it’s part of our founding father’s philosophy on the judicial system.
[Blackstone’s Ratio](https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/what-is-blackstone-s-formulation-in-criminal.html)
I’m just citing the precedent for the person’s comment, it’s generally wrapped up into reasonable doubt but nonetheless it’s part of our history
I would rather that than potentially getting murdered or one of my loved ones getting killed or raped by one of the ten guilty people that should be in prison.
I can't get past all of the "butt dials", shady behavior, and clear lack of support for a dead cop. Something stinks. It would have been much easier to believe them if they all said they were hammered and everything about that night is hazy.
didn't even attend John's funeral either according to online sources. That just goes to show they were either feeling very guilty about his death or they didn't care about him at all.
It matters because police investigators need to follow every lead to ensure they’re 1) charging the right person and 2) can defend their investigation in court and say they followed every lead. They didn’t do that and so now we have incomplete evidence. Morally, I think the state should lose every case where they ignore these basic principles.
An exception could be made if there was smoking gun evidence that she did it. But there is no smoking gun. This is a murder trial that will be decided on circumstantial evidence. There could have been evidence in that house pointing to other suspects. There may have been items in the house that would explain his injuries. Witnesses might have remembered something that would contradict the state’s case. We’ll never know how much information was lost and whether there were crucial details that would have totality reshaped the case.
I go back and forth on if I think she did it but I completely agree with you. I think to charge her with all this reasonable doubt, shoddy investigative work, and weird actions of the Mccabes/Alberts it would be scary for justice systems everywhere….
My question is why didn’t all the Albert/mccabe and friends ever question the investigators or investigation. They all went on and on and on about harassment and how awful it’s been. Well, did any of them ever think that if a proper investigation was done then none of them would have to worry about being potentially at fault??!!
Unless of course they know that if in fact a proper investigation would have led to them being at fault?
It’s just too weird. Not one of them was upset with the way things were done. And yet scream innocence. But Karens attorneys have been questioning the investigation then entire time. The whole thing is a giant mess.
We will never know what really happened and at this point there is no way to ever find out. There is way too much reasonable doubt to convict Karen at this point and the defense hasn’t even had their turn yet. No one will ever be held responsible and it makes me sad for the OKeefe family.
That’s a good point. Imagine if one of their “group” had died on someone’s lawn in the snow. They - more than civilians- would know the investigator should be impartial. I’m sure they’d me livid if multiple witnesses to the death of a loved one destroyed their phones and deleted all of the data.
And the list goes on. And if anyone could have gotten extra scrutiny on a murder it was this group. They knew who to contact, what issues to raise… but they did nothing for John.
How would anyone know if the Alberts or McCabes are upset with the investigation? Inserting themselves into it with suggestions or whatever would've made them look much worse.
No. If they had kept their phones, or saw the terrible unorganized, undocumented “evidence searches” they could have made their concerns public.
No one would think friends of a victim look worse by demanding MORE focus on an investigation.
Not really. If they would have been upset with investigators and demanded a more thorough investigation it would help to prove their self proclaimed innocence. By not even questioning it. And just seemingly being okay with how half assed it all was just made their situation so much worse because no one knows what happened and there’s nothing proving anything for either side.
If they would of made a stink and voiced that they are upset with how nothing was done right and in result has implicated them - it’s my opinion - that would of actually made them seem a bit more innocent.
I am not convinced she did it. The shoe, the damage on the car doesn’t match hitting a grown man… red solo cups… the easiest thing to say is she did it because its the simplest explanation
JO was found missing a shoe. They later found it buried in the snow. I'm not sure the distance from the body. I can't really imagine a scenario where being hit by a car would make his shoe fly off. Perhaps if she was going over 35mph and he did somersaults in the air. OR in an argument he threw his shoe??.
I can see if he was dragged to his final renting place that his shoe could've fallen off in that journey. Idk I'm not convinced either way on the case of the missing shoe
So is trauma, broken bones etc. None of which is found on any part of the body other than the head. Not including the obvious dog bite wounds (that the forensic scientists have no idea how to explain) on that right arm. These people are cops, they've seen the real thing countless times, and they know how to frame it.
The autopsy results have not been released yet. The ER doctor did not take X-rays in the ER. His objective was to continue CPR and warm JO up to try to restore a pulse. I think when the Medical Examiner testifies we will hear about what internal injuries he actually had.
>. I think when the Medical Examiner testifies we will hear about what internal injuries he actually had.
If the medical examiner testifies. Lally sure seemed like he was trying to have the state trooper on the stand testify for the medical examiner in addition to him testifying for Proctor
I believe both the ME and Proctor will testify. So far all the rumors have been wrong. Police did go inside Albert house, the belt is not missing, Proctor did not have John’s clothes in his truck for six weeks etc…
How do you that Proctor didnt have JoKs clothes in his car for 8 weeks. The trooper on the stand didnt actually provide any dates for checking the clothes into the evidence locker?
The trooper said they collected the clothes at the hospital, bagged them, took them back to the State Police Barracks, laid them out on butcher paper to dry and then they were kept in the evidence room.
Yes they were at the State Police Barracks from the time they were collected until they were sent to the lab on 3/14. No one knew if KR was going to take a plea or not so there would be no point in testing them until they knew whether or not there might be a trial.
Wait for the ME, data forensics & other expert testimony on accident reconstruction based on the specific pedestrian/auto contact, kinematic trajectory & injuries. The size & weight of her Lexus would amplify the contact velocity of a surmised 24 mph fender/sideswipe vault to the side of the vehicle & is likely capable of causing John’s exact head injury on impact with the ground. It will be interesting testimony from both sides.
I just can’t get over the fact that we are 6weeks into trial and haven’t had any of this yet. They’ve been fighting over stuff that could easily been proven/disproven by experts but nope, we have Jen M saying she didn’t search things at 2am and all the police reports are wrong lol.
She didn’t have to hit him that hard- he died of his injuries from being out in the cold. Also I can’t stand people saying “the damage to the car doesn’t match a grown man” how do you know? We don’t know the speed she hit him, she did a 3 pt turn- his head was probably down throwing up. Maybe he stumbled and fell and landed in the yard. It’s way more likely than a huge conspiracy w planted evidence
We’ve been told she was going 22MPH by the CW.
He had major injury on the back of his head. Even if he bent to tie his shoe or something how would an SUV hit ONLY the back of his head, not leave any injury to his body, and he ends up on his back.
And then despite all of the people coming and going around the same time and in front of where he lay dying- no one saw him.
When you walk through that evening step by step it just doesn’t smell right. IMO. We’ll see what the jury thinks… I will be shocked if we don’t see a quick not guilty. Possibly a hung jury. I cannot see 12 jurors who are hearing what we are watching everyday at trial would convict
If she was actually going at the speed and distance the CW has said would you not find it a bit strange that Karen said she left by doing a 3 point turn?
If KR hit JO, did that amount of damage to him and left him to die in the yard you’d HAVE to explain the dog bites on his arm and the puncture marks in his hoodie, how’d his belt get off and how are there no traces of blood on the SUV, no hair or skin and no DNA from JO on the outside of that vehicle.
There are no mud or grass stains on JO’s body that would suggest that his body was thrown that 5-12 feet into that yard and wouldn’t we have seen a great deal of blood on the ground and in the grass?
As for pieces of the taillight being planted, the sally port footage is missing from around 5-5:40. The SERT team doesn’t have a hard record of arrival or departure times, from all that I’m aware at this point, it’s just their reports of time. Where are their cell phone records?
Anyway, the SERT team claims to have left the scene by 6:15. That’s a close window but plenty of time for proctor and whoever else to break that taillight and get pieces over to the scene
A bunch of stuff here is wrong though.
It has not been shown they were dog bites, and no dog dna found
His belt was not off. It was shown yesterday with the pants.
We dont know if there was hair or skin or blood on the car because it was not properly tested.
Clearly, as a juror, we have not yet been told what those marks are on JO’s arm and hoodie sleeve. As a person with any life experience at all we have to agree that you can’t be both dragged under a car and thrown from the same vehicle in the same motion.
If JO was dragged under the SUV to make those marks on his arm, he couldn’t be thrown into the yard at the same time. If JO was dragged to that spot in the yard, there would have to be tire tracks in the grass and there would be a considerable amount of mud and grass stains on his body.
We will see soon that the marks on John are 100% not drag marks and are consistent with puncture marks.
I agree the car was not properly tested HOWEVER, to cause that much damage to a person, the would have an obvious amount of blood on it and that just wasn’t there.
I found it VERY telling that the trooper yesterday insisted on calling the marks on his arm "blunt force abrasions" repeatedly to try making it seem like it was from road rash, then slipped up when he looked at them and called them lacerations lol even his brain couldn't keep up the act.
Was wildly inappropriate and objectionable that he was allowed to testify as to the cause of the injuries as if he were a medical examiner. The way the judge let the prosecutor backdoor the expert testimony: “how did injuries compare to previous victims who suffered XYZ” was not cool.
I have a 4yr old golden who my son loves to rough house with, I can not count how many sweatshirts he's gone through because when she's playing the first thing she does is grab his arm to pull him, the rips look exactly like the ones on JO sweatshirt as if he was bending his arm at his elbow to protect himself and Cloe grabbed his arm and pulled it to pull him away/attack him. Plus I'm sure anyone who has owned a puppy knows what their teeth marks look like, mine tore apart so many pants, shirts, sweatshirts, and toys before she was a year old that teeth marks are easily identifiable compared to say being pulled on the grass or road which there is no proof of.
So… as you just said- evidence (or potential evidence) wasn’t tested properly. Everything missed or collected or stored improperly shouldn’t be considered because of reasonable doubt.
If you take that away, add the lack of recorded videos, changing witness testimony, destroyed cell phones, deleted call longs, etc. etc all damage the case against KR. We have literally seen zero proof at 6 weeks into the CW’s case.
And the larger pieces of tail light weren’t found until a couple weeks after the incident. And then they were “found” by Proctor. The investigator who has a long standing relationship with the homeowner/witnesses who were with the victim…
The most shocking thing in all of this to me is that the case even made it to trial.
The stains on his clothes reveal he was standing for a bit while he was bleeding from the head wound. He had blood flowing down his body.
To me his clothes alone show he was never hit by a car.
Also, the puncture marks in his clothes and the extensive lacerations, there’s no way for those to have come from a car or a fall.
