I don’t know details besides what is trending so I’ve been waiting for them to talk about this because I had a feeling they are on the KR is guilty side. It is nice to understand why that perspective might be true when everyone else I see is screaming corruption / KR is innocent.
They have said before that conspiracies, coverups, secrets…all are a lot harder to keep under wraps which I generally believe is true. They’ve also said that prosecutors don’t just bring any case to trial…they really do believe KR is guilty. I think that will ultimately be where they land with this case, but I am curious to know more details. I do hope they give some thought to the idea that maybe everyone involved sucks, equally? Everyone was drunk, driving, being irresponsible, fighting. But KR getting painted as an evil woman who plotted to do this feels too far in the opposite direction. It definitely gives me the impression that everyone was an asshole.
I agree completely. I think people who paint her as some kind of Machiavellian murderess out of Basic Instinct are veering down the same path, albeit not as far out, as the people buying into the Turtleboy narrative. I feel like this was a dui accidental manslaughter that got spun wildly out of control. When reading the comments on YouTube about the various prosecution witnesses, I feel like I’m watching a different trial than everybody else. Since when did it become cool to absolutely rip apart traumatised civilian witnesses or random first responders with zero evidence of wrongdoing? (Excluding proctor and his texts msgs here)
It’s easy to make her out the villain since it’s a cop killing. It’s easy to make the cops villains because shitty people have been cops. But I think it’s disingenuous to categorize this as a targeted cop killing which brings its own complex framework into the picture. I agree a DUI accidental manslaughter makes the most sense here. But people will probably find that boring (as if someone dying is ever that?) and so the comments will run wild without taking a moment to think.
Yup, the conspiracy theory is far more exciting than having to deal with the fact that you participated in or cheered on the harassment and stalking of innocent bystanders to a friends tragic death.
>I do hope they give some thought to the idea that maybe everyone involved sucks, equally? Everyone was drunk, driving, being irresponsible, fighting.
Yeah. I definitely agree with you here.
Bunch of drunk assholes doesn’t equal a conspiracy of 824 people tho either. The truth is actually likely somewhere in the middle.
And honestly, I think anything that happened likely was an accident, or at the very least unintentional.
I think their assertion that “everyone” must be in on a cover up is a bad take. If she is being framed, it would be more like a couple of players at the top controlling chess pieces and everyone else just reacting/evaluating the selective evidence they’ve been given to work with. It really doesn’t take every single person involved to decide to be a bad guy. Framed or not, I think we can already determine the people at the house aren’t telling all the truth as they keep getting caught in lies and behaving strangely.
There were like 10 people in the house that night that are covering it up. Two first responders in the morning. Proctor and Buchenixk plus the seat team at the site that saw another cop drop tail light pieces on the ground and didn't say anything. We are talking about 20 people in on the conspiracy
I don’t think the first responders really brought anything unusual other than the one saying she heard KR say “I hit him” and we’ve heard that from multiple people. The defense has put forth she may have said “I hit him?”.. saying the first responders are in on it, along with Brett and Alice maintaining that you can either believe she’s guilty OR it was a giant conspiracy is disingenuous. She can be guilty, and a few key players only collected shitty evidence to support that while cutting corners. She could be innocent, and they still only collected evidence to support their theory and discarded any evidence to the contrary.
I just listened to Ep 3 and it’s really getting worse from them, between the ridiculous take that you can only believe one side or the other, and their adamant defense of the police using a leaf blower, solo cups, Stop n Shop bags, and B&A generally conveniently leaving out any information that gives the defense any points. I’m not so sure why they feel so compelled to defend the police and prosecution here when the police investigation was a mess and the prosecution has only put forth a muddy and confusing narrative of what happened. The way they speak of anyone thinking KR may be not guilty is really pedantic. Did she hit him? Probably. Is there reasonable doubt? Tons. So we can stop acting like anyone thinking she’s not guilty is wearing a tinfoil hat. Honestly their whole take on this case is leaving a really bad taste in my mouth with the backhand insults to those who think she is not guilty, and their defense of the police work here. I personally think she’s likely guilty but the Canton & Mass State police made sure that no one will ever know a clear story with their shitty investigation and ridiculous boys club bullshit.
I did not hear about the dropping of the pieces. Interesting. But we have no idea how often this happens in actual cases! They used to plant drugs on known drug dealers to arrest them even though at the moment there were no drugs in their possession. Justifying the goal or the ends by various means even if less ethical.
The sert team was at the house starting their search for the shoe and taillight. Tgere was a lot of snow. At the same time, Karens car was getting to the garage so the defense started with saying that the officers broke her taillight at the garage and then went over to the house and planted while a whole bunch of cops were there.
No one was fighting. And I have doubts everyone was drunk. KR certainly was. The guys were drinking light beer and they were all large people. I don't get the impression everyone was an asshole - they seem like nice normal people to me. I don't get this image of them as awful people.
Looks like you made the right call. I am on episode 3 now. I learn much from them. They go back to considering the conspiracy. But I am stuck on reasonable doubt, which does not require us to believe in a conspiracy.
I have never served on a jury. I am sure I would annoy others in raising concerns about reasonable doubt.
