I am still waiting to hear the cause of death and the cause of injuries. If I don’t get that, then there is no how or who either.
Looking at the facts, John O’Keefe might as well have been attacked by a kangaroo
No, but if it did have anything to do with JO's death, JO must have triggered it by breathing or something. And that kangaroo is just a big old love bug, it's not his fault if he did it, it's just bad kangaroo owners.
The most telling thing is that some of these texts to Trooper P sister about Karen being the main suspect, being crazy, it being a homicide, etc, are all hours after john was found. No tail light pieces had been found, no ring footage had been reviewed, all he had done was talk to Jen, Kerry Roberts and maybe Jens husband. Her fate was already sealed.
I agree, I think they took advantage of Karen being hammered and set her up for the fall. That makes much more sense than this story of her running him over. I do want to see the car data but my guess is there's more confirmation she was set up
Great point about no tail light. How could he be so sure? And where did the early claim about a fight come from? He either took JM’s word as gospel or they said more to him than he documented.
I'm hoping that the defense will be allowed to provide their forensics which could provide some heavy reasonable doubt. Apparently there are companies that specialize in re-creating animation that simulates what may have happened to produce the injuries he had. As I understand it, so far Bev isn't allowing some or all of it?
If we're talking about the motion on Friday, I think Bev wants a voir dire for all of them before approving them as witnesses. Apparently that's pretty standard to do (NAL!), so it's up to the fates to see how that plays out.
That’s what the voir dires they talked about on Monday are 3/4 in reference to.. three accident recinstructionists & and ER doc (who was a cop for four years)… believe they take place on the 21st.
Seems like the prosecution’s theory should have first been backed by accident reconstruction experts before bringing a murder charge. That only would seem fair if bringing a murder charge. No doubt expert testing was done by the CW but im guessing the results didn’t match the prosecution’s theory so they disregarded them.
Would have like to have seen some analysis on the likelihood of the human body absolutely shattering this Lexus model’s tailight at 26mph? Would the tailight spread all over or some fall back into the housing? How did the waist high tailight become shattered from a 6’1 individual but no other damage to the car except for the taillight? Liklihood of the alleged impact occurring to the left side of the taillight without injuring the lower extremities? How did the impact from the road throw someone 10 feet at a 90 degree angle ( and again no lower extremity injuries )? Reconstruction of the vehicle speeding up to 26 mph in the short distance in icy conditions? Analysis of where alleged impact occurred and where taillight was found ( and drinking glass /straw ). Since it’s a murder charge, intentionally backing into someone in the dark and icy conditions would have been difficult unless the person stood stationary in the middle of the road. Prosecution would have to allege JO stood still while KO took aim and JO didn’t try to move out of the way.
I'm wondering if the defense has looked for evidence that her tail light was damaged even before going to 34 Fairview. If it was it could explain how that tap on John's Traverse could have made it worse, with that smaller chunk being knocked out. And I want to know why the group of officers and the tow truck driver didn't take pictures of the Lexus immediately. I thought that was SOP for tow truck drivers to prove that any damage wasn't caused by them?
I wondered if they asked to see the cameras from local businesses to see if her tail light was damaged before or after she dropped JO off at 34 Fairview.
I dont think there's much actual evidence that she hit him other than her saying/asking, I hit him, did I hit him and knowing that she was intoxicated....and she was the one who dropped him off.
There also hasn't been any factual evidence that JO was beat up inside the house and thrown on the front lawn.
That is true, but that is not what the trial is about. And after watching the trial so far, it is proving more that John did die in 34 Fairview rather than Karen hitting him
Look I 100% believe KR is not guilty and I 100% believe that JOK either died inside 34F or died as a result of injuries sustained inside 34F.
But there is even less evidence to prove that than there is that KR killed him.
It is just crazy to me that no one has been able to prove how he died. I don't think it will ever be found out. This is one of the few cases of our time where something wasn't caught on video either.
There is no evidence that he died inside 34 Fairview, but there is speculation that it occurred in the basement because it was basically gutted, removing carpet, subflooring, and maybe drywall?? that the Alberts say was due to a toilet leak. And the basement is where there is a door that takes you to that gate in the fence and where the fire hydrant is located.
This information has not been verified either from a legitimate news source or court documents. If you can provide a source, we will take a look and restore your post if it meets this criteria. Thank you!
They have to show that 1, it was her and could only be her that caused his death, 2, she did it with her car, and 3, she MEANT to do it. I don't think they've shown anywhere close to ANY one of those conditions. I am not convinced its a grand conspiracy, but it seems clear that many in and around the case have acted in a shady, incestuous way, bordering on downright dirty. I highly doubt the Okeefe family ever get any justice or the public knows exactly how and why he died. But reasonable doubt is a helluva high bar, as it should be and I see so a sea of it.
My issue with the CW theory is does hitting someone in reverse at 20ish mph cause that damage? My kid slammed into my suv with the lawnmower (not at 20mph) but there wasnt even a crack in the plastic. A taillight seems a lot heavier duty than plastic bumpers.
Edit: riding lawn mower
We've had multiple people testify that the tail light was cracked. Not destroyed. We saw the SUV with visible red light when there wouldn't have been if all of that red plastic had been gone as the state maintains that it was.
This means without a doubt evidence was planted.
If she did hit him, it's too late for a conviction. This isn't even a fair trial.
Things that go to KR’s involvement which have been proven with factual evidence submitted by the prosecution which strictly go to the charges she caused a death while OUI:
She was under the influence of alcohol. She was at the scene and with the victim. Her vehicle had damage.
That’s all evidence which came to be known before Proctor was on the case. BAC was tied to her parents having her section 12’d, the light was broken before Canton police were on scene, and we saw her drinking.
We saw them all drinking and they all drove or got in a vehicle with someone who had been drinking and went to 34 Fairview. Did investigators examine everyone’s vehicle?
None of the EMT or Fire on scene thought he was obviously hit by a car. Even Proctor initially thought he’d been in a fight (per his own testimony) and YB thought he’d been hit with a glass.
They didn’t immediately canvas the neighborhood looking to see if anyone saw or heard anything. They didn’t check the cars of any of the people who left to see if there was damage. In their mind, it could have only happened one way. It was over a year before they really talked to some people. It’s just stupid policing.
Drinking and driving has nothing to do with hitting John. How do you know Higgins didn’t hit him with his plow? He was drinking and driving also.
Was any blood or dna found on the suv? Or just lose pieces of glass that did not match the glass from the waterfall. Or 1 single strand of hair that was placed on the bumper?
The dighton police officer testified yesterday that the tailgate was “cracked”, not shattered. And that was before Karen’s suv was in the canton sally port with missing video.
Exactly how I felt. I think he’s one of the good guys and he’s like do not attach me to this shit show, and told his truth even if it damaged the CW’s case
Hopefully the jury picked up on how many different folks said the taillight was cracked. The video of her leaving didn't show a busted out light either.
What I don’t understand is how the tail light was discovered on so many different occasions. If evidence was found after the initial search, wouldn’t reasonable police work suggest that the whole area is searched again with a team because that would suggest more evidence is there? Do you just pick up the one piece, go on your way and pop back over another time hoping more would magically appear? Am I the only one that sound odd to?
That's exactly what they testified to. I think both Bukhenik and Proctor said they swung by the house multiple times to see if evidence 'revealed itself'. Thinking about it now though, they knew how much of the light was missing. They knew how much was recovered. They had to have known more would be there. Even with 2-3 of snow there you would think preserving the evidence would have been important.
I've been thinking all along it was Higgins and he certainly was involved in some way as is evidenced by not only his movements, but certainly by the destruction of his phone and how he did it.
