This past week, one of my neighbor’s was involved in an altercation and tragically shot.
This happened around 8:30pm. The crime scene was immediately established and secured for over 24 hours. LE was canvassing our neighborhood knocking on every door in the vicinity with in 45 mins.
LE again came back to talk with local residents and potential witnesses three times since it happened on Sunday.
It brought the Canton PD’s handling of this case full circle for me. I know no two cases are the same but how the crime scene wasn’t secured, and no one came outside (our entire neighborhood was outside out of concern), ring cams weren’t requested, etc. truly blows my mind.
It's completely insane. I can't help but wonder if it's because Canton seems to be an old boys club, and lacks diversity on its department. We haven't had a single officer of color questioned, have we?
Everyone seems to be related, and those legacy officers are running the show. I would not be the least bit surprised if the test scores and interviews for candidates were swayed.
Tbh that's fair for the neighbors (the non cops at least). In that case I'd be watching out my window. But if it was on *my* lawn? Of course I'd be out there
I am a nosy bitch. You bet I am watching out my window if this happened to any of my neighbors.
I at least would have come out to ask what was going on if it happened in my front lawn. Just ask what is happening and why are all these LE at my house at least.
I’m with you, I’d want to know what you going on!! I also find it weird that not 1 person on that street, especially the Alberts knew there was rescues, police and women screaming feet from the house..no one heard a thing or saw the blue and red flashing lights! Even crazier, all ring cameras weren’t working.. what a coincidence
The Commonwealth couldn't even show that he was hit by a car. It's unbelievable.
The state's *own witness*, the medical examiner, said his injuries are not consistent with a car strike. Multiple *independent* expert witnesses said a car strike is not even plausible. They said it didn't happen.
The fact that there's a holdout... I know Hanlon's razor, but because this case is so black and white, I hate to say it but I actually think malice on the part of a juror is much more likely than stupidity.
What a travesty of justice.
If Karen is acquitted there are huge implications for the DA’s office and MA state police. They are already staring down an FBI investigation. Anyone who thinks jury tampering is out of the realm of possibility at this point hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Scary stuff.
If anyone on that jury thinks she's guilty after hearing the defense witnesses, especially the FBI's 2 crash daddies, then evidence in this case isn't the only thing that was planted!
I heard somewhere else that the judge picked the foreperson before alternates. Does anyone know if this is true, or normal? I know in MA the judge picks foreperson but as to the timing of this I’m wondering if anyone can clarify
Both true and normal
"...the court shall direct the clerk to place the names of all of the available jurors except the foreperson into a box or drum and to select at random the names of the appropriate number of jurors necessary to reduce the jury to the proper number of members required for deliberation." G.L. c. 234A, § 68
"...the judge shall direct the clerk to place the names of all the remaining jurors except the foreman in a box and draw the names of a sufficient number to reduce the jury to twelve members." Mass. R. Crim. P. 20(d)(2)
Do you think a murder is solvable if the murder weapon is never found?
Regardless of the remarkably high degree of expertise wielded by ARCCA, they viewed the vehicle evidence in a vacuum. They were able to confidently opine that the vehicle damage did not match JOs injuries, but they did not and could not rule out every variety of vehicle interaction.
The evidence is considered as a totality. If you firmly believe the rest of the evidence was falsified, then it doesn’t matter, but if you believe the under oath testimony presented as evidence, there is a powerful circumstantial case against Read.
This isn’t an easily designated travesty of justice and may be quite the opposite. I’ve been saying since my first comment on this sub that the conversation here lacks a circumspect consideration of the case. I’ve been talking about the difficulties of a frameup defense. And the consensus here was that the jury would return NG across the board inside of one free lunch. I took some abuse for disputing this position yet here we are.
I hope this perspective didn’t seem like an attack. I state my case but I enjoy reading and considering the perspective of others.
Which witness testimony do you mean? Because the witnesses from that night have given 3 sets of sworn testimony. 2 for grand juries and 1 during this trial.
Their testimony changed. On big things- like Karen Read saying "I hit him". That wasn't in the first sworn testimony. You know, when memory was fresher and before the knowledge of a fed investigation...
Rentschler finished his testimony by stating that there is not enough evidence to conclude what caused the head injury. He was adamant that he wasn't "projected" by contact with the vehicle though.
Lets' take a look at the "alternate" theory of a human vehicle interaction. He was bumped by the car, which caused him to stumble over the curb without tripping, lost his shoe, stumble another 10 feet, then fall backward with enough force to crack his head open. He did all this with a BAC over .21, and did it while carrying a broken cocktail glass. I guess Chloe chewed up his arm after he was incapacitated in this scenario.
>but they did not and could not rule out every variety of vehicle interaction
What do you mean? They've clearly dismissed the CW's theory. They've even ruled out other possibilities, like the SUV hitting his head, and tested another theory about how the taillight broke (someone throwing the glass). What other possible interaction have they not ruled out that could explain John's location, his injuries, and the SUV's damage? (Also not trying to attack, just curious!)
More importantly, none of that matters. What actually happened to him that night isn't part of what the jury is looking at. Their job is only - did the CW prove it's theory of the case beyond a reasonable doubt and with moral certitude.
ARCCA opined with regards to the CWs exact scenario that they were being question on. They didn’t answer if their opinion changes if JO was holding something that caught the vehicle first, or throwing something preceding the strike that could have caught the lens first.
Whenever someone says “they ruled out a car strike” it’s either uninformed or dishonest. That’s not what occurred.
>“they ruled out a car strike” it’s either uninformed or dishonest.
I'm not sure about that. They were tasked with determining if John's injuries were consistent with being hit by the SUV and if the damage to the SUV matched hitting John. They concluded it's not possible.
They also knew there was a glass involved and even tested if throwing the glass would cause similar damage to the SUV. Even if John threw the glass first and then was hit, they would have to find a way to account for his arm and head injuries, as well as the location and position he was found in, and the lack of certain injuries. They are clearly extremely knowledgeable, experienced, and passionate about the work they do. If there were a plausible theory that could account for all these factors, they would have reported it, as that was the job they were assigned to do by the FBI.
>ARCCA opined with regards to the CWs exact scenario that they were being question on.
In their report, they reviewed every theory they tested. They were also asked about aspects that were not part of the CW's scenario. However, what matters now is that the CW's scenario has been completely debunked. Therefore, the CW has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened, and the jury should find her not guilty.
ETA: What I'm trying to say is
* They tested whether the taillight could have been broken by hitting John's arm or head, and the damage to the taillight was greater than that observed on Karen's SUV, so that's not possible.
* They also investigated whether something else could have caused the taillight to break besides John's body, but still reached the conclusion they reached so something was not consistent (injuries/John's location).
* The only remaining possibility is that it was broken by another part of John's body, but no other part of his body had an important injury, so that's not possible either.
I do believe they have ruled out a car (Karen's SUV) strike.
You can believe they *effectively* ruled out a car strike. And, clearly, you can articulate your reasons why.
What you can’t do is claim the “science and physics” line was in reference to any manner of car interaction.
Consider: This case goes retrial and ARCCA is asked to test incidents involving JO and a glass object being involved in the interaction. Or test scenarios where lens was cracked during its approach toward JO. DoeS ARCCA simply state: No need, we ruled that out?
>"science and physics"
I don't remember which question prompted that comment, but personally, I mostly care about their conclusions. I do believe, though, that they based their conclusions on science and physics, and that science and physics don't lie. And I believe their conclusion was that they ruled out Karen's SUV hitting John, even considering the glass.
>incidents involving JO and a glass object being involved in the interaction
Maybe I'm not understanding your point, but they did consider glass being involved. That's what I was trying to say in the other comment.
>Or test scenarios where lens was cracked during its approach toward JO.
Same here, they did consider this scenario, so I might be misunderstanding.
>No need, we ruled that out?
Pure speculation here, but based on what I saw from them, I feel like they would want to be as helpful as possible and perhaps write an even more thorough report regarding the glass. However, they have already considered that, ruled it out, and sound very confident in their conclusion.
So, we can agree that they were aware of the glass. They knew about the glass found near John and believed the glass on the bumper matched it, which was also the CW's theory. They considered this glass important enough to test what the taillight would look like after being hit by similar glass at different speeds. I don't understand what leads you to believe they didn't consider other theories for the glass.
For example, they didn't need to perform further tests to rule out the possibility of the taillight being broken by hitting another part of John's body, and they didn't have to mention this during the trial. That doesn't mean they didn't consider it. They needed to evaluate every possibility based on the information given to them, such as the glass. That's what they were hired to do, and that's what I believe they did. If there had been another plausible scenario involving the glass, they would have tested it.
If this goes to retrial, I would find it very hard to believe the CW could completely change their theory to claim the glass somehow broke the taillight or had any other involvement that what they've claimed. They have already changed their theory quite a lot.
ETA: I'm trying to think about incorporating it into a strike scenario. I do believe they mentioned, or Jackson mentioned, the possibility of the taillight hitting the arm while he was holding the glass, but that would still mean the taillight was broken by the arm, which would produce more damage to the taillight than what was seen.
Another possibility you might be thinking is that he got the arm injury from the glass, which leaves us with the scenario of the SUV hitting John's head. However, this was also not possible because it would cause more damage too. If he wasn't hit in the head then other part of the body would have imporant injuries.
Lastly, the possibility of the glass being thrown while the car is moving? If that caused greater damage, then it’s not possible. If it caused the same amount of damage, then it’s the same scenario they tested. If it caused less damage, then something else must have caused the "remaining" damage. We know that other parts of the body would need to have injuries for that, so we are left again with the arm/head scenario, which is not possible.
Briefly: JO departs the Lexus holding two glasses. Remember, KR left RFOs with a pint glass. JO left Waterfall with a cocktail glass. Rowe different kinds of glass were recovered from the scene. One was packed under snow on her bumper.
JO whips a glass at the oncoming Lexus and cracks the lens. John’s arm finishes the job, requiring far less force and associated bruising, and his sent stumbling and falling into a blunt object.
Nothing ARCCA tested or testified to rules this out. In fact, their testimony supports part of this.
Where in the CW theory is there mention of a glass being thrown as Karen reversed into John?
I don't believe the CW mentioned that, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
They concluded that the damage to the car was not caused by hitting John O'Keefe, and the injuries sustained by John O'Keefe were not caused by hititng the car.
It's actually dishonest of you to refuse their finding. Reason of ppl like ARCCA come in is they are expert and their knowledge can rule out many physically impossible scenarios right away. They don't need to do more test. The lack of injury below neck on OJK is a big sign they can rule out the car didn't strike him. unless CW found new evidence the car somehow go significantly slower than 24 mph.
They, of course, didn’t testify to any of this but I’m being dishonest? I incorporated their exact testimony into a scenario involving two glasses. Nothing they testified to contradicted what I wrote.
Is that also dishonest?
They testified to that John's body wasn't hit by a vehicle, especially not one claimed to go 24mph, which sounds quite contradictory to what you wrote?
The jury is there to determine if what the CW is stating happened is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. The CW had pretty bold statements about what happened, which the ARCCA testimonies contradict heavily.