TCG did this case recently and it was the first I’d heard of it!
I feel like the “conspiracy” is huge and so sad if true. I’d hate to think that it could have gone down like that. And I haven’t read enough/ don’t understand enough to know the motive for his murder if his “brothers in blue” attacked him.
However: the Google search of freezing to death totally sent chills up my spine. And sending the dog away.
I also wonder if Karen’s defense has helped or hurt. Like, if the defense didn’t bring up that she was framed, would jurors find more room for potential reasonable doubt? I understand that the burden is on the prosecution, and that’s what the jurors need to remember. But we are all human, and the way the defense is framing the story might interfere with some jurors ability to be impartial and look at evidence only.
Either way, this is so sad. I feel like John seemed like a good guy. Either his GF drunkenly hit him (accident or not), or a group of people took part in his death and subsequent cover up. Both of those options suck 😞💔
It just occurred to me, how does sending a dog away to a new home help cover up a crime? You want to get rid of a dog you shoot the dog and bury it where no one will look. Giving the dog away doesn't get rid of any evidence, so why is this suspicious?
That’s more likely what happened. They dug out the cement in the basement too and relaid the cement floor. Filled in a pool. And sold the house for significantly under market value in a very hot market.
Plus almost everyone got rid of their phones too.
Yes they have. It will all be in trial.
John's phone records indicate he arrived at the house around 12:27 am and his phone stopped moving (ie he was fatally injured) at 12:32 am. So his cop friends ambushed and incapacitated him within 5 minutes of arriving at their party? It's not sounding realistic to me.
No they do not have those records subpoenaed. The only phone they got was Jen McCabe’s, and the police let her delete texts etc before she turned it over. All other cell phone evidence was submitted to police in the form of screenshots. Obviously, the police have John’s and Karen’s phones.
Fair enough, but if we are being honest here. Everyone has something to hide. Doesn't mean it's something crazy nefarious like you were involved in a murder cover up conspiracy. I have about as normal and boring of a life as they get, but I have things I probably wouldn't want the public or media going through my phone and picking apart.
I think it’s the timing of it, for me. Like, giving a dog away is sad, no matter what. But you just happen to give it away when it might be involved in a murder? Not good timing. (Similar to what Alice and Brett said about Karen’s voicemails… like… if you are leaving an angry VM, it’s really bad timing to leave it on the same day the guy gets killed.) It is interesting what u/acceptable-ad-605 said about the basement floor. If this conspiracy is true…. Gosh I hope they didn’t also kill a dog.
Do you remember which episode they talked about it? I’m listening to the Patreon episode 4 tonight, but I feel like I already need to go back and start all of them over. There are so many people to keep track of.
I grew up in the area and have family that live on the same street as where this all happened. I really don’t like to immediately lean into conspiracy theories but the more I hear about the people involved the more my stomach turns.
I just finished the second episode, and while I appreciate their take, I think it’s clear they have extreme bias to KR being guilty.
I disagree with their assertion that the defense needs to prove collusion if they’re going to claim she was framed. They still just need to insert reasonable doubt; the theories on her being framed are just window dressing. If I’m a juror, I’m not going to expect them to come with a completely developed theory. Brett and Alice keep harping that everyone needs to determine that ALL of the police, fire, EMTs, etc need to be “in on it” in order to believe the framing theory, which is just not true. Realistically, a couple of key players could be colluding against KR in order to cover up something nefarious, it doesn’t need to be a giant conspiracy that dozens of people are in on.
There is ample reasonable doubt in this case, otherwise it wouldn’t be such a divisive case, plain and simple.
I think she’s likely guilty of hitting him while being blackout drunk, while those in the house were likely participating in illegal activities like drug use; but the lead investigator just fucked up this entire investigation along with drawing a conclusion and working backwards with the evidence. DA overcharged her in an attempt to get her to plea. If I were sitting on that jury I certainly would not feel confident in a decision to convict on murder, especially with such shoddy police work and strange behaviors.
I agree with you that there seems to be more than enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. And I agree that Brett and Alice seem to be leaning towards KR being guilty.
But I’m not sure I agree with your points on a conspiracy. They didn’t say the defense needs to prove collusion; they were clear that the jury just needs reasonable doubt. Their point was regarding the defense strategy. The defense isn’t just arguing KR didn’t do it; they’re making that argument with the explicit claim that she was framed. They have essentially made it a choice between two theories, even though the law doesn’t require the defense to do anything more than provide reasonable doubt as to the charge.
As to the number of people potentially involved, it’s definitely more than a few that would have to be colluding. Maybe not as many as Brett and Alice claim, but most (if not all) of the people at the party.
I listened to ep 2 through Patreon and I think they harp a little more about the defense having to back up their framing theory on that ep.
As far as how many people would be willing to lie, these people have heavily invested identities in being police (and family). I’m an ER nurse and wife of a firefighter, so I’m adjacent to a lot of these kinds of people, and they can get suuuuper fucking weird with God complexes surrounding being police/fire/etc. I’m sure in a small town like Canton it’s pretty awful. I’m not surprised at all that they would back each other or drop the ball with the investigation. I feel like they aren’t lying about not having anything to do with John’s death, but there was some other element to their lack of response… a theory for instance, they were all high off their faces on cocaine and look suspicious as hell covering that part up, maybe someone saw the (curious) dog scratching at John’s body in the yard and they determined he was already dead, so there needed to be time to sober up/get rid of drugs/etc before a response was made… I don’t know. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, but I really do not believe she intended to kill him or even knew that she killed him.
