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...
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
www.bostonherald.com

‘Free Karen Read’ billboard goes up ahead of hearing in murder case

A new billboard not far from Gillette Stadium in Foxboro aims to capture the attention of the few in Greater Boston who haven’t been following the case of Karen Read, the Mansfield woman accused of…
www.bostonherald.com www.bostonherald.com

‘Free Karen Read’ billboard goes up ahead of hearing in murder case​

A new billboard not far from Gillette Stadium in Foxboro aims to capture the attention of the few in Greater Boston who haven’t been following the case of Karen Read, the Mansfield woman accused of killing her boyfriend with her car on a snowy night in January of last year.


www.nbcboston.com

Karen Read defense team says state is withholding key evidence

Lawyers for Karen Read — the Massachusetts woman charged with second degree murder in the death of her police officer boyfriend in a case that has garnered national attention and controversy — are demanding access to evidence they say the Commonwealth has been holding back. Read is accused of...
www.nbcboston.com www.nbcboston.com

Karen Read defense team says state is withholding key evidence​

Lawyers for Karen Read — the Massachusetts woman charged with second degree murder in the death of her police officer boyfriend in a case that has garnered national attention and controversy — are demanding access to evidence they say the Commonwealth has been holding back.

In a recent court filing, the defense requests access to and the ability to independently test evidence that has been in possession of the Commonwealth since January 2022 — including samples taken from O'Keefe's clothing and person, and pieces of taillight.

Defense lawyers claim that Read has been wrongfully denied access to evidence items over the duration of the case.

Read's team is also looking to get access to elements related to the law enforcement investigation, including photographs and handwritten notes related the recovery of taillight pieces, as well as investigatory notes.

There is expected to be a hearing in Read's case on Friday.
Click to expand...
I can't say I've followed this case or am fully informed but saw enough of a battle of a show over it on STS to inform me of almost all. I don't know what to form of an opinion honestly. Both sides and qualified people had some very good points. I have to admit though that I don't know all.

For instance is the county in which he worked as a cop charging and prosecuting this case? If so, it shouldn't be. Even if he worked for a city in the county and not the county, they shouldn't be imo. I can't recall and not sure it came up in what I watched.

I do remember thinking and agreeing with some that they most definitely overcharged this case.

I remember the woman on the show who wouldn't shut up or let anyone else talk lol. She was pro prosecution but even she admitted they overcharged it if I recall.
 
I'm watching the evidentiary hearing now on CourtTV. The defense attorney is challenging the hair found on the broken tail light. He's saying the woman in the lab who identified it as human wasn't qualified to do so. She had failed the course for doing that exact thing a month before. Then they had someone else do it, and they said it wasn't human, and then the state destroyed it.

If that's true, that's pretty damning.

There was a dog in the house. If it was dog hair similar to that dog, that would be very exculpatory.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
I'm watching the evidentiary hearing now on CourtTV. The defense attorney is challenging the hair found on the broken tail light. He's saying the woman in the lab who identified it as human wasn't qualified to do so. She had failed the course for doing that exact thing a month before. Then they had someone else do it, and they said it wasn't human, and then the state destroyed it.

If that's true, that's pretty damning.

There was a dog in the house. If it was dog hair similar to that dog, that would be very exculpatory.
Click to expand...
That would depend on if it was embedded into the cracks of the tail light unless they are claiming injury to the dog.
 
Guess Who said:
That would depend on if it was embedded into the cracks of the tail light unless they are claiming injury to the dog.
Click to expand...

The cracked tail light mystifies me. She was doing a three point turn. If he had a driveway, why? Also, would hitting a human being at slow speed (She was doing a K turn.) break a tail light?

The idea is that the evidence was planted. I think the police said it was embedded in the taillight wreckage.

I have a hard time believing the PD on this. I mean on all of the "evidence".
 
Also, did the police ever do a jigsaw puzzle test to see if the taillight pieces fit together? I've seen several episodes of Forensic Files where the police did that to prove an accident. One was when a pickup truck hit a young girl at high speed.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
The cracked tail light mystifies me. She was doing a three point turn. If he had a driveway, why? Also, would hitting a human being at slow speed (She was doing a K turn.) break a tail light?

The idea is that the evidence was planted. I think the police said it was embedded in the taillight wreckage.

I have a hard time believing the PD on this. I mean on all of the "evidence".
Click to expand...
Like I said, if they are going with it being embedded AND it being from the dog, they are implying that the dog was hit hard enough to do that. How big is this said dog vs how high it was found. My dog is quite tall but it would still even have to be a very low to the ground vehicle for her to reach a tail light. Most dogs are shorter than the height of a tail light. I don't care whose side that hurts or helps, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Guess Who said:
Like I said, if they are going with it being embedded AND it being from the dog, they are implying that the dog was hit hard enough to do that. How big is this said dog vs how high it was found. My dog is quite tall but it would still even have to be a very low to the ground vehicle for her to reach a tail light. Most dogs are shorter than the height of a tail light. I don't care whose side that hurts or helps, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that, I'm just putting out a theory. I'm thinking that he went into the house and was attacked by the dog leaving hair on him. I don't believe the taillight story at all. I'm saying that someone collecting hair grabbed a dog hair and submitted it to be tested as human. When it had to be retested due to the first person being unqualified it was destroyed. Why was it destroyed?
 
