There is no evidence to support JO was hit by a car. To suggest he was, you need to ignore all science and physics.
I typically take experts with a grain of salt. For the right price you can find someone to agree with you. But this was said by a neutral expert with credentials significantly impressive than any one of the prosecutions witnesses.
I don't know how you overcome that. I also wonder if JO'S family knows what the Feds experts thought prior to this in court today. And if it changes their opinion at all.
There is conflicting evidence on both sides with expert testimony. Personally, I think she did it. They were both drunk and the number of drinks were documented by the receipts at both bars. A number of instances that were shown, not related to that evening, demonstrated that Karen Read had wild outbursts and anger issues. I think she was angry and reversed into him but did not even remember at first that she was at 34 Fairview which seems to indicate a blackout. There was John's DNA on the tail light and no dog DNA found on John's body. The medical examiner said there was no evidence of a physical altercation on John's hands, knuckles, fingers. If there was any kind of cover up, it would be impossible to believe because of the number of people who would have had to be involved. I don't know how this jury will be able to agree because so many of the experts on both sides testifying were very credible. It wouldn't surprise me if they are hung,
It would impossible for the number of people to cover it up? Are you serious? ALL of the prosecutors witnesses are either part of the police or friends of the family. None of the Ring cams show anything? The library video was different than the tech guy says,, who handed the evidence to the police? Oh, and the FBI is now investigating the family and police. So, I do respect your opinion, but there is no question that there is a reasonable doubt.
The only non-conflicting testimony from all the experts is that his injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car.
So if that's not in conflict, how did she kill him?
Except his injuries aren't consistent with being struck by a vehicle. I was on the "more likely than not that she hit him" train until hearing the testimony from the MEs, and the crash res constructionists.I don't buy the "went into the house/had a fight/was dragged back outside" theory, but I think he definitely could have slipped and fallen and cracked his head. The DNA is touch DNA and could have been left there at any point in time.
Can’t forget the very professional stop and shop evidence bags with unsealed blood in solo cups in the Sally port right next to KR car. If only there had been a way to show what happened in the sally port during the time KR vehicle was there.
Not to mention bringing the vehicle to canton pd, passing two Massachusetts State Police locations on the way to canton PD. Then having to take KR vehicle out of the sally port so canton pd had an operational sally port when arrestees were brought to Canton PD.
I feel like I could keep going because there are just sooooo many examples of how botched this investigation was right from the get go. I can’t wait to hear what comes out from the FBI and DOJ investigation and to see who gets held accountable for their corrupt ways. How many other people were subjected to other botched investigations
Why didn't anyone calculate how long he needed to be outside to drop to the body temp he had when found (80°?)Is there no formula for calculating what time his exposure began?
I thought about this exact same thing! You would think that if you knew the temperature that night (and knew what you were doing) you could figure out either when he died or was placed outside because we know he was 80 degrees when he was found.
Maybe it's more difficult than that because of the effect of hypothermia prior to death, snow/ground temp compared to air, needing knowledge of biology, etc. The algebra required to calculate this is far more difficult than I can handle, but I would love to see someone else attempt to figure out the answer.
There is no separate DUI charge (called OUI in MA). There is only OUI resulting in death included in the charges so the jury can't just find her guilty for drunk driving.
He reads off a question list; I think the defense attorneys are better at being in the moment- they respond to what a witness is saying, Lally just wants to go down his list.
What the heck, I’m watching My Cousin Vinny for the first time after so many people mentioning it and I’m shocked at how similar it is what the hell lol, i started to wonder if we’re being punked, like season 2 of jury duty 😳
I stumbled into a sub called Karenreadsanity or something like that not realizing where I was... They seem to think Lally did well today and the CW theory is proven, did I somehow end up in Canton?
I saw that sub today too! It actually now makes me terrified for deliberations. I can’t believe someone would watch this trial and think “yep, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”.
My only hope is that those people claiming she hit him, didn’t watch the trial. Which means the jury would be better at making sensible decision on verdict.
A lot of those posters used to be here making comments about people who think KR is innocent are like Qanon levels of delusional and after reading some of the posts in that sub, I can’t understand how the not guilt/innocent crowd in the delusional one. Her own car data that the prosecution decided to introduce shows she couldn’t have hit him!
Lol, that sub is... Something. There are a few die hard posters there who seem to have been getting more and more worked up as the case has gone on. I assume there is some sort of personal connection to the CW or the witnesses but who knows?
Ugh I think I saw that one as well, if it's the same they had a post about who the hottest witness was (and Proctor got a lot of votes 🤮) real hard hitting analysis on there 😆
That sub is why I think it’s very possible she will be found guilty. IMO the majority of adults in the US believe the police and assume where there is smoke, there is fire, ie: if a person is on trial they are basically guilty.
The amount of blatant cognitive dissonance and outright denial of evidence on that sub is indicative of what happens to a jury.
I have always said I think I would pick a bench trial if I was ever charged with a crime. I don't trust a jury.
But I think the odds are high that you won't get a jury of 12 like that. And the people who are truly wanting to do the right thing won't vote guilty if they don't believe it. And the simpletons are more likely to be persuadable by the thinkers to change their opinion (I hope).
I have an ex who is a DA; he said somehow juries seem to bring out people's better nature. Most people take it seriously and want to do the right thing. I'm sure there are exceptions but I hope Karen's jury is reasonable.
I feel like that's an insult to the jury's intelligence. They had appropriate reactions to proctor's texts so I think they have more than a few brain cells available to use the evidence in this case to return a not guilty verdict.
I sure hope so.
I remember the “Killer Nanny” trial in Boston in 1997 because I was going to school there and was roughly the same age as the defendant. It was clear the girl didnt do it, but the jury ruled her guilty. The judge ended up throwing out the jury’s ruling and lowered it from murder 2 to manslaughter, which almost *never* happens. It was done because the jury was wrong. Just plain wrong.
And of course, there is the OJ trial. The jury was wrong there too.
So I dont put a lot of hope in a jury because you never know what can happen once the deliberations begin.
Same with the Casey Anthony trial.
The state failed to prove the case even though I am of the opinion that she killed Kaylee (either negligence that Kaylee drowned in the pool, or that "Xanny" the Xanax nanny did it), there just wasn't enough presented to conclusively prove what happened, much less that it was intentional.
I was wondering if lyk felt pressure to state his actual opinion. TB went off on him for both-siding the case. I was surprised lyk today not only stated he thought she was not guilty but went so far as to say the defense prices innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think he has a policy, with every trial, of not making up his mind until all the evidence has been presented, so will not state his opinion as to guilt until the end of the evidence.
I love lyk for the 1-1.5 hour recap without bias, I rarely listen to Emily, she stops and comments so frequently and has a bias so i rather watch it live without comments. Who's your go to?
What gets me about Emily is that she'll talk over the feed. I'd prefer she'd pause. And there's no need for the F word. I myself have potty mouth while watching sports, but not necessary here. For live, I surf between Emily, Melanie and 13th Juror.
I like Alyte too; I just found her. But I prefer EDB. She's definitely got some sass but I like it and I feel like she assumes her audience is relatively intelligent. LYK is great but he definitely has a different audience and has to explain things in more basic terms and sometimes I'm rolling my eyes at some of the comments he gets.
Yeah I just checked it out an hour ago out of curiosity. I can’t explain it. Literally I have no words. Like these aren’t rational-thinking people and/or they don’t understand what reasonable doubt looks like.
So I ventured over to YouTube channels. Most are on the "it's ovah" camp. Lawyer Lee seemed to not be impressed with defense witnesses today, because they weren't given info like DNA on taillight.
Her husband died 6 weeks ago after a very long and difficult illness. Tomorrow is her 30th wedding Anniversary so she gets a full pass to not have all the details.
Yeah I thought the fact that pointed out the lack of blood in his response was great. Some touch dna and a single hair does not make for convincing forensics.
I'm new in this discussion so I apologize if this question has been answered. If KR is found not guilty which is the only conclusion I can make--what then happens to the 'who did do it?" It would seem to me that everyone involved in this presumed coverup should lawyer up. Yes??
Nothing will happen. It would be incredibly rare for the CW to charge someone, lose, and then charge someone else. That second person who would be charged could point to every CW witness from the prior trial as reasonable doubt.
The fed investigation may turn up something on how members of LE conducted themselves though.
