Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

I am of the mind that Karen Read caused the death of JOK due to her drunk actions behind the wheel that night (basing this on her words/actions and the technical data.)

I certainly do not believe there was some sort of 'conspiracy' by the Alberts, Jen McCabe, Proctor, etc to wrongly frame her.

That said, Proctor acted horrendously and the rest of them were being shady. Maybe they were hiding something else like drugs or their own personal bad behavior and texts. Who knows. Making it worse is that all of them (except Brian Higgins) are now doing a media tour and making things even worse for themselves. They could at least have gotten some media training before hitting the air. I don't think these people are actually capable of a conspiracy to hide a murder either.

What a mess. They are all awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

[Anonymous]

ID channel is replaying a body in the snow tonight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

Wrongful death cases are often done on a contingency fee basis, like personal injury and medical malpractice.

Beyond that, I think that there are plenty of members of the Commonwealth Bar who would happily represent the O'Keefe family at reduced rate or even pro bono in their civil case, for the chance to be the Daniel Petrocelli of this case who brings justice to a murder victim where the prosecution failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

Wrongful death cases are often done on a contingency fee basis, like personal injury and medical malpractice.

Beyond that, I think that there are plenty of members of the Commonwealth Bar who would happily represent the O'Keefe family at reduced rate or even pro bono in their civil case, for the chance to be the Daniel Petrocelli of this case who brings justice to a murder victim where the prosecution failed.

Alessi is handling Karen’s civil trial so you’re going to be disappointed … again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

Wrongful death cases are often done on a contingency fee basis, like personal injury and medical malpractice.

Beyond that, I think that there are plenty of members of the Commonwealth Bar who would happily represent the O'Keefe family at reduced rate or even pro bono in their civil case, for the chance to be the Daniel Petrocelli of this case who brings justice to a murder victim where the prosecution failed.

The thing is, if they use the same evidence as they used in the criminal trial, it will be obvious to the jury that John O’Keefe was not hit by a car, so what would be the point of having brought suit against this particular defendant? Any jury that sees the same evidence is very likely going to come to the same conclusion as this jury just did.

I realize that the family feels very strongly that Karen Read is the person who killed Mr O’Keefe, but over time, it’s possible that they might have to examine the evidence and accept that John was not hit by a vehicle. Wherever John is, if you believe in an afterlife, you have to wonder how he might feel about people he loved suing someone he had loved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

Wrongful death cases are often done on a contingency fee basis, like personal injury and medical malpractice.

Beyond that, I think that there are plenty of members of the Commonwealth Bar who would happily represent the O'Keefe family at reduced rate or even pro bono in their civil case, for the chance to be the Daniel Petrocelli of this case who brings justice to a murder victim where the prosecution failed.

The thing is, if they use the same evidence as they used in the criminal trial, it will be obvious to the jury that John O’Keefe was not hit by a car, so what would be the point of having brought suit against this particular defendant? Any jury that sees the same evidence is very likely going to come to the same conclusion as this jury just did.

I realize that the family feels very strongly that Karen Read is the person who killed Mr O’Keefe, but over time, it’s possible that they might have to examine the evidence and accept that John was not hit by a vehicle. Wherever John is, if you believe in an afterlife, you have to wonder how he might feel about people he loved suing someone he had loved.

It is not obvious that he wasn't hit by the car. There is plenty of evidence that he was, even if they couldn't replicate his injuries - too many variables. Not to mention the Techstream and phone data (and her words and actions) that everyone seems to be overlooking.

[Anonymous]

It's more likely than not that she caused his death. He got out of her car, she backed up at high speed and at that moment he stopped moving forever. His cell phone battery temp consistently dropped from there. There's zero evidence he ever entered the house, regardless of how shady those people acted. Read left him a serious of hateful messages and knew exactly where to find him the next morning. She's on tape saying he "didn't look mortally wounded" and commented over and over that she may have hit him.

I'm fine with the criminal verdict because of how the investigation was botched and the bias against her from Proctor. There's also a small, reasonable, doubt in that he may have slipped and fell on his own. Any notion that he was beaten up or his body was moved is, IMO, not reasonable based on the evidence.

I would probably find her liable civilly, but I do think it may be best for the family to drop the claims and save the stress and harassment by her supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's more likely than not that she caused his death. He got out of her car, she backed up at high speed and at that moment he stopped moving forever. His cell phone battery temp consistently dropped from there. There's zero evidence he ever entered the house, regardless of how shady those people acted. Read left him a serious of hateful messages and knew exactly where to find him the next morning. She's on tape saying he "didn't look mortally wounded" and commented over and over that she may have hit him.

I'm fine with the criminal verdict because of how the investigation was botched and the bias against her from Proctor. There's also a small, reasonable, doubt in that he may have slipped and fell on his own. Any notion that he was beaten up or his body was moved is, IMO, not reasonable based on the evidence.

