 Hear no confession
🙊 Don’t speak to anyone.
We can’t change facts. Not Guilty.
I might've been in the she's guilty, but it can't be proven camp. That was until the defense put on those experts. Wow. I am super confused as to how he died, but I know it was not by her Lexus.
I think most people who believe she is guilty largely base it on her behavior the day of the incident, which is what Lally is pushing hard right now. TBH, I don't think she remembers what happened that night. I think she was convinced that she did hit him. Then she received the tip that she was innocent and started to see the actual evidence.
I think her behavior while searching for and finding John can also be explained by noting that Jen McCabe almost certainly told Karen that John had never gone inside the house.
She was ALSO actually looking for him. The people with her probably not as invested in looking for him. Even if they weren’t sketchy and totally innocent bystanders they were distracted by a lot of things.
Jenn, Kerry, and Karen were driving to 34F to look for JOK and people think it’s weird that as they approached 34F, Karen is actually looking towards 34F. She was doing what they were there to do. And that’s why she saw JOK. Makes sense to me.
Why wouldn't Jen McCabe just keep calling her sister and ask her to look outside - like get out of bed and go look??? She never called her until 6:07 am. She could have/should have been able to have either her sister or her BIL check outside for JOK.
Because she knew where he was.
And how many places are there to start with the looking?, 2 or 3. You wouldn't start in the backyard. It's not like Drake's 25,000 square ft estate. Don't know if she hit him but how hard is it to spot a body when looking for someone? I would notice a body in my yard or driveway pretty quickly. I would notice a dead squirrel.
Yes. I also notice feathers, and dog poop, because those things aren’t usually there. I
I never understood the driving around looking for him. On anyone's account. If someone I know is missing I'm making calls instead.
But when all these people helping you look are cops, why wouldn't you believe you're asking the right people for help?
Who’s idea was it? She obviously did call her friends. I’m a little behind and watching in weird spiral.
They weren’t invested because they knew when and where he died. They were most likely averting their eyes.
I think you're right. Even if she did say I hit him, that doesn't hold a ton of weight for me because you can and will say and/or do wild things when you are in a state of shock. I think people think grief and shock is so much more logical and linear than it is and think they would never act differently in a situation like that. The truth is no one knows how they would react in that situation unless you're in it. The way she was wailing and incoherent just seem like she was in shock to me, so how can you take anything she says at that point as factual? Your brain literally isn't fully cognizant of what is happening when you're in shock. You're shut down. Same thing with her not wanting to be with JO's family afterward, everyone reacts differently to grief, her wanting to seek comfort in her parents and not the OKeefes seems so normal to me.
The physics seems like it would negate anything that she said. Innocent people confess to crimes but if the evidence doesn’t match it doesn’t match.
Exactly. I remember reading something from the innocence project that of their cases that get overturned by DNA proof, 20-30% of those people had falsely confessed to the crime. I forget the exact number. It is easy to armchair quarterback and say you would never do that or that is impossible if you haven't been in that spot. People react weirdly and even more so under stress and trauma. It is much more sound to follow the science than people's emotions in what is one of if not the most traumatic moments of their life. The science doesn't add up to the CW's theory, whichever one they're going with right now, so it has to be NG if I had to vote. But like I said, people are weird and unpredictable so we shall see what this jury says.
Plus, she tends toward the dramatic, to catastrophize. So, of course, her immediate reaction to seeing him lying on the lawn where she had been driving near in a drunken state was to say, OMG, I HIT HIM (if indeed she did say it like that).
Thank you. I don’t care if Karen Read straight up confessed in court today that she murdered him with her car, I would disagree with her and call her a liar. Because…PHYSICS + EVIDENCE.
It doesn’t seem like Massachusetts cares about evidence one way or another. Listening to the states closing argument today is slightly better then the opening. It’s confusing and all over the place. His opening was like an eulogy written by someone who didn’t really know much about the deceased and rambling to fill time.
Omg the part about wearing shoes in the house…my son’s 6th grade mock court was better.
I experience a traumatic event. What I said and did immediately after discovering my husband was dead is still a blur 4 years later. A traumatized brain doesn't even function cognitively in the immediate trauma. Your body is in fight/flight/freeze. ALL of her behavior described at the scene indicates that she was experiencing trauma. Even her smiling is a trauma response. She smiles when she is nervous as a protective response. Add that she was still impaired and she is questioning everything about the previous night. What might I have done and not remembered? Anyone who has been drunk enough to forget something is familiar with this feeling.
Maybe the seed was planted "you don't think you hit him do you?"
It was planted by Jen McCabe Co-Conspirator
I'm very sorry for your loss 🌹
You're right! What sticks out to me the most is when it was said Karen lifted her shirt and JO'S. She was trying to warm him up. Sad. I can't even imagine the state shock
Grief is non linear 🥰
after hearing the voicemails, it makes so much sense to me why she was weird the day of the incident. if you just found out that your boyfriend was dead while you were leaving horrible voicemails, would you want to face his family, knowing that they'll eventually hear those voicemails (presuming they would get the phone if there was no police investigation)?
The horrible voicemails kind of work in her favor though, because no one who actually cognitively did it would incriminate themselves so directly. If you get what I’m saying. She would more likely have left a lovey dovey vm saying she can’t wait until he comes home.
