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:
Wow, it's occurred to me how much this defendant reminds me of Jodi Arias! And there are many similarities of circumstances and you know, Arias also had supporters.

Before I came into the thread, I can't say why I wasn't interested in the case. I was vaguely aware of the basic info but I had no idea of controversy and that there were allegations of a conspiracy against her by everyone and their dog (literally, their dog! It's too funny!)
Yeah, my impression about it was only that it wasn't clear what happened. When I came into this thread, I knew the trial was coming up and since other cases I'm interested in are all pending trial, I knew I could focus solely on this one.
Btw, I've never understood your interest in the Daybell case, lol! I have watched a doc about it and indeed, it's bizarre but for some reason, it didn't interest me beyond . watching the doc..

Trooper Proctor, the Lead Investigator, isn't being called to testify for the Prosecution??? Is this just another rumor?

Well, I believe the defense can call him to testify??? Will be interesting if the defense does, and the Prosecution does not.

He would probably claim the 5th.

If they don't call him, it will be because the judge won't allow it or the FBI won't allow it. If he takes the fifth on all questions, that will be something the jury should see. I think the defense will definitely call him.
 
And Brian Higgins finished testifying that he was parked in front of 34 Fairview Road at the same time Karen and Ryan pulled up however the only two people who corroborate that is Jennifer and Matthew McCabe.
I don't understand your point.
He was the first to arrive and I'm sure he remembers where he parked. Lol!
 
I don't understand your point.
He was the first to arrive and I'm sure he remembers where he parked. Lol!
Yes, he said he parked out front however his vehicle was not in front of that home when Karen & Ryan pulled up during the same time frame. A jeep with a snow plow would be hard to overlook, imo.
 
Yes, he said he parked out front however his vehicle was not in front of that home when Karen & Ryan pulled up during the same time frame. A jeep with a snow plow would be hard to overlook, imo.
Wasn't it a Richard or a Rick who was driving? Anyway, the driver and his two passengers saw that Read arrived at the same address as they were headed to and I think that's why they would- and did- remember her vehicle as opposed to one already there.
 
Wasn't it a Richard or a Rick who was driving? Anyway, the driver and his two passengers saw that Read arrived at the same address as they were headed to and I think that's why they would- and did- remember her vehicle as opposed to one already there.
Richie was the driver and confirmed he pulled up behind Karen however none of them saw Higgins Jeep parked in the street like he testified to. It's testimony like this that makes me wonder why Higgins would lie about something like this.

In the image below is this scenario.

rs=w:1280,h:720
 
Richie was the driver and confirmed he pulled up behind Karen however none of them saw Higgins Jeep parked in the street like he testified to. It's testimony like this that makes me wonder why Higgins would lie about something like this.
I just think he remembered what there was most prominent to remember; that Read's vehicle was parked ahead of his.
 
Now that it's been proven that he had no lower body injuries, how does the theory she hit him and that's what killed him even work? It doesn't. Not at all.

The FBI accident reconstructionist testifying for the defense should help a lot too. Taillights don't leave dog scratches.
 
For those who do not understand or simply don't want to take the time to think about the facts let me post this tweet that explains the data that does not lie! And in case you choose not to click the link then I'll help and post the entire contents for you to digest. Oh, and if you do open the link read the attachments that are from the CW case in chief where it states that they believe Karen Read hit Officer John O'Keefe at 12:25AM on January 29th, 2022. Happy reading ;)




Why did Investigators Michael Proctor & Nicholas Guarino in the #KarenRead case use SARTopo App, a consumer Search and Rescue App, NOT a gold standard forensic tool or software used or relied upon by LE, using UNSPECIFIED location data from #JohnOKeefe’s iPhone’s Cached Locations, to go out to the scene and physically map points to give their “interpretation” of #JohnOKeefe's iPhone's location data? Not only is this unheard of in the digital forensic investigative world, but their described methodology has overwhelming potential for a lot of user error, thereby removing its ability for scientific repeatability or reproducibility–ultimately rendering it neither credible nor reliable forensic evidence–two important standards & best practices for digital forensics.

If others are able to find any examples of murder prosecutions where the SARTopo App was used to physically map digital forensic location phone data of an individual involved, please let me know. I could not find any application of SARTopo App in a forensic setting.