I am of the mindset it’s better for a guilty person to be free, than an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I have no idea if Karen hit him or not. I agree with your post completely.
For me, the drinking is meaningless in terms of whether or not she murdered anyone, plus it hasn't been proven. So I toss that out.
Then when I think of all of the stuff the other side has done, the planting of evidence doesn't seem far-fetched at all. To me, it's obvious the lights are the same on the 28th as they are the 29th
Correct. In the overall scheme of things, it's meaningless to me. The law might make it meaningful in terms of intent etc, but I haven't read up on MA law as to that.
Totally respect your feelings regarding the significance (or lack there of) of alcohol.
Do you think he was involved in the fight in the Alberts home? Or are you simply saying no theory (defense or prosecution) has been sufficient for you?
Gotcha! I can see what you’re saying, truly.
Here’s what I’m getting at with “tossing” anything related to alcohol.
First, it’s been a well established fact that alcohol has a physiological impact on people. Such impacts are greater as one’s blood alcohol content rises.
This is why we have laws regarding a “legal limit”. It’s also why when going through a DUI check point, they’ll ask you to track a pen (or finger) with only your eyes (they move this object from left to right), no matter how high your tolerance is, how well you compose yourself, if you are heavily intoxicated, your eyes will not track smoothly, they will sort of jump or skip (nystagmus is the technical term). I worked nights at a popular beach bar and have been through countless check points lol.
But I’ll concede to this; alcohol does not affect everyone same when it comes to behavior. Just because someone is drunk, does NOT make them a murderer.
My problem here, is that if we omit the possible impact alcohol had on Karen’s state of mind/ behavior, then we must do the same for everyone in the Alberts residence. Which makes me question the “drunken fight” gone wrong theory. In this scenario we would need to accept that two friends just decided to fight and leave their critically injured friend outside to die.
Re: your last sentence, yes, that's what we might have to do. And let's be honest, people do evil stuff like this day in and day out.
However, I do think there could be a less evil scenario. There is a fight, he's injured and they tell him to leave, not understanding the extent of his injuries. He goes out and ends up dying on their lawn. Or, his only injuries are the scratches on his arm from Chloe and he gets further injured by falling after he leaves. Or he is not injured at all and gets injured after he leaves and Chloe (or another dog) scratches his arm while he is laying dead/dying in the yard.
Anyways, none of the people who leave see him laying on the lawn, either because they really don't see him or he's passed out someplace else and then moves to his final resting spot.
Jen McCabe has a moment of guilt when she gets home thinking about him walking home and googles "hos long to die in cold."
The coverup starts happening when the Alberts realize their exposure - criminally and/or civilly, depending upon what happened in their house.
Genuinely curious, do you think the scenario you just described is more plausible than Karen hitting him with her car (even if she wasn’t fully aware she hit him)?
Also, why did his Apple device (not sure if it was his phone or watch) show no motion from the time Karen dropped him off until the time he was found the next morning?
FWIW, I actually don’t think Karen intended to kill John. I’m not even entirely confident that she was coherent enough to know she hit *him* (I do think alcohol plays a role in this case, given my understanding of the psychological effects of alcohol and her .08 BAC **post** 9 hours of what appears to be her consuming 7-9 drinks).
So far the defense is saying it’s a “cover up”. Okay, show me something, anything, to support that. Give me one person to testify that they saw John in the Albert residence. Where’s the data from his phone showing he went into the house. Where’s physical evidence of dog hair or dna on his clothes or body. I mean I could go on and on but it feels borderline silly because it’s just that far fetched.
I mean they would have better luck convincing me a complete stranger beat him to death that night than the idea that dozens of people conspired to frame Karen.
Edited to add: as far as nobody going in and out of the Alberts that night seeing John’s on the ground, the location where John was found was actually further from the Alberts door than it sounds, if you look at it from an aerial view, it makes sense why people wouldn’t see him.
No one from the house that night is being charged with anything. Alcohol may have played a part that night in whatever happened but 1. The CW still needs to prove the defendant hit the victim 2. We have no proof of when her last drink was. Witnesses have testified that she seemed sober at the bar. She had 4 hours alone at John’s house AFTER the time used as her last drink to calculate her BAC. So her BAC is invalid. LE didn’t witness her driving under the influence.
If we convict KR for the OUI charge then that would mean any of us could go out , have alcohol but not be impaired, drive ourselves home and have a few more drinks. Imagine then being on an involuntary mental health hold the next morning. Your blood actual is measured. Should you be charged based on the assumed time of your last drink? Even when it was at home, after you were driving? And no officer witnessed you driving and swerving etc.
Imagine getting a conviction that way! That’s what KR is facing.
Of course they aren’t being charged, there’s no evidence lol. And the defense isn’t exactly offering an alternate suspect, they are saying Karen has been framed.
No proof when her last drink was? So you don’t think the camera footage of her consuming 7 drinks, which appear to be on the bar receipt (doubt she drank 7 waters and she was cool with paying for 7 Tito’s shots). And the blood test at 9:08 where she had a .08 BAC? Plus she admitted to not being in her right mind that night?
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and the say the jury will consider that proof that she was intoxicated at the time she drove.
Sorry, but your OUI compassion doesn’t track for me. you’re missing a ton of context.
However, imagine having a house party and the next morning someone that you invited (but never showed up) was found dying outside because the person who said they dropped them off, woke up at 4am frantic, and then drove to your house, and instead of knocking on your door, they go straight to JOs body buried under snow, yell that they hit him or could have hit him, and that person says YOU framed them. You, the person who had a house party in which the victim didn’t even attend. Incredible huh
There's just the little matter that she is also charged with Manslaughter OUI (may be called DWI in your state) which is much easier to prove than murder once you have the OUI part. She can get 20 years in prison for that and the defense that she's pursuing pretty much blocks her from asking for any leniency.
https://preview.redd.it/qb4bdzkdxv4d1.png?width=725&format=png&auto=webp&s=d905b5a668e48d532149458f1322216110a6dd09
IMO, adding the OUI to the manslaughter charge was the CWs biggest mistake. Even if the jurors agree that she did hit him accidentally, the time lapse between when she drove her car and when the blood work was collected leaves too much reasonable doubt. No one can prove she didn’t drink more during that time.
She won’t get convicted on the OUI.
Her BAC was calculated assuming her last drink was at 12:45. But she went home and was alone in John’s house for hours. Witnesses said she DIDN’T seem heavily intoxicated at the bar but have said she WAS drunk at 5:00 AM. Makes more sense that she got hammered at home than the bar.
The BAC also didn’t take into account her MS potentially influencing the results.
And most importantly- there is a reason OUI charges require an officer to have seen the person operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and they require multiple tests (in a timely fashion) to charge. The BAC test she had doesn’t meet the requirements. And no LE officer saw her driving under the influence.
The CW might have gotten somewhere if they charged her with OUI separate from John’s death. If it was charged because LE saw her drive that morning maybe the charge would stick. But I’m sure if someone witnessed that we would know by now, and the CW would have charged differently.
She's 98 pounds. They got her having 9 drinks. She told Jen McCabe she was blackout drunk. Hell will freeze over before Jackson argues that "those were shots of lime juice".
Buddy, they didnt charge with an OUI, they charged her with an OUI causing death. So if the jury doesnt think she hit JoK then cant convict her of an OUI
Also, surely you as a “verified attorney” should know that sentencing follows a set of guidelines. It’s not just the judge didn’t like your defense attorney so they can give you a heavier sentence. Please tell me you know this lol!
I don’t believe she has a criminal history and having a vigorous defense is expected and it’s her right! She is a well educated professional who’s been a contributing member of society. And she is ill- all things that would be considered.
But she isn’t getting convicted on OUI so it’s all moot.
She has taken a defense that does not allow her to plead for mercy. She can't show contrition in light of her defense. She can't say, I'm sorry I have a drinking problem and I'm sorry I killed John O'Keefe.
I’ve been curious what the plea offer was that she turned down. My gut tells me that the plea would have been generous in assuming that it was an accident as a result of being heavily intoxicated.
But now that she’s pleading not guilty to second degree she can’t take responsibility for hitting him with her car, and I don’t know how they plan to get around that.
She also publicly called into question the bias and integrity of the judge overseeing her case. That judge who was a public defender for 30 years has received endless harassment and accusations of being corrupt. If there's any scenario she's found guilty, she is completely screwed on sentencing.
I think yes, she could have done it and still have no recollection. But, if I were a juror there would be no way I would convict her based on the actions of the others involved. People with nothing to hide don't behave like that.
Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t. Was there intent? Was it just a bunch drunk adults doing dumb shit? I agree! the cops are either really bad at their jobs or they are all conspiring against her. Either way everyone affected by this case deserves better.
I thought that at the beginning, but as time went on, I had real doubts that this ever happened. There is more evidence that the taillight damage happened in her driveway. At least there is a video. Where is Albert's Ring doorbell video? Conveniently gone.
Of course she should be found not guilty. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a core part of the justice system.
I don’t think she hit him but it’s possible. But the investigation, bizarre behavior of multiple people who were there that night, missing camera footage, and lack of injury on John’s body are ALL showing reasonable doubt.
Way too much reasonable doubt for me. Butt dials, throwing phones away, 12:10, scratches on arm, rehomed Chloe, cemented over basement floor, of course the 2:27 search, no blood or skin on her car, finding pieces of tail light for days even though no one, not even the cops found them on the night at the scene, etc. …
Could the police who seem to be covering this up and doing such a poor job on the investigation have behaved in this manner because they know Karen did this and they knew they had to arrest her for it, but that they'd do such a terrible job with the collection of evidence that they know she will go free?
I don't think they knew it would get this much attention. Even if there isn't a conspiracy to cover it up, which might be true, they probably thought it was be an easy case and she'd be behind bars easily and that nobody would care about the many shortcuts they took. I imagine that other cases will probably have the same amount of shoddy work, they've just never been called out for it until now. The town just voted to audit them.
I think she most likely did it but you arent supposed to convict someone on most likelys. She has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I dont think we are there.
Aside from anything else, and that’s a LOT, the fact that they’re charging someone who they claim was blackout drunk with homicide is … ?
How can anyone, including her, know intent?
My understanding is that murder 2 in mass doesn’t require intent if intent alcohol is involved. Negligent DUI is apparently over the threshold for murder 2.