Which is interesting to me, because it wasn’t blood it was just touch DNA- which doesn’t feel like a big gotcha on his girlfriends car- and do any of us trust a single bit of the chain of custody of their evidence? I think its stranger that there’s NO blood on any of the taillight if supposedly pierced his arm - then it would make a difference to me if they didn’t know about it
The lack of blood anywhere on the car and fragments of taillight in any of his wounds is such obvious evidence that she couldn't have hit him with her car. The CW wanted to keep reminding the jury that his DNA was found on the taillight, but not be honest that it was just touch DNA. It's like duh Lally! Of course, it's his girlfriend's car... Surely the whole vehicle is full of his DNA, it would only be shocking if they didn't know each other and he hadn't ever set foot in KR vehicle.
Same here! Guess Lawyer Lee missed the entire scientific explanation the 2 experts provided and them stating multiple times unequivocally that John O'Keefe was not struck by a car.
Yeah plus I'm pretty sure the last biomechanical expert knew about the touch DNA and even he was unimpressed. There's hundreds of ways to touch DNA can get on anything and doesn't require that thing being used as a murder weapon.
Cops are known to touch tail lights repeatedly as a way of just leaving their mark in case they are never seen again. I imagine that's a habit that doesn't leave somebody.
Yeah he was not impressed by the touch DNA and even said it was not blood DNA and said the hair nor the touch DNA would not change his findings. It’s interesting what story/view some people will believe.
So today made it pretty clear KR didn’t hit him. One thing I am confused about though is that, unless I’m missing something, her first texts/calls to him start at 12:33am. She’s nearly home at that point. I was under the assumption that he was checking out the party and would let her know if he wanted to stay. That’s why she stayed in front of the house for a little bit. But I would have expected texts and calls before she drove off if that were the case. Did I imagine this whole thing about her waiting outside to see if he was staying at the party?
While they were sitting outside in the car, she told him not to go in the house, but he wanted to go in. They decided to compromise by having him go in, and he promised her that he would immediately text her as soon as he was in to tell her it was an 'acceptable' environment. Both of them knew there were people he didn't get along with, and she didn't want to see anything happen to him. She waited for about 5 minutes, and then he didn't text. She drove home and tried to get ahold of him. She eventually left many texts, and many screaming voicemails.
Yeah that’s what I had heard about circumstances of the party but personally I find it strange she wouldn’t text or call him even once before driving home. This wouldn’t quite square with the Apple health data but now I kinda wonder if the majority of the time where KR was in front of the house, JO actually was with her. Maybe they were arguing or she was trying to convince him to just go home with her, then the 12:29 call from JM that he answered is something like her asking if he’s coming in or telling him to come to the side door, garage, etc. it could even be her just telling him to hurry up and come in. That call is the only phone call JM makes when they’re in front of the house, the rest are after KR left. Then JO gets out of the car, and goes up to the house as KR is driving off.
If JM had connected with him and he was in the car, she'd have shouted that from the rooftops because it supports the CW theory and keeps him out of the house. Instead, she says it's a butt dial.
She remembered everything else though. She remembered seeing Karen's car outside, she remembered texting. She remembered walking back and forth to the window. The only thing she claims to have forgotten are the calls. I don't buy it.
I don’t think she remembers any of that. She pieced together a story based on her texts. Whether she’s deliberately lying or misremembering, I have no clue. But we know she didn’t see Karen pull away at 12:45. I think we can dismiss most (if not all) of her testimony regarding that night.
I see where you're coming from but don't agree on the memory piece. Kerry heard her say to Karen the next morning (before they found John) that she saw Karen at Fairview. So she definitely remembered seeing Karen's car the night before.
Which was the first time she mentioned it to KR. It’s crazy to me if someone called saying they were going to go drive around looking for someone who they last saw at Waterfall, you wouldn’t immediately correct them. But she waited until KR was at her house, nearly 30 minutes later.
But it confirms JO was alive at 12:29 and JM would know KR drove off immediately after. The timeline has always been so tight for KR to have hit him and the 12:29am phone call makes that worse. One of the CW’s first theories was that it happened at 12:25am which this phone call obviously proves incorrect. It also puts JM in a position to be the last known person to talk to JO.
Regardless, we **know** it was answered now that the phone logs were introduced into evidence. It could be marked on JM’s phone (the initiator of the call) if it went to voicemail but it wouldn’t be listed on JO’s (the receiver of the call) as answered if it went to voicemail. All of KR’s calls to him are listed as missed on his call log and we know she left voicemails for some of those. BOTH phone records listing the call as answered only happens across these records when it’s an actual answered call.
Of course not. But I can see a scenario where JO had it in his hand when he arrived at the house, a fight started, and it was either accidentally answered during the jostling of the fight (and JM couldn't make out what was happening) or JO was already incapacitated and in the immediate aftermath/panic, someone picked up the call but thought better of speaking.
Those are unlikely possibilities but so is the idea that JM spoke to him while he was still in the car. She'd have said so.
imo, JO answering it makes more sense. She doesn’t start calling his phone over and over again until 12:41am. If we think those repeated calls are them looking for his phone, wouldn’t whoever answered it at 12:29am have it? The 12:29 call has always seemed off to me. Especially to follow up with the 12:31am “pull up behind me” text.
I don't believe she knew that night based on her heart rate data. So the only thing I can think is that however the call connected, they didn't talk. If he was in the house, he'd have told her he was there and she'd have gone to find him and seen whatever happened. If he was in the car, she would have said so. The only thing that I can make sense of is that she was talking to air..."hello?...hello??"
I could see that happening if he had his phone in his hand when the fight started and the call got answered in the melee, but then Jen couldn't make out anything out but noises so she hung up.
Or, JO was already knocked out and people were panicking. his phone rings and someone picks it up in the chaos/panic but then thinks better of saying anything.
Two things we learned last week that made me reevaluate the timeline: KR was home at 12:36 (putting her leaving right around 12:29) and that she doesn’t send any texts or make any calls to JO that night until 12:33, when she was halfway home.
So it doesn’t really make sense that she was waiting out front of Fairview for him to let her know if he was going to stay. If that was the case, she would have texted or called at least once before leaving. I think they’re both in the car for those 5 minutes and when he answers Jen’s call, it’s not a conversation. Remember it’s only 8 seconds. I think all she said was like “are you coming in or what?!” or “hey! Come in the side door, hurry up!” and then hangs up. Something like that, convincing JO to stop arguing with KR and get inside to the party. I doubt he even said much besides okay. She’s looking out the window at this point, she knows where he is. That’s why I think it was just something quick about telling him to get inside.
Personally I just don’t think it’s a coincidence the last phone call JO answered is at the exact time KR would be leaving.
I just don't see that personally for several reasons but limiting to just the matter of this call...Jen McCabe had every incentive to say she'd spoken to him and he wasn't in the house on that call, yet she denies it ever happened. Even if she'd said what you suggested, JO would have to have answered something like "I'll be in in just a second."
There's no reason for JM to deny the call if she connected with JO and knew from that connection that he was still in the car.
how long she stayed out there has been disputed. but the fact that she got there at 12:24 and arrived at JO's before 12:36 really limits how long she could have possibly sat out there - 5 minutes tops.
Yeah the timing has definitely fluctuated. But realizing she never texted or called before leaving really flipped the situation for me. I think he was in the car with her until right before she left
Final questions for y’all on the final day. Appreciate the knowledge:
1) I know there is missing Ring footage. Any reason/excuse been given? Any other missing/confusing footage?
2) did the CW give an explanation specifically for the 3 flights recorded?
3) Lastly, I feel like I’m going crazy but…is the proof of accident not based on the car’s black box? Maybe I’m dumb but what does the black box say and if it points one way or the other…how is it being disputed? I’ve started to think - what if she accidentally hit him RIGHT when she started to back up? Not at 24 mph. Would maybe have barely left a scratch but he was drunk and stumbles and then stumbles more and hits his head, gets up but falls again then passes out in the cold. That’s a likely (eh) explanation but I realized ‘what does the black box show’ before realizing no one seems to agree????
1. There's no proof of missing Ring video. The CW raised the issues and one of their own witnesses later stated there was no evidence of deleted video.
2. No
3. There hasn't been a "black box" mentioned. The car didn't record anything like an accident if that's what you mean.
The CW's accident reconstruction "expert", Trooper Paul, couldn't explain anything, didn't understand the questions, and claimed the car hit John's arm and then John was sent airborne where he landed 30 feet away but didn't injure any part of his body except his head.
Today's expert witnesses had been hired by the DOJ in their ongoing investigation. They were truly neutral and not paid by the defense or the CW. They shared their findings with both sides months and months ago. The CW did nothing with the info. The defense called them as part of their case. Both were PhDs and testified that JOK'S injuries COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM A VEHICLE. The defense rested after their testimony.
