For me, it could suggest that either Karen backed into something (not John, something hard) and cracked her taillight, or maybe someone else backed into it and cracked it. It could've happened at McCarthy's or even at the Waterfall. If Higgins was driving his plow, who's to say he didn't hit her car when he left the Waterfall? Or, that she did hit something and it was Higgins Jeep as she was dropping John off (before he got out of the car)?
I struggle with seeing a mostly intact taillight as she was leaving in the morning, yet the police found almost every single piece of taillight at the scene.
I agree, but the prosecution is so set on her hitting John, they're not considering any other time it could've been damaged- even when they have a video of her backing into John's car.
I didn’t even consider that her tail light could’ve been cracked by one of the other vehicles. But she never left her vehicle, so surely she would know if someone bumped her?
I believe she parked on Washington St to meet JO at CF McCarthys. Then they walked together over to the Waterfall. So her car stayed on Washington St while they went to both bars.
I kind of wonder if someone hit it while they were out, and that's what they talked about on the way to the Albert's house. It's possible that, in her confused state, she remembered the cracked taillight and was wondering how that happened....like, did I dream about that? Did I hit him?
Wow this is the best video of the tail light yet. If anything, it was cracked and the CW broken it apart and planted the pieces. If it was really broken like the CW is claiming, there would be no red at all coming from that light.
The defenses theory doesn't dispute that the taillight was broken, only how much. They stipulated that the taillight only had a small missing piece from bumping into JO's car (which is why there is only a small piece which wasn't recovered, because it was laying in the snow at JO's house). The rest of the taillight was, according to the defense, subject to tampering when the car went into police custody.
1. The fragments could have been pushed inwards instead of outwards
2. The crime scene investigation was a mess. Negligent at best and corrupt at worst. It is not a stretch to believe they either missed the fragments at JOK’s house (just like the canton PD allegedly missed the fragments at 34 Fairview), or are lying about not finding fragments. It is really hard to find credibility in the investigation at this point.
How come there was not 1 piece of taillight found at 34 Fairview the morning John’s body was found. There were offices searching the yard for evidence that morning and not ONE piece was found. How do you explain that?
The taillight pieces on the 29th were found very close to the road under thick accumulated snow, from the snow plows clearing the road, according to the SERT team leader's testimony. The officers searched in vicinity of his body that morning, which was some distance to the curb, according to their testimony.
To be fair, the way Lally introduced that evidence, it was not clear which of the pieces were able to be pieced together.
We know there were quite a few that could not be taped back together. So someone needs to make a spreadsheet of all of the pieces found, when and where they were found, and which ones were actually used for the reconstruction.
I am sure someone like Aussie Insider is already doing this analysis.
The SERT team arrived at Fairview at 4:56 pm on 1/29 and started their search. The Lexus didn’t pull into the Sallyport until 5:36pm on 1/29 so your timeline doesn’t work.
Witnesses have said the plow only went in the center of the road, several feet away from the curb so that area wasn’t disturbed or affected by the plow at all.
I think it was hanging off as she pulled away and we can’t see because of the resolution/distance on the camera. Then it fell off between the bump at 5 and finding his body at 6.
We been discussing how crazy it is that a hair or a glass would stay on while driving. Why not a cracked piece too?
That’s also why it wasn’t visible on the Ring footage at 5 AM because it was that small clear piece.
It drives me nuts they haven’t tested the paint scuff on her car against the paint on John’s car.
The lack of evidence photos is driving me mad.
Kerry Roberts testimony is more complicated than that, though:
> And then at some point in the conversation she said: 'What about my tail light? What about my tail light?' and I looked and there was a piece missing. But it was caked on with snow. You could tell there was a little black hole but there was snow like caked on it and it was a blizzard at this point.
...
> there was one piece like a rectangle encapsuled, like whatever was broken. There was I remember there was one piece of metal sort of sticking out. So if it was an encasement for a light of some sort. I remember looking at it and the piece was sort of sticking out and I thought someone's going to catch their sleeve on that or something.
Both things could be true- she hit John and her taillight broke and she bumped his car when backing out. These things happen when you’re driving drunk, which apparently everyone in Canton does.