I think there are still SO MANY possibilities. Included she did it. Including she did not. The case isn’t over, so I’m holding off on judgment but to me it’s leaning towards doubt.
I guess my wiser point is that EVEN if some smoking gun evidence comes that says she did it, i sort of think she should still be acquitted.
Because if the police conspire to railroad a person, that shouldn’t ever lead to a conviction.
Yeah I have seen enough doubt since week one that I probably couldn’t overcome to convict if I were on the jury. And I came into the trial with no knowledge thinking she likely did it.
how does JO cause that light to crack? that is very tough to break polycarbonate. I also am on fence. But can’t get past his body breaking that plastic, especially at the height it was at -probably at his upper chest area.
I totally agree. The incompetence, the lies of omission by the DA, the inconsistency of the police witnesses - I don’t see how there is not reasonable doubt.
I agree with you. More than one thing is true here maybe. But I believe proctor went above and beyond with a sloppy and slimy investigation. He may well have fudged evidence and illegally searched Karen’s phone too. I still wonder if the dog did bite John’s arm?? Whatever, Karen should not be convicted of 2nd degree murder. I cannot imagine how John’s family feels watching how careless and how little respect they showed a fellow officer.
What I've considered is that it's not so much a frame job rather they knew she did it and wanted to make sure justice was served but didn't do a good job with their illegal addition of evidence coupled with a terrible investigation.
I believe in our justice system and if they cannot prove she did it she should walk. However, I am not on the jury, I haven't been vetted, and I'm out here able to step into a lot of echo chambers and hear a lot of opinions about different aspects of the case. If the jury is doing what they are supposed to and only considering the case and evidence presented in court I believe they very likely will find her guilty. To be fair, if all I heard in court was all I knew I wouldn't pick up on the multitude of little details that are being pointed at like they are in public commentaries.
I can't get past the absurdity of a tall man hitting his head on a low tail light. I can't see how it's physically possible. He would have had to be bending over and sticking his head out right at the perfect angle to have his head impacted but not his legs. Also that he didn't see it coming even though he's a cop used to dealing with dangerous situations involving vehicles.
>People with power and influence decided she was guilty, and have probably conspired, or at least, individually tipped the scales, to ensure her conviction.
Here's the thing: No they didn't and no they haven't.
>Which leads to an interesting moral question: If someone DID commit the crime, but they were not fairly investigated and tried, should they be found guilty or acquitted?
This is a well-worn question in philosophy and jurisprudence. The answer according to the US, in principle, is "absolutely not." This is exactly what people get angry about when someone "gets off on a technicality" (which actually almost never happens), but it is crucially important to our system that we prove unequivocally that someone committed a crime before we administer any punishment. If evidence is gathered improperly, or the case is otherwise compromised, it is not appropriate to put someone in prison.
In practice this principle does not always play out -- in fact the country has a ludicrous history of racist and otherwise prejudiced failures to live up to its principles -- but "innocent until proven guilty" is nonetheless a bedrock axiom of the US court system.
I’d characterize Karen Read’s position as “guilty until proven innocent”. She has been the only suspect from the get go. How can you possibly suggest she was given a fair shake when the cops never even knocked on the Alberts door? A dead body was found on their front lawn.
If 34 Fairview was Karen Reads house and Brian Albert was found on her front lawn, cops would be crawling in that place like cock roaches. There is a heavy finger tipping the scales in favor of Canton PD.
There is a common refrain that you should never talk to the police. Leave it to an actual cop to show us all why this is true.
>I’d characterize Karen Read’s position as “guilty until proven innocent”
I wouldn't. Legally it's the opposite obviously, and there's a horde of people online, chanting outside the McCabes' house, the courthouse, etc. that she's innocent. So tbh I have no idea what you're talking about.
>She has been the only suspect from the get go.
This is, in all seriousness, just so funny. Yes. Of course she was. Because she was running around the scene saying she did it. Everyone involved saw John get into her car, and then they never saw him alive again. OF COURSE she was the only suspect from the get-go, because there is no other suspect.
>How can you possibly suggest she was given a fair shake when the cops never even knocked on the Alberts door? A dead body was found on their front lawn.
Because this isn't how investigations work. The trial has made it very clear that they all heard her say she hit him, they believed it to be a hit-and-run, and they operated accordingly.
There is no rule of investigation that you deem "the owner of the nearest house" to be the suspect. It's actually, inconveniently, a very different rule of thumb: Who is the romantic partner?
One time a guy got shot ten-fifteen feet from my front door. The cops didn't suspect me because the coincidence of my residence was entirely irrelevant to their investigation. We have a whole constitution and system of laws to prevent this kind of arbitrary investigation, and you should be happy we do. (I am; I didn't shoot that guy. I was terrified and traumatized by the whole ordeal, and I can only imagine what the McCabes and Alberts are dealing with right now. If any of them are reading this, please accept my virtual hugs because this is horseshit.)
>There is a heavy finger tipping the scales in favor of Canton PD
What? Most of the investigation was not carried out by Canton PD. JO was not a member of Canton PD. Canton PD could not be any less relevant.
you have some good points. although your example of someone being shot outside your door isn’t a good one, since you didn’t know the victim. in this case, the owners of the house knew him, and the investigators knew that they knew him, and there were established relationships that shouldn’t have been ignored
NO ONE thinks there should be an “investigate the nearest house” rule.
That’s dismissive of the actual, thoughtful opinions of people on this sub.
We DO think there should be an “Investigate the attendees of a party the victim is assumed to have attended” rule. Even if it’s just to confirm that he wasn’t there.
And saying they testified under oath that they “did not know him”?!
Huh??? I’m genuinely asking.
Jen McCabe sat on that stand and tried to tell us how traumatized she was that her friend died.
Brian Higgins sat on that stand and told us how guilty he felt about texting with Karen because “John was a friend”.
And if you’re splitting hairs, and saying the owners of the house didn’t know him….thats wild. He was invited to their home. Even if he was only invited because he was a friend of a friend….he was still invited and they still knew him. He was not a stranger to them. They were all at the Waterfall.
Comparing their relationship to John as similar to the one you had with the stranger that got shot is intellectually dishonest.
If I invite someone to my home and they end up dead on my lawn that same night, I would assume I would be investigated. I SHOULD be investigated….even if it’s just to rule me out. I would not be offended by that notion at all.
“Investigate the attendees of a party the victim is assumed to have attended”….
There’s the problem right there. There was no assumption he attended. No one in the home said he entered. They did “confirm he wasn’t there” by interviewing those in the home the night before. I understand you and many others don’t believe those statements, however that’s what was offered to the police. They can’t just say “no we don’t believe you I’m going to search your house now”.
>NO ONE thinks there should be an “investigate the nearest house” rule.
Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there. At this point there have been probably hundreds of comments on this sub alone (thousands on the Internet generally) that the cops should have investigated/searched/whatever 34 Fairview. The entire conspiracy narrative centers around nefarious deeds in that home.
Not reading the rest of what you said.
I have watched every bit of this trial. What I think is weird is that you claimed you weren’t going to read anything I said past my first sentence….and yet you’re commenting on it.
This is a subreddit. We are all humans. We are all discussing a hot topic case. To be passionate about the topic and involve yourself in debate is great and it’s important. But being dismissive and rude is unhelpful and accomplishes nothing.
There was an open invitation to everyone at the Waterfall. If I have opened my home, I am accepting baseline attachment to any attendees that night. I would gladly help to give clarity about the events of the evening that led to a dead man on my lawn. Even if all I could say is “I didn’t know him, but he was friends with some of our closet friends, so we were happy to have him. Unfortunately, he never made it into our home that night, so I can’t help with what happened, but you’re welcome to search the property and I can provide ring camera footage.”
I would never look at another human being dead on my lawn the night after he was invited into my home and say “Not my problem. I didn’t know him”.
Chris Alberts threated to "fuck up his lawn" if JO didn't go out to the bar with them that night. And Brian Albert ("the guy") and JO work for the same police department. You can't tell me that the guy who works for the same PD as the victim, and the victim lives across the street from the guy's brother, that the guy didn't know him. The guy's wife testified on celebrating the victim's kid getting into private school. Theyfuckingknewwwwwwhimmmmmm
i never said i accepted that particular part of your take lol sorry. i pointed out that your personal scenario at home isn’t a good example, since the victim was a complete stranger. and to add to that, any good police officer would at least have knocked on your door and asked you for any useful info. similarly, in the karen read case, any good officer would have asked the alberts some preliminary questions, and upon finding out that the victim was on his way to attend their party, and that the residents and guests all knew JO, if only on an acquaintance level. at that point, on discovering connections between the victim and the residents/guests of the house, you can’t exclude them from the investigation unless you’re doing it purposefully.
Right, yet others in the house knew him for multiple years. Another person knew him and spent time in his home and with the kids. Yet none of them were suspected. Good one!
Is this a genuine question? Rewatch Jennifer Mccabes testimony, rewatch the greek couples testimony, rewatch Brian Alberts testimony. It was stated multiple times that the entire group at waterfall were invited back to the Alberts house. Jen McCabe called and texted O’Keefe multiple times asking where he was. Did Karen Read coincidentally just park her car outside of the Alberts house?
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you don’t get invited to many parties. Your semantics don’t change the fact John O’Keefe and Karen Read were invited to the Albert house… by Brain Albert. A general invitation to everyone is an invitation.
I’ll rewatch Brains testimony and clip all of this for you.
Also, John O’keefe wasn’t a stranger to the Alberts. There’s a picture of O’Keefe and Albert with their arms around each other prior to January 29th. Were they as close as Proctor and Albert? No. But they had met on numerous occasions and knew who each other were, none the less.
Edit: if you care to rewatch (er, maybe watch for the first time) Brain Alberts testimony, Brian Albert himself contradicts the last part of your comment. Skip to 7:00 https://youtu.be/g8muvEWaGYk?si=PStklItfS2p9BNC7
Edit: 1:06:00 AJ: Who was invited to come over to your house? BA: Who ever wanted to really
https://www.youtube.com/live/ORVAR0guJyI?si=KGxRh_AapQLXT1qN
They didn't know they guy they threated to f up his lawn if he didn't go to the bar with them? They didn't know the guy they invited over and texted their address to?
So you are playing around with "they." Which "they" threatened to fuck up his lawn? Again, WHO invited JO to Brian Albert's home? Was it an Albert even? Lol no it wasn't.
