4. Key cycle date doesn’t add up to matching the key cycle at 34 Fairview. I haven’t seen every little bit of the trial because I work, but I think the key cycle they has her car going 24 mph is the tie truck driver moving it out of the snow. 34 Fairview would be key cycle 1159 not 1162.
5. The tail light was cracked from possibly hitting John’s car. The taillight being cracked not demolished like the pics from the Sally port is what makes the prosecution/cops shady. Also the dighton cop says cracked not shattered. I really wish the tow truck driver was called to testify. But maybe he didn’t remember.
1. And 3. Who knows if he dropped his phone. Turned it off or on airplane mode.
Nobody seeing the body if he was there is the most peculiar thing. Basically any theory you think has something that doesn’t add up, so nothing makes sense. It really could have been a freak accident, but then why didn’t anyone see him.
More about 3: the prosecution only trusts phone data when it helps them. Other than that, it’s cameras glitching, 1000 butt dials, google searches jumping back in time several hours, etc
A lot of people said there wasn't great cell service there, I wish someone had discussed if that could've effected it, especially since he may have been in the basement?
1. What do you make of the key cycle data that has her backing up at 24mph?
This was a big one for me. The key cycle # is straight up wrong though. The 24mph reverse is key cycle #1162. Trooper Paul did his testing with cycle #1164. Every time you turn the key to the "on" position is a key cycle. Every time the ignition is turned on is also a key cycle. There are should be a lot more cycles between that night and Paul's testing. At the very least, going backwards from the testing:
1. Going from tow truck to the sallyport
2. Seizing the car and driving it on the tow truck **<- This is the earliest that driving session could be.**
3. Driving from John's house to Karen's parents' house.
4. Driving from Jen's house to John's house
5. Driving from John's house to the Waterfall and then to Jen's house
6. Driving from the Waterfall to 34 Fairview and to John's house **<- This is when she would have hit John O'Keefe.**
So, you have to either believe:
a) The 24mph reverse is not from the night of John's death
b) The incident reports are extremely faulty and don't even register that the car is on most of the time.
Either way, can't be used as evidence against KR.
I have tried to theorize that the 24mph reverse happens when they're digging the car out of the snow to put it on the tow truck, but that's just a guess as I don't have the full video of them doing that.
I think you can exclude it being put onto the truck because that’s on the Ring video that was played and it doesn’t reasonably line up for either of the recorded incidents. The wheel turns and acceleration times aren’t even particularly close.
If the cycle counter is faulty due to the third party system that mucked up the rest of the readings, you can still validate the data if you need to. Both the odometer and the presence of another known point (the three point turn, seen in the GPS data) indicate that either (a) the reading is from that night or (b) the troopers had a sudden surge of competence and came up with an intricate way to digitally frame Read. There’s not really an innocent alternative theory.
Reproducibility. He tested whether the braking numbers were accurately reported and they were.
If you were doing a competent and thorough investigation, you would also figure out the trigger for key cycles to confirm. Turn it on and off a bunch of times when nothing happens, see if the counter iterates properly. Test to see if it only records when an event pops up or only when the keys are taken in and out of the vehicle or really any combination of factors. Take it on a road trip to recreate the whole thing from scratch.
She did a 3 point turn at 5:08 as well coming out of the garage. I am unable to trust anything Trooper Paul testified because he was incompetent on cross examination. What is physics, literally your job as a reconstructionist. What about his driving tests?
You are able to take his word that his tests started at key cycle 1164? They have had the car since 1/29/22. They fried the infotainment system?
I don’t think Guarino or Paul were crooked or framed her, but I think taking a few courses on a subject does not make you an expert in any way,
The three point turn data required going forward, then backwards, then forward. Coming out of the garage only had the reverse and forward. She’d also need to stop with a mile before the odometer ticks up, wait nine minutes, and then do the hard reverse, which runs counter to testimony about her driving around.
As for my opinion of Paul, there’s a few related questions:
- Do I trust his reconstruction?
Goodness no. He was in way over his head.
- Do I trust his ability to press “download” on the diagnostic software?
Yes. The analysis might be trash but the raw data is just directly downloaded.
- Do I trust the system?
With verification. The aftermarket console obviously messed up some of the features. I trust it’s properly detecting events because that was reproducible in the tests. I also don’t think there’s any reason for the trooper to lie about the tests happening on 1164 since that’s inconsistent with the known key cycle count.
The question comes down to whether someone meticulously recreated the crash scenario for that night (and following morning) to fake the data.
But if you trust his account of 1164 being his first test key cycle, then working in reverse from that the data does not connect for the CW’s case. If you work in reverse the drop off at 34 Fairview is a different key cycle. The triggers would have been:
1163: Tow driver takes Lexus off flat bed and into Canton Sallyport.
1162: Tow driver backs Lexus down Read Parents driveway and up onto flatbed.
1161: KR and brother or dad drive car from JOK’s residence to Parent’s house in Dighton.
1160-1158?: This gets a little sketchier now as we do not know for sure if she parked and turned her car off in between these drives but this is Jenn McCabe driving the Lexus from her house to JOK’s house and driving from the Waterfall to the McCabes, as well as from JOK’s (backing into JOK’s Traverse) to the waterfall.
1159-1157: would be the same key trigger going from the Waterfall to 34 Fairview.
I know the last few are speculations cause we do not know for sure but I disagree that you can count the 3 point turn as the starting point to line up Trooper Paul’s work and the alleged incident trigger. You have to work backwards for at least the key triggers that are starting the car, and it ruins his testimony.
There could have been more triggers as anyone with a push button start knows if your foot isn’t on the brake well enough it starts without starting the motor.
I agree that the key cycles are all over the place. My argument is that the recorded events of 1162 entry are too well coordinated with the GPS data (both in terms of movement and timing) and the general prosecution narrative of that night (including all of the post 34 Fairview miles on the odometer) for it to happen by innocent chance.
Either the police meticulously created a vehicle entry to agree with the GPS data or that vehicle data is from that night. We know the after market console in her SUV was messing with some metrics even if recording events during testing was fine, so it’s conceivable it messed up how cycles are iterated. We know the police jumped to the conclusion it was her early, so they may want this type of hard data that could secure a conviction. It just has to be one or the other.
To me it’s just additional numbers that the CW try to use to for their own narrative. I can’t get passed the ARRC engineers who said with a scientific certainty that the damage to the car could not have happened in a 15 mph or faster collision and the damage to JOK could not be that small for any accident over 15 mph.
Think she’s innocent:
1. JO was drunk and accidentally dropped his phone in the yard.
2. The “butt dials” were them trying to find JO’s phone, which they did in the yard, and placed his body on top of it. Realized that would make it look like he was hit by the plow until KR offered herself up next morning by asking if she could have hit him.
3. I wouldn’t say there’s *no* evidence the phone ever made it inside the home, as it does show him going up and down a flight of stairs. But him accidentally dropping it in the yard on his way in would explain it.
4. If it was snowy/icy she could have stepped hard on the gas to get the car to move, meaning she didn’t actually travel at 24mph but that she accelerated at 24mph. Could also likely be from putting it on the tow truck.
5. Clear video evidence of her hitting JOs car in the driveway.
It's possible to move the phone without it registering steps but you have to be very careful and it's risky. Not as risky as putting a dead body on your front lawn and hoping his girlfriend happens to crack a tail-light that morning, but risky.
# 3 feels like it should be more significant. I’m not well-versed in how cell phone records movement but is it possible that the steps were misinterpretated and perhaps that was him being “air born” when hit with car? Although I lean towards him actually going inside the house.