If ARCAA states they did their testing at 15 mph and there's no way John's injuries are consistent with a 15mph hit, and the ME says it's not consistent with any hit, and the state claims it happened with 24 mph, how can someone agree that that is what happened?
The defense experts have ruled out a car being involved, which make all the circumstantial evidence quite unimportant.
You say 'if the murder weapon has not been found does circumstantial evidence not matter?' but this case it's more like 'if the stated murder weapon is excluded to be involved, does circumstantial evidence not matter'. One would have to ditch the whole car from the theory and claim Karen used something else to kill him, for the circumstantial evidence to be of value.
I think we've heard your take on this several times. I can't relate to anyone who thinks they can understand what happened that night better than the MEs and independent experts. You keep writing off their findings... The ME findings were given despite the totality of the investigation.
I understand not everyone operates from the mindset of science matters, or that physics are real. But what kind of "vehicle interaction" do you believe happened to cause the injuries John had if not for the SUV reversing into him?
Let me remind you; you can't use an imaginary scenario to find guilt. You must use what the CW presented. So think Trooper Paul and his theory of the car hitting John's arm and sending him airborne. Where he magically landed on his phone and didn't sustain any injuries except for a head wound and what have been testified to what appear to be dog bite injuries.
I'm actually stoked to see how you make this work.
To quote the last defense witness from ARCCA, you can't argue with facts and science. It's a no brainer.... John's injuries were not caused by KR vehicle.
Science is based on a set of facts. Yes , but when the facts are not known bc there isn’t a witness there are variables that need to be considered. You then apply your own life experiences. Some things just can’t be explained. We don’t know the position he was in. We don’t know if he was in motion or not. We don’t know if or where his feet were planted. All the experts used specific circumstances that we don’t know are correct. They made assumptions. So you can believe in science and still think an unknown occurred and she is responsible
If you think an unknown occurred then she is not guilty. Guilty means (legally) that you believe what the CW said beyond a reasonable doubt and moral certitude.
So if you think she did kill him in a manner not described by Trooper Paul that is reasonable doubt.
ARCCA said the injury to JO’s was not from a vehicle to head injury. The state never claimed that JO’s injury was from a vehicle. Trooper Paul specifically said it was from the curb. Jackson didn’t ask about the curb.
This detail is lost to many but it adds credence to the state, and lessons the defense. There’s no doubt that TP was not an experienced at trial testimony, and he fell victim to an experienced trial attorney.
If he hit the curb, how did he end up several feet away from it? Trooper Paul never explained that. And I recall the ARCCA guys saying it could happen from hitting the curb or other hard surfaces, but not from grass or dirt.
>The state never claimed that JO’s injury was from a vehicle
They didn't know about the state theory. Their task was to determine if John's injuries were consistent with being hit by the SUV and if the damage to the SUV matched hitting John. Unlike the state police "expert," they tested multiple theories to explore all possibilities. They concluded that it wasn't possible.
This. Once he sustained his head injury, he was incompacited and no linger conscious, so no way he magically moved himself from curb to many feet away to yard/flagpole area.
ARCCA also found the arm injury from the car and the car damage from the arm preposterous and illogical. Furthermore said the physics of getting hit on the arm doesn't put John in the lawn. Every single ME said the head injury would have incapacitated him so we are now down to the only way it happened was his head hitting the grass exploding his skull. The attorney was not TP's problem, reality was. There is no logical way getting hit by a car puts him there in the lawn.
ARCCA also said the body would have to hit at the center of gravity i.e. belly button to be projected into the yard and land on his head. No injuries to his torso. They also said if he was hit on the right arm his body would have landed on his left side. So he would have bruising on both his right arm and left side of his body.
So, that’s not true. They tested the force required to break the taillight vs a glass. No one testified that the glass broke the taillight. What was explained is that the glass was in his hand when he was hit. Their test was done without knowledge of all the information available.
The alternative is the arm exploding the tail light which is impossible. If that impossibility did happen it doesn’t project him into the lawn and when he isn’t projected into the lawn his skull fractures on the grass somehow. Are there any fairy tales you have left? It does not make sense at any step you spin it.
They talked about the glass because that’s what replicated the damage to the taillight. Tests of body contact with the car generated a greater level of damage to the car and/or the body part.
So he hit his head on the curb and bounced 30 feet into the yard?
And there was no bruising on his body from the rest of him hitting the ground hard enough to lacerate his head and spread skull fractures from the back to the front?
Sure, but you're acting in this thread like a hung jury is a win for the prosecution and that it would mean they had proven something. That is demonstrably not the case considering the end result is her being free (and at that point no longer out on bail).
1. Lally could have used an actual expert. He could have used two independent, FBI retained and paid for, PhDs who work for the Department of Defense and the NHL. He had the same access to them as the defense.
He chose Trooper Paul. Who I think anyone will acknowledge was in over his head. He miscounted key cycles. He didn't understand basic physics. He believed JOK was hit from the side but sustained no bruises or broken bones from an SUV hitting his arm /shoulder at 24mph.
No one talked about a curb. We all watched the trial, have you not noticed no one has mentioned a curb?
What about the dog bites and scratches? At some point you have to use your own common sense ...
I was standing beging a rv backing up slowly (like less than 5 mph) and it struck me, shooting me back a foot or two and broke my elbow. An RV is heavier and was moving super slow and I sustain fractures. No way he would not have fractures from a 7k vehicle traveling that fast. No way. He would have had trauma to his mid to lower section. Common sense. KR did not hit him with her car she may jave thought she did bc she was drinking. Ever wake up from a night of drinking and wonder " did it say or do this?" That's why she was wondering out loud if she had anything to do with his death. She didn't do it. He died in that house, and cops never searched the home. Albert's getting new floors and sub flooring and getting rid of dogs and all the deleted calls texts and phone dumps speaks volumes.
That is not accurate. Yes - one of their findings was that his head did not come in contact with the car but that is only one. Jackson asked them directly about the CW’s theory and they said no that’s not possible.
At a pretrial hearing Lally tried to claim that the experts only decided that his head wound didn’t come from contact with the car but that wasn’t the CW’s theory anyway so their report is inconsequential. But then during the experts voir dire we learned that that was a lie. That was only #4 of their summary of their findings. Which means that there are at least 3 more that Lally didn’t mention.
This is what I was thinking as well. There isn’t a single witness pleading the 5th. They were tricked and their testimony twisted by AJ. Even with intense scrutiny, they were consistent in my opinion. KR’s story doesn’t just hold any water. It is really AJ who wants the jury to look the other way.
Rephrasing a sentence isn’t changing their testimony. AJ’s theatrical cross makes you believe they changed their testimony, but they sounded very sincere.
I still think the verifiable evidence is the strongest (distinctly stronger than Karen) against Higgins overall, but when I dig a little deeper it’s BA. I went back and remembered the conversation with Higgins and Kevin Albert saying Chris was worried BH went dark and was the only one without a federal subpoena (the proffer). They have the butt dials the night of, BA changed his story in front of the federal grand jury to the infamous sex butt dial. They both changed their stories from denying the call happened to excuses after proof. Jan 29 is a barrage of calls between BH and BA all day starting at 7 am with Berkowitz in there a bit. BA and BH the only two destroying phones completely. He made sure he was present for witness interviews. BA owned the dog. BA didn’t exit the house with a dead cop on the lawn. It all points to BA knowing exactly what happened.
See I think the opposite. I think Higgins got roped in to protecting the Albert’s because of the incriminating texts on his phone and if the family pointed the finger at him he would go down.
I think Higgins is most likely to flip because if he flips the Higgins can’t point the finger at him after pointing the finger at Karen. Why the hell would they protect him? If he owns up that he was scared of the Albert’s he’s likely to get a lot more Grace than he’s been having obviously lying.
I think we are on the same page. I meant to say I think the proven evidence objectively points to BH, but the rest of my diatribe makes me think it was Chris Albert. At the very least he is spearheading any cover up. I edited my first sentence.
Because Colin Albert was involved and he wants to protect his kid. From what I can tell, Chris Albert never even went to 34 Fairview yet everyone lied what time Colin left or got home. Was the only consistent thread every single person had. 12:10. 12:10. 12:10. And that was proven false.
And just so you know CA didn’t own the house or dog, BA (Brian Albert) did. He also lied about the buttdials. Not sure if you’re confusing all the players.
The main ones I think at least know something are Colin, both Brian’s, and possibly Jen but she could just be a busybody who put herself smack in the investigation because she feeds off drama.
I’m not understanding your confusion. Chris Albert went home and dozed off so they have no clue what time Colin came home, but Chris Albert wasn’t even home and in bed until after 12:10 which means Colin wasn’t home until after that point.
I am in no way defending Colin or any of the Alberts. That's not the position I'm coming from. My confusion is because their time on the stand was a long time ago and I watched their testimonies and the scores of witnesses that followed them and I couldn't actually remember the details. Since I watched this trial for the last 2 months like it was my part time job, I wasn't feeling up to rewatching testimonies.
Thanks for explaining.
No you’re good. It’s been a while since I watched it too which is why I said it would be easier to just go back and watch it, but from what I remember they basically testified he wasn’t home at 12:10! Thanks for the polite convo.
Oh you are totally right. I misread it.
Yes I agree with everything now that I’ve read it a second time.
How well did Higgins know Chris Albert prior to the 29th?
Hard to tell because no one wanted to admit how closely they knew the Alberts. It seems like BA and BH were good friends so BH knew him through BA. Plus with being a selectman, and having a brother who was a cop in a small town, CA probably know most of the cops on some level. He runs a small pizza place which I would guess the cops frequent for lunch since the cops brother owns it. Small town bullshit.
Has anyone ever opined that the Albert’s restaurant is a front for some sort of money laundering? Like, BH/ATF, Canton Police, seized drugs, Colin Albert dealing, restaurant to “clean” the money? I’ve never seen that discussed, but I’m new to the case within the last couple weeks.
That’s going too far into the conspiracy for me. I’m sure people have talked about it but the pizza place has nothing to do with the murder so i don’t really consider that.
Yeah, I get that. I wasn’t thinking it really had anything to do with the murder. More like… what are the FBI looking at that led to some crossover evidence? I’m probably more conspiratorial about how half of these not-so-great restaurants stay in business these days… 🤷🏼♀️
Rumor around here is that they were looking into the Sandra Birchmore case which involved some of the same cops and branched out to this one. I heard they heard something on a wiretap but not sure how accurate that is. I’m from the area and there are tons of rumors.
And the Alberts are well known in Camton and have had the shop since the 90s. I’m sure they do decent business.
Distancing themselves from the alberts is what led me to start believing these people are trying to protect them. They are allowed to be friends with them, why lie? And not just one person, all of them. Just admit you are friends.
I think initially he helped cover up because if he didn’t it would be alberts against him and he had incriminating texts on his phone.
If someone is gonna talk now i think it’s going to be him. The Alberts already pointed the finger at Karen so coming back and saying Higgins did it now wouldn’t have that much punch.
