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:
Not sure what is going on here but I thought the jury cleared her of murder and it was hung on the manslaughter charge resulting in the mistrial.

Now we wait for the retrial, if there is one.

I am not going to read all that stuff - what difference does it make anyway? It has all been OBE. The jury already heard all the evidence and testimony and made their decisions but could not come to a unanimous decision on one of the charges.

But thanks for taking the time to repost.
The jury was never polled. All 3 charges were declared a mistrial.
 

BOSTON (AP) — Prosecutors in the Karen Read murder case filed a motion Friday, arguing against dropping any charges after her mistrial.
Read was accused of ramming into her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV and leaving him for dead in a snowstorm in January 2022. Her two-month trial ended when jurors declared they were hopelessly deadlocked and a judge declared a mistrial on the fifth day of deliberations.

karen read appears in court

Karen Read watches as jurors are seated in court to continue with deliberations at the trial of Read at Norfolk Superior Court, Friday, June 28, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. Read, 44, is accused of running into her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV in the middle of a nor’easter and leaving him for dead after a night of heavy drinking. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool)
The defense said she abruptly announced the mistrial without questioning the jurors about where they stood on each of the three charges Read faced, and without giving lawyers for either side a chance to comment.
Prosecutors described the defense request to drop charges of second degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident an “unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim,” based on “hearsay, conjecture and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”
“Contrary to the defendant’s claims, throughout the jury deliberations the defendant was given a full opportunity to be heard, the jury’s communications to the court explicitly indicated an impasse on all charges, and the court carefully considered alternatives before declaring a mistrial,” prosecutors wrote.
The jury “did not reach any verdicts partial or otherwise,” prosecutors wrote.
Read’s defense filed motions asking for the murder and leaving-the-scene charges to be dismissed. They contend that four jurors have said the jury had unanimously reached a not-guilty verdict on those two charges. They said the jurors reported being deadlocked only on the charge of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Trying her again for murder would be unconstitutional double jeopardy, they said.
RELATED | Karen Read defense: Fourth juror confirms not guilty verdict
As they push against a retrial, the defense wants the judge to hold a “post-verdict inquiry” and question all 12 if necessary to establish the record they say should have been created before the mistrial was declared, showing they “unanimously acquitted the defendant of two of the three charges against her.”
But prosecutors argued the defense was given a chance to respond and, after one note from the jury indicating it was deadlocked, told the court that there had been sufficient time and advocated for the jury to be declared deadlocked. Prosecutors wanted deliberations to continue, which they did before a mistrial was declared the following day.

Adam Lally gives his opening statement

Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally gives his opening statement as the murder trial for Karen Read begins in Norfolk County Superior Court, Monday, April 29, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. Read is accused of backing her SUV into her Boston Police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, and leaving him to die in a blizzard in Canton, in 2022. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)
“Contrary to the representation made in the defendant’s motion and supporting affidavits, the defendant advocated for and consented to a mistrial, as she had adequate opportunities to object and instead remained silent which removes any double jeopardy bar to retrial,” prosecutors wrote in their motion.
Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, had been out drinking with her boyfriend John O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston police who was found outside a Canton home of another Boston police officer. An autopsy found O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
The defense contended O’Keefe was killed inside the home after Read dropped him off and that those involved chose to frame her because she was a “convenient outsider.”
 
Hearing due next week.


 
Hearing due next week.



The prosecution is correct. IF, the defense had asked to have the jury polled before dismissal, then they would be right. Right now it's just theory based on rumor.
 

BOSTON (AP) — Prosecutors in the Karen Read murder case filed a motion Friday, arguing against dropping any charges after her mistrial.
Read was accused of ramming into her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV and leaving him for dead in a snowstorm in January 2022. Her two-month trial ended when jurors declared they were hopelessly deadlocked and a judge declared a mistrial on the fifth day of deliberations.


