Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]I'm from the Canton area. Canton is part of what we call the South Shore.

I'm finding this thread late and KR has been acquitted of all but OUI in her retrial. I wonder if any of you who posted here last year closely watched all of the retrial, especially the defense's medical experts and biomechanical engineers who explained why it's obvious OJO was not struck by a vehicle. I think that's undeniable at this point. I'm so glad she was acquitted. It would've been a travesty of justice to convict her.[/quote]

Former Norwell resident here and SMH on that South Shore comment.

[Anonymous]

https://mabbe8.substack.com/p/why-the-karen-read-conspiracy-endures

In a 2023 article titled "How misinformation takes hold—and how to fight it," the American Psychological Association (APA) explored why people believe falsehoods and how those beliefs shape action. If you've followed the Karen Read case, you already know this isn't just an academic issue—it's a live crisis of public reason.

Despite a mountain of digital forensic and evidence showing that Karen Read reversed her Lexus at 24 mph into John O’Keefe, her supporters continue to promote a conspiracy theory involving dozens of supposed co-conspirators from soccer moms to various law enforcement agencies. Why? The APA report gives us a framework for understanding how misinformation metastasizes into unshakable belief—and why the “Free Karen Read” (FKR) narrative refuses to die, no matter how many facts bury it.

The APA highlights that people are more likely to believe misinformation when it aligns with their values, emotions, or group identity. In the Karen Read case, this meant tapping into deep public distrust of law enforcement and institutions. "Turtleboy" and other conspiracy promoters cast Read as a relatable victim of corrupt insiders, a storyline tailor-made for true crime fans and anti-establishment crusaders. In that story, you weren’t just following a case—you were part of a movement. It felt righteous.

Truth doesn’t stand a chance when a lie makes you feel like a hero.

The APA warns about the “continued influence effect”—the tendency for people to keep believing misinformation even after it’s been corrected. That’s precisely what happened with the infamous “2:27 a.m. Google search” supposedly made by Jennifer McCabe. Cellebrite’s own forensic engineer testified it was an artifact from a reopened Safari tab. Gold standard digital tools (Cellebrite and Axiom) prove the real search occurred after John was found. And yet? It still fuels social media and YouTube rants.

Why? Because admitting it’s false means admitting the entire conspiracy theory falls apart. It’s not just a fact that dies—their whole community ends.

Read’s defenders were never driven by data. They were driven by outrage, emotion, and the thrill of being part of something big. As the APA notes, misinformation spreads faster when it triggers emotion. A “cop cover-up” is sensational. A jealous, drunk girlfriend backing up too fast? Less so. No one wants to admit they got pulled into a drama where the villain was the person they were rooting for.

That’s why even when Read's SUV data, phone logs, GPS, and digital timelines tell a complete, corroborated story, it still gets called a “frame up.” The lie is more emotionally satisfying than the truth.

APA researchers point out that people are more likely to believe something if they hear it repeatedly. That's the foundation of the FKR ecosystem. Day after day, the same disproven talking points are repeated on blogs, livestreams, and TikToks: “The body was moved.” “There’s no taillight damage.” “The federal investigation.”

Never mind that GPS shows John never entered the house, taillight pieces, a sneaker, and a baseball hat were found under 3 feet of snow, or that the so-called federal investigation found nothing and quietly closed shop. When you're steeped in an alternate reality 24/7, repetition becomes truth.

The APA emphasizes that corrections work best when they come with an alternative explanation. That’s been the problem: the truth, though well-documented, wasn’t being told with the same urgency or narrative clarity. The facts—techstream reverse data, O’Keefe’s phone locking at the moment of impact, DNA in the taillight casing, hair on the bumper, John’s last location matching the collision site—it becomes clear: this wasn’t a mystery. It was a digital crime scene, mapped in real time.

It’s a story grounded in objective evidence, not fantasy. And it’s time it gets told just as loudly.

In the end, the APA reminds us that truth is a process, not a one-time event.

Undoing a false belief is hard work. It means replacing emotion with reason, narrative with nuance, and suspicion with sobriety. But the Karen Read case is a warning: when misinformation goes viral, the system can fail us. And when belief outpaces facts, families are denied justice, and we all lose.

[Anonymous]

Is it the same person posting the above on various forums discussing this case?

Can people who believe she’s guilty not see that the information about persistence of belief applies just as much, if not more so, to them as it may apply to those who believe she’s not guilty?

How is it possible to see the evidence that Mr. O’Keefe’s injuries were not inflicted by a collision with a vehicle and not realize that Ms Read can not be responsible for those injuries? It is as though they refuse to take in information that doesn’t fit with the script so firmly rooted in their heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same person posting the above on various forums discussing this case?