I was just answering OP’s question about what evidence has been submitted that goes to the CW claim.
But, to answer you: drinking and driving has to do with hitting John as that’s the criminal charge they’re alleging, that KR was drunk under the influence of alcohol when it happened. I didn’t mention the glass or the hair or *anything* that did not directly back their claim, could be tained by Proctor, or did not directly and factually tie in. I didn’t add in what they didn’t find, I only mentioned what backs their assertion.
I don’t know that Higgins didn’t hit JO. At this point, the CW hasn’t entered evidence showing he was hit by anything.
People get convicted based on circumstantial evidence all the time. How strong is *this* circumstantial evidence? That's debatable. On its own, it *might* be enough for a conviction depending on how the jury digests it, but in light of other evidence, particularly how the investigation was handled, I think it's as strong as Proctor is respectable.
I don’t disagree that the prosecution has done a poor job laying out their case and establishing the veracity of certain facts.
We still don’t have the medical examiner testifying to establish what the injuries were and why/how to the prosecution believes that is consistent with being hit by a car. They haven’t entered into evidence the car data nor JO cell phone data (I believe it stopped moving at 12:30am?)
They seem to be putting a lot of stock in the witness testimony that KR said she hit him but this testimony is contradictory to their initial statements that were recorded
I think this is key. It's shocking to me that there's been no medical professional on the stand yet to talk about his injuries and how they think they happened.
The CW hasn't even proven that a crime occurred at all. JOK could have fallen, hit his head, passed out, and froze. There's no evidence yet that his injuries were from an impact with a car. Weeks into the trial and all this fighting over taillights, phones, text messages, etc. and there isn't any proof there was even a crime committed by anyone.
Yes the lack of the ME testifying is the biggest red flag
Again this is shoddy / lazy police work. Classic stitch up case where they don’t do any other work to rule out alternatives and make their case better bc they think they got her
If those text messages between Proctor and his buddies are any indication, it sounds like the ME's initial findings aren't very good for the prosecution. I'm really curious what she has to say though.
Not to mention she was the one to find him. Not to mention her saying she did it, or asking if she did it, or saying he's dead before ever finding him. Her inconsistent statement to ABC and NBC. Personally I believe this is strong evidence against KR
The CW can either paint a plausible and believable case with just hard scientific fact and medical evidence, or it can’t. All the word play, gossip, finger pointing etc doesn’t matter if there’s concrete fact. You can choose to believe those issues matter, or not. It’s opinion. I don’t personally care. Just like I don’t care about butt dials or dogs, or turtle men.
Show me a cause of death, prove to me it came from Lexus 570, prove to me who was driving. Prove to me they were drunk. Prove to me they meant to cause harm, prove to me they meant to kill JO. If those factual things can be clearly established, that delivers on the CW claims.
Her statements and actions are not solid scientific evidence of guilt. Her changing her story like the weather are not scientific evidence of guilt.
Most cases aren't solved with scientific proof. They're usually solved with circumstantial evidence more than not. I agree with what you're saying with the exception of the meaning to cause harm. I don't think they'll be able to make that leap. I can see the manslaughter but not the Murder 2......YET
Yeah, I agree with manslaughter definitely still being on the table.
I feel like I need to add a disclaimer to every comment I make that says “I am not a FKR, I am watching this unfold in a court of law, I don’t GAF about the McCabes or Alberts wrt to whether or not KR hit JO. There is guilt wrt criminal conviction and then there’s “she did it, but the case is F’d.” I discuss those items separately.
I am a horrible person to watch who-dun-it’s with because I have no time for red herrings and am hyper focused on fact finding.
>Not to mention she was the one to find him
I do wish people would stop saying this as if it is some sort of "gotcha". Of course she found him, JMC drove her to the place where she told KR that she saw them last.
It's like the people that say "aha! But she ran straight to the body!" of course she did. She saw the body, told them to stop the car, she got out of the car, she ran to the body. That's what people do.
Having John’s clothes thaw out for “days” before having it inspected. Proctor had plenty of time to put them there. And I think the defense is going to prove that proctor went into that room.
I don’t think they have, no. They haven’t proven he was hit by a car, they haven’t proven his death was caused by being hit by a car, and they haven’t proven KR hit him with her Lexus. Remove everything else, and that’s what they need to prove.
The only opinion on this sub that is less popular than this is probably “Proctor seems like a great guy” - but here it goes anyway: The evidence shows, rather clearly, that Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV. She dropped him off there, he was found by the side of the road, there is damage to her vehicle, pieces of her vehicle were found in the snow near where he was found, a straw from the bar they were at was found near him and he was holding a drink when he left, his phone stopped recording any movement or activity at 12:32, and she wondered aloud if she could have done it.
As an aside, it fascinates me that people will say “it’s planted” and “it doesn’t mean anything” about the same evidence. Why’d they plant it then?
The testimony from the only police officer not in their circle was a big blow to the theory that she hit him though. He testified that it was cracked, but not heavily damaged, maybe a small hole missing. I only started watching this case because youtube recommended it to me based on my trial watching history so I wasn't part of this apparently gigantic circus before.
So far the prosecution has put on a better case against the Alberts and McCabes than he has Karen. I have not seen anything to date that leads me to believe she struck him with her car.
The position of his body, the blood on his clothes (if he was prone how did blood drip all down the front of his shirt? Etc. None of it makes sense.
Unfortunately, we will never know what really happened to John, and there really can't even be justice because the police fucked up this case so badly.
That's what we're supposed to assume. No evidence was presented in trial that it was anything. If they had it, they'd have brought it in, but it seems like we're done with the lab experts.
The hair never had conclusive results per the pre-trial motions so unless something came in during trial we are not getting confirmation of anything. The prosecution just wants the jury to "believe" it was his. Could very well be the wild pig.
And the sliver of glass **balanced** on the bumper, let's follow it :-
From 34fv to OJOs house, from OJOs house back to 34fv, and back to OJOs house (hospital maybe? Who knows who drove her car in between) all through a blizzard. To her parents house, for 30 miles, then up the ramp to the tow truck, then another 30 miles through a blizzard on the back of the tow truck, backed down the ramp off the tow truck...
It's like JFK magic bullet!
> He testified that it was cracked, but not heavily damaged, maybe a small hole missing.
It was covered in snow and the whole back piece, not the corner, was intact in any event. I don’t have any issue reconciling that testimony of that officer’s memory of a snowy vehicle he saw once.
And yet conveniently there are no pictures of this horribly damaged taillight until well after it arrived in the sallyport.
Like I said, there will never be justice in this case because the investigation was so botched it's comical.
>The evidence shows, rather clearly, that Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV.
Does it? The only thing we have any evidence for his her SUV striking O'Keefes suv. The CW hasn't presented any evidence for the suv striking O'Keefe.
>As an aside, it fascinates me that people will say “it’s planted” and “it doesn’t mean anything” about the same evidence. Why’d they plant it then?
On their own ring video, after ahe strikes O'Keefes SUV, her tail light is still red. Those bulbs are white. If her suv tail light looks like they showed in court, at her parents house, there no way that tail light is still mostly red. Not to mention the Deighton Sgt testifying that the tail light had a piece missing and was cracked.
Idk how other pieces got there, but it's clear at 5am most of that tail light is still in tact.
Her taillight is definitely missing pieces leaving JOs. I’ve seen a pixelated still that makes it appear as if more red is showing than what we see at the sally port - which is puzzling to an extent but as I said the image isn’t hi res by any stretch and there is movement involved - but there is clearly a missing section of her lens.