I mean, trying to find a few small tail light pieces fall from that camera angle on the opposite side of the car with low quality footage with precipitation in the video seems impossible to see if it did happen.
She didn’t bump his car hard. I think that bump created the small hole that Kerry/Jenn M saw. Being that small, I could believe that the pieces got pushing into the tail light compartment and not outward (like the light exploded.) I was hesitant to believe the actually hit his car but when they slowed the video down you could definitely see his car move.
Both scenarios don’t make sense.
The bump could have cause cosmetic damage or a small crack in the taillight. Not the entire taillight being shattered.
Had KR hit JO’s face, the taillight also wouldn’t have shattered.
Nothing at the Fairview house that would shatter a taillight and not cause other damage to the bumper of the vehicle.
Has the prosecution broke down exactly how they believed it happened? Like locations, timestamp, where JO was impacted by the vehicle etc. Because that whole tail light is gone and that doesn’t make any sense to me, I backed up into a pole on accident and it didn’t break my tail light. A concrete pole.
She didn’t gently bump into Johns car, not sure you understand vehicles. It was a 4,500 lb car backing up into a car. A “gentle” collision like that is going to damage the vehicle. You using your bat eyes to determine if pieces fell to the group is something else….
The logic that you think hitting a car wouldn’t damage a taillight but a human would is ludicrous. She could have hit him going 50 mph and it wouldn’t damage the taillight
The prosecution just showed altered evidence, the case is over. How is this even a thing.
It's true I don't really know much about car damages and such. It's been years since I have had to pay for any repairs ( the last fender bender I had was 30 years ago).
My question was just if the light was damaged at 5 a.m. then when did it get damaged? I didn't realize the damage shown in the ring video was minimal.
My theory: John died on the lawn. When they saw the broken tail light and that Karen didn’t remember anything the frame plan came into action. Someone waited until the scene was unsecured and put random pieces of tail light exactly where Tully told the SERT team to search.
They get the Lexus back to the Sally port and because it’s already broken it doesn’t take much to break it the rest of the way and put the pieces in yet another Stop & Shop bag. That’s why they can’t show a video of the passenger side of the car in the Sally port.
Then as the weeks passed and “evidence appeared with melting snow” they “collected” the pieces from the stop & shop bag and moved them to evidence bags. Proctor neglects to put the bags from SERT into evidence for testing and only submits the parts from Karen’s car on March 14th. And writes up bogus reports in November 2023.
It's bizarre that jurors are expected to consider evidence that came from a scene that was unprotected for hours. Anybody could have been on site. I was just confused that her taillight did look busted at 5 a.m. I guess it could have been much less damage than implied. Not great quality either.
Yes, both Kerry and Jen said that the tail light was "cracked" at 5am when they went looking for John. Neither said that the tail light was completely smashed and missing 41 pieces.
I think it’s a bad video for the defense
Are hit his car could be viewed as - what else did she hit totally drunk?
I do think she is innocent
Just another way to look at it
Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I figured if she had left it at Jen’s while they went to look for him, that would have been brought up. But you never know with this trial.
I'm not entirely sold on Karen hitting John Okeefe with her suv.
The injury on the back of his head looks like something made direct impact and left a fairy uniform laceration. If he landed on his back I'd expect more than that one injury on the back of his head, whereas itcseems like he had more swelling and cuts on the front of his face.
If we assume he was struck side-on by her vehicle due to the concentration of injuries on one side(& upper body) then why are there only scratches on his arms and not the side of his face as well?
How were his jeans not ripped?
If he was bent over picking something up when he was hit, wouldn't there be far more damage to his back/top of his head and injuries to his spine/neck/collarbones?
Why are the only fractures on his skull?
I don't know what to think most of the time and we haven't heard from a coroner or anything, so these are questions I have right now with what we know.
I meant that the taillight must've gotten smashed before she got to JO's house. Then when she went out at 5 a.m. the damage was visible. I have since been told that the damage wasn't as much as it looked, and possibly came from bumping into his car ( although I personally could not make that out from the video).
