Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this is circumstantial and ignores other key evidence like the laceration on his eye and the dog bites on his arm. Nothing was proven = reasonable doubt

There was 0 dog dna found anywhere on John. No way that he was bitten by a dog.
There was a shattered car taillight and shattered drink glass on and near his person, both of which could have caused the lacerations.

They found pig DNA on him though. Odd. Dog food?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The key is that his phone moved for the last time less than 10 seconds after he left her car and 5-6 seconds after she floored that car into reverse towards where he had exited it.

Yes, and also key is that the phone temp steadily drops then remains consistent for a few hours until John's body is moved and the temperature begins to drop again but then rises after Kerri Roberts picks up the phone and puts it in her pocket.

The point being, there is no plausible argument that the phone was at the flagpole while John somehow got into the house, beaten to death and/or dog attacked and/or fell in the garage onto the floor, and then somehow carried back out and placed on top of his phone as found later that morning.

The conspiracy has been ABSURD from day one, and it is shocking how many morons buy into it - including most of the folks posting here.

Absolutely. I’ve watched every day of the trial. The point above about the cell phone data and the Lexus data are proof beyond a reasonable doubt she is guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet she did it, and the cops in the house saw, and let him die in the cold because they were in the middle of shady things and couldn’t bring emergency services to the house right then without getting in trouble for their own illegal stuff.

You have a sick mind, and a foolish one at that.

There would be no probable cause - just as there wasn't a few hours later in the morning - for police to enter the house at Fairview, so no incentive for the homeowners to fail to call 911.

It's hard not to think when I see posts like this from people like you that I hope when your time of need is upon you the cops and EMS get held up in bad traffic - maybe a protest by cop haters or something of that nature will get in their way.

NP. I don’t think they saw it and knew she did it, but I think it’s reasonable to suspect that if they saw the body later or in the morning, they didn’t call or come out because they were incapacitated or fearful of something being found out. Why did the owner of the house destroy his SIM card and cell phone at a freaking military base? Why all the “butt dials” between party attendees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do the conspiracy people explain his phone not moving from the spot where his body was found?

Of course his phone wouldn't move after his body ended up where it was. The question is: how did his body get there, and whose fault was it? The phone not moving, in isolation, is not useful information.

The phone not moving is NOT in isolation. The temperatures the phone registered over the course of the night are only possible because John's body is shielding the phone from the wind chill and holding it closer to the temperature of the ground than the air temperature.

But the question is asking us to take the phone in isolation.

I have the same question (with the reverse leaning) when I ask: what is the explanation of those convinced that she is guilty for there being footage of her car with taillight lens intact after the time when the impact that “broke” it is alleged to have occurred?

Please share a reliable source for the claim that her taillight was visibly INTACT after she left the place where John was later found.

Dp
Came up in court last week

Do you mean this testimony?

Did you observe anything of note about the rear end?" of the SUV, Read defense attorney Alan Jackson asked.

“There was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged,” Barros said. “A piece was missing,” roughly three inches by six inches.

https://lamag.com/news/bombshell-dropped-in-karen-read-case-minutes-after-defense-mistrial-request-denied

There is dispute about the extent of taillight damage at different times between witnesses and interpreters of images and video. I can’t find any testimony or reliable source saying that her taillight was confirmed INTACT on the morning that John was found dead.

DP. Dispute about the extent of taillight damage is material!

Am I taking crazy pills???! Yes, when there is divergent testimony regarding something like the extent of taillight damage, that must be taken into account. One must carefully consider the source and substance of the testimony and assess whether, and why, some might deserve greater weight.

None of that remotely supports the claim that the taillight was ever intact on the morning that John’s body was found.

[Anonymous]

For those that think she’s guilty, how do you explain his injuries and where his body was found? The commonwealth hasn’t figured it out yet and it’s a virtually insurmountable problem in their case.

[Anonymous]

Whew, I see some of the “she’s guilty!” club members are out in force tonight.

Anyone who can watch the trial and not have too much reasonable doubt to convict has to have already decided and refuses to see any information that conflicts with that decision.

As Dr. Wolf, the neurologist, explained, it is not unheard of for intoxicated people to stumble and fall backwards, sustaining a fatal head injury. It happened to a very promising young man from my high school about 20 years ago and it is most likely what happened to poor John O’Keefe.

I think people don’t like the idea of it being a terrible accident, with no one at fault. They want someone to blame, to aim all their grief and anger at. Karen Read was a perfect target.

Imprisoning Karen won’t bring John O’Keefe back, but, throughout history, there have always been people who think they’ll feel better if someone is punished for tragic events. They won’t, of course, but that typically doesn’t stop people from thinking that revenge will help them feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.

Does anyone know if there were given any instructions on what is permissible as an inference? For instance if it is undisputed (I know you can poke holes in expert testimony, just assume for the purposes of this question it's true) that Karen backed her car up around the same time that John's phone stopped working, even if there is no actual evidence of collision, can the jury infer that a collision occurred?

I would throw out the taillight stuff as corroborating evidence in support of the inference, because of the photo and video evidence presented, plus Dever's bizarre testimony. I think you'll probably have a couple jurors who would refuse to accept that as evidence.

That may leave jurors looking at the evidence and possibly not even disagreeing about it (Karen backed up; John's phone stopped), with some of them inferring a collision (assuming that's permissible) but others not (similarly assuming such inference is not mandatory).

Standard jury instructions in a criminal case say something to the effect of "you can draw any reasonable conclusion from the evidence that you believe is justified by common sense and your experiences." The instructions will never provide a more granular explanation than that.