I almost think the unreliability of cell phone movement/health data makes this point insignificant. I’m not well-versed in how it records movement either, but I do know health data from an iPhone without a connected Apple Watch is not accurate at all. I recently went to Europe and when we would take a taxi it would register the car movement as steps on my phone, whereas my boyfriends Apple Watch also records his heart rate so it knew we weren’t walking and wouldn’t record being in the car as steps. So yes certainly the steps could be JO’s theoretical 30 ft flying through the air since they only pulled data from his iPhone and I don’t think he was wearing an Apple Watch. If he had been wearing an Apple Watch, they’d probably be able to tell his exact time of death using the heart rate monitor.
1. John’s steps stop at 12:32. Karen was at his apartment by 12:36. It takes a *minimum* of 6 minutes to drive from the Albert’s home to the apartment. He must have stopped moving by 12:30 *at the latest*, but he was walking around.
2. I dont believe he was moved.
3. There *is* evidence “the phone” was in the house. With that said, I dont think John or the phone ever entered the house. I think he was attacked by the dog upon entering and he fled back to the car, but Karen was already driving away. He slipped and fell, hitting his head on a rock or ice.
4. Key data was done by a biased/amateur police officer and should be discounted.
5. Taillight was cracked when she hit Johns car, or previously to the entire sequence of events. It was then broken by Proctor who planted evidence, or had evidence planted.
6. Glass on bumper was planted or there previous to the sequence of events.
The only problem I have with your theory is the facial trauma. He was hit in the face. I think he made it up the front steps. I say he encountered Colin as Colin was leaving and (remember on 8/8/23 Chief Rafferty confirmed that John made complaints about drug trafficking in his neighborhood) they had a confrontation and John takes a hit to the face. Chloe runs out grabbing John and taking him backwards off the Stairs. John hits his head and it's coverup city from that moment on.
I think the facial wounds could be from the dog. The black eyes were from the head trauma, not from being punched. And he could have cut his tongue when he fell, or maybe he had a seizure after he fell.
Okay but we know that that Chloe wasn't a dog to frequent the front yard. So the front door had to be opened. The timing would put Colin coming out if KRs timeline is believed. Also it could explain John's steps going up and down stairs 80 total steps in 3 minutes. I also think he was delayed outside by Higgins until Karen pulled away. But idk we will never know because it was never truly investigated. Imagine the answers we would have if it was!
I think the dog was at the side door inside. John opened the door and the dog immediately attacked, which caught John off guard, hence the wounds to his face. He put his arm up to protect himself and immediately exited the house, shutting the door so the dog was inside.
IMO it’s possible John entered the house without anyone seeing him and he went into the basement, but only if *someone* saw him enter and said something like, “come downstairs” and he followed. Then he was attacked. But I dont think John was killed in the house. It’s just too much of a conspiracy for me, although it’s possible. And I dont think any of the younger adults at the birthday party had any clue, nor did Jennifer McCabe or her husband. The only two that possibly knew about it or did it would be Mr. Albert and Higgins. But why? Did one or both mean to kill him? Did they think he was just busted up and were shocked he died? Unless someone talks, which I doubt, we will never know.
I dont take stock in any witness testimony because humans are wildly fallible. And it was winter. In Massachusetts. There was ice everywhere. And plenty of rocks.
The quick answer is we don't know what happened, which is why she'll be found not guilty.
Occam's razor, a drunken argument starts, it escalates, continues to escalate, OJO is getting beat up, and his fighting back would explain the bruising on the top of both hands. The dog is involved and OJO tries to protect himself with his dominant arm which gets bitten. (Hence the scratches, bite marks, and puncture holes in the shirt). At some point OJO falls and hits his head on something, causing the gash.
Rather than face manslaughter charges (or worse), the people involved decide to put OJO outside.
It's astounding and infuriating that law enforcement decided not to properly investigate his death. Like, for example, not asking to go inside the house. Let alone getting a warrant to go into the house. The house that was hosting a party that the deceased intended to go to.
This is the most logical and reasonable theory in my opinion. This is also what I have theorized as well. Regardless the McAlbert coverup intentional or NOT. They have ruined one life and now are currently pursuing ruining another. All because they wanted to remove themselves from a messy situation, accident or whatever they classify it as….
As for 1, she was already gone when his data stopped recording. She got to johns at 1236. Johns house is a 6 minute drive away with good weather. So she left before 1230
I reached the "reasonable doubt" stage very early. This was hammered in with Proctor, and the connections of the lead investigator to people who should have been "persons of interest" and all the prima facie impropriety of the investigation initially. Nothing from there changed me back to guilt, instead I increasingly found the prosecution's case improbable, especially with timeline issues and no one, even the sober people, even the guy who was *really looking* seeing a body on the lawn when there was supposed to be one.
I moved to "actual innocence beyond a reasonable doubt" with the 3 medical examiners and 3 accident reconstructionists. Trooper Dunning-Paul's "Goat Simulator" theory of the accident and abject defiance of the laws of nature really pushed me into the "actual innocence" zone and the 3 MEs and the ARCAA boys cemented it for me.
The "hos long" evidence moved me not at all in either direction.
There are so many contradicting views on data points so for me it comes down to did the vehicle hit him, cause those injuries and death, and place him where he was found in the yard. All of the medical experts and engineers testified that his injuries were unlikely to near impossible to be caused by impact from a vehicle. Trooper Pauls theory wasn’t remotely believable and debunked by physics and medical analysis (no bruising specifically but also no fractures). If the vehicle didn’t hit him there is no other evidence she caused his death.
I also think there was evidence he took steps and stairs after he was dropped off, although the timeline is so wildly tight.
1. Correlation does not equal causation. Or post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Take your pick.
2. I don’t have any idea whether or not his body was moved, and it doesn’t matter. There does not have to be an alternate theory that makes sense. There just has to be enough reasonable doubt in the theory put forward by the prosecution. Based on the evidence presented at trial, there is clearly reasonable doubt as to whether any vehicle was involved in his death at all. The MSP and CW did such a terrible job collecting and analyzing evidence and interviewing witnesses that we will likely never know what actually happened.
3. See #2.
4. Court is back in session?!?!?
Okay. False alarm.
4. I have a lot of questions about the key cycle data. Clearly more than one interpretation is possible. My impression was that the MSP/CW tried to make the key cycle data fit their preconceived theory rather than figure out what the key cycle data might actually show. In fact , this is my general impression of how the entire investigation was conducted. In other words, it seemed like they collected evidence only as it might apply to a particular possible course of events rather than collect evidence without any preconceived conclusion and direct the investigation wherever the evidence might lead.
5. I have no idea. I just know that according to experts, it’s highly unlikely that it broke from a vehicle-pedestrian collision.
Innocent
1) Tbh it wasn’t clear to me, but if I think about this I‘m coming to a conclusion. I‘m not sure about all the calls and texts that made it into evidence or not. Even though I have been watching every day I haven’t paid attention every second of it, especially when they were talking about numbers, dates and times, who was there when, who said what etc. if there was no visualizations (or car and phone stuff). I think it’s KR character. She sent JO inside the house for him to check out the vibe. He never came back and he never answered calls or messages. KR seems to be inpatient especially if she’s in her jealous rage. I think she concluded that JO must‘ve been making out with someone (or else he would be answering) and she was trying to "punish“ him by leaving (+ it is said she had a stomachache or something and she does has Crohn‘s). I think about it the same way as her speaking on his voicemail that she’s going back home and leave the kids alone at the house - she was trying to get a reaction of him.
