Anonymous wrote:The timeline does not make sense based on Ryan Nagel and the other young ladies' accounts, because when would she have reversed into him: can't be before a certain time (he was alive on phone) or after a certain time (Nagel + others in car which was right behind hers). Then she's connecting to John's wifi so back at his house. The prosecution would have to show it was possible timewise because I don't see when it could have happened.

Ryan and Julie and others in same vehicle with Ryan don't see John because he is outside of the vehicle pissing or vomiting in the woodsy area directly adjacent to where the Lexus is parked while Karen is waiting for him.

John returns to the vehicle, asks Karen 'are you coming in or not?', she refuses and he grabs her drink and heads out of the vehicle toward the house. He is moving for only 20 seconds after exiting her vehicle, then he moves no more forever and his phone lies under him on the lawn getting colder and colder until it reaches the ground temperature with protection from elements by John's body and stays at that temperature for hours until John's body is lifted from the ground by paramedics and the phone briefly gets colder before Jen or Kerry picks it up and puts it in their pocket where it begins warming up again well after 6am in the morning.

The vehicle registers the strike and some 5 minutes later Karen's phone connects to John's wifi which can happen from halfway down the block and we know she was raging and speeding (reversing at 75% acceleration, 24mph (!!) for 60+ feet) so it's no surprise she shaved a minute off the usual drive time to John's home and with nobody else on the road as well.

It's entirely possible, entirely plausible, and IT IS WHAT HAPPENED. Karen Read killed John O'Keefe, nobody else, no Keebler elves, no packs of roaming dogs or even the one who lived at 34 Fairview, not the dear friends and their friends who were warm and cozy inside 34 Fairview waiting for their friend John to join them. If only he'd made it inside that safe haven.

Karen Read is a coercively controlling domestic abuser who killed her lover when he tried to leave her. That's the plain truth of this whole case and if she had a penis and he had a cootch nobody would even be contemplating any other scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t get over the fact that no one who heard her say “I hit him” thought to write it down or, detain her or even bring her in for immediate questioning. That does not seem like SOP for any of the first responders.

They very likely would have brought her to the cop shop for questioning, but her daddy called 911 and asked that she be taken in by paramedics on a psych hold because she was allegedly expressing suicidal ideation on the phone with mommy and daddy. So she was taken to the same hospital as her victim and kept from law enforcement for hours while she was assessed by medical personnel, then upon release she and daddy high-tailed it over to the murder victim's house to collect the murder weapon and remove it from the scene and to more than likely delete incriminating Ring video from the victim's Ring camera database.

Yes, LEOs should have detained her from the moment she walked out of the room at Good Samaritan where she was on psych hold. They caught up with her instead a couple of hours later at her mommy and daddy's house. She was a suspect from the moment she started screaming confessions to anybody who would listen at the scene of John's death/body.

The way you speak about people is disgusting.

Really?

Maybe if you'd seen as many raped children and murdered women and men and other horrors such as I have seen over decades working in and around the criminal justice system, you might be less naive and more jaded in your view of the capacities of our fellow humans.

Karen Read is a murdering scum and her mommy, daddy and brother are her primary enablers in the disgusting reign of villainy she has engaged in since the murder - which wasn't enough to feed her bottomless pit of psychological neediness. I hope she rots in prison until her cootch dries up entirely.

The timeline does not make sense based on Ryan Nagel and the other young ladies' accounts, because when would she have reversed into him: can't be before a certain time (he was alive on phone) or after a certain time (Nagel + others in car which was right behind hers). Then she's connecting to John's wifi so back at his house. The prosecution would have to show it was possible timewise because I don't see when it could have happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t get over the fact that no one who heard her say “I hit him” thought to write it down or, detain her or even bring her in for immediate questioning. That does not seem like SOP for any of the first responders.

They very likely would have brought her to the cop shop for questioning, but her daddy called 911 and asked that she be taken in by paramedics on a psych hold because she was allegedly expressing suicidal ideation on the phone with mommy and daddy. So she was taken to the same hospital as her victim and kept from law enforcement for hours while she was assessed by medical personnel, then upon release she and daddy high-tailed it over to the murder victim's house to collect the murder weapon and remove it from the scene and to more than likely delete incriminating Ring video from the victim's Ring camera database.

Yes, LEOs should have detained her from the moment she walked out of the room at Good Samaritan where she was on psych hold. They caught up with her instead a couple of hours later at her mommy and daddy's house. She was a suspect from the moment she started screaming confessions to anybody who would listen at the scene of John's death/body.