Lead Investigator Michael Proctor & Digital Forensics “Expert” Nicholas Guarino waited over 15 months after arresting Karen Read to interpret this critical location data which the state so desperately relies upon as their justification for not so much as even bothering to ASK the homeowner, Brian Albert if they could search inside his house where the victim, John O’Keefe had been invited to & dropped off at for an after-party just 6 hours before being found brutally assaulted and left for dead on that same front lawn.

Nobody was stopping Michael Proctor from ASKING to search inside the house. Why didn’t he? Perhaps his conflict of interest being lifelong family friends with his potential suspects, the Alberts & the McCabes, clouded his judgment? Or perhaps the fact that he NEVER went to the crime scene for the investigation he was leading? Yet to be answered.

This means at the time of the investigation & arrest, the state had ZERO evidence proving John didn’t go inside the house he was invited to other than testimony largely coming from the very witness, Jen McCabe, whose inconsistent interviews make her unreliable in addition to the very incriminating evidence found on her phone further inculpating her. In addition to Jen, the only other witnesses who were actually present at 34 Fairview during the time John was believed to be killed who were interviewed before Karen Read’s arrest were Jen’s husband, Matt McCabe, and Jen’s brother-in-law/the homeowner, Brian Albert.

Law Enforcement know that relying on witnesses as definitive proof is of course absurd, because since when are murderers honest & forthcoming? Data don’t lie. People do.

BACK TO THE DATA: To understand what is wrong with Proctor’s & Guarino’s "interpretation" of John’s GPS data, let’s first look at the gold standard approach–how LE & prosecutions across this country obtain this type of information.

HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE
The forensic gold standard for determining one's precise geolocation during a specific time is:
1) Investigators obtain the mobile device itself & the records from the cellular provider.
2) A forensic imaging tool like GrayKey is used to forensically image the phone’s contents, or essentially create a copy of all the data contained therein.
3) The contents of the phone’s image are uploaded into a forensic data recovery & extraction tool like Cellebrite or Axiom for review.
4) Cellphone records (per cellular provider) and cellphone data, (exported from Cellebrite or Axiom), are loaded into a call detail records (CDRs) & native location data forensic parsing tool/software, like CellHawk.
5) CellHawk parses, analyzes & maps location data from several sources including: cellular location records (when phones connect to various towers as they move around), native phone location data (from its apps), datasets from cellular carrier records, location data stored in SQLite, and can even map “interpersonal connections”, with an ability to animate more than 20 phones at once and “see how they move relative to each other".

HOW IT WAS DONE FOR JOHN’S PHONE:
1) Investigators obtained John’s iPhone but curiously did not obtain/utilize John’s cellphone carrier records for this investigation (tracking his phone's location).
2) Investigators claim to have forensically imaged John’s phone using GrayKey (1/31/2022).
3) Investigators uploaded John’s phone’s forensic image to Axiom.
4) Investigators exported UNSPECIFIED location data points from the phone’s Cached Locations and loaded them into the SARTopo Search and Rescue App.
5) Investigators began “measuring the APPROXIMATE location from where O'Keefe's body was discovered. To do this [they] reviewed the Canton PD dash camera video and the photos that were taken by Sgt. Goode when they were searching in the snow”.

From Lead Investigator Michael Proctor & Trooper Guarino’s 15-months after the fact GPS analysis, AFTER the defense had produced compelling evidence implicating members of Proctor’s “second family” & lifelong friends who were inside the house, and AFTER Proctor had already made the bold decision to arrest Karen Read-is it all that surprising that he confirmed his bias in his erroneous & unreliable “interpretation” of unspecified location data, abandoning all forensic SOP, to ultimately determine that ACTUALLY some of those data points DO place John inside the house? Just not for time long enough for Proctor to acknowledge that reality?

Did Proctor & Guarino physically plot ALL of the hundreds to potentially thousands of location data points that'd be parsed from John's native location data, CDRs' location data & cellular provider records location data? And if so, why did they not show them all in their report? Which ones are we not seeing?