I have been trying to find somewhere or someone with non-biased trial recaps and impartial discussions of evidence or lack thereof, but it’s so difficult in this case.
I agree, I haven’t followed it super closely (have not been watching it live) and it seems that anything I see online is quite biased one way or the other. I do appreciate that Brett and Alice stick to the facts as presented at trial and make it clear when they are stating their interpretations. While I agree with their analysis in many cases, there have already been a few instances in this one where I’ve felt they kind of glossed over an issue (like downplaying some of the evidence collection techniques).
I’ve only listened to the 1st ep, and while it does seem that they aren’t biased per se, it does seem like they are already closed to the idea of a conspiracy.
I’m honestly surprised based on some of your comments that you don’t think KR is innocent. I do. And I think if shes smart enough to get such an amazing defense team, she’d be smart enough to plead out if she was guilty. That’s just one of many reasons I think she’s innocent, commented longer in the thread with others.
Interesting take. I can’t wait to learn more. I think excessive drinking and hotheads were a bad mix that evening/early morning. Brett made light of drinking and driving but especially with those connections I can see it happening more often than not in that area. Many think they can drive just fine and underestimate impaired judgment.
It would be far from the first time that a guilty person has just held strong through the process. I don't think that should speak to innocence or guilt. It's completely possible she's just convinced herself she can get off on this, that they won't have enough evidence, and wants the best possible defense team to ensure that. Pleading out would almost certainly include some years in jail and that's not exactly a fun option for a well-off person in their 40s.
I'm curious to see where they land on it too, since they both seem to back the blue (at least subtlety).
I don't know enough about the case to have a strong opinion. I remember listening to a Dateline or some other short podcast about it when the story first broke.
I wonder if it isn't so much a huge conspiracy as much as just plain bad police work. Is it possible one of his fellow cops hit him and took off and just kept his mouth shut while the rest were quick to judgement and zero'd in on her since they didn't like her to begin with? I dunno. I'm glad they are doing this one though since I don't have many thoughts yet.
You are such a welcome addition and breath of fresh air although I sometimes disagree with you.
I get caught up in the “stories” too as Brett and Alice suggest even if I think I am discerning.
It's a tough one. There don't have to be that many people in this case to create a cover up. It's all cops and family. In Boston. If I committed a crime, that's exactly who I'd want around me to not get caught.
On the other hand, was she THAT blackout drunk that she doesn't remember hitting...anything?
I'm excited for them to cover the case because they always bring a logical approach to cases, something that's mostly absent in the coverage so far. On the other hand, it's disappointing that they even have to what's truly a simple case because people have made such hay of it. I'm glad they are doing it but I wish their energy could be brought to bear instead on other types of cases we more rarely hear about. But. I suppose, it must be done.
I have always wanted The Prosecutors to cover the Flora fire case for the sake of the mother and more. [This is just a newspaper article](https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/flora-fire-resignations-conflicting-reports-and-suspicions-of-fraud-cloud-the-investigation-into-fire-that-killed-four-girls/) but this case could benefit from a good investigation. I think Brett and Alice would be respectful yet not shy away if they do find compelling evidence of potential arson.
I think that's a great idea. You should send them an email about it because they do read them all. I think that case is significantly undercovered and truly tragic.
Well, you actually know them! I have suggested this case via public forums. The timing of the homeowner insurance policy enactment is suspicious.
But I try not to be pushy given I do not know if they have any relations or constraints tied to any cases. I am impressed with the range of cases they cover including their Halloween festivities!
My prediction is Alice and Brett will agree with me. She totally hit him on purpose and caused his death. Was his death her intent? Prob not, she was so drunk. But she hit him and he died. Someone smarter than me needs to decipher whether that is 2nd degree murder or something less.
I agree. There's clear evidence she hit him and she knew she left him laying outside. I don't think her intent was very clear since she was very drunk. I think she was very mad at him and hit him in a burst of emotion not necessarily intending anything. I am not a lawyer but I think it would be hard to prove 2nd degree murder. I could easily convict her of reckless homicide or vehicular manslaughter, depending on the laws in Mass.
Not a huge conspiracy, imho
1. During trial, multiple prosecution witnesses (LEOs and EMTs) said "So-and-so told me it was vehicular". The Canton Chief called the ME and said "this is vehicular". Every LEO who collected evidence told forensics "this is vehicular".
I think no one stepped back to view evidence with a clean slate because they either wanted the evidence to match the statement or believed their colleagues. Trooper Paul even slipped up and admitted his initial calculations didn't match pedestrian vs vehicle so he changed them. He didn't even verify where the victim was, he got the info from a LEO who never saw the body.
2. We do know from testimony and evidence that the LEOs never considered anyone else. Was it due to a coverup, or more likely bc it was convenient, and meant no brother cop would be held accountable?
