Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *MISTRIAL*

1691951367971.png

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
The P read all the emails out loud. I had heard of one and I thought that part was done when I left but apparently not.

Also the D flat out said they did NOT pay these experts. But they did.

Scott says options would be to pull her attorney off and send him packing back to CA. To deny the experts. Or to sanction the attorney. He thinks for reasons that will play into the first two things, it will end up being the third, his guess. Too bad as more is deserved, but the first two would definitely affect trial, that's for sure. I think the experts should be pulled imo. They were hired, paid guns and even told WHAT to say.

Oh Scott has the CLIP from the TRIAL showing her attorney asking the expert if he was paid and the expert says you haven't paid us anything. [Watch them claim that at that point he hadn't been paid yet...] And then Jackson asks him, again this is at trial, and "you don't work for us"? And the expert says that's correct. He also says I've never asked you specific questions before today... Expert says that's correct.

Oh boy, it's all totally proven otherwise.

Well that covers Scott. It's about 1:48 to 9:42 so just about 8 minutes with all this info in the show I linked.

Finished, just sharing the info. I'm definitely watching the six p.m. show. He covers a few in his lives or anything the subscribes want to talk of, but I think it will end up centering on this.
 
So the D attorney is bent basically? OMG will he have to go or what? Does this mean a possible delay? What a F up.

Oh i see you cover what could happen. What a tool her D must be. He had to know that was bent. I think he needs all three. Immediate sanctions for both attorney and experts, send attorney back to CA for consideration of disbarrment, fine both D and expert(s). Maybe even charge them with contempt.

"Scott says options would be to pull her attorney off and send him packing back to CA. To deny the experts. Or to sanction the attorney. He thinks for reasons that will play into the first two things, it will end up being the third, his guess. Too bad as more is deserved, but the first two would definitely affect trial, that's for sure."
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
So the D attorney is bent basically? OMG will he have to go or what? Does this mean a possible delay? What a F up.

Oh i see you cover what could happen. What a tool her D must be. He had to know that was bent. I think he needs all three. Immediate sanctions for both attorney and experts, send attorney back to CA for consideration of disbarrment, fine both D and expert(s). Maybe even charge them with contempt.

"Scott says options would be to pull her attorney off and send him packing back to CA. To deny the experts. Or to sanction the attorney. He thinks for reasons that will play into the first two things, it will end up being the third, his guess. Too bad as more is deserved, but the first two would definitely affect trial, that's for sure."
Click to expand...
Scott explained the reasons for his thinking even though they should be employed, the first two options maybe won't be. The first one would affect trial and a new attorney would have to get up to speed. Something in the second one about I forget what it was, it would get dicey with something I think on the order of these experts need to go but they do have to have experts, don't quote me on that one, but I think something on that order.

I watched Scott's later show last night and he played the Read and Jackson interview that was on during Superbowl which I would NEVER have went and watched. I didn't want to see it on his channel either but watched most because he was playing it to point some things out, I eventually couldn't stomach them any longer and left, it certainly was no short interview. It WAS really interesting to hear Jackson (and her) basically call the commonwealth corrupt, etc. after hearing yesterday how corrupt HE IS. I'm sure it struck no one that way just a week or two ago but seeing it after hearing what was heard yesterday makes them look like total liars and hypocrites.

Also of interest is Scott is good to watch because he's fair and he's a defense attorney AND he is one who would have voted her not guilty at the last trial. He said his opinion is changing and now that he knows it was far from a fair trial and that just tells you also how different the jurors would have voted had they KNOWN the experts were not only hired guns but that it was all very unethically discussed and planned out as to answers, etc. that the defense wanted out of their mouths.

This is NOT minor sh*t. And this special prosecutor is GOOD and yet he did not go over the top with it all but he made sure it calmly and respectfully was shown and exposed. There was much aside from this as well, like the trial by ambush and how unfair for witnesses some other things as well. It was NOT a fair trial, and usually that is said on the side of the defendant but not in this case. It was not a fair trial for the P due to the D.