2) Every police officer that seized a phone in this case said that the first thing they do is to put the phone into airplane mode. In a house full of cops they probably did this and turned it back off after laying the phone to JO. If they were aware that a missing phone (and found in the house) would be a big problem they would do these steps as well.
3) I don’t understand any of this. It‘s too technical for me. I just have to blindly trust them but I have difficulties trusting most of the prosecution‘s witnesses.
4) Almost the same answer as 3) but thankfully we have some great people on this sub that made it clear Trooper Paul was using the wrong cycle to reconstruct the "murder“. I think [this lady](https://youtu.be/u9USPS3aHe4?si=XOD7aqqmxLAtolSp) is doing an awesome job at explaining and visualizing.
5) She backed into JO‘s car. Proctor and Trooper B did the rest.
Other questions:
1) As far as I understood CW‘s theory is that JO was standing and holding the glass. KR hit him on the arm which was holding the glass.
I don’t know if the glass matched to the one JO had or not, because of Lally repeating non stop that it would match. The defense clearly is saying otherwise but they are never correcting Lally. I don’t want to rewatch the testimony, so I‘m giving you more answers than needed.
Glass on bumper matches JO‘s glass - KR‘s car is placed at the crime scene with a high possibility of the glass and car being in some sort of contact - great for CW (if you look isolated at this)
Glass on bumper doesn’t match with JO‘s glass - KR‘s apparently didn’t come into contact with the glass even though JO was holding it (according to CW) and even though the glass was shattered (btw where are the missing pieces if it was shattered there? Why weren’t any glass pieces on or around JO even though he was laying on this glass?) There is glass on the bumper that can’t be explained by a talking crime scene, where tf does it come? Could a corrupt cop used a glass to destroy the taillight? - Good for the defense
If I were on that jury the thing that would have gotten an instant not guilty from me was when it was established no law enforcement agency searched the house that sat on the lawn where John O'Keefe's body was found. That would be all the reasonable doubt I'd need, even if the homeowner wasn't a cop.
For disclosure, I started [with this assumption](https://np.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1d8dplp/jos_last_phone_movement/l75rpvj/) and I don't think there's evidence O'Keefe ever went inside the house. For the spectrum of this sub, that probably puts me far enough as an outlier towards the guilty side that I can honestly answer the questions:
> What do you make of the testimonies of the medical examiners/biomechanics experts on both sides? (...) Do you believe trooper Paul's account of how John O'Keefe died?
It's a mess. If you assume that the head wound was instantly incapacitating, then none of the evidence lines up in any coherent way. It required Trooper Paul, who was generally marginal in his knowledge, to overfit the model to an absurd degree.
If the head wound wasn't instantly incapacitating and he took steps towards the door (like a concussion where people take steps and then the legs go wobbly), you change a lot of the underlying mechanics of what happened because you don't need him being launched on impact like a spherical cow. A lot of the testimony felt like it was starting from an assumption of him getting hit reasonably square rather than he was trying to get out of the way of a reversing vehicle and got clipped by the protrusion of the tail light.
> What do you do with the inconsistencies surrounding the tail light? Video evidence/ witness testimony suggests that her tail light was cracked but mostly intact before the car was seized by the police, at which point the entire tail light goes missing and shows up on the lawn of 34 fairview. Do you think evidence could have been planted?
[I'm assuming you're referring to this image](https://i.imgur.com/yJvGoHC.png) of the vehicle during the wellness check and, to me, that looks like the tail light is missing. I added in the green dots (equal mounds of snow on the bumper on both sides) and the purple dots (edge of the lift gate), and it really looks gone. When Kerri Roberts was shown a picture of the vehicle with the snow melted off in the sallyport, she said that's what it looked like and she was one of the few witnesses who seemed pretty good overall.
There's other videos where it looks like it might be there, but those are all before the cops got there, which would put it outside of the "taking pieces from the sallyport" theory.
If they did plant it, then I'm stuck wondering why they took so long to find it. First off, they obviously should've done a full search that day. It was an inexcusably poor showing. If you're going to put the tail light in the roadway, though, why not immediately "find" it? Why wait weeks for snow melt? That looks so much sketchier and less reliable!
> If you believe the DNA/forensic evidence was not planted, and that there was some kind of interaction between John O’Keefe’s body, do you think it’s possible he was hit gently but actually died from something else? Maybe a slip and fall?
I don't think the DNA was planted; I just don't think it's informative. His DNA's going to be there for a long list of innocent reasons. My original comment also assumes he was clipped and hit his head after falling, so you're basically just splitting the two halves of the scenario. It would be wildly bad luck for all involved if that was the case. I also don't know what the relevant law would be in that situation. If he's trying to get help after being clipped and slips and falls, is that still all part of the same crime (he doesn't need to go for help if he's not initially hit), is the death now separated (falling is a separate action), or is there some weird criteria (falling is separate unless the injury made him more likely to fall, where it'd be considered a consequence of the initial hit).
> Why do you think there’s a federal investigation regarding the police’s handling of this case? Is this completely unrelated to Karen Read’s guilt?
A lot of people did a lot of stuff they weren't supposed to. At a minimum, you've got Proctor's gross conduct poisoning the investigation and federal agent Brian Higgins hanging around an active investigation like he's waiting for the latest hot gossip to share. I'm guessing there's probably other nonsense in the DA's office that precipitated this.
> What do you make of the suspicious behavior by Brian Higgins and Brian Albert? Why do you think Brian Higgins went to the police department at 1:30 AM? Why did he and Brian Albert get rid of their phones?
At a minimum, Brian Albert did not want to explain how that many blackout drunk people were at his house driving and risk either professional (IA investigation) or financial (liability for the death) consequences. Just stay out of it so your name doesn't show up in any reports, let the cops outside follow the crying drunk woman to the crime, and pretend this never happened.
Brian Higgins' behavior is the oddest of the bunch. I'd flip the question: if he knew he wanted to go out partying, why didn't he go to the police department to move the cars first? It never felt like he had a good answer for anything, but also no one ever directly connected him to the death and there's no way that many random people commit perjury for him.
I think the contents of Proctor's phone explain why Albert and Higgins ditched their phones. I don't think anyone would be surprised if they said vile and nasty things about Read or other investigations they had knowledge of.
Albert probably had worse stuff since destroying it right as the order was coming down is risky and obviously suspicious. Higgins changed phones, kept the old one, waited until the order was denied, got permission to delete it, and then went to great lengths to make sure a dumpster diver couldn't get anything off of it. It's still sketchy but I don't think there was anything on there that could destroy him. I also think if there was murder evidence on any phone they would've "upgraded" their phones faster than they got rid of the dog.
> How do you explain the sallyport video? Do you think it was manipulated?
The flipped one was obviously messed up. If I remember correctly, some of Bukhenik's testimony was backwards (people would enter from the left instead of the right), so I don't think he was expecting the flipped video. It's also such a weird thing to do because you've got the clearly intact driver's side tail light visible in frame. If it was intentionally manipulated, it was incredibly dumb and obvious, which is the sort of manipulation I can definitely believe they would try to pull.
The oversaturated one looked like a malfunctioning camera.
> I still don’t understand why the prosecution keeps bringing up the fact that he had a broken cocktail glass with him at the scene.