karen read appears in court


Karen Read watches as jurors are seated in court to continue with deliberations at the trial of Read at Norfolk Superior Court, Friday, June 28, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. Read, 44, is accused of running into her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV in the middle of a nor’easter and leaving him for dead after a night of heavy drinking. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool)
The defense said she abruptly announced the mistrial without questioning the jurors about where they stood on each of the three charges Read faced, and without giving lawyers for either side a chance to comment.
Prosecutors described the defense request to drop charges of second degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident an “unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim,” based on “hearsay, conjecture and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”
“Contrary to the defendant’s claims, throughout the jury deliberations the defendant was given a full opportunity to be heard, the jury’s communications to the court explicitly indicated an impasse on all charges, and the court carefully considered alternatives before declaring a mistrial,” prosecutors wrote.
The jury “did not reach any verdicts partial or otherwise,” prosecutors wrote.
Read’s defense filed motions asking for the murder and leaving-the-scene charges to be dismissed. They contend that four jurors have said the jury had unanimously reached a not-guilty verdict on those two charges. They said the jurors reported being deadlocked only on the charge of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Trying her again for murder would be unconstitutional double jeopardy, they said.

RELATED | Karen Read defense: Fourth juror confirms not guilty verdict
As they push against a retrial, the defense wants the judge to hold a “post-verdict inquiry” and question all 12 if necessary to establish the record they say should have been created before the mistrial was declared, showing they “unanimously acquitted the defendant of two of the three charges against her.”
But prosecutors argued the defense was given a chance to respond and, after one note from the jury indicating it was deadlocked, told the court that there had been sufficient time and advocated for the jury to be declared deadlocked. Prosecutors wanted deliberations to continue, which they did before a mistrial was declared the following day.


Adam Lally gives his opening statement


Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally gives his opening statement as the murder trial for Karen Read begins in Norfolk County Superior Court, Monday, April 29, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. Read is accused of backing her SUV into her Boston Police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, and leaving him to die in a blizzard in Canton, in 2022. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)
“Contrary to the representation made in the defendant’s motion and supporting affidavits, the defendant advocated for and consented to a mistrial, as she had adequate opportunities to object and instead remained silent which removes any double jeopardy bar to retrial,” prosecutors wrote in their motion.
Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, had been out drinking with her boyfriend John O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston police who was found outside a Canton home of another Boston police officer. An autopsy found O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
The defense contended O’Keefe was killed inside the home after Read dropped him off and that those involved chose to frame her because she was a “convenient outsider.”
Tolja they were going to be dumb enough to try all the charges again. Now the defense has had more time to counter their claims.
 

By Ryan Breslin, Boston 25 News and Frank O'Laughlin, Boston 25 News Staff
July 17, 2024 at 8:04 am EDT

DEDHAM, Mass. — In a new court filing, defense attorneys said Tuesday that the retrial of Karen Read “should not be allowed,” calling the state’s continued push for a conviction in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe “grossly unfair.”

Read’s attorney team made the statements in a filing in Dedham’s Norfolk Superior Court, where last they filed a motion with Judge Beverly Cannone to dismiss two of three criminal charges against Read, including second-degree murder, claiming that four jurors came forward to notify them that the jury found Read “not guilty” during their secret deliberations.

“According to information from four deliberating jurors, the jury had reached a unanimous decision that Ms. Read is not guilty on two of the three charges pending against her, namely Counts 1 and 3,” the defense stated in Tuesday’s filing. “The Commonwealth’s insistence that Ms. Read must nonetheless be ‘forced to run the gantlet’ once more is based on several clear fallacies.”

Read’s two-month trial ended in a mistrial on July 1 after deadlocked jurors sent a note to Cannone indicating they were at an “impasse” and future deliberations would be futile.


“Even if the first trial is not completed, a second prosecution may be grossly unfair. It increases the financial and emotional burden on the accused of wrongdoing, and may even enhance the risk that an innocent defendant may be convicted,” the defense added in its latest filing. “Given the unambiguous post-trial evidence, it would simply be wrong to require the defendant to obtain two acquittals from two different juries for the same crime.”

The Norfolk District Attorney’s Office has repeatedly said that it plans to retry Read and a new trial date could be scheduled as soon as July 22.

“The underlying idea of the Constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the state with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,” the defense argued.

Lawyers also argued that they weren’t allowed an opportunity to contest Cannone’s mistrial ruling.

“The defense was provided no opportunity to be heard regarding the declaration of a mistrial,” the filing stated. “Rather, upon receiving the final jury note...The court declared a mistrial with no warning to or solicitation of objections from the parties.”



Prosecutors in the murder case filed documents last week in opposition to the defense’s post-trial motion to dismiss Read’s criminal charges.