Did Proctor & Guarino consider the very real phenomenon of GPS drift? The difference between your actual location & the location recorded by your phone’s A-GPS. Did Proctor consider the fact that all GPS systems have some amount of drift (including GPS-enabled smartphones which can drift by 16 feet or more)? What about the prevalent location data issues with Waze delay or approximate location? Or the effects on the precision of GPS capability relative to the strength of one's network connection OR the significant effect on signal strength due to things like the substantial overcast of a bomb cyclone snowstorm that was brewing overhead that night? How did Proctor & Guarino measure the data points they plotted? How do we know Proctor & Guarino accurately input each data point into the SARTopo app? How accurate and precise is the SARTopo app–an app that is NOT intended for this purpose, NOT used in forensic criminal investigations, and NOT used for obtaining forensic evidence by either LE or prosecutions across this country?

Did Proctor or Guarino consider the overwhelming sources for user error? Did they consider the fact that LAND SURVEYORS use lasers & LiDAR among other advanced technologies solely to measure & plot land? Did they utilize the same level of reliable technology to ensure their “interpretation” was either credible or reliable?

Why didn’t they show us the actual location data points they utilized to determine John’s phone did not go inside 34 Fairview? In Guarino’s GPS report, he selectively only shows 6 data points–John’s phone’s location spanning across 6 seconds–to determine he did not go inside the house. Why just these 6 data points or these 6 seconds?

The state eagerly claims this non-forensic analysis is somehow proof John’s phone did not go inside 34 Fairview. What proof do they have that John HIMSELF did not go inside 34 Fairview? This unreliable “evidence”, based on A-GPS data also relies on cellular network connection or Wi-Fi. What proof do they have that John’s phone wasn’t placed into airplane mode or turned off?

And lastly, does it make any sense to you that these two seasoned investigators would abandon all forensic investigative protocol to opt for a non-forensic tool/software not intended for this purpose, but rather a Search and Rescue & recreational consumer use app, physically go to the scene to physically “plot” out data stored on their computer by plugging it into said app to map it out with yardsticks or something? Instead of using a forensic software where they can simply, at the press of a button, plug ALL the data in including John’s cellphone carrier records–something containing abundant sources of location data notably LEFT OUT of their homemade GPS analysis?

Who opts for the more laborious, more cumbersome, non-forensic, less reliable, accurate or precise option, as Michael Proctor & Nicholas Guarino did? And additionally, if they’re able to establish such precision for John O’Keefe’s phone’s location during the time in question, why didn’t they do the same and produce the same report for Karen Read’s?

What was the forensic tool/software that Brian Tully used when he initially plotted the locations and movements of Karen Read using her cellphone carrier (Verizon) records during her morning search for John (as first referenced in the Commonwealth’s Statement of Case)?

So many questions, so little answers. Does this seem like the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard to you?

P.S. What I forgot to mention? The digital forensic expert, Richard Green, used by the defense ACTUALLY did use a forensic tool, specifically CellHawk, to parse & analyze the phone location data in this case. Particularly of note is the fact that for Jen McCabe's phone location data, the accuracy improves SIGNIFICANTLY upon her leaving the house & subsequently leaving the area of Fairview.

Might this diminished cellular reception in that area play a role in why relying on GPS data down to the meter is simply unreliable?

Come trial, whose GPS report would you trust more?

That is a lot to ingest and believe in any direction. I don't think they are that smart for one thing.

You know it far better and I am not even going to pretend to admit I have followed or know or tracked it all. It is not a pet case for me as I have said.

I listened to a bit of STS last night but didn't stick on it as my foremost was seeing the day and closings of Daybell and I ran into STS live when searching for Daybell info. STS is the one I put on that had one fiery show emu watched and loved that had people on both sides going pretty at it.

Anyhow I heard five or ten minutes and then told myself to go look for Daybell verdict watch, I didn't even know yet if it was in watch but figured it was and had not listened to closings. And yes, all here, and all out there, and honestly this case has not had all shared in here imo specifically and the case has not been followed and detailed from the start at all, but yes, I have NO problem saying there is a lot of janky sh*t here. And a few witnesses with ridiculous excuses for some things like don't have a wife and kids so no reason to keep the phone or data. NOT believable imo.

