Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *NOT GUILTY* (Guilty of OUI) (11 Viewers)

1691951367971.png

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello there!
The guide was in a different vehicle and all he (the plow driver) was asked re him was whether he'd informed the defense investigator of his existance.
Re the basketball hoop, as I recall, he hadn't even remembered where it was...
Yeah, I don't think I've seen so many sidebars since the Simpson trial. :rolleyes:
Sidebars are required for 3/4 of the day each day LOL.

The worst of nights, there'd have been nothing out in our area but dump truck type plows and grader plows, never some guide vehicle or truck or whatever it was.

He tried to be, but he was not an impressive witness and it came through, it also came through he is a defense groupie.
 

Some of the testimony from today.

Wolfe testified about a series of testing he performed that he said showed the damage to Read's SUV is "inconsistent" with the type of pedestrian strike that prosecutors say killed her former boyfriend John O'Keefe – and he instead found that the damage to her taillight could have been inflicted by throwing a cocktail glass at the car at a speed of at least 37 mph.
But on cross-examination, he conceded that flying fragments of a taillight could have been the source of injuries to O'Keefe's face and nose before he suffered a fractured skull.
As part of the prosecution's case, special prosecutor Hank Brennan played a clip of Read telling an interviewer she pulled a "piece of glass" out of O'Keefe's nose.
KAREN READ DENIS NOTICING CONFRONTATION BETWEEN DECEASED BOYFRIEND AND ATF AGENT

Accident reconstruction specialist Dr. Daniel Wolfe holds an exemplar taillight

Accident reconstruction specialist Dr. Daniel Wolfe explains the construction of a taillight assembly from a 2021 Lexus SUV during Karen Read's murder trial in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, June 6, 2025. (Mark Stockwell/The Sun Chronicle via AP, Pool)

Wolfe also admitted to having to "retake" part of his certification exams and that he used a crash dummy arm that is about 26% lighter than O'Keefe's real arm. He ultimately obtained his certification.
"When you're bringing that much more kinetic energy from the vehicle, that's going to overcome any mass that that arm has," he said. "Kinetic energy is equal to one-half times the mass times the velocity squared, so even if you go up a few miles per hour, you're exponentially increasing that amount of kinetic energy from the vehicle."

Wolfe denied that the weight difference in the dummy arm would have made an impact on the tests he performed, but he acknowledged that O'Keefe, who stood at 6 feet, 1 inch tall and weighed over 200 pounds, was larger than the crash dummy that is 5 feet, 9 inches tall and 170 pounds.
WATCH: Crash expert plays video reconstruction of Lexus SUV on crash dummy

Crash expert plays video reconstruction of Lexus SUV on crash dummy[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2)]Video
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6373954975112[/COLOR]
There are crash dummy arms weighing around 12 pounds which would have been closer to the real weight of O'Keefe's arm, Wolfe agreed.
KAREN READ DEFENSE FLOATS THEORY THAT ‘JEALOUS’ BRIAN HIGGINS FOUGHT JOHN O’KEEFE BEFORE DEATH

taillight comparison

An image shown in court during Karen Read's murder trial on Friday, June 6, 2025 shows a comparison between a taillight in a test crash as well as Read's actual taillight. Both came from 2021 Lexus LX 570 SUVs. (Pool)

Brennan questioned the validity of his testing overall and called out Wolfe for swapping out dummy arms and not mentioning that detail in his direct examination.
"I'm asking for a third time, name one journal, one paper, one study that supports your proposition that you're relying on the basis for your opinion in front of this jury today," Brennan said. "Name one."
"I did not cite any in my report," Wolfe replied. "No."
"Can you think of one that you didn't cite?" Brennan followed up.
"Not that I'm aware of, no," Wolfe said.
Brennan grilled Wolfe about his use of the Signal app to share encrypted messages with the defense and about his inability to produce communications under a court order because his texts were deleted.
Earlier, Wolfe played video for the jury that showed multiple recreations of an impact involving a 2021 Lexus LX 570 SUV and a crash dummy to simulate that alleged impact of Read's vehicle of the same make and model on O'Keefe, whom she is accused of killing in a drunken hit-and-run.
Karen Read in court during her retrial facing murder charges in connection to the death of John O’Keefe

