Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *TRIAL IN PROGRESS*

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:
I wasn't familiar with this case. I just read up on it. The evidence to me says she didn't do this. The party IMO is where his injuries happened. They are shocking. The head injuries in a fight. That's very severe anger. Way beyond a normal fist fight. It seems to me it was with an object. The arm injuries. Her alleged blood alcohol level is a concern. He let her drive like that?. It seems at that level she wouldn't be able to. I just quickly read an article. But, I saw her broken tail light noted. And the there were no fragments found at the scene. Hmmm...The cover up wasn't very good then.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't familiar with this case. I just read up on it. The evidence to me says she didn't do this. The party IMO is where his injuries happened. They are shocking. The head injuries in a fight. That's very severe anger. Way beyond a normal fist fight. It seems to me it was with an object. The arm injuries. Her alleged blood alcohol level is a concern. He let her drive like that?. It seems at that level she wouldn't be able to. I just quickly read an article. But, I saw her broken twilight noted. And the there were no fragments found at the scene. Hmmm...The cover up wasn't very good then.

There's a lot of hinky stuff with this case. The prosecution is using a theory that directly contradicts the known evidence. When shown the exculpatory evidence they just ignore it.
 
@Cousin Dupree I think this may be the case you and Mel were talking of in some thread. Where she has been framed. I know NOTHING of the case. Nada. Zilch. But have seen some fair part of this and it seems to me just the opposite. It goes to show what one watches can give one opinion and the other the opposite. I think you should watch it. I truly don't know the case or what I think but there is some very strong opinions here that the idea of her being framed is ludicrous. It is still live right now but will be there for view at any time.

 
@Cousin Dupree I think this may be the case you and Mel were talking of in some thread. Where she has been framed. I know NOTHING of the case. Nada. Zilch. But have seen some fair part of this and it seems to me just the opposite. It goes to show what one watches can give one opinion and the other the opposite. I think you should watch it. I truly don't know the case or what I think but there is some very strong opinions here that the idea of her being framed is ludicrous. It is still live right now but will be there for view at any time.



Thanks, that is a good debate. The one thing that really bothers me is the Apple evidence that he went in and took some steps upstairs in the house. This is the same type of evidence used in the Murdaugh trial to convict him. His defense didn't argue the validity of that evidence.

The pieces of tail light at the scene is perplexing. I see the prosecutions case, but the inside the house cell evidence is hard to overcome. Saying that thirty people had to be lying doesn't really phase me. Fear can do a lot to silence people. Fear of a police department is very real.

I see both sides, but still lean on the side of the defense.
 
Last edited:
This is a good video, they offer a look at both sides:



This is a good debate. The one thing that really bothers me is the Apple evidence that he went in and took some steps upstairs in the house. This is the same type of evidence used in the Murdaugh trial, to convict him.

The pieces of tail light at the scene is perplexing. I see the prosecutions case, but the inside the house cell evidence is hard to overcome. Saying that thirty people had to be lying doesn't really phase me. Fear can do a lot to silence people. Fear of a police department is very real.

I see both sides, but still lean on the side of the defense.
 
Last edited:
@Cousin Dupree I think this may be the case you and Mel were talking of in some thread. Where she has been framed. I know NOTHING of the case. Nada. Zilch. But have seen some fair part of this and it seems to me just the opposite. It goes to show what one watches can give one opinion and the other the opposite. I think you should watch it. I truly don't know the case or what I think but there is some very strong opinions here that the idea of her being framed is ludicrous. It is still live right now but will be there for view at any time.



Also, the time of the Google search, regarding the "How long does it take for someone to die of hypothermia", is in dispute. The time of that search is crucial.

One argument is that the Apple data can't be that accurate that, at best, it's within yards. Even if it's not that accurate, it shows him walking a lot after the alleged collision.
 
Last edited:
This is a good debate. The one thing that really bothers me is the Apple evidence that he went in and took some steps upstairs in the house. This is the same type of evidence used in the Murdaugh trial, to convict him.

The pieces of tail light at the scene is perplexing. I see the prosecutions case, but the inside the house cell evidence is hard to overcome. Saying that thirty people had to be lying doesn't really phase me. Fear can do a lot to silence people. Fear of a police department is very real.