Cousin Dupree said:
Nobody said that, I'm just putting out a theory. I'm thinking that he went into the house and was attacked by the dog leaving hair on him. I don't believe the taillight story at all. I'm saying that someone collecting hair grabbed a dog hair and submitted it to be tested as human. When it had to be retested due to the first person being unqualified it was destroyed. Why was it destroyed?
Click to expand...
I guess I would need more to the story of it actually being destroyed to believe either side and if it was found embedded or intermingled with the tail light pieces. Big difference between embedded and intermingled in this case
 
Guess Who said:
I guess I would need more to the story of it actually being destroyed to believe either side and if it was found embedded or intermingled with the tail light pieces. Big difference between embedded and intermingled in this case
Click to expand...

I think just about all of the evidence has been compromised.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
The cracked tail light mystifies me. She was doing a three point turn. If he had a driveway, why? Also, would hitting a human being at slow speed (She was doing a K turn.) break a tail light?

The idea is that the evidence was planted. I think the police said it was embedded in the taillight wreckage.

I have a hard time believing the PD on this. I mean on all of the "evidence".
Click to expand...
Not the most up on it but know the basics and a fair amount from that one show.

It was a party was it not? She perhaps couldn't turn around in the drieway because other vehicles were in it?

The mouthy woman on that show had some really good points. They have to explain too much away which for me is always damning. If you have to explain one or two things that is one thing but if you have to come up with different scenarios for six that's another.

HOWEVER, this guy WAS an officer and there is that protect your own thing. AND I feel it overcharged. It seems to me if I remember right, she was pretty honest but then changed her story when realizing how hard they were going to go after her. AND that's when all the claims of manufacturing evidence came in and then her story changed no?

That very mouth vocal lady had some really good points. I did not like her by the end but she did.

I think she hit him and am not sure if she knew it or when she realized but I don't think she wanted him dead. I think and I would rarely say it this is one case a deal should be made and the charges are too harsh.

From the BIT I know but a lot of it or most of it was covered in the one show I watched. She should have some accountability no doubt. Not be free as a bird BUT I don't think she is some evil murderer either. That opinion could change but on what I know that is where I stand at the moment.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
I'm watching the evidentiary hearing now on CourtTV. The defense attorney is challenging the hair found on the broken tail light. He's saying the woman in the lab who identified it as human wasn't qualified to do so. She had failed the course for doing that exact thing a month before. Then they had someone else do it, and they said it wasn't human, and then the state destroyed it.

If that's true, that's pretty damning.

There was a dog in the house. If it was dog hair similar to that dog, that would be very exculpatory.
Click to expand...
That's not a cover up. :rolleyes:
 
www.boston.com

Trial date set for Karen Read in controversial Canton murder case

In a marathon hearing Friday, the judge in Karen Read's murder case heard several motions and set a trial date for next March.
www.boston.com

By Abby Patkin
September 15, 2023 | 4:15 PM
l
Prosecutors and defense attorneys for Karen Read went head-to-head in court Friday, trading scathing barbs and arguing a series of new motions as Judge Beverly Cannone set a trial date for March 12, 2024.

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, early on Jan. 29, 2022.

Prosecutors say that after a night of drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with her car and left him to die in the snow while dropping him off at the Canton home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston police officer. Her lawyers argue that she is being framed, and that O’Keefe was actually beaten to death.

Read has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death.

The contentious case has drawn extensive media coverage and widespread debate in Canton and beyond, with Read’s supporters rallying outside the courthouse during her hearings.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Much more at link. ~Summer
 
I do think it should be mentioned you have a bunch of officers and their significant others drinking and in this case driving. Not stellar examples.

The thing is in the beginning she believed she hit him and only later that changed is that not correct? Once she knew what she was going to be facing, how severe and that it wasn't going to be looked at as just an accident that she willingly admitted to?
 
www.boston25news.com

SJC allows limited access to phone records in Karen Read case

Karen Read’s lawyers will be allowed to examine a portion of cell phone records from one of the people the state has identified as a witness in her murder case.
www.boston25news.com www.boston25news.com

By Ted Daniel, Boston 25 News
November 15, 2023 at 6:17 pm EST

Karen Read’s lawyers will be allowed to examine a portion of cell phone records from one of the people the state has identified as a witness in her murder case.

In a 7-page ruling, the state’s highest court ordered the production of records related to Jennifer McCabe’s searches of “hos long to die in cold.”