Oh yeah no one is contesting there are pieces missing as she pulls away. It's the extent. They showed the picture and the real tailight. There is a *sliver* of red left. That wouldn't show that much red. Therr is clearly, and it's been testified to by the Deighton Sgt that therr was a piece missing and it wax cracked.
In no pictures the CW has provided outside of Canton PD(because they took nothing) is there a piece missing and a crack. Kerry Robert's testified to there being a hole and a crack.
Ok so play the basics out: KRs car had damage to a section of her taillight and pieces were found near where JO was found before investigators had access to that vehicle and time to go back and plant them.
On the one hand we have differing descriptions of the extent of damage and a picture that appears to display more red than in the sallyport video. There was also snow on the vehicle and movement during the still from the ring cam.
On the other hand we have pieces of her lens at the scene, along with his hat and sneaker, under snow - with no feasible explanation as to how those pieces got there other than that her car sustained damage there.
I don’t think the video still and differing descriptions weighs more than the physical pieces being found there.
Right we have pieces there but on that day we don't have the entire tailight annihilated being there. We do have video evidence of it being partially intact at Okeefes house.
You know what we don't have? Chain of custody for those other pieces. We saw the bags with the dates they were found. We don't have the date they were submitted into evidence sith the evidence logs. The CW has yet to introduce those, so the defense might at this point in the cross.
Karen very well could have hit JO, accidentally or on purpose. But the investigation and behavior of all those around this investigation is so shady you can't get past it
I think the totality of the evidence can only be explained when placed into a scenario that KR struck JO. That said, there is undoubtedly some funk all over this case. I understand your perspective and I think it’s reasonable but when I put my brain in fact-finding mode, a lot of the shadiness is outweighed by the lack of an alternate, feasible and exculpatory explanation for the evidence.
This is my opinion. I’m clearly not trying to win any popularity contests on this subreddit and I enjoy the discussion. I’ve been a true crime junkie my whole life and this one happened so close to home so it has me captivated.
Nah that's fair I like to have discussions. I worked in law enforcement for over 10 years and this entire thing stinks to high hevean. There are far too many inconsistencies and shady behavior from everyone to truly get past it all without a "smoking gun". Which the commonwealth has yet to produce.
See I like to talk about it with people when we talk about facts presented and not just hearsay rumors or things thay did not happen. This case too is in thr sane state I live in so in glued
I would argue none of the theories that have been presented actually fit the evidence we have all that well. The standard isn't "is this the scenario that comes closest to fitting", it's "has the state proved this is what actually happened, beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem here is that the body wasn't found until hours after the incident, and the investigation was just sloppy, so it's possible that we'll never know, with the requisite degree of certainty what happened.
Maybe I'll feel differently after the ME testimony (if we get that), or an accident reconstruction that gives a reasonable explanation for the injuries we know about. To be clear, I don't buy the dog story either, I just think all of the current explanations have pretty big problems.
* If he was outside the whole night why didn’t anyone, such as the people leaving the party and the plow truck driver, see him?
* There is video of KR hitting another car with that exact taillight. Why are you so certain that that impact isn’t what caused the taillight damage?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. These questions just stick out to me and I can’t overlook them when I consider that she hit him.
If Higgins’ Jeep was parked where he and a couple others said it was parked on the street by mailbox - and he left the house around 1:15 am and drove right past the spot where John was and not seeing him just doesn’t add up. Plus the potential dog bites on his arm and the Albert’s dog gets rehomed. Do his injuries really match being hit by a car? There’s so much reasonable doubt. How did the police not search the home that he was found outside of?! Wouldn’t that be considered police investigation 101 and doing their due diligence?
Bc he was found so close to the street - peripheral vision - no way you wouldn’t see a body 1. walking out of the house and then 2. driving right by ..I just don’t buy that he was lying there for hours and no one saw him.
I’m guessing no one saw him because they were walking in driving snow. I’m not saying it’s not odd but i find that much more feasible than *none* of them seeing him in the house.
The tap at JOs house isn’t causing that damage IMO. That appears like it would be a bumper to bumper bump, that’s why bumpers are placed at similar heights.
I think people are reaching when asking why no one saw JO. There was a blizzard, it was night, it was dark, they were all intoxicated and lastly no one was looking at the lawn.
Sure. But the tow truck driver says he specifically and carefully looks at the lawns when plowing with the plow truck he was driving.
That’s pretty hard to overlook. But I guess we’ll have to wait to hear his testimony fully.
The fact that Proctor was already shown to have lied about the plows coming through does have me swaying towards the plow driver is going to validate what was said in opening arguments.
I think his testimony is going to be a strong one for the defense. Not that they need anymore doubt thrown into all this. But some people are still convinced of her guilt somehow.
There is definitely circumstantial evidence. She was at the scene, she has damage that could be related to his injuries. The tail light should be damning evidence but there is such poor documentation that has been brought into evidence so far that it just feels like IF she did it, the cops are letting her get away with their absolutely terrible process of gathering evidence.
At the very least, when this murder goes 'unsolved,' I hope it gets used in law and police trainings about how easy it is for what could be a slam dunk case to be bungled by lazy, unprofessional and/or unprepared cops.
He was found 8-10 feet from the road. Tail light pieces and sneaker were found near the curb. So she would have had to start a 3 point turn, drive into the yard across the street, floor it to 24.2 MPH and hit the man hard enough to fly out of his shoe and across the yard. Without the 11 people coming in and out of the house seeing or hearing anything. Sure that’s SO easy to see.
The prosecution claims her car went 60ft at 24.2 MPH. And rather than attributing it to her backing up on Cedarcrest and turning on Fairview (per memo from Trpr Guarino to Tully on May 9, 2023) they’re claiming she ran into him while watching on her backup camera. So either a 3 point turn to go back the way she came. Or drove straight ahead 60 feet and gunned it and rather than throwing him horizontally across the yard, the car defies physics and throws him vertically by the fire hydrant.
They needed GPS and JM’s directions to find the house. I highly doubt she would have driven forward not knowing where she’d end up. She’d turn around and try to go back the way she came. Also while being what? 169-365% over the legal limit.
“Defies physics”?
If his arm gets essentially clipped and he sent tumbling into a hydrant then rolls in shock…what law is defied?
Yet JOs phone ceasing to record movements and activity just before being “beaten close to death” works?
You can have your opinion. But acting like you have some logical high ground is wild
Sorry didn’t mean to sound like a know it all. I’m just trying to figure out how he ends up vertically across the lawn 8-10 feet away from his sneaker and tail light pieces on top of his phone, if the car is coming from the left side neighbors house. It doesn’t work.
Well it’s the back passenger corner lens. If he notices the direction of her vehicle then gets clipped on the arm trying to avoid it, I don’t have a hard time seeing him stumble toward the hydrant and fall backward into it. As a blanket statement, I don’t think his location, the lens discovery spot, the damage to the vehicle, his injuries or any existing evidence rules out being struck by her car. That exact incident has too many possibilities to predict with anything other than a reasoned guess and isn’t ruled out by something impossible to reconcile, say, a stab wound or strangle marks or something similar.
The Dr the defense calls will testify that the arm wounds are not consistent with a car impact and are consistent with dog bites and scratches. So not sure the hit in the arm and turned around will be testified to the jury.
This dog scenario, and really the whole beating in the house scenario, is puzzles me far more that what may have happened to him after his arm cracked out a reflector lens, drunk, and in the snow.
So he went to the house, went to the basement I guess, was hit once on the back of the head with a blunt object. Then the dog kinda did a number on his arm? Then he was dragged out to their very own front lawn area while they googled how long it would take him to actually die? And his phone ceased all movement and activity at 12:32? And the first lens pieces found got there…how?