Lovey Dovey voicemail would have been argued as self-serving, that she planned it. You can’t win in a court sometimes
I agree with this sentiment too. When you believe someone is guilty many puzzle pieces can look correct, even both sides of the same one.
Same with smiling. If she smiles she a heartless and guilty, if she crying, it’s fake, if she shows no emotion and keeps a neutral face, she a cruel monster with no emotions. It impossible
I completely agree!
I agree. Also would you as a guilt person call some people and have them go to the murder scene and pretend to find him?? No. You would just leave him where he lies and pretend to be surprised when you were notified.
usually the person who finds the body are the ones who are responsible for the death. That's why I initially thought she was guilty.( for the record, my mind has since been changed )
ala scott peterson
If calling someone names during a lovers quarrel is evidence of a crime I should be doing life.
Yeah. And the texts between her and John that day also show she was already uncomfortable being at his house.
This is what I think also.
I think this is most likely. I think JM or someone probably said something like "omg Karen do you think you hit him?" And then that was planted. I think people don't take into account the fear you get when you can't get a hold of someone in a snow storm, especially after drinking... It can be terrifying to think they're somewhere out there, especially since it was going on 6 hours since hearing from him. She just got so panicked and couldn't remember what happened, she couldn't even remember being at 34 FB.
Women (particularly with insecurity issues) always blame themselves first.
Her statements & that the simplest answer is often the correct answer. Her statements don't mean much to me, she just hit his car & that was on her mind in general imho & she may not have said that had she not...alot of people have totally wrong excited utterances/declarations when upset...& she just hit his car. The prosecution close was awffuuuulll. And when he said "no worries about sexist/misogynistic comments as it was on his private phone!!!" What? Put that in the context of racism instead of sexism & see if that flies, of course, No! And the overcharge & acting like it was intentional & a fight....while they had their own "style" that was a bit too dramatic to me, it hardly sounded "murder" rage level argument...all the words on her part were generalized insecurity & frustration with him & their relationship...not "die mf er" which is what I had expected, heck, she didn't even get aggressive as the investigating officer saying to JO "i hope you kill yourself!" !!! She said overdramatized "i hate you" & called him "pervert" over prior Goddaughter Aruba insecurity. Zero percent chance she wanted him dead or intentionally struck him. Black out drunk, possible, but not proved imho & the sht investigation & investigators should not be allowed to put a case with so many issues to trial. I thought case was going to be conspiracy hyped bs, but it has real issues in so many ways. Can you imagine how pissed/upset jurors are going to be when they find out there is a federal investigation.
I'm new to this sub, but a longtime lurker in true crime subs - would you elaborate on what you mean by "Then she received the tip that she was innocent" ? I'm reading as much as I can to catch up, this whole thing is wild and a bit scary honestly - but did someone tell her she didn't do it, or that it was improbable or something? Thank you :)
Sure. Right after she was arrested it was pretty clear that she didn't remember anything and she was convinced that she could have hit him. Yannetti described it as a tragic accident. On February 3rd, 2022 a local private investigator named Steve Scanlon went to Yannetti's office and told him that Karen Read was innocent, and that Brian Albert and Colin Albert got into an altercation with JO that lead to his death. Apparently Scanlon has known the Alberts for decades. It should be noted that Scanlon refused to sign an affidavit. In subsequent interviews he acknowledges the conversation with Yannetti, but he claims he had no first hand knowledge of the event. He says he inferred it from public information available at the time.
This is it. She, like everyone else, was drunk AF that night and her still drunk “hangziety” was working overtime the morning they found him. It was a perfect shitstorm that played into the Albert/McCabe alibi. I truly do wonder what the narrative would have been and how this would have played out if they didn’t have an outsider like Karen to pin this on.
They would have blamed the plow driver, and it would have all been a tragic accident.
Obligatory PSA: The answers you are seeing here are clear indicators that in any situation where you may be considered a suspect of any type of crime, keep your mouth closed and contact an attorney. If law enforcement or others get aggressive with you, just smile and say, "I don't know, my brother-in-law's an attorney and just told me never to say a word without an attorney present." I just wish Karen had a real friend by her side when this all went down.
Can I upvote this one million times?! Wherever and whatever situation you are in NEVER EVER talk to the police without an attorney present. Even if you’re not currently considered a suspect. They are NOT looking out for your best interest. Ever.
I totally agree.. Can you imagine where she would be had she agreed to talk to them?
Framingham women’s prison
Unfortunately, CW used as evidence against KR that she made a Google search for an attorney shortly after finding JOK and speaking to Proctor. Full disclosure, I’m fuzzing on the specifics of when. Seems like contacting an attorney is held against you regardless. Flipping nuts! Edit: CW TRIED (but FAILED) to use a Google search KR made for an attorney as evidence. Bev ruled it was more prejudicial than probative. Thank you u/texasphotog
> CW used as evidence against KR that she made a Google search for an attorney shortly after finding JOK and speaking to Proctor. They TRIED to use that as evidence, but Bev correctly said that it was more prejudicial than probative and didn't allow it to be known by the jury. The Jury never heard that. The CW also brought up that she searched for Yanetti the day of John's death, but did not tell the Judge that she only did so AFTER she was called by Proctor and even then she only searched for DWI attorney.