I would probably find her liable civilly, but I do think it may be best for the family to drop the claims and save the stress and harassment by her supporters.

John’s phone would’ve died if it was left outside all night. He was left in the garage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

Wrongful death cases are often done on a contingency fee basis, like personal injury and medical malpractice.

Beyond that, I think that there are plenty of members of the Commonwealth Bar who would happily represent the O'Keefe family at reduced rate or even pro bono in their civil case, for the chance to be the Daniel Petrocelli of this case who brings justice to a murder victim where the prosecution failed.

The thing is, if they use the same evidence as they used in the criminal trial, it will be obvious to the jury that John O’Keefe was not hit by a car, so what would be the point of having brought suit against this particular defendant? Any jury that sees the same evidence is very likely going to come to the same conclusion as this jury just did.

I realize that the family feels very strongly that Karen Read is the person who killed Mr O’Keefe, but over time, it’s possible that they might have to examine the evidence and accept that John was not hit by a vehicle. Wherever John is, if you believe in an afterlife, you have to wonder how he might feel about people he loved suing someone he had loved.

It is not obvious that he wasn't hit by the car. There is plenty of evidence that he was, even if they couldn't replicate his injuries - too many variables. Not to mention the Techstream and phone data (and her words and actions) that everyone seems to be overlooking.

The Techstream data does not show that the vehicle hit anything and the timestamps had some variance depending on who was interpreting them. The Techstream data exists for mechanics working on the car; it wasn’t created for the purpose of accident reconstruction.

The medical evidence indicates that the injuries were not caused by a vehicle. Hard to hold KR liable if he wasn’t injured by a vehicle.

[Anonymous]

Would her defense have more leeway to get things like me the garage photos into evidence? A lot of pro-defense evidence was excluded by the judge in the criminal trial.

[Anonymous]

I love that people say she's guilty because of the data from the cell phone,but when it comes to the shady neighbor googling ' how long to die in cold ' at 2:57 am suddenly you can't trust cell phones and data.

[Anonymous]

I'm new to the discourse about Karen Read after hearing she was acquitted, and just watched the HBO documentary.

With the way people online were talking about it, it sounded like Karen obviously didn't do it, and the people in that house were obviously responsible for it. But after watching that documentary, I actually find it very ambiguous? I don't quite buy the framing theory, something about it just seemed like a big reach. I get that cops in general can be corrupt and they deserve the reputation they've built for themselves, but I don't see enough to think there was a massive-cover up (although I guess therein lies the issue: they were never investigated thoroughly).

At the same time, I don't think Karen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if she did it, it was an accident, so I agree with the verdict. People also say that if there were that many people involved in a cover-up, one of them would have slipped by now, but didn't her legal team say they got an anonymous tip to check out the house? Could've been one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though the standard of proof is lower in the civil trial, the O’Keefe’s will have a tougher time prevailing over Karen now that there is so much evidence available that John was not hit by a car.

I wonder if they’ll try to settle with Karen’s insurance company rather than go to a trial, now that they’ve seen the compelling evidence. They could walk away with nothing if the civil trial jury sees the evidence the same way this jury did.

Her insurance won't give them anything. She didn't cause his death. What exactly would they be settling? There is no way they should pursue this any longer. They will lose and waste a ton of money.

They’re probably counting on the standard of proof being lower in a civil court. There’s so much evidence now that John O’Keefe wasn’t even hit by a car that it might be difficult to get over even that low bar. Sadly, they could end up spending a lot of money on lawyers and end up with nothing.

Wrongful death cases are often done on a contingency fee basis, like personal injury and medical malpractice.

Beyond that, I think that there are plenty of members of the Commonwealth Bar who would happily represent the O'Keefe family at reduced rate or even pro bono in their civil case, for the chance to be the Daniel Petrocelli of this case who brings justice to a murder victim where the prosecution failed.

Alessi is handling Karen’s civil trial so you’re going to be disappointed … again.

And she should counter sue for her civil legal fees if she wins again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to the discourse about Karen Read after hearing she was acquitted, and just watched the HBO documentary.

With the way people online were talking about it, it sounded like Karen obviously didn't do it, and the people in that house were obviously responsible for it. But after watching that documentary, I actually find it very ambiguous? I don't quite buy the framing theory, something about it just seemed like a big reach. I get that cops in general can be corrupt and they deserve the reputation they've built for themselves, but I don't see enough to think there was a massive-cover up (although I guess therein lies the issue: they were never investigated thoroughly).

At the same time, I don't think Karen was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if she did it, it was an accident, so I agree with the verdict. People also say that if there were that many people involved in a cover-up, one of them would have slipped by now, but didn't her legal team say they got an anonymous tip to check out the house? Could've been one of them.

The shady, improper disposal of their phones, the ring camera missing footage, the butt dials, the sleeping through an investigation happening in your lawn, the mirrored body shop video, the remodeling, and the dog being re-homed all comes together to feel like “a reach”?