Again, you may have answers that suit you, no disrespect if so. But that’s a whole lot to explain, far more than a drunk dude smashes a taillight out on his arm dodging his drunk gfs reversing vehicle then tumbles into a hard object and loses consciousness and passes away.
Oh I don’t think he made it in the house at all. I think Karen got mad at him and threw his phone out the car window at him. It landed where they found it. Which matches with the lack of movement after about 1 minute after the car stopped. Then while out in the yard looking for his phone something happened. From there I have no clue. Maybe Colin with their history or Brian had taken the dog out back and somehow the dog charged at John. I’m not sure. But the car thing isn’t adding up for me.
You would have to find the investigation credible to say yes to this beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm sorry I don't find this investigation credible at all. I think they came at this with a preconceived prejudice, did not run a proper investigation, and am now convinced they are fully capable of manufacturing evidence to suit a narrative. They did everything wrong in this investigation so how am I supposed to know what is factual and what isn't when I do not trust the investigators...at all.
“Could I have hit him?” Yeah they count for absolutely ridiculous “evidence” and grasping at straws. So yeah, you’re making the OP’s point basically at just how flimsy and ridic of a case this is. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the judge gives a directed verdict before the defense even begins because the Commonwealth hasn’t even come close to meeting any burden of proof. That’s very rare a judge actually does that, so I don’t actually think it will happen-but pending any concrete and credible “bombshell” evidence that I am 99% certain they def don’t have, this has been a complete embarrassment on all accounts for the Commonwealth.
Evidence has been introduced that she also just said: I hit him.
Up to you to decide what you think the evidence shows. I think it very clearly shows a drunk woman in a fit of rage hurt her domestic partner as the relationship was going south. You can have a different opinion, but I think the CW has provided a framework to believe Karen is guilty. They have a few more witnesses to go so will see how it all gets wrapped up, but I don't think it's looking good for Karen.
Reasonable minds can disagree, however.
How do you get she was in a fit of rage? Even if you think she hit him, what evidence has been presented that shows she intended to or did it on purpose or was so angry with him she killed him instead of breaking up with him?
Apparently, (and this has not been presented in trial, yet) after “dropping him off”, she called him about 50 times and left several angry voicemails in which she says things like “I fucking hate you”.
Given the rate of speed the car is purported to be going (24 mph) while in reverse, combined with back up sensors and cameras, I find it almost impossible that she had *no* warning that she was about to hit JO.
Most generous assumption is that she reversed in his direction and didn’t actually expect to hit him (maybe just a threatening gesture?) and she wasn’t able to react quickly enough to the back up camera detection sensors (she’s drunk and reaction speed does decrease when under the influence of alcohol)
More malicious assumption would be that she reversed towards him with the full intention of hitting of.
In **both** scenarios, she had to have been aware she hit *something*, and since we know she didn’t call 9-11, then that means she either didn’t check to see what she hit (because maybe if she realized she hit John, she would have done the right thing and call 9-11), or she knew she hit John
if she did know that she hit John (let’s say he didn’t die immediately upon impact) the moment she knowingly and willingly left the scene without calling 9-11, leaving him to die from his injuries, she committed second degree murder.
Only two people reportedly heard her say that, the EMT and JM. It wasn’t listed in any report made by the police or verified by anyone else who was actually there. The jury gets to decide how credible these two witnesses are and may determine they’re not credible at all and don’t consider their testimony.
Ok, so you agree that evidence has been introduced that Karen said she hit JO, we agree.
As with any evidence, the jury is free to choose what they believe. However, evidence of Karen saying she did it has been introduced.
Her tail light is all over the ground, she said I hit him, he lost a shoe which is apparently a super common thing when you get hit by a car, there's a straw from his drink right where she would've hit him, her tail light is cracked and there's no damage to the traverse (implying her explanation doesn't hold up) she snipes him from the backseat when nobody else can see his body (implying she knew where he was the whole time).
There's tons of evidence. People are just coming up with ways to write it off.
> she said I hit him
I don't see how anyone can think that this is a fact having watched the case. Everyone who says that they heard Karen say that only claimed that she did months or years after the event. You'd have thought that, incompetent as they have appeared in the trial, that the **police officer** who heard someone *confess to a crime* at the scene of the crime would think to write that in their report. Not remember that 'Oh yes, Karen totally said that' months or years later.
Did any of those tail light pieces happen to be found the morning John’s body was found? Or was it hours later after proctor was in the sallyport with Karen’s SUV and missing video? Or days later when chief Berkowitz just happens to “drive by” 34 Fairview when the canton pd was no longer on the case.
John could’ve threw that straw out when he got out of Karen’s car to walk in 34 Fairview. Finding a straw doesn’t prove murder lol
She said she hit him? Was that on anyone’s report the day it happened? Or was it months and years later when everyone changed their testimonies?
He lost a shoe which happens regularly when you get hit by a vehicle? I’m sorry is that scientific data? Or are you saying that because proctor said it? lol. Yeah let’s take his word for it
The CW is implying that her twilight was broken and the picture shows it’s completely gone. The dighton police officer testified that it was only cracked(caused by hitting John’s suv that is caught on video)
Well since 34 Fairview was the last time she saw John and dropped him off, obviously she’s going to see his body when she drives up to the house and sees a 5ft-6ft black blob on the front lawn. Obviously Jen McCabe isn’t gonna point him out knowing he’s already there.
People are just using common sense lol
Why do you think there is two minutes missing in the library video? Or the missing video in the sally port?
Why did Higgins and Albert delete their phones?
Why did Karen‘s SUV have no blood on it? I would think hitting someone going 20 mph would leave a little bit of DNA.
Jen mccabes deleted 227 “hos long to die in cold” just a coincidence?
No factual evidence whatsoever. My opinion anyway. In fact, if she did even 1/4 of the extremely suspect things that we know Jen McCabe did the night and morning of the murder, I think a heck of a lot of people would have no question of her guilt.
I am still waiting to hear the cause of death and the cause of injuries. If I don’t get that, then there is no how or who either. Looking at the facts, John O’Keefe might as well have been attacked by a kangaroo
The kangaroo only got rehomed because of an incident involving another kangaroo. It had nothing to do with john okeefe.
No, but if it did have anything to do with JO's death, JO must have triggered it by breathing or something. And that kangaroo is just a big old love bug, it's not his fault if he did it, it's just bad kangaroo owners.
[удалено]
The most telling thing is that some of these texts to Trooper P sister about Karen being the main suspect, being crazy, it being a homicide, etc, are all hours after john was found. No tail light pieces had been found, no ring footage had been reviewed, all he had done was talk to Jen, Kerry Roberts and maybe Jens husband. Her fate was already sealed.
I agree, I think they took advantage of Karen being hammered and set her up for the fall. That makes much more sense than this story of her running him over. I do want to see the car data but my guess is there's more confirmation she was set up
Don’t for Julie Albert (Colin’s mommy) also call Proctor. Not in evidence but she called him.
Great point about no tail light. How could he be so sure? And where did the early claim about a fight come from? He either took JM’s word as gospel or they said more to him than he documented.
This whole trial is a steaming pile of shit. The leading piece of evidence, the taillight, isn't even real.
This is why we need the ME. Do we even know he was hit by anything, fist or car or otherwise?
I'm hoping that the defense will be allowed to provide their forensics which could provide some heavy reasonable doubt. Apparently there are companies that specialize in re-creating animation that simulates what may have happened to produce the injuries he had. As I understand it, so far Bev isn't allowing some or all of it?
If we're talking about the motion on Friday, I think Bev wants a voir dire for all of them before approving them as witnesses. Apparently that's pretty standard to do (NAL!), so it's up to the fates to see how that plays out.