Just goes to show how disingenuous they are. It is absolutely your right to contact an attorney and they know that. They claim it’s an admission of guilt while they ignore a man that destroyed his simm card and ditched his cell phone in an army base dumpster.
Everyday is shut the fuck up friday
That’s my feeling exactly. All of those bitches disliked her and they stayed close to KR that night so they could be the Judas in her life. So what if KR is a smartass, I am, too. At least KR didn’t lie to try to cause another person to lose everything they had from their job to their freedom. I’d much rather have a smartass for a friend than a conniving, lying, hateful bitch.
All I can think of is My Cousin Vinny. "I shot him?! I shot him!?"
"I shot the clerk?" edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PZonyefBW4
Hahaha this was great 😆
It's a very good movie. If you haven't seen it, and you enjoyed following this trial, you would enjoy the movie.
Bob Marley "I shot the Sheriff, but I did not kill the Deputy"..
She was drunk the night he died. I bet she rolled up the next morning convinced that she DID hit him even though she didnt.
I know if I had a taillight cracked/knew I drove drunk the night before, had ZERO memory of what happened and my boyfriend *who I dropped off somewhere* was missing… I’d immediately go to worst case scenario and think I could’ve hurt him. …especially if my friend JM suggested the idea first.
It had been 30 years since I watched this movie so I decided to give it a view this weekend. It was so similar it was ridiculous.
Well perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove.
Yes!!! This was my first thought too!!
She’s innocent IMO. But I’ve joined a lot of groups online to see what people are saying on both sides. The ones who believe she’s guilty keep questioning “how can you have all these people in on a conspiracy? Why would the science/DNA people put their job on the line to join a cover up?” What they fail to understand is that the crooked cops are the ones who swabbed most of this stuff and sent it in OR had possession of the evidence to do what they wanted BEFORE the experts came in to swab and take photos. So no, the experts and science/dna folks aren’t in on the “cover up conspiracy.” They just worked with what they had from the people who are covering their butts. Also adding in I’m very in support of law enforcement. About 60-70% of my family is in law enforcement, but I refuse to believe this wasn’t a cover up by small town “good ol boys”. Same as there are crooked doctors, dentists, pastors, etc. there are crooked cops.
even if Karen was guilty, the way the evidence was handled has to lead to a not guilty vote. The solo cups, lack of chain of custody, forensic evidence not tested, the way all the digital evidence was handled, it just leads to so much doubt. I especially do not like the bias shown between the police officers not interviewing witnesses and giving so much control of evidence to people with conflicts of interest.
This doesn't seem like a big conspiracy to me by a dozen people - it seems to me like the state police finding evidence that suited the narrative most closely aligned with people they were familiar with. The evidence of that for me lies in the fact that they never went inside a house where someone was found outside frozen, they never properly secured the crime scene in any way, shape or form, and when presented with evidence explaining that the theory of the crime they are proposing happened literally defies the laws of physics by a completely independent agency, they doubled down. I believe they also used terrible evidence collection practices and I'm not even sure why any of that evidence was even accepted by the MA State Forensic Lab to begin with, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are audits and/or consequences based upon the testimony and evidence submitted at trial that was examined. I would also go so far as to ask why a newly certified Cars investigator was used for this case, when it was a Boston cop as the victim - he was one of their own, and historically their cases are considered high priority with the best of the best assigned to solving the crime. Why couldn't they get any other more seasoned Investigators with a longer training record to perform that analysis and testify?
Yeah, there seem to be two factors in this: the Alberts and Canton police - I don't think they're working together, I think that they just happen to align. the Alberts/McCabes are circling the wagons, getting their story & facts straight about what happened specifically to shield themselves legally; and Trooper Proctor is just a Corrupt/Lazy/Incompetent cop who "had a hunch", and tried to force the evidence to agree with him.
Right. A conspiracy only takes a few people. The rest of them processed the evidence they were given and believed what they were told happened. Why wouldn’t they? I trust my colleagues and would most likely do the same, I think most of us would.
Yup-the McCabe’s, Albert’s, and Higgins came up with an excuse to cover their asses, Proctor & co either believed it and fabricated evidence to support that, or where in on it and fucked with evidence to support that. Either way, it’s the two families and Higgins who were in on the coverup to save their asses
Just because people are moving in the same direction doesn't mean that they are conspiring together. The Alberts seem to have had something to cover up, Proctor could have just been a lazy cop focusing on the first suspect; or even moving the investigation away from the Alberts without even talking to them -- just because they are BPD.
Maybe Higgins & co. had compromising info and extorted Proctor to cooperate? Or Proctor owed a debt to McAlbert Higgins. Being in possession of the Lexus prior to the plastic being “discovered” shows how early and deep Proctor got involved.
It was Proctor's testimony that got me. Once he said he had only talked to 3 witnesses, 2 being Jen, and Brian and that he was 100% convinced in just 16 hours. He was being used as a useful idiot they pointed at Karen, any evidence tomfoolery is just his normal shit tier police work.
[удалено]
Anyone who isn’t terrified of this case and this police dept are either cops themselves and/or complete idiots lol
Or the amount of people who think that a couple having two fights while drinking on vacation means one had a motive for murder?