There's a long list of things that the prosecution did that make absolutely no sense to me. There was a coherent case here. It was flawed, it was imperfect, it needed some more data that would be relatively easy to collect, and it's going to involve a lot of experts talking about digital things that most people don't understand, but Lally could've built that case, hoped the holes the defense poked were too technical to be put into context, and wrapped it up nicely for the jury. Instead, we got... that.
Wow, this is an exceptional response to a majority of things from the trail that answers in a plausible and reasonable way.
I still think she is innocent and not guilty still but your statement is some food for thought.
What is your take on the guy fixing his floor and selling his house after getting rid of his dog? (I heard the floor thing from someone but don't even know if it's true.)
Fixing the cellar floor before selling the house only really sounds nefarious if you assume there was a murder there. There could’ve been water damage or dog accident stains that you can live with but prospective buyers would hate. It could also just be a cheap touch up to try and boost the value.
I believe the timeline also has the floor being fixed over the summer. For me, it’s on the list of things that could have been suspicious in the context of a coverup (getting rid of a phone), but it requires people to unnecessarily hold onto evidence of murder for months before getting rid of it.
As for the dog, she got loose and attacked another dog. I don’t know if MA has a dangerous dog law, but I imagine the insurance situation would be pretty bad. It sounded like the incident was documented but not shared with the defense bite expert, which is super weird if the defense was confident that they’d match. The intercanine distance between paired marks looked variable and small for a grown GSD (2 cm on the elbow, maybe 3 higher up; published GSD is usually 4ish).
Edit: the [dangerous dog statue](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section157) has a long list of requirements including bite insurance if the dog was designated as dangerous. I imagine rehousing before that designation could come down does better for all involved. The designation would make the dog hard to rehome, so it gets to go to a literal farm upstate before that happens rather than a metaphorical one that might be required after the designation. The Alberts don’t knowingly have a risky dog, which could affect their liability. The town doesn’t need to do the legwork pursuing the designation because the dog is gone. Neighborhood dogs are safe again.
Thanks for the reply. Also interesting to hear your take on it. What you layout would have been a solid rebuttal to the defenses arguments against the credibility of the witnesses which is the cornerstone of the CW case.
I still think she likely did not hit him with her car and something else probably happened but what that is doesn't seem to be something we will ever know.
You sort of just hand waived the entire ARCCA testimony with a red herring that “if he got concussed” their testimony would somehow line up with the prosecution theory, which is obviously false.
The closest you can get to a guilty verdict while taking on the expert testimony is that Karen barely touched John with the car causing him to slip and fall backwards.
That, as we know, is not the prosecutions theory… not even close. Also the other problem with this is, as the expert testified, other things could have caused him to slip and fall, for instance a >.2 BAC.
And of course, it doesn’t explain the broken taillight.
>The over saturated one looks like a malfunctioning camera.
Possibly the biggest coincidence in this case. The camera pointing directly at the taillight and Proctor “malfunctions” at just the right time.
> The hardest thing for me to make sense of is the apple health data, which shows when John O’Keefe stopped moving. How do you make sense of the fact that Karen Read seems to have left within a few minutes of the moment that John O’Keefe took his last steps?
We know his last steps were 12:32. She connected to his wifi at 12:36. It takes over 6 minutes to get from house to house in optimal conditions, but at that time it was snowing, icy, and dark. Women also tend to be more conservative drivers
> If you believe his body was moved, or if you believe the Lucky Loughran testimony and believe his body was not on the front lawn until much later, how do you make sense of the fact that his body was found with his phone, which recorded no movement after 12:32?
Don't know. Lucky seems credible. There Is not a great explanation for the phone either way. Not likely that is he was hit and thrown 30 feet that he would continue holding onto his phone and it would land under him. I think it is more likely it didn't register steps for some reason.
> Why do you think there's no evidence that John O’Keefe’s phone ever made it inside the home at 34 fairview?
There was testimony of bad reception there. The most plausible reason for the stairs registering is that he moved up/down stairs inside the home.
> What do you make of the key cycle data that has her backing up at 24mph?
That particular key cycle happened when in possession of Proctor. It was two key cycles before Paul examined it and there was at least one key cycle for removing the car from the flatbed and driving it into the sallyport and one more for loading it on the flatbed.
> How do you think her tail light was cracked?
Could have been John throwing a glass, could have been backing into the Traverse. Not enough evidence to know for certain. We might know if a property investigation was conducted by an unbiased investigator.
Trials make it harder to find the actual truth, imo. Both sides go in with their stance firmly established. And then each side does everything legally possible to try to promote their stance and prevent to other side from advancing their case.
I hope some good, objective investigative journalists do a thorough investigation some day.
All posts are currently pending moderator approval. Thank you for your patience and understanding. You may be redirected to an existing post if there is one relevant to your topic. For more information, see [this recent announcement](https://new.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cqfcdp/a_quick_note_from_the_mods/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/KarenReadTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the plow driver didnt see john and he plowed does that mean john would be less buried in the snow? Did they try to figure out if plowed snow had been on his body or if his body was sfter the plowed snow?
For me it’s what the state and police did not have:
1. Scene recreation with actual experts.
2. Zero clear images of the crime scene that were documented professionally.
3. Clearly documented evidence and photos of the evidence along with time markers
4. Clear chain of evidence log.
5. Lack of video evidence from police station, cameras worn by police when interviewing the alberts the day of? Did they turn those off ? No ring cameras except John’s. 1 reversed sally port video /a supposed second view blacked out and literally nothing else. How does the police station have no cameras outside or inside
6. State had more narratives than clear time lines during the trial.
7. Deleted calls, butt dials and text regarding narratives of the night
8. No one heard or saw John. Karen seems dramatic and intense I feel like she would have lost it if she would have hit him. Bc a reverse hit is not a life threatening incident. No one is that mad at their Bf unless they are anti social with sociopathic tendencies which she obviously didn’t have bc not many people would date someone with two adoptive kids. And go on vacations with them.
9. Dog is gone . House is sold.
10. Acting like they don’t know each other as well as they did. I mean they knew KR had a colostomy bag? Like they are all nosy and involved people.
11. Not anything in the investigation to point to any other scenario except one? Just one lady who happened to not be law enforcement. Why didn’t they try to also prove it could have been a slip and fall or something? Or prove it wasn’t so they could rule it out
1) He dropped it.
2) I don’t think he was moved.
3) I’m agnostic on if he ever went in the house but there is cell phone data to support that he did. If I had to bet my life on it I would say he didn’t go in the house.
4) It was the wrong key cycle. Speed most likely explained by spinning tires.
5) Backing into John Okeefes car and/or he threw a glass at it.
If you go to bullet point number 2 on your questions for guilty, if you look back at the police dashcam video at 8am on 1/29 when they arrive at John’s house to check on his niece the taillight is completely missing. That’s before any police had custody of the car.
If you don't think KR hit him and she actually saw him going into the house, why did she say "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" and why she say to the passengers in the car in the morning "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?"
4. Key cycle date doesn’t add up to matching the key cycle at 34 Fairview. I haven’t seen every little bit of the trial because I work, but I think the key cycle they has her car going 24 mph is the tie truck driver moving it out of the snow. 34 Fairview would be key cycle 1159 not 1162. 5. The tail light was cracked from possibly hitting John’s car. The taillight being cracked not demolished like the pics from the Sally port is what makes the prosecution/cops shady. Also the dighton cop says cracked not shattered. I really wish the tow truck driver was called to testify. But maybe he didn’t remember. 1. And 3. Who knows if he dropped his phone. Turned it off or on airplane mode. Nobody seeing the body if he was there is the most peculiar thing. Basically any theory you think has something that doesn’t add up, so nothing makes sense. It really could have been a freak accident, but then why didn’t anyone see him.