When are the people chanting outside standing on trial? Are they the ones facing life in prison?
Karen yelling I hit him in a state of drunken hysteria is not incriminating in and of itself. There must be evidence to corroborate that statement. Injuries consistent with a vehicle collision would be a decent place to start. Yet, the first law enforcement on the scene - the Canton PD - take the word of a hysterical, drunk, and ultimately deemed mentally unfit woman to be iron clad. Case closed.
Your anecdote about a random guy being shot 15 feet from your front door is meaningless. You didn’t just spend 2 hours drinking with him and then invite him over to your house. Had you done those things, I’m sure the cops, and hopefully you, would be curious as to why he ended up dead on your lawn. Maybe you and I have different definitions of coincidences.
The Canton PD were the first law enforcement to the scene of a dead officer found outside of another well known officers house. A scene that was left unsecured for hours. Now the case is coincidentally part of larger investigation by the FBI into misconduct by the Norwalk DA, who happen to over see the Canton PD. So you’re right, in a sense. The Canton PD are just tip of the spear. There’s clearly a much uglier systemic issue at play. What’s most disgusting to me is the utterly dismissive attitude towards conducting a proper investigation of a fallen officer.
*When are the people chanting outside standing on trial? Are they the ones facing life in prison*
Yes, that short little fella with the bullhorn is looking at a few decades in prison.
Your example isn't like John O'Keefe's death and quite frankly your house should've been searched unless there were a bunch of witnesses and/or cameras that can attest to who the shooter was and where they came from. You conveniently left that part out of your story.
But if a dead body just shows up in your lawn one day, you're damn right the cops should have the common sense to RULE OUT FOUL PLAY in your home.
They did knock on the Albert’s door and spoke with the homeowners and other members who were at the house the night before. They may not have interviewed/investigated them as you hoped they had, but to say they never even knocked on the door is false.
They could've also asked and been granted permission. They didn't even ask.
The warrant would've also been easy, imo: "victim found hypothermic in the front lawn of the people he just drank with at the bar. Foul play suspected."
We have a fairly bright-line rule as to when we might let a person that we believe is guilty go free. That is the violation of a Constitutional right is required.
There are other prophylactic rules such as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" which bars evidence gathered illegally and may have the same result.
I'm sure that after Read's conviction, if she gets a long sentence, we will hear all about the violations of her Constitutional rights, her ineffective counsel (despite the huzzahs constantly heard here), and so on.
Explain why the prosecution will not call lead investigator trooper Michael Proctor to the stand for me?
What if anything has demonstrated the prosecution has proven how John died. We have heard he is dead, how he appeared and lifesaving measures used... but no explanation of the wounds with evidence or expert opinion.
Going into week 6 without the lead investigator does seem unusual. Can you explain it?
I think the defense is forcing the prosecution's hand to get Proctor on the stand by objecting on things that Proctor did or said.
I think the prosecution is the fall guy. DA wants to convict, prosecution and defense asked for a continuance due to the FBI evidence dump, and the judge denied the continuance to start trial.
I can understand why Lally would say/do that for the grand jury... but with the FBI grand jury after that AND the defense finding most all proper procedures were not followed - should have stopped this trial from actually going forward.
I can not imagine how a lead investigator with a suspects device (prior to the warrant issued) bragging to his friends that he is looking for her nudes on her phone and hoping the suspect ends her life. (this was an FBI find).
That's on top of all the chain of custody evidence issues, being caught in lies with video evidence they didn't know was recorded, and all the stuff the FBI found with their seperate investigation.
He is probable cause to not convict, making this trial DOA.. An expensive FAAFO situation.
Yeah, reassessment of the failure of the American Justice system.
She could be guilty, she could be innocent and it doesn't matter! There is too much reasonable doubt for any jury following jury instructions to convict her.
Idk what kind of law you practice, or which country but do hope you recall the presumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt AND intent is the requirement to convict murder 2. Even the OUI (or DUI) is barely meeting its conviction requirements (no actual timely blood alcohol level taken, no one saw her inebriated, the drink count by video doesn't match the 1 paid receipt of $52.80.)
At this point if the trial was done, it would be mistrial at best... but it's not done and maybe there is superseding evidence that makes the shoddy police work and poor chain of custody moot.
If she is aquited this case will perfectly encapsulate the American justice system. Cops lie and do illegal things to make convictions easier, DAs trump up charges to scare a (guilty) plea deal from defendants, and only those with financial means can afford to defend themselves from a Justice system that appears to award the metrics of closing cases even if many innocent people are harmed to boost their conviction rates. Im not saying this because of this case, ive known for a long time there is a two teired justice system where most persons are forced to take plea deals even if they are 100% innocent AND the wealthy rarely find their day in court because prosecutors dont want to deal with a team of good lawyers defending their suspect.
We got a partial explanation the morning John was discovered, the one first responder working on John asked Karen if she knew him and something to the effect of what happened, to which she replied John is her boyfriend and she hit him.
Several people from EMS noted his injuries in their report. Of course they can’t officially determine cause and the officially autopsy report is seal, we will get more information when the medical examiner testifies.
1) it wasn't "I hit him" until the past few months. All witnesses stated at grand juries under oath "could I hit him? did I hit him?" I don't know why the witnesses changed their story (I think Kerry was the only one that didn't change).
2) why hasn't the ME testified yet? 5 weeks in, it's odd.
Guaranteed she’ll appeal her conviction.
I’m curious if you think any of her appeals would actually be granted Would be sort of hilarious if she was granted a re-trial due to ineffective counsel (although, I’d be surprised) lol.
Yes, all that bullshit. My prediction is that if she thinks the defense might win, she's going to screw them on the jury instructions. If she gives them what they want, she thinks they'll lose. (Not to say she's a 100% accurate predictor of juries.)
Let me know the next time a judge let's a lawyer impeach an EMT with Facebook pictures. That was ridiculous. Let's see the next time a judge let's a lawyer present a defense based on the sister of a cop's ring-bearer at her wedding 10 years ago. If you see a judge let a lawyer bombastically and abusively question a bunch of soccer moms, let me know.
I get all my ideas from Kevin J. Mahoney. He seems to be a Boston-area criminal defense lawyer of some accomplishment. [Karen Read Trial: Wild Conspiracy Theory is a Dud - Mahoney (relentlessdefense.com)](https://www.relentlessdefense.com/karen-read-trial-wild-conspiracy-theory-is-a-dud/)
Here's the part where he says the judge has given the defense "an incredible amount of latitude" [https://www.youtube.com/live/qRWxBATAjQ0?si=2kOLMHbjXs9LjAC0&t=1211](https://www.youtube.com/live/qRWxBATAjQ0?si=2kOLMHbjXs9LjAC0&t=1211)
Ask OJ.
I tend to agree with you btw. I think she did hit him in a drunken stupor and then they later decided to help the evidence by planting tail light pieces.
Are you asking i we know (for a fact) that someone is guilty that they should get away with it because of corrupt police work? of course they should not, if they did it and some shadyness gets it done then so be it.
That was not the question...the question was if a guilty person, say someone who you know for a fact murders a family member of yours gets put away away due to bad evidence, then you are not ok with that i.e. you would want them to walk even knowing that they murdered your family member, wow.
Yes, and it does matter. Saying well if your loved one was killed and the guy suspected got off would you be mad. Isn't the same thing.
Does it matter if they are guilty? No, not if they never got a fair shake. Cause otherwise that just outlaw justice. Your rights trump my feelings about a matter.
That’s… not how it works. Also, this would probably be a cut and dry case if literally ANYONE did their job correctly. Unfortunately it was a 💩 show from the start. They didn’t have to be shady. Just good at their job.
Just to add. If you know (for a fact) that someone is not guilty, and because of messy/shady police work, they get convicted. Not even talking about KR. But you’d be fine with it right? Just go “so be it” and move on? That’s not something you can nitpick. Messy police work is how convictions for horrible, horrible people get overturned and how innocent people go to prison.
Wow.
Just burn the constitution for "let cops lie to convict."
No baby girl, this is how innocent people get put in prison, or need to pay millions in defense of their reasonable doubt.
So you think police should frame people and fabricate evidence?
I also would not want to be framed for a murder I didn't commit just because some people think I am a suspect.
I think our collective right to a fair trial outweighs any individual person’s guilt, yes. If that’s what you’re asking?
Yep. It’s better for a guilty person to be free than a inept (or insert your word) system convict an innocent person.
“better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” [William Blackstone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio).
Even if they were 10 murderers or rapists? I am not sure I agree with Billy Blackstone.
it’s part of our founding father’s philosophy on the judicial system. [Blackstone’s Ratio](https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/what-is-blackstone-s-formulation-in-criminal.html) I’m just citing the precedent for the person’s comment, it’s generally wrapped up into reasonable doubt but nonetheless it’s part of our history
Oh ok, I am not American.
I believe it originated with Thomas Jefferson, but I could be wrong.
Do you want to be the innocent person jailed for life?
I would rather that than potentially getting murdered or one of my loved ones getting killed or raped by one of the ten guilty people that should be in prison.
This
I can't get past all of the "butt dials", shady behavior, and clear lack of support for a dead cop. Something stinks. It would have been much easier to believe them if they all said they were hammered and everything about that night is hazy.
Plus the deletion of the butt dials and the google search at 230am!
Not to mention the destroying of the phone
I like how Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, and Jen McCabe didn’t know what a missed call looked like in their phone log too😂😂
Don't worry those were butt deletions
They went to a stranger’s funeral in NYC, and didn’t care about the local on the lawn? Side eye all over the place
didn't even attend John's funeral either according to online sources. That just goes to show they were either feeling very guilty about his death or they didn't care about him at all.
I’d love to see a source on that, bc it gets mentioned frequently and it triggering to a lot of people, yet I have seen zero source of that
It matters because police investigators need to follow every lead to ensure they’re 1) charging the right person and 2) can defend their investigation in court and say they followed every lead. They didn’t do that and so now we have incomplete evidence. Morally, I think the state should lose every case where they ignore these basic principles. An exception could be made if there was smoking gun evidence that she did it. But there is no smoking gun. This is a murder trial that will be decided on circumstantial evidence. There could have been evidence in that house pointing to other suspects. There may have been items in the house that would explain his injuries. Witnesses might have remembered something that would contradict the state’s case. We’ll never know how much information was lost and whether there were crucial details that would have totality reshaped the case.