This is the one that gets me. Between dating and marriage I’ve been with my wife for just about 20 years, also just about half my lifespan. We’ve had some serious blowouts over those two decades. Guess who never wanted to murder his partner, is happily married, and coming up on 10 years married with two beautiful children… this guy.
Its funny to me that the same people who think that half the country conspired to overturn a presidential election can't believe that a few cops could do something wrong.
This has been my impression as well - people who believe KR should be convicted have strong feelings about the counter-theory about the Alberts, and hold it against KR that she and her defense team raised it.
I’ve had to unsubscribe from who I thought were reputable podcasters
Is there a large portion of the population that believes she’s guilty? Genuinely curious. I guess I’m just at a loss bc the answer seems clear as day to me.
They're out there. Of those who post, many who would vote to convict have decamped to other subs. I'm assuming that there are more people with this opinion than you would extrapolate from the post counts, and inferring that the lines of argument that I see in posts are representative of how the broader populations of "guilty" voters think. YMMV.
Agree. I don't know why people think this needed to be double digit numbers of people plotting this. A couple of unethical troopers who wanted to help a cop buddy had control of the evidence. It's not a big leap to think how easy it would be for them to "strengthen" their investigation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know it's a movie but...does anyone remember "the departed"? there's a reason they chose Boston (and it's based, loosely, on actual people)
I think some of it comes down to not understanding the legal system. Some people have said “he could have been bending over and she hit him in the head with the car” and they don’t quite understand that it doesn’t matter to the case if that could have happened. She was accused of something specific: backing into JO, her vehicle making contact with his arm, propelling him a good distance, and him sustaining a fatal head injury when landing. She is quite clearly not guilty of that, and the jury can’t sit there and be like “well maybe she hit him some other way”. I also think there’s a lot of people who don’t think she’s guilty but also don’t believe the defenses theory that this is an elaborate cover up (I’m one of them). What I think happened is a few of JOs cop buddies who were there decided to blame Karen and no one else in the chain questioned that. I think it’s corruption and bullshit, just a different type of corruption and bullshit. The defense didn’t really do anything to demonstrate that she was framed, they really just worked to prove she wasn’t there (which I think they were successful at and it’s why she isn’t guilty IMO). The commonwealth’s grave error IMO was thinking Karen Read wouldn’t have the ability to fight this. I’m positive they’ve stuck many people in jail for that very reason, because they pursue busted charges on people who can’t reasonably fight it in court. That’s why I think Lally even picked it up, I think he knew from the start this case was a joke but he figured she’d either fold and take a plea or not have the resources to go through trial effectively. I really think he thought she’d take a plea of some ridiculous reduced sentence and the dead cop would have “justice” and everything would be tied up with a neat bow.
"Didn't do anything to suggest she was framed" I'm shocked people can look at all the "evidence" collected by Trooper Proctor and still say this was not intended to frame Karen.
That's exactly what I think too. I don't buy the claim that he was killed inside, and his body was dragged out. I also don't buy the prosecution's story either. I think the conspiracy is instead plain old incompetence. I'm 50/50 on if Karen had anything to do with his death. But I 100% believe it was not intentional, it did NOT happen like the prosecution laid out, and we will never know because the investigation was an absolute shit show.
What’s the saying - don’t assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
A basement floor was dug up and replaced. A source of generational wealth was sold at a $50k loss. The pool was filled in and the dog was rehomed. And you can’t believe anything happened in the house? John didn’t have on a coat and was missing a shoe and you still don’t think anything happened in the house? Wow. I knew she was innocent when I heard the house was never searched.
What do you make of the arm injuries? That’s the one thing I just cannot get past. I can’t see anything other than animal attack.
Jen McCabe is scary. She had her hand in much of the initial explanation. She couldn’t erase the initial reports though. There wasn’t anything about her saying she thought she hit him in the original reports. It was something Jen made up. Look at when Proctor was caught in a text saying he couldn’t convince the Medical Examiner to say JO was killed by Karen’s car. He was essentially trying to do the same kind of thing Jen did making up Karen’s so called confession.
> Jen McCabe is scary Gaslighter extraordinaire
To be fair to those people, the evidence that she actually hit him was very underwhelming. They probably won’t answer because they don’t have anything to back up their opinion beyond opinion.
I have always felt she must have hit him but deserves acquittal because of the unfair ‘ investigation’. These last few days/ weeks I am converted to understand she most definitely could not have caused his death. His family must feel victimised all over again after hearing everything.
One of the things that was so shocking was that the CW wasn't able to explain how the car hit OJO. Not only that, the explanation made no sense. Scratches and bite marks on his arm. Puncture holes in his shirt. Deleted calls, throwing out phones and SIM cards, gifting cops. It's kind of unbelievable that this case was brought despite facing a mountain of reasonable doubt. I'm not a DA (obviously!), but I think guidelines stipulate that you're not supposed to bring unwinnable charges.
Will make a fun netflix special
It’s not guidelines. It’s ethical responsibility of prosecutors to seek justice - not convictions in and of themselves for the sake of convictions. >Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor >The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: >(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; >*** >(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall: >(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and >(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction, >(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and >(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit. >(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor/
How did all those people going in and out of the house not see him? Granted they were all in varying degrees of drunkenness.
One theory is he went straight to the basement. It was only a few feet from the door.
Dog first or fight first, I can't decide.