The “unsubstantiated and sensational” claim made by defense attorneys Alan Jackson and David Yanneti indicating the “jury reached a unanimous decision to acquit” Read on second-degree murder and leaving the scene of fatal crash charges “lacks any merit or legal foundation,” the Commonwealth wrote in the documents.

The DA’s office also said the defense’s motion to dismiss is “premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”
 
Tolja they were going to be dumb enough to try all the charges again. Now the defense has had more time to counter their claims.

I'm sure she's innocent and should be left alone, but I'd like to see a re-trial. This time the defense would enter the SallyPort video. Also, the defense would have access to Trooper Proctor and Trooper Albert's files. There is also a chance that one of the people involved will step forward for a plea deal.
 

By Alysha Palumbo, Kaitlin McKinley Becker and Marc Fortier • Published May 24, 2024 • Updated on May 24, 2024 at 8:27 pm​


<snip>

Court is only scheduled to be in session in the Read case for one day next week, on Tuesday.

Brian Higgins testifies​

Higgins was the first witness to take the stand on Friday, shortly before 9:15 a.m.

He is a friend of Albert and was present at the party at Albert's home on Fairview Road hours before O'Keefe was found dead outside, according to court filings and witness testimony. He had previously exchanged flirtatious text messages with Read, according to court filings from the prosecution.

He is one of three men that Read's defense team has said had motive, opportunity and means to attack O'Keefe that night.

Prosecutors have said the defense's statements about Higgins lack evidence and make for a "fanciful" story.

Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally started by asking Higgins about the events of Jan. 28-29, 2022.

Higgins spoke of how he, Brian Albert, Kevin Albert and another officer had been in New York City on Jan. 28 to attend a police officer's funeral and drove back to Massachusetts that day ahead of an impending blizzard.

He said upon returning to Canton that night, he went to the Hillside Pub, where he was scheduled to meet Brian Albert. He said he drove his Jeep, which had a plow attached, to the bar, arriving there sometime after dark.

Higgins said Albert arrived around the same time, but he couldn't recall whether it was before or after him.

He said he spent about an hour there, having something to eat and drink, and Albert left about 15 minutes before him to go to the Waterfall Bar & Grill to meet his wife and family and possibly some other people. Higgins said Albert invited him to join them, and he did, arriving sometime around 9 p.m.

Higgins said O'Keefe and Read, both of whom he considered friends, were among the people at the Waterfall that night.

Higgins said the group eventually left the bar, and he and others were invited back to Brian Albert's home, where people were gathering for Albert's son's birthday. He said he wound up leaving the Albert home between 12:30 and 1 a.m. on Jan. 29, and said he was one of the first people to leave the gathering.

He testified that he never saw O'Keefe or Read at the Albert home. He said at one point he texted O'Keefe, "Where are you?" but never received a response.

After leaving the Albert home, Higgins said he went to the Canton Police Department, where he had an office and stored his ATF vehicles. He said he went there to move his work vehicles to a different area of the parking lot so the lot could be plowed that night.

From there, he said he went home and had something to eat, had a couple of drinks and went to sleep.

Higgins said he woke up that morning around 6:30 to his work and personal phones going off. He said Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz and Brian Albert were both calling him. He said he blew off Berkowitz's call given the early hour but then became a bit concerned when he saw Albert calling so early after being up late the night before.

He said after learning that O'Keefe had been found on the Alberts' lawn, he went straight to the Alberts' home on Fairview Road. He also detailed his interview with state police investigators looking into O'Keefe's death, including how they looked through his past texts with O'Keefe.

Higgins also testified about the only time he visited O'Keefe's home, on Jan. 16, 2022, for the end of a New England Patriots' game. He said he arrived well into the second half, and O'Keefe and Read were both there.

"I felt bad I had never been over there," he said. "I had been asked repeatedly. I knew it was probably going to be the last game of the season."

While he was there, he said he played video games with O'Keefe's nephew.

Higgins became emotional during this portion of the testimony, tearing up as he recalled the encounter.

After the morning break, Higgins testified that on Jan. 12, 2022, he received a text from Read. It was the first time she had ever texted him, he said.

"Hey Brian, it's the weedwhacker," Read's text read.

Higgins responded with a question mark.