Mark my words, this is NOT going to be the same trial at all.

Scott also said second trials are bad for the D and better for the P. He has done many, many second trials he said. The D gets ONE shot really to try to get their client acquitted and that's their one chance and best chance. The P now knows their defense and their tricks in this case due to the first trial.

Most know I'm not in here much but clearly I do keep up on the case. It isn't my preferred or top case though.

The Read interview was sickening listening to the two of them make her out to be the victim in the case. It was clearly done to influence a future jury pool and the public. And it was clearly evident what a control freak she is.

A lot of my day was on this case yesterday, not something I liked and I had other plans but it was pretty major news and so I wasn't going to not hear what it was all about and more info on it.

He's dirty. Mr, top notch atty is dirty. Slime.

Personally I think it's pretty common with D attorneys. The things that went on in our case should have been shut down as well and the experts were something else, and communications were going on by cell phone from the courtroom to the expert outside the courtroom. Uhm, they were to be sequestered but info was being shared. Seriously. Defense experts also are usually scum. Jmo.

What was done here though was beyond. Isn't it interesting all the fit they had to get things like emails and texts and just LOOK at what has now come out about THEIR emails... SMDH.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Scott explained the reasons for his thinking even though they should be employed, the first two options maybe won't be. The first one would affect trial and a new attorney would have to get up to speed. Something in the second one about I forget what it was, it would get dicey with something I think on the order of these experts need to go but they do have to have experts, don't quote me on that one, but I think something on that order.

I watched Scott's later show last night and he played the Read and Jackson interview that was on during Superbowl which I would NEVER have went and watched. I didn't want to see it on his channel either but watched most because he was playing it to point some things out, I eventually couldn't stomach them any longer and left, it certainly was no short interview. It WAS really interesting to hear Jackson (and her) basically call the commonwealth corrupt, etc. after hearing yesterday how corrupt HE IS. I'm sure it struck no one that way just a week or two ago but seeing it after hearing what was heard yesterday makes them look like total liars and hypocrites.

Also of interest is Scott is good to watch because he's fair and he's a defense attorney AND he is one who would have voted her not guilty at the last trial. He said his opinion is changing and now that he knows it was far from a fair trial and that just tells you also how different the jurors would have voted had they KNOWN the experts were not only hired guns but that it was all very unethically discussed and planned out as to answers, etc. that the defense wanted out of their mouths.

This is NOT minor sh*t. And this special prosecutor is GOOD and yet he did not go over the top with it all but he made sure it calmly and respectfully was shown and exposed. There was much aside from this as well, like the trial by ambush and how unfair for witnesses some other things as well. It was NOT a fair trial, and usually that is said on the side of the defendant but not in this case. It was not a fair trial for the P due to the D.

Mark my words, this is NOT going to be the same trial at all.

Scott also said second trials are bad for the D and better for the P. He has done many, many second trials he said. The D gets ONE shot really to try to get their client acquitted and that's their one chance and best chance. The P now knows their defense and their tricks in this case due to the first trial.

Most know I'm not in here much but clearly I do keep up on the case. It isn't my preferred or top case though.

The Read interview was sickening listening to the two of them make her out to be the victim in the case. It was clearly done to influence a future jury pool and the public. And it was clearly evident what a control freak she is.

A lot of my day was on this case yesterday, not something I liked and I had other plans but it was pretty major news and so I wasn't going to not hear what it was all about and more info on it.

He's dirty. Mr, top notch atty is dirty. Slime.

Personally I think it's pretty common with D attorneys. The things that went on in our case should have been shut down as well and the experts were something else, and communications were going on by cell phone from the courtroom to the expert outside the courtroom. Uhm, they were to be sequestered but info was being shared. Seriously. Defense experts also are usually scum. Jmo.