I see both sides, but still lean on the side of the defense.
Once I came across this live least night, I watched it to the end and it was some feisty arguing. I don't blame him for muting the one on occasion, he had to because when I came in she was running the show and never shutting up. I agreed with her at first, knowing NOTHING of the case she had very good points but as time went on and I heard from others I'm not so sure.

I agree that it isn't just fear of police departments but it is sucking up to any in power AND fear of what can be done by that power to them if they speak up.

There's a lot here though to have to explain for a defense and too many things imo. I DO THINK reasonable doubt can possibly be created though and that it was overcharged, BIG MISTAKE there.

The condescending woman and she was a lot at times basically called jurors stupid at one point. She has great points but if she was prosecuting the case, she'd pii** the jury off in no time flat and go overboard on it all.

She was also going way out there with how protestors can be paid and this and that. That's all true but it didn't help her to get that out there on thinking it in this case. She can't see a conspiracy on one side (hers) but then can see all this zany imaginative stuff on the other side.

I still don't know the case well but just listening to the arguing told me some of it, I haven't actually looked at the case.

But stripping away all of the other stuff from what I understand she knew she hit him or thought she did right from the start and only later did this all start with an attempt to turn the facts no?

The woman who at first when I came onto the video impressed me and had some very solid facts and arguments gave many reasons the defense thing is far fetched and many reasons a jury will see she is guilty. She even did admit they overcharged this case which forced the defense and defendant into a mode of countering and defending her beyond what they maybe would have. But as time went on she becomes so unlikeable as she ran over all guests and wouldn't shut up. I have to hand it to Joel for muting her and the Turtle guy who joined later so other guests could speak. Even then she is sitting on camera talking and having a fit with her hands and expressions at all they are saying. Lol.

I watch his shows quite a bit and this one wasn't typical for the arguing and call in and sensation it was causing. Normally they have on just good guests and a very good discussion and not a two sided thing with attacks both ways. Never seen one like this before in his shows.
 
Once I came across this live least night, I watched it to the end and it was some feisty arguing. I don't blame him for muting the one on occasion, he had to because when I came in she was running the show and never shutting up. I agreed with her at first, knowing NOTHING of the case she had very good points but as time went on and I heard from others I'm not so sure.

I agree that it isn't just fear of police departments but it is sucking up to any in power AND fear of what can be done by that power to them if they speak up.

There's a lot here though to have to explain for a defense and too many things imo. I DO THINK reasonable doubt can possibly be created though and that it was overcharged, BIG MISTAKE there.

The condescending woman and she was a lot at times basically called jurors stupid at one point. She has great points but if she was prosecuting the case, she'd pii** the jury off in no time flat and go overboard on it all.

She was also going way out there with how protestors can be paid and this and that. That's all true but it didn't help her to get that out there on thinking it in this case. She can't see a conspiracy on one side (hers) but then can see all this zany imaginative stuff on the other side.

I still don't know the case well but just listening to the arguing told me some of it, I haven't actually looked at the case.

But stripping away all of the other stuff from what I understand she knew she hit him or thought she did right from the start and only later did this all start with an attempt to turn the facts no?

The woman who at first when I came onto the video impressed me and had some very solid facts and arguments gave many reasons the defense thing is far fetched and many reasons a jury will see she is guilty. She even did admit they overcharged this case which forced the defense and defendant into a mode of countering and defending her beyond what they maybe would have. But as time went on she becomes so unlikeable as she ran over all guests and wouldn't shut up. I have to hand it to Joel for muting her and the Turtle guy who joined later so other guests could speak. Even then she is sitting on camera talking and having a fit with her hands and expressions at all they are saying. Lol.

I watch his shows quite a bit and this one wasn't typical for the arguing and call in and sensation it was causing. Normally they have on just good guests and a very good discussion and not a two sided thing with attacks both ways. Never seen one like this before in his shows.

What she actually said is in doubt. Did she say "I killed him" or "Oh my God! I might have killed him."?
 