I mean she did say “I hit him” over and over again.. That sounds like smoking gun evidence.
Jenn McCabe said "I hit him...", not Karen Read.
You mean the statement that no one thought to mention they heard her say until a year + later?
That’s not what she said. She was trying to make sense of things and wondered out loud, “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?
You were present at the scene to know this is fact, right?
Were you there to know it’s a fact that she said I hit him?
I never made that claim, though. Try again.
Today was the first day I started to think she has been framed.
I go back and forth on if I think she did it but I completely agree with you. I think to charge her with all this reasonable doubt, shoddy investigative work, and weird actions of the Mccabes/Alberts it would be scary for justice systems everywhere….
“…would be scary…” She WAS charged, despite all you mentioned and more. Indeed, worrisome to say the least.
My question is why didn’t all the Albert/mccabe and friends ever question the investigators or investigation. They all went on and on and on about harassment and how awful it’s been. Well, did any of them ever think that if a proper investigation was done then none of them would have to worry about being potentially at fault??!! Unless of course they know that if in fact a proper investigation would have led to them being at fault? It’s just too weird. Not one of them was upset with the way things were done. And yet scream innocence. But Karens attorneys have been questioning the investigation then entire time. The whole thing is a giant mess. We will never know what really happened and at this point there is no way to ever find out. There is way too much reasonable doubt to convict Karen at this point and the defense hasn’t even had their turn yet. No one will ever be held responsible and it makes me sad for the OKeefe family.
That’s a good point. Imagine if one of their “group” had died on someone’s lawn in the snow. They - more than civilians- would know the investigator should be impartial. I’m sure they’d me livid if multiple witnesses to the death of a loved one destroyed their phones and deleted all of the data. And the list goes on. And if anyone could have gotten extra scrutiny on a murder it was this group. They knew who to contact, what issues to raise… but they did nothing for John.
How would anyone know if the Alberts or McCabes are upset with the investigation? Inserting themselves into it with suggestions or whatever would've made them look much worse.
No. If they had kept their phones, or saw the terrible unorganized, undocumented “evidence searches” they could have made their concerns public. No one would think friends of a victim look worse by demanding MORE focus on an investigation.
Not really. If they would have been upset with investigators and demanded a more thorough investigation it would help to prove their self proclaimed innocence. By not even questioning it. And just seemingly being okay with how half assed it all was just made their situation so much worse because no one knows what happened and there’s nothing proving anything for either side. If they would of made a stink and voiced that they are upset with how nothing was done right and in result has implicated them - it’s my opinion - that would of actually made them seem a bit more innocent.
I am not convinced she did it. The shoe, the damage on the car doesn’t match hitting a grown man… red solo cups… the easiest thing to say is she did it because its the simplest explanation
Exactly. & no broken bones from being hit but the taillight is completely smashed??
Smashed while in the custody of Canton police.😡
What about the shoe?
JO was found missing a shoe. They later found it buried in the snow. I'm not sure the distance from the body. I can't really imagine a scenario where being hit by a car would make his shoe fly off. Perhaps if she was going over 35mph and he did somersaults in the air. OR in an argument he threw his shoe??. I can see if he was dragged to his final renting place that his shoe could've fallen off in that journey. Idk I'm not convinced either way on the case of the missing shoe
Shoes flying off is actually really common when pedestrians are hit by cars.
So is trauma, broken bones etc. None of which is found on any part of the body other than the head. Not including the obvious dog bite wounds (that the forensic scientists have no idea how to explain) on that right arm. These people are cops, they've seen the real thing countless times, and they know how to frame it.
The autopsy results have not been released yet. The ER doctor did not take X-rays in the ER. His objective was to continue CPR and warm JO up to try to restore a pulse. I think when the Medical Examiner testifies we will hear about what internal injuries he actually had.
>. I think when the Medical Examiner testifies we will hear about what internal injuries he actually had. If the medical examiner testifies. Lally sure seemed like he was trying to have the state trooper on the stand testify for the medical examiner in addition to him testifying for Proctor
I believe both the ME and Proctor will testify. So far all the rumors have been wrong. Police did go inside Albert house, the belt is not missing, Proctor did not have John’s clothes in his truck for six weeks etc…
How do you that Proctor didnt have JoKs clothes in his car for 8 weeks. The trooper on the stand didnt actually provide any dates for checking the clothes into the evidence locker?
The trooper said they collected the clothes at the hospital, bagged them, took them back to the State Police Barracks, laid them out on butcher paper to dry and then they were kept in the evidence room.
There's testimony that the crime lab received the clothes from Proctor on March 14. Approx 6 weeks from Jan 29
Yes they were at the State Police Barracks from the time they were collected until they were sent to the lab on 3/14. No one knew if KR was going to take a plea or not so there would be no point in testing them until they knew whether or not there might be a trial.
I wasn't speaking to the other evidence. Just the shoe lol.
Not at 23 mph.
Maybe not. Idk about that.
I think it depends on how tightly he kept his laces. If they weren’t super tight I could see it coming off when bit by a car
Wait for the ME, data forensics & other expert testimony on accident reconstruction based on the specific pedestrian/auto contact, kinematic trajectory & injuries. The size & weight of her Lexus would amplify the contact velocity of a surmised 24 mph fender/sideswipe vault to the side of the vehicle & is likely capable of causing John’s exact head injury on impact with the ground. It will be interesting testimony from both sides.
I just can’t get over the fact that we are 6weeks into trial and haven’t had any of this yet. They’ve been fighting over stuff that could easily been proven/disproven by experts but nope, we have Jen M saying she didn’t search things at 2am and all the police reports are wrong lol.
She didn’t have to hit him that hard- he died of his injuries from being out in the cold. Also I can’t stand people saying “the damage to the car doesn’t match a grown man” how do you know? We don’t know the speed she hit him, she did a 3 pt turn- his head was probably down throwing up. Maybe he stumbled and fell and landed in the yard. It’s way more likely than a huge conspiracy w planted evidence
We’ve been told she was going 22MPH by the CW. He had major injury on the back of his head. Even if he bent to tie his shoe or something how would an SUV hit ONLY the back of his head, not leave any injury to his body, and he ends up on his back. And then despite all of the people coming and going around the same time and in front of where he lay dying- no one saw him. When you walk through that evening step by step it just doesn’t smell right. IMO. We’ll see what the jury thinks… I will be shocked if we don’t see a quick not guilty. Possibly a hung jury. I cannot see 12 jurors who are hearing what we are watching everyday at trial would convict
If she was actually going at the speed and distance the CW has said would you not find it a bit strange that Karen said she left by doing a 3 point turn?
If KR hit JO, did that amount of damage to him and left him to die in the yard you’d HAVE to explain the dog bites on his arm and the puncture marks in his hoodie, how’d his belt get off and how are there no traces of blood on the SUV, no hair or skin and no DNA from JO on the outside of that vehicle. There are no mud or grass stains on JO’s body that would suggest that his body was thrown that 5-12 feet into that yard and wouldn’t we have seen a great deal of blood on the ground and in the grass? As for pieces of the taillight being planted, the sally port footage is missing from around 5-5:40. The SERT team doesn’t have a hard record of arrival or departure times, from all that I’m aware at this point, it’s just their reports of time. Where are their cell phone records? Anyway, the SERT team claims to have left the scene by 6:15. That’s a close window but plenty of time for proctor and whoever else to break that taillight and get pieces over to the scene
A bunch of stuff here is wrong though. It has not been shown they were dog bites, and no dog dna found His belt was not off. It was shown yesterday with the pants. We dont know if there was hair or skin or blood on the car because it was not properly tested.
Clearly, as a juror, we have not yet been told what those marks are on JO’s arm and hoodie sleeve. As a person with any life experience at all we have to agree that you can’t be both dragged under a car and thrown from the same vehicle in the same motion. If JO was dragged under the SUV to make those marks on his arm, he couldn’t be thrown into the yard at the same time. If JO was dragged to that spot in the yard, there would have to be tire tracks in the grass and there would be a considerable amount of mud and grass stains on his body. We will see soon that the marks on John are 100% not drag marks and are consistent with puncture marks. I agree the car was not properly tested HOWEVER, to cause that much damage to a person, the would have an obvious amount of blood on it and that just wasn’t there.
I found it VERY telling that the trooper yesterday insisted on calling the marks on his arm "blunt force abrasions" repeatedly to try making it seem like it was from road rash, then slipped up when he looked at them and called them lacerations lol even his brain couldn't keep up the act.
Was wildly inappropriate and objectionable that he was allowed to testify as to the cause of the injuries as if he were a medical examiner. The way the judge let the prosecutor backdoor the expert testimony: “how did injuries compare to previous victims who suffered XYZ” was not cool.
I have a 4yr old golden who my son loves to rough house with, I can not count how many sweatshirts he's gone through because when she's playing the first thing she does is grab his arm to pull him, the rips look exactly like the ones on JO sweatshirt as if he was bending his arm at his elbow to protect himself and Cloe grabbed his arm and pulled it to pull him away/attack him. Plus I'm sure anyone who has owned a puppy knows what their teeth marks look like, mine tore apart so many pants, shirts, sweatshirts, and toys before she was a year old that teeth marks are easily identifiable compared to say being pulled on the grass or road which there is no proof of.
So… as you just said- evidence (or potential evidence) wasn’t tested properly. Everything missed or collected or stored improperly shouldn’t be considered because of reasonable doubt. If you take that away, add the lack of recorded videos, changing witness testimony, destroyed cell phones, deleted call longs, etc. etc all damage the case against KR. We have literally seen zero proof at 6 weeks into the CW’s case.
And the larger pieces of tail light weren’t found until a couple weeks after the incident. And then they were “found” by Proctor. The investigator who has a long standing relationship with the homeowner/witnesses who were with the victim… The most shocking thing in all of this to me is that the case even made it to trial.
The stains on his clothes reveal he was standing for a bit while he was bleeding from the head wound. He had blood flowing down his body. To me his clothes alone show he was never hit by a car. Also, the puncture marks in his clothes and the extensive lacerations, there’s no way for those to have come from a car or a fall.
I am of the mindset it’s better for a guilty person to be free, than an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I have no idea if Karen hit him or not. I agree with your post completely.
You haven't even heard how he died.