My problem although I entertain a few things, is only the defense story of what did happen for the most part. I think the truth lies in the middle of both sides here. I think Karen did kill him and they know/knew it. I also think helping prove that may well have went on. I'm not convinced of anything but that I can believe. I also think this group may well have talked as they all know each other and things even IF TRUE were on their devices and they deleted as it would show conversation amongst them all, as they'd do probably in any such case of one close to them at a party held by them, etc. and the activities and talk after of all. I think some of that is that simple.

Is there reasonable doubt? Well yes I would say doubts are being created and she may not be found guilty and there is at minimum ineptness and at most trying to ensure their case is solid and talking amongst themselves which believe me most probably do but never gets called out in most cases.

Karen WAS there. They did NOT go home. She DID drop him off. For all the tech and all else, this is fact. She backed up 60 feet was it? And I think in our passionate post here there is something about that and how accurate. I don't know and it is explaining a lot of various things and I am not pretending to be at your level of understanding it all but it still is a lot of things to be explained away.

I just have it fall down that he was beat up, attacked by a dog, killed in the home, dumped outside and luckily they had a Karen REad to frame that really did bring him there. That's too much for me and I don't buy the alternative theory. Do I believe the investigation was messed up? Yes. Do I believe some in it are he types who talked amongst selves and used their positions at times for their own benefit? Yes. All? NO.

There well may be enough reasonable doubt given in this case for acquittal. I CAN see that.

They screwed this up themselves no doubt in many a way.

I still believe she killed him.

IF that earlier search is even FACT, I think there is a far more likely scenario here. And that's that Jen knew he was hit or saw him out there...

It makes a lot more sense.

I read every bit of your post and understand most even though not a tech person. And don't deny the b.s. in this case and investigation. They are also dufuses though. I don't like that excuse used in every case, we see such a lot for an LE error or many, we see it in Delphi but truly some of them are.

I'm not blaming the victim but again think of where it would be hard KR and JO just went home that night. SHe wouldn't be facing murder charges and he'd be alive. Well maybe. I mean in a temper she could have killed him at home too but in this case, they framed someone who truly did drop him off there and then there just happened to be a fight, a dog and fortunately a KR to frame that had actually dropped him there? That's just too much for me to buy.

I DO get you have looked into this and get your many points here and they are valid and clearly well looked into. I am not passionate about it, one of the few that I don't have emotion invested in, rare thing. You do so I do get that. And I'm not claiming to be up on all on the case or the facts or have followed all along.

Even if all of it is intentional in your post here and not just some inept and old school system untrained bunch and friends network, I don't buy the alternate theory and still think Karen hit him and most likely intentionally and then freaked later.

That's what I have a problem with no matter how messed up all else is. She may well because of a very imperfect investigation go free and she should if not proven or much reasonable doubt and a messed up investigation, she SHOULD, but it won't be because she is innocent in my opinion. It will be because they botched the case big time.

And smell so many politics I need a new smell.
 
I went back to review the testimony of Richard and his passengers and Julie Nagel the only one who didn't remember that Richard parked in front of the driveway was the female passenger.
Anyway, none of them saw anyone leave the SUV and btw, I think another reason their focus was on the SUV (as opposed to any other vehicle) is because it's lights were on and stayed on.
 
I went back to review the testimony of Richard and his passengers and Julie Nagel the only one who didn't remember that Richard parked in front of the driveway was the female passenger.
Anyway, none of them saw anyone leave the SUV and btw, I think another reason their focus was on the SUV (as opposed to any other vehicle) is because it's lights were on and stayed on.
But explain his lack of injuries that would occur if he was actually hit by her, then explain the 3 minutes of video missing from file the prosecution delivered to the defense that would have shown her driving down the road at that time. Then explain why these cops that believed their fellow officer was murdered did not even bother to ask for any other video along her route that would have shown her taillight broken. IF they had really believed their friend was murdered by her, they would have pulled out all the stops that were available to them. Instead, the only thing they really did do was delete things from their phones or destroy their phones and basically no other actual investigating. One has to ask yourself that if they really believed he was murdered, why did they to these things the way they did? Remember, they also did not charge her until well after all of the video that might have been available from the places they did not ask for, would be no longer available to the defense.
 