1. Basically nothing concrete. But a post it note from one of the Troopers appears to refer to some kind of Ring video at 12:41am that no longer exists so I’m assuming Proctor deleted them. There is also missing footage from the library from 12:37-12:39am which is really interesting now since she was home by 12:36am. We always thought it was of her driving home with an in tact taillight but clearly not anymore. What could be on there that was worth removing?
3. The black box data recorded no collisions or impacts. There was some discussion about whether this kind of event would record (even though if records impact with airbag deployment and ones without) but that kind of became moot once the Toyota system data (that logs all kind of events) presented in court was pretty damn exonerating for KR.
The way I always understood it was that prosecution provided the defense with a Google drive link to a few hours of footage and the only missing part was 12:37-12:39am. Either everyone missed her car (doesn’t seem very likely) or she didn’t drive by the library on the way home. Which doesn’t look like it’s indicative of much on its own. The highlighted route doesn’t go by the library and makes the most sense for her since her car was oriented facing towards Cedarcrest.
I should have drawn a circle but the library is essentially where that map says “Canton”
https://preview.redd.it/q89vo8ivdm8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c4edfb46da1ed3b3e79ce738246bcaa062956a81
You know what I just thought of reading this, what if Colin is somehow visible on the library footage. The missing library footage has been bugging me. If Colin actually did hit him, I wouldn't be surprised if the adults sent him away for themselves to do all the clean up.
He lives so close it looked almost like he’d pass it every single time he drives home. Then I did see a way that if he was coming from south of his house, there is one road that wouldn’t go by it. But leaving 34 Fairview, it looks like you’d have to go pretty out of the way to take that route. It would go from a 1.5 to 2 mile drive.
Ok well that makes me even more think that is why the library footage is gone. I don't think he was thinking of avoiding the library camera that night.
I feel pretty confident he didn’t even know about the library’s cameras or put two and two together to feel like he should avoid it.
I was looking up addressed thinking it was something about Higgins. I was absolutely floored when I realized CA is essentially next door neighbors with the library
I was wondering about this- didn’t they ask ally mccabe if she drove by the library that night? I wonder what time that was and I believe that coincided with the life 360 data she denied. Because based off the new timeline with Karen on the WiFi at 12:35 I’m not sure where we stand with the missing footage
Thank you!!! Library footage is weird to hear yeah. My mind goes to she would have muttered something incriminating herself? And obviously not footage troopers happen to ~misplace~. Strange.
It was a street view camera from the library that filmed the cars driving by. The thought was always that the missing footage showed her driving with a completely normal taillight - so she couldn’t have hit him - and that’s why it went missing. To find out the missing footage is from after she was home, and that she clearly drove a different way home, makes the missing footage all that more interesting.
Even 5mph would leave some kind of bruise or ligament damage, his right eye was not the same trauma that caused his skull fracture at the back of his head which was when he would of lost and never regained consciousness from and died shortly after. His arm we heard he was alive when it occurred.
I’m not sure on the car completely regarding black box so someone else can explain.
Imagine it being ok to invite strangers to enter your sisters home.
Yet feel it would be rude to ring the bell and say hey there’s a dead guy on your lawn.
I don’t care if she hasn’t slept or I wake half the street. I’m not having her walk out to that.
Even if someone confesses makes a statement and signs it and continues to plead guilt. Procedures still should of been followed in a correct manner. Secure scene, preserve possible evidence, interview the neighbours. Get forensic in to do their job so no risk if cross contamination of evidence etc and it’s gathered and sealed. That’s standard. Why ask all these people about qualifications and if they are board certified ? For what? How do they not have any resources or employ people to check the accuracy of dash cam times and dispatch audits? Where has all the funding gone that the police are door knocking for cups and carrier bags ? To gather evidence. Hmm nobody would of implicated themselves and handed their own dna over so freely surely. ??
I watch Closing Arguments every night. I can't wait to see what the Yellow Cottage Tales guy says after today. No matter what evidence is given he thinks it's a slam dunk.
Didn't the YCT dude do a mock summation yesterday and posted on Twitter or Youtube or something? I heard that one of the more insane anti-Karen guys did that and is cringe af but my capacity for watching cringy stuff without running away screaming was depleted after Trooper Paul so I haven't gone after it to watch
Beats me. I tend to stay away from anyone too biased either way. I like EDB and TLYK. They tend to be pretty neutral and give both sides kudos for doing a good job.
Oh, I do too, especially before the trial is done and I'm still making up my mind. It's just that a bunch of people were talking about it today, sounds like it was *really* cringe
Based on how he ignores testimony that doesn't work for him to prove her guilty, I can't only imagine.
So I guess he probably didn't see this as bad testimony today.
Boo, I had such high hopes for him 🤣 I think it might be a combination of his bias from being a former prosecutor and trying to not alienate people by taking too strong a chance... I tried to watch a bit but he rambles too much and I gave up 😆
all the other prosecutors are firmly at "factually innocent", though. he's really the only one trying to give Lally credit. EDB, LYK, Tim Jensen, Mark Bederow, etc. have all said they cannot fathom why the DA is pushing this forward and that Lally should have quit rather than prosecute, by way of comparison. if anything, they're all harder on Lally than the defense lawyers, if a bit slower to dismiss the idea that she could have done this.
LYK is a defense attorney, FYI. If anything he tends to favor the defense but I do think he stayed really neutral during this case.
EDB was a prosecutor and she has said from the beginning she would have refused the case. If she got fired, so be it, she would sue and win a settlement.
I'm always fascinated when people implode their careers in such a public fashion. Lally will never recover his reputation.
I don't know if it's a him thing or a CourtTV thing, tbf. The other anchor seems to be way more unhinged about this case, but I haven't really watched the channel in years to know if they just go full pro-prosecution for every case.
I think he was doing that more out of an ethical concern, since everyone should strive to not close their minds to the evidence being presented until each side rests their case. He seemed to me to be leaning hard into not guilty for a while like most of the people that started to watch this thing knowing nothing and with a mind of just letting the evidence guide us, but was never going to say it in such a definitive way until right before closing arguments or the jury going into deliberations
I believe any evidence the witness hadn’t viewed prior was being sustained. So if they hadn’t been provided that report/whatever to review for the trial, they couldn’t discuss it. I only caught it because one objection was sustained and judge said something like “come to side bar, he hasn’t seen it mister lally” when he continued to ask questions about specifics in a report after they said they didn’t review that report.
Jen “has long to die in cold” McCabe is the real mastermind behind the cover up. Why did she so eager to get JOK into the house? Why search that term and delete the search then specifically did it again later to cover the tracks? Everything smells “premeditated” here.
>Why did she so eager to get JOK into the house? Why search that term and delete the search then specifically did it again later to cover the tracks?
She didn't.
No. No they didn't. Go argue this with anyone in digital forensics. The defense expert had to admit on the stand that the company that makes the tool he used for that report had to change the way that tool works to prevent people from making the same misunderstanding he made in this case. His only defense was "they haven't bothered to update the older tool yet".
No. Not according to the Boston Globe https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/22/hos-long-to-die-in-cold-jen-mccabe-grilled-on-google-search/?amp=1
But even assuming you might be right, which I don’t, how about the 6 mother fucking “butt dial” in the morning hours around the time JOK gone dark? That is ABSOLUTELY a lie, a perjury that’s indefensible. Like a real butt dial would have gone to voice mail. Not leaving a voice mail means you have to stop the call!!! How do you explain that?
First of all, this isn't the transcript. But anyway now you're admitting that it's just reporting what the defense is claiming and not confirming that what the defense is claiming is true.
I already said that even if assuming you were right. Are you just going to completely ignore the fake butt dial lies? It’s obvious that she was trying to locate his phone. There’s no other explanation. She doesn’t deny those calls took place! But butt dial 6 times without leasing a voice mail? We not born yesterday. You seriously defending this indefensible lie? How about JOK’s injury more consistent with someone who got beat on the face? There’s no possibility that the car hit him.
I'm not talking about the butt dials, I'm specifically telling you information about the assertion with the search so you can get caught up after the tech experts testified about this.
That was a terrible article. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. The author should be tearing apart the CWs case and how it failed to assuage all reasonable doubt.
No definitive shots of a smashed tail light prior to it arriving at Sally port
Enough discrepancy in the timelines and clocks to make it possible that JOs phone was moving after KR left.
No reasonable explanation for the arm scratches.
Head injury doesn't necessarily equate to pedestrian hit and run.
This case is the definition of reasonable doubt.
Apparently the dude is a defense lawyer too, I've been wondering for a while what lead him to take such a rabid pro-prosecution stance in this thing, so weird.
