If you are going to watch the trial, follow closely to see if that is still a significant factor in the end.I just started reading up on this case last night and I haven't read the thread and so I don't know much about it at this point but right away, it appears to me that alcohol is a significant factor!
It has always seemed to me it is as well. and the recent read of her not even recalling being there (which I am not sure I buy) would add to that. They were out drinking all night, are you saying she wasn't intoxicated? I'm not arguing but asking if there is evidence she tea totaled? Or was a DD and not served?If you are going to watch the trial, follow closely to see if that is still a significant factor in the end.
Well, now that I think about it, I think anytime alcohol is involved, it's a significant factor.If you are going to watch the trial, follow closely to see if that is still a significant factor in the end.
In an interview, she said she'd had about 4 drinks but if she's also said she didn't even recall being there, then obviously, that's a blackout, which seems to me is unlikely to occur after only 4 drinks.It has always seemed to me it is as well. and the recent read of her not even recalling being there (which I am not sure I buy) would add to that. They were out drinking all night, are you saying she wasn't intoxicated? I'm not arguing but asking if there is evidence she tea totaled? Or was a DD and not served?
Katie Benoit | @_kbenoit | NBC10 |
Fall River Reporter | @FallRiverReport | Fall River MA News |
Ted Daniel | @TedDanielnews | Boston25 |
David Bienick | @BienickWCVB | WCVB |
Chris Eberhart | @ChrisEberhart48 | Fox News |
Jo Scott Morgan | @JoScottForensic | forensic death investigator |
Kristina Rex | @KristinaRex | WBZ Boston |
So it was ruled it couldn't be said in openings that someone else killed John but defense did it anyhow? Or did that mean only if named? And not a "someone". Then the snip so wondering? Where it says judge ruled, it says couldn't be argued that someone else did and they said exactly that...Karen Read murder trial: Lead investigator 'searched phone for nude photos', defense says
Karen Read was accused of killing her boyfriend - Boston police officer John O'Keefe - but she denied accusations and claimed she was framed in an elaborate cover-upwww.foxnews.com
By Chris Eberhart Fox News
Published April 29, 2024 8:57am EDT | Updated April 29, 2024 1:57pm EDT
Karen Read's lawyer dropped bombshell accusations during opening statements in Read's murder trial, including an investigator's search for nude photos of her and "revealing texts" to friends on his personal phone.
Read allegedly killed her boyfriend - Boston police officer John O'Keefe - when she backed over him with her car after an alcohol-fueled fight during a snowy night on Jan 29, 2022, outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts, according to prosecutors.
Not only has Read pleaded not guilty to murder, among other charges, her legal team argued Read was framed by an influential family who lived in the Canton, Massachusetts, home, as part of a top-to-bottom cover-up.
The lead investigator, Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, a friend of the homeowner, allegedly "searched (Read's) phone (for) nude photos" without a warrant and texted his friend on his personal phone that he "hoped (Read) would kill herself," Read's lawyer, David Yannetti said Monday morning.
Leading up to the trial, Proctor and the Massachussetts State Police have denied any wrongdoing.
The Massachusetts State Police didn't immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment about the accusations levied in court Monday morning.
Read's lawyers argued O'Keefe was attacked by a dog during a fight with someone in the house.
"Karen Read was framed," Yannetti said during opening statements. "Someone not named Karen Read ambushed John. Somebody probably didn't mean to kill him, but somebody went too far."
The judge ruled last week that Read's defense team will be allowed to argue someone else killed O'Keefe, but not during opening statements.
<snip>
O'Keefe suffered multiple wounds, including skull fractures consistent with blunt-force trauma that led to bleeding in the brain, swollen black eyes and several lacerations and abrasions to his right arm and hands.
But the autopsy has been under lock and key, which is why forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan told Fox News Digital that the autopsy and the forensic investigator's testimony will be pivotal in the trial.
Yeah, the trial's broadcasted live and I've heard most- not all from either side- of the opening statements but I don't remember anything about the ruling you're referring to.So it was ruled it couldn't be said in openings that someone else killed John but defense did it anyhow? Or did that mean only if named? And not a "someone". Then the snip so wondering? Where it says judge ruled, it says couldn't be argued that someone else did and they said exactly that...
So this trial isn't live?