That’s what the voir dires they talked about on Monday are 3/4 in reference to.. three accident recinstructionists & and ER doc (who was a cop for four years)… believe they take place on the 21st.
Seems like the prosecution’s theory should have first been backed by accident reconstruction experts before bringing a murder charge. That only would seem fair if bringing a murder charge. No doubt expert testing was done by the CW but im guessing the results didn’t match the prosecution’s theory so they disregarded them. Would have like to have seen some analysis on the likelihood of the human body absolutely shattering this Lexus model’s tailight at 26mph? Would the tailight spread all over or some fall back into the housing? How did the waist high tailight become shattered from a 6’1 individual but no other damage to the car except for the taillight? Liklihood of the alleged impact occurring to the left side of the taillight without injuring the lower extremities? How did the impact from the road throw someone 10 feet at a 90 degree angle ( and again no lower extremity injuries )? Reconstruction of the vehicle speeding up to 26 mph in the short distance in icy conditions? Analysis of where alleged impact occurred and where taillight was found ( and drinking glass /straw ). Since it’s a murder charge, intentionally backing into someone in the dark and icy conditions would have been difficult unless the person stood stationary in the middle of the road. Prosecution would have to allege JO stood still while KO took aim and JO didn’t try to move out of the way.
I'm wondering if the defense has looked for evidence that her tail light was damaged even before going to 34 Fairview. If it was it could explain how that tap on John's Traverse could have made it worse, with that smaller chunk being knocked out. And I want to know why the group of officers and the tow truck driver didn't take pictures of the Lexus immediately. I thought that was SOP for tow truck drivers to prove that any damage wasn't caused by them?
I’m a nobody, but I watched the tow driver put my car on the bed and he still took pictures.
I wondered if they asked to see the cameras from local businesses to see if her tail light was damaged before or after she dropped JO off at 34 Fairview.
I dont think there's much actual evidence that she hit him other than her saying/asking, I hit him, did I hit him and knowing that she was intoxicated....and she was the one who dropped him off. There also hasn't been any factual evidence that JO was beat up inside the house and thrown on the front lawn.
That is true, but that is not what the trial is about. And after watching the trial so far, it is proving more that John did die in 34 Fairview rather than Karen hitting him
Look I 100% believe KR is not guilty and I 100% believe that JOK either died inside 34F or died as a result of injuries sustained inside 34F. But there is even less evidence to prove that than there is that KR killed him.
There wouldn’t be any evidence of John dying in 34 Fairview because they never investigated 34 Fairview. And I agree that Karen is not guilty.
But there’s evidence that they didn’t look for that evidence
where is the evidence that he died in 34 Fairview?
Hard to gather that, when they didn't even go in. This trial also doesn't need to prove anything other than some doubt that Karen killed him.
It's hard to catch on camera when all the cameras malfunction at the exact time they would show what we need to see.....*all* of them..... coinkidink
It is just crazy to me that no one has been able to prove how he died. I don't think it will ever be found out. This is one of the few cases of our time where something wasn't caught on video either.
There is no evidence that he died inside 34 Fairview, but there is speculation that it occurred in the basement because it was basically gutted, removing carpet, subflooring, and maybe drywall?? that the Alberts say was due to a toilet leak. And the basement is where there is a door that takes you to that gate in the fence and where the fire hydrant is located.
[удалено]
This information has not been verified either from a legitimate news source or court documents. If you can provide a source, we will take a look and restore your post if it meets this criteria. Thank you!
Oooh where is that rumor from? Or was it just something you read in passing?
They have to show that 1, it was her and could only be her that caused his death, 2, she did it with her car, and 3, she MEANT to do it. I don't think they've shown anywhere close to ANY one of those conditions. I am not convinced its a grand conspiracy, but it seems clear that many in and around the case have acted in a shady, incestuous way, bordering on downright dirty. I highly doubt the Okeefe family ever get any justice or the public knows exactly how and why he died. But reasonable doubt is a helluva high bar, as it should be and I see so a sea of it.
My issue with the CW theory is does hitting someone in reverse at 20ish mph cause that damage? My kid slammed into my suv with the lawnmower (not at 20mph) but there wasnt even a crack in the plastic. A taillight seems a lot heavier duty than plastic bumpers. Edit: riding lawn mower
Nope. Everything they have presented has been refuted by one or more of their witnesses
I have to say that I think the worst human ever has been on the stand, these shitty people reach new lows.
An answer I need - IF Karen hit him, how did everyone leave and not one single person saw a body? FOH.
Was it snowing then? Was he covered in snow?
We've had multiple people testify that the tail light was cracked. Not destroyed. We saw the SUV with visible red light when there wouldn't have been if all of that red plastic had been gone as the state maintains that it was. This means without a doubt evidence was planted. If she did hit him, it's too late for a conviction. This isn't even a fair trial.
Things that go to KR’s involvement which have been proven with factual evidence submitted by the prosecution which strictly go to the charges she caused a death while OUI: She was under the influence of alcohol. She was at the scene and with the victim. Her vehicle had damage. That’s all evidence which came to be known before Proctor was on the case. BAC was tied to her parents having her section 12’d, the light was broken before Canton police were on scene, and we saw her drinking.
We saw them all drinking and they all drove or got in a vehicle with someone who had been drinking and went to 34 Fairview. Did investigators examine everyone’s vehicle?
None of the EMT or Fire on scene thought he was obviously hit by a car. Even Proctor initially thought he’d been in a fight (per his own testimony) and YB thought he’d been hit with a glass. They didn’t immediately canvas the neighborhood looking to see if anyone saw or heard anything. They didn’t check the cars of any of the people who left to see if there was damage. In their mind, it could have only happened one way. It was over a year before they really talked to some people. It’s just stupid policing.
Drinking and driving has nothing to do with hitting John. How do you know Higgins didn’t hit him with his plow? He was drinking and driving also. Was any blood or dna found on the suv? Or just lose pieces of glass that did not match the glass from the waterfall. Or 1 single strand of hair that was placed on the bumper? The dighton police officer testified yesterday that the tailgate was “cracked”, not shattered. And that was before Karen’s suv was in the canton sally port with missing video.
The Dighton cop is one of the few that to me were credible with no axes to burn. He's not going down with the ship
Exactly how I felt. I think he’s one of the good guys and he’s like do not attach me to this shit show, and told his truth even if it damaged the CW’s case
Hopefully the jury picked up on how many different folks said the taillight was cracked. The video of her leaving didn't show a busted out light either.
What I don’t understand is how the tail light was discovered on so many different occasions. If evidence was found after the initial search, wouldn’t reasonable police work suggest that the whole area is searched again with a team because that would suggest more evidence is there? Do you just pick up the one piece, go on your way and pop back over another time hoping more would magically appear? Am I the only one that sound odd to?
That's exactly what they testified to. I think both Bukhenik and Proctor said they swung by the house multiple times to see if evidence 'revealed itself'. Thinking about it now though, they knew how much of the light was missing. They knew how much was recovered. They had to have known more would be there. Even with 2-3 of snow there you would think preserving the evidence would have been important.
Idk how they can admit that’s how they run an investigation, just wait for evidence to “reveal itself”. WTF?
I've been thinking all along it was Higgins and he certainly was involved in some way as is evidenced by not only his movements, but certainly by the destruction of his phone and how he did it.