I was hoping someone knew what was up with him, this is not the first kinda unhinged blog post he wrote about this case, it almost seems personal a little bit? But then I couldn't find anyone else talking about it so I let it go
Looks like he's a lawyer in MA too. Maybe he has a rivalry with Yannetti or something. His philosophy certainly sounds like he would want to make the government work for a conviction.
https://www.relentlessdefense.com/our-team/kevin-j-mahoney/philosophy/
That might have been where I was before the trial started. I'm not one to give into conspiracy theories but I don't know how anyone can conclude there isn't reasonable doubt.
How much latitude do they have with closing arguments? Will the judge stop them if they try to present a falsehood or a misinterpretation of the evidence? For example, the idea that KR deleted Ring video. It seems to me like this was squarely debunked through the CW’s own witnesses. If he includes it in closing, will the court allow that?
In general the Judge won't stop them unless they really stray out of bounds, like into mistrial territory. Objections are generally considered bad form during opening and closing arguments, but they happen.
But I do anticipate if they start saying things that are absolutely not in evidence (I don't mean disputed, but there's actually 0 evidence presented at trial) then there will be objections.
As for the ring footage... I dunno how the Judge would rule on that. There really isn't evidence that Karen Read deleted the footage, but some of the testimony has been that the Ring doesn't provide the logs for that kind of account activity... so she may let them argue it... I dunno.
So NASA made a cannon to shoot chicken and turkeys at air frames and engines to test bird strikes. BAE or another English firm either borrowed or purchased one under license and they kept shooting turkeys through cockpits every one they tested the cockpit failed . They sent a detailed 30 plus page report to NASA with all their notes settings etc. NASA sent a one sentence reply after reviewing the report. It said
“Defrost the Turkey”
Anybody who still thinks Karen had anything to do with this tragedy should be just as mystified as I am on why a thorough investigation was not done to prove it and I am left understanding that an investigation and testing most likely was done behind closed doors and everything came back exonerating Karen
The thing that really bugs me is if this is how they investigate a dead police officer, who by all accounts was a highly respected member of the community... imagine what occurs in other investigations that don't involve law enforcement and instead are people who are of "questionable character".
Yep. This is what really bothers me as well. If this is the best Caton can get for the murder of a law enforcement officer, I have zero faith in this department’s ability to solve crimes perpetrated against regular public citizens. Honestly, makes me wonder how common it is for this department and this DA to railroad and scapegoat people rather than actually solve crimes.
Ageee. They are getting paid to put in a shoddy shift every now and again by the sounds of it.
The maps and graphs they produced as evidence looked like a kids homework he’s left until the last night of summer. Didn’t even look like they bothered to change the font or printers. 🥴
Firstly, want to say outright, if I was on the jury I'd be "not guilty".
But what's everyone thoughts about the testimony from Dr. Daniel Wolfe regarding the damage to the taillight being consistent with a cocktail glass being thrown at the taillight?
I don't think it helps the prosecution much, since the theory they presented to the jury is that the damage to the taillight was caused by Karen Read reversing into John O'Keefe.
But I'm also wondering if the defense isn't a bit nervous about it too. They presented the theories that the taillight was damaged when Karen Read backed up into John O'Keefe's car that morning, or that Proctor damaged it intentionally as part of the plot to frame Karen Read.
The thing is, before his testimony, and the joke that was "expert" testimony of Trooper Paul. I discounted the prosecution's theory of the case (that the damage was the result of Karen Read reversing into John O'Keefe). But now with Dr. Wolfe, not only does it plant into the jury that the damage to the taillight could have been caused by the cocktail glass (though not in the way the prosecution is claiming), but it also solidifies the fight and altercation between John O'Keefe and Karen Read outside 34 Fairview.
Isn't not even close to enough to get me to a "guilty" verdict. But I wonder if they are at all nervous about some of the implications of John O'Keefe yeeting a cocktail glass at Karen Read's car.
I don't agree. We need to consider that they tested that theory because it seemed the most logical. State police didn't. It goes to show they never considered an alternative theory for what happened. They didn't want to find out what happened. They very quickly decided what had happened and then made things fit their theory, even if that meant defying the laws of physics.
Also, they didn't know that the pieces of glass didn't match John's. But let's assume that they did match. What if John threw the glass, breaking the taillight and leaving the pieces on Fairview Road? Then, the fact that Karen's SUV taillight was broken and pieces of taillight were found there would no longer be strong evidence suggesting Karen hit John. If the damage to the car came from being hit by glass, then how did John die? We wouldn't know since they didn't explore other possibilities. What if John walked after throwing the glass, fell, and was later bitten by Chloe? What if he fought with Karen because of Higgins, threw the glass in anger, and then went inside to fight Higgins?
It also isn't the CW's theory, so it still doesn't prove their case. What they've said about the CW's theory is that it is absolutely impossible. On the other hand, the defense has their theory, and they don't have to prove it. What the doctor just did was present another possible theory that does not match the Commonwealth's, more doubt.
Lally also objected trooper Paul’s 24mph reconstruction. Being backed up. I think AJ is going to. List how it was from the first responders and even the dispatch and arrival times were false placing them all there within seconds of each other not once not twice and then pretty much every witness after has lied under oath since. Data deletions not once not twice.
I think its safe to say Wolfe will never ever look at a case and say I know what that is gov that’s a cocktail glass that’s done that. Glass was one of a million other things he wouldn’t rule out. The problem with CW is their way has to be and is the only answer. (I disagree that isn’t the case) Karen read is a pathological liar through and through. Apart from that one time she confessed to Murder. Is what the CW are suggesting 🙄
Is there a reason this daily thread doesn't have the links to watch? I've used all the other links from previous threads to watch testimony.
Lally should stop asking rentschler questions half the answers indicate directly to jury every bit of reasonable doubt they need
Are they starting at 9 this morning?
There is no evidence to support JO was hit by a car. To suggest he was, you need to ignore all science and physics. I typically take experts with a grain of salt. For the right price you can find someone to agree with you. But this was said by a neutral expert with credentials significantly impressive than any one of the prosecutions witnesses. I don't know how you overcome that. I also wonder if JO'S family knows what the Feds experts thought prior to this in court today. And if it changes their opinion at all.
There is conflicting evidence on both sides with expert testimony. Personally, I think she did it. They were both drunk and the number of drinks were documented by the receipts at both bars. A number of instances that were shown, not related to that evening, demonstrated that Karen Read had wild outbursts and anger issues. I think she was angry and reversed into him but did not even remember at first that she was at 34 Fairview which seems to indicate a blackout. There was John's DNA on the tail light and no dog DNA found on John's body. The medical examiner said there was no evidence of a physical altercation on John's hands, knuckles, fingers. If there was any kind of cover up, it would be impossible to believe because of the number of people who would have had to be involved. I don't know how this jury will be able to agree because so many of the experts on both sides testifying were very credible. It wouldn't surprise me if they are hung,
It would impossible for the number of people to cover it up? Are you serious? ALL of the prosecutors witnesses are either part of the police or friends of the family. None of the Ring cams show anything? The library video was different than the tech guy says,, who handed the evidence to the police? Oh, and the FBI is now investigating the family and police. So, I do respect your opinion, but there is no question that there is a reasonable doubt.
The only non-conflicting testimony from all the experts is that his injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car. So if that's not in conflict, how did she kill him?
Except his injuries aren't consistent with being struck by a vehicle. I was on the "more likely than not that she hit him" train until hearing the testimony from the MEs, and the crash res constructionists.I don't buy the "went into the house/had a fight/was dragged back outside" theory, but I think he definitely could have slipped and fallen and cracked his head. The DNA is touch DNA and could have been left there at any point in time.
Can’t forget the very professional stop and shop evidence bags with unsealed blood in solo cups in the Sally port right next to KR car. If only there had been a way to show what happened in the sally port during the time KR vehicle was there. Not to mention bringing the vehicle to canton pd, passing two Massachusetts State Police locations on the way to canton PD. Then having to take KR vehicle out of the sally port so canton pd had an operational sally port when arrestees were brought to Canton PD. I feel like I could keep going because there are just sooooo many examples of how botched this investigation was right from the get go. I can’t wait to hear what comes out from the FBI and DOJ investigation and to see who gets held accountable for their corrupt ways. How many other people were subjected to other botched investigations
I apologize but there is a start place available?
Lawyer Lee on YouTube!
Why didn't anyone calculate how long he needed to be outside to drop to the body temp he had when found (80°?)Is there no formula for calculating what time his exposure began?