He said the text from Read was based on an interaction he had with her, "kind of a nickname that she adopted."

Higgins said one day when he was leaving his home in Canton, traveling down Pleasant Street, he saw Read along the side of O'Keefe's house, using a weed trimmer. He said he beeped the horn, and she gave him the finger, apparently not recognizing him. So he spun the vehicle around and pulled up to roll down the window.

He said she told him to "Get the (expletive) away from her," and that her boyfriend was a Boston cop. At that point, she then realized who it was, and Higgins said the "weedwhacker" comment became a running joke of sorts.

Higgins then went over several other text messages between he and Read, where Higgins asked how she got his phone number.

The text conversation continued, with the two of them talking about Higgins possibly joining Read and O'Keefe on a vacation to Florida, and Read and O'Keefe possibly joining Higgins on a trip to Nashville.

At one point, Read said to Higgins, "You're kind of a loner. Which I used to be."

"Not really, I have a ton of buddies but I only let a handful of friends in that I am tight with," Higgins said. "So you think you got me figured out?"

The text exchange continued, with Higgins and Read discussing how Higgins' dad died of cancer in 2020.

They also spoke about a former girlfriend of Higgins, and he told her they had broken up a while back.

At one point Read invited Higgins to hang out with her and O'Keefe, but he said he didn't want to intrude on their couples' night.

"Just stop being so anti-couples," Read responded. "Most couples don't even like each other."

"Name a few," Higgins said.

"Name a few? I don't know...all of them? They all want to hang out w single ppl," Read said.

At one point during the conversation, Read texted Higgins, "You're hot."

He responded. "Are you serious or messing with me?"

"No I'm serious," Read said.

"Feeling is mutual," Higgins said. "Is that bad? How long have you thought that???"

Read than asked if Higgins was OK driving, saying she'd rather he stay at the house where she and O'Keefe lived.

Higgins said that text exchange occurred on a night when he had visited the O'Keefe home. On that evening when he left the house, he said Read "planted a kiss" on his lips. He described it as a romantic kiss, "Not like a friend."

Going back to the text exchanges, Higgins said, "I wish. I think you're messing with me."

"Where did these feelings come from?" he asked Read.

Higgins said his entire text communication between he and Read took place between Jan. 12 and Jan. 29, 2022, the day O'Keefe died.

"I was basically trying to sus out what the intentions were of the defendant. Was the defendant interested in me, was she at the end of her relationship with John, was she trying to weaponize me against John and put me in the middle? There was numerous things going on... I was having a hard time accepting what was happening."

Read then asked if Higgins liked her, and he said he did.

"You think you can handle me? I thought you were happy," Higgins said.

"How do you know if I'm happy??" Read asked.

"I just assumed," Higgins replied.

He told Read he had always thought she was attractive, smart and witty, but he didn't think she was interested.

At one point, Read said, "Hey-- we're single and we don't have kids. We can do whatever we want."

Read then asked Higgins to come over to her house in Mansfield.

"What do you want Karen. You looked great tonight," Higgins said.

At one point in the text exchange, he asked if Read and O'Keefe were breaking up or staying together.

"I don't know. He hooked up w another girl on vacation. I am very close to his niece.. it is a very (expletive) up situation."

"We went away for New Years. The four of us. I put the kids to be and found him in the lobby of our hotel all over one of our friend. whatever. It doesn't matter," Read added.

Higgins said he continued to be suspect of whether Read was really interested in him, if her relationship with O'Keefe was over or what the status of the relationship was.

"What do you want from me?" Read asked Higgins at one point

"What's on the table?" he replied.

"What do you want ideally?" she asked.

"The real deal," he replied.

"Doesn't exist," Read said.

"I thought you were in this happy relationship," Higgins said later.

"Everyone is happy at the Hillside!" she replied, referring to the bar.

"It's just a very very complicated dynamic with the four of us. He isn't cut out for what he's doing. And the kids present constant issues," Read said.

Higgins talked about how he was once married to someone with a young child, but was now divorced.

"I try very hard but they are very spoiled. And they're not my family," Read said. And she said O'Keefe got "drunk and sloppy" on New Year's Eve while they were away, "and that has really affected me."