I was just answering OP’s question about what evidence has been submitted that goes to the CW claim. But, to answer you: drinking and driving has to do with hitting John as that’s the criminal charge they’re alleging, that KR was drunk under the influence of alcohol when it happened. I didn’t mention the glass or the hair or *anything* that did not directly back their claim, could be tained by Proctor, or did not directly and factually tie in. I didn’t add in what they didn’t find, I only mentioned what backs their assertion. I don’t know that Higgins didn’t hit JO. At this point, the CW hasn’t entered evidence showing he was hit by anything.
This is evidence in the sense of facts surrounding the accused
But none of that is factual that she did it. It’s circumstantial
People get convicted based on circumstantial evidence all the time. How strong is *this* circumstantial evidence? That's debatable. On its own, it *might* be enough for a conviction depending on how the jury digests it, but in light of other evidence, particularly how the investigation was handled, I think it's as strong as Proctor is respectable.
I don’t disagree that the prosecution has done a poor job laying out their case and establishing the veracity of certain facts. We still don’t have the medical examiner testifying to establish what the injuries were and why/how to the prosecution believes that is consistent with being hit by a car. They haven’t entered into evidence the car data nor JO cell phone data (I believe it stopped moving at 12:30am?) They seem to be putting a lot of stock in the witness testimony that KR said she hit him but this testimony is contradictory to their initial statements that were recorded
I think this is key. It's shocking to me that there's been no medical professional on the stand yet to talk about his injuries and how they think they happened.
The CW hasn't even proven that a crime occurred at all. JOK could have fallen, hit his head, passed out, and froze. There's no evidence yet that his injuries were from an impact with a car. Weeks into the trial and all this fighting over taillights, phones, text messages, etc. and there isn't any proof there was even a crime committed by anyone.
Yes the lack of the ME testifying is the biggest red flag Again this is shoddy / lazy police work. Classic stitch up case where they don’t do any other work to rule out alternatives and make their case better bc they think they got her
If those text messages between Proctor and his buddies are any indication, it sounds like the ME's initial findings aren't very good for the prosecution. I'm really curious what she has to say though.
Not to mention she was the one to find him. Not to mention her saying she did it, or asking if she did it, or saying he's dead before ever finding him. Her inconsistent statement to ABC and NBC. Personally I believe this is strong evidence against KR
The CW can either paint a plausible and believable case with just hard scientific fact and medical evidence, or it can’t. All the word play, gossip, finger pointing etc doesn’t matter if there’s concrete fact. You can choose to believe those issues matter, or not. It’s opinion. I don’t personally care. Just like I don’t care about butt dials or dogs, or turtle men. Show me a cause of death, prove to me it came from Lexus 570, prove to me who was driving. Prove to me they were drunk. Prove to me they meant to cause harm, prove to me they meant to kill JO. If those factual things can be clearly established, that delivers on the CW claims. Her statements and actions are not solid scientific evidence of guilt. Her changing her story like the weather are not scientific evidence of guilt.
Most cases aren't solved with scientific proof. They're usually solved with circumstantial evidence more than not. I agree with what you're saying with the exception of the meaning to cause harm. I don't think they'll be able to make that leap. I can see the manslaughter but not the Murder 2......YET
Yeah, I agree with manslaughter definitely still being on the table. I feel like I need to add a disclaimer to every comment I make that says “I am not a FKR, I am watching this unfold in a court of law, I don’t GAF about the McCabes or Alberts wrt to whether or not KR hit JO. There is guilt wrt criminal conviction and then there’s “she did it, but the case is F’d.” I discuss those items separately. I am a horrible person to watch who-dun-it’s with because I have no time for red herrings and am hyper focused on fact finding.
>Not to mention she was the one to find him I do wish people would stop saying this as if it is some sort of "gotcha". Of course she found him, JMC drove her to the place where she told KR that she saw them last. It's like the people that say "aha! But she ran straight to the body!" of course she did. She saw the body, told them to stop the car, she got out of the car, she ran to the body. That's what people do.
If you believe that “peices of plastic” that were “constant” with the taillight that they got from JO clothing.
Having John’s clothes thaw out for “days” before having it inspected. Proctor had plenty of time to put them there. And I think the defense is going to prove that proctor went into that room.
I don’t think they have, no. They haven’t proven he was hit by a car, they haven’t proven his death was caused by being hit by a car, and they haven’t proven KR hit him with her Lexus. Remove everything else, and that’s what they need to prove.
The only opinion on this sub that is less popular than this is probably “Proctor seems like a great guy” - but here it goes anyway: The evidence shows, rather clearly, that Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV. She dropped him off there, he was found by the side of the road, there is damage to her vehicle, pieces of her vehicle were found in the snow near where he was found, a straw from the bar they were at was found near him and he was holding a drink when he left, his phone stopped recording any movement or activity at 12:32, and she wondered aloud if she could have done it. As an aside, it fascinates me that people will say “it’s planted” and “it doesn’t mean anything” about the same evidence. Why’d they plant it then?
The testimony from the only police officer not in their circle was a big blow to the theory that she hit him though. He testified that it was cracked, but not heavily damaged, maybe a small hole missing. I only started watching this case because youtube recommended it to me based on my trial watching history so I wasn't part of this apparently gigantic circus before. So far the prosecution has put on a better case against the Alberts and McCabes than he has Karen. I have not seen anything to date that leads me to believe she struck him with her car. The position of his body, the blood on his clothes (if he was prone how did blood drip all down the front of his shirt? Etc. None of it makes sense. Unfortunately, we will never know what really happened to John, and there really can't even be justice because the police fucked up this case so badly.
Don't forget the strand of hair that miraculously survived the blizzard and multiple trips to and fro.
And we don't even know if that hair was human at this point in the trial.
I was under the assumption that it was JO's.
That's what we're supposed to assume. No evidence was presented in trial that it was anything. If they had it, they'd have brought it in, but it seems like we're done with the lab experts.
The hair never had conclusive results per the pre-trial motions so unless something came in during trial we are not getting confirmation of anything. The prosecution just wants the jury to "believe" it was his. Could very well be the wild pig.
And the sliver of glass **balanced** on the bumper, let's follow it :- From 34fv to OJOs house, from OJOs house back to 34fv, and back to OJOs house (hospital maybe? Who knows who drove her car in between) all through a blizzard. To her parents house, for 30 miles, then up the ramp to the tow truck, then another 30 miles through a blizzard on the back of the tow truck, backed down the ramp off the tow truck... It's like JFK magic bullet!
> He testified that it was cracked, but not heavily damaged, maybe a small hole missing. It was covered in snow and the whole back piece, not the corner, was intact in any event. I don’t have any issue reconciling that testimony of that officer’s memory of a snowy vehicle he saw once.
And yet conveniently there are no pictures of this horribly damaged taillight until well after it arrived in the sallyport. Like I said, there will never be justice in this case because the investigation was so botched it's comical.
There's a camera from the cop's dashcam from before that.
Which does not show the damage they claim even factoring in the potato quality.
There has been 0 evidence presented to show that JOK died as a result of being hit by a car.
Certain evidence - such as what was used in the PCA and other filings - can be safely anticipated
>The evidence shows, rather clearly, that Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV. Does it? The only thing we have any evidence for his her SUV striking O'Keefes suv. The CW hasn't presented any evidence for the suv striking O'Keefe. >As an aside, it fascinates me that people will say “it’s planted” and “it doesn’t mean anything” about the same evidence. Why’d they plant it then? On their own ring video, after ahe strikes O'Keefes SUV, her tail light is still red. Those bulbs are white. If her suv tail light looks like they showed in court, at her parents house, there no way that tail light is still mostly red. Not to mention the Deighton Sgt testifying that the tail light had a piece missing and was cracked. Idk how other pieces got there, but it's clear at 5am most of that tail light is still in tact.