Karen Read listens during her murder trial in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Tuesday, June 3, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)

In each simulation, at speeds ranging from 10 to 29 mph, the damage to the vehicle's taillight was "inconsistent" with that damage police recorded on Read's actual taillight.
While most of the impacts shattered the outer lens, internal components that were destroyed in Read's vehicle remained intact in multiple test taillights.
"Did you reach any opinions or conclusions as to whether the damage to the right rear tail light of the subject vehicle is consistent or inconsistent with an impact to a right arm during a high-speed reversing maneuver?" asked defense attorney Alan Jackson.
"It was inconsistent," Wolfe replied.
Wolfe also obtained sweatshirts that were the same brand and fabric blend of the one O'Keefe was wearing when he died. Notably, the impacts did not produce similar holes in the cloth.

a crash dummy on the ground with holes in the sleeve of its shirt

A still image from Dr. Daniel Wolfe's presentation that shows a crash dummy in a sweatshirt similar to the one John O'Keefe was wearing sustained holes in the sleeve after an impact with a Lexus SUV of the same make, model and year as Karen Read's.

"Do you have an opinion or conclusion as to whether or not the damage that you saw to the hoodie related to John O'Keefe is consistent or inconsistent with an impact from a right rear taillight of the subject SUV?" Jackson asked.
"It was inconsistent," Wolfe replied.
"And what do you base that opinion on?" Jackson followed up.
"Based upon all of the impact testing that we did with the closed ATD arm in the laboratory, as well as the field," Wolfe said, using an acronym that refers to the formal name for crash dummies -- Anthropomorphic Test Device.
Judge Beverly Cannone called a midday lunch break around 12:40 p.m. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan was expected to kick off cross-examination when court resumes.
Friday marks the 28th day of her retrial on murder and other charges in the death of her former boyfriend, a 46-year-old Boston police officer.
Wolfe is the director of accident reconstruction at a firm called ARCCA.
Picture evidence in court at the Karen Read trial.

A photo of Karen Read's SUV, parked in the Canton Police Department's sally port, is projected during her murder retrial showing pieces missing from the right, rear taillight, in Norfolk Superior Court, Monday, May 12, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)

Earlier in his testimony, he said ARCCA designed a specialized "cannon" to simulate throwing a cocktail glass at Read's taillight and determined that similar damage could have been caused if someone threw the glass at around 31 mph and 37 mph.

"From the 37 mile per hour test, we are getting damage that's generally consistent, and by that I mentioned we have portions of the outer lens missing, the underlying diffuser," he said.
KAREN READ DEFENSE GETS BOOST AS PLOW DRIVER TESTIFIES HE SAW NO BODY IN SNOW DURING BOSTON COP DEATH CASE

Cannon test

An image shown in court shows ARCCA's "cannon" test in which experts fired a bar glass at 37 mph into a Lexus taillight to see how the damage would happen.

"There was also some fracturing on the backside of the assembly. So again we observed damage that was generally consistent with that of the subject taillight."
Wolfe said he gave an opinion that the damage Read's SUV was generally consistent with someone throwing that drinking glass at at least 37 mph.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

Gallagher wears a purple glove and holds a broken cocktail glass

Retired Lt. Paul Gallagher, of the Canton Police Department, shows a broken cocktail glass recovered near John O'Keefe's remains during the Karen Read trial, Monday, May 5, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)

In another ARCCA test, the reconstructionists wanted to see if an impact between the taillight and the back of O'Keefe's head could've caused his skull fracture.
Wolfe said he tested at 15 mph. Damage to the test taillight was significantly more than Read's taillight at that speed – but it didn't generate enough force to cause a skull fracture.
ARCCA obtained sweatshirts from the same company and of the same fabric blend as the one O'Keefe was wearing when he died and also simulated strikes to see if the fabric would puncture in the same way. At 10 and 17 mph, the taillight sustained different levels of damage but the fabric remained undamaged.
SIGN UP TO GET THE TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER

Karen Read smiling with John O'Keefe who is wearing a white shirt and a dark tie.