"He was a puddle all day and then disappeared," she added when Higgins asked her what O'Keefe had done. "Then I found him all over friend's sister in the lobby of our hotel. And she's gross, which I think may actually be worse. Not sure."

Read then asked Higgins if he wanted to meet for a drink. But he said he had his work truck with him and couldn't meet up. Higgins said Read extended similar invitations on other occasions as well.

Read also told Higgins that O'Keefe suspected that something might be going on between them, saying he had even showed her Ring camera footage of when Read walked Higgins out of the house.

Higgins also testified about how eventually, he and Read met up for a drink at his house in West Roxbury. He said she wasn't there long.

"It was, it was kind of more of this. It was kind of a... it wasn't an interrogation, it was a face to vace version of trying to sus out and vet like, what this was all about," Higgins testified. "I'm not proud of these text messages. It is what it is. I'll take responsibility for them, but John was a friend... If they were at the end of the relationship, they were at the end of the relationship, but I wasn't going to have someone utilize me, weaponize me against someone I liked. It was a weird experience."

Lally finished his questioning just before 12:30 p.m., and defense attorney Alan Jackson began cross-examining Higgins.

Jackson asked about the morning of Jan. 29, 2022, when O'Keefe's body was found on the Alberts' lawn on Fairview Road in Canton, and about his friendship with the Albert family and other powerful people in town.

"It's fair to say that you know the Albert family fairly well," Jackson said.

Jackson also asked Higgins about the Jan. 16, 2022, date when Higgins went to O'Keefe's house to watch the Patriots game, the day that Read gave him a kiss as he left the home.

"After that incident, it's safe to say you exchanged flirtatious texts with Ms. Read, correct?" Jackson asked.

"I did," Higgins said.

Higgins said he never had any other physical, intimate contact with Read. Jackson asked if Higgins had romantic feelings for Read, but Higgins wouldn't agree to that.

"I was attracted to her. I thought she was an attractive woman," he said.

Higgins also acknolwedged that Read never expressed any hatred toward O'Keefe.

Court broke for lunch around 1 p.m., with Higgins expected to return to the stand after the break.

After the lunch break, Jackson zeroed in on a series of texts between Higgins and Read on Jan. 23, 2022, where Higgins was asking why he hadn't heard from her in a while.

After several texts back and forth that day, Higgins acknowledged that he didn't hear from Read again until he saw her at the Waterfall on Jan. 28, 2022. He also said he shared with a work supervisor that Read had once kissed him.

"What I shared with my boss was the fact that she kissed me, that was it," he said. But Higgins said he never discussed his interest in Read with Brian Albert.

"It's just something I wouldn't talk about," he said.

Jackson also asked Higgins about the night at the Waterfall, specifically whether Read greeted her when he walked in.

"In my opinion, she was working the room, saying hello, catching up," Higgins said. He acknowledged that Read didn't say hello to him but said it didn't upset him.

Higgins did say, however, that he texted Read that evening saying, "Um, well..." but she never responded.

The defense moved on to a line of questioning about Higgins time in the Albert home, including what spaces he’d been in and the layout of the house.

Jackson then pressed Higgins on previous testimony he made concerning the night of O’Keefe’s death, focusing in on testimony Higgins gave about a male who showed up at the house. Higgins maintained that he wasn’t sure if the male he saw – who he described as tall and dark haired – actually entered the house. The defense pushed this point, trying to get Higgins to give a yes or no answer about whether the man came inside, apparently trying to call his previous testimony into question. The judge eventually shut the line of questioning down.

Jackson then began asking questions about the time Higgins left the Albert house on Jan. 29. Higgins said he left between 12:30 a.m. and 1 a.m., and went to the Canton Police Department to move vehicles around. He said he never saw a body on the front lawn at 34 Fairview as he was driving off.

The defense then began a line of questioning concerning Brian Albert's activities when he returned home. Specifically, pointing to phone records that show a 1 second phone call made from Brian Albert to Higgins at 2:22 a.m. and a follow up call immediately afterward from Higgins to Albert, lasting about 22 seconds. Higgins testified that he did not recall making that phone call and claimed there was no conversation.

Jackson honed in on this point, saying that in previous testimony Higgins suggested it may have been a "butt dial."

“Did you ever previously testify that you did in fact make the call but you did not have a conversation during the call?”

“What I think I testified was something must have happened, but I didn’t make any phone call," Higgins said.