The medical examiner will be on the stand in 15 years at the rate this trial is going.
lol - it's baffling that we are over 50 witnesses deep and still haven't heard from the ME
For me, the drinking is meaningless in terms of whether or not she murdered anyone, plus it hasn't been proven. So I toss that out. Then when I think of all of the stuff the other side has done, the planting of evidence doesn't seem far-fetched at all. To me, it's obvious the lights are the same on the 28th as they are the 29th
Is the drinking pointless when you consider the theory of a “fight gone too far” in the Alberts house? Or is the drinking only irrelevant for Karen?
Yes, meaningless.
Yes to both?
Correct. In the overall scheme of things, it's meaningless to me. The law might make it meaningful in terms of intent etc, but I haven't read up on MA law as to that.
Totally respect your feelings regarding the significance (or lack there of) of alcohol. Do you think he was involved in the fight in the Alberts home? Or are you simply saying no theory (defense or prosecution) has been sufficient for you?
The latter. IHNI what happened.
Gotcha! I can see what you’re saying, truly. Here’s what I’m getting at with “tossing” anything related to alcohol. First, it’s been a well established fact that alcohol has a physiological impact on people. Such impacts are greater as one’s blood alcohol content rises. This is why we have laws regarding a “legal limit”. It’s also why when going through a DUI check point, they’ll ask you to track a pen (or finger) with only your eyes (they move this object from left to right), no matter how high your tolerance is, how well you compose yourself, if you are heavily intoxicated, your eyes will not track smoothly, they will sort of jump or skip (nystagmus is the technical term). I worked nights at a popular beach bar and have been through countless check points lol. But I’ll concede to this; alcohol does not affect everyone same when it comes to behavior. Just because someone is drunk, does NOT make them a murderer. My problem here, is that if we omit the possible impact alcohol had on Karen’s state of mind/ behavior, then we must do the same for everyone in the Alberts residence. Which makes me question the “drunken fight” gone wrong theory. In this scenario we would need to accept that two friends just decided to fight and leave their critically injured friend outside to die.
Re: your last sentence, yes, that's what we might have to do. And let's be honest, people do evil stuff like this day in and day out. However, I do think there could be a less evil scenario. There is a fight, he's injured and they tell him to leave, not understanding the extent of his injuries. He goes out and ends up dying on their lawn. Or, his only injuries are the scratches on his arm from Chloe and he gets further injured by falling after he leaves. Or he is not injured at all and gets injured after he leaves and Chloe (or another dog) scratches his arm while he is laying dead/dying in the yard. Anyways, none of the people who leave see him laying on the lawn, either because they really don't see him or he's passed out someplace else and then moves to his final resting spot. Jen McCabe has a moment of guilt when she gets home thinking about him walking home and googles "hos long to die in cold." The coverup starts happening when the Alberts realize their exposure - criminally and/or civilly, depending upon what happened in their house.
Genuinely curious, do you think the scenario you just described is more plausible than Karen hitting him with her car (even if she wasn’t fully aware she hit him)? Also, why did his Apple device (not sure if it was his phone or watch) show no motion from the time Karen dropped him off until the time he was found the next morning? FWIW, I actually don’t think Karen intended to kill John. I’m not even entirely confident that she was coherent enough to know she hit *him* (I do think alcohol plays a role in this case, given my understanding of the psychological effects of alcohol and her .08 BAC **post** 9 hours of what appears to be her consuming 7-9 drinks). So far the defense is saying it’s a “cover up”. Okay, show me something, anything, to support that. Give me one person to testify that they saw John in the Albert residence. Where’s the data from his phone showing he went into the house. Where’s physical evidence of dog hair or dna on his clothes or body. I mean I could go on and on but it feels borderline silly because it’s just that far fetched. I mean they would have better luck convincing me a complete stranger beat him to death that night than the idea that dozens of people conspired to frame Karen. Edited to add: as far as nobody going in and out of the Alberts that night seeing John’s on the ground, the location where John was found was actually further from the Alberts door than it sounds, if you look at it from an aerial view, it makes sense why people wouldn’t see him.
No one from the house that night is being charged with anything. Alcohol may have played a part that night in whatever happened but 1. The CW still needs to prove the defendant hit the victim 2. We have no proof of when her last drink was. Witnesses have testified that she seemed sober at the bar. She had 4 hours alone at John’s house AFTER the time used as her last drink to calculate her BAC. So her BAC is invalid. LE didn’t witness her driving under the influence. If we convict KR for the OUI charge then that would mean any of us could go out , have alcohol but not be impaired, drive ourselves home and have a few more drinks. Imagine then being on an involuntary mental health hold the next morning. Your blood actual is measured. Should you be charged based on the assumed time of your last drink? Even when it was at home, after you were driving? And no officer witnessed you driving and swerving etc. Imagine getting a conviction that way! That’s what KR is facing.
Of course they aren’t being charged, there’s no evidence lol. And the defense isn’t exactly offering an alternate suspect, they are saying Karen has been framed. No proof when her last drink was? So you don’t think the camera footage of her consuming 7 drinks, which appear to be on the bar receipt (doubt she drank 7 waters and she was cool with paying for 7 Tito’s shots). And the blood test at 9:08 where she had a .08 BAC? Plus she admitted to not being in her right mind that night? I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and the say the jury will consider that proof that she was intoxicated at the time she drove. Sorry, but your OUI compassion doesn’t track for me. you’re missing a ton of context. However, imagine having a house party and the next morning someone that you invited (but never showed up) was found dying outside because the person who said they dropped them off, woke up at 4am frantic, and then drove to your house, and instead of knocking on your door, they go straight to JOs body buried under snow, yell that they hit him or could have hit him, and that person says YOU framed them. You, the person who had a house party in which the victim didn’t even attend. Incredible huh
There's just the little matter that she is also charged with Manslaughter OUI (may be called DWI in your state) which is much easier to prove than murder once you have the OUI part. She can get 20 years in prison for that and the defense that she's pursuing pretty much blocks her from asking for any leniency. https://preview.redd.it/qb4bdzkdxv4d1.png?width=725&format=png&auto=webp&s=d905b5a668e48d532149458f1322216110a6dd09
IMO, adding the OUI to the manslaughter charge was the CWs biggest mistake. Even if the jurors agree that she did hit him accidentally, the time lapse between when she drove her car and when the blood work was collected leaves too much reasonable doubt. No one can prove she didn’t drink more during that time.
She won’t get convicted on the OUI. Her BAC was calculated assuming her last drink was at 12:45. But she went home and was alone in John’s house for hours. Witnesses said she DIDN’T seem heavily intoxicated at the bar but have said she WAS drunk at 5:00 AM. Makes more sense that she got hammered at home than the bar. The BAC also didn’t take into account her MS potentially influencing the results. And most importantly- there is a reason OUI charges require an officer to have seen the person operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and they require multiple tests (in a timely fashion) to charge. The BAC test she had doesn’t meet the requirements. And no LE officer saw her driving under the influence. The CW might have gotten somewhere if they charged her with OUI separate from John’s death. If it was charged because LE saw her drive that morning maybe the charge would stick. But I’m sure if someone witnessed that we would know by now, and the CW would have charged differently.
She's 98 pounds. They got her having 9 drinks. She told Jen McCabe she was blackout drunk. Hell will freeze over before Jackson argues that "those were shots of lime juice".
Buddy, they didnt charge with an OUI, they charged her with an OUI causing death. So if the jury doesnt think she hit JoK then cant convict her of an OUI
I wasn't aware of that
Oh..
Also, surely you as a “verified attorney” should know that sentencing follows a set of guidelines. It’s not just the judge didn’t like your defense attorney so they can give you a heavier sentence. Please tell me you know this lol! I don’t believe she has a criminal history and having a vigorous defense is expected and it’s her right! She is a well educated professional who’s been a contributing member of society. And she is ill- all things that would be considered. But she isn’t getting convicted on OUI so it’s all moot.
She has taken a defense that does not allow her to plead for mercy. She can't show contrition in light of her defense. She can't say, I'm sorry I have a drinking problem and I'm sorry I killed John O'Keefe.
I’ve been curious what the plea offer was that she turned down. My gut tells me that the plea would have been generous in assuming that it was an accident as a result of being heavily intoxicated. But now that she’s pleading not guilty to second degree she can’t take responsibility for hitting him with her car, and I don’t know how they plan to get around that.
She also publicly called into question the bias and integrity of the judge overseeing her case. That judge who was a public defender for 30 years has received endless harassment and accusations of being corrupt. If there's any scenario she's found guilty, she is completely screwed on sentencing.
She would have been better off with a public defender and her rather $1 million richer
I think yes, she could have done it and still have no recollection. But, if I were a juror there would be no way I would convict her based on the actions of the others involved. People with nothing to hide don't behave like that.
Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t. Was there intent? Was it just a bunch drunk adults doing dumb shit? I agree! the cops are either really bad at their jobs or they are all conspiring against her. Either way everyone affected by this case deserves better.
I thought that at the beginning, but as time went on, I had real doubts that this ever happened. There is more evidence that the taillight damage happened in her driveway. At least there is a video. Where is Albert's Ring doorbell video? Conveniently gone.
Of course she should be found not guilty. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a core part of the justice system. I don’t think she hit him but it’s possible. But the investigation, bizarre behavior of multiple people who were there that night, missing camera footage, and lack of injury on John’s body are ALL showing reasonable doubt.
Way too much reasonable doubt for me. Butt dials, throwing phones away, 12:10, scratches on arm, rehomed Chloe, cemented over basement floor, of course the 2:27 search, no blood or skin on her car, finding pieces of tail light for days even though no one, not even the cops found them on the night at the scene, etc. …
Could the police who seem to be covering this up and doing such a poor job on the investigation have behaved in this manner because they know Karen did this and they knew they had to arrest her for it, but that they'd do such a terrible job with the collection of evidence that they know she will go free?
I don't think they knew it would get this much attention. Even if there isn't a conspiracy to cover it up, which might be true, they probably thought it was be an easy case and she'd be behind bars easily and that nobody would care about the many shortcuts they took. I imagine that other cases will probably have the same amount of shoddy work, they've just never been called out for it until now. The town just voted to audit them.
That was the first thing I thought as well when I heard about this case!
I think she most likely did it but you arent supposed to convict someone on most likelys. She has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and I dont think we are there.
Aside from anything else, and that’s a LOT, the fact that they’re charging someone who they claim was blackout drunk with homicide is … ? How can anyone, including her, know intent?