Karen Read and John O'Keefe together in an undated photo. (Courtesy of Karen Read)

Prosecutors accused Read, 45, of hitting O'Keefe with her 2021 Lexus SUV and driving away as he died on the ground with a skull fracture during a blizzard.

Investigators recovered a broken cocktail glass and a black straw from the scene and found additional glass on Read's bumper. However, experts testified earlier at trial that the bar glass was not a match for the fragments found on her car.
The defense denies that she struck him and has called witnesses who have attributed his injuries to other causes, including a dog bite and a potential fistfight with a man Read was flirting with behind his back.
GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB

Karen Read in court during her retrial facing murder charges in connection to the death of John O’Keefe

Karen Read attends her murder trial in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Tuesday, June 3, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)

Brennan unsuccessfully tried to have Wolfe and a colleague, Dr. Andrew Renstchler, blocked from testifying before the start of the trial.
Wolfe testified during the first trial, which ended with a deadlocked jury, that damage to Read's SUV is inconsistent with a collision involving O'Keefe.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Read told reporters outside court Wednesday that her defense could rest as soon as next Tuesday. There was no court on Thursday.
She could face up to life in prison if convicted. Her first trial, in which the defense claimed she had been framed, ended with a deadlocked jury last year.
 
Last edited:
I'd really been looking forward to Brennan's cross exam of that phoney from ARCCA but I never imagined it could be anywhere near as good as it was!
It was such a pleasure to watch, I'm gonna watch it again!
 
I'd really been looking forward to Brennan's cross exam of that phoney from ARCCA but I never imagined it could be anywhere near as good as it was!
It was such a pleasure to watch, I'm gonna watch it again!
The D atty should also be disbarred after trial or a serious complaint put in over the entire ARCCA thing.

Yeah, I was not impressed with this D expert either. The P's was far better. This guy was boring as heck during direct and just not impressive and then Brennan dismantled him. I enjoyed every minute of that. Might have to watch again as well.

D has one not a single thing in this trial imo.

KR read said they will likely be done early this week and unless they've got something big I'd say she's in very hot water. That of course is IF the jury truly knows nothing prior and so on.

It's been a bit enjoyable being it is a fair trial this time. I'm still ready for it to end. I'm sick of her as I'm sick of Lori Daybell. I want their faces gone.
 
The D atty should also be disbarred after trial or a serious complaint put in over the entire ARCCA thing.

Yeah, I was not impressed with this D expert either. The P's was far better. This guy was boring as heck during direct and just not impressive and then Brennan dismantled him. I enjoyed every minute of that. Might have to watch again as well.

D has one not a single thing in this trial imo.

KR read said they will likely be done early this week and unless they've got something big I'd say she's in very hot water. That of course is IF the jury truly knows nothing prior and so on.

It's been a bit enjoyable being it is a fair trial this time. I'm still ready for it to end. I'm sick of her as I'm sick of Lori Daybell. I want their faces gone.
Re the defense, I've never seen such sleaze!

Re ARCCA, from where I sit, whomever hired them in the first place is either very ignorant or very sketchy.
 
Re the defense, I've never seen such sleaze!

Re ARCCA, from where I sit, whomever hired them in the first place is either very ignorant or very sketchy.
Yeah it's lucky they were not entirely denied. I guess it's luck, I don't think them that great.

Jackson is lucky he was sanctioned and sent packing. I don't think it's over yet though. I suspect some of that may come after trial. Judge was MORE than fair to him considering what he did.

As I said I'm ready for it to be over. Supposed to be wrapping up shortly supposedly.
 
Yeah it's lucky they were not entirely denied. I guess it's luck, I don't think them that great.

Jackson is lucky he was sanctioned and sent packing. I don't think it's over yet though. I suspect some of that may come after trial. Judge was MORE than fair to him considering what he did.