Jen testified that when she first saw Read's vehicle out front, she texted John "Here?". That was at 12:27.
Her next text came after she saw that Read's vehicle had moved. She texted "Pull behind me" and that was at 12:31.
At 12:40, she texted "Hello", at 12:42 "Where are u" and at 12:45 "Hello".

If I recall correctly, it was by the time of that first "hello" that she no longer saw- or could see- Read's vehicle.
 
It would have been easy enough for them to get the video of her leaving the bar with taillight intact and various other places with it still intact, then as she was leaving the Mc home, all the video would show a missing taillight. Why did they not even bother doing this simplistic, investigating 101, thing?
 
But explain his lack of injuries that would occur if he was actually hit by her, then explain the 3 minutes of video missing from file the prosecution delivered to the defense that would have shown her driving down the road at that time. Then explain why these cops that believed their fellow officer was murdered did not even bother to ask for any other video along her route that would have shown her taillight broken. IF they had really believed their friend was murdered by her, they would have pulled out all the stops that were available to them. Instead, the only thing they really did do was delete things from their phones or destroy their phones and basically no other actual investigating. One has to ask yourself that if they really believed he was murdered, why did they to these things the way they did? Remember, they also did not charge her until well after all of the video that might have been available from the places they did not ask for, would be no longer available to the defense.
I'm not interested in discussing anything that hasn't been presented in court.
 
I'm not interested in discussing anything that hasn't been presented in court.
That ALL has been presented in court with the exception of people testifying yet that they were not asked for video or any questions at all. Notice that the prosecution never presented anything showing her with and without a taillight. Sure seems like that would be important evidence to show if they did have it, wouldn't it? Them not showing the simplest of technology available to them sure is telling that could so easily prove their case against her. The lack of injuries is shown in an official court filing, along with the death certificate that only notates head injury and hypothermia. Where's the lower body injuries that would make it even a question that he was even touched by a vehicle going that fast?
 
Last edited:
And because this user is better at articulating I'll post this link. More food for thought.



That awkward moment when the phone data doesn’t lie, but contradicts the Commonwealth’s entire theory! #KarenRea

Who had Officer #JohnOKeefe’s cellphone at 12:59:36am? Because according to the state, they say he was already struck & killed by this point.

From its own documents, they state “a check of the location data in Axiom shows the last location at 34 Fairview Road…at 12:25:36 a.m.”.

They also say: “The phone finally stops in between 34 and 32 Fairview Road in the area of the flag pole and fire hydrant at 12:24:40AM. The final point plotted was at 12:25:36AM when the phone stops showing any movement until the morning at 6:15:36AM”.

The Commonwealth claims that Officer O’Keefe is struck and killed at 12:25:36am because, according to them, his phone shows no more movement until 6:15:36am.

Not only is this directly refuted by the fact that John’s phone answered Jen McCabe’s call at 12:29:44am, and showed subsequent movement via Apple Health movement data, including several steps taken around 12:32am, but it’s also in direct contraction to the entry of location movement data at 12:59:36am on John’s phone.

So, who do you think was looking at Officer O’Keefe’s phone at 12:59:36am? According to court documents, his phone was found underneath him in the morning at the scene.

So whoever was looking at John’s phone at 12:59:36am had to have put his phone underneath him—directly implicating that individual in his murder, especially given the fact that Karen Read had long been home at that point, as she was home by 12:41am.

Also, has anyone heard any updates from the Commonwealth on who was driving the Ford Edge, spotted by snowplow driver Lucky Loughran between 2:30-3:00am, parked directly in front of the fire hydrant near where Officer O’Keefes body was later found?

You’d think Massachusetts State Police would prioritize investigating the murderers of a fellow Police Officer over flying out to California to interview a random woman about her communications with a journalist. But alas, I guess not for Officer O’Keefe?

It is strange and so it means what?

Doesn't prove some fight and dog attack imo.

Does certainly show if all true that doubt can certainly be brought.

Or that Karen hit him but someone found him or his phone prior to when known.

It sure doesn't prove the theory of the defense.

Hell maybe OK made it inside to the party, got further plastered, left and wandered outside and was hit by the snowplow driver who then took his phone and ran around with it. Not being sarcastic, I am just saying my biggest problem is the alternative theory

And if this is all true then what, they slip it under his body at some point, or someone did after he was placed there or he wasn't dead or place there until later?