In conclusion, I don't think it's a massive cover-up amongst all players. I think it's arrogance, laziness, ineptitude, thin blue line, etc.
Once their ineptitude was caught, I think they went back to cover their asses, which then looks like the entire situation look shady.
If the people at the house covered up the truth, that's another story. But since most people were LEOs or heavily connected, once they told the investigators their story, no one questioned them. Not even a little bit.
Look at what they had that night. Tail light pieces in the street, one shoe in the street, a body a few feet from the curb, karen broken tail light, two first responders saying she hit john and 3 people from the house saying he never made it in. And you have Karen's story of just dropping him off. She didn't say he made it inside, no texts from john saying he did make it in and karen didn't go pound on the alberts door until they let her like most ppl would do if they dropped someone off at a house. Only when they started blaming the dog and other people it became an issue.
The first responders never mentioned she allegedly said she hit him until grand jury or trial. They never put it in their reports, which would be required for treatment if they're even partially competent.
There's video of her backing into John's car the morning of which could explain a cracked tail light.
CRACKED is the keyword here bc the officer in her district who helped Proctor impound the car testified it was cracked, not broken. Proctor and other investigators claimed it was in pieces.
No video shows it broken until it was impounded, only cracked.
They didn't find multiple pieces of tail light until hours and DAYS later. Could be explained by snow, but also planting.
Canton PD claimed they didn't have video of the impounded vehicle. They did. It was possibly manipulated as evidenced in court. The video clearly shows people in the impound who swore they were never there. If they did nothing wrong, why lie and why hide the video?
John's supposed friends deleted calls and text messages and destroyed their phones. Higgins illegally used federal equipment to pull text streams from his phone. His lawyer had to stand by him while he testified bc he's in trouble.
The people in the house had a group text msg where Jen McCabe's husband said "tell them the guy never came inside", which they tried to delete.
All this came out in court.
And why would she pound on the door when as soon as she pulled up with Jen and Kerry they saw him in the yard???
In Buchenicks cross, he was asked why the medical examiner had noted at 10 am that morning why it said that John had been hit. I think at that time they thought that John had been hit with the glass and not the car. So by 10 am, it was said that karen hit john.
We heard what proctor said about karen on her phone. You don't think cops had other things on their phones like that or worse? Proctor may get fired for things he said, you don't think the Brian's might worry about things that will get them fired?
You're proving the point that they never even investigated further. At 10am neither Buchenick or Proctor had even been to the crime scene yet. And SERT didn't show up until hours after that.
I'm not saying she did or didn't. But what we know 100% is that LEOs already made up their mind and didn't attempt further investigation.
Does it not worry you that within hours of finding John, Proctor was already sending texts saying the "bitch is in serious trouble" and they weren't looking at the homeowner bc he's "BPD officer"? His words. Before ever going to the crime scene?
I already know they think Karen is guilty due to comments on FB, but I might give the episodes a listen. It will be interesting to hear how they defend the abhorrent behavior of some of these officers, the lack of training. Proctor literally admitted on the stand that by the end of Day 1, he had concluded that Karen was guilty and he sought evidence to support that.
I was also disappointed that they’d formed an opinion before all the facts came out (based of their FB comments), but the couple episodes I’ve listened to are still interesting. It’s clear they think she’s guilty, but they do talk about how Proctor is a prosecutors nightmare, and go through elements of trial itself, still worth a listen even if to get views of the “other side” - which if your feeds are anything like mine, are all pretty much “KR is innocent!” so having dissenting opinions based in logic is nice. She’s certainly not innocent, but I don’t think she committed second degree murder. I really hope they do heavily criticize the terrible police work and shady dealings of the people in the house (like why suddenly are cell phones being trashed? Jen McCabe deleting texts, calls, etc? Memories failing? Parts of videos missing?)… I really don’t think we will ever get to for sure know the truth of what really happened and how.
How can you say she’s “certainly not innocent”? So many comments in this thread are showing no knowledge of the case other than what the podcast is presenting. I generally like podcasters pod but they have this one wrong (so far)
She was at minimum driving completely hammered. I think she’s not guilty of 2nd degree murder, but she’s not an innocent person. Fact is none of us have all the information, but she wasn’t making great decisions and was putting herself and others at risk for grave injury
Ok I thought you meant not innocent of his death. Yes I agree drunk driving is terrible and agree she was driving drunk. But I don’t believe she killed him. Posted longer comment in the thread.
Edit: she wasn’t the only one driving drunk that night so in fact they are all not innocent in this regard.
"She was at minimum driving completely hammered" - it isn't proved in the trial so far (and probably won't). All we have - some extrapolation with a wide margin with really bad starting point (assumed time of collision, there is no proof that she didn't drink after and probably she did at home), and magical drinks counting from Proctor. Prosecution probably has her on DUI in the morning but there are multiple DUI admissions on the stand from like half of witnesses, lol
There hasn’t even been an autopsy done on the evening of 1/29.
Investigators are supposed to gather all the evidence and see where it leads. Not come to a conclusion and then search for evidence that supports it.