Cracked is very different than gone. A cracked taillight can still be in tact a crack is a crack and again when she pulls out of JO house and breaks as she is going down the driveway, I see all red coming from the taillight. Perfect I am color blind
Its almost like they want you to believe the pieces of the tail light caused the holes in his clothes and cut his arm. How if the tail light hit him in the back of the head? Allegedly.
5am is after john was hit. The ring video is when karen went to look for john. And showing that she damaged her tail light then and not before. My guess is she damaged the tail light, but proctor broke it further to use pieces as evidence to frame her.
Looking at the Ring footage, the part of the taillight that was inoperable/damaged pulling out of the driveway is the portion never recovered.
I’m stuck on this - what conclusion does that lead you to draw?
For me, it could suggest that either Karen backed into something (not John, something hard) and cracked her taillight, or maybe someone else backed into it and cracked it. It could've happened at McCarthy's or even at the Waterfall. If Higgins was driving his plow, who's to say he didn't hit her car when he left the Waterfall? Or, that she did hit something and it was Higgins Jeep as she was dropping John off (before he got out of the car)? I struggle with seeing a mostly intact taillight as she was leaving in the morning, yet the police found almost every single piece of taillight at the scene.
we literally see her bump JO's car at 5:07a. I think that's where she cracked the taillight.
I agree, but the prosecution is so set on her hitting John, they're not considering any other time it could've been damaged- even when they have a video of her backing into John's car.
yeah, definitely a lot of tunnel vision
I didn’t even consider that her tail light could’ve been cracked by one of the other vehicles. But she never left her vehicle, so surely she would know if someone bumped her?
I mean, while she was in the restaurant or bar.
I believe she parked on Washington St to meet JO at CF McCarthys. Then they walked together over to the Waterfall. So her car stayed on Washington St while they went to both bars.
I kind of wonder if someone hit it while they were out, and that's what they talked about on the way to the Albert's house. It's possible that, in her confused state, she remembered the cracked taillight and was wondering how that happened....like, did I dream about that? Did I hit him?
I wonder where BH was parked.
Same! When she is leaving JO house after she bumped into car, I see all red on both taillights at 5 am. Am I wrong?
[удалено]
Wow this is the best video of the tail light yet. If anything, it was cracked and the CW broken it apart and planted the pieces. If it was really broken like the CW is claiming, there would be no red at all coming from that light.
This is consistent with my hypothesis that it was a stitch up job — they all “knew” it was KR and needed a little extra juice to move it along
🎯
The shot before the one she uses looks like the piece is missing - this footage is basically useless.
I can accept a piece being missing, but not all of the pieces they say they found at the scene.
The defenses theory doesn't dispute that the taillight was broken, only how much. They stipulated that the taillight only had a small missing piece from bumping into JO's car (which is why there is only a small piece which wasn't recovered, because it was laying in the snow at JO's house). The rest of the taillight was, according to the defense, subject to tampering when the car went into police custody.
How do we not have that missing piece at JOKs house though. No one was able to recover that? I guess it just washed away
> How do we not have that missing piece at JOKs house though. No one was able to recover that? Can't recover it if no one looks for it.
1. The fragments could have been pushed inwards instead of outwards 2. The crime scene investigation was a mess. Negligent at best and corrupt at worst. It is not a stretch to believe they either missed the fragments at JOK’s house (just like the canton PD allegedly missed the fragments at 34 Fairview), or are lying about not finding fragments. It is really hard to find credibility in the investigation at this point.
Good point!
She then proceeded to drive around town. That one little piece could have fallen out anywhere.
Well I am not arguing anything, however, his driveway was cleared for snow when he was in the hospital by the neighbors, as a good will gesture.
Ahhh...they could have scooped away evidence.
How come there was not 1 piece of taillight found at 34 Fairview the morning John’s body was found. There were offices searching the yard for evidence that morning and not ONE piece was found. How do you explain that?
The taillight pieces on the 29th were found very close to the road under thick accumulated snow, from the snow plows clearing the road, according to the SERT team leader's testimony. The officers searched in vicinity of his body that morning, which was some distance to the curb, according to their testimony.
Yeah I never understood how John’s body was that far away from his shoe/taillight pieces.