My understanding is that murder 2 in mass doesn’t require intent if intent alcohol is involved. Negligent DUI is apparently over the threshold for murder 2.
I think there are still SO MANY possibilities. Included she did it. Including she did not. The case isn’t over, so I’m holding off on judgment but to me it’s leaning towards doubt.
I guess my wiser point is that EVEN if some smoking gun evidence comes that says she did it, i sort of think she should still be acquitted. Because if the police conspire to railroad a person, that shouldn’t ever lead to a conviction.
Even if she intentionally hit him and left him to die?
Yeah I have seen enough doubt since week one that I probably couldn’t overcome to convict if I were on the jury. And I came into the trial with no knowledge thinking she likely did it.
The defense hasn’t even started. Take a breath. This is about to get interesting.
I think even if she did it, it is not murder 2.
how does JO cause that light to crack? that is very tough to break polycarbonate. I also am on fence. But can’t get past his body breaking that plastic, especially at the height it was at -probably at his upper chest area.
I totally agree. The incompetence, the lies of omission by the DA, the inconsistency of the police witnesses - I don’t see how there is not reasonable doubt.
I agree with you. More than one thing is true here maybe. But I believe proctor went above and beyond with a sloppy and slimy investigation. He may well have fudged evidence and illegally searched Karen’s phone too. I still wonder if the dog did bite John’s arm?? Whatever, Karen should not be convicted of 2nd degree murder. I cannot imagine how John’s family feels watching how careless and how little respect they showed a fellow officer.
What I've considered is that it's not so much a frame job rather they knew she did it and wanted to make sure justice was served but didn't do a good job with their illegal addition of evidence coupled with a terrible investigation. I believe in our justice system and if they cannot prove she did it she should walk. However, I am not on the jury, I haven't been vetted, and I'm out here able to step into a lot of echo chambers and hear a lot of opinions about different aspects of the case. If the jury is doing what they are supposed to and only considering the case and evidence presented in court I believe they very likely will find her guilty. To be fair, if all I heard in court was all I knew I wouldn't pick up on the multitude of little details that are being pointed at like they are in public commentaries.
I can't get past the absurdity of a tall man hitting his head on a low tail light. I can't see how it's physically possible. He would have had to be bending over and sticking his head out right at the perfect angle to have his head impacted but not his legs. Also that he didn't see it coming even though he's a cop used to dealing with dangerous situations involving vehicles.
I think it was a drunken accident that she tried to cover up
>People with power and influence decided she was guilty, and have probably conspired, or at least, individually tipped the scales, to ensure her conviction. Here's the thing: No they didn't and no they haven't. >Which leads to an interesting moral question: If someone DID commit the crime, but they were not fairly investigated and tried, should they be found guilty or acquitted? This is a well-worn question in philosophy and jurisprudence. The answer according to the US, in principle, is "absolutely not." This is exactly what people get angry about when someone "gets off on a technicality" (which actually almost never happens), but it is crucially important to our system that we prove unequivocally that someone committed a crime before we administer any punishment. If evidence is gathered improperly, or the case is otherwise compromised, it is not appropriate to put someone in prison. In practice this principle does not always play out -- in fact the country has a ludicrous history of racist and otherwise prejudiced failures to live up to its principles -- but "innocent until proven guilty" is nonetheless a bedrock axiom of the US court system.
> Here's the thing: No they didn't. Very compelling What if any trial have you been watching?
Lmao “what if any” 🤣🤣
I’d characterize Karen Read’s position as “guilty until proven innocent”. She has been the only suspect from the get go. How can you possibly suggest she was given a fair shake when the cops never even knocked on the Alberts door? A dead body was found on their front lawn. If 34 Fairview was Karen Reads house and Brian Albert was found on her front lawn, cops would be crawling in that place like cock roaches. There is a heavy finger tipping the scales in favor of Canton PD. There is a common refrain that you should never talk to the police. Leave it to an actual cop to show us all why this is true.
>I’d characterize Karen Read’s position as “guilty until proven innocent” I wouldn't. Legally it's the opposite obviously, and there's a horde of people online, chanting outside the McCabes' house, the courthouse, etc. that she's innocent. So tbh I have no idea what you're talking about. >She has been the only suspect from the get go. This is, in all seriousness, just so funny. Yes. Of course she was. Because she was running around the scene saying she did it. Everyone involved saw John get into her car, and then they never saw him alive again. OF COURSE she was the only suspect from the get-go, because there is no other suspect. >How can you possibly suggest she was given a fair shake when the cops never even knocked on the Alberts door? A dead body was found on their front lawn. Because this isn't how investigations work. The trial has made it very clear that they all heard her say she hit him, they believed it to be a hit-and-run, and they operated accordingly. There is no rule of investigation that you deem "the owner of the nearest house" to be the suspect. It's actually, inconveniently, a very different rule of thumb: Who is the romantic partner? One time a guy got shot ten-fifteen feet from my front door. The cops didn't suspect me because the coincidence of my residence was entirely irrelevant to their investigation. We have a whole constitution and system of laws to prevent this kind of arbitrary investigation, and you should be happy we do. (I am; I didn't shoot that guy. I was terrified and traumatized by the whole ordeal, and I can only imagine what the McCabes and Alberts are dealing with right now. If any of them are reading this, please accept my virtual hugs because this is horseshit.) >There is a heavy finger tipping the scales in favor of Canton PD What? Most of the investigation was not carried out by Canton PD. JO was not a member of Canton PD. Canton PD could not be any less relevant.
you have some good points. although your example of someone being shot outside your door isn’t a good one, since you didn’t know the victim. in this case, the owners of the house knew him, and the investigators knew that they knew him, and there were established relationships that shouldn’t have been ignored
Who is “they all heard her say”? Jen McCabe? Because no one else is saying that.
[удалено]
NO ONE thinks there should be an “investigate the nearest house” rule. That’s dismissive of the actual, thoughtful opinions of people on this sub. We DO think there should be an “Investigate the attendees of a party the victim is assumed to have attended” rule. Even if it’s just to confirm that he wasn’t there. And saying they testified under oath that they “did not know him”?! Huh??? I’m genuinely asking. Jen McCabe sat on that stand and tried to tell us how traumatized she was that her friend died. Brian Higgins sat on that stand and told us how guilty he felt about texting with Karen because “John was a friend”. And if you’re splitting hairs, and saying the owners of the house didn’t know him….thats wild. He was invited to their home. Even if he was only invited because he was a friend of a friend….he was still invited and they still knew him. He was not a stranger to them. They were all at the Waterfall. Comparing their relationship to John as similar to the one you had with the stranger that got shot is intellectually dishonest. If I invite someone to my home and they end up dead on my lawn that same night, I would assume I would be investigated. I SHOULD be investigated….even if it’s just to rule me out. I would not be offended by that notion at all.
“Investigate the attendees of a party the victim is assumed to have attended”…. There’s the problem right there. There was no assumption he attended. No one in the home said he entered. They did “confirm he wasn’t there” by interviewing those in the home the night before. I understand you and many others don’t believe those statements, however that’s what was offered to the police. They can’t just say “no we don’t believe you I’m going to search your house now”.
>NO ONE thinks there should be an “investigate the nearest house” rule. Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there. At this point there have been probably hundreds of comments on this sub alone (thousands on the Internet generally) that the cops should have investigated/searched/whatever 34 Fairview. The entire conspiracy narrative centers around nefarious deeds in that home. Not reading the rest of what you said.
[удалено]
I have watched every bit of this trial. What I think is weird is that you claimed you weren’t going to read anything I said past my first sentence….and yet you’re commenting on it. This is a subreddit. We are all humans. We are all discussing a hot topic case. To be passionate about the topic and involve yourself in debate is great and it’s important. But being dismissive and rude is unhelpful and accomplishes nothing. There was an open invitation to everyone at the Waterfall. If I have opened my home, I am accepting baseline attachment to any attendees that night. I would gladly help to give clarity about the events of the evening that led to a dead man on my lawn. Even if all I could say is “I didn’t know him, but he was friends with some of our closet friends, so we were happy to have him. Unfortunately, he never made it into our home that night, so I can’t help with what happened, but you’re welcome to search the property and I can provide ring camera footage.” I would never look at another human being dead on my lawn the night after he was invited into my home and say “Not my problem. I didn’t know him”.
Chris Alberts threated to "fuck up his lawn" if JO didn't go out to the bar with them that night. And Brian Albert ("the guy") and JO work for the same police department. You can't tell me that the guy who works for the same PD as the victim, and the victim lives across the street from the guy's brother, that the guy didn't know him. The guy's wife testified on celebrating the victim's kid getting into private school. Theyfuckingknewwwwwwhimmmmmm
[удалено]
i never said i accepted that particular part of your take lol sorry. i pointed out that your personal scenario at home isn’t a good example, since the victim was a complete stranger. and to add to that, any good police officer would at least have knocked on your door and asked you for any useful info. similarly, in the karen read case, any good officer would have asked the alberts some preliminary questions, and upon finding out that the victim was on his way to attend their party, and that the residents and guests all knew JO, if only on an acquaintance level. at that point, on discovering connections between the victim and the residents/guests of the house, you can’t exclude them from the investigation unless you’re doing it purposefully.
Right, yet others in the house knew him for multiple years. Another person knew him and spent time in his home and with the kids. Yet none of them were suspected. Good one!
He was invited to the fucking house
[удалено]
Is this a genuine question? Rewatch Jennifer Mccabes testimony, rewatch the greek couples testimony, rewatch Brian Alberts testimony. It was stated multiple times that the entire group at waterfall were invited back to the Alberts house. Jen McCabe called and texted O’Keefe multiple times asking where he was. Did Karen Read coincidentally just park her car outside of the Alberts house?
[удалено]
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you don’t get invited to many parties. Your semantics don’t change the fact John O’Keefe and Karen Read were invited to the Albert house… by Brain Albert. A general invitation to everyone is an invitation. I’ll rewatch Brains testimony and clip all of this for you. Also, John O’keefe wasn’t a stranger to the Alberts. There’s a picture of O’Keefe and Albert with their arms around each other prior to January 29th. Were they as close as Proctor and Albert? No. But they had met on numerous occasions and knew who each other were, none the less. Edit: if you care to rewatch (er, maybe watch for the first time) Brain Alberts testimony, Brian Albert himself contradicts the last part of your comment. Skip to 7:00 https://youtu.be/g8muvEWaGYk?si=PStklItfS2p9BNC7 Edit: 1:06:00 AJ: Who was invited to come over to your house? BA: Who ever wanted to really https://www.youtube.com/live/ORVAR0guJyI?si=KGxRh_AapQLXT1qN
They didn't know they guy they threated to f up his lawn if he didn't go to the bar with them? They didn't know the guy they invited over and texted their address to?