As I said I'm ready for it to be over. Supposed to be wrapping up shortly supposedly.
Do you think ARCCA was hired because the ME was clueless? (Too bad, so sad but true, lol)
 
The thing is, I've never needed anybody- whether it's an ME or a Trooper Paul- to explain to me what happened and it's beyond me why anyone would.
 
The thing is, I've never needed anybody- whether it's an ME or a Trooper Paul- to explain to me what happened and it's beyond me why anyone would.
I agree. I guess the thing is it isn't unusual to do it for a jury and then they have the D trying to paint a fairytale and say such didn't happen and so...
 
I'm saying I don't understand why the FBI hired ARCCA.
I heard it all, watched those hearings but don't count on me remembering. I agree that it seems odd to me, they hire them and the D ends up with them. I guess that in and of itself isn't impossible but the sh*t they pulled when the D had them was downright dirty imo.

I wish I recalled more. Did they bring them into assist with something? I mean the feds would never be calling in people to then be taken over as D witnesses. It was in the hearings. Pretty certain. Not sure ALL was explained, just don't recall.
 
The thing is, I've never needed anybody- whether it's an ME or a Trooper Paul- to explain to me what happened and it's beyond me why anyone would.
The jury need to hear what happened though based on facts, witnesses, LE and experts plus also the defendant if she testifies. If she doesn't, then the other witnesses' evidence becomes more important, as well as what the defendant has said in interviews and to witnesses. The most damning is her saying to witnesses, "I did it, I did it, I did it!" I cannot see who is left now to testify.
 
Last edited:
I heard it all, watched those hearings but don't count on me remembering. I agree that it seems odd to me, they hire them and the D ends up with them. I guess that in and of itself isn't impossible but the sh*t they pulled when the D had them was downright dirty imo.

I wish I recalled more. Did they bring them into assist with something? I mean the feds would never be calling in people to then be taken over as D witnesses. It was in the hearings. Pretty certain. Not sure ALL was explained, just don't recall.
The jury need to hear what happened though based on facts, witnesses, LE and experts plus also the defendant if she testifies. If she doesn't, then the other witnesses' evidence becomes more important, as well as what the defendant has said in interviews and to witnesses. The most damning is her saying to witnesses, "I did it, I did it, I did it!" I cannot see who is left now to testify.
I don't know why you both think I'm referring to the trial- I'm not- I'm referring to the FBI investigation.
Now, I don't know how and / or why they became involved in the case in the first place but I was asking for an opinion as to why they (FBI) hired ARCCA.
 
I don't know why you both think I'm referring to the trial- I'm not- I'm referring to the FBI investigation.
Now, I don't know how and / or why they became involved in the case in the first place but I was asking for an opinion as to why they (FBI) hired ARCCA.
You said you didn't know why anyone would need it explaining to them. That's what i was answering. They are trying to convince a jury who know zero about the case.
I don't know why the FBI were involved but would guess it is because an LE officer was the victim.
 
You get one free article, but here:

DEDHAM — During a hearing Tuesday in the Karen Read murder trial, a defense expert testified that the injuries on her police officer boyfriend’s right arm were “consistent with a large dog attack.”
“Those injuries appear to be consistent with a large animal attack,” retired California emergency room physician Marie Russell testified after looking at an autopsy photo of the right arm of Read’s boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.
Asked by defense lawyer Alan Jackson to further explain her opinion, Russell, who is also a retired pathologist and a former police officer, said the injuries “are consistent with a large dog attack.”