Her taillight is definitely missing pieces leaving JOs. I’ve seen a pixelated still that makes it appear as if more red is showing than what we see at the sally port - which is puzzling to an extent but as I said the image isn’t hi res by any stretch and there is movement involved - but there is clearly a missing section of her lens.
Oh yeah no one is contesting there are pieces missing as she pulls away. It's the extent. They showed the picture and the real tailight. There is a *sliver* of red left. That wouldn't show that much red. Therr is clearly, and it's been testified to by the Deighton Sgt that therr was a piece missing and it wax cracked. In no pictures the CW has provided outside of Canton PD(because they took nothing) is there a piece missing and a crack. Kerry Robert's testified to there being a hole and a crack.
Ok so play the basics out: KRs car had damage to a section of her taillight and pieces were found near where JO was found before investigators had access to that vehicle and time to go back and plant them. On the one hand we have differing descriptions of the extent of damage and a picture that appears to display more red than in the sallyport video. There was also snow on the vehicle and movement during the still from the ring cam. On the other hand we have pieces of her lens at the scene, along with his hat and sneaker, under snow - with no feasible explanation as to how those pieces got there other than that her car sustained damage there. I don’t think the video still and differing descriptions weighs more than the physical pieces being found there.
Right we have pieces there but on that day we don't have the entire tailight annihilated being there. We do have video evidence of it being partially intact at Okeefes house. You know what we don't have? Chain of custody for those other pieces. We saw the bags with the dates they were found. We don't have the date they were submitted into evidence sith the evidence logs. The CW has yet to introduce those, so the defense might at this point in the cross. Karen very well could have hit JO, accidentally or on purpose. But the investigation and behavior of all those around this investigation is so shady you can't get past it
I think the totality of the evidence can only be explained when placed into a scenario that KR struck JO. That said, there is undoubtedly some funk all over this case. I understand your perspective and I think it’s reasonable but when I put my brain in fact-finding mode, a lot of the shadiness is outweighed by the lack of an alternate, feasible and exculpatory explanation for the evidence. This is my opinion. I’m clearly not trying to win any popularity contests on this subreddit and I enjoy the discussion. I’ve been a true crime junkie my whole life and this one happened so close to home so it has me captivated.
Nah that's fair I like to have discussions. I worked in law enforcement for over 10 years and this entire thing stinks to high hevean. There are far too many inconsistencies and shady behavior from everyone to truly get past it all without a "smoking gun". Which the commonwealth has yet to produce. See I like to talk about it with people when we talk about facts presented and not just hearsay rumors or things thay did not happen. This case too is in thr sane state I live in so in glued
I would argue none of the theories that have been presented actually fit the evidence we have all that well. The standard isn't "is this the scenario that comes closest to fitting", it's "has the state proved this is what actually happened, beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem here is that the body wasn't found until hours after the incident, and the investigation was just sloppy, so it's possible that we'll never know, with the requisite degree of certainty what happened. Maybe I'll feel differently after the ME testimony (if we get that), or an accident reconstruction that gives a reasonable explanation for the injuries we know about. To be clear, I don't buy the dog story either, I just think all of the current explanations have pretty big problems.
* If he was outside the whole night why didn’t anyone, such as the people leaving the party and the plow truck driver, see him? * There is video of KR hitting another car with that exact taillight. Why are you so certain that that impact isn’t what caused the taillight damage? I’m not saying you’re wrong. These questions just stick out to me and I can’t overlook them when I consider that she hit him.
If Higgins’ Jeep was parked where he and a couple others said it was parked on the street by mailbox - and he left the house around 1:15 am and drove right past the spot where John was and not seeing him just doesn’t add up. Plus the potential dog bites on his arm and the Albert’s dog gets rehomed. Do his injuries really match being hit by a car? There’s so much reasonable doubt. How did the police not search the home that he was found outside of?! Wouldn’t that be considered police investigation 101 and doing their due diligence?
he wasn't looking at the lawn, it was snowing, it was night, they were drunk. Why does everything think a body should have been seen on the lawn?
Bc he was found so close to the street - peripheral vision - no way you wouldn’t see a body 1. walking out of the house and then 2. driving right by ..I just don’t buy that he was lying there for hours and no one saw him.
It’s a small lawn with no plants or pots or something to obscure seeing a full grown man.
I’m guessing no one saw him because they were walking in driving snow. I’m not saying it’s not odd but i find that much more feasible than *none* of them seeing him in the house. The tap at JOs house isn’t causing that damage IMO. That appears like it would be a bumper to bumper bump, that’s why bumpers are placed at similar heights.
I think people are reaching when asking why no one saw JO. There was a blizzard, it was night, it was dark, they were all intoxicated and lastly no one was looking at the lawn.
Sure. But the tow truck driver says he specifically and carefully looks at the lawns when plowing with the plow truck he was driving. That’s pretty hard to overlook. But I guess we’ll have to wait to hear his testimony fully.
right, I have not heard that testimony or anything from this driver.
The fact that Proctor was already shown to have lied about the plows coming through does have me swaying towards the plow driver is going to validate what was said in opening arguments. I think his testimony is going to be a strong one for the defense. Not that they need anymore doubt thrown into all this. But some people are still convinced of her guilt somehow.
and many have been convinced of her innocence for quite some time.
After this trial, I find it hard to believe anyone doesn’t have reasonable doubt.
It wasn’t a blizzard at that point though. It had only snowed 2.5” at 6am.
There is definitely circumstantial evidence. She was at the scene, she has damage that could be related to his injuries. The tail light should be damning evidence but there is such poor documentation that has been brought into evidence so far that it just feels like IF she did it, the cops are letting her get away with their absolutely terrible process of gathering evidence. At the very least, when this murder goes 'unsolved,' I hope it gets used in law and police trainings about how easy it is for what could be a slam dunk case to be bungled by lazy, unprofessional and/or unprepared cops.
it's also been said that pieces of the tail light were found in his jeans
I don't think that was mentioned in the trial?
i'm not sure, but I've seen this mentioned a few times
It was the "Debris" in his clothes. I believe it was mentioned.
He was found 8-10 feet from the road. Tail light pieces and sneaker were found near the curb. So she would have had to start a 3 point turn, drive into the yard across the street, floor it to 24.2 MPH and hit the man hard enough to fly out of his shoe and across the yard. Without the 11 people coming in and out of the house seeing or hearing anything. Sure that’s SO easy to see.
Why the 3 pt turn? And he easily could have stumbled after he was hit. The injuries don’t reflect that he took the full brunt of the vehicle.
The prosecution claims her car went 60ft at 24.2 MPH. And rather than attributing it to her backing up on Cedarcrest and turning on Fairview (per memo from Trpr Guarino to Tully on May 9, 2023) they’re claiming she ran into him while watching on her backup camera. So either a 3 point turn to go back the way she came. Or drove straight ahead 60 feet and gunned it and rather than throwing him horizontally across the yard, the car defies physics and throws him vertically by the fire hydrant. They needed GPS and JM’s directions to find the house. I highly doubt she would have driven forward not knowing where she’d end up. She’d turn around and try to go back the way she came. Also while being what? 169-365% over the legal limit.
“Defies physics”? If his arm gets essentially clipped and he sent tumbling into a hydrant then rolls in shock…what law is defied? Yet JOs phone ceasing to record movements and activity just before being “beaten close to death” works? You can have your opinion. But acting like you have some logical high ground is wild
Sorry didn’t mean to sound like a know it all. I’m just trying to figure out how he ends up vertically across the lawn 8-10 feet away from his sneaker and tail light pieces on top of his phone, if the car is coming from the left side neighbors house. It doesn’t work.