Interesting about the autopsy.
I don't like just tweeted trials, the best job they do still does not do what watching it does. it's a great recap but all should be live and recorded for one day watching and for appeals and more. Its BS all courts don't do such. No different than officers wearing body cams. Even if not LIVE viewing, there is always full proof and full recording. No one can argue that to me as to any reason with something so serious there shouldn't be. EVER.
THe Judge ruled 3rd party culpability could not be introduced during opening statements which is was not.So it was ruled it couldn't be said in openings that someone else killed John but defense did it anyhow? Or did that mean only if named? And not a "someone". Then the snip so wondering? Where it says judge ruled, it says couldn't be argued that someone else did and they said exactly that...
So this trial isn't live?
Interesting about the autopsy.
I don't like just tweeted trials, the best job they do still does not do what watching it does. it's a great recap but all should be live and recorded for one day watching and for appeals and more. Its BS all courts don't do such. No different than officers wearing body cams. Even if not LIVE viewing, there is always full proof and full recording. No one can argue that to me as to any reason with something so serious there shouldn't be. EVER.
Take the time to watch both of these and lets discuss your thoughts.
Commonwealth opening statement
Defense opening statement
The ruling was mentioned here in some post above. If I recall in the very post it said it was not to be mentioned in opening statements, it then goes onto say this was said in opening statement.Yeah, the trial's broadcasted live and I've heard most- not all from either side- of the opening statements but I don't remember anything about the ruling you're referring to.
Re autopsy, I think you must mean that the defense will try to prove that certain injuries were caused by a dog?
I'm so sorry! I think you were referencing info from an article that I hadn't read. Again, so sorry.The ruling was mentioned here in some post above. If I recall in the very post it said it was not to be mentioned in opening statements, it then goes onto say this was said in opening statement.
All I meant about the autopsy was the remark it was kept under lock and key which makes it sound as if no one knows what it says, also said here or in a link. Would have to go back and look but both things stated, all of which came from here and I was responding to when I said them.
Finally I guess I wondered if broadcast live because no one here put up any live link to it and so I assumed it wasn't. Not sure why. Because it is the State's side at the moment and not the defense holding court as has been true for months on end?
Maybe just an oversight. I just know that this isn't my first one I check and I saw no hint here it was televised live yet no sharing of it but don't take my word on it, I am tired and it isn't my first case I try to stay on top of.
Now I guess it is clear it is televised. Just not seen a lot of comment on it I guess.
Nothing to be sorry about. I myself don't and can't read every link in all cases these days. It seemed you might have missed it. Could be me as easily. Just was trying to figure out what was meant, etc. All is fine.I'm so sorry! I think you were referencing info from an article that I hadn't read. Again, so sorry.
Will she take the stand do you think? I somehow doubt it not that she is required to of course.It's interesting how many people heard her saying "I hit him! I hit him!" Yet somehow never put it in their reports.
Will she take the stand do you think? I somehow doubt it not that she is required to of course.
I watched some of it yesterday just for a bit and soon got bored with it. I wondered why YT seems to be pretty quiet with it and here as well and then I realized it was probably because it is the State's show right now and not some one sided defense blitz that so many have gotten completely on board with. No offense but it is the way I see it. Maybe my mind will get changed however nothing is being shared of the evidence thus far and I don't have time to watch it all. By a long shot. I saw some of Daybell as well and then promptly fell asleep in the middle of the afternoon on my first day off I feel in forever. So wiped from the week. Now of course I am up and my schedule is entirely messed up.
Anyhow so all are lying? Is there not a single recording or BODYCAM of anything? Dumb puter capitalized that, not me. Does such with entirely random words.
I am asking you to tell me of body cams if any and recorded videos of interviews if any, etc. Are there any? I am asking you to take a middle of the road unbiased stance and tell me, if even known if such exists? From what I've always understood initially she took full responsibility UNTIL finding they were going to charge her in a serious way and more. I was just watching something on Morphew a case I know from back to front and over again and was reminded of some things that have been scrubbed or disappeared that we saw in the beginning... It was a reminder and eye opening of how the story and narrative can change and even WE who think we know it so well can forget...If someone says I did it at a crime scene, I've never heard of the police officers leaving it off their reports. It appears there is a large cover up.