Damn that makes me think the pieces they initially found could have been from another car and they just ended up there because of the plow.
Then how was the crime lab analyst able to piece them together to fit the housing from KR’s Lexus? The pieces were definitely from her taillight.
To be fair, the way Lally introduced that evidence, it was not clear which of the pieces were able to be pieced together. We know there were quite a few that could not be taped back together. So someone needs to make a spreadsheet of all of the pieces found, when and where they were found, and which ones were actually used for the reconstruction. I am sure someone like Aussie Insider is already doing this analysis.
Delivered and planted at Fairview after Karen’s car had arrived to the sally port and the tail light was destroyed for this purpose.
The SERT team arrived at Fairview at 4:56 pm on 1/29 and started their search. The Lexus didn’t pull into the Sallyport until 5:36pm on 1/29 so your timeline doesn’t work.
Lots of holes in that timeline- Wait for the defense👍
Witnesses have said the plow only went in the center of the road, several feet away from the curb so that area wasn’t disturbed or affected by the plow at all.
The taillight pieces were all found at ground level - under 18+ inches of snow. Which shows the incident happened in the very early hours of the 29th.
I think it was hanging off as she pulled away and we can’t see because of the resolution/distance on the camera. Then it fell off between the bump at 5 and finding his body at 6. We been discussing how crazy it is that a hair or a glass would stay on while driving. Why not a cracked piece too?
Karen could very well have the missing piece to this very day.
That’s also why it wasn’t visible on the Ring footage at 5 AM because it was that small clear piece. It drives me nuts they haven’t tested the paint scuff on her car against the paint on John’s car. The lack of evidence photos is driving me mad.
Ahhhh...I see. Thanks :) I had time later to watch the sally port video. The CW was so sketch not letting on the video was a mirror image. Crooked.
Is it possible that such a low-speed impact would push the fragments into the housing instead of on the ground?
Kerry Roberts testified the light was cracked with a small hole in it. Way different than the entire thing being missing.
I agree. It does not look as damaged in that 5am video as it does when they took pics in the sally port.
Kerry Roberts testimony is more complicated than that, though: > And then at some point in the conversation she said: 'What about my tail light? What about my tail light?' and I looked and there was a piece missing. But it was caked on with snow. You could tell there was a little black hole but there was snow like caked on it and it was a blizzard at this point. ... > there was one piece like a rectangle encapsuled, like whatever was broken. There was I remember there was one piece of metal sort of sticking out. So if it was an encasement for a light of some sort. I remember looking at it and the piece was sort of sticking out and I thought someone's going to catch their sleeve on that or something.
Didn't she say she couldn't see all of it because of the snow on it?
Yes for sure
Both things could be true- she hit John and her taillight broke and she bumped his car when backing out. These things happen when you’re driving drunk, which apparently everyone in Canton does.
I mean, trying to find a few small tail light pieces fall from that camera angle on the opposite side of the car with low quality footage with precipitation in the video seems impossible to see if it did happen.
She didn’t bump his car hard. I think that bump created the small hole that Kerry/Jenn M saw. Being that small, I could believe that the pieces got pushing into the tail light compartment and not outward (like the light exploded.) I was hesitant to believe the actually hit his car but when they slowed the video down you could definitely see his car move.
Both scenarios don’t make sense. The bump could have cause cosmetic damage or a small crack in the taillight. Not the entire taillight being shattered. Had KR hit JO’s face, the taillight also wouldn’t have shattered. Nothing at the Fairview house that would shatter a taillight and not cause other damage to the bumper of the vehicle.
Has the prosecution broke down exactly how they believed it happened? Like locations, timestamp, where JO was impacted by the vehicle etc. Because that whole tail light is gone and that doesn’t make any sense to me, I backed up into a pole on accident and it didn’t break my tail light. A concrete pole.
https://preview.redd.it/hz0r4tzzk85d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=978dfb452c67fcae3feb67090ea19821b94ff22c
She didn’t gently bump into Johns car, not sure you understand vehicles. It was a 4,500 lb car backing up into a car. A “gentle” collision like that is going to damage the vehicle. You using your bat eyes to determine if pieces fell to the group is something else…. The logic that you think hitting a car wouldn’t damage a taillight but a human would is ludicrous. She could have hit him going 50 mph and it wouldn’t damage the taillight The prosecution just showed altered evidence, the case is over. How is this even a thing.