Russell’s testimony in Dedham Superior Court and that of two accident reconstruction experts took place without the jury present. Whether they will get to offer their opinions during the high profile trial of Read, 44, of Mansfield, will be up to Judge Beverly Cannone.
The judge said she would decide on Thursday whether the witnesses will get to take the stand when the defense presents its case. The jury returns to court Thursday to hear more prosecution testimony.
Read is accused of intentionally backing her Lexus SUV into O’Keefe, 46, outside the Canton home of another Boston police officer on Jan. 29, 2022, after a night of barhopping, then leaving O’Keefe to die in a snowstorm.
Read has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and two related charges and claims she is being framed as part of a wide-ranging conspiracy by law enforcement with close ties to Canton and state police.
Her lawyers have argued that O’Keefe was beaten in the basement of the house, owned by Boston police officer Brian Albert, and attacked by a pet German shepherd mix after Read dropped him off for an after party.
Russell said she reviewed autopsy photos and the medical examiner’s report and determined the marks on O’Keefe’s arm were scratches and bite marks from a large dog and that holes in his clothing were caused when the dog bit him.
Russell’s opinion appears to contradict the earlier testimony of a forensic scientist from the University of California, Davis veterinary genetics lab who found no canine DNA on clothing worn by O’Keefe.
Russell said she did not review the veterinarian’s findings or records related to Chloe, the pet dog owned by Brian and Nicole Albert, who the couple testified they “rehomed” in Vermont after it bit a woman.
Her conclusion also contradicts a state police accident reconstruction expert who testified Monday that O’Keefe’s arm injuries were caused when Read struck him with her SUV and her right rear taillight broke apart.



Prosecutor Adam Lally argued that Russell should not be allowed to testify because he was only notified by the defense about her last month while the trial was in its sixth week of testimony.
Lally also said Russell did not review police or lab reports, the veterinarian’s findings about the lack of canine DNA or Chloe’s “bite history,” which included photographs.
During his argument, Jackson said he did not know Russell and was contacted only recently by a friend in the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office who Russell called when she read about the case.
The defense lawyer said he sent the information about Chloe and the veterinarian’s findings but did not know why Russell did not review them.
Despite only recently learning about Russell after the trial started, Jackson said she should not be excluded because Read has a right to rebut the opinions of witnesses for the prosecution who say O’Keefe’s injuries were caused by being struck by Read’s SUV.
If she decides to allow Russell to testify, Cannone said she will allow the prosecution to call a witness to rebut her opinion.
The judge is also considering whether to allow testimony from two accident reconstruction experts who work for a private company and were hired by the FBI as part of a separate federal probe into Read’s case.
The witnesses, Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler, testified Tuesday about their credentials and experience but were not asked about their opinions.
They work for ARCCA Inc., a forensic engineering company in Pennsylvania, and prepared a report for the FBI. The confidential report was given earlier to the defense and the prosecution.
During a pretrial hearing in March, Jackson said the experts hired by the FBI determined O’Keefe’s injuries “were inconsistent” with being struck by Read’s SUV.
The U.S. attorney’s office has declined to comment on its investigation.
Bringing this forward as it seems to explain why feds were involved in this case. There was/is a separate federal investigation going on. Higgins is a federal agent.
 
I don't know why you both think I'm referring to the trial- I'm not- I'm referring to the FBI investigation.
Now, I don't know how and / or why they became involved in the case in the first place but I was asking for an opinion as to why they (FBI) hired ARCCA.
And I don't know why you think I meant the trial, just because it came up in hearings doesn't mean it didn't go into why the feds had them in the first place. That's exactly what it was about, I just can't recall it all. I was talking of hearings, not trial. If I could recall, I'd tell you, I did say it could likely be found, it was gotten into somewhat in pretrial hearings. NOT trial, and about over the last things. I'm sure it could be found. As much as they've talked of and that's been let out anyhow. I've taken in too much from too many trials and pretrial hearings and more. I don't have the answer. I did offer my guesses.
 
You said you didn't know why anyone would need it explaining to them. That's what i was answering. They are trying to convince a jury who know zero about the case.
I don't know why the FBI were involved but would guess it is because an LE officer was the victim.
She's talking about why the feds called them in and then the D took them.
 
Now if we don't know much about the Fed case, the jury are going to know even less. Not sure if that is good or bad for the defendant but it will be confusing for the jury surely?

Mind you, i think that is the aim of the D. To confuse and have all these other theories. The jealous ATF officer, the vicious dog, the lying police covering for their colleagues at the party and in the sally port. It was enough to cause doubt in the first trial and cause the mistrial.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
3,103
Messages
262,369
Members
1,034
Latest member
jarad adams
Back
Top Bottom