What was done here though was beyond. Isn't it interesting all the fit they had to get things like emails and texts and just LOOK at what has now come out about THEIR emails... SMDH.
Click to expand...
Maybe they will take the trial elsewhere. I will have to check the trial date for the Birchmore case as that won't be good for LE by the sounds of it so reasons for D and P to want a venue change for Read maybe?

ETA Birchmore has a status hearing on 15th April and the judge said for them to be thinking of a trial date at that conference. So it could go ahead before the Read trial. I don't know if that would be good or bad for LE.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
Maybe they will take the trial elsewhere. I will have to check the trial date for the Birchmore case as that won't be good for LE by the sounds of it so reasons for D and P to want a venue change for Read maybe?

ETA Birchmore has a status hearing on 15th April and the judge said for them to be thinking of a trial date at that conference. So it could go ahead before the Read trial. I don't know if that would be good or bad for LE.
Click to expand...
IF Read goes off on time, yes that trial will be later.

I think it's a bit late for a change of venue and I don't think anyone has requested one have they? Not sure why what happened yesterday has you thinking that would be a thing? Or did you hear someone motioned for one? I haven't heard of such.
 
GrandmaBear said:
IF Read goes off on time, yes that trial will be later.

I think it's a bit late for a change of venue and I don't think anyone has requested one have they? Not sure why what happened yesterday has you thinking that would be a thing? Or did you hear someone motioned for one? I haven't heard of such.
Click to expand...
I think i was maybe thinking because it has been so public, they may have difficulty finding a jury this second time around. Like with Delphi they had to get the jury from Wayne County to get jurors who hadn't heard of the case. Also if the Birchmore case goes first it may show the cops in a bad light, i was thinking too.
 
Tresir said:
I think i was maybe thinking because it has been so public, they may have difficulty finding a jury this second time around. Like with Delphi they had to get the jury from Wayne County to get jurors who hadn't heard of the case. Also if the Birchmore case goes first it may show the cops in a bad light, i was thinking too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that case proceeding first would make prospective jurors possibly aware of names that may then come up in this one. As far as it being so public, I wouldn't say it is anymore public now than the D made it already previously.
 
There's a lot that has been going on in this case. I've been going to post but this is historically a case/thread I stay out of a lot and I know the goings on and what I'd post many would not like.

Scott Reisch/Crime Talk is great to watch on this by the way without some sickening bias. In fact where he stands on it has changed. He has no bias or emotions tied to it at all.

Starting with the hearing of the defense and expert stuff and the violations, I watched a LOT of that hearing. In fact I'd say I saw it all but missed 2 of the 4 hours at the beginning that the new defense attorney droned on. Listening to two hours of him was boring as he77 and all I kept thinking is they are protesting too much. It took four to five hours for him to give what could have been a 20 minute argument. Seriously. Then the State got up and effectively did what they needed to do in about 20 or so minutes, just as the D should have.

Scott says unlike the first trial, the D is now on the defense, it has changed. He also said why Jackson let her do an interview recently on TV he had no idea but said it was not a good idea. Heck Jackson was on with her, talking as well.

He is a defense attorney, a practicing one and a GOOD one just to remind anyone who doesn't know.

His guess is sanctions will come after trial as most likely although it is entirely possible the judge could kick the D attorney off and send him packing AND report him to the bar. More likely the trial will go on and sanctions will come after.

Then they filed a motion for dismissal. And also have tried to delay. The motion is going to go nowhere more than likely. Again the D is on the D now and they are trying to get the upper hand back to no avail imo.

Scott, again a D attorney, says second trials are ALWAYS better for the P than the D.

This is just a short recap of all that has been happening. I am more than up on the case and one can't be up on it reading here as none of this is in here. I almost came and put in links at times but decided not to.

Most going on hasn't been in favor of the D and Read and so I doubt they'd be watched or read anyhow.