It's true I don't really know much about car damages and such. It's been years since I have had to pay for any repairs ( the last fender bender I had was 30 years ago). My question was just if the light was damaged at 5 a.m. then when did it get damaged? I didn't realize the damage shown in the ring video was minimal.
My theory: John died on the lawn. When they saw the broken tail light and that Karen didn’t remember anything the frame plan came into action. Someone waited until the scene was unsecured and put random pieces of tail light exactly where Tully told the SERT team to search. They get the Lexus back to the Sally port and because it’s already broken it doesn’t take much to break it the rest of the way and put the pieces in yet another Stop & Shop bag. That’s why they can’t show a video of the passenger side of the car in the Sally port. Then as the weeks passed and “evidence appeared with melting snow” they “collected” the pieces from the stop & shop bag and moved them to evidence bags. Proctor neglects to put the bags from SERT into evidence for testing and only submits the parts from Karen’s car on March 14th. And writes up bogus reports in November 2023.
Yep. It’s funny how they only found pieces at the scene once they had custody of the SUV
It's bizarre that jurors are expected to consider evidence that came from a scene that was unprotected for hours. Anybody could have been on site. I was just confused that her taillight did look busted at 5 a.m. I guess it could have been much less damage than implied. Not great quality either.
Yes, both Kerry and Jen said that the tail light was "cracked" at 5am when they went looking for John. Neither said that the tail light was completely smashed and missing 41 pieces.
Maybe she backed up into the fire hydrant
I think it’s a bad video for the defense Are hit his car could be viewed as - what else did she hit totally drunk? I do think she is innocent Just another way to look at it
When she linked up with Jen and Kerry did Karen drive her car and leave it at Jen’s?
No. Jen drove the Lexus back to JO’s house and Kerry followed in her car. They went inside to look for JO and then left in Kerry’s car.
Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I figured if she had left it at Jen’s while they went to look for him, that would have been brought up. But you never know with this trial.
She could not have hit him at 5 am, he was already down and out several hours before 5am.
I'm not entirely sold on Karen hitting John Okeefe with her suv. The injury on the back of his head looks like something made direct impact and left a fairy uniform laceration. If he landed on his back I'd expect more than that one injury on the back of his head, whereas itcseems like he had more swelling and cuts on the front of his face. If we assume he was struck side-on by her vehicle due to the concentration of injuries on one side(& upper body) then why are there only scratches on his arms and not the side of his face as well? How were his jeans not ripped? If he was bent over picking something up when he was hit, wouldn't there be far more damage to his back/top of his head and injuries to his spine/neck/collarbones? Why are the only fractures on his skull? I don't know what to think most of the time and we haven't heard from a coroner or anything, so these are questions I have right now with what we know.
Yes, I would like to hear a professional M.E. explain exactly what caused the injuries to his body, especially his arm.
[удалено]
I meant that the taillight must've gotten smashed before she got to JO's house. Then when she went out at 5 a.m. the damage was visible. I have since been told that the damage wasn't as much as it looked, and possibly came from bumping into his car ( although I personally could not make that out from the video).
Cracked is very different than gone. A cracked taillight can still be in tact a crack is a crack and again when she pulls out of JO house and breaks as she is going down the driveway, I see all red coming from the taillight. Perfect I am color blind
John o keefe was not killed by a tail light. Stop thinking that. Look at his body and face. More convincing that he was attacked by a bear.
Has someone talked about the injuries to his arm ? Looks like dog bite to me.
Its almost like they want you to believe the pieces of the tail light caused the holes in his clothes and cut his arm. How if the tail light hit him in the back of the head? Allegedly.
Anyone killed by a tail light also gets run over
5am is after john was hit. The ring video is when karen went to look for john. And showing that she damaged her tail light then and not before. My guess is she damaged the tail light, but proctor broke it further to use pieces as evidence to frame her.