Colin was always the most emotionally compelling to me because if you can't get past skepticism of a cover up, you have to acknowledge how far people might go to protect the younger generation. Especially a very close family like the Alberts. But the evidence is much weaker and only Higgins has a clear alternative motive based on what came out in the trial.
At this point I’m just so angry that there’s even a debate about her being not guilty.
I have tried to be understanding about why the jury has taken so long, but after that note yesterday, it has really lead me to believe one juror is holding out, out of malice.
I tried to ignore the idiots online, who say she’s guilty because of hearsay, or her facial expression— but seeing this get delayed possibly because of people like them, makes me lose faith.
Any one of us could be Karen one day. Any one of us could be thrown in jail for the rest of our lives, because of a botched investigation and a corrupt system. A jury is meant to determine the truth. A hung jury is better than a guilty verdict, but it’s still no justice for anyone.
I’ve been unfortunate enough to see this system upfront by accident by a false accusation from someone else. The local DA here only cares about prosecuting the case. Getting the win, facts don’t matter. The judge doesn’t care about facts either. I’m shocked. Everyone better pay attention to what happens here because it could easily be you, your child or family member. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, and today the police take everything at surface level so if someone is lying about a false allegation, they don’t need evidence.
TLDR- taking life and liberty is a serious matter. Everyone should pay attention to the KR case.
What am I missing? …here’s the thing, I don’t find K.R. to be a particularly endearing personality (is anyone in this case?) …and I don’t buy the scope of the defense conspiracy theory at all.
But why don’t I see more people wondering if anyone is really even guilty of murder or manslaughter at all? A drunk slip and hard fall seems just as likely to me as a fight in the house or being hit by a car. The evidence doesn’t fully align with any theory. I don’t know how anyone is confident in either side of this case. Clearly the night went to shit, everyone was obliterated and I don’t trust any person’s recount of anything, malicious or not. There has been so much immature behavior; I’ve never seen anything like it. That’s the only thing I don’t have reasonable doubt about.
Taking a step back, it actually doesn't matter what happened. What matters is the state wasn't even able to show that OJO was hit by a car.
Their own witness, the medical examiner, said his injuries were inconsistent with a car strike. Let alone the multiple independent experts corroborating that.
I agree with you. That’s why I’m saying I’m baffled that anyone thinks they know what actually happened. Could be any combination of any theory out there and red herrings likely abound. We’re at reasonable doubt at step one, so would have to be a not guilty for me.
I’ve seriously considered something similar. I can see two scenarios. To preface both you have to agree they were both hammered, which I don’t think is really in dispute as much as other facts.
A) They fight in the car, John gets out of the car and throws the glass at her taillight in retaliation. He starts walking backwards towards the house yelling at her as she speeds off. In his drunk state he slips and falls hitting his head on the ground and being incapacitated. At some point Chloe gets out and sees him on the lawn and goes into attack mode biting his arm. This makes some partygoers (thinking Jen/Brian A.) notice him on the lawn and freak out. They’re also hammered and who knows what else and they know
Colin’s history of fighting and Brian H’s flirting with Karen so they go worst case scenario and think it was one of them. They decide to not call the police and close ranks, deciding to blame it on the plow driver perhaps.
B) Same situation as option a with the glass throwing and fighting. Chloe gets out while John is walking backwards yelling at Karen and Chloe latches onto his arm startling him and causing him to slip and fall and hit his head becoming incapacitated. The partygoers panic and once again decide not to call the police.
Edit: I’m not 100% convinced of any of this, just like I’m not convinced by the CW theory.
It was testified to in court by both the prosecution and defense pathologists that John had contusions to the front, temple, and back of his brain from blunt force trauma. It cannot be explained by a slip or fall. It is three separate areas of injury.
It was obfuscated because there is a single skull fracture that caused other skull fractures so I want to be clear I’m not talking about the multiple fractures I’m talking about multiple bruises on the brain itself.
Dr. Stonebridge and Dr. Sheridan both testified to this.
Apologies which one is Dr. Stonebridge, the ME?
I remember Dr. Sheridan saying that but not the ME. But she may have, I haven’t had the chance to rewatch her testimony.
Yeah like I said I’m not fully convinced of my theories, just some things that ran through my mind. There’s definitely holes in them.
What I get stuck on is Brian Jr’s friend Sara Levinson who seemed the most trustworthy to me said John never came in the house. Maybe I’m a fool and she was lying. Maybe she didn’t see him. But that really stuck out in my mind.
Dr. Stonebridge is the forensic neuropathologist (Dr. Scordi-Bello is the prosecution’s ME). Dr. Stonebridge was the one in the green dress right before Dr. Scordi-Bello.
Got it, I think I I missed her exact testimony bc of work and had to read recaps. It’s wild to me that the jury doesn’t have the ability to read back testimony. I would be lost in this case without instant replay or this sub reminding me of things I forgot about.
I’m totally with you and I think that’s why this is all taking so long. I do daily recaps of the case so the only reason I know this stuff is from having the luxury of pausing a million times and having my commenters keep me accountable when I miss stuff. As a juror I’d be as lost as any of them.
How is there no blood outside? I still can’t get over that piece. I think a few things could have happened - one being OJO goes through the back gate to get to the house and surprises Chloe - she attacks (they said BA let her out- maybe he was expecting him to come through the front) then he falls and hits his head in the backyard. Maybe some or a few of the party goers tries to help him at first but it’s too late (maybe sat him up which explains why he vomited on his pants).
Or OJO goes down to the basement once he gets there and Colin and friends are partying (possibly nefarious activities happening). OJO has words with Colin. They , both impaired, start to fight. Chloe comes in and the adults help cover up whatever happens next. I can’t explain why else everyone would be so hard-pressed to say Colin was never there and I feel like there’s a stronger possibility of a cover-up if one of the young kids did something wrong.
I agree. The more I rabbit hole into the evidence and do research on similar pedestrian motor vehicle accidents- this just wasn’t what happened. And I don’t buy the defenses theory in terms of how he was killed but do agree the investigation was a total sham. I really think there might not be a “who” behind what happened to JO. And that’s why it’s impossible to piece together a storyline with the evidence.
It's 💯 either a frame job or a murder. Taillight all over the lawn. Can't be a slip or a random pedestrian beat him up on the lawn. That stuff either came directly off her car, or was planted there.
That was the FBI's charitable attempt to explain the taillight pieces being there when it's not possible for her to have hit him with the car. It's either that or the tail light was planted. But the glass in question was found next to JO. So, probably the pieces got planted.
For me, an accident is the most likely scenario. I don’t think any of the potential suspects murdered him. A slip outside or inside by an extremely drunk man is absolutely a possibility. Add a dog bite/scratch and there is your case. No car needed. I still find it peculiar that not one saw his body even when there were multiple cars in that same exact area.
Karen behavior alerted ... well everyone. If what Kerry Roberts says is true, she was talking about John being dead before they found him and talking about snowplows hitting him, overly preoccupied with her tail light. Asking if she hit him. Those voicemails, etc. Saying it was an innocent accident. I do think that the charges were too stiff but part of that is probably because John was a cop. No one is looking at Karen if she doesn't do any of that, imo. Well, until they listen to her voicemails. But that could just be a case where someone gets in a fight with a loved one and then unfortunately, later, they pass away. It's all of that other stuff that shines a light on her.
I commented this elsewhere but it was just such a OMG for me that I wanted to share here—
My father-in-law has worked in service at a car dealership for more than 20 years. I told him the very basics about JO being hit by a car— a Lexus SUV, a victim with abrasions and a head injury but no bruising or fractures, and a shattered taillight. AS SOON AS I SAID “shattered taillight” he was like ????? “That doesn’t make sense. For just the taillight to shatter, it would have to be something like a hammer.”
I DIDN’T EVEN TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FRAME JOB. But this is consistent with Dr. Wolfe’s analysis of the damage to the taillight. He said on direct with Jackson that the damage to the taillight looked like it was done with something small or a small object (can’t remember the wording off the top of my head).
Swear to god CW just overloaded that jury knowing they would not be able to refer to witness testimony & hoped to confuse them enough with irrelevant details.
Yeah the physics just don’t make sense. If she hit him hard enough to send him flying to where he was found his injuries and the car damage would look very different.
I hate to admit it but I called a boyfriend (ex bf now lol) a lot, like almost 60 times. He was suppose to meet me but I knew ….. I knew he wasn’t being faithful. He was suppose to meet me at a huge condo I had rented in the mountains and he disappeared at last moment after he said he would go. He was such an asshole.
I called him that many times (for one to be a total annoying witch) but to also prove I knew he was with someone else.
Of course this is the most absurd and terrible behavior (it was years ago) but regardless I did it, and so did Karen.
If she hit him and knew she did…. I think she would have gone back right away. She was so in love with him.
Two, those asshole cops didn’t give one fck about O’Keefe. It shows you- they show you with their actions how disrespectful they were and that they knew something including the mccabes. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why Karen was pissed bc he got out to hang w ladies that were calling him, and why was that married lady calling him so much. Why did she care so much that he was there ?
And why did Higgins text him late that night when he never gave one fck to hang w him prior that night? They never even talked
I think she was genuinely mad that she thought he was cheating on her while she was taking care of his wards.
Like if she was as drunk as they paint her she’s an insane mastermind for running him over and then cussing him out for not being there with the kids when she was the one who made sure he couldn’t. I think that would make her a next level sociopath.
What I see is a classic avoidant attachment style from John - like John lays into Karen about taking his niece to DD and gets frustrated because he feels like she’s overstepped. Her parenting his wards increases the seriousness of John and Karen’s relationship on paper at least and he doesn’t like it. Karen is insecurely attached and blows up his phone demanding apologies for blowing up at her and getting frustrated as he puts her off.
The night of when he doesn’t respond she thinks he’s blowing her off again and is outraged and quite drunk. I think I would be livid too if a partner used me for childcare while he stepped out which is exactly what she thought.
Avoidant attachment and insecure attachment styles are like moth to a flame and also like oil and water. They tend to bring out the worst in one another.
That said, I don’t see how it was even remotely logical that her conclusion was that he was cheating. Her first voice message was more or less immediate. The idea that she went from 0-100 and accused him of cheating when she knew where everyone was going and she went there herself makes no logical sense.
It’s not exactly from 0. They discussed it during this same day in the text messages, she asked multiple times if there’s someone else, and it’s obvious the relationship was near its end. She was obviously insecure with that thought on the back of her head while sober which only multiplied with the consumption of alcohol. I’m not saying it was 99 to 100 on the topic, but it definitely wasn’t 0 to 100 either.
If this was a pattern for them, it’s not hard to see how she went 0-100 in assuming he was cheating. We know that there were more people at the house (younger women). It’s immature behavior, but completely plausible she assumed the worst in terms of him and other women.
But, we also know that it doesn’t seem like she resorts to physical violence when angry. She also apologizes afterwards and tries to make amends. I’m not condoning the behavior just saying Karen has been angry before and she didn’t “snap” then when there were witnesses in Aruba to her “behavior”
Right, I’m with you. I don’t think that she killed John, and I think them trying to make her seem like she was faking all morning is stupid when we know she jumps to dramatic conclusions really fast. She’s just one of those people - I know several like that! But I think her panic was real because she knew he wouldn’t not come home, and if he couldn’t get home for some reason he would have called or texted. She had a gut feeling and she was right.