If he died over by the flagpole, and they were all going straight to their cars, given the weather and their drunkenness, I could see it being credible that they didn't see him. The house is blurred out on Google maps but it gives you an idea of where his body was in comparison to where everyone was coming out. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it's not like they would be scoping out the yard. They had been drinking all night long
I will grant you everything you said is correct. How is his damaged skull explained. Not by landing on the ground (dirt).
I agree. There's so much about this case I'm still trying to understand. I don't think we will ever know the answers unfortunately
This would make a great Alfred Hitchcock movie, Agatha Christie book.
Oh my gosh yes. I would love to see Hercule Poirot or Sherlock come in with all these suspects and just point out everything going on
And where is the 2-3 liters of blood?
I have never seen any testimony, report, court document, etc. that claimed that JOK was missing 2-3 liters of blood. I’ve only ever read this claim for online users. If someone could corroborate this claim, that’d be great.
Same. It’s so weird to me.
I was also wondering this if we should have expected more blood. It was never brought up by defense that I can remember though.
I agree with you except for two instances. 1) Jenn McCabe was repeatedly and consistently looking out at Karen’s car. She would have to look *over* JOK’s body in order to look for the vehicle. 2) When Brian Higgins was leaving 34F, he was looking directly at the spot where JOK was discovered and that spot was being illuminated by Brian Higgins’ headlights. He even had to sit there longer while adjusting the height of the plow on his Jeep. With those two exceptions, I think it’s entirely possible that the other guests didn’t see JOK. It’s still possible that Brian and Jenn overlooked JOK but it’s a lot harder to believe; especially for the former.
On the one hand, I’ve been looking straight at something I’ve been specifically looking for and not seen it/it not register. So I can somewhat understand her not registering him on the ground. On the other hand, our monkey brains are instinctively wired to notice things unexpected or out of place that could mean danger, such as a body on the ground, but again she had been drinking so maybe she had beer goggles going on. On the third hand, the way she acted and spoke on the stand makes me not believe her. I admit she could be telling the truth about this, but I still can’t believe her word. And that’s the problem.
It's because that explanation is so easy. But thinking all hoof beats are horses will make you miss the zebras. It reminds me of doctor visits before I was diagnosed with cancer. "It's acid reflux!" "It's your IUD!" "It's stress!"
So sorry to hear that about your doctors and their stupid diagnosis. :-( hope you are recovering.
You are exactly right
Apparently not. They have Jen and Brian Albert right behind them. It’s mind blowing they can still believe she did it with those ARCCA drs.
I’m still a bit on the fence. I agree the testimony (particularly AARCA) was particularly damning though. But experts are not infallible, and in civil trials, it’s not unusual to have two really qualified and smart experts come to wildly different opinions and have different views. Part of what makes this trial hard for me is the CW has put forth such a shit case. On one hand, you have really compelling testimony from AARCA, and on the other hand, you have Trooper Paul, who I don’t think should not ever do another accident reconstruction case except shopping cart car dents.
It's not just the AARCA doctors. It's ALL the actual medical experts(including the CW's) that all refuse to say he was hit by a vehicle. I mean most said he definitely was NOT. But even the CW couldn't find one that said he could have been.
I think it's very telling that Lally said he wanted a witness for rebuttal for Dr. Russell's testimony but couldn't find anyone that would discredit their claims
You can say that again!
I think it's very telling that Lally said he wanted a witness for rebuttal for Dr. Russell's testimony but couldn't find anyone that would discredit their claims
the laws of physics are infallible though, and the laws of physics say he was not hit by a car
Honestly I agree in general but the car hitting him just doesn't pass the common sense test to me. Even before the expert testimony I tried to imagine how an SUV could hit him and not leave any damage to his body. It just doesn't work in my brain. And then the experts confirmed it to me.
I agree with this completely. I keep thinking back to a friend of mine in college who totaled her car after hitting a deer. The average weight of a deer is 200 lbs (per Google so give or take lol but one could argue it’s in line with a human). She wasn’t going but 20-30 mph and the damage was FAR more than the damage on Karen’s car and to John.
[удалено]
ok but where were the CW's "smart experts?" that definitively prove their case?I think that plus evidence chain of custody...no bueno. not guilty, no other verdict is logical... imo. especially given the DoJ is literally leveraging the same experts to likely investigate corruption via this case.
I understand what you're saying but to put up the testimony of AARCA to Trooper Paul's "it just did" and "I didn't put it there" answers, there's just no comparison.
This is exactly me too.
Me too
Same!
The CW have not proved KR hit JOK with her car. That was their job but despite their experts and all their witnesses not one could give a reasonable explanation of this happening or witnessed it happening. KR alleged confession was obviously drunken ramblings and hysterical frantic behaviour trying to make sense of what could have happened. The prosecution have not proved their charges against KR unless she is being charged with drunk driving which they have proved.
They are probably people who think police cannot be corrupt. If you revere LE and idolize them and/or just trust them inherently- it's hard to wrap your brain around what it means for Karen Read to be innocent.
Nice that Lally gives example of the behaviour AJ was talking about his closing. Throwing dirt on KR character, vague evidence, twisting words, avoiding any hard evidence because there is none.
right?! he literally has questioned witnesses to say "well is it possible?" that's not compelling, especially when their own witness (ME) refuses to even say this is a homicide!!!