Can people who believe she’s guilty not see that the information about persistence of belief applies just as much, if not more so, to them as it may apply to those who believe she’s not guilty?

How is it possible to see the evidence that Mr. O’Keefe’s injuries were not inflicted by a collision with a vehicle and not realize that Ms Read can not be responsible for those injuries? It is as though they refuse to take in information that doesn’t fit with the script so firmly rooted in their heads.

I get that her supporters want to keep coming back to this testimony about the injuries not being consistent with being hit by a car. However, most of that testimony came from the defense side because in many respects it is a subjective opinion due to the infinite number of variables, therefore the easiest evidence to cast doubt on.

The digital data tells the actual story and this person explains it much better than the commonwealth did: https://substack.com/home/post/p-167389365

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same person posting the above on various forums discussing this case?

Can people who believe she’s guilty not see that the information about persistence of belief applies just as much, if not more so, to them as it may apply to those who believe she’s not guilty?

How is it possible to see the evidence that Mr. O’Keefe’s injuries were not inflicted by a collision with a vehicle and not realize that Ms Read can not be responsible for those injuries? It is as though they refuse to take in information that doesn’t fit with the script so firmly rooted in their heads.

I get that her supporters want to keep coming back to this testimony about the injuries not being consistent with being hit by a car. However, most of that testimony came from the defense side because in many respects it is a subjective opinion due to the infinite number of variables, therefore the easiest evidence to cast doubt on.

The digital data tells the actual story and this person explains it much better than the commonwealth did: https://substack.com/home/post/p-167389365

Thank you for posting this, I tried yesterday but the site wouldn't allow me to.

Anybody who thinks they know the truth of the Karen Read case really, truly needs to read this piece. It's long, but the case and justice deserve your attention to the full body of evidence and not to just the FKR talking point soundbites which are parroted endlessly in social media and by most of the true crime media industry.

Yes, Karen Read did it. And social media helped her to get away with it. Congrats FKR - you've been duped!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same person posting the above on various forums discussing this case?

Can people who believe she’s guilty not see that the information about persistence of belief applies just as much, if not more so, to them as it may apply to those who believe she’s not guilty?

How is it possible to see the evidence that Mr. O’Keefe’s injuries were not inflicted by a collision with a vehicle and not realize that Ms Read can not be responsible for those injuries? It is as though they refuse to take in information that doesn’t fit with the script so firmly rooted in their heads.

I get that her supporters want to keep coming back to this testimony about the injuries not being consistent with being hit by a car. However, most of that testimony came from the defense side because in many respects it is a subjective opinion due to the infinite number of variables, therefore the easiest evidence to cast doubt on.

The digital data tells the actual story and this person explains it much better than the commonwealth did: https://substack.com/home/post/p-167389365

Thank you for posting this, I tried yesterday but the site wouldn't allow me to.

Anybody who thinks they know the truth of the Karen Read case really, truly needs to read this piece. It's long, but the case and justice deserve your attention to the full body of evidence and not to just the FKR talking point soundbites which are parroted endlessly in social media and by most of the true crime media industry.

Yes, Karen Read did it. And social media helped her to get away with it. Congrats FKR - you've been duped!

And I suspect they don't want to know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same person posting the above on various forums discussing this case?

Can people who believe she’s guilty not see that the information about persistence of belief applies just as much, if not more so, to them as it may apply to those who believe she’s not guilty?

How is it possible to see the evidence that Mr. O’Keefe’s injuries were not inflicted by a collision with a vehicle and not realize that Ms Read can not be responsible for those injuries? It is as though they refuse to take in information that doesn’t fit with the script so firmly rooted in their heads.

I get that her supporters want to keep coming back to this testimony about the injuries not being consistent with being hit by a car. However, most of that testimony came from the defense side because in many respects it is a subjective opinion due to the infinite number of variables, therefore the easiest evidence to cast doubt on.

The digital data tells the actual story and this person explains it much better than the commonwealth did: https://substack.com/home/post/p-167389365

Sorry, this digital data is not very convincing. The information the car records is meant for use by mechanics who are working on the car. It is not meant to be a record of everything that happened with a car- there is no « black box » such as is found on an airplane. Information about someone backing up doesn’t really equal a car hitting a person.

Medical data, including X-rays that show no broken bones cannot be ignored. If the body shows no signs of being hit by a car, well, that’s pretty crucial information in trying to determine how a person died. It’s too bad the police didn’t do a better job of investigating Mr O’Keefe’s death from the very beginning.

It is sad that some people just won’t let go of the idea that JOK was hit by a car driven by the acquitted defendant in this trial. It somehow makes some feel better to think that there is someone to blame. It is not as satisfying to think that it may have been a tragic accident of some sort.