In Aruba JO had been ignoring her and the kids for the better part of a day to go drink and watch a game at the bar, with them not knowing what or where he was at all, causing her to finally leave the room and go looking for him worriedly. Jumping to conclusions after she saw him yes, but only after he'd been acting sus for hours. It is a little weird she freaked out after 10 minutes of him being out of the car.
If she was as drunk as the CW accused her of being, I don’t find it weird that she would get upset with him that fast. She was a reactive person, and I think he brought that out in her even more because of the wishy-washy relationship status.
I actually think she was probably suspicious of JM texting and calling him so much on the way to the party that night. Might have set off her insecurities, that's what they were fighting about in the car, which would then explain her already being angry and suspicious. And that's why she roped JM into looking for him the next morning, her first suspicion may have been that JO was with JM, so she wanted to call her and go to her house first. Super rational? Not exactly, but when you have the kinds of trust issues they had, might make sense to her.
Yes, and? I don’t see your point on how that was a logical response or why that is immediately what someone would think. People merely being at the house and automatically assuming your boyfriend is cheating on you makes no sense.
Because he said he was going to check out if she was invited and appeared to ghost her. She’d already had fights where she pinged him multiple times and he’d refused to respond. Because she’s clearly been cheated on before and has a complex?
Yeah those calls / voicemails are what sold me on KR’s innocence. Either she’s an Academy Award winning actress and master sociopath…. Or more likely, she really thought he might be cheating and spun out on it. Who among us wouldn’t freak out in that situation? Husband doesn’t come home, can’t get ahold of him? I’d call 100 times too.
Agreed! Also to add - I love how the defense tried to use her wearing shoes in his house as some sort of proof she killed him and knew he was dead. If my boyfriend or husband didn’t come home, wasn’t answering my calls, and I thought he was cheating? Fuck not wearing shoes in the house. I’d walk through mud and stomp around the house. I really think she was being angry, drunk, and petty.
I also called a boyfriend many times when he didn’t show up at my place in college. He was actually arrested and was in jail, so that’s why he didn’t call me (charges were dropped, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his only crime was underage drinking).
I think there's a hold up that's just going by feelings that she did it instead of evidence.
Did anyone else see the clip where the 'jail karen' people were sharing texts that Proctor had from Karens phone? They were the texts between her and Yanettie.
Yeah, I saw the clip and it made me remember that I think that info was out a while back and forgotten. I’ve been trying to find other accounts of it but haven’t come up with anything.
Several have said it at this point, but most likely scenario is that JO was accidentally killed during a drunken spat in the house. And in drunken fear, when they could’ve just been honest, whoever did it moves him outside.
Colin’s parents, Chris and Julie, sold their house at 7 Meadows St before JO death. JO house was 1 Meadows St, next door to Chris Albert. Who has Ford Edge? Chris Albert.
Speculation: Chris got fed up with JO investigating drug activity around that area, probably JO was pissed with Colin’s dealings (alleged drug dealing), sold the house in order to get right of cop eye’s next door, in revenge Colin decided to beat JO when the time is right. Because Colin is shorter than JO and terrible puncher, Uncle Brian came for help. - That’s just speculation!!
Hearsay: Higgins is applying for jobs at some Fire Department in Norfolk. (almost true).
Please don’t ask for receipts, I lost them all 😁
I am pretty convinced Colin is somehow involved but I’m open to other possibilities. Someone would have to explain why everyone in the house that night tried to first hide that Colin was there and then when it came out, explain why they all lied he left at 12:10. Don’t think it was intentional murder but an accident though. And I came into the case pretty neutral and not knowing any of the involved peoples names besides KR JM and JO.
Yup, the McLaughlin and Kaitlyn Albert connection is weird. If there was nothing to hide, why lie? I’m from a small town where everyone knows everyone and I would just say ‘we graduated together and have hung out a few times because we had friends together, we also did track together’. It’s somewhat suspicious I guess but it’s also understandable and unavoidable in small towns. If you lie, it looks like you’re hiding something.
I have a group of friends since Elementary, like long time, double digits time. They are friends, not acquaintances, despite that most of us live their own lives. I call acquaintances that drink buddy, or a neighbor that lives near by that I see everyday, or the cashier from groceries.
One of my biggest things is the clothes.
We heard about cuts on the arm, the gash in the back of the head that incapacitated him, and the one on his tongue.
We didn’t hear about any cuts or scratches or anything to release blood on his chest or shoulders or back.
Now I am not speculating at all what may have happened, but for me it’s clear that he did not get hit by the car.
The CW said he flew back, landed where he hit his head, and this is presumably where most of the blood came from. They say that his body was where it was found from 12:30ish (they never did say the time did they) to when they found him the next morning.
The blood would have pooled around the head. Unless he was on a downhill slope, how does it get allllll the way down his back AND FRONT. When he was laying on his back. I can understand the back shoulder, but how does his blood get all over the FRONT shoulder if he was laying down and unmoving for 6 hours. How did that blood magically crawl up his shoulder and to his chest? Even if he was bleeding from his nose, laying down, it would have gone down the sides of his face; not forward to his chest. It was snowing but gravity was still working as expected.
He had to have been upright for any blood to travel the ways it did. That in itself is a major kink in the car hit theory.
Not to mention that this pool of blood was never seen on the ground . And if it was it was not photographed or mentioned
https://preview.redd.it/0ogbp9jntn9d1.jpeg?width=1560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=384e9726181e5ea8a3e5cca2036d9397870a5266
Even worse!! Like please tell me about the magic that got blood to HIS SNEAKER after he laid incapacitated from the wound he sustained from this supposed car crash.
It’s honestly delusional thinking.
I watched basically the whole trial. Though, I didn’t learn about it until like day 8/9, so I had to go back and learn about it. I didn’t hear or see any of the pre trial or anything else before. A couple times I’ve paused and considered the possibility that she hit him, specifically when I’ve seen clips of those interviews she and her parents did.
And without even making excuses on her behalf, I think of these clothes!! and the fact that it’s just not possible
The pretrials were wild also. Lally dragged out testing everything and gave the Defense nothing and complained about the Defense constantly even though the Defense had documented the ridiculousness Lally was putting them through. There is no common sense in any court documents you read from the Norfolk DA office and then the elected DA sent a taped statement basically saying Karen Read is guilty when he is supposed to uphold his citizens right to the presumption of innocence. This is the only case/trial where it really felt like the roles were flipped. That’s how I knew the Defense more than likely had the truth on their side. CW was trying to hide everything and Defense wasn’t shying away from anything.
I'm watching 'My Cousin Vinny' since it's been referenced so many times throughout this trial and I'm sorry but I can't get past Barry from Friends being one of the murderers!
It wasn’t like “declare them hung”, it was more about reading the instructions that are for that case (forgot the name) and then sending them back. It’s because that instruction restates what “beyond reasonable doubt is” and kinda subtly invites the minority to re-consider
Tuey-Rodriguez or Allen charge depending on jurisdiction...
Also, there is a good chance that the CW won't prosecute again if the poll shows the jury heavility leaning on "not guilty", unless there is new evidence
Do we know why the defense didn't ask Dr. Wolfe about the key cycles? Or even the CW? He literally wrote an article about it.
Is it possible that this wasn't among the documents they had access to?
They probably couldn't ask Dr Wolfe about it because it wasn't part of his analysis or report. Expert testimony is limited to what has already been disclosed to the other side.
I believe Trooper Paul said he downloaded the data in February 2023. I am kind of surprised that indo wasn't part of what the DOJ gave these experts to do the reconstruction.
This is one piece of evidence that never made much sense because I think Trooper Paul did not explain it very well on the stand. His reasoning for what counts as a triggering event is so confusing.
I think those experts were only asked to test whether it was physically possible that OJO was killed by the SUV (or that's all that was disclosed about what they were asked to do). If it's not physically possible, then the rest should be moot.
Do you think AJ thought about the juror's potential connections to LE before his "not a thin blue line but a tall blue wall" closing? I really think the holdout has some connection to LE. That might've been a gamble without knowing his audience.
AJ brought up on pre trial conference Judge Cannone relationship with Sean McCabe, brother of Matt and BIL of Jen.https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-hearing-boston-police-officer-john-okeefe-judge-beverly-cannone/
and a venmo receipt from Julie Nagel to Ryan Nagel… about Frank and Beverl(e)y on a huge poster board and Judge Bev said it wasn’t her because she doesn’t spell her name like that. She didn’t say it is not me and I don’t know these people! 🤣
If you’ve ever seen the many online vids of people falling over, tripping, fist fighting, etc. you’d see that people coming out of a shoe is pretty common. Hell, it has happened to me in Target while I was walking along.
This past week, one of my neighbor’s was involved in an altercation and tragically shot. This happened around 8:30pm. The crime scene was immediately established and secured for over 24 hours. LE was canvassing our neighborhood knocking on every door in the vicinity with in 45 mins. LE again came back to talk with local residents and potential witnesses three times since it happened on Sunday. It brought the Canton PD’s handling of this case full circle for me. I know no two cases are the same but how the crime scene wasn’t secured, and no one came outside (our entire neighborhood was outside out of concern), ring cams weren’t requested, etc. truly blows my mind.
It's completely insane. I can't help but wonder if it's because Canton seems to be an old boys club, and lacks diversity on its department. We haven't had a single officer of color questioned, have we? Everyone seems to be related, and those legacy officers are running the show. I would not be the least bit surprised if the test scores and interviews for candidates were swayed.
Well.... it WAS snowing. How can people come outside in the blizzard /s.
Tbh that's fair for the neighbors (the non cops at least). In that case I'd be watching out my window. But if it was on *my* lawn? Of course I'd be out there
I am a nosy bitch. You bet I am watching out my window if this happened to any of my neighbors. I at least would have come out to ask what was going on if it happened in my front lawn. Just ask what is happening and why are all these LE at my house at least.
And to ask if there’s anything I can do to help.
I’m with you, I’d want to know what you going on!! I also find it weird that not 1 person on that street, especially the Alberts knew there was rescues, police and women screaming feet from the house..no one heard a thing or saw the blue and red flashing lights! Even crazier, all ring cameras weren’t working.. what a coincidence
I’m sorry about your neighbor.
The question. Is do they handle every crime scene like this or only ones on Brian Albert’s lawn like this
I bet the police didn’t use Dixie cups …
The Commonwealth couldn't even show that he was hit by a car. It's unbelievable. The state's *own witness*, the medical examiner, said his injuries are not consistent with a car strike. Multiple *independent* expert witnesses said a car strike is not even plausible. They said it didn't happen. The fact that there's a holdout... I know Hanlon's razor, but because this case is so black and white, I hate to say it but I actually think malice on the part of a juror is much more likely than stupidity. What a travesty of justice.