<snip>
Read’s lawyers have drawn national attention by stating that O’Keefe was beaten to death and Read is being framed. They argue McCabe’s initial “hos long to die in cold” occurred hours before she called 911 to report that O’Keefe’s body had just been discovered. The Norfolk DA’s Office disputes the timing of McCabe’s initial search. According to the prosecution, the data extracted from McCabe’s cell phone is inaccurate.


Read’s lawyers petitioned the SJC to overturn a ruling by Superior Court Judge Beverly J. Cannone blocking their request for McCabe’s phone data and other records.

In a 7-page decision, Associate Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote, “the information related specifically to that request is relevant and sought in good faith,” but Kafker limited the scope of the records to a twenty-four-hour period before and after O’Keefe’s body was discovered outside the home of McCabe’s brother-in-law, Brian Albert.

Read’s lawyers wanted nearly a week of McCabe’s phone records.
 
Summer_Breeze said:
www.boston25news.com

SJC allows limited access to phone records in Karen Read case

Karen Read’s lawyers will be allowed to examine a portion of cell phone records from one of the people the state has identified as a witness in her murder case.
www.boston25news.com www.boston25news.com

By Ted Daniel, Boston 25 News
November 15, 2023 at 6:17 pm EST

Karen Read’s lawyers will be allowed to examine a portion of cell phone records from one of the people the state has identified as a witness in her murder case.

In a 7-page ruling, the state’s highest court ordered the production of records related to Jennifer McCabe’s searches of “hos long to die in cold.”

<snip>
Read’s lawyers have drawn national attention by stating that O’Keefe was beaten to death and Read is being framed. They argue McCabe’s initial “hos long to die in cold” occurred hours before she called 911 to report that O’Keefe’s body had just been discovered. The Norfolk DA’s Office disputes the timing of McCabe’s initial search. According to the prosecution, the data extracted from McCabe’s cell phone is inaccurate.


Read’s lawyers petitioned the SJC to overturn a ruling by Superior Court Judge Beverly J. Cannone blocking their request for McCabe’s phone data and other records.

In a 7-page decision, Associate Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote, “the information related specifically to that request is relevant and sought in good faith,” but Kafker limited the scope of the records to a twenty-four-hour period before and after O’Keefe’s body was discovered outside the home of McCabe’s brother-in-law, Brian Albert.

Read’s lawyers wanted nearly a week of McCabe’s phone records.
Click to expand...
Hmm. How is it the time is wrong or claimed to be wrong by prosecution? What is their reason it was wrong and they claim it wrong? I read the link and it did not explain.

Here is another example that a higher court has to take on a ruling on the a decision by the lower court during a criminal process just like Delphi. It isn't "chosen" from many or taken on an emergency basis, etc. as was said and parroted all over in Delphi. Defense has some people in their pocket there and clout and then those that fall for it and share it all.

@Cousin Dupree I know this is a pet case of yours, can you tell me more about how the prosecution can even claim a time is wrong on a cell phone search? Plus it is discovery right so what basis do they even have for fighting their getting it from the provider?
 
GrandmaBear said:
Hmm. How is it the time is wrong or claimed to be wrong by prosecution? What is their reason it was wrong and they claim it wrong? I read the link and it did not explain.

Here is another example that a higher court has to take on a ruling on the a decision by the lower court during a criminal process just like Delphi. It isn't "chosen" from many or taken on an emergency basis, etc. as was said and parroted all over in Delphi. Defense has some people in their pocket there and clout and then those that fall for it and share it all.

@Cousin Dupree I know this is a pet case of yours, can you tell me more about how the prosecution can even claim a time is wrong on a cell phone search? Plus it is discovery right so what basis do they even have for fighting their getting it from the provider?
Click to expand...

The prosecution says the time for the search on "how long does it take for someone to die in the cold" was after he was found. The defense says it was before he died. So I guess we'll see now.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Hmm. How is it the time is wrong or claimed to be wrong by prosecution? What is their reason it was wrong and they claim it wrong? I read the link and it did not explain.

Here is another example that a higher court has to take on a ruling on the a decision by the lower court during a criminal process just like Delphi. It isn't "chosen" from many or taken on an emergency basis, etc. as was said and parroted all over in Delphi. Defense has some people in their pocket there and clout and then those that fall for it and share it all.

@Cousin Dupree I know this is a pet case of yours, can you tell me more about how the prosecution can even claim a time is wrong on a cell phone search? Plus it is discovery right so what basis do they even have for fighting their getting it from the provider?
Click to expand...
The timing of the search compared to when they think he was hit would be important. The time could make all the difference. If it was before, then she has a lot of 'splainin to do. If it was after she found out, it might just mean she looked to see how long it took vs how long it would take. It sure can't hurt to have more professionals look at the data. It's very important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,105
Members
971
Latest member
Legalamericaneagle
Back
Top Bottom