Scott has a lot of full shows on the recent things on this case. He also airs every live hearing, etc. even if he isn't present, his channel does. He's one of my longtime favorites for sanity and legal interpretation, and who can't help but love his dumb criminal of the day lol.

Anyhow just a short bit on recent events and what has been going on as the thread certainly isn't up to date as to hearings and details and filings.

I'd say jmo but it's really not, it is what has been going on.
 
GrandmaBear said:
There's a lot that has been going on in this case. I've been going to post but this is historically a case/thread I stay out of a lot and I know the goings on and what I'd post many would not like.

Scott Reisch/Crime Talk is great to watch on this by the way without some sickening bias. In fact where he stands on it has changed. He has no bias or emotions tied to it at all.

Starting with the hearing of the defense and expert stuff and the violations, I watched a LOT of that hearing. In fact I'd say I saw it all but missed 2 of the 4 hours at the beginning that the new defense attorney droned on. Listening to two hours of him was boring as he77 and all I kept thinking is they are protesting too much. It took four to five hours for him to give what could have been a 20 minute argument. Seriously. Then the State got up and effectively did what they needed to do in about 20 or so minutes, just as the D should have.

Scott says unlike the first trial, the D is now on the defense, it has changed. He also said why Jackson let her do an interview recently on TV he had no idea but said it was not a good idea. Heck Jackson was on with her, talking as well.

He is a defense attorney, a practicing one and a GOOD one just to remind anyone who doesn't know.

His guess is sanctions will come after trial as most likely although it is entirely possible the judge could kick the D attorney off and send him packing AND report him to the bar. More likely the trial will go on and sanctions will come after.

Then they filed a motion for dismissal. And also have tried to delay. The motion is going to go nowhere more than likely. Again the D is on the D now and they are trying to get the upper hand back to no avail imo.

Scott, again a D attorney, says second trials are ALWAYS better for the P than the D.

This is just a short recap of all that has been happening. I am more than up on the case and one can't be up on it reading here as none of this is in here. I almost came and put in links at times but decided not to.

Most going on hasn't been in favor of the D and Read and so I doubt they'd be watched or read anyhow.

Scott has a lot of full shows on the recent things on this case. He also airs every live hearing, etc. even if he isn't present, his channel does. He's one of my longtime favorites for sanity and legal interpretation, and who can't help but love his dumb criminal of the day lol.

Anyhow just a short bit on recent events and what has been going on as the thread certainly isn't up to date as to hearings and details and filings.

I'd say jmo but it's really not, it is what has been going on.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your update. No way i could watch the hearing itself.
 
Tresir said:
Thanks for your update. No way i could watch the hearing itself.
Click to expand...
He was so lengthy and overdone. Protested too much. Scott had said before hand don't try to represent yourself meaning Jackson should not and get an outside lawyer. Well he did. I'm not saying he heard Scott lol. But man this guy went on and on and on. Scott has good members and good mods, it's not like watching a live on Law and Crime or Court TV where the chat goes nuts and has tons of trolls. Even those who believe in the D or read were sick of listening to the guy and commenting to stop already. And right towards his end, imo he was caught in a lie. I had missed maybe two hours of his four to five hour time going on and on. Sometimes if I miss things, I will go back after and watch what I missed. Not with this, no desire and doubt I missed anything worth listening to.

Before lunch the judge asked him if he could predict how much longer and made it clear he could have all of the time the D wanted, but she wanted to figure if they would get to motions later that day. He said 45 minutes. Did NOT happen. Nor did further motions.

Scott stays up on all going on in it. He's fair and he's good at knowing the law.

He has changed his tune too as to his opinion but as much on how each side is doing or more so than on guilt, just who is proving what...

This trial is not going to be the same as the first AND the D is clearly corrupt or at least really seriously violated ethics.
 
In this one, Jackson is droning on and on and on and on about the same old. I have it on in my background but maybe not much longer. That last hearing got old after a day full of it. Nothingburgers.
 