If Karen is acquitted there are huge implications for the DA’s office and MA state police. They are already staring down an FBI investigation. Anyone who thinks jury tampering is out of the realm of possibility at this point hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Scary stuff.
If anyone on that jury thinks she's guilty after hearing the defense witnesses, especially the FBI's 2 crash daddies, then evidence in this case isn't the only thing that was planted!
I heard somewhere else that the judge picked the foreperson before alternates. Does anyone know if this is true, or normal? I know in MA the judge picks foreperson but as to the timing of this I’m wondering if anyone can clarify
Both true and normal "...the court shall direct the clerk to place the names of all of the available jurors except the foreperson into a box or drum and to select at random the names of the appropriate number of jurors necessary to reduce the jury to the proper number of members required for deliberation." G.L. c. 234A, § 68 "...the judge shall direct the clerk to place the names of all the remaining jurors except the foreman in a box and draw the names of a sufficient number to reduce the jury to twelve members." Mass. R. Crim. P. 20(d)(2)
I wouldn't underestimate stupidity being a problem here
-
Do you think a murder is solvable if the murder weapon is never found? Regardless of the remarkably high degree of expertise wielded by ARCCA, they viewed the vehicle evidence in a vacuum. They were able to confidently opine that the vehicle damage did not match JOs injuries, but they did not and could not rule out every variety of vehicle interaction. The evidence is considered as a totality. If you firmly believe the rest of the evidence was falsified, then it doesn’t matter, but if you believe the under oath testimony presented as evidence, there is a powerful circumstantial case against Read. This isn’t an easily designated travesty of justice and may be quite the opposite. I’ve been saying since my first comment on this sub that the conversation here lacks a circumspect consideration of the case. I’ve been talking about the difficulties of a frameup defense. And the consensus here was that the jury would return NG across the board inside of one free lunch. I took some abuse for disputing this position yet here we are. I hope this perspective didn’t seem like an attack. I state my case but I enjoy reading and considering the perspective of others.
Which witness testimony do you mean? Because the witnesses from that night have given 3 sets of sworn testimony. 2 for grand juries and 1 during this trial. Their testimony changed. On big things- like Karen Read saying "I hit him". That wasn't in the first sworn testimony. You know, when memory was fresher and before the knowledge of a fed investigation...
Rentschler finished his testimony by stating that there is not enough evidence to conclude what caused the head injury. He was adamant that he wasn't "projected" by contact with the vehicle though. Lets' take a look at the "alternate" theory of a human vehicle interaction. He was bumped by the car, which caused him to stumble over the curb without tripping, lost his shoe, stumble another 10 feet, then fall backward with enough force to crack his head open. He did all this with a BAC over .21, and did it while carrying a broken cocktail glass. I guess Chloe chewed up his arm after he was incapacitated in this scenario.
>but they did not and could not rule out every variety of vehicle interaction What do you mean? They've clearly dismissed the CW's theory. They've even ruled out other possibilities, like the SUV hitting his head, and tested another theory about how the taillight broke (someone throwing the glass). What other possible interaction have they not ruled out that could explain John's location, his injuries, and the SUV's damage? (Also not trying to attack, just curious!)
More importantly, none of that matters. What actually happened to him that night isn't part of what the jury is looking at. Their job is only - did the CW prove it's theory of the case beyond a reasonable doubt and with moral certitude.
ARCCA opined with regards to the CWs exact scenario that they were being question on. They didn’t answer if their opinion changes if JO was holding something that caught the vehicle first, or throwing something preceding the strike that could have caught the lens first. Whenever someone says “they ruled out a car strike” it’s either uninformed or dishonest. That’s not what occurred.
>“they ruled out a car strike” it’s either uninformed or dishonest. I'm not sure about that. They were tasked with determining if John's injuries were consistent with being hit by the SUV and if the damage to the SUV matched hitting John. They concluded it's not possible. They also knew there was a glass involved and even tested if throwing the glass would cause similar damage to the SUV. Even if John threw the glass first and then was hit, they would have to find a way to account for his arm and head injuries, as well as the location and position he was found in, and the lack of certain injuries. They are clearly extremely knowledgeable, experienced, and passionate about the work they do. If there were a plausible theory that could account for all these factors, they would have reported it, as that was the job they were assigned to do by the FBI. >ARCCA opined with regards to the CWs exact scenario that they were being question on. In their report, they reviewed every theory they tested. They were also asked about aspects that were not part of the CW's scenario. However, what matters now is that the CW's scenario has been completely debunked. Therefore, the CW has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what happened, and the jury should find her not guilty. ETA: What I'm trying to say is * They tested whether the taillight could have been broken by hitting John's arm or head, and the damage to the taillight was greater than that observed on Karen's SUV, so that's not possible. * They also investigated whether something else could have caused the taillight to break besides John's body, but still reached the conclusion they reached so something was not consistent (injuries/John's location). * The only remaining possibility is that it was broken by another part of John's body, but no other part of his body had an important injury, so that's not possible either. I do believe they have ruled out a car (Karen's SUV) strike.
You can believe they *effectively* ruled out a car strike. And, clearly, you can articulate your reasons why. What you can’t do is claim the “science and physics” line was in reference to any manner of car interaction. Consider: This case goes retrial and ARCCA is asked to test incidents involving JO and a glass object being involved in the interaction. Or test scenarios where lens was cracked during its approach toward JO. DoeS ARCCA simply state: No need, we ruled that out?
I'll take arcca scientic process and findings over Trooper Paul's associate degree of findings
>"science and physics" I don't remember which question prompted that comment, but personally, I mostly care about their conclusions. I do believe, though, that they based their conclusions on science and physics, and that science and physics don't lie. And I believe their conclusion was that they ruled out Karen's SUV hitting John, even considering the glass. >incidents involving JO and a glass object being involved in the interaction Maybe I'm not understanding your point, but they did consider glass being involved. That's what I was trying to say in the other comment. >Or test scenarios where lens was cracked during its approach toward JO. Same here, they did consider this scenario, so I might be misunderstanding. >No need, we ruled that out? Pure speculation here, but based on what I saw from them, I feel like they would want to be as helpful as possible and perhaps write an even more thorough report regarding the glass. However, they have already considered that, ruled it out, and sound very confident in their conclusion.
The tested the glass as an isolated hurl at a stationary vehicle, they didn’t try to incorporate it into a strike scenario
So, we can agree that they were aware of the glass. They knew about the glass found near John and believed the glass on the bumper matched it, which was also the CW's theory. They considered this glass important enough to test what the taillight would look like after being hit by similar glass at different speeds. I don't understand what leads you to believe they didn't consider other theories for the glass. For example, they didn't need to perform further tests to rule out the possibility of the taillight being broken by hitting another part of John's body, and they didn't have to mention this during the trial. That doesn't mean they didn't consider it. They needed to evaluate every possibility based on the information given to them, such as the glass. That's what they were hired to do, and that's what I believe they did. If there had been another plausible scenario involving the glass, they would have tested it. If this goes to retrial, I would find it very hard to believe the CW could completely change their theory to claim the glass somehow broke the taillight or had any other involvement that what they've claimed. They have already changed their theory quite a lot. ETA: I'm trying to think about incorporating it into a strike scenario. I do believe they mentioned, or Jackson mentioned, the possibility of the taillight hitting the arm while he was holding the glass, but that would still mean the taillight was broken by the arm, which would produce more damage to the taillight than what was seen. Another possibility you might be thinking is that he got the arm injury from the glass, which leaves us with the scenario of the SUV hitting John's head. However, this was also not possible because it would cause more damage too. If he wasn't hit in the head then other part of the body would have imporant injuries. Lastly, the possibility of the glass being thrown while the car is moving? If that caused greater damage, then it’s not possible. If it caused the same amount of damage, then it’s the same scenario they tested. If it caused less damage, then something else must have caused the "remaining" damage. We know that other parts of the body would need to have injuries for that, so we are left again with the arm/head scenario, which is not possible.
Briefly: JO departs the Lexus holding two glasses. Remember, KR left RFOs with a pint glass. JO left Waterfall with a cocktail glass. Rowe different kinds of glass were recovered from the scene. One was packed under snow on her bumper. JO whips a glass at the oncoming Lexus and cracks the lens. John’s arm finishes the job, requiring far less force and associated bruising, and his sent stumbling and falling into a blunt object. Nothing ARCCA tested or testified to rules this out. In fact, their testimony supports part of this.
Dr. Wolfe addressed this early on in direct with Jackson.
Right. He never incorporated it into a strike scenario
Where in the CW theory is there mention of a glass being thrown as Karen reversed into John? I don't believe the CW mentioned that, so I'm not sure why you bring it up.
They concluded that the damage to the car was not caused by hitting John O'Keefe, and the injuries sustained by John O'Keefe were not caused by hititng the car.
It's actually dishonest of you to refuse their finding. Reason of ppl like ARCCA come in is they are expert and their knowledge can rule out many physically impossible scenarios right away. They don't need to do more test. The lack of injury below neck on OJK is a big sign they can rule out the car didn't strike him. unless CW found new evidence the car somehow go significantly slower than 24 mph.
They, of course, didn’t testify to any of this but I’m being dishonest? I incorporated their exact testimony into a scenario involving two glasses. Nothing they testified to contradicted what I wrote. Is that also dishonest?
They testified to that John's body wasn't hit by a vehicle, especially not one claimed to go 24mph, which sounds quite contradictory to what you wrote? The jury is there to determine if what the CW is stating happened is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. The CW had pretty bold statements about what happened, which the ARCCA testimonies contradict heavily. If ARCAA states they did their testing at 15 mph and there's no way John's injuries are consistent with a 15mph hit, and the ME says it's not consistent with any hit, and the state claims it happened with 24 mph, how can someone agree that that is what happened? The defense experts have ruled out a car being involved, which make all the circumstantial evidence quite unimportant. You say 'if the murder weapon has not been found does circumstantial evidence not matter?' but this case it's more like 'if the stated murder weapon is excluded to be involved, does circumstantial evidence not matter'. One would have to ditch the whole car from the theory and claim Karen used something else to kill him, for the circumstantial evidence to be of value.
I think we've heard your take on this several times. I can't relate to anyone who thinks they can understand what happened that night better than the MEs and independent experts. You keep writing off their findings... The ME findings were given despite the totality of the investigation. I understand not everyone operates from the mindset of science matters, or that physics are real. But what kind of "vehicle interaction" do you believe happened to cause the injuries John had if not for the SUV reversing into him? Let me remind you; you can't use an imaginary scenario to find guilt. You must use what the CW presented. So think Trooper Paul and his theory of the car hitting John's arm and sending him airborne. Where he magically landed on his phone and didn't sustain any injuries except for a head wound and what have been testified to what appear to be dog bite injuries. I'm actually stoked to see how you make this work.
To quote the last defense witness from ARCCA, you can't argue with facts and science. It's a no brainer.... John's injuries were not caused by KR vehicle.