What she actually said is in doubt. Did she say "I killed him" or "Oh my God! I might have killed him."?
Yeah I gathered that but it also sounded it was said to more than one person at different times, etc. I know how they are trying to make it sound, not like a confession but more of a repeat of the question asked her or a could I have scenario? Not so sure that's how she said it though but yes, that's the spin now being put on it. Maybe it's fact but that's up for debate obviously in the differing sides.
 

Here’s what we learned from the ‘Nightline’ segment on Karen Read​

Karen Read proclaimed her innocence to a national audience Monday night, opening up to ABC’s “Nightline” about her relationship with Boston police officer John O’Keefe and sharing her version of events from the night he died.

Read is accused of backing her car into O’Keefe and leaving him to die in the snow outside a fellow Boston police officer’s Canton home in January 2022.

But the Mansfield woman has steadfastly denied the allegations, pleading not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death.

“I did not kill John O’Keefe,” she told ABC News’ Matt Gutman in the “Nightline” clip. “I have never harmed a hair on John O’Keefe’s head.”

Read and O’Keefe had a strained relationship at times

The couple first dated in their 20s before reconnecting during the pandemic, Gutman reported.

“He had reached out to me on Facebook and he said, ‘Hey, blast from the past. How’s things?’” Read recalled. “And when I saw his picture, his profile picture was with several young children, and then it triggered my memory that his sister and his sister’s husband had passed away. And he told me, ‘Yeah, I have the kids now.’ I admired that; I thought that was amazing.”

But their roughly two-year relationship was fraught at times; Read told Gutman that O’Keefe had been relying on her more to take care of the kids, and that he criticized some of the childcare decisions she’d made.

“We had had an argument on New Year’s Eve,” Read said in Monday’s interview, recalling an incident where O’Keefe became “incoherently drunk” and left her with his niece and nephew.

“I felt very much taken advantage of,” she said. “He apologized profusely for what happened on New Year’s Eve, and he said, ‘If you can’t get over it, then you need to spend some time at your house. I can’t keep apologizing; I don’t want to keep rehashing this.’”

According to a prior court document shared by Boston 25 News, O’Keefe’s niece and nephew told investigators that the couple argued regularly, and that O’Keefe had expressed a desire to take a break from the relationship. Read, meanwhile, allegedly told authorities that she and O’Keefe argued the morning before he died over what she fed his niece for breakfast.

What happened when Read dropped O’Keefe off?

O’Keefe and Read joined some friends at the Waterfall Bar & Grille in Canton on Jan. 28 and were later invited back to the home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston officer whom Read said O’Keefe admired.

“Both times I met Brian Albert, he seemed like the type of person that you’d be surprised he’s out socially, because he doesn’t seem like he ever wants to be there,” she said.


The couple drove to Albert’s home; from there, accounts differ.

Prosecutors allege that Read dropped O’Keefe off, made a three-point turn, rammed into her boyfriend, and drove away.

Her lawyers argue that Read was framed, suggesting that O’Keefe was severely beaten, attacked by Albert’s dog, and left outside. However, prosecutors have repeatedly rejected the defense team’s claims of a conspiracy and cover-up, accusing Read’s attorneys of making out-of-court statements that amounted to “unsubstantiated proclamations, supported only by self-serving speculation and conjecture.”

Read offered her own version of events Monday, telling “Nightline” that she was unsure whether the afterparty invitation extended to her and wanted O’Keefe to double check.

“I pull at the foot of the driveway. It’s snowing. John has no coat on. It’s windy,” she recalled. “So I drop him off, he goes up the driveway, and approaches the side door. And as I see him approach the door, I look down at my phone.”

Read told “Nightline” that after about 10 minutes of waiting in her car, she became irritated that O’Keefe hadn’t gotten in touch. She said she drove back to his home, noticing when she awoke before 5 a.m. that he still hadn’t returned.

She began searching for O’Keefe, enlisting help from two other women: Kerry Roberts, O’Keefe’s friend, and Jennifer McCabe, Albert’s sister-in-law and a fellow afterparty guest.

The three women headed to Albert’s home, where they found O’Keefe lying in the snow. He was pronounced dead soon afterward at Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton.

Did Read say ‘I hit him’?