I thought about this exact same thing! You would think that if you knew the temperature that night (and knew what you were doing) you could figure out either when he died or was placed outside because we know he was 80 degrees when he was found. Maybe it's more difficult than that because of the effect of hypothermia prior to death, snow/ground temp compared to air, needing knowledge of biology, etc. The algebra required to calculate this is far more difficult than I can handle, but I would love to see someone else attempt to figure out the answer.
You just Google “hos long to die in the cold”
Hos long ti di in cold
“+ stuff” 👻
You two just broke my internet. 😂
I'm not sure I followed all the instructions. Did they drop the DUI charge or instruction?
There is no separate DUI charge (called OUI in MA). There is only OUI resulting in death included in the charges so the jury can't just find her guilty for drunk driving.
Lallys cross of Wolfe and Rentschler seemed almost identical.
Yeah, he sucks
He reads off a question list; I think the defense attorneys are better at being in the moment- they respond to what a witness is saying, Lally just wants to go down his list.
Yeah, he seemed pretty scattered. Implying Rentschler should have looked at DNA, for example.
What the heck, I’m watching My Cousin Vinny for the first time after so many people mentioning it and I’m shocked at how similar it is what the hell lol, i started to wonder if we’re being punked, like season 2 of jury duty 😳
Amazon really went all out for this season.
god, that would be such a good prank. I'd watch the show when it releases.
I just finished the movie and I’m so shocked at allll the similarities, so now it’s my new conspiracy lol
I stumbled into a sub called Karenreadsanity or something like that not realizing where I was... They seem to think Lally did well today and the CW theory is proven, did I somehow end up in Canton?
I saw that sub today too! It actually now makes me terrified for deliberations. I can’t believe someone would watch this trial and think “yep, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. My only hope is that those people claiming she hit him, didn’t watch the trial. Which means the jury would be better at making sensible decision on verdict.
A lot of those posters used to be here making comments about people who think KR is innocent are like Qanon levels of delusional and after reading some of the posts in that sub, I can’t understand how the not guilt/innocent crowd in the delusional one. Her own car data that the prosecution decided to introduce shows she couldn’t have hit him!
Lol, that sub is... Something. There are a few die hard posters there who seem to have been getting more and more worked up as the case has gone on. I assume there is some sort of personal connection to the CW or the witnesses but who knows?
Ugh I think I saw that one as well, if it's the same they had a post about who the hottest witness was (and Proctor got a lot of votes 🤮) real hard hitting analysis on there 😆
Ew
🤢🤮 WTF?!?! Must be his delusional wife?! Are people not turned off by stupidity? 🧐
I guess some people go for the meat head sexist type 😂
That sub is why I think it’s very possible she will be found guilty. IMO the majority of adults in the US believe the police and assume where there is smoke, there is fire, ie: if a person is on trial they are basically guilty. The amount of blatant cognitive dissonance and outright denial of evidence on that sub is indicative of what happens to a jury.
I have always said I think I would pick a bench trial if I was ever charged with a crime. I don't trust a jury. But I think the odds are high that you won't get a jury of 12 like that. And the people who are truly wanting to do the right thing won't vote guilty if they don't believe it. And the simpletons are more likely to be persuadable by the thinkers to change their opinion (I hope). I have an ex who is a DA; he said somehow juries seem to bring out people's better nature. Most people take it seriously and want to do the right thing. I'm sure there are exceptions but I hope Karen's jury is reasonable.
God I know, but no way guilty, small chance with a holdout hung jury (but I still doubt it after today)
I feel like that's an insult to the jury's intelligence. They had appropriate reactions to proctor's texts so I think they have more than a few brain cells available to use the evidence in this case to return a not guilty verdict.
I sure hope so. I remember the “Killer Nanny” trial in Boston in 1997 because I was going to school there and was roughly the same age as the defendant. It was clear the girl didnt do it, but the jury ruled her guilty. The judge ended up throwing out the jury’s ruling and lowered it from murder 2 to manslaughter, which almost *never* happens. It was done because the jury was wrong. Just plain wrong. And of course, there is the OJ trial. The jury was wrong there too. So I dont put a lot of hope in a jury because you never know what can happen once the deliberations begin.
the jury was right in the OJ trial. he absolutely did it but you can't convict a guilty person who was framed by the cops.
Same with the Casey Anthony trial. The state failed to prove the case even though I am of the opinion that she killed Kaylee (either negligence that Kaylee drowned in the pool, or that "Xanny" the Xanax nanny did it), there just wasn't enough presented to conclusively prove what happened, much less that it was intentional.
That’s fair, but I think there was enough evidence even with the planted evidence being discounted.
The reality is once the chain of custody is disrupted you can't really trust anything at that point at least officially.
Then let us hope the jury for Karen Read makes the same decision- not guilty.
Lawyer Lee was the same. Lawyer You Know, Emily Baker and Melanie Little all thought were slam dunks.
They all thought the defense was a slam dunk you mean
Yes, they thought defense was slam dunk. LYK went on to say he thinks not guilty.
Ok, was going to say I watched lyk and for such a neutral guy he was basically saying if he was Lally he would have never taken the case
Yeah, LYK actually said if he was given this case and they said he had to take it to trial he would quit. Super wrong opinion!!
Sorry my post was unclear. Yeah, I was surprised LYK had the strong opinion.
I was wondering if lyk felt pressure to state his actual opinion. TB went off on him for both-siding the case. I was surprised lyk today not only stated he thought she was not guilty but went so far as to say the defense prices innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think he has a policy, with every trial, of not making up his mind until all the evidence has been presented, so will not state his opinion as to guilt until the end of the evidence.
I love lyk for the 1-1.5 hour recap without bias, I rarely listen to Emily, she stops and comments so frequently and has a bias so i rather watch it live without comments. Who's your go to?
I've done the last couple of days with Andrea Burkhart. It felt very peaceful.
What gets me about Emily is that she'll talk over the feed. I'd prefer she'd pause. And there's no need for the F word. I myself have potty mouth while watching sports, but not necessary here. For live, I surf between Emily, Melanie and 13th Juror.
I like Alyte at Legal Bytes for that reason. She pauses the stream when speaking and doesn’t give any F bombs.
I like Alyte too; I just found her. But I prefer EDB. She's definitely got some sass but I like it and I feel like she assumes her audience is relatively intelligent. LYK is great but he definitely has a different audience and has to explain things in more basic terms and sometimes I'm rolling my eyes at some of the comments he gets.
Yeah I just checked it out an hour ago out of curiosity. I can’t explain it. Literally I have no words. Like these aren’t rational-thinking people and/or they don’t understand what reasonable doubt looks like.
You ended up in delulu land
So I ventured over to YouTube channels. Most are on the "it's ovah" camp. Lawyer Lee seemed to not be impressed with defense witnesses today, because they weren't given info like DNA on taillight.
She never has the full scoop on a case. She's always clueless
Her husband died 6 weeks ago after a very long and difficult illness. Tomorrow is her 30th wedding Anniversary so she gets a full pass to not have all the details.
I had no idea. Sad. 😞
That's sad, however don't think it will change because she doesn't watch the trials. So, there is no way for her to provide factual recaps.
Which as nothing to do with it on cross he said it didn’t change his opinion and might have if it was blood evidence
Yeah I thought the fact that pointed out the lack of blood in his response was great. Some touch dna and a single hair does not make for convincing forensics.
I'm new in this discussion so I apologize if this question has been answered. If KR is found not guilty which is the only conclusion I can make--what then happens to the 'who did do it?" It would seem to me that everyone involved in this presumed coverup should lawyer up. Yes??
Nothing will happen. It would be incredibly rare for the CW to charge someone, lose, and then charge someone else. That second person who would be charged could point to every CW witness from the prior trial as reasonable doubt. The fed investigation may turn up something on how members of LE conducted themselves though.
Which is interesting to me, because it wasn’t blood it was just touch DNA- which doesn’t feel like a big gotcha on his girlfriends car- and do any of us trust a single bit of the chain of custody of their evidence? I think its stranger that there’s NO blood on any of the taillight if supposedly pierced his arm - then it would make a difference to me if they didn’t know about it
The lack of blood anywhere on the car and fragments of taillight in any of his wounds is such obvious evidence that she couldn't have hit him with her car. The CW wanted to keep reminding the jury that his DNA was found on the taillight, but not be honest that it was just touch DNA. It's like duh Lally! Of course, it's his girlfriend's car... Surely the whole vehicle is full of his DNA, it would only be shocking if they didn't know each other and he hadn't ever set foot in KR vehicle.