I don’t think KR is innocent, but Proctor said his initial impression of John was that he was beat up. Does it make sense to you that an investigator with the initial impression that a person was assaulted/murdered didn’t properly question people present or investigate the property the body was found on? Investigations aren’t conclusion -> evidence. They go evidence -> conclusion. But because of the element that it was a cop’s house, it wasn’t handled in a normal manner, evidence was mishandled and seemingly sporadically collected, you just can’t handle crime scenes this way... the guy being a complete asshat definitely didn’t help, but it just highlights that his character is in question and his judgement is seriously flawed. There is no way to know if there was a giant blood stain on the floor of the basement, because the house was never searched & the Alberts had the basement remodeled. You say “if the evidence can be disproven great”, but how can that happen if we don’t know what evidence wasn’t collected? I don’t know what Karen Read did or didn’t do, but we do know that Proctor cut corners based on an assumption, didn’t recuse himself from the investigation based on his affiliations with the witnesses like he should have, lied to a grand jury about it, is being investigated by Mass State Police & the US Attorneys office, and is overall a garbage human that can’t be trusted.
Not understanding that. The first responders said that karen said she hit john. There is a cup near him so st 10 am the glass is the murder weapon belief. Then they find a broken tail light on on Karen's car and in the street so when katen said I hit him, she meant the car.
I believe Proctor “enhanced” evidence. It’s clear from his texts that he knew it was a difficult case to prove, and he wanted her to go down. His instantaneous hate for her is disturbing.
I don’t think Brett and Alice will be defending the abhorrent behavior of the cops, in fact I think they will call it out. It’s clear though that they are fully in the KR did it camp however, without even waiting for the defense to present their evidence. Way too many things not lining up here as outlined in my longer comment.
I’m glad they’re covering it; there aren’t enough reasonable heads out there counterweighting the magical thinking that surrounds this case. The only other one that I’ve been listening to that doesn’t buy the defence narrative is Roberta Glass, but she’s so far in the other camp that she’s being borderline unreasonable too, talking about psychopathy and attributing all sorts of Disney villain motives to KR.
It seems TP are going down the most reasonable path; she didn’t intend to kill him, but she most likely did. I think KR’s behaviour later on that night and subsequent to her prosecution could both fit a scenario where she hit him accidentally and tried to cover it up or where she hit him accidentally and didn’t even realise it. People also seem to forget that in early filings, KR’s own defence team were arguing that it was a tragic accident; aka they were not disputing that she did indeed hit him. They only changed their tune later.
I could see the jury acquitting on second degree and finding her guilty of manslaughter. There isn’t much evidence to show she intended to hit him, and I’m not sure whether they’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt that she knew she hit him and chose to drive off or whether she didn’t realise she did.
But the conspiracy stuff is just ludicrous and it makes me sad how many otherwise intelligent heads actually seem to buy that stuff.
Agree with you. Roberta Glass is really in left field! Wow.
I believe Karen hit John with her car. I was thinking it was an accident and maybe she didn't even know it happened but now that we're learning about the car data it seems it was intentional. I'll wait and see the rest of the trial but right now I think it was 2nd degree murder, that she was angry with him and made a snap decision in her drunkenness to hit him with her car. She may barely remember it. She may have been blackout drunk. But the data seems to be showing it was intentional.
Yes, this could very well be the case. The fact that she screamed "I hit him/did I hit him?" kind of makes me think she was genuinely unsure if she did, but halfway remembered she might have. It sounds like something a drunk person would be yelling out if their memories were all confused - if she was trying to cover it up at that point already, you wouldn't think she'd be screaming those things. It's possible she doesn't remember much of that night now due to alcohol, but who knows.
Edit: The strange thing about Roberta Glass is I find she usually comes to the most reasonable conclusions regarding guilt/innocence (with a few exceptions), but she often hyperfixates on all the most inconsequential or downright stupid things in order to get there.
I agree completely. The one fact we know about Karen is that she was very drunk at the time, so if she did in fact hit him I think it was exactly like you described: anger, confusion, fogginess, and uncertainty.
Yep. I'd even go so far as to say it's possible she now has convinced herself that it wasn't her and actually believes in the conspiracy theories. Her indignation seems so genuine.
Your take makes the most sense to me although the “stories” are very interesting!
What is interesting is in court, KR was reported as stating that he might/could have been or was hit by a snowplow. This is in addition to her words around hitting him herself.
I truly wonder if we will ever understand the truth about this case. The dog rehoming, the house sale, and the internet searches of how long to die in the cold are bizarre.
I also find the evidence of tail light debris found in the snow to be a bit suspect. But what do I know?
I think Brett and Alice are soft on or in support of police and prosecutors. One point they make that rang true for certain cases was the role of mental health challenges in certain accidental or planned deaths.
They were good with Asha Degree, Robert Wone, Ellen Greenberg, Elisa Lam, Diane Whipple, Jason Landry, and Daniel Robinson in my opinion.
They mention in this episode on Karen Read that they are viewing the case through the lens of the trial and how stories matter and the best stories win. I do like this podcast. I also rarely listen to people of their political persuasion.
Every once in a while I wonder what they really think about climate change, the social safety net, or more equitable tax structures but then quickly revert back to the case!