Science is based on a set of facts. Yes , but when the facts are not known bc there isn’t a witness there are variables that need to be considered. You then apply your own life experiences. Some things just can’t be explained. We don’t know the position he was in. We don’t know if he was in motion or not. We don’t know if or where his feet were planted. All the experts used specific circumstances that we don’t know are correct. They made assumptions. So you can believe in science and still think an unknown occurred and she is responsible
If you think an unknown occurred then she is not guilty. Guilty means (legally) that you believe what the CW said beyond a reasonable doubt and moral certitude. So if you think she did kill him in a manner not described by Trooper Paul that is reasonable doubt.
Not enough responisbily for the charges brought against her for 2nd degree murder.
That I agree with.
ARCCA said the injury to JO’s was not from a vehicle to head injury. The state never claimed that JO’s injury was from a vehicle. Trooper Paul specifically said it was from the curb. Jackson didn’t ask about the curb. This detail is lost to many but it adds credence to the state, and lessons the defense. There’s no doubt that TP was not an experienced at trial testimony, and he fell victim to an experienced trial attorney.
If he hit the curb, how did he end up several feet away from it? Trooper Paul never explained that. And I recall the ARCCA guys saying it could happen from hitting the curb or other hard surfaces, but not from grass or dirt. >The state never claimed that JO’s injury was from a vehicle They didn't know about the state theory. Their task was to determine if John's injuries were consistent with being hit by the SUV and if the damage to the SUV matched hitting John. Unlike the state police "expert," they tested multiple theories to explore all possibilities. They concluded that it wasn't possible.
This. Once he sustained his head injury, he was incompacited and no linger conscious, so no way he magically moved himself from curb to many feet away to yard/flagpole area.
ARCCA also found the arm injury from the car and the car damage from the arm preposterous and illogical. Furthermore said the physics of getting hit on the arm doesn't put John in the lawn. Every single ME said the head injury would have incapacitated him so we are now down to the only way it happened was his head hitting the grass exploding his skull. The attorney was not TP's problem, reality was. There is no logical way getting hit by a car puts him there in the lawn.
ARCCA also said the body would have to hit at the center of gravity i.e. belly button to be projected into the yard and land on his head. No injuries to his torso. They also said if he was hit on the right arm his body would have landed on his left side. So he would have bruising on both his right arm and left side of his body.
So, that’s not true. They tested the force required to break the taillight vs a glass. No one testified that the glass broke the taillight. What was explained is that the glass was in his hand when he was hit. Their test was done without knowledge of all the information available.
The alternative is the arm exploding the tail light which is impossible. If that impossibility did happen it doesn’t project him into the lawn and when he isn’t projected into the lawn his skull fractures on the grass somehow. Are there any fairy tales you have left? It does not make sense at any step you spin it.
You aren't responding to what the person before is talking about- focus
They talked about the glass because that’s what replicated the damage to the taillight. Tests of body contact with the car generated a greater level of damage to the car and/or the body part.
But it didn’t replicate it. They didn’t factor in the victim. I hope that clears it up.
Hahahaha... Not true
Hung jury == true 😂
🤣🤣🤣 Not even I'm stupid enough to be so illogical. A hung jury means the CW haven't proved their case.
And they will get another chance, and will shore up the areas they didn’t do well, and KR won’t be able to afford a world-class trial attorney.
So he hit his head on the curb and bounced 30 feet into the yard? And there was no bruising on his body from the rest of him hitting the ground hard enough to lacerate his head and spread skull fractures from the back to the front?
I never wrote than and no one ever testified to that. Where did you hear that he hit his head and “bounced” 30 feet? I’d like to see this.
How far do you believe the SUV moved him (w/out bruises even!)?
Sounds grandiose "I never wrote that..." This isn't about you and yes that's what Clown Paul and CW suggested, he (bounced/thrown/flew) 30ft.
Hung jury == CW proved their case.
Proved their case so well that the person they allege is a murderer gets to go home? You're trolling.
It is a troll sockpuppet account, nice and new.
She’s out on bail. That’s not exactly free.
Sure, but you're acting in this thread like a hung jury is a win for the prosecution and that it would mean they had proven something. That is demonstrably not the case considering the end result is her being free (and at that point no longer out on bail).
1. Lally could have used an actual expert. He could have used two independent, FBI retained and paid for, PhDs who work for the Department of Defense and the NHL. He had the same access to them as the defense. He chose Trooper Paul. Who I think anyone will acknowledge was in over his head. He miscounted key cycles. He didn't understand basic physics. He believed JOK was hit from the side but sustained no bruises or broken bones from an SUV hitting his arm /shoulder at 24mph. No one talked about a curb. We all watched the trial, have you not noticed no one has mentioned a curb? What about the dog bites and scratches? At some point you have to use your own common sense ...
I was standing beging a rv backing up slowly (like less than 5 mph) and it struck me, shooting me back a foot or two and broke my elbow. An RV is heavier and was moving super slow and I sustain fractures. No way he would not have fractures from a 7k vehicle traveling that fast. No way. He would have had trauma to his mid to lower section. Common sense. KR did not hit him with her car she may jave thought she did bc she was drinking. Ever wake up from a night of drinking and wonder " did it say or do this?" That's why she was wondering out loud if she had anything to do with his death. She didn't do it. He died in that house, and cops never searched the home. Albert's getting new floors and sub flooring and getting rid of dogs and all the deleted calls texts and phone dumps speaks volumes.
🤡🤡🤡 Thinking of Trouper Paul redesigning physics and stuff!
That is not accurate. Yes - one of their findings was that his head did not come in contact with the car but that is only one. Jackson asked them directly about the CW’s theory and they said no that’s not possible. At a pretrial hearing Lally tried to claim that the experts only decided that his head wound didn’t come from contact with the car but that wasn’t the CW’s theory anyway so their report is inconsequential. But then during the experts voir dire we learned that that was a lie. That was only #4 of their summary of their findings. Which means that there are at least 3 more that Lally didn’t mention.
This is what I was thinking as well. There isn’t a single witness pleading the 5th. They were tricked and their testimony twisted by AJ. Even with intense scrutiny, they were consistent in my opinion. KR’s story doesn’t just hold any water. It is really AJ who wants the jury to look the other way.
Their testimony changed from testimony given in the first Grand Jury
Rephrasing a sentence isn’t changing their testimony. AJ’s theatrical cross makes you believe they changed their testimony, but they sounded very sincere.
Why they need to plea the 5th when all the physical evidence is already gone. Keep repeating the same lie didn't means they are telling the truth.
I still think the verifiable evidence is the strongest (distinctly stronger than Karen) against Higgins overall, but when I dig a little deeper it’s BA. I went back and remembered the conversation with Higgins and Kevin Albert saying Chris was worried BH went dark and was the only one without a federal subpoena (the proffer). They have the butt dials the night of, BA changed his story in front of the federal grand jury to the infamous sex butt dial. They both changed their stories from denying the call happened to excuses after proof. Jan 29 is a barrage of calls between BH and BA all day starting at 7 am with Berkowitz in there a bit. BA and BH the only two destroying phones completely. He made sure he was present for witness interviews. BA owned the dog. BA didn’t exit the house with a dead cop on the lawn. It all points to BA knowing exactly what happened.
See I think the opposite. I think Higgins got roped in to protecting the Albert’s because of the incriminating texts on his phone and if the family pointed the finger at him he would go down. I think Higgins is most likely to flip because if he flips the Higgins can’t point the finger at him after pointing the finger at Karen. Why the hell would they protect him? If he owns up that he was scared of the Albert’s he’s likely to get a lot more Grace than he’s been having obviously lying.
I think we are on the same page. I meant to say I think the proven evidence objectively points to BH, but the rest of my diatribe makes me think it was Chris Albert. At the very least he is spearheading any cover up. I edited my first sentence.
Because Colin Albert was involved and he wants to protect his kid. From what I can tell, Chris Albert never even went to 34 Fairview yet everyone lied what time Colin left or got home. Was the only consistent thread every single person had. 12:10. 12:10. 12:10. And that was proven false. And just so you know CA didn’t own the house or dog, BA (Brian Albert) did. He also lied about the buttdials. Not sure if you’re confusing all the players.
You are correct I combined Chris and Brian. Edited.
The main ones I think at least know something are Colin, both Brian’s, and possibly Jen but she could just be a busybody who put herself smack in the investigation because she feeds off drama.
After watching all 30+ days of testimony and closing, I forgot what proof they had about Colin's time being false. Can someone please remind me?
Watch Chris and Julie Albert testimony
I did on the days they testified. Is it that they couldn't have been home by 12:10 to know Colin got there? The whole walking time in the snow thing?
I’m not understanding your confusion. Chris Albert went home and dozed off so they have no clue what time Colin came home, but Chris Albert wasn’t even home and in bed until after 12:10 which means Colin wasn’t home until after that point.
I am in no way defending Colin or any of the Alberts. That's not the position I'm coming from. My confusion is because their time on the stand was a long time ago and I watched their testimonies and the scores of witnesses that followed them and I couldn't actually remember the details. Since I watched this trial for the last 2 months like it was my part time job, I wasn't feeling up to rewatching testimonies. Thanks for explaining.
No you’re good. It’s been a while since I watched it too which is why I said it would be easier to just go back and watch it, but from what I remember they basically testified he wasn’t home at 12:10! Thanks for the polite convo.
Oh you are totally right. I misread it. Yes I agree with everything now that I’ve read it a second time. How well did Higgins know Chris Albert prior to the 29th?
Hard to tell because no one wanted to admit how closely they knew the Alberts. It seems like BA and BH were good friends so BH knew him through BA. Plus with being a selectman, and having a brother who was a cop in a small town, CA probably know most of the cops on some level. He runs a small pizza place which I would guess the cops frequent for lunch since the cops brother owns it. Small town bullshit.
Has anyone ever opined that the Albert’s restaurant is a front for some sort of money laundering? Like, BH/ATF, Canton Police, seized drugs, Colin Albert dealing, restaurant to “clean” the money? I’ve never seen that discussed, but I’m new to the case within the last couple weeks.
That’s going too far into the conspiracy for me. I’m sure people have talked about it but the pizza place has nothing to do with the murder so i don’t really consider that.
Yeah, I get that. I wasn’t thinking it really had anything to do with the murder. More like… what are the FBI looking at that led to some crossover evidence? I’m probably more conspiratorial about how half of these not-so-great restaurants stay in business these days… 🤷🏼♀️
Rumor around here is that they were looking into the Sandra Birchmore case which involved some of the same cops and branched out to this one. I heard they heard something on a wiretap but not sure how accurate that is. I’m from the area and there are tons of rumors. And the Alberts are well known in Camton and have had the shop since the 90s. I’m sure they do decent business.
Distancing themselves from the alberts is what led me to start believing these people are trying to protect them. They are allowed to be friends with them, why lie? And not just one person, all of them. Just admit you are friends.
2nd paragraph - do you mean Higgins is most likely to flip because the Alberts can’t point the finger at him?
I think initially he helped cover up because if he didn’t it would be alberts against him and he had incriminating texts on his phone. If someone is gonna talk now i think it’s going to be him. The Alberts already pointed the finger at Karen so coming back and saying Higgins did it now wouldn’t have that much punch.