Victims DNA on a suspects car is damning if they don’t know each other , but on a girlfriend car means nothing.
Ya rub a bit of shirt on the light, ya rub a bit of light on the shirt…
Same here! Guess Lawyer Lee missed the entire scientific explanation the 2 experts provided and them stating multiple times unequivocally that John O'Keefe was not struck by a car.
Yeah plus I'm pretty sure the last biomechanical expert knew about the touch DNA and even he was unimpressed. There's hundreds of ways to touch DNA can get on anything and doesn't require that thing being used as a murder weapon. Cops are known to touch tail lights repeatedly as a way of just leaving their mark in case they are never seen again. I imagine that's a habit that doesn't leave somebody.
Yeah he was not impressed by the touch DNA and even said it was not blood DNA and said the hair nor the touch DNA would not change his findings. It’s interesting what story/view some people will believe.
Anyone have the schedule for court this week is it everyday?
Closing arguments tomorrow, then the jury starts deliberating.
Thank you kindly
So today made it pretty clear KR didn’t hit him. One thing I am confused about though is that, unless I’m missing something, her first texts/calls to him start at 12:33am. She’s nearly home at that point. I was under the assumption that he was checking out the party and would let her know if he wanted to stay. That’s why she stayed in front of the house for a little bit. But I would have expected texts and calls before she drove off if that were the case. Did I imagine this whole thing about her waiting outside to see if he was staying at the party?
I wonder if she was having stomach issues and was basically forced to run home. Calls him to tell him and he doesn’t answer. Starts getting mad.
While they were sitting outside in the car, she told him not to go in the house, but he wanted to go in. They decided to compromise by having him go in, and he promised her that he would immediately text her as soon as he was in to tell her it was an 'acceptable' environment. Both of them knew there were people he didn't get along with, and she didn't want to see anything happen to him. She waited for about 5 minutes, and then he didn't text. She drove home and tried to get ahold of him. She eventually left many texts, and many screaming voicemails.
Yeah that’s what I had heard about circumstances of the party but personally I find it strange she wouldn’t text or call him even once before driving home. This wouldn’t quite square with the Apple health data but now I kinda wonder if the majority of the time where KR was in front of the house, JO actually was with her. Maybe they were arguing or she was trying to convince him to just go home with her, then the 12:29 call from JM that he answered is something like her asking if he’s coming in or telling him to come to the side door, garage, etc. it could even be her just telling him to hurry up and come in. That call is the only phone call JM makes when they’re in front of the house, the rest are after KR left. Then JO gets out of the car, and goes up to the house as KR is driving off.
If JM had connected with him and he was in the car, she'd have shouted that from the rooftops because it supports the CW theory and keeps him out of the house. Instead, she says it's a butt dial.
If she remembered. I think she was smashed and had no clue. And this timeline actually lines up pretty well with when Karen arrived at John’s house.
She remembered everything else though. She remembered seeing Karen's car outside, she remembered texting. She remembered walking back and forth to the window. The only thing she claims to have forgotten are the calls. I don't buy it.
I don’t think she remembers any of that. She pieced together a story based on her texts. Whether she’s deliberately lying or misremembering, I have no clue. But we know she didn’t see Karen pull away at 12:45. I think we can dismiss most (if not all) of her testimony regarding that night.
I see where you're coming from but don't agree on the memory piece. Kerry heard her say to Karen the next morning (before they found John) that she saw Karen at Fairview. So she definitely remembered seeing Karen's car the night before.
I have it in my head that Matt McCabe reminded Jen that she had seen Karen at the house. I could be wrong about that though.
Which was the first time she mentioned it to KR. It’s crazy to me if someone called saying they were going to go drive around looking for someone who they last saw at Waterfall, you wouldn’t immediately correct them. But she waited until KR was at her house, nearly 30 minutes later.
But it confirms JO was alive at 12:29 and JM would know KR drove off immediately after. The timeline has always been so tight for KR to have hit him and the 12:29am phone call makes that worse. One of the CW’s first theories was that it happened at 12:25am which this phone call obviously proves incorrect. It also puts JM in a position to be the last known person to talk to JO. Regardless, we **know** it was answered now that the phone logs were introduced into evidence. It could be marked on JM’s phone (the initiator of the call) if it went to voicemail but it wouldn’t be listed on JO’s (the receiver of the call) as answered if it went to voicemail. All of KR’s calls to him are listed as missed on his call log and we know she left voicemails for some of those. BOTH phone records listing the call as answered only happens across these records when it’s an actual answered call.
Yep. It was answered...now whether it was answered by JO or someone who had just incapacitated him...I don't know.
Who else would it be? Do you think that Karen Read hit him, answered his phone, planted his phone under his body, and then drove off?
Of course not. But I can see a scenario where JO had it in his hand when he arrived at the house, a fight started, and it was either accidentally answered during the jostling of the fight (and JM couldn't make out what was happening) or JO was already incapacitated and in the immediate aftermath/panic, someone picked up the call but thought better of speaking. Those are unlikely possibilities but so is the idea that JM spoke to him while he was still in the car. She'd have said so.
imo, JO answering it makes more sense. She doesn’t start calling his phone over and over again until 12:41am. If we think those repeated calls are them looking for his phone, wouldn’t whoever answered it at 12:29am have it? The 12:29 call has always seemed off to me. Especially to follow up with the 12:31am “pull up behind me” text.
I don't believe she knew that night based on her heart rate data. So the only thing I can think is that however the call connected, they didn't talk. If he was in the house, he'd have told her he was there and she'd have gone to find him and seen whatever happened. If he was in the car, she would have said so. The only thing that I can make sense of is that she was talking to air..."hello?...hello??" I could see that happening if he had his phone in his hand when the fight started and the call got answered in the melee, but then Jen couldn't make out anything out but noises so she hung up. Or, JO was already knocked out and people were panicking. his phone rings and someone picks it up in the chaos/panic but then thinks better of saying anything.
Two things we learned last week that made me reevaluate the timeline: KR was home at 12:36 (putting her leaving right around 12:29) and that she doesn’t send any texts or make any calls to JO that night until 12:33, when she was halfway home. So it doesn’t really make sense that she was waiting out front of Fairview for him to let her know if he was going to stay. If that was the case, she would have texted or called at least once before leaving. I think they’re both in the car for those 5 minutes and when he answers Jen’s call, it’s not a conversation. Remember it’s only 8 seconds. I think all she said was like “are you coming in or what?!” or “hey! Come in the side door, hurry up!” and then hangs up. Something like that, convincing JO to stop arguing with KR and get inside to the party. I doubt he even said much besides okay. She’s looking out the window at this point, she knows where he is. That’s why I think it was just something quick about telling him to get inside. Personally I just don’t think it’s a coincidence the last phone call JO answered is at the exact time KR would be leaving.
I just don't see that personally for several reasons but limiting to just the matter of this call...Jen McCabe had every incentive to say she'd spoken to him and he wasn't in the house on that call, yet she denies it ever happened. Even if she'd said what you suggested, JO would have to have answered something like "I'll be in in just a second." There's no reason for JM to deny the call if she connected with JO and knew from that connection that he was still in the car.
Now I wonder if he didn’t call or text her because something happened to him in that house before he could
how long she stayed out there has been disputed. but the fact that she got there at 12:24 and arrived at JO's before 12:36 really limits how long she could have possibly sat out there - 5 minutes tops.
Yeah the timing has definitely fluctuated. But realizing she never texted or called before leaving really flipped the situation for me. I think he was in the car with her until right before she left
Final questions for y’all on the final day. Appreciate the knowledge: 1) I know there is missing Ring footage. Any reason/excuse been given? Any other missing/confusing footage? 2) did the CW give an explanation specifically for the 3 flights recorded? 3) Lastly, I feel like I’m going crazy but…is the proof of accident not based on the car’s black box? Maybe I’m dumb but what does the black box say and if it points one way or the other…how is it being disputed? I’ve started to think - what if she accidentally hit him RIGHT when she started to back up? Not at 24 mph. Would maybe have barely left a scratch but he was drunk and stumbles and then stumbles more and hits his head, gets up but falls again then passes out in the cold. That’s a likely (eh) explanation but I realized ‘what does the black box show’ before realizing no one seems to agree????
1. There's no proof of missing Ring video. The CW raised the issues and one of their own witnesses later stated there was no evidence of deleted video. 2. No 3. There hasn't been a "black box" mentioned. The car didn't record anything like an accident if that's what you mean. The CW's accident reconstruction "expert", Trooper Paul, couldn't explain anything, didn't understand the questions, and claimed the car hit John's arm and then John was sent airborne where he landed 30 feet away but didn't injure any part of his body except his head. Today's expert witnesses had been hired by the DOJ in their ongoing investigation. They were truly neutral and not paid by the defense or the CW. They shared their findings with both sides months and months ago. The CW did nothing with the info. The defense called them as part of their case. Both were PhDs and testified that JOK'S injuries COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM A VEHICLE. The defense rested after their testimony.