The way you speak about people is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, if she really has confessed that she did not even know she went to the house how can she have intent????

She is not charged with any crime requiring intent to kill.

She is charged with OUI manslaughter - no intent to kill required.

She is charged with depraved heart murder 2 - no intent to kill required, only the intent to do an act that exhibits extreme recklessness and disregard for human life. An act like reversing a 6000lb SUV at 75% acceleration, 24mph, 60+ feet in the direction of a defenseless human being who just exited the same vehicle and whose general position is thus known to the driver.

There was no reason on earth for Karen to reverse the Lexus after dropping John off; never mind to do it at extremely reckless high speed. She didn't need to intend to kill him and as the prosecution already acknowledged in opening statement, they can't and won't prove that she intended his death. They will prove that she intended a reckless act exhibiting disregard for human life and that is second degree murder.

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t get over the fact that no one who heard her say “I hit him” thought to write it down or, detain her or even bring her in for immediate questioning. That does not seem like SOP for any of the first responders.

They very likely would have brought her to the cop shop for questioning, but her daddy called 911 and asked that she be taken in by paramedics on a psych hold because she was allegedly expressing suicidal ideation on the phone with mommy and daddy. So she was taken to the same hospital as her victim and kept from law enforcement for hours while she was assessed by medical personnel, then upon release she and daddy high-tailed it over to the murder victim's house to collect the murder weapon and remove it from the scene and to more than likely delete incriminating Ring video from the victim's Ring camera database.

Yes, LEOs should have detained her from the moment she walked out of the room at Good Samaritan where she was on psych hold. They caught up with her instead a couple of hours later at her mommy and daddy's house. She was a suspect from the moment she started screaming confessions to anybody who would listen at the scene of John's death/body.

I just can’t get over the fact that no one who heard her say “I hit him” thought to write it down or, detain her or even bring her in for immediate questioning. That does not seem like SOP for any of the first responders.

Okay, if she really has confessed that she did not even know she went to the house how can she have intent????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t see her calling cursing an insulting a man she thought she may have just hit with a car (and definitely not that she knew she just hit.) she either wouldn’t have called or would have said “hey baby hope you have a good time!” All the nutty calls make zero sense if she thought she had done anything he couldn potentially bring charges over.

It sounds like you have very little experience with

A) borderline personality disorder

and/or

B) the bizarre behaviors of people who get blitzed to 2-4x the legal limit of intoxication

I do have professional experience in this area and I disagree with you. I’m not saying a borderline and drunk person couldn’t ever do this, I’m saying those two factors don’t in any way mean that those messages make sense if she knew she was likely to have harmed or killed him.

Anonymous wrote:
She's so smug

This is the kind of comment that sounds more personal, as in animus toward the person, rather than just an interest in the truth, whatever the truth might be.

This is a case where we might not ever know the truth, for a number of reasons including sloppy investigation and lack of memory.

She's so smug

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

Yep. This is the scenario that makes the most sense. There is no evidence that Mr. O’Keefe was hit by a car since his injuries didn’t comport with being struck.

Ridiculous.

Defendant's own ARCCA witness testified his injuries were consistent with being knocked down by a vehicle and sustaining fatal head injury.

Medical examiner testified his injuries were both inconsistent AND CONSISTENT with a pedestrian strike by motor vehicle - i.e., some such incidents result in anomalies re: injury pattern. She also testified, as did the treating ER physician, that he exhibited no signs of being in an altercation i.e. FIGHT.

His DNA on her tail light HOUSING. His hair frozen to the lift gate of the SUV. Tiny pieces of her tail light in his clothing.


OPEN YOUR EYES!

YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON

I think that poster is very serious about their extremely strong feelings about this trial, and they feel especially strongly that they know who did it and how it happened. And they very much want to see a particular outcome to this trial. They appear to have very intense and personal feelings about this trial.

I’m a 54 year old attorney who has been both a defender and a prosecutor.

I’m outraged and sickened by what has been done in this case by media manipulation both by the defense team and by numerous monetizers on social media and how they have all victimized the victims family and friends and the innocent witnesses whose only ‘crime’ was inviting a friend to a party, or offering to help a friend find a missing friend, or being a first responder or investigator at the scene. Also the prosecutors office and judge have been vilified and falsely accused of corruption.