Jackson tried to paint this as an example of Higgins lying under oath, which he denied.

“I always tell the truth," Higgins said on the stand.

The cross-examination then continued in chronological order, with Higgins describing going over to the Albert household when he learned of what happened through a phone call from Brian Albert that morning. He described being at the house with Brian and Nicole Albert and Jennifer and Matthew McCabe, and said Julie Albert arrived after he did.

When questioned on whether they discussed the case, he said the group was trying to understand what happened.

“People were in shock at the table trying to figure out what happened. The math didn’t make sense. John and the defendant never showed up. People were in shock.”

Higgins said he left the Albert household at some point later that morning and wound up back at the Canton Police Department. At this point, Jackson brought out a series of card swipe access records from the building, asking Higgins to review various times and spaces his card was used. This was done to establish that Higgins spent hours at Canton PD that day, and had access to the sallyport where evidence from the case, including Karen Read's SUV, was eventually brought in.

Were you in the sallyport at 5:36 when the car was delivered?" Jackon asked.

“I don’t have any recollection of that, no," Higgins said.

Jackson also asked Higgins if he was speaking with Canton police investigators about the case that day and passing information along to Brian Albert, pointing to phone calls with Kevin Albert and Canton Police Chief Ken Berkowitz. Higgins did not deny the possibility that he spoke to the men, calling them friends, but he did deny funneling information about the case.

“I had conversations with Brian Albert. John was found on his lawn. Yes of course I had conversations with him.”

Court ended on the topic of Higgins' actions concerning his phone records. Higgins testified that he asked another ATF agent, who he described as his best friend, the best way to remove a string of text messages from his phone to provide the information to Massachusetts State Police. That friend has some expertise in computer forensics, Higgins said.

He claimed he was trying to help investigators with the information, though Jackson pointed out that he could have provided his entire phone instead of cherry-picking information. After the judge paused questioning to address potential concerns about Higgins' testimony on the subject with his attorney, the jury returned for a few minutes before court went into recess.

The day ended on a tense note, with Jackson drilling down on the point that Higgins ultimately threw away his phone. Higgins claimed there was nothing unusual about it and that he had "every right to do that."

BBM

He claimed he was trying to help investigators with the information, though Jackson pointed out that he could have provided his entire phone instead of cherry-picking information. After the judge paused questioning to address potential concerns about Higgins' testimony on the subject with his attorney, the jury returned for a few minutes before court went into recess.

Higgins had his own attorney?

The search was absolutely made at 2:27. The database would log that as it happened and will not be overwritten. Apple has structured the safeguarding around a db-wal file which is where this search would have been stored.

Reference

*(fyi .. my expertise is SQL database & C+ programming within software development)

You can't ask for a more reliable tech witness on this matter. @kdg411 knows her stuff. That's the whole case isn't it. McCabe made the call at 2:27. Long before anybody knew, O'Keefe was hurt and lying on the front lawn of the Albert's. She's not guilty. That right there proves it.

Obvious lie by the prosecution #1.
 
"I hit him, I hit him."

Back in court this Monday 22nd July?

BBC link below.



A hearing on the next steps for the Ms Read is set for July 22. Prosecutors at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office say they plan to re-try the case.

Ms Read, an equity analyst and university finance lecturer, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.

She and O'Keefe were at two bars in the Boston suburb of Canton on the night of 28 January 2022 when she said she drove him to an after-party at the nearby home of a fellow Boston police officer, Brian Albert.
Prosecutors said the couple fought and after O'Keefe got out of his girlfriend's Lexus SUV outside the house, an allegedly intoxicated Ms Read deliberately reversed into him and drove off.

O'Keefe was left with catastrophic head injuries, incapacitated and freezing to death, said prosecutors.

People inside the house testified that O'Keefe never made it inside that night.

Prosecutors also said the defendant's car had a broken brake light and that the vehicle's internal system showed she had reversed at a rapid speed.

Ms Read said that when her boyfriend did not return home, she and two other women went out to look for him.

They found O'Keefe's body in front of the fellow police officer's home.
John O'Keefe
IMAGE SOURCE,BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
Image caption,
John O'Keefe was a former Boston police officer
Firefighters who responded to the scene that morning testified that Ms Read told them: “I hit him, I hit him.”