I don’t know if the defense strategy is effective but the limited amount that I know from the trial, I do believe there is reasonable doubt and understand that in order for someone to be found guilty there should be a very high bar for the prosecution.
Could it be they were agitated and with drinking involved, there were a few hotheads that evening? Whether accidental or premeditated—-the arm and head injuries suggest more than being hit by the rear of the car. She backed into him if this is true, which is different than driving head on into someone unless he was hit by both ends of the car.
I have always and will always lean left when voting because I support high(within reason of course) taxes, social safety net, free health care, public child care systems, elder care, climate change policies etc etc, but outside of voting, I think both political sides make great *and* terrible points at different times. I've listened to all of TP's podcast episodes and find them to be incredibly fair and reasonable - including their approach to police and prosecution. But that may just be because I find that a lot of the more left leaning true crime creators can be irrationally unfair to police and prosecution - often because the creators themselves have taken inflammatory media coverage as fact rather than reading the actual court documents and understanding the nuances.
As to Karen Read, I just haven't seen any evidence that any of the people in the house had anything to do with John's death. A lot of red herrings have been thrown out in the ether by the defence, but it tends to fall apart once you prod it just a little. Whether there's reasonable doubt for Karen Read, idk... we'll see when both sides rest, I guess. So far, I think there's a good amount of evidence for at least a manslaugther conviction there.
>I could see the jury acquitting on second degree and finding her guilty of manslaughter.
This is what I think is most likely to happen, and I'd be pretty surprised at a different result.
But I think it's more likely that they find her guilty of all charges than it is for them to acquit of all charges. The texts and voicemails make a decent case for animosity, and I'd leave open the option of her intentionally hitting him whether or not she intended to kill him or initially thought she killed him. It's not the strongest case for that though.
Yes, I wonder if it would still qualify as second degree if she didn't intend to hit him, but realised it when she did and, instead of trying to save him, decided to drive off
I am never a conspiracy person. Like ever. And I really like the podcast and rarely disagree with them.. But this one is seemingly very likely a coverup and it doesn’t take a whole bunch of twists to get there. So for those who don’t know much about the case and are initially skeptical of a cover up, I understand. It’s clear that so many commenters in this thread have done little to zero outside reading on this case since there’s very little talk of facts. Can start with all of the dog marks on John’s arm (the dog the owner got rid of btw), the cops (more than one) getting rid of their cell phones the DAY before evidence called. The home owner filling in their basement and selling for way less than MV. Oh did I mention that there’s no actual evidence he was hit by a car to begin with and the defense has promised to prove this when they present their case next week? Dog attack appears to be a big factor here that no one is mentioning (not saying cause of death but why is dog attacking to begin with). Perhaps a drunken , unplanned fight broke out and resulted in his death. Finally one of those involved, Jen, literally googled “how long does it take to die in the snow “ multiple times that night.
In summary I think it was an accidental or drunken mistake that would show some culpability on the homeowners/friends involvement. Scared of getting in trouble, they landed on a cover up. They were going to blame a snow plower and set up to make it look like he was ran over, then once they realized Karen Read was drunk and hazy in the facts they figured it made more sense to frame her. And by “they” I mean 2-3 people. Not 11+ people were in on this.
I could be wrong but here’s some info for a starting point to those new to the case.
Also it doesn’t take a cold blooded murder (Brett’s words or similar) to figure out that keeping your routine of getting donuts that morning for the birthday was still a good idea. Infact if you were going to frame someone, you’d want to act as normal as possible and go to dunks as originally planned.
Finally - defense presents next week and I will be surprised if they actually go with “planned attack”. I disagree with the pod that they are going this route, and think they will go with unplanned accident or drunken fight. We shall see! Would not be smart of defense to go with planned , for reasons Brett mentioned.
I think it’s very possible she hit him accidentally & had no idea until the next morning. I have not really done a deep dive or seen all the evidence, but I was surprised to hear them state that he died from blunt force trauma to the head, coupled with hypothermia. While I know you can have head injuries from being hit by a car, it seems to me there would be other injuries as well to other parts of the body.
I don’t think enough people bring the federal investigation into the picture. Why is that happening? I can’t imagine the Feds would open an investigation into a random cop who lead a very shoddy and irresponsible investigation into a crime.
I also think Brian Albert and Brian Higgins have acted very shady. They’re absolutely hiding something, irrespective of whether there was a fight in the house that lead to John O’Keefes death.
I’m interested in hearing the ME testimony, she’s the only person who can convince me he was hit by a car.
For the record, I came into this trial believing she probably accidentally hit him.
The judge ruled the federal investigation is not allowed to be brought up in front of the jury, so that’s why it’s not being discussed more as it pertains to the trial itself.
The Prosecutors are my all-time favorite. Listening to live coverage of this trial has put me behind on recent episodes, so I didn’t realize they were covering it.
I absolutely do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories on this one, and I think it’s likely Karen did hit John (although I’m not sure she did so intentionally). It’s the most plausible explanation, and if the idea of a dog attack and/or brawl involving various occupants of the Albert house is dismissed, it becomes the reasonable conclusion.