This case is a canary in the coal mine for what social media true crime obsessives can do to disrupt our justice system.

Also after decades of experience with disordered personalities in professional and personal settings, I can see very clearly what a malignant narcissist the defendant is and would absolutely like to see her held accountable for her crimes by a jury of her fellow citizens.

Just because she might have a personality disorder doesn't mean she killed her boyfriend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

Yep. This is the scenario that makes the most sense. There is no evidence that Mr. O’Keefe was hit by a car since his injuries didn’t comport with being struck.

Ridiculous.

Defendant's own ARCCA witness testified his injuries were consistent with being knocked down by a vehicle and sustaining fatal head injury.

Medical examiner testified his injuries were both inconsistent AND CONSISTENT with a pedestrian strike by motor vehicle - i.e., some such incidents result in anomalies re: injury pattern. She also testified, as did the treating ER physician, that he exhibited no signs of being in an altercation i.e. FIGHT.

His DNA on her tail light HOUSING. His hair frozen to the lift gate of the SUV. Tiny pieces of her tail light in his clothing.


OPEN YOUR EYES!

YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON

I think that poster is very serious about their extremely strong feelings about this trial, and they feel especially strongly that they know who did it and how it happened. And they very much want to see a particular outcome to this trial. They appear to have very intense and personal feelings about this trial.

Oh, absolutely. I was just calling out the ridiculous overuse of all caps and their repeated insult of calling people unserious or not serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she was blacked out and realized she was so drunk after she came to on the couch that she suddenly wondered if she had somehow hit him or … who knows. I’m confused about the whole going into the after party thing. They must have gotten into a fight on the way there - they were all happy at the bar and her explanation about why she didn’t go in is odd. Also, if she was waiting for him to go in that was a super short wait? I honestly think if she hit him she just didn’t know. She was wasted. But I also don’t think she had any intent to kill him. She thought he was sleeping with someone else in her voicemails! She didn’t hit him on purpose. There’s no way. She’s guilty of maybe manslaughter at most and they have not established it.

Yep. This is the scenario that makes the most sense. There is no evidence that Mr. O’Keefe was hit by a car since his injuries didn’t comport with being struck.

Ridiculous.

Defendant's own ARCCA witness testified his injuries were consistent with being knocked down by a vehicle and sustaining fatal head injury.

Medical examiner testified his injuries were both inconsistent AND CONSISTENT with a pedestrian strike by motor vehicle - i.e., some such incidents result in anomalies re: injury pattern. She also testified, as did the treating ER physician, that he exhibited no signs of being in an altercation i.e. FIGHT.

His DNA on her tail light HOUSING. His hair frozen to the lift gate of the SUV. Tiny pieces of her tail light in his clothing.


OPEN YOUR EYES!

YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON

I think that poster is very serious about their extremely strong feelings about this trial, and they feel especially strongly that they know who did it and how it happened. And they very much want to see a particular outcome to this trial. They appear to have very intense and personal feelings about this trial.

I’m a 54 year old attorney who has been both a defender and a prosecutor.

I’m outraged and sickened by what has been done in this case by media manipulation both by the defense team and by numerous monetizers on social media and how they have all victimized the victims family and friends and the innocent witnesses whose only ‘crime’ was inviting a friend to a party, or offering to help a friend find a missing friend, or being a first responder or investigator at the scene. Also the prosecutors office and judge have been vilified and falsely accused of corruption.

This case is a canary in the coal mine for what social media true crime obsessives can do to disrupt our justice system.

Also after decades of experience with disordered personalities in professional and personal settings, I can see very clearly what a malignant narcissist the defendant is and would absolutely like to see her held accountable for her crimes by a jury of her fellow citizens.

This is like people villainizing the Ramseys about JonBenet’s murder bc they were weird people who do and say strange things. You can be weird, mentally ill, unlikable and innocent. That goes for KR and the whole crew. The sad thing is John might have died accidentally and it’s just a senseless tragedy with no guilty party.

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t see her calling cursing an insulting a man she thought she may have just hit with a car (and definitely not that she knew she just hit.) she either wouldn’t have called or would have said “hey baby hope you have a good time!” All the nutty calls make zero sense if she thought she had done anything he couldn potentially bring charges over.

It sounds like you have very little experience with

A) borderline personality disorder

and/or

B) the bizarre behaviors of people who get blitzed to 2-4x the legal limit of intoxication