A forensic specialist who examined Read’s SUV found “a dent with chipped paint in the trunk door, a broken tail light, and scratches on the bumper,” as well as human hair on the “rear passenger side quarter panel,” prosecutors wrote in a May motion.

“I had told both Jen and Kerry that I cracked my tail light,” Read said in Monday’s interview. “I said, ‘I just hit my car, on top of everything. But I didn’t look at the damage.’ And both women said, ‘It’s cracked. It’s cracked. Calm down, you cracked your tail light. You’re OK, let’s go look for John.’”

McCabe allegedly told investigators that Read stated, “Could I have hit him?” and “Did I hit him?” Prosecutors also said a first responder at the scene reported hearing Read say, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

“I said ‘I hit him.’ It was preceded by a ‘did’ and proceeded by a question mark,” Read told “Nightline.” “What I thought could have happened was that, ‘Did I incapacitate him unwittingly, somehow, and then in his drunkenness, [he] passed out?’”

Gutman asked her if it was possible that she hit O’Keefe unintentionally.

“No,” she replied. “Not possible.”

Read is due back in court on Sept. 15.
 

Here’s what we learned from the ‘Nightline’ segment on Karen Read​

Karen Read proclaimed her innocence to a national audience Monday night, opening up to ABC’s “Nightline” about her relationship with Boston police officer John O’Keefe and sharing her version of events from the night he died.

Read is accused of backing her car into O’Keefe and leaving him to die in the snow outside a fellow Boston police officer’s Canton home in January 2022.

But the Mansfield woman has steadfastly denied the allegations, pleading not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death.

“I did not kill John O’Keefe,” she told ABC News’ Matt Gutman in the “Nightline” clip. “I have never harmed a hair on John O’Keefe’s head.”

Read and O’Keefe had a strained relationship at times

The couple first dated in their 20s before reconnecting during the pandemic, Gutman reported.

“He had reached out to me on Facebook and he said, ‘Hey, blast from the past. How’s things?’” Read recalled. “And when I saw his picture, his profile picture was with several young children, and then it triggered my memory that his sister and his sister’s husband had passed away. And he told me, ‘Yeah, I have the kids now.’ I admired that; I thought that was amazing.”

But their roughly two-year relationship was fraught at times; Read told Gutman that O’Keefe had been relying on her more to take care of the kids, and that he criticized some of the childcare decisions she’d made.

“We had had an argument on New Year’s Eve,” Read said in Monday’s interview, recalling an incident where O’Keefe became “incoherently drunk” and left her with his niece and nephew.

“I felt very much taken advantage of,” she said. “He apologized profusely for what happened on New Year’s Eve, and he said, ‘If you can’t get over it, then you need to spend some time at your house. I can’t keep apologizing; I don’t want to keep rehashing this.’”

According to a prior court document shared by Boston 25 News, O’Keefe’s niece and nephew told investigators that the couple argued regularly, and that O’Keefe had expressed a desire to take a break from the relationship. Read, meanwhile, allegedly told authorities that she and O’Keefe argued the morning before he died over what she fed his niece for breakfast.

What happened when Read dropped O’Keefe off?

O’Keefe and Read joined some friends at the Waterfall Bar & Grille in Canton on Jan. 28 and were later invited back to the home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston officer whom Read said O’Keefe admired.

“Both times I met Brian Albert, he seemed like the type of person that you’d be surprised he’s out socially, because he doesn’t seem like he ever wants to be there,” she said.


The couple drove to Albert’s home; from there, accounts differ.

Prosecutors allege that Read dropped O’Keefe off, made a three-point turn, rammed into her boyfriend, and drove away.

Her lawyers argue that Read was framed, suggesting that O’Keefe was severely beaten, attacked by Albert’s dog, and left outside. However, prosecutors have repeatedly rejected the defense team’s claims of a conspiracy and cover-up, accusing Read’s attorneys of making out-of-court statements that amounted to “unsubstantiated proclamations, supported only by self-serving speculation and conjecture.”

Read offered her own version of events Monday, telling “Nightline” that she was unsure whether the afterparty invitation extended to her and wanted O’Keefe to double check.