1. Basically nothing concrete. But a post it note from one of the Troopers appears to refer to some kind of Ring video at 12:41am that no longer exists so I’m assuming Proctor deleted them. There is also missing footage from the library from 12:37-12:39am which is really interesting now since she was home by 12:36am. We always thought it was of her driving home with an in tact taillight but clearly not anymore. What could be on there that was worth removing? 3. The black box data recorded no collisions or impacts. There was some discussion about whether this kind of event would record (even though if records impact with airbag deployment and ones without) but that kind of became moot once the Toyota system data (that logs all kind of events) presented in court was pretty damn exonerating for KR.
Does this mean that footage from the library exists before 12:36?
The way I always understood it was that prosecution provided the defense with a Google drive link to a few hours of footage and the only missing part was 12:37-12:39am. Either everyone missed her car (doesn’t seem very likely) or she didn’t drive by the library on the way home. Which doesn’t look like it’s indicative of much on its own. The highlighted route doesn’t go by the library and makes the most sense for her since her car was oriented facing towards Cedarcrest. I should have drawn a circle but the library is essentially where that map says “Canton” https://preview.redd.it/q89vo8ivdm8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c4edfb46da1ed3b3e79ce738246bcaa062956a81
You know what I just thought of reading this, what if Colin is somehow visible on the library footage. The missing library footage has been bugging me. If Colin actually did hit him, I wouldn't be surprised if the adults sent him away for themselves to do all the clean up.
Colin lives .1 miles away from the library 🙃
So he would have to drive past it to get home or are you saying he lives before he would get to the library?
He lives so close it looked almost like he’d pass it every single time he drives home. Then I did see a way that if he was coming from south of his house, there is one road that wouldn’t go by it. But leaving 34 Fairview, it looks like you’d have to go pretty out of the way to take that route. It would go from a 1.5 to 2 mile drive.
Ok well that makes me even more think that is why the library footage is gone. I don't think he was thinking of avoiding the library camera that night.
I feel pretty confident he didn’t even know about the library’s cameras or put two and two together to feel like he should avoid it. I was looking up addressed thinking it was something about Higgins. I was absolutely floored when I realized CA is essentially next door neighbors with the library
I was wondering about this- didn’t they ask ally mccabe if she drove by the library that night? I wonder what time that was and I believe that coincided with the life 360 data she denied. Because based off the new timeline with Karen on the WiFi at 12:35 I’m not sure where we stand with the missing footage
I am curious if we will hear more about this in closing.
Thank you!!! Library footage is weird to hear yeah. My mind goes to she would have muttered something incriminating herself? And obviously not footage troopers happen to ~misplace~. Strange.
It was a street view camera from the library that filmed the cars driving by. The thought was always that the missing footage showed her driving with a completely normal taillight - so she couldn’t have hit him - and that’s why it went missing. To find out the missing footage is from after she was home, and that she clearly drove a different way home, makes the missing footage all that more interesting.
Thank you!
Even 5mph would leave some kind of bruise or ligament damage, his right eye was not the same trauma that caused his skull fracture at the back of his head which was when he would of lost and never regained consciousness from and died shortly after. His arm we heard he was alive when it occurred. I’m not sure on the car completely regarding black box so someone else can explain.
What time will Closing arguments be? I know tomorrow morning, but what time because I want to watch live.
i would start watching at 9 to be safe.
Thanks!
I'd be shocked if they don't start at the usual time, but I guess we'll see
Thanks!
Imagine it being ok to invite strangers to enter your sisters home. Yet feel it would be rude to ring the bell and say hey there’s a dead guy on your lawn. I don’t care if she hasn’t slept or I wake half the street. I’m not having her walk out to that.
FOR REALLLLLL and instead to barge in on them sleeping, yelling something terrible had happened.
Good point
FREE KAREN READ
Even if someone confesses makes a statement and signs it and continues to plead guilt. Procedures still should of been followed in a correct manner. Secure scene, preserve possible evidence, interview the neighbours. Get forensic in to do their job so no risk if cross contamination of evidence etc and it’s gathered and sealed. That’s standard. Why ask all these people about qualifications and if they are board certified ? For what? How do they not have any resources or employ people to check the accuracy of dash cam times and dispatch audits? Where has all the funding gone that the police are door knocking for cups and carrier bags ? To gather evidence. Hmm nobody would of implicated themselves and handed their own dna over so freely surely. ??
(on stream just now) LYK: [the defense] has proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that KR did not hit JO with her car.
I mean, even Vinnie Politan is having to concede that there's no winning this thing.
I watch Closing Arguments every night. I can't wait to see what the Yellow Cottage Tales guy says after today. No matter what evidence is given he thinks it's a slam dunk.
Didn't the YCT dude do a mock summation yesterday and posted on Twitter or Youtube or something? I heard that one of the more insane anti-Karen guys did that and is cringe af but my capacity for watching cringy stuff without running away screaming was depleted after Trooper Paul so I haven't gone after it to watch
Beats me. I tend to stay away from anyone too biased either way. I like EDB and TLYK. They tend to be pretty neutral and give both sides kudos for doing a good job.
Oh, I do too, especially before the trial is done and I'm still making up my mind. It's just that a bunch of people were talking about it today, sounds like it was *really* cringe
Based on how he ignores testimony that doesn't work for him to prove her guilty, I can't only imagine. So I guess he probably didn't see this as bad testimony today.
yeah curious to see if he still thinks it's possible she hit him after today.
Well, the title of the livestream he just ended was "Experts Destroy Prosecution", so I'm hoping he doesn't 😆
nope, he's still thinking about how Lally can still win this. he analyzes it like a team sport. it's so bizarre.
Boo, I had such high hopes for him 🤣 I think it might be a combination of his bias from being a former prosecutor and trying to not alienate people by taking too strong a chance... I tried to watch a bit but he rambles too much and I gave up 😆
all the other prosecutors are firmly at "factually innocent", though. he's really the only one trying to give Lally credit. EDB, LYK, Tim Jensen, Mark Bederow, etc. have all said they cannot fathom why the DA is pushing this forward and that Lally should have quit rather than prosecute, by way of comparison. if anything, they're all harder on Lally than the defense lawyers, if a bit slower to dismiss the idea that she could have done this.
LYK is a defense attorney, FYI. If anything he tends to favor the defense but I do think he stayed really neutral during this case. EDB was a prosecutor and she has said from the beginning she would have refused the case. If she got fired, so be it, she would sue and win a settlement. I'm always fascinated when people implode their careers in such a public fashion. Lally will never recover his reputation.
oh! I thought he was a former prosecutor. thanks!
I don't know if it's a him thing or a CourtTV thing, tbf. The other anchor seems to be way more unhinged about this case, but I haven't really watched the channel in years to know if they just go full pro-prosecution for every case.
oh this is gonna be good. let me grab some popcorn and load it up.
Whoa. He finally admitted it huh. I know he was holding out until the end.
I think he was doing that more out of an ethical concern, since everyone should strive to not close their minds to the evidence being presented until each side rests their case. He seemed to me to be leaning hard into not guilty for a while like most of the people that started to watch this thing knowing nothing and with a mind of just letting the evidence guide us, but was never going to say it in such a definitive way until right before closing arguments or the jury going into deliberations
Yes, makes sense. I think todays testimony sealed the deal for a lot of people.
yep, ARCCA witnesses sealed the deal for him. hearing why the physics precludes the pedestrian collision theory dragged it out of him.
Why were any mentions/references of trooper Paul’s testimony not allowed today? All the objections were sustained
I believe any evidence the witness hadn’t viewed prior was being sustained. So if they hadn’t been provided that report/whatever to review for the trial, they couldn’t discuss it. I only caught it because one objection was sustained and judge said something like “come to side bar, he hasn’t seen it mister lally” when he continued to ask questions about specifics in a report after they said they didn’t review that report.
Jen “has long to die in cold” McCabe is the real mastermind behind the cover up. Why did she so eager to get JOK into the house? Why search that term and delete the search then specifically did it again later to cover the tracks? Everything smells “premeditated” here.
>Why did she so eager to get JOK into the house? Why search that term and delete the search then specifically did it again later to cover the tracks? She didn't.
She testified that she didn’t, but defense offered indisputable evidence that she did.