There sure is a lot going on in this few hour span and in almost any version by drunken people or a drunken person, etc.

I rarely agree with the emu but some time back he said he is waiting for the phone expert and I'd say yeah, hearing this explained IF true would be something to wait for.

Right now a live hearing is going on in Kohberger ALL about the phone right now. Guy is self taught I think he said and has done such for years now and created a program. Curious as to your take on it. I think it is some "expert" the defense brought in. Haven't got to watch it all but he is saying too I think about it odd which program LE used, etc., etc. Is this becoming a theme used by defenses? Again I am not sure I have it right but I think so, I had a nap and am only half awake.
 
It is strange and so it means what?

Doesn't prove some fight and dog attack imo.

Does certainly show if all true that doubt can certainly be brought.

Or that Karen hit him but someone found him or his phone prior to when known.

It sure doesn't prove the theory of the defense.

Hell maybe OK made it inside to the party, got further plastered, left and wandered outside and was hit by the snowplow driver who then took his phone and ran around with it. Not being sarcastic, I am just saying my biggest problem is the alternative theory

And if this is all true then what, they slip it under his body at some point, or someone did after he was placed there or he wasn't dead or place there until later?

There sure is a lot going on in this few hour span and in almost any version by drunken people or a drunken person, etc.

I rarely agree with the emu but some time back he said he is waiting for the phone expert and I'd say yeah, hearing this explained IF true would be something to wait for.

Right now a live hearing is going on in Kohberger ALL about the phone right now. Guy is self taught I think he said and has done such for years now and created a program. Curious as to your take on it. I think it is some "expert" the defense brought in. Haven't got to watch it all but he is saying too I think about it odd which program LE used, etc., etc. Is this becoming a theme used by defenses? Again I am not sure I have it right but I think so, I had a nap and am only half awake.
Where are his injuries that would happen if he actually was hit by a vehicle? Why did the prosecution not include the 3 minutes of security video that was mysteriously left out? Why did they not show absolutely any video that would show her going home without a taillight? Wouldn't that be what could possibly prove the prosection's case without much doubt at all? This was their cop friend that they are claiming was murdered. Why did they not provide any of that info? Wouldn't that mean that they either didn't ask for any of that video ( should have been one of the first and easiest things to do) or, if they did, it doesn't show a broken taillight?
 
And here is the link to document of plow driver, even though it is embedded in TB post:


<snip>

View attachment 22118
So he only looked towards the road and couldn't see whether anyone was inside the vehicle it sounds like here. Sounds like he decided not to plow that road to not plow it in but continued down Cedarcrest rather than turning onto Fairview. It then says he did not pass by 34 Fairview again until 6:30 by it never said he went down it to begin with earlier which makes little sense. It also then says he is confident the ody wsn't in the yard when he passed by it at least two times earlier yet he continued on Cedar crest rather than onto Fairview. Talk about confusing or poor journalism. And I'd add that he could tell no body was there but coudn't tell if anyone read in the Edge but could tell it was an Edge.

It could be just terrible reporting but this is as clear as mud and does not add up, at least not the way told here.
 
So he only looked towards the road and couldn't see whether anyone was inside the vehicle it sounds like here. Sounds like he decided not to plow that road to not plow it in but continued down Cedarcrest rather than turning onto Fairview. It then says he did not pass by 34 Fairview again until 6:30 by it never said he went down it to begin with earlier which makes little sense. It also then says he is confident the ody wsn't in the yard when he passed by it at least two times earlier yet he continued on Cedar crest rather than onto Fairview. Talk about confusing or poor journalism. And I'd add that he could tell no body was there but coudn't tell if anyone read in the Edge but could tell it was an Edge.

It could be just terrible reporting but this is as clear as mud and does not add up, at least not the way told here.
This has nothing to do with terrible reporting though. Why would proctor absolutely lie about this?
Michael Proctor is on record in an official police report stating that Canton DPW Director Michael Trotta told him that the GPS on plow trucks was broken on January 24, and not fixed in time for the blizzard on the January 29. This is at odds with Loughran’s testimony to me, because he said that the FBI confronted him with GPS data from January 29, indicating that it was not broken.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,057
Members
969
Latest member
SamiraMill
Back
Top Bottom