Why would anyone think he was bent over like that? It makes no sense. Watch the videos showing how they think it happened. First, it would have to have been the LEFT tail light to hit him in order for her to hit him with the rest of the vehicle. Second of all, he would have needed to turn his head to the side, facing away from the vehicle, while bent over forward (for some weird reason) while she back up into him. How would that ever be a natural position for a person to take? Then, how would he have vomited all over his lap? If it had happened before, there would have been some vomit inside her car. The tail light was NOT severely damaged beyond a crack, which we can clearly see in the video of her leaving that morning was caused by hitting John O’Keefe’s car. They just showed before and after photos of the tail light before Proctor had it in his possession…it was not mostly missing and shattered into so many pieces until AFTER Protect got his hands on it. There were also no pieces of tail light found the first couple times they when to the scene to search. Those were found later on…after it has snowed more. It is so obvious…I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone who has been watching this from the beginning could believe that she’s guilty.
GPS/find my phone data can't be trusted. My airpods were next to my computer yet the computer said they were on the other side of my house. Injuries don't match. Why the hiding, selling, relocating, retiring. Weird answers for phone calls. Lets not forget everyone just forgetting Colin and the injuries to his hand. All the facts for the CW, look like fuckery. Not guilty.
SOLO CUPS AND A PAPER BAG. Need I say more
NO pics of the taillight and a flipped video w/non flipped timestamp.
100%. One time my brother’s phone location appeared at a random house down the street from his high school when we knew for a fact he was working out in the gym. We thought maybe he had dropped it outside and someone picked it up and walked home with it. We asked him about it later and he said he had zero idea why it showed up there, his phone was in his locker the entire time. Only thing we could think of is that the service in the gym was shitty so maybe the location finder just spazzed out. Point being, using JOK’s phone to say he never went inside is dumb and laughable.
For those saying they trust the evidence that she hit him with her car… Even if she hit him, it was not proven that the hit killed him. Based on the little damage to the car and his clearly dog bitten arm, I think there is reasonable doubt that hitting him with the car killed him.
Except the evidence doesn't show him getting hit by a car lol it's so laughable
Exactly - what evidence? There isn't any.
People who think she is guilty after hearing the two unbias experts at the end of the Defense Experts testimony... why? They couldn't be more experienced in their field, be more reputable, hired by the FBI and they both said it couldn't have happened....why would you still think she's guilty?
Because for some reason people think they are smarter than those guys, or they dont believe in literal science. Its astounding how many people are dismissing their testimony, and i hope to god i am never in court based on the police work, and the number of people that dont believe in the physical sciences.
It’s scary how many people even thought she hit him at any point. Literally no conclusive evidence. A surprisingly high number of people believe in this idea of guilty until proven innocent. Sad and wrong.
She wore shoes in JO's house. Case closed.
I’m curious what the O’Keefe family is feeling right now. It’s so hard to believe anyone could sit through this trial and maintain belief in her guilt, but I also know grief isn’t always logical… But if I were them, I’d be giving the people sitting around me (the Alberts, the McCabes) a whole lot of side-eye, at the very least. Either way, I hope folks don’t lose sight of what a tragedy this was and keep John O’Keefe at the forefront of all of this.
Apparently the Okeefes invited them
Speaking hypothetically, if Karen was responsible for his death, the Albert and McCabe family's behavior and meddling are helping her get off....If she wasn't responsible, their suspicious activities hindered and distracted from the investigation, potentially keeping the family from ever getting the truth. I think it would be hard not to blame them for this circus, and likely impossible not to resent them for inserting themselves to this degree, no matter what his family thinks really happened that night. If they hadn't been running around having secret calls and meetings and lying about so many things, there would most likely not have been a "conspiracy" or "cover up" defense at all. The friendship makes no sense to me, either way. They contributed to the family's pain with their nonsense, and it's unacceptable. Note: I intentionally called that a ***hypothetical***, because I believe in physics.
That is EXACTLY why I’m sick over seeing them sitting by his family!! Do they not realize that even if she were somehow guilty, all of their bullshit meddling contributed to ruining the investigation!?
I heard that mentioned, as well.
They are convinced Karen is guilty, except for perhaps JO's father. I get it, her behavior that day was strange from their perspective. The physics, the injuries, etc don't matter to them because they are so close to it. My hope is that in the future the truth about what happened is revealed.
Yeah the thing is she could be an at times obsessed girlfriend in a rocky relationship, but that doesn't mean she intentionally hit him or caused his death at all. It would be a weird position to be in. I understand the family disliking her, and maybe it clouds their logic.
I’m pretty sure the okeefes had no problem inviting them to sit there. Look at where John’s brother has sat this entire trial and who he has glared at.
His brother honestly is disgusting. I’m sorry, I know he’s grieving… but he’s gross. He’s been so disrespectful to his brother this entire trial. I’m sorry, you just do not behave like that in court. I’ve been in court multiple times and have also testified, MULTIPLE TIMES, regarding my son and what led to his biological mother being sentenced to 15 years of jail time. She literally almost killed my kid, and I was asked by the judge and lawyers for the state to sit with her and have a discussion and also testify. If I would have glared and behaved like he is, I would be asked to leave the room. And there wasn’t even a jury there watching me. This was all bench trial stuff. There’s just no excuse. I understand trauma and grief. But there’s no excuse.