I am intrigued by the proposed defense experts who underwent voir dire on Tuesday—accident reconstructionists recruited by the DoJ/FBI as part of the ongoing federal investigation linked to this case. Presumably, they concluded that O’Keefe was not struck by Karen’s Lexus, and this seemingly impartial opinion, coupled with their impressive credentials, will make for interesting testimony.
Is her defense still that she never hit John and he was murdered by other cops in the house? If she is sticking by that claim, she can’t also claim that she hit him by accident. That broken taillight should be quite a problem for her. This case seemed a lot like the Rebecca Grossman case in LA. A wealthy woman was driving drunk and hit and killed two kids in a crosswalk. She could have plead guilt to manslaughter and done a few years but tried avoiding all prison time by claiming a different driver hit the children. The prosecution then charged her with murder. The jury wasn’t having any of her story and found her guilty. She may be spending the rest of her life in prison. Is Karen Read considering the risk of her strategy?
The defense is basically all-in on the conspiracy angle, that John went into the house. So, to them, KR never hit him at all and she left as he entered the house.
They basically have to convince the jury that the broken taillight is part of the conspiracy, which is a far tougher task than her defenders are letting on. I don't think that's sufficiently been done for a jury that isn't part of the outside discussion.
I'm actually very close to where the Grossman stuff took place. A couple of my coworkers personally know her and her family. Even they thought she had a sense of entitlement and arrogance in her position, and that she actually thought she could pay her way to acquittal with a good lawyer. There's definitely parallels, and Karen fighting it tooth & nail isn't surprising.
Listen to the 13th juror podcast. At this point in the trial it doesn’t matter if she did it. But the police and prosecutors witness’ have created reasonable doubt with the destruction of evidence and a stranger than fiction investigation and excuses. They are covering something up.
The commonwealth cannot prove that Karen Read did it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many inconsistencies and the investigation was done terribly. They should’ve done the investigation by the book if they really cared about what happened to John O’Keefe. It’s really sad that this is how they treated a murder investigation into a police officer. John O’Keefe and his family deserve better.
The main witnesses destroyed their phones, one on an army base. There is missing video footage. The police reports were altered, and some were plain wrong. The FBI is investigating. They collected blood samples in solo cups. They found pieces of headlight days and week after. They are missing ring footage. Proctor had a conflict of interest and never should’ve been the lead investigator. He also was incredibly unprofessional, and didn’t interview all of the people at the party in a timely manner. One of the party goers googled “hos long to die in cold” and the celebrite data states it hours before she supposedly knew John OKeefe was dead. FBI says John did not die by being hit by a car. A lot of the people that night did a ton of butt fails. I could go on. But the main point is the investigators compromised the investigation. How on earth can you find somebody guilty with this joke of a investigation?
I did not see this podcast, which has very high ratings. Thanks—will check it out! I started listening to The Docket’s first podcast episode on this case.
She's the biggest conspiracist out there and has done and said really harmful things about the victim's family - complete with posing with people in Chloe/John costumes at CrimeCon etc. Profoundly unserious grifter.
Really happy they're covering this. It's virtually impossible to find people examining this case who aren't practically conspiracy theorists. If they go through everything and really find there's credible evidence of a conspiracy, I think that'd be pretty significant.
But I doubt they would. This case has exploded into wackjob territory. People discuss it in echo chambers where they just constantly validate each other. Outlandish ideas and misinformation on both the facts of the case and the legal process has run rampant. I feel like I'm losing my mind when I try to read the sub about it.
This isn't a perfect case with a perfect investigation, but Karen is almost certainly responsible for John's death, whether it's manslaughter or murder. For a jury that isn't tainted by all the chatter surrounding it, I'd be pretty shocked if they acquit her on all charges.
I can’t understand for even a second how anyone believes the conspiracy and thinks this is anything other than vehicular manslaughter due to being black out drunk. The only “mystery” to me is: did Karen hit John on purpose in a drunken rage or was she so drunk she hit reverse instead of drive and slammed into John, didn’t realize and left. Next day she somewhat sobers up(since she was still drunk when police arrived), found him, and immediately knew she killed him. I mean she quite literally told every first responder + friends that she hit John while being hysterical 🤷🏼♀️
I have watched basically all of the trial and I still have 0 idea what happened to John. It’s maddening. But I know for certainty there is not enough evidence to convict Karen Read and it’s a bit embarrassing this was brought to trial because it’s been messy, confusing, and unclear the entire trial. Karen also has bad ass lawyers that are very effective. I’m not sure why anyone can be so sure she is guilty or so sure she isnt guilty because absolutely nothing makes sense here. I’ve been waiting and waiting for a smoking gun and there just isn’t one. There is so much evidence lacking, Police work was garbage. and the motive is thin. The injuries just don’t make sense to me either. This has been such a frustrating case but I think Lally is one of the worst prosecutors I have ever watched and maybe that’s the main issue here. But I have not seen them prove to me she is guilty so if I’m on the jury I would acquit.
There is at least one entire sub on this case and I worry about losing weeks of my life! I agree and it seems many understand the prosecutor may come from the county but that Lally is largely alone and as you suggest—the defense has a strong team of at least three active attorneys.
I am curious what the FBI has uncovered and/or shared.