GrandmaBear said:
In this one, Jackson is droning on and on and on and on about the same old. I have it on in my background but maybe not much longer. That last hearing got old after a day full of it. Nothingburgers.
Click to expand...
Why doesn't the judge give them a time limit?
 
Tresir said:
Why doesn't the judge give them a time limit?
Click to expand...
Just like in their one where they violated ethics with the experts, she made sure said it more than once, she was bending for the defense, as much time as needed so they can't scream otherwise. I watched it, she asked him before lunch how much more time he figured, then she made it clear he could take all of the time he needed, she was just trying to figure if they'd be hearing the other motions that day. Anyhow, it bites, but she is allowing them to go on and on so they can't say they didn't have time I'm sure.

Saw that special prosecutor again today after Jackson finally got done, maybe the third time I have now, and he's GOOD. He's pointing out all the b.s. and the timing of some things. And the use of trying a media public blitz, etc. My words, not his.

He addresses the Proctor stuff front on. He isn't weaseling like the D.

Jmo of course, I know many will disagree and have fallen into the other.

Scott is very sane, rational and fair to keep up on this with since updates are not here. I'm keeping up with it very well even though I am not listening to all the hours of unending protesting by the D. Not even those for them can do it from what I've seen and they are losing people. Imo and from comments I see.

Won't be popular either but watching the D and KR it is so choregraphed almost, it's sickening. When Jackson is talking, they turn, her too, to show attention and listen, a lot of the time and look interested, when Brennan is up it's the opposite lol, it's so DUMB but bad. It's as stupid as a kindergarten play as to being told how to act imo.

Jackson is a puke and as unethical as they come. He's lucky he wasn't thrown out on his as*.
 
www.patriotledger.com

Karen Read returns to court: Missing 42 minutes of video interference or inconsequential?

Read, a Mansfield woman, is accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend, Braintree native John O'Keefe, in 2022.
www.patriotledger.com

"Read’s lawyers allege that police tampered with her taillight and planted broken pieces of it near O’Keefe’s body to help frame her for his death.

The defense says in the motion that a 42-minute period is missing from the surveillance when Read's SUV first arrived at the police station. They say that footage could show the condition of Read’s taillight and therefore prove she didn't hit O'Keefe."

This is rubbish because they have video of her driving the vehicle showing the taillight pieces missing before LE had even seized the car.

Also, re the videos, one camera mirrors the view and is motion activated , the other camera on the other side of the sallyport does not.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to stick with Scott and the actual hearings. The special prosecutor the other day had detailed pictures of the broken tail light. I actually watched the hearing. He did a great job.
 
www.cbsnews.com

Karen Read's attorneys say prosecutors hid video evidence for years in contentious hearing to dismiss case

The Karen Read case was in two Massachusetts courtrooms Wednesday with hearings on different issues.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

Another juror has spoken out with their reaction to Wednesday's hearing. Victoria George, who is an attorney herself and was an alternate juror in Read's first trial, sent the following to WBZ-TV.

"I was a fair-minded juror who left this trial questioning the integrity of the system long before the defense filed a motion to dismiss with allegations of jury tampering. It is the Read case itself—and the fact that it is still being brought—that has left many in Massachusetts wary, distrustful, and scared of our system. As a lawyer, this reality saddens me even more because I remember how much faith I had in our system as an optimistic law student."

"Mr. Brennan made an impassioned argument today regarding his alleged concern that some might be questioning the 'fabric of our entire judicial system.' If he truly would like to address that problem, I have a few suggestions," she added.

"Perhaps the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office should be more focused on remedying the systemic issues plaguing it and affiliated police departments rather than continuing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars prosecuting a case with so many evidentiary issues that it calls into question whether they are even following their ethical obligations as prosecutors. The Commonwealth has a duty to protect the rights of defendants, and I, for one, would love to see them do so."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,066
Messages
251,922
Members
1,003
Latest member
GigiMacN
Back
Top Bottom