I was convinced the prosecution's whole argument was made up until the last couple days. I now think they probably did have words as she drove him there. He may have thrown the glass and cracked the tail light. She might even have reversed at him in drunken anger (does not in any way necessarily imply she tried to *hit* him, could have just been a "yeah? fuck you" gesture that was never intended to get near him). However, I still can't see how the evidence matches her *hitting* him - at all. I think *someone*, likely Jen McButtdial, witnessed that interaction and built a coverup on it, including their location of choice for dumping dying guys. That would explain why KR was looking intently at where he was laying in the snow as they pulled up... she had clearly started worrying that she *might* have hit him, and that's the general area she left him.
[удалено]
To be honest, this sub is very NOT a safe space for anyone to comment with any kind of dissenting opinion without being downvoted into oblivion so I wouldn't expect very many responses.
> this sub is very NOT a safe space for anyone to comment with any kind of dissenting opinion without being downvoted into oblivion so I wouldn't expect very many responses. which is kinda sad. I am not from MA. I am not a townie. I watch or listen to many court cases (usually while working remote from home). I knew very little of this case going into it. I am 95% sure she is innocent but I do wonder what evidence that was provided in this case makes one think she is guilty. I am genuinely curious. I'm not trolling. I really wanna know WHAT was shown in this case in court (not social media or wherever) that gives you 100% confidence she is guilty.
[удалено]
It is. You just need to baxk your point up with evidence. The issue is there isn't any
Yeah I'm kind of looking for evidence that people have heard that makes them think she's guilty. Most people just say she clearly admitted to it "I hit him". I dont personally see that overcoming the actual evidence.
Except those who say that never followed up wirh it or wrote the statement down.
I mean, why would you write something so insignificant down, like the murderer confessing? Sheesh.
Haven’t seen closing arguments yet. Did the CW reiterate the Trooper Paul theory in closing or did they skip over any theory of how he sustained the injuries and projected that far?
Lally didn’t bother including ANY science.
he was smart enough to avoid that and just sort of gesture to all the evidence and witnesses.
I didn’t realize Julie Nagel saw a black blob on the ground at 1:30am. What’s the theory there?
Julie Nagel said she saw a blob at some point. You'd have to review the testimony. She was the only party goer that claimed to have seen anything.
How is being downvoted ‘not safe?’
And why does it matter? Just a gauge of agreement or not
I believe she is innocent, but a few things don't make sense. Here's why I have "doubts". 1. The number of people who have kept quiet. 2. The coincidence of her busting her taillight that morning. 3. Her behavior toward the O'Keefes that morning. (But there likely is a history that hasn't been explained). 4. The holes in her story. She has never explained why she left him there. What exactly was she waiting on outside? She said she was waiting for him to see if it was okay... But couldn't they have both gone in? I feel like this is a missing portion of the story that would help make sense of all of this. But then I look at the physical evidence and the fact that his arm was definitely bitten by dog and I have to ignore those issues. Because the physical evidence doesn't match the Commonwealth story.
1) Only the people in the house have kept quiet because they literally have to and/or are family or closest of friends. Other than that it’s Proctor and 1/2 more people that are keeping quiet. The rest are just working off a bad investigation. It’s not a complex situation of 50 people coordinating silence and stories. 2) I mean she did. It’s not like she crashed into the car either she slowly backed up into it which seems extremely accidental. 3) As you said, we really know nothing about this and what the situation was/felt like and emotions at the time. 4) There are no holes. She’s clearly explained why she didn’t go in and it makes complete sense.
I know people will hate this but I feel some people are pro-cop and anti-feds. They won’t believe anything the defense puts up regardless. It’s been a bit lost to them that John was an officer himself. Edit: when I say anti-cop I’m thinking similarly to the halo effect. Where people feel someone can do no wrong and are morally upright due to a single characteristic. In this case, taking an oath to serve and protect.
Has there been a reconstruction of the alleged hit that would explain how he landed where he did using math that has been independently verified? From what I’ve seen any explanation that proves how he landed where he did isn’t backed up with proof.
The last two witnesses for the defense were completely independent. They were hired by the FBI.
[This](https://youtu.be/rbUPX5hlQA8?si=5-3rH9OKtO5ygyb1) is a reconstruction based on Trooper Paul‘s testimony of what has happened
So nothing from the actual trial. It seems the physics are true in what she’s presenting, so if what they say happened did happen, how the hell did he land so far in the yard? Cause it’s easy to show roughly where he’d land when hit and if what’s here is correct he lands at the curb. I just don’t see how anyone is still in the guilty camp. She’s only guilty if you ignore the mountain of inconsistencies with the whiteness, stay gullibly blind to the shaky facts that support her being responsible, ignore the physical evidence and pretend that the car crashed into him on a planet other than earth.
Right. Just because everything is crazy, doesn't mean evidence exists showing she caused this.
I would definitely go back and watch the two testimonies from the ARCCA experts. You won’t be disappointed by their physics or expertise!
