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...
Cousin Dupree said:
Click to expand...


This is what is written below these guys videos, and it's what I believe:

The Karen Read criminal trial is a high-profile case in Massachusetts centered around the death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer. Karen Read, the accused, faces charges of second-degree murder and other related offenses. The prosecution alleges that Read, after a night of drinking, ran O'Keefe down with her SUV and left him to die in a snowbank outside the home of another Boston police officer on January 29, 2022. This act reportedly followed a tumultuous relationship and an argument the same night, culminating in O'Keefe's death due to blunt impact injuries and hypothermia.The defense, however, portrays Read as a victim of a conspiracy and frames the situation quite differently. They claim that O'Keefe was actually beaten inside the home where he was found, suggesting involvement by other party attendees, including a federal agent with whom Read had exchanged flirtatious texts. This has led to accusations against local law enforcement of a cover-up, complicating the investigation. The defense has been allowed to present third-party culprit evidence, implicating other individuals at the scene and highlighting potential flaws and biases in the investigation process.
 
@Tresir

I just gave you the testimony of the Sallyport video, analysis of some of the witness' statements, and a summary of what I believe happened. Does that answer all your questions?
 
Cousin Dupree said:
Yes, she was. You obviously don't know that. The problem is that the defense atty. and judge didn't poll the jury on each charge. Had they, it would have been taken care of right then and there.
Click to expand...
Second time now I've heard of something that sounds like it could be an ineffective counsel claim. HE77 they've got the bases covered there...
 
Cousin Dupree said:
This is what is written below these guys videos, and it's what I believe:

The Karen Read criminal trial is a high-profile case in Massachusetts centered around the death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer. Karen Read, the accused, faces charges of second-degree murder and other related offenses. The prosecution alleges that Read, after a night of drinking, ran O'Keefe down with her SUV and left him to die in a snowbank outside the home of another Boston police officer on January 29, 2022. This act reportedly followed a tumultuous relationship and an argument the same night, culminating in O'Keefe's death due to blunt impact injuries and hypothermia.The defense, however, portrays Read as a victim of a conspiracy and frames the situation quite differently. They claim that O'Keefe was actually beaten inside the home where he was found, suggesting involvement by other party attendees, including a federal agent with whom Read had exchanged flirtatious texts. This has led to accusations against local law enforcement of a cover-up, complicating the investigation. The defense has been allowed to present third-party culprit evidence, implicating other individuals at the scene and highlighting potential flaws and biases in the investigation process.
Click to expand...
What is what you believe? Both sides are given here, there is not "one" thing to believe. It is one or the other. Lol. Did you read it?
 
GrandmaBear said:
What is what you believe? Both sides are given here, there is not "one" thing to believe. It is one or the other. Lol. Did you read it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I read it. Since I'm pretty well documented as being on Karen's side, I'll give you a hint. It's not the prosecutions one.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
Yes, I read it. Since I'm pretty well documented as being on Karen's side, I'll give you a hint. It's not the prosecutions one.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not a tough guess, however you did post both sides and said that is what you think lol. Makes no sense.

Leave it if you like, I care less, just thought you might have wanted to change it for newcomers who could appear now or one day.

Thanks for the hint but I truly did not need a hint Big Bird. A very nice gesture though :D
 
Regina said:
I'm not interested in reading articles or watching videos.
You'll need to tell me why and/ or how you think the video was altered.
Click to expand...

:giggling:I have a link I just gave you that has most of the reasons in it. I'm done with you on this subject. You keep moving the goalpost and I don't like being treated that way.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
This is what is written below these guys videos, and it's what I believe:

The Karen Read criminal trial is a high-profile case in Massachusetts centered around the death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer. Karen Read, the accused, faces charges of second-degree murder and other related offenses. The prosecution alleges that Read, after a night of drinking, ran O'Keefe down with her SUV and left him to die in a snowbank outside the home of another Boston police officer on January 29, 2022. This act reportedly followed a tumultuous relationship and an argument the same night, culminating in O'Keefe's death due to blunt impact injuries and hypothermia.The defense, however, portrays Read as a victim of a conspiracy and frames the situation quite differently. They claim that O'Keefe was actually beaten inside the home where he was found, suggesting involvement by other party attendees, including a federal agent with whom Read had exchanged flirtatious texts. This has led to accusations against local law enforcement of a cover-up, complicating the investigation. The defense has been allowed to present third-party culprit evidence, implicating other individuals at the scene and highlighting potential flaws and biases in the investigation process.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no proof or witnesses saying he went in the home. Also his trainer was found by the kerb under 6 inches of newly fallen snow. There was no dog or human DNA on him from anyone in the house.
 
Last edited:
Tresir said:
There's absolutely no proof or witnesses saying he went in the home. Also his trainer was found by the kerb under 6 inches of newly fallen snow. There was no dog or human DNA on him from anyone in the house.
Click to expand...
He never went in the house.

People have to believe like 20 different things to buy into ALL of the defense side, at minimum. It is ludicrous. Same in Delphi for another example.

It is what defense does or has to do, not only do they have to try to get things thrown out, dismantle the case, they have to come up with an alternative theory as to what happened on top of it all, explain away the evidence and more... For me, anyone who buys into that many various things does not use any logic at all. Imo.
 
Tresir said:
There was a pretrial hearing today. Here's a link so have a peek. Haven't had a chance myself - comments appreciated.

www.masslive.com

Karen Read case update: Cell phone expert under scrutiny at Friday hearing

A cell phone expert hired by Karen Read's defense was the subject of intense scrutiny Friday, from prosecutors who want to bar him from testifying at her second trial, slated for April 1.
www.masslive.com www.masslive.com
Click to expand...
It's interesting. This trial is right around the corner and seems as if it should go off on time.

The thing about second trials is that it may be an entirely different trial. Both sides get a redo and know somewhat to expect.

The P wants the D phone expert not allowed or something on that order... They also want notes from reporter she took on Read during an interview--of the record notes...

The D attorney said something like "it is flummoxing why we are even here". Not an exact quote but close and accurate as to what he said.

WHO says flummoxing?? What an odd choice of a word. I don't think I have ever in my 60+ years uttered that word. I know of the word and know what it means, pretty sure I've read it in novels or some such. I also am pretty sure in my 60+ years I have never heard ANYONE utter the word LMAO. If you want to connect with a jury and need to, I think I'd drop the weird words... It struck me immediately as kind of like what a dumb choice of words, does he ever talk normal...?
 
They are there because their client broke the law several times. Driving while intoxicated, killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. I don't know why he is flummoxed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,046
Messages
247,747
Members
992
Latest member
lifeofthespider
Back
Top Bottom