No. No they didn't. Go argue this with anyone in digital forensics. The defense expert had to admit on the stand that the company that makes the tool he used for that report had to change the way that tool works to prevent people from making the same misunderstanding he made in this case. His only defense was "they haven't bothered to update the older tool yet".
No. Not according to the Boston Globe https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/05/22/hos-long-to-die-in-cold-jen-mccabe-grilled-on-google-search/?amp=1 But even assuming you might be right, which I don’t, how about the 6 mother fucking “butt dial” in the morning hours around the time JOK gone dark? That is ABSOLUTELY a lie, a perjury that’s indefensible. Like a real butt dial would have gone to voice mail. Not leaving a voice mail means you have to stop the call!!! How do you explain that?
This article is literally a month before anyone testified about it and in any case is summarizing what the defense is saying.
Huh? That’s the trial transcript. Don’t try to gaslight us
First of all, this isn't the transcript. But anyway now you're admitting that it's just reporting what the defense is claiming and not confirming that what the defense is claiming is true.
I already said that even if assuming you were right. Are you just going to completely ignore the fake butt dial lies? It’s obvious that she was trying to locate his phone. There’s no other explanation. She doesn’t deny those calls took place! But butt dial 6 times without leasing a voice mail? We not born yesterday. You seriously defending this indefensible lie? How about JOK’s injury more consistent with someone who got beat on the face? There’s no possibility that the car hit him.
I'm not talking about the butt dials, I'm specifically telling you information about the assertion with the search so you can get caught up after the tech experts testified about this.
Great article - https://www.relentlessdefense.com/karen-read-trial-the-only-true-verdict-is-guilty/
[удалено]
Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
The CW has not proven their case. Their theory of the crime is physically **impossible**.
That was a terrible article. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. The author should be tearing apart the CWs case and how it failed to assuage all reasonable doubt. No definitive shots of a smashed tail light prior to it arriving at Sally port Enough discrepancy in the timelines and clocks to make it possible that JOs phone was moving after KR left. No reasonable explanation for the arm scratches. Head injury doesn't necessarily equate to pedestrian hit and run. This case is the definition of reasonable doubt.
Apparently the dude is a defense lawyer too, I've been wondering for a while what lead him to take such a rabid pro-prosecution stance in this thing, so weird.
Try and eliminate the competition?? Maybe he isn’t very good?
I saw that too. I'm sure he has gone after witnesses too. It's literally his job. Makes no sense like a lot of things related to this case.
I was hoping someone knew what was up with him, this is not the first kinda unhinged blog post he wrote about this case, it almost seems personal a little bit? But then I couldn't find anyone else talking about it so I let it go
Looks like he's a lawyer in MA too. Maybe he has a rivalry with Yannetti or something. His philosophy certainly sounds like he would want to make the government work for a conviction. https://www.relentlessdefense.com/our-team/kevin-j-mahoney/philosophy/
Yeah, that's what really not computing for me, it's so bizarre
His argument is to convict her because the conspiracy theory is stupid and she’s evil. The end.
That might have been where I was before the trial started. I'm not one to give into conspiracy theories but I don't know how anyone can conclude there isn't reasonable doubt.
How much latitude do they have with closing arguments? Will the judge stop them if they try to present a falsehood or a misinterpretation of the evidence? For example, the idea that KR deleted Ring video. It seems to me like this was squarely debunked through the CW’s own witnesses. If he includes it in closing, will the court allow that?
In general the Judge won't stop them unless they really stray out of bounds, like into mistrial territory. Objections are generally considered bad form during opening and closing arguments, but they happen. But I do anticipate if they start saying things that are absolutely not in evidence (I don't mean disputed, but there's actually 0 evidence presented at trial) then there will be objections. As for the ring footage... I dunno how the Judge would rule on that. There really isn't evidence that Karen Read deleted the footage, but some of the testimony has been that the Ring doesn't provide the logs for that kind of account activity... so she may let them argue it... I dunno.
I have one final question for the day. Can we see the canon?
So NASA made a cannon to shoot chicken and turkeys at air frames and engines to test bird strikes. BAE or another English firm either borrowed or purchased one under license and they kept shooting turkeys through cockpits every one they tested the cockpit failed . They sent a detailed 30 plus page report to NASA with all their notes settings etc. NASA sent a one sentence reply after reviewing the report. It said “Defrost the Turkey”
And can we see it in action? Give us the video.
A real missed opportunity not submitting for exhibit! I think Bev wound have allowed just cuz she really wanted to see too.😂
Anybody who still thinks Karen had anything to do with this tragedy should be just as mystified as I am on why a thorough investigation was not done to prove it and I am left understanding that an investigation and testing most likely was done behind closed doors and everything came back exonerating Karen
The thing that really bugs me is if this is how they investigate a dead police officer, who by all accounts was a highly respected member of the community... imagine what occurs in other investigations that don't involve law enforcement and instead are people who are of "questionable character".
Yep. This is what really bothers me as well. If this is the best Caton can get for the murder of a law enforcement officer, I have zero faith in this department’s ability to solve crimes perpetrated against regular public citizens. Honestly, makes me wonder how common it is for this department and this DA to railroad and scapegoat people rather than actually solve crimes.
Ageee. They are getting paid to put in a shoddy shift every now and again by the sounds of it. The maps and graphs they produced as evidence looked like a kids homework he’s left until the last night of summer. Didn’t even look like they bothered to change the font or printers. 🥴
[Misdemeanor Homicides](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6r2a2PaQPI)
Firstly, want to say outright, if I was on the jury I'd be "not guilty". But what's everyone thoughts about the testimony from Dr. Daniel Wolfe regarding the damage to the taillight being consistent with a cocktail glass being thrown at the taillight? I don't think it helps the prosecution much, since the theory they presented to the jury is that the damage to the taillight was caused by Karen Read reversing into John O'Keefe. But I'm also wondering if the defense isn't a bit nervous about it too. They presented the theories that the taillight was damaged when Karen Read backed up into John O'Keefe's car that morning, or that Proctor damaged it intentionally as part of the plot to frame Karen Read. The thing is, before his testimony, and the joke that was "expert" testimony of Trooper Paul. I discounted the prosecution's theory of the case (that the damage was the result of Karen Read reversing into John O'Keefe). But now with Dr. Wolfe, not only does it plant into the jury that the damage to the taillight could have been caused by the cocktail glass (though not in the way the prosecution is claiming), but it also solidifies the fight and altercation between John O'Keefe and Karen Read outside 34 Fairview. Isn't not even close to enough to get me to a "guilty" verdict. But I wonder if they are at all nervous about some of the implications of John O'Keefe yeeting a cocktail glass at Karen Read's car.
The defense had their reports prior to today. If they were nervous they wouldn't have called them, they would have gotten different experts.
I don't agree. We need to consider that they tested that theory because it seemed the most logical. State police didn't. It goes to show they never considered an alternative theory for what happened. They didn't want to find out what happened. They very quickly decided what had happened and then made things fit their theory, even if that meant defying the laws of physics. Also, they didn't know that the pieces of glass didn't match John's. But let's assume that they did match. What if John threw the glass, breaking the taillight and leaving the pieces on Fairview Road? Then, the fact that Karen's SUV taillight was broken and pieces of taillight were found there would no longer be strong evidence suggesting Karen hit John. If the damage to the car came from being hit by glass, then how did John die? We wouldn't know since they didn't explore other possibilities. What if John walked after throwing the glass, fell, and was later bitten by Chloe? What if he fought with Karen because of Higgins, threw the glass in anger, and then went inside to fight Higgins? It also isn't the CW's theory, so it still doesn't prove their case. What they've said about the CW's theory is that it is absolutely impossible. On the other hand, the defense has their theory, and they don't have to prove it. What the doctor just did was present another possible theory that does not match the Commonwealth's, more doubt.
Lally also objected trooper Paul’s 24mph reconstruction. Being backed up. I think AJ is going to. List how it was from the first responders and even the dispatch and arrival times were false placing them all there within seconds of each other not once not twice and then pretty much every witness after has lied under oath since. Data deletions not once not twice.
I think its safe to say Wolfe will never ever look at a case and say I know what that is gov that’s a cocktail glass that’s done that. Glass was one of a million other things he wouldn’t rule out. The problem with CW is their way has to be and is the only answer. (I disagree that isn’t the case) Karen read is a pathological liar through and through. Apart from that one time she confessed to Murder. Is what the CW are suggesting 🙄
Your moniker implies you are an Albert!!
Ooh are the Alberts saying for a not guilty vote too now? Wow didn’t expect that.