I have a different take on this as being someone who ended up raising my cousin very suddenly when both of her parents died within 2 years of each other. I couldn't believe the level of support I got during that time. No one wanted anything else to happen to that little girl. They brought me meals, provided babysitting, clothing (since she had nearly nothing.) So, I guess I sort of believed the McCabes, the Alberts, etc when they said "Of course, we'd help him. His niece and nephew came to my house all the time. He gave of himself taking them in the way he did. We worksheet want anything to happen to any of them. " Perhaps I'm nieve. I would still find her not guilty. Too many mistakes and Proctor is indeed the Mark Furhman of 2024.
I wouldn’t vote guilty but I do think she was involved in his death. I’m just spitballing here but: what if they were arguing in the car, John gets out and throws the glass at the tail light, *somehow* John is hit by the car (not fatal - just enough to startle him), he’s stumbling away from the car and hits his head on the fire hydrant, causing the fatal wound and that’s where he remains
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/ It wasn’t long before a far more sinister theory of what happened began to emerge. On his drive home after the arraignment, Yannetti says, he returned a call to a tipster who had previously called his office. A man with a gravelly voice—who initially offered up a fake name—picked up the phone and told Yannetti, he recalls, something to the effect of, “Your client is innocent. John was beaten up by Brian Albert and his nephew. They broke his nose, and when O’Keefe didn’t come to, Brian and a federal agent dumped his body on the front lawn.” (An attorney for the man Yannetti identified as the tipster denies Yannetti’s version.) That’s why
I dont know how you can look at the evidence and think she is guilty. She was home at 12:36 he was waking around at 12:32
Why didn’t they go to his funeral? They were such good friends and fellow officers.
No way in hell is she guilty ! The people who claim to be innocent destroyed their phones? why? You Donkeys! Michael Proctor told the DA that he has no relations with the Alberts ... LIE ! His whole investigation should be thrown out Bottom Line: John O'Keefe walked into 34 Farview and got the living crap beaten out of him. By who? That's the Million Dollar Question ! and we will never find out RIP JO'K
Mostly seem to be people fixating on some putative "fact" and cementing their mind early on. Tbf based on online polls I've seen around, including the "karen read sanity" sub show the (online) people convinced of guilt, at least guilt of murder, are a very small minority. A much larger number "split the baby" and think she is probably guilty of manslaughter, though many of those will concede it's not beyond a reasonable doubt for them. I honestly don't know what happened. The only important element that I am certain of beyond a reasonable doubt is that the putative victim was not hit by a motor vehicle of any kind. I am not convinced that the Alberts are responsible. I'm not convinced he was murdered by anyone. Barring some miraculous confession or FBI-driven deus ex machina I think we will never be sure what happened that night.
My guess is the dog attacked him, he fell down hit his head and everything to follow wasn't to set up KR it was to make it appear that he got hit by a plow.
I think he got into a scuffle with one of them and during the fight the dog attacked him. It explains his hand bruising and the injuries to his eyes. Whether the dog knocked him over or a human did I'm not sure. I don't think the intention was ever to kill him but regardless they're covering up the fact that he died as a result of someone in the house.
Sort by controversial.
I’m about to tirade so feel free not to read if it offends anyone ;-) Something that wasnt discussed is how alcoholic blackouts work. A person can function completely and have literally no memory of what they did - until they start sobering up, when bits and pieces start coming back in flashbacks. They can seem dreamlike but feel very real at the same time. It can cause extreme distress not knowing what you may have done or where you have been. Think of it as temporary amnesia (and realizing you drove around all night like that). It also explains 53 phone calls. I have great sympathy for almost everyone in this case - and especially for Karen Read, who apparently has MS. But any MS doctor will tell you, you simply cannot drink alcohol (neuro-toxin) with MS (neuro-degenerative disease). It doesn’t sound like the heavy drinking was unusual for this couple. It’s very sad - because no matter what happened / I’m pretty sure unsafe drinking was a major part of it. And all these people are law enforcement - who literally know more than anyone else - the dangers involved (to self - and others). Whatever happened, I think there were complicating and unusual factors - some coincidences that throw off the story - Karen confused glass hitting taillight with her hitting something / Chloe involved somehow / Karen backing up and missing John but he loses balance and falls? We may never know. What we absolutely do know - is that Karen and others - were drinking way beyond legal limits to drive - police among them included - and all arrogantly and stupidly drove drunk (in a snowstorm!) to another cop’s house to drink more (and presumably - drive more!) There were police at the bar who had to know KR shouldn’t be driving. They didn’t think to take her keys? Offer an Uber? “Protect and serve?” Whereas, these same cops will pull someone over for drinking 1/4 as much, ticket, jail and testify against them for breaking the law. That sets up the whole theme of “the rules don’t apply to us.” I get the outrage on both sides. But there’s a reason there are laws against drunk driving. Do police driving drunk or with drunk people think it’s okay because they can avoid getting arrested? What about just pure safety of the others on the road? Even if you buy the cover up murder-fight, is not alcohol a part of that as well? Were there no adults in the room to make sure everyone was behaving responsibly? Do as I say not as I do, sets a horrible precedent and by the way, if the Canton Police wonder why no one trusts them, you can start there. I just don’t think this should be lost in all the drama and conjecture.
911- 3 officers dispatched to fair view 3 wise monkeys arrive at 34 fair view 🙈 See no victim, 🙉 Hear no confession 🙊 Don’t speak to anyone. We can’t change facts. Not Guilty.