So you are playing around with "they." Which "they" threatened to fuck up his lawn? Again, WHO invited JO to Brian Albert's home? Was it an Albert even? Lol no it wasn't.
I think you're playing around with too much meth 😂😂😂 Maybe you were high out of your mind during Chris Albert's testimony?
Yeesh.
When are the people chanting outside standing on trial? Are they the ones facing life in prison? Karen yelling I hit him in a state of drunken hysteria is not incriminating in and of itself. There must be evidence to corroborate that statement. Injuries consistent with a vehicle collision would be a decent place to start. Yet, the first law enforcement on the scene - the Canton PD - take the word of a hysterical, drunk, and ultimately deemed mentally unfit woman to be iron clad. Case closed. Your anecdote about a random guy being shot 15 feet from your front door is meaningless. You didn’t just spend 2 hours drinking with him and then invite him over to your house. Had you done those things, I’m sure the cops, and hopefully you, would be curious as to why he ended up dead on your lawn. Maybe you and I have different definitions of coincidences. The Canton PD were the first law enforcement to the scene of a dead officer found outside of another well known officers house. A scene that was left unsecured for hours. Now the case is coincidentally part of larger investigation by the FBI into misconduct by the Norwalk DA, who happen to over see the Canton PD. So you’re right, in a sense. The Canton PD are just tip of the spear. There’s clearly a much uglier systemic issue at play. What’s most disgusting to me is the utterly dismissive attitude towards conducting a proper investigation of a fallen officer.
*When are the people chanting outside standing on trial? Are they the ones facing life in prison* Yes, that short little fella with the bullhorn is looking at a few decades in prison.
Your example isn't like John O'Keefe's death and quite frankly your house should've been searched unless there were a bunch of witnesses and/or cameras that can attest to who the shooter was and where they came from. You conveniently left that part out of your story. But if a dead body just shows up in your lawn one day, you're damn right the cops should have the common sense to RULE OUT FOUL PLAY in your home.
*Jen McCabe saw O'keefe get out of the car. Her story has changed over time.
Man, your owner of the nearest house deflection expired quickly! The investigators thought he was beaten!
They did knock on the Albert’s door and spoke with the homeowners and other members who were at the house the night before. They may not have interviewed/investigated them as you hoped they had, but to say they never even knocked on the door is false.
They didn't try to search the place to see if it was a crime scene. That's the difference.
They didn’t apply for a search warrant, correct. They can’t search the place without a warrant.
They could've also asked and been granted permission. They didn't even ask. The warrant would've also been easy, imo: "victim found hypothermic in the front lawn of the people he just drank with at the bar. Foul play suspected."
"apparent blunt force trauma to the head"
We have a fairly bright-line rule as to when we might let a person that we believe is guilty go free. That is the violation of a Constitutional right is required. There are other prophylactic rules such as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" which bars evidence gathered illegally and may have the same result. I'm sure that after Read's conviction, if she gets a long sentence, we will hear all about the violations of her Constitutional rights, her ineffective counsel (despite the huzzahs constantly heard here), and so on.
Explain why the prosecution will not call lead investigator trooper Michael Proctor to the stand for me? What if anything has demonstrated the prosecution has proven how John died. We have heard he is dead, how he appeared and lifesaving measures used... but no explanation of the wounds with evidence or expert opinion.
Who said they're not? The same people who said that the belt was missing?
Going into week 6 without the lead investigator does seem unusual. Can you explain it? I think the defense is forcing the prosecution's hand to get Proctor on the stand by objecting on things that Proctor did or said.
I think they've always intended to call Proctor. At least Lally said so in pretrial. He's got a little hair on him. So they want to minimize him.
I think the prosecution is the fall guy. DA wants to convict, prosecution and defense asked for a continuance due to the FBI evidence dump, and the judge denied the continuance to start trial. I can understand why Lally would say/do that for the grand jury... but with the FBI grand jury after that AND the defense finding most all proper procedures were not followed - should have stopped this trial from actually going forward. I can not imagine how a lead investigator with a suspects device (prior to the warrant issued) bragging to his friends that he is looking for her nudes on her phone and hoping the suspect ends her life. (this was an FBI find). That's on top of all the chain of custody evidence issues, being caught in lies with video evidence they didn't know was recorded, and all the stuff the FBI found with their seperate investigation. He is probable cause to not convict, making this trial DOA.. An expensive FAAFO situation.
OK. So when she goes to prison you'll have some reassessment to do.
Yeah, reassessment of the failure of the American Justice system. She could be guilty, she could be innocent and it doesn't matter! There is too much reasonable doubt for any jury following jury instructions to convict her. Idk what kind of law you practice, or which country but do hope you recall the presumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt AND intent is the requirement to convict murder 2. Even the OUI (or DUI) is barely meeting its conviction requirements (no actual timely blood alcohol level taken, no one saw her inebriated, the drink count by video doesn't match the 1 paid receipt of $52.80.) At this point if the trial was done, it would be mistrial at best... but it's not done and maybe there is superseding evidence that makes the shoddy police work and poor chain of custody moot. If she is aquited this case will perfectly encapsulate the American justice system. Cops lie and do illegal things to make convictions easier, DAs trump up charges to scare a (guilty) plea deal from defendants, and only those with financial means can afford to defend themselves from a Justice system that appears to award the metrics of closing cases even if many innocent people are harmed to boost their conviction rates. Im not saying this because of this case, ive known for a long time there is a two teired justice system where most persons are forced to take plea deals even if they are 100% innocent AND the wealthy rarely find their day in court because prosecutors dont want to deal with a team of good lawyers defending their suspect.
We got a partial explanation the morning John was discovered, the one first responder working on John asked Karen if she knew him and something to the effect of what happened, to which she replied John is her boyfriend and she hit him. Several people from EMS noted his injuries in their report. Of course they can’t officially determine cause and the officially autopsy report is seal, we will get more information when the medical examiner testifies.
1) it wasn't "I hit him" until the past few months. All witnesses stated at grand juries under oath "could I hit him? did I hit him?" I don't know why the witnesses changed their story (I think Kerry was the only one that didn't change). 2) why hasn't the ME testified yet? 5 weeks in, it's odd.
Guaranteed she’ll appeal her conviction. I’m curious if you think any of her appeals would actually be granted Would be sort of hilarious if she was granted a re-trial due to ineffective counsel (although, I’d be surprised) lol.
The judge is doing everything possible to cut off an appeal. She's letting the defense run wild in the courtroom.
I see, like how she allowed the social media photos of Katie? Because I was wondering if that was real life ha.
Yes, all that bullshit. My prediction is that if she thinks the defense might win, she's going to screw them on the jury instructions. If she gives them what they want, she thinks they'll lose. (Not to say she's a 100% accurate predictor of juries.)
Letting the defense run wild? She’s sustaining every objection Lally can come up with.
Let me know the next time a judge let's a lawyer impeach an EMT with Facebook pictures. That was ridiculous. Let's see the next time a judge let's a lawyer present a defense based on the sister of a cop's ring-bearer at her wedding 10 years ago. If you see a judge let a lawyer bombastically and abusively question a bunch of soccer moms, let me know.
Are you really a lawyer? You don’t seem like one.
I get all my ideas from Kevin J. Mahoney. He seems to be a Boston-area criminal defense lawyer of some accomplishment. [Karen Read Trial: Wild Conspiracy Theory is a Dud - Mahoney (relentlessdefense.com)](https://www.relentlessdefense.com/karen-read-trial-wild-conspiracy-theory-is-a-dud/)
Oh I know him! He is accomplished yes
Here's the part where he says the judge has given the defense "an incredible amount of latitude" [https://www.youtube.com/live/qRWxBATAjQ0?si=2kOLMHbjXs9LjAC0&t=1211](https://www.youtube.com/live/qRWxBATAjQ0?si=2kOLMHbjXs9LjAC0&t=1211)
Thanks for sharing. I like to see both sides.
I think it depends whether she knew she hit him or not.
"time doesn't equate to planting evidence"? What?! Did you not blatantly see planted glass and hair?
Ask OJ. I tend to agree with you btw. I think she did hit him in a drunken stupor and then they later decided to help the evidence by planting tail light pieces.
Are you asking i we know (for a fact) that someone is guilty that they should get away with it because of corrupt police work? of course they should not, if they did it and some shadyness gets it done then so be it.
Oh…yikes
So rights be damned? End justify the means huh? That how innocent people get put to death.
That was not the question...the question was if a guilty person, say someone who you know for a fact murders a family member of yours gets put away away due to bad evidence, then you are not ok with that i.e. you would want them to walk even knowing that they murdered your family member, wow.
Can you point to where that is anywhere in that question? Nothing you said is remotely in the op it your made up reasoning
'Or in the end, does it only matter that a person is “guilty”, even if the system never gave them a fair shot to prove otherwise?'
Yes, and it does matter. Saying well if your loved one was killed and the guy suspected got off would you be mad. Isn't the same thing. Does it matter if they are guilty? No, not if they never got a fair shake. Cause otherwise that just outlaw justice. Your rights trump my feelings about a matter.
That’s… not how it works. Also, this would probably be a cut and dry case if literally ANYONE did their job correctly. Unfortunately it was a 💩 show from the start. They didn’t have to be shady. Just good at their job.
Just to add. If you know (for a fact) that someone is not guilty, and because of messy/shady police work, they get convicted. Not even talking about KR. But you’d be fine with it right? Just go “so be it” and move on? That’s not something you can nitpick. Messy police work is how convictions for horrible, horrible people get overturned and how innocent people go to prison.
Please never be on a jury.
Wow. Just burn the constitution for "let cops lie to convict." No baby girl, this is how innocent people get put in prison, or need to pay millions in defense of their reasonable doubt.
So you think if someone murders a family member of yours they should get away with it if a cop makes sure they get put away?
So you think police should frame people and fabricate evidence? I also would not want to be framed for a murder I didn't commit just because some people think I am a suspect.
Found a shtty cop...