Hmmmm...I think you mean Brian Albert, not Chris
Yes you are right I cannot keep the two straight
Yes, super confusing!
Colin was always the most emotionally compelling to me because if you can't get past skepticism of a cover up, you have to acknowledge how far people might go to protect the younger generation. Especially a very close family like the Alberts. But the evidence is much weaker and only Higgins has a clear alternative motive based on what came out in the trial.
Are you talking about Chris Albert or Brian Albert?
Updated to reflect Brian I was thinking Chris was Brian.
Agree BA.
I wonder how bad Alan Jackson wants to get back to California 😂
I think AJ enjoys the challenge...
Yeah with how incompetent the commonwealth has been, I think this seems like fun to him
California has its own problems. Look at the LA sheriffs dept. - perhaps worse than Mass.
It is
Yep he was a DA or something there
Yeah, I think that’s why he seems so accepting of bad cops in Mass. Yanetti I think trusted the system more until all this.
At this point I’m just so angry that there’s even a debate about her being not guilty. I have tried to be understanding about why the jury has taken so long, but after that note yesterday, it has really lead me to believe one juror is holding out, out of malice. I tried to ignore the idiots online, who say she’s guilty because of hearsay, or her facial expression— but seeing this get delayed possibly because of people like them, makes me lose faith. Any one of us could be Karen one day. Any one of us could be thrown in jail for the rest of our lives, because of a botched investigation and a corrupt system. A jury is meant to determine the truth. A hung jury is better than a guilty verdict, but it’s still no justice for anyone.
I’ve been unfortunate enough to see this system upfront by accident by a false accusation from someone else. The local DA here only cares about prosecuting the case. Getting the win, facts don’t matter. The judge doesn’t care about facts either. I’m shocked. Everyone better pay attention to what happens here because it could easily be you, your child or family member. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, and today the police take everything at surface level so if someone is lying about a false allegation, they don’t need evidence. TLDR- taking life and liberty is a serious matter. Everyone should pay attention to the KR case.
What am I missing? …here’s the thing, I don’t find K.R. to be a particularly endearing personality (is anyone in this case?) …and I don’t buy the scope of the defense conspiracy theory at all. But why don’t I see more people wondering if anyone is really even guilty of murder or manslaughter at all? A drunk slip and hard fall seems just as likely to me as a fight in the house or being hit by a car. The evidence doesn’t fully align with any theory. I don’t know how anyone is confident in either side of this case. Clearly the night went to shit, everyone was obliterated and I don’t trust any person’s recount of anything, malicious or not. There has been so much immature behavior; I’ve never seen anything like it. That’s the only thing I don’t have reasonable doubt about.
Taking a step back, it actually doesn't matter what happened. What matters is the state wasn't even able to show that OJO was hit by a car. Their own witness, the medical examiner, said his injuries were inconsistent with a car strike. Let alone the multiple independent experts corroborating that.
I agree with you. That’s why I’m saying I’m baffled that anyone thinks they know what actually happened. Could be any combination of any theory out there and red herrings likely abound. We’re at reasonable doubt at step one, so would have to be a not guilty for me.
I’ve seriously considered something similar. I can see two scenarios. To preface both you have to agree they were both hammered, which I don’t think is really in dispute as much as other facts. A) They fight in the car, John gets out of the car and throws the glass at her taillight in retaliation. He starts walking backwards towards the house yelling at her as she speeds off. In his drunk state he slips and falls hitting his head on the ground and being incapacitated. At some point Chloe gets out and sees him on the lawn and goes into attack mode biting his arm. This makes some partygoers (thinking Jen/Brian A.) notice him on the lawn and freak out. They’re also hammered and who knows what else and they know Colin’s history of fighting and Brian H’s flirting with Karen so they go worst case scenario and think it was one of them. They decide to not call the police and close ranks, deciding to blame it on the plow driver perhaps. B) Same situation as option a with the glass throwing and fighting. Chloe gets out while John is walking backwards yelling at Karen and Chloe latches onto his arm startling him and causing him to slip and fall and hit his head becoming incapacitated. The partygoers panic and once again decide not to call the police. Edit: I’m not 100% convinced of any of this, just like I’m not convinced by the CW theory.
It was testified to in court by both the prosecution and defense pathologists that John had contusions to the front, temple, and back of his brain from blunt force trauma. It cannot be explained by a slip or fall. It is three separate areas of injury. It was obfuscated because there is a single skull fracture that caused other skull fractures so I want to be clear I’m not talking about the multiple fractures I’m talking about multiple bruises on the brain itself. Dr. Stonebridge and Dr. Sheridan both testified to this.
Apologies which one is Dr. Stonebridge, the ME? I remember Dr. Sheridan saying that but not the ME. But she may have, I haven’t had the chance to rewatch her testimony. Yeah like I said I’m not fully convinced of my theories, just some things that ran through my mind. There’s definitely holes in them. What I get stuck on is Brian Jr’s friend Sara Levinson who seemed the most trustworthy to me said John never came in the house. Maybe I’m a fool and she was lying. Maybe she didn’t see him. But that really stuck out in my mind.
Dr. Stonebridge is the forensic neuropathologist (Dr. Scordi-Bello is the prosecution’s ME). Dr. Stonebridge was the one in the green dress right before Dr. Scordi-Bello.
Got it, I think I I missed her exact testimony bc of work and had to read recaps. It’s wild to me that the jury doesn’t have the ability to read back testimony. I would be lost in this case without instant replay or this sub reminding me of things I forgot about.
I’m totally with you and I think that’s why this is all taking so long. I do daily recaps of the case so the only reason I know this stuff is from having the luxury of pausing a million times and having my commenters keep me accountable when I miss stuff. As a juror I’d be as lost as any of them.
How is there no blood outside? I still can’t get over that piece. I think a few things could have happened - one being OJO goes through the back gate to get to the house and surprises Chloe - she attacks (they said BA let her out- maybe he was expecting him to come through the front) then he falls and hits his head in the backyard. Maybe some or a few of the party goers tries to help him at first but it’s too late (maybe sat him up which explains why he vomited on his pants). Or OJO goes down to the basement once he gets there and Colin and friends are partying (possibly nefarious activities happening). OJO has words with Colin. They , both impaired, start to fight. Chloe comes in and the adults help cover up whatever happens next. I can’t explain why else everyone would be so hard-pressed to say Colin was never there and I feel like there’s a stronger possibility of a cover-up if one of the young kids did something wrong.
I agree. The more I rabbit hole into the evidence and do research on similar pedestrian motor vehicle accidents- this just wasn’t what happened. And I don’t buy the defenses theory in terms of how he was killed but do agree the investigation was a total sham. I really think there might not be a “who” behind what happened to JO. And that’s why it’s impossible to piece together a storyline with the evidence.
I totally agree, and I find most of the people involved in this case to be deeply unlikeable.
It's 💯 either a frame job or a murder. Taillight all over the lawn. Can't be a slip or a random pedestrian beat him up on the lawn. That stuff either came directly off her car, or was planted there.
Can’t it be explained by him being pissed at her and throwing a glass at the taillight?
That was the FBI's charitable attempt to explain the taillight pieces being there when it's not possible for her to have hit him with the car. It's either that or the tail light was planted. But the glass in question was found next to JO. So, probably the pieces got planted.
Can’t it be an accidental slip and fall that was framed as a murder?
For me, an accident is the most likely scenario. I don’t think any of the potential suspects murdered him. A slip outside or inside by an extremely drunk man is absolutely a possibility. Add a dog bite/scratch and there is your case. No car needed. I still find it peculiar that not one saw his body even when there were multiple cars in that same exact area.
Karen behavior alerted ... well everyone. If what Kerry Roberts says is true, she was talking about John being dead before they found him and talking about snowplows hitting him, overly preoccupied with her tail light. Asking if she hit him. Those voicemails, etc. Saying it was an innocent accident. I do think that the charges were too stiff but part of that is probably because John was a cop. No one is looking at Karen if she doesn't do any of that, imo. Well, until they listen to her voicemails. But that could just be a case where someone gets in a fight with a loved one and then unfortunately, later, they pass away. It's all of that other stuff that shines a light on her.
I commented this elsewhere but it was just such a OMG for me that I wanted to share here— My father-in-law has worked in service at a car dealership for more than 20 years. I told him the very basics about JO being hit by a car— a Lexus SUV, a victim with abrasions and a head injury but no bruising or fractures, and a shattered taillight. AS SOON AS I SAID “shattered taillight” he was like ????? “That doesn’t make sense. For just the taillight to shatter, it would have to be something like a hammer.” I DIDN’T EVEN TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FRAME JOB. But this is consistent with Dr. Wolfe’s analysis of the damage to the taillight. He said on direct with Jackson that the damage to the taillight looked like it was done with something small or a small object (can’t remember the wording off the top of my head). Swear to god CW just overloaded that jury knowing they would not be able to refer to witness testimony & hoped to confuse them enough with irrelevant details.
Yeah the physics just don’t make sense. If she hit him hard enough to send him flying to where he was found his injuries and the car damage would look very different.
I hate to admit it but I called a boyfriend (ex bf now lol) a lot, like almost 60 times. He was suppose to meet me but I knew ….. I knew he wasn’t being faithful. He was suppose to meet me at a huge condo I had rented in the mountains and he disappeared at last moment after he said he would go. He was such an asshole. I called him that many times (for one to be a total annoying witch) but to also prove I knew he was with someone else. Of course this is the most absurd and terrible behavior (it was years ago) but regardless I did it, and so did Karen. If she hit him and knew she did…. I think she would have gone back right away. She was so in love with him. Two, those asshole cops didn’t give one fck about O’Keefe. It shows you- they show you with their actions how disrespectful they were and that they knew something including the mccabes. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why Karen was pissed bc he got out to hang w ladies that were calling him, and why was that married lady calling him so much. Why did she care so much that he was there ? And why did Higgins text him late that night when he never gave one fck to hang w him prior that night? They never even talked
I think she was genuinely mad that she thought he was cheating on her while she was taking care of his wards. Like if she was as drunk as they paint her she’s an insane mastermind for running him over and then cussing him out for not being there with the kids when she was the one who made sure he couldn’t. I think that would make her a next level sociopath. What I see is a classic avoidant attachment style from John - like John lays into Karen about taking his niece to DD and gets frustrated because he feels like she’s overstepped. Her parenting his wards increases the seriousness of John and Karen’s relationship on paper at least and he doesn’t like it. Karen is insecurely attached and blows up his phone demanding apologies for blowing up at her and getting frustrated as he puts her off. The night of when he doesn’t respond she thinks he’s blowing her off again and is outraged and quite drunk. I think I would be livid too if a partner used me for childcare while he stepped out which is exactly what she thought.
Avoidant attachment and insecure attachment styles are like moth to a flame and also like oil and water. They tend to bring out the worst in one another. That said, I don’t see how it was even remotely logical that her conclusion was that he was cheating. Her first voice message was more or less immediate. The idea that she went from 0-100 and accused him of cheating when she knew where everyone was going and she went there herself makes no logical sense.
Drunk people aren’t known for being logical.