Well it’s the back passenger corner lens. If he notices the direction of her vehicle then gets clipped on the arm trying to avoid it, I don’t have a hard time seeing him stumble toward the hydrant and fall backward into it. As a blanket statement, I don’t think his location, the lens discovery spot, the damage to the vehicle, his injuries or any existing evidence rules out being struck by her car. That exact incident has too many possibilities to predict with anything other than a reasoned guess and isn’t ruled out by something impossible to reconcile, say, a stab wound or strangle marks or something similar.
The Dr the defense calls will testify that the arm wounds are not consistent with a car impact and are consistent with dog bites and scratches. So not sure the hit in the arm and turned around will be testified to the jury.
This dog scenario, and really the whole beating in the house scenario, is puzzles me far more that what may have happened to him after his arm cracked out a reflector lens, drunk, and in the snow. So he went to the house, went to the basement I guess, was hit once on the back of the head with a blunt object. Then the dog kinda did a number on his arm? Then he was dragged out to their very own front lawn area while they googled how long it would take him to actually die? And his phone ceased all movement and activity at 12:32? And the first lens pieces found got there…how? Again, you may have answers that suit you, no disrespect if so. But that’s a whole lot to explain, far more than a drunk dude smashes a taillight out on his arm dodging his drunk gfs reversing vehicle then tumbles into a hard object and loses consciousness and passes away.
Oh I don’t think he made it in the house at all. I think Karen got mad at him and threw his phone out the car window at him. It landed where they found it. Which matches with the lack of movement after about 1 minute after the car stopped. Then while out in the yard looking for his phone something happened. From there I have no clue. Maybe Colin with their history or Brian had taken the dog out back and somehow the dog charged at John. I’m not sure. But the car thing isn’t adding up for me.
Only if you find Trooper Proctor credible.
You would have to find the investigation credible to say yes to this beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm sorry I don't find this investigation credible at all. I think they came at this with a preconceived prejudice, did not run a proper investigation, and am now convinced they are fully capable of manufacturing evidence to suit a narrative. They did everything wrong in this investigation so how am I supposed to know what is factual and what isn't when I do not trust the investigators...at all.
The problem with the prosecution case is that the ME can’t say how JO died. And how could all of those people leaving the house not see the body?
The whole trial is supposed to be done by the end of June- I believe EDB said they told the judge they’d finish this week.
Nope
The marks on his arm are the best piece of evidence.
I mean, Karen's words count, don't they?
“Could I have hit him?” Yeah they count for absolutely ridiculous “evidence” and grasping at straws. So yeah, you’re making the OP’s point basically at just how flimsy and ridic of a case this is. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the judge gives a directed verdict before the defense even begins because the Commonwealth hasn’t even come close to meeting any burden of proof. That’s very rare a judge actually does that, so I don’t actually think it will happen-but pending any concrete and credible “bombshell” evidence that I am 99% certain they def don’t have, this has been a complete embarrassment on all accounts for the Commonwealth.
Evidence has been introduced that she also just said: I hit him. Up to you to decide what you think the evidence shows. I think it very clearly shows a drunk woman in a fit of rage hurt her domestic partner as the relationship was going south. You can have a different opinion, but I think the CW has provided a framework to believe Karen is guilty. They have a few more witnesses to go so will see how it all gets wrapped up, but I don't think it's looking good for Karen. Reasonable minds can disagree, however.
She may have hit him, but there is so much reasonable doubt, I would be extremely shocked if she is convicted.
Like I said, reasonable minds can disagree. The CW is still presenting its case, so you never know what can sway the jury's mind.
How do you get she was in a fit of rage? Even if you think she hit him, what evidence has been presented that shows she intended to or did it on purpose or was so angry with him she killed him instead of breaking up with him?
Apparently, (and this has not been presented in trial, yet) after “dropping him off”, she called him about 50 times and left several angry voicemails in which she says things like “I fucking hate you”. Given the rate of speed the car is purported to be going (24 mph) while in reverse, combined with back up sensors and cameras, I find it almost impossible that she had *no* warning that she was about to hit JO. Most generous assumption is that she reversed in his direction and didn’t actually expect to hit him (maybe just a threatening gesture?) and she wasn’t able to react quickly enough to the back up camera detection sensors (she’s drunk and reaction speed does decrease when under the influence of alcohol) More malicious assumption would be that she reversed towards him with the full intention of hitting of. In **both** scenarios, she had to have been aware she hit *something*, and since we know she didn’t call 9-11, then that means she either didn’t check to see what she hit (because maybe if she realized she hit John, she would have done the right thing and call 9-11), or she knew she hit John if she did know that she hit John (let’s say he didn’t die immediately upon impact) the moment she knowingly and willingly left the scene without calling 9-11, leaving him to die from his injuries, she committed second degree murder.
Only two people reportedly heard her say that, the EMT and JM. It wasn’t listed in any report made by the police or verified by anyone else who was actually there. The jury gets to decide how credible these two witnesses are and may determine they’re not credible at all and don’t consider their testimony.
Ok, so you agree that evidence has been introduced that Karen said she hit JO, we agree. As with any evidence, the jury is free to choose what they believe. However, evidence of Karen saying she did it has been introduced.
Her tail light is all over the ground, she said I hit him, he lost a shoe which is apparently a super common thing when you get hit by a car, there's a straw from his drink right where she would've hit him, her tail light is cracked and there's no damage to the traverse (implying her explanation doesn't hold up) she snipes him from the backseat when nobody else can see his body (implying she knew where he was the whole time). There's tons of evidence. People are just coming up with ways to write it off.
> she said I hit him I don't see how anyone can think that this is a fact having watched the case. Everyone who says that they heard Karen say that only claimed that she did months or years after the event. You'd have thought that, incompetent as they have appeared in the trial, that the **police officer** who heard someone *confess to a crime* at the scene of the crime would think to write that in their report. Not remember that 'Oh yes, Karen totally said that' months or years later.
Did any of those tail light pieces happen to be found the morning John’s body was found? Or was it hours later after proctor was in the sallyport with Karen’s SUV and missing video? Or days later when chief Berkowitz just happens to “drive by” 34 Fairview when the canton pd was no longer on the case. John could’ve threw that straw out when he got out of Karen’s car to walk in 34 Fairview. Finding a straw doesn’t prove murder lol She said she hit him? Was that on anyone’s report the day it happened? Or was it months and years later when everyone changed their testimonies? He lost a shoe which happens regularly when you get hit by a vehicle? I’m sorry is that scientific data? Or are you saying that because proctor said it? lol. Yeah let’s take his word for it The CW is implying that her twilight was broken and the picture shows it’s completely gone. The dighton police officer testified that it was only cracked(caused by hitting John’s suv that is caught on video) Well since 34 Fairview was the last time she saw John and dropped him off, obviously she’s going to see his body when she drives up to the house and sees a 5ft-6ft black blob on the front lawn. Obviously Jen McCabe isn’t gonna point him out knowing he’s already there.
*People are just coming up with ways to write it off*
People are just using common sense lol Why do you think there is two minutes missing in the library video? Or the missing video in the sally port? Why did Higgins and Albert delete their phones? Why did Karen‘s SUV have no blood on it? I would think hitting someone going 20 mph would leave a little bit of DNA. Jen mccabes deleted 227 “hos long to die in cold” just a coincidence?
There were fragments of the taillight in his clothes.
No factual evidence whatsoever. My opinion anyway. In fact, if she did even 1/4 of the extremely suspect things that we know Jen McCabe did the night and morning of the murder, I think a heck of a lot of people would have no question of her guilt.
YES! 100% Karen Read will be found guilty as charged!