More at link.
 
Last edited:
"I hit him, I hit him."

Back in court this Monday 22nd July?

BBC link below.



A hearing on the next steps for the Ms Read is set for July 22. Prosecutors at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office say they plan to re-try the case.

Ms Read, an equity analyst and university finance lecturer, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.

She and O'Keefe were at two bars in the Boston suburb of Canton on the night of 28 January 2022 when she said she drove him to an after-party at the nearby home of a fellow Boston police officer, Brian Albert.
Prosecutors said the couple fought and after O'Keefe got out of his girlfriend's Lexus SUV outside the house, an allegedly intoxicated Ms Read deliberately reversed into him and drove off.

O'Keefe was left with catastrophic head injuries, incapacitated and freezing to death, said prosecutors.

People inside the house testified that O'Keefe never made it inside that night.

Prosecutors also said the defendant's car had a broken brake light and that the vehicle's internal system showed she had reversed at a rapid speed.

Ms Read said that when her boyfriend did not return home, she and two other women went out to look for him.

They found O'Keefe's body in front of the fellow police officer's home.
John O'Keefe'Keefe
IMAGE SOURCE,BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
Image caption,
John O'Keefe was a former Boston police officer
Firefighters who responded to the scene that morning testified that Ms Read told them: “I hit him, I hit him.”

More at link.
Yet the "I hit him" was never notated during the investigation when she supposedly said that in front of several entities that should have 100% notated that in their reports at all. None. This never came up until about a year later.

Not by paramedics. Not even by proctor who by his own account was the official documentor of the case.
 
Yet the "I hit him" was never notated during the investigation when she supposedly said that in front of several entities that should have 100% notated that in their reports at all. None. This never came up until about a year later.

Not by paramedics. Not even by proctor who by his own account was the official documentor of the case.
A FF/paramedic testified that when he asked her (hit him) with what, she didn't answer.
 
Yet it was in no report at all, not even theirs.
Here's a report of the testimony.


“I asked her if there had been any significant trauma that happened before this,” McLaughlin said. “She said, ‘I hit him.’ She repeated it.”
How Thursday's proceedings unfolded
A woman standing next to Read outside the Fairview Road home told her she was “hysterical” and had to calm down, McLaughlin said. But Read repeated that she had hit O’Keefe, prompting a police officer standing nearby to ask “you what?” McLaughlin said.
“She repeated it one more time,” McLaughlin testified. “And that officer then signaled to somebody, ‘get Goode down here,’ which I’m assuming would be the sergeant,” Canton police Sgt. Sean Goode.
Court ended for the day before Read’s lawyers could begin their cross-examination of McLaughlin, which will proceed Friday morning in Norfolk Superior Court.
 
Here's a report of the testimony.


“I asked her if there had been any significant trauma that happened before this,” McLaughlin said. “She said, ‘I hit him.’ She repeated it.”
How Thursday's proceedings unfolded
A woman standing next to Read outside the Fairview Road home told her she was “hysterical” and had to calm down, McLaughlin said. But Read repeated that she had hit O’Keefe, prompting a police officer standing nearby to ask “you what?” McLaughlin said.
“She repeated it one more time,” McLaughlin testified. “And that officer then signaled to somebody, ‘get Goode down here,’ which I’m assuming would be the sergeant,” Canton police Sgt. Sean Goode.
Court ended for the day before Read’s lawyers could begin their cross-examination of McLaughlin, which will proceed Friday morning in Norfolk Superior Court.
Testimony. Still not in ANY report done at the time. Seems like a very important thing to have in the initial charging docs doesn't it? Shouldn't the "official record keeper" have put that in the investigation report??? It is absolutely nowhere in any official report. It wasn't even uttered until Grand jury time over a year later.
 
Testimony. Still not in ANY report done at the time. Seems like a very important thing to have in the initial charging docs doesn't it? Shouldn't the "official record keeper" have put that in the investigation report??? It is absolutely nowhere in any official report. It wasn't even uttered until Grand jury time over a year later.
This was a paramedic that witnessed it so why would it be in a police or prosecution report?

Emu asked for a link to the paramedic statement and I found and produced that link to the testimony.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
3,009
Messages
241,029
Members
969
Latest member
SamiraMill
Back
Top Bottom