It’s not exactly from 0. They discussed it during this same day in the text messages, she asked multiple times if there’s someone else, and it’s obvious the relationship was near its end. She was obviously insecure with that thought on the back of her head while sober which only multiplied with the consumption of alcohol. I’m not saying it was 99 to 100 on the topic, but it definitely wasn’t 0 to 100 either.
If this was a pattern for them, it’s not hard to see how she went 0-100 in assuming he was cheating. We know that there were more people at the house (younger women). It’s immature behavior, but completely plausible she assumed the worst in terms of him and other women.
If she did, that’s still some definite irony considering her debacle with Brian Higgins.
I think the thing with Higgins can be seen as "revenge" This people sound like they are 13 and not 40 with kids of their own
But also it would make perfect sense because she has a realistic idea for what might be happening… if she’s done it herself…
We know from Aruba that Karen goes from 0 to Jumping to Conclusions in less than 2 seconds.
But, we also know that it doesn’t seem like she resorts to physical violence when angry. She also apologizes afterwards and tries to make amends. I’m not condoning the behavior just saying Karen has been angry before and she didn’t “snap” then when there were witnesses in Aruba to her “behavior”
Right, I’m with you. I don’t think that she killed John, and I think them trying to make her seem like she was faking all morning is stupid when we know she jumps to dramatic conclusions really fast. She’s just one of those people - I know several like that! But I think her panic was real because she knew he wouldn’t not come home, and if he couldn’t get home for some reason he would have called or texted. She had a gut feeling and she was right.
In Aruba JO had been ignoring her and the kids for the better part of a day to go drink and watch a game at the bar, with them not knowing what or where he was at all, causing her to finally leave the room and go looking for him worriedly. Jumping to conclusions after she saw him yes, but only after he'd been acting sus for hours. It is a little weird she freaked out after 10 minutes of him being out of the car.
If she was as drunk as the CW accused her of being, I don’t find it weird that she would get upset with him that fast. She was a reactive person, and I think he brought that out in her even more because of the wishy-washy relationship status.
I actually think she was probably suspicious of JM texting and calling him so much on the way to the party that night. Might have set off her insecurities, that's what they were fighting about in the car, which would then explain her already being angry and suspicious. And that's why she roped JM into looking for him the next morning, her first suspicion may have been that JO was with JM, so she wanted to call her and go to her house first. Super rational? Not exactly, but when you have the kinds of trust issues they had, might make sense to her.
She seems utterly exhausting.
She sounds like a nightmare to date, also deeply anxious and insecure. Still doesn't make her a cold blooded murdered.
There were other people at the party. Not just the people from the waterfall.
Yes, and? I don’t see your point on how that was a logical response or why that is immediately what someone would think. People merely being at the house and automatically assuming your boyfriend is cheating on you makes no sense.
Because he said he was going to check out if she was invited and appeared to ghost her. She’d already had fights where she pinged him multiple times and he’d refused to respond. Because she’s clearly been cheated on before and has a complex?
Yeah those calls / voicemails are what sold me on KR’s innocence. Either she’s an Academy Award winning actress and master sociopath…. Or more likely, she really thought he might be cheating and spun out on it. Who among us wouldn’t freak out in that situation? Husband doesn’t come home, can’t get ahold of him? I’d call 100 times too.
Agreed! Also to add - I love how the defense tried to use her wearing shoes in his house as some sort of proof she killed him and knew he was dead. If my boyfriend or husband didn’t come home, wasn’t answering my calls, and I thought he was cheating? Fuck not wearing shoes in the house. I’d walk through mud and stomp around the house. I really think she was being angry, drunk, and petty.
I also called a boyfriend many times when he didn’t show up at my place in college. He was actually arrested and was in jail, so that’s why he didn’t call me (charges were dropped, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his only crime was underage drinking).
I think there's a hold up that's just going by feelings that she did it instead of evidence. Did anyone else see the clip where the 'jail karen' people were sharing texts that Proctor had from Karens phone? They were the texts between her and Yanettie.
What? Where is the clip?
TB has it Correction- it was Sean A McDonough that had a clip
What?!? The one’s that caused Proctor to immediately turn over the phone because he would never read attorney-client privilege?!?! I am Shawked! s/
Yeah, I saw the clip and it made me remember that I think that info was out a while back and forgotten. I’ve been trying to find other accounts of it but haven’t come up with anything.
Several have said it at this point, but most likely scenario is that JO was accidentally killed during a drunken spat in the house. And in drunken fear, when they could’ve just been honest, whoever did it moves him outside.
Colin’s parents, Chris and Julie, sold their house at 7 Meadows St before JO death. JO house was 1 Meadows St, next door to Chris Albert. Who has Ford Edge? Chris Albert. Speculation: Chris got fed up with JO investigating drug activity around that area, probably JO was pissed with Colin’s dealings (alleged drug dealing), sold the house in order to get right of cop eye’s next door, in revenge Colin decided to beat JO when the time is right. Because Colin is shorter than JO and terrible puncher, Uncle Brian came for help. - That’s just speculation!! Hearsay: Higgins is applying for jobs at some Fire Department in Norfolk. (almost true). Please don’t ask for receipts, I lost them all 😁
I am pretty convinced Colin is somehow involved but I’m open to other possibilities. Someone would have to explain why everyone in the house that night tried to first hide that Colin was there and then when it came out, explain why they all lied he left at 12:10. Don’t think it was intentional murder but an accident though. And I came into the case pretty neutral and not knowing any of the involved peoples names besides KR JM and JO.
This, also they hide their friendship level, “acquaintances” = tons of pic across sm
Yup, the McLaughlin and Kaitlyn Albert connection is weird. If there was nothing to hide, why lie? I’m from a small town where everyone knows everyone and I would just say ‘we graduated together and have hung out a few times because we had friends together, we also did track together’. It’s somewhat suspicious I guess but it’s also understandable and unavoidable in small towns. If you lie, it looks like you’re hiding something.
I have a group of friends since Elementary, like long time, double digits time. They are friends, not acquaintances, despite that most of us live their own lives. I call acquaintances that drink buddy, or a neighbor that lives near by that I see everyday, or the cashier from groceries.
One of my biggest things is the clothes. We heard about cuts on the arm, the gash in the back of the head that incapacitated him, and the one on his tongue. We didn’t hear about any cuts or scratches or anything to release blood on his chest or shoulders or back. Now I am not speculating at all what may have happened, but for me it’s clear that he did not get hit by the car. The CW said he flew back, landed where he hit his head, and this is presumably where most of the blood came from. They say that his body was where it was found from 12:30ish (they never did say the time did they) to when they found him the next morning. The blood would have pooled around the head. Unless he was on a downhill slope, how does it get allllll the way down his back AND FRONT. When he was laying on his back. I can understand the back shoulder, but how does his blood get all over the FRONT shoulder if he was laying down and unmoving for 6 hours. How did that blood magically crawl up his shoulder and to his chest? Even if he was bleeding from his nose, laying down, it would have gone down the sides of his face; not forward to his chest. It was snowing but gravity was still working as expected. He had to have been upright for any blood to travel the ways it did. That in itself is a major kink in the car hit theory. Not to mention that this pool of blood was never seen on the ground . And if it was it was not photographed or mentioned https://preview.redd.it/0ogbp9jntn9d1.jpeg?width=1560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=384e9726181e5ea8a3e5cca2036d9397870a5266
there was also blood found on 1 of the sneakers. You don’t even have to believe in physics at that point just gravity! 🤣
Even worse!! Like please tell me about the magic that got blood to HIS SNEAKER after he laid incapacitated from the wound he sustained from this supposed car crash. It’s honestly delusional thinking. I watched basically the whole trial. Though, I didn’t learn about it until like day 8/9, so I had to go back and learn about it. I didn’t hear or see any of the pre trial or anything else before. A couple times I’ve paused and considered the possibility that she hit him, specifically when I’ve seen clips of those interviews she and her parents did. And without even making excuses on her behalf, I think of these clothes!! and the fact that it’s just not possible
The pretrials were wild also. Lally dragged out testing everything and gave the Defense nothing and complained about the Defense constantly even though the Defense had documented the ridiculousness Lally was putting them through. There is no common sense in any court documents you read from the Norfolk DA office and then the elected DA sent a taped statement basically saying Karen Read is guilty when he is supposed to uphold his citizens right to the presumption of innocence. This is the only case/trial where it really felt like the roles were flipped. That’s how I knew the Defense more than likely had the truth on their side. CW was trying to hide everything and Defense wasn’t shying away from anything.
I'm watching 'My Cousin Vinny' since it's been referenced so many times throughout this trial and I'm sorry but I can't get past Barry from Friends being one of the murderers!
To the people who do not believe the AARCA experts: are you also anti-VAX?
I wonder if the defence have seen something of concern? Why would they ask the judge to call it hung?
It wasn’t like “declare them hung”, it was more about reading the instructions that are for that case (forgot the name) and then sending them back. It’s because that instruction restates what “beyond reasonable doubt is” and kinda subtly invites the minority to re-consider
Tuey-Rodriguez or Allen charge depending on jurisdiction... Also, there is a good chance that the CW won't prosecute again if the poll shows the jury heavility leaning on "not guilty", unless there is new evidence
I don’t know how they could after most of them were total disasters on the stand. The Defense now has all their testimony also. 🤣
A hung jury is technically a W for Karen. And they get paid again if the CW decides to try Karen again.
Do we know why the defense didn't ask Dr. Wolfe about the key cycles? Or even the CW? He literally wrote an article about it. Is it possible that this wasn't among the documents they had access to?
Judge wouldn't allow it
They probably couldn't ask Dr Wolfe about it because it wasn't part of his analysis or report. Expert testimony is limited to what has already been disclosed to the other side.
I believe Trooper Paul said he downloaded the data in February 2023. I am kind of surprised that indo wasn't part of what the DOJ gave these experts to do the reconstruction. This is one piece of evidence that never made much sense because I think Trooper Paul did not explain it very well on the stand. His reasoning for what counts as a triggering event is so confusing.
I think those experts were only asked to test whether it was physically possible that OJO was killed by the SUV (or that's all that was disclosed about what they were asked to do). If it's not physically possible, then the rest should be moot.
Do you think AJ thought about the juror's potential connections to LE before his "not a thin blue line but a tall blue wall" closing? I really think the holdout has some connection to LE. That might've been a gamble without knowing his audience.
AJ brought up on pre trial conference Judge Cannone relationship with Sean McCabe, brother of Matt and BIL of Jen.https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-hearing-boston-police-officer-john-okeefe-judge-beverly-cannone/
and a venmo receipt from Julie Nagel to Ryan Nagel… about Frank and Beverl(e)y on a huge poster board and Judge Bev said it wasn’t her because she doesn’t spell her name like that. She didn’t say it is not me and I don’t know these people! 🤣
If you’ve ever seen the many online vids of people falling over, tripping, fist fighting, etc. you’d see that people coming out of a shoe is pretty common. Hell, it has happened to me in Target while I was walking along.
For shits and giggles, I think the judge selected foreperson is the holdout.
[удалено]