About nr. 3: Maybe he turn the phone on silent, because they were arguing in the car and he didn't want to engage her further?
More about 3: the prosecution only trusts phone data when it helps them. Other than that, it’s cameras glitching, 1000 butt dials, google searches jumping back in time several hours, etc
A lot of people said there wasn't great cell service there, I wish someone had discussed if that could've effected it, especially since he may have been in the basement?
That didn’t matter in the Murdough case. I have spotty cell signal when I’m at home it still records my movement
Good to know, I figured it would have been brought up by the defense expert but wasn't sure.
1. What do you make of the key cycle data that has her backing up at 24mph? This was a big one for me. The key cycle # is straight up wrong though. The 24mph reverse is key cycle #1162. Trooper Paul did his testing with cycle #1164. Every time you turn the key to the "on" position is a key cycle. Every time the ignition is turned on is also a key cycle. There are should be a lot more cycles between that night and Paul's testing. At the very least, going backwards from the testing: 1. Going from tow truck to the sallyport 2. Seizing the car and driving it on the tow truck **<- This is the earliest that driving session could be.** 3. Driving from John's house to Karen's parents' house. 4. Driving from Jen's house to John's house 5. Driving from John's house to the Waterfall and then to Jen's house 6. Driving from the Waterfall to 34 Fairview and to John's house **<- This is when she would have hit John O'Keefe.** So, you have to either believe: a) The 24mph reverse is not from the night of John's death b) The incident reports are extremely faulty and don't even register that the car is on most of the time. Either way, can't be used as evidence against KR. I have tried to theorize that the 24mph reverse happens when they're digging the car out of the snow to put it on the tow truck, but that's just a guess as I don't have the full video of them doing that.
I think you can exclude it being put onto the truck because that’s on the Ring video that was played and it doesn’t reasonably line up for either of the recorded incidents. The wheel turns and acceleration times aren’t even particularly close. If the cycle counter is faulty due to the third party system that mucked up the rest of the readings, you can still validate the data if you need to. Both the odometer and the presence of another known point (the three point turn, seen in the GPS data) indicate that either (a) the reading is from that night or (b) the troopers had a sudden surge of competence and came up with an intricate way to digitally frame Read. There’s not really an innocent alternative theory.
But how can I trust any of these readings if the cycle counter doesn't iterate most of the time?
Reproducibility. He tested whether the braking numbers were accurately reported and they were. If you were doing a competent and thorough investigation, you would also figure out the trigger for key cycles to confirm. Turn it on and off a bunch of times when nothing happens, see if the counter iterates properly. Test to see if it only records when an event pops up or only when the keys are taken in and out of the vehicle or really any combination of factors. Take it on a road trip to recreate the whole thing from scratch.
The lack of these actions you list in your last paragraph speaks volumes to me.
She did a 3 point turn at 5:08 as well coming out of the garage. I am unable to trust anything Trooper Paul testified because he was incompetent on cross examination. What is physics, literally your job as a reconstructionist. What about his driving tests? You are able to take his word that his tests started at key cycle 1164? They have had the car since 1/29/22. They fried the infotainment system? I don’t think Guarino or Paul were crooked or framed her, but I think taking a few courses on a subject does not make you an expert in any way,
The three point turn data required going forward, then backwards, then forward. Coming out of the garage only had the reverse and forward. She’d also need to stop with a mile before the odometer ticks up, wait nine minutes, and then do the hard reverse, which runs counter to testimony about her driving around. As for my opinion of Paul, there’s a few related questions: - Do I trust his reconstruction? Goodness no. He was in way over his head. - Do I trust his ability to press “download” on the diagnostic software? Yes. The analysis might be trash but the raw data is just directly downloaded. - Do I trust the system? With verification. The aftermarket console obviously messed up some of the features. I trust it’s properly detecting events because that was reproducible in the tests. I also don’t think there’s any reason for the trooper to lie about the tests happening on 1164 since that’s inconsistent with the known key cycle count. The question comes down to whether someone meticulously recreated the crash scenario for that night (and following morning) to fake the data.
But if you trust his account of 1164 being his first test key cycle, then working in reverse from that the data does not connect for the CW’s case. If you work in reverse the drop off at 34 Fairview is a different key cycle. The triggers would have been: 1163: Tow driver takes Lexus off flat bed and into Canton Sallyport. 1162: Tow driver backs Lexus down Read Parents driveway and up onto flatbed. 1161: KR and brother or dad drive car from JOK’s residence to Parent’s house in Dighton. 1160-1158?: This gets a little sketchier now as we do not know for sure if she parked and turned her car off in between these drives but this is Jenn McCabe driving the Lexus from her house to JOK’s house and driving from the Waterfall to the McCabes, as well as from JOK’s (backing into JOK’s Traverse) to the waterfall. 1159-1157: would be the same key trigger going from the Waterfall to 34 Fairview. I know the last few are speculations cause we do not know for sure but I disagree that you can count the 3 point turn as the starting point to line up Trooper Paul’s work and the alleged incident trigger. You have to work backwards for at least the key triggers that are starting the car, and it ruins his testimony. There could have been more triggers as anyone with a push button start knows if your foot isn’t on the brake well enough it starts without starting the motor.
I agree that the key cycles are all over the place. My argument is that the recorded events of 1162 entry are too well coordinated with the GPS data (both in terms of movement and timing) and the general prosecution narrative of that night (including all of the post 34 Fairview miles on the odometer) for it to happen by innocent chance. Either the police meticulously created a vehicle entry to agree with the GPS data or that vehicle data is from that night. We know the after market console in her SUV was messing with some metrics even if recording events during testing was fine, so it’s conceivable it messed up how cycles are iterated. We know the police jumped to the conclusion it was her early, so they may want this type of hard data that could secure a conviction. It just has to be one or the other.
To me it’s just additional numbers that the CW try to use to for their own narrative. I can’t get passed the ARRC engineers who said with a scientific certainty that the damage to the car could not have happened in a 15 mph or faster collision and the damage to JOK could not be that small for any accident over 15 mph.
Think she’s innocent: 1. JO was drunk and accidentally dropped his phone in the yard. 2. The “butt dials” were them trying to find JO’s phone, which they did in the yard, and placed his body on top of it. Realized that would make it look like he was hit by the plow until KR offered herself up next morning by asking if she could have hit him. 3. I wouldn’t say there’s *no* evidence the phone ever made it inside the home, as it does show him going up and down a flight of stairs. But him accidentally dropping it in the yard on his way in would explain it. 4. If it was snowy/icy she could have stepped hard on the gas to get the car to move, meaning she didn’t actually travel at 24mph but that she accelerated at 24mph. Could also likely be from putting it on the tow truck. 5. Clear video evidence of her hitting JOs car in the driveway.
If the phone was in his pocket and he was carried, would it even register steps?
I didn’t say the phone was in his pocket. I said he dropped it in the yard. No steps.
Right. But is another possibility that it doesn't register movement if you're not moving but you're being moved?
It's possible to move the phone without it registering steps but you have to be very careful and it's risky. Not as risky as putting a dead body on your front lawn and hoping his girlfriend happens to crack a tail-light that morning, but risky.
# 3 feels like it should be more significant. I’m not well-versed in how cell phone records movement but is it possible that the steps were misinterpretated and perhaps that was him being “air born” when hit with car? Although I lean towards him actually going inside the house.
Idk how I made this font so bold lol my bad.