“I pull at the foot of the driveway. It’s snowing. John has no coat on. It’s windy,” she recalled. “So I drop him off, he goes up the driveway, and approaches the side door. And as I see him approach the door, I look down at my phone.”

Read told “Nightline” that after about 10 minutes of waiting in her car, she became irritated that O’Keefe hadn’t gotten in touch. She said she drove back to his home, noticing when she awoke before 5 a.m. that he still hadn’t returned.

She began searching for O’Keefe, enlisting help from two other women: Kerry Roberts, O’Keefe’s friend, and Jennifer McCabe, Albert’s sister-in-law and a fellow afterparty guest.

The three women headed to Albert’s home, where they found O’Keefe lying in the snow. He was pronounced dead soon afterward at Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton.

Did Read say ‘I hit him’?

A forensic specialist who examined Read’s SUV found “a dent with chipped paint in the trunk door, a broken tail light, and scratches on the bumper,” as well as human hair on the “rear passenger side quarter panel,” prosecutors wrote in a May motion.

“I had told both Jen and Kerry that I cracked my tail light,” Read said in Monday’s interview. “I said, ‘I just hit my car, on top of everything. But I didn’t look at the damage.’ And both women said, ‘It’s cracked. It’s cracked. Calm down, you cracked your tail light. You’re OK, let’s go look for John.’”

McCabe allegedly told investigators that Read stated, “Could I have hit him?” and “Did I hit him?” Prosecutors also said a first responder at the scene reported hearing Read say, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

“I said ‘I hit him.’ It was preceded by a ‘did’ and proceeded by a question mark,” Read told “Nightline.” “What I thought could have happened was that, ‘Did I incapacitate him unwittingly, somehow, and then in his drunkenness, [he] passed out?’”

Gutman asked her if it was possible that she hit O’Keefe unintentionally.

“No,” she replied. “Not possible.”

Read is due back in court on Sept. 15.
“I said ‘I hit him.’ It was preceded by a ‘did’ and proceeded by a question mark,” Read told “Nightline.” “What I thought could have happened was that, ‘Did I incapacitate him unwittingly, somehow, and then in his drunkenness, [he] passed out?’”

Gutman asked her if it was possible that she hit O’Keefe unintentionally.

“No,” she replied. “Not possible.”


Someone make this part make sense to me as I'm not tracking it. Why would she say even the "did I hit him" and wonder if she incapacitated him if she then says it is no, not possible she hit him even unintentionally?
 
I watched ONE show on this a very heated one re both sides on Surviving the Survivor. Refresh me, DID he attend the party and was seen and known to be inside and attending? Or did he never make it inside?

And what was the talk of how much she drank that night and how intoxicated would she have been. Was she the DD? Or were all these cops and partners drinking and driving? Not unheard of and very much a disliked hypocritical lifetstyle in many a town and county while at the same time arresting others for doing the same. Was her BAC tested and at what point hours later?

I didn't see the Nightline thing, how did she come across to viewers? Truthful or not? I don't mean about the relationship so much as about that night and next day?
 

‘Free Karen Read’ billboard goes up ahead of hearing in murder case​

A new billboard not far from Gillette Stadium in Foxboro aims to capture the attention of the few in Greater Boston who haven’t been following the case of Karen Read, the Mansfield woman accused of killing her boyfriend with her car on a snowy night in January of last year.


Karen Read defense team says state is withholding key evidence​

Lawyers for Karen Read — the Massachusetts woman charged with second degree murder in the death of her police officer boyfriend in a case that has garnered national attention and controversy — are demanding access to evidence they say the Commonwealth has been holding back.

In a recent court filing, the defense requests access to and the ability to independently test evidence that has been in possession of the Commonwealth since January 2022 — including samples taken from O'Keefe's clothing and person, and pieces of taillight.

Defense lawyers claim that Read has been wrongfully denied access to evidence items over the duration of the case.

Read's team is also looking to get access to elements related to the law enforcement investigation, including photographs and handwritten notes related the recovery of taillight pieces, as well as investigatory notes.

There is expected to be a hearing in Read's case on Friday.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,899
Messages
222,830
Members
904
Latest member
aegrisomnias
Back
Top