There's also no such thing as a mandatory inference in a criminal case. There are permissible inferences (for example, if a defendant is found in recent possession of stolen property, the jury can infer he stole it), but mandatory inferences violate the right to trial by jury.

That's helpful thanks. I am curious, putting everything else aside, based on the 2 above pieces of evidence, what people here think:
1. The only reasonable inference is that Karen's car hit John
2. While you understand that someone could reasonably infer that Karen's car hit John, you yourself do not draw that conclusion from the evidence; or
3. It would be unreasonable to infer that Karen's car hit John

My conclusion is that she probably hit him with her car, but I’m not persuaded BARD that that’s what happened. I’d acquit.

No way i would acquit.

I’m not sold on a big conspiracy or anything, but I’ve watched almost all of the testimony in this retrial and the commonwealth embarrassed itself. Between the lead investigator’s conduct that got him fired (not the prosecution’s fault, but it’s still a big part of the case), the false memory testimony of Officer Dever, the ridiculous accident reconstruction experts (one of whom had material misrepresentations in his cv), the attempt to mislead a witness and the jury about the source of holes in JOK’s sweatshirt, it was a complete clown show. If she did this, they’ve failed the O’Keefe family miserably because there’s reasonable doubt all over the place. They can’t even prove the injuries are consistent with a motor vehicle collision. That’s a pretty big problem when you’re charging someone with vehicular homicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike, yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.

Does anyone know if there were given any instructions on what is permissible as an inference? For instance if it is undisputed (I know you can poke holes in expert testimony, just assume for the purposes of this question it's true) that Karen backed her car up around the same time that John's phone stopped working, even if there is no actual evidence of collision, can the jury infer that a collision occurred?

I would throw out the taillight stuff as corroborating evidence in support of the inference, because of the photo and video evidence presented, plus Dever's bizarre testimony. I think you'll probably have a couple jurors who would refuse to accept that as evidence.

That may leave jurors looking at the evidence and possibly not even disagreeing about it (Karen backed up; John's phone stopped), with some of them inferring a collision (assuming that's permissible) but others not (similarly assuming such inference is not mandatory).

Standard jury instructions in a criminal case say something to the effect of "you can draw any reasonable conclusion from the evidence that you believe is justified by common sense and your experiences." The instructions will never provide a more granular explanation than that.

There's also no such thing as a mandatory inference in a criminal case. There are permissible inferences (for example, if a defendant is found in recent possession of stolen property, the jury can infer he stole it), but mandatory inferences violate the right to trial by jury.

That's helpful thanks. I am curious, putting everything else aside, based on the 2 above pieces of evidence, what people here think:
1. The only reasonable inference is that Karen's car hit John
2. While you understand that someone could reasonably infer that Karen's car hit John, you yourself do not draw that conclusion from the evidence; or
3. It would be unreasonable to infer that Karen's car hit John

My conclusion is that she probably hit him with her car, but I’m not persuaded BARD that that’s what happened. I’d acquit.

No way i would acquit.

I’m not sold on a big conspiracy or anything, but I’ve watched almost all of the testimony in this retrial and the commonwealth embarrassed itself. Between the lead investigator’s conduct that got him fired (not the prosecution’s fault, but it’s still a big part of the case), the false memory testimony of Officer Dever, the ridiculous accident reconstruction experts (one of whom had material misrepresentations in his cv), the attempt to mislead a witness and the jury about the source of holes in JOK’s sweatshirt, it was a complete clown show. If she did this, they’ve failed the O’Keefe family miserably because there’s reasonable doubt all over the place. They can’t even prove the injuries are consistent with a motor vehicle collision. That’s a pretty big problem when you’re charging someone with vehicular homicide.

I think she probably did it (small chance he slipped on his own) but all of this is why I'm fine with acquittal. The theory that he went inside and brawled and got dragged outside is ludicrous. And yet their behavior was very shady which I mostly attribute to them being drunk and having other stuff to hide. The only part I really can't figure out is all the butt dials. I total understand dumping the phone. I bet Jen McCabe wishes she hadn't turned over her phone because look at the hell they out her through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that think she’s guilty, how do you explain his injuries and where his body was found? The commonwealth hasn’t figured it out yet and it’s a virtually insurmountable problem in their case.

The defense proved it for the prosecution with their reconstruction video they stupidly insisted in having admitted. They had to admit it themselves because it was discoverable.

Karen's words from the Netflix show will convict her. Not sure they had the impact for people not in the courtroom that they had when played for the jury at key times during the trial.

Her words + the crash test dummy reconstruction + the timeline from the car and his phone = guilty.

If the jury comes back hung or NG, they were likely already biases from he conspiracy theory in the prior trial and media.

[Anonymous]

The cops quickly concluded it was her and if they had just pursued that lead professionally we might know one way or the other. Instead, there is pretty solid evidence that they tampered with her car and planted taillight pieces at the scene to bolster their case. That taints the entire investigation and is a defect that can’t be cured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that think she’s guilty, how do you explain his injuries and where his body was found? The commonwealth hasn’t figured it out yet and it’s a virtually insurmountable problem in their case.

The defense proved it for the prosecution with their reconstruction video they stupidly insisted in having admitted. They had to admit it themselves because it was discoverable.

Karen's words from the Netflix show will convict her. Not sure they had the impact for people not in the courtroom that they had when played for the jury at key times during the trial.

Her words + the crash test dummy reconstruction + the timeline from the car and his phone = guilty.

If the jury comes back hung or NG, they were likely already biases from he conspiracy theory in the prior trial and media.

Except it didn’t. In none of the crash test dummy cases did the inner taillight (the diffusers) also shatter. As Wolfe explained, that was not consistent with Karen Read’s taillight which had both layers shattered.