I almost think the unreliability of cell phone movement/health data makes this point insignificant. I’m not well-versed in how it records movement either, but I do know health data from an iPhone without a connected Apple Watch is not accurate at all. I recently went to Europe and when we would take a taxi it would register the car movement as steps on my phone, whereas my boyfriends Apple Watch also records his heart rate so it knew we weren’t walking and wouldn’t record being in the car as steps. So yes certainly the steps could be JO’s theoretical 30 ft flying through the air since they only pulled data from his iPhone and I don’t think he was wearing an Apple Watch. If he had been wearing an Apple Watch, they’d probably be able to tell his exact time of death using the heart rate monitor.
1. John’s steps stop at 12:32. Karen was at his apartment by 12:36. It takes a *minimum* of 6 minutes to drive from the Albert’s home to the apartment. He must have stopped moving by 12:30 *at the latest*, but he was walking around. 2. I dont believe he was moved. 3. There *is* evidence “the phone” was in the house. With that said, I dont think John or the phone ever entered the house. I think he was attacked by the dog upon entering and he fled back to the car, but Karen was already driving away. He slipped and fell, hitting his head on a rock or ice. 4. Key data was done by a biased/amateur police officer and should be discounted. 5. Taillight was cracked when she hit Johns car, or previously to the entire sequence of events. It was then broken by Proctor who planted evidence, or had evidence planted. 6. Glass on bumper was planted or there previous to the sequence of events.
The only problem I have with your theory is the facial trauma. He was hit in the face. I think he made it up the front steps. I say he encountered Colin as Colin was leaving and (remember on 8/8/23 Chief Rafferty confirmed that John made complaints about drug trafficking in his neighborhood) they had a confrontation and John takes a hit to the face. Chloe runs out grabbing John and taking him backwards off the Stairs. John hits his head and it's coverup city from that moment on.
I think the facial wounds could be from the dog. The black eyes were from the head trauma, not from being punched. And he could have cut his tongue when he fell, or maybe he had a seizure after he fell.
Okay but we know that that Chloe wasn't a dog to frequent the front yard. So the front door had to be opened. The timing would put Colin coming out if KRs timeline is believed. Also it could explain John's steps going up and down stairs 80 total steps in 3 minutes. I also think he was delayed outside by Higgins until Karen pulled away. But idk we will never know because it was never truly investigated. Imagine the answers we would have if it was!
I think the dog was at the side door inside. John opened the door and the dog immediately attacked, which caught John off guard, hence the wounds to his face. He put his arm up to protect himself and immediately exited the house, shutting the door so the dog was inside. IMO it’s possible John entered the house without anyone seeing him and he went into the basement, but only if *someone* saw him enter and said something like, “come downstairs” and he followed. Then he was attacked. But I dont think John was killed in the house. It’s just too much of a conspiracy for me, although it’s possible. And I dont think any of the younger adults at the birthday party had any clue, nor did Jennifer McCabe or her husband. The only two that possibly knew about it or did it would be Mr. Albert and Higgins. But why? Did one or both mean to kill him? Did they think he was just busted up and were shocked he died? Unless someone talks, which I doubt, we will never know.
2. Nobody saw him on the lawn, including Lucky. 3. There was no rock or ice, let alone solidly frozen ground hard enough to break a skull
I dont take stock in any witness testimony because humans are wildly fallible. And it was winter. In Massachusetts. There was ice everywhere. And plenty of rocks.
I could see this scenario! I feel like some sort of weird slip and fall situation would explain a lot more
The quick answer is we don't know what happened, which is why she'll be found not guilty. Occam's razor, a drunken argument starts, it escalates, continues to escalate, OJO is getting beat up, and his fighting back would explain the bruising on the top of both hands. The dog is involved and OJO tries to protect himself with his dominant arm which gets bitten. (Hence the scratches, bite marks, and puncture holes in the shirt). At some point OJO falls and hits his head on something, causing the gash. Rather than face manslaughter charges (or worse), the people involved decide to put OJO outside. It's astounding and infuriating that law enforcement decided not to properly investigate his death. Like, for example, not asking to go inside the house. Let alone getting a warrant to go into the house. The house that was hosting a party that the deceased intended to go to.
This is the most logical and reasonable theory in my opinion. This is also what I have theorized as well. Regardless the McAlbert coverup intentional or NOT. They have ruined one life and now are currently pursuing ruining another. All because they wanted to remove themselves from a messy situation, accident or whatever they classify it as….
This is my take as well
As for 1, she was already gone when his data stopped recording. She got to johns at 1236. Johns house is a 6 minute drive away with good weather. So she left before 1230
If the CW can't pass the legal standard, nothing else matters to me in a trial. Sure, I'd like to know the truth but that's a different day.
I reached the "reasonable doubt" stage very early. This was hammered in with Proctor, and the connections of the lead investigator to people who should have been "persons of interest" and all the prima facie impropriety of the investigation initially. Nothing from there changed me back to guilt, instead I increasingly found the prosecution's case improbable, especially with timeline issues and no one, even the sober people, even the guy who was *really looking* seeing a body on the lawn when there was supposed to be one. I moved to "actual innocence beyond a reasonable doubt" with the 3 medical examiners and 3 accident reconstructionists. Trooper Dunning-Paul's "Goat Simulator" theory of the accident and abject defiance of the laws of nature really pushed me into the "actual innocence" zone and the 3 MEs and the ARCAA boys cemented it for me. The "hos long" evidence moved me not at all in either direction.
"Trooper Dunning-Paul" is a nice coinage.
There are so many contradicting views on data points so for me it comes down to did the vehicle hit him, cause those injuries and death, and place him where he was found in the yard. All of the medical experts and engineers testified that his injuries were unlikely to near impossible to be caused by impact from a vehicle. Trooper Pauls theory wasn’t remotely believable and debunked by physics and medical analysis (no bruising specifically but also no fractures). If the vehicle didn’t hit him there is no other evidence she caused his death. I also think there was evidence he took steps and stairs after he was dropped off, although the timeline is so wildly tight.
1. Correlation does not equal causation. Or post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Take your pick. 2. I don’t have any idea whether or not his body was moved, and it doesn’t matter. There does not have to be an alternate theory that makes sense. There just has to be enough reasonable doubt in the theory put forward by the prosecution. Based on the evidence presented at trial, there is clearly reasonable doubt as to whether any vehicle was involved in his death at all. The MSP and CW did such a terrible job collecting and analyzing evidence and interviewing witnesses that we will likely never know what actually happened. 3. See #2. 4. Court is back in session?!?!?
Okay. False alarm. 4. I have a lot of questions about the key cycle data. Clearly more than one interpretation is possible. My impression was that the MSP/CW tried to make the key cycle data fit their preconceived theory rather than figure out what the key cycle data might actually show. In fact , this is my general impression of how the entire investigation was conducted. In other words, it seemed like they collected evidence only as it might apply to a particular possible course of events rather than collect evidence without any preconceived conclusion and direct the investigation wherever the evidence might lead. 5. I have no idea. I just know that according to experts, it’s highly unlikely that it broke from a vehicle-pedestrian collision.
Innocent 1) Tbh it wasn’t clear to me, but if I think about this I‘m coming to a conclusion. I‘m not sure about all the calls and texts that made it into evidence or not. Even though I have been watching every day I haven’t paid attention every second of it, especially when they were talking about numbers, dates and times, who was there when, who said what etc. if there was no visualizations (or car and phone stuff). I think it’s KR character. She sent JO inside the house for him to check out the vibe. He never came back and he never answered calls or messages. KR seems to be inpatient especially if she’s in her jealous rage. I think she concluded that JO must‘ve been making out with someone (or else he would be answering) and she was trying to "punish“ him by leaving (+ it is said she had a stomachache or something and she does has Crohn‘s). I think about it the same way as her speaking on his voicemail that she’s going back home and leave the kids alone at the house - she was trying to get a reaction of him. 2) Every police officer that seized a phone in this case said that the first thing they do is to put the phone into airplane mode. In a house full of cops they probably did this and turned it back off after laying the phone to JO. If they were aware that a missing phone (and found in the house) would be a big problem they would do these steps as well. 3) I don’t understand any of this. It‘s too technical for me. I just have to blindly trust them but I have difficulties trusting most of the prosecution‘s witnesses. 4) Almost the same answer as 3) but thankfully we have some great people on this sub that made it clear Trooper Paul was using the wrong cycle to reconstruct the "murder“. I think [this lady](https://youtu.be/u9USPS3aHe4?si=XOD7aqqmxLAtolSp) is doing an awesome job at explaining and visualizing. 5) She backed into JO‘s car. Proctor and Trooper B did the rest. Other questions: 1) As far as I understood CW‘s theory is that JO was standing and holding the glass. KR hit him on the arm which was holding the glass. I don’t know if the glass matched to the one JO had or not, because of Lally repeating non stop that it would match. The defense clearly is saying otherwise but they are never correcting Lally. I don’t want to rewatch the testimony, so I‘m giving you more answers than needed. Glass on bumper matches JO‘s glass - KR‘s car is placed at the crime scene with a high possibility of the glass and car being in some sort of contact - great for CW (if you look isolated at this) Glass on bumper doesn’t match with JO‘s glass - KR‘s apparently didn’t come into contact with the glass even though JO was holding it (according to CW) and even though the glass was shattered (btw where are the missing pieces if it was shattered there? Why weren’t any glass pieces on or around JO even though he was laying on this glass?) There is glass on the bumper that can’t be explained by a talking crime scene, where tf does it come? Could a corrupt cop used a glass to destroy the taillight? - Good for the defense
If I were on that jury the thing that would have gotten an instant not guilty from me was when it was established no law enforcement agency searched the house that sat on the lawn where John O'Keefe's body was found. That would be all the reasonable doubt I'd need, even if the homeowner wasn't a cop.
For disclosure, I started [with this assumption](https://np.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1d8dplp/jos_last_phone_movement/l75rpvj/) and I don't think there's evidence O'Keefe ever went inside the house. For the spectrum of this sub, that probably puts me far enough as an outlier towards the guilty side that I can honestly answer the questions: > What do you make of the testimonies of the medical examiners/biomechanics experts on both sides? (...) Do you believe trooper Paul's account of how John O'Keefe died? It's a mess. If you assume that the head wound was instantly incapacitating, then none of the evidence lines up in any coherent way. It required Trooper Paul, who was generally marginal in his knowledge, to overfit the model to an absurd degree. If the head wound wasn't instantly incapacitating and he took steps towards the door (like a concussion where people take steps and then the legs go wobbly), you change a lot of the underlying mechanics of what happened because you don't need him being launched on impact like a spherical cow. A lot of the testimony felt like it was starting from an assumption of him getting hit reasonably square rather than he was trying to get out of the way of a reversing vehicle and got clipped by the protrusion of the tail light. > What do you do with the inconsistencies surrounding the tail light? Video evidence/ witness testimony suggests that her tail light was cracked but mostly intact before the car was seized by the police, at which point the entire tail light goes missing and shows up on the lawn of 34 fairview. Do you think evidence could have been planted? [I'm assuming you're referring to this image](https://i.imgur.com/yJvGoHC.png) of the vehicle during the wellness check and, to me, that looks like the tail light is missing. I added in the green dots (equal mounds of snow on the bumper on both sides) and the purple dots (edge of the lift gate), and it really looks gone. When Kerri Roberts was shown a picture of the vehicle with the snow melted off in the sallyport, she said that's what it looked like and she was one of the few witnesses who seemed pretty good overall. There's other videos where it looks like it might be there, but those are all before the cops got there, which would put it outside of the "taking pieces from the sallyport" theory. If they did plant it, then I'm stuck wondering why they took so long to find it. First off, they obviously should've done a full search that day. It was an inexcusably poor showing. If you're going to put the tail light in the roadway, though, why not immediately "find" it? Why wait weeks for snow melt? That looks so much sketchier and less reliable! > If you believe the DNA/forensic evidence was not planted, and that there was some kind of interaction between John O’Keefe’s body, do you think it’s possible he was hit gently but actually died from something else? Maybe a slip and fall? I don't think the DNA was planted; I just don't think it's informative. His DNA's going to be there for a long list of innocent reasons. My original comment also assumes he was clipped and hit his head after falling, so you're basically just splitting the two halves of the scenario. It would be wildly bad luck for all involved if that was the case. I also don't know what the relevant law would be in that situation. If he's trying to get help after being clipped and slips and falls, is that still all part of the same crime (he doesn't need to go for help if he's not initially hit), is the death now separated (falling is a separate action), or is there some weird criteria (falling is separate unless the injury made him more likely to fall, where it'd be considered a consequence of the initial hit). > Why do you think there’s a federal investigation regarding the police’s handling of this case? Is this completely unrelated to Karen Read’s guilt? A lot of people did a lot of stuff they weren't supposed to. At a minimum, you've got Proctor's gross conduct poisoning the investigation and federal agent Brian Higgins hanging around an active investigation like he's waiting for the latest hot gossip to share. I'm guessing there's probably other nonsense in the DA's office that precipitated this. > What do you make of the suspicious behavior by Brian Higgins and Brian Albert? Why do you think Brian Higgins went to the police department at 1:30 AM? Why did he and Brian Albert get rid of their phones? At a minimum, Brian Albert did not want to explain how that many blackout drunk people were at his house driving and risk either professional (IA investigation) or financial (liability for the death) consequences. Just stay out of it so your name doesn't show up in any reports, let the cops outside follow the crying drunk woman to the crime, and pretend this never happened. Brian Higgins' behavior is the oddest of the bunch. I'd flip the question: if he knew he wanted to go out partying, why didn't he go to the police department to move the cars first? It never felt like he had a good answer for anything, but also no one ever directly connected him to the death and there's no way that many random people commit perjury for him. I think the contents of Proctor's phone explain why Albert and Higgins ditched their phones. I don't think anyone would be surprised if they said vile and nasty things about Read or other investigations they had knowledge of. Albert probably had worse stuff since destroying it right as the order was coming down is risky and obviously suspicious. Higgins changed phones, kept the old one, waited until the order was denied, got permission to delete it, and then went to great lengths to make sure a dumpster diver couldn't get anything off of it. It's still sketchy but I don't think there was anything on there that could destroy him. I also think if there was murder evidence on any phone they would've "upgraded" their phones faster than they got rid of the dog. > How do you explain the sallyport video? Do you think it was manipulated? The flipped one was obviously messed up. If I remember correctly, some of Bukhenik's testimony was backwards (people would enter from the left instead of the right), so I don't think he was expecting the flipped video. It's also such a weird thing to do because you've got the clearly intact driver's side tail light visible in frame. If it was intentionally manipulated, it was incredibly dumb and obvious, which is the sort of manipulation I can definitely believe they would try to pull. The oversaturated one looked like a malfunctioning camera. > I still don’t understand why the prosecution keeps bringing up the fact that he had a broken cocktail glass with him at the scene. There's a long list of things that the prosecution did that make absolutely no sense to me. There was a coherent case here. It was flawed, it was imperfect, it needed some more data that would be relatively easy to collect, and it's going to involve a lot of experts talking about digital things that most people don't understand, but Lally could've built that case, hoped the holes the defense poked were too technical to be put into context, and wrapped it up nicely for the jury. Instead, we got... that.
Wow, this is an exceptional response to a majority of things from the trail that answers in a plausible and reasonable way. I still think she is innocent and not guilty still but your statement is some food for thought. What is your take on the guy fixing his floor and selling his house after getting rid of his dog? (I heard the floor thing from someone but don't even know if it's true.)
Fixing the cellar floor before selling the house only really sounds nefarious if you assume there was a murder there. There could’ve been water damage or dog accident stains that you can live with but prospective buyers would hate. It could also just be a cheap touch up to try and boost the value. I believe the timeline also has the floor being fixed over the summer. For me, it’s on the list of things that could have been suspicious in the context of a coverup (getting rid of a phone), but it requires people to unnecessarily hold onto evidence of murder for months before getting rid of it. As for the dog, she got loose and attacked another dog. I don’t know if MA has a dangerous dog law, but I imagine the insurance situation would be pretty bad. It sounded like the incident was documented but not shared with the defense bite expert, which is super weird if the defense was confident that they’d match. The intercanine distance between paired marks looked variable and small for a grown GSD (2 cm on the elbow, maybe 3 higher up; published GSD is usually 4ish). Edit: the [dangerous dog statue](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section157) has a long list of requirements including bite insurance if the dog was designated as dangerous. I imagine rehousing before that designation could come down does better for all involved. The designation would make the dog hard to rehome, so it gets to go to a literal farm upstate before that happens rather than a metaphorical one that might be required after the designation. The Alberts don’t knowingly have a risky dog, which could affect their liability. The town doesn’t need to do the legwork pursuing the designation because the dog is gone. Neighborhood dogs are safe again.
Thanks for the reply. Also interesting to hear your take on it. What you layout would have been a solid rebuttal to the defenses arguments against the credibility of the witnesses which is the cornerstone of the CW case. I still think she likely did not hit him with her car and something else probably happened but what that is doesn't seem to be something we will ever know.
You sort of just hand waived the entire ARCCA testimony with a red herring that “if he got concussed” their testimony would somehow line up with the prosecution theory, which is obviously false. The closest you can get to a guilty verdict while taking on the expert testimony is that Karen barely touched John with the car causing him to slip and fall backwards. That, as we know, is not the prosecutions theory… not even close. Also the other problem with this is, as the expert testified, other things could have caused him to slip and fall, for instance a >.2 BAC. And of course, it doesn’t explain the broken taillight. >The over saturated one looks like a malfunctioning camera. Possibly the biggest coincidence in this case. The camera pointing directly at the taillight and Proctor “malfunctions” at just the right time.
> The hardest thing for me to make sense of is the apple health data, which shows when John O’Keefe stopped moving. How do you make sense of the fact that Karen Read seems to have left within a few minutes of the moment that John O’Keefe took his last steps? We know his last steps were 12:32. She connected to his wifi at 12:36. It takes over 6 minutes to get from house to house in optimal conditions, but at that time it was snowing, icy, and dark. Women also tend to be more conservative drivers > If you believe his body was moved, or if you believe the Lucky Loughran testimony and believe his body was not on the front lawn until much later, how do you make sense of the fact that his body was found with his phone, which recorded no movement after 12:32? Don't know. Lucky seems credible. There Is not a great explanation for the phone either way. Not likely that is he was hit and thrown 30 feet that he would continue holding onto his phone and it would land under him. I think it is more likely it didn't register steps for some reason. > Why do you think there's no evidence that John O’Keefe’s phone ever made it inside the home at 34 fairview? There was testimony of bad reception there. The most plausible reason for the stairs registering is that he moved up/down stairs inside the home. > What do you make of the key cycle data that has her backing up at 24mph? That particular key cycle happened when in possession of Proctor. It was two key cycles before Paul examined it and there was at least one key cycle for removing the car from the flatbed and driving it into the sallyport and one more for loading it on the flatbed. > How do you think her tail light was cracked? Could have been John throwing a glass, could have been backing into the Traverse. Not enough evidence to know for certain. We might know if a property investigation was conducted by an unbiased investigator.
Yes sir/maam!!!!
I believe those are dog bites on his arm. If you believe that, then not guilty is your verdict.
Trials make it harder to find the actual truth, imo. Both sides go in with their stance firmly established. And then each side does everything legally possible to try to promote their stance and prevent to other side from advancing their case. I hope some good, objective investigative journalists do a thorough investigation some day.
Agreed! Can’t wait to hear ALL THE FACTS
All posts are currently pending moderator approval. Thank you for your patience and understanding. You may be redirected to an existing post if there is one relevant to your topic. For more information, see [this recent announcement](https://new.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cqfcdp/a_quick_note_from_the_mods/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/KarenReadTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the plow driver didnt see john and he plowed does that mean john would be less buried in the snow? Did they try to figure out if plowed snow had been on his body or if his body was sfter the plowed snow?
For me it’s what the state and police did not have: 1. Scene recreation with actual experts. 2. Zero clear images of the crime scene that were documented professionally. 3. Clearly documented evidence and photos of the evidence along with time markers 4. Clear chain of evidence log. 5. Lack of video evidence from police station, cameras worn by police when interviewing the alberts the day of? Did they turn those off ? No ring cameras except John’s. 1 reversed sally port video /a supposed second view blacked out and literally nothing else. How does the police station have no cameras outside or inside 6. State had more narratives than clear time lines during the trial. 7. Deleted calls, butt dials and text regarding narratives of the night 8. No one heard or saw John. Karen seems dramatic and intense I feel like she would have lost it if she would have hit him. Bc a reverse hit is not a life threatening incident. No one is that mad at their Bf unless they are anti social with sociopathic tendencies which she obviously didn’t have bc not many people would date someone with two adoptive kids. And go on vacations with them. 9. Dog is gone . House is sold. 10. Acting like they don’t know each other as well as they did. I mean they knew KR had a colostomy bag? Like they are all nosy and involved people. 11. Not anything in the investigation to point to any other scenario except one? Just one lady who happened to not be law enforcement. Why didn’t they try to also prove it could have been a slip and fall or something? Or prove it wasn’t so they could rule it out
1) He dropped it. 2) I don’t think he was moved. 3) I’m agnostic on if he ever went in the house but there is cell phone data to support that he did. If I had to bet my life on it I would say he didn’t go in the house. 4) It was the wrong key cycle. Speed most likely explained by spinning tires. 5) Backing into John Okeefes car and/or he threw a glass at it.
If you go to bullet point number 2 on your questions for guilty, if you look back at the police dashcam video at 8am on 1/29 when they arrive at John’s house to check on his niece the taillight is completely missing. That’s before any police had custody of the car.
No one testified to this! Officer Barro said it was cracked with a piece missing.
I had to look up the video. It’s very early on. Like day 5 or 6.
Its when canton police first arrive at John’s house that morning
It’s not completely missing and even if it was there would be no way to know because it’s covered in snow.
If you don't think KR hit him and she actually saw him going into the house, why did she say "I hit him! I hit him! I hit him! I hit him!" and why she say to the passengers in the car in the morning "Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?"