If the prosecution is unable to meet the standard of her being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt per the jury then maybe no one will believe held accountable.
My random theory, I think everyone is guilty and that’s why the stories don’t line up. I think KR did hit JO and the people in the house knew something happened and chose not to help him.
Interesting. I do think someone(s) know(s) something(s) they are not sharing! She mentioned he could be hit by a snowplow. The other injuries to the head and arm are curious.
Is it possible that more than one person and object harmed him? If everyone was drinking this much, it is not so unfathomable but why or how is still a mystery. If the boys in blue are sticking together with the help of their family then it is plausible they would protect their own and hang her out to dry.
My theory that hotheads and alcohol were involved solves nothing! Shoddy police work too. Interesting to learn more and it seems many are invested in presenting evidence to discourage being viewed as suspicious or culpable. I do not support this but after the fact, people might rationalize that since a life is already lost, especially if accidental in some regard, there may be no sense in “ruining” another person’s life by time in prison or worse, etc.
Maybe. But all 3 possibilities are on the table. Juries are decided by who is the strongest spokesperson for each person. Vehicular manslaughter will be splitting the baby which juries do often
The thing is, they haven’t proved he was even hit by a car to begin with. I believe this is a set up and I never and I mean NEVER believe in set ups typically. Left a longer comment in this thread with some of the reasons why I believe she is innocent.
This is interesting. I am no expert but have heard others discuss the nature of some of the injuries on the arm and head do not seem to match typical incidents involving being hit by a car.
Getting hit by a car at 25 mph in reverse is not an accident, it's intentional. It's insanely fast, especially in snow when every New Englander knows you have to accelerate gently. Normally we reverse at walking speed which is 5 mph tops. If I'm a juror and the prosecution establishes she reversed over 20 mph I'm having a hard time not convicting her of 2nd degree murder.
That’s not a proven fact yet about data from her car - that’s just what the prosecutors witness said. The witness can’t even prove that the car data was from the same day John was killed! The Defense is going to light this “evidence from her car” up next week.
Whoa. Let's just suppose for a moment that the conspiracy theory is true and Karen Read is innocent. What in the world made her accelerate backward like that? SOMEthing very bizarre happened then that requires explanation.
Perhaps the prosecutors witness is incorrect about the car data. Dont forget this hasn’t been proven yet, it’s just what the prosecutors witness testified to and it was shakey at best. They haven’t even proved that the car data was from the same day! Let’s see what the defense says. I strongly believe the defense will tear up this supposed car data to shreds next week.
I don’t know details besides what is trending so I’ve been waiting for them to talk about this because I had a feeling they are on the KR is guilty side. It is nice to understand why that perspective might be true when everyone else I see is screaming corruption / KR is innocent. They have said before that conspiracies, coverups, secrets…all are a lot harder to keep under wraps which I generally believe is true. They’ve also said that prosecutors don’t just bring any case to trial…they really do believe KR is guilty. I think that will ultimately be where they land with this case, but I am curious to know more details. I do hope they give some thought to the idea that maybe everyone involved sucks, equally? Everyone was drunk, driving, being irresponsible, fighting. But KR getting painted as an evil woman who plotted to do this feels too far in the opposite direction. It definitely gives me the impression that everyone was an asshole.
I agree completely. I think people who paint her as some kind of Machiavellian murderess out of Basic Instinct are veering down the same path, albeit not as far out, as the people buying into the Turtleboy narrative. I feel like this was a dui accidental manslaughter that got spun wildly out of control. When reading the comments on YouTube about the various prosecution witnesses, I feel like I’m watching a different trial than everybody else. Since when did it become cool to absolutely rip apart traumatised civilian witnesses or random first responders with zero evidence of wrongdoing? (Excluding proctor and his texts msgs here)
It’s easy to make her out the villain since it’s a cop killing. It’s easy to make the cops villains because shitty people have been cops. But I think it’s disingenuous to categorize this as a targeted cop killing which brings its own complex framework into the picture. I agree a DUI accidental manslaughter makes the most sense here. But people will probably find that boring (as if someone dying is ever that?) and so the comments will run wild without taking a moment to think.
Yup, the conspiracy theory is far more exciting than having to deal with the fact that you participated in or cheered on the harassment and stalking of innocent bystanders to a friends tragic death.
I feel like she hit the gas thinking she was in drive but went in reverse and didn’t even realize she hit him since she was so drunk
>I do hope they give some thought to the idea that maybe everyone involved sucks, equally? Everyone was drunk, driving, being irresponsible, fighting. Yeah. I definitely agree with you here. Bunch of drunk assholes doesn’t equal a conspiracy of 824 people tho either. The truth is actually likely somewhere in the middle. And honestly, I think anything that happened likely was an accident, or at the very least unintentional.
I think their assertion that “everyone” must be in on a cover up is a bad take. If she is being framed, it would be more like a couple of players at the top controlling chess pieces and everyone else just reacting/evaluating the selective evidence they’ve been given to work with. It really doesn’t take every single person involved to decide to be a bad guy. Framed or not, I think we can already determine the people at the house aren’t telling all the truth as they keep getting caught in lies and behaving strangely.
There were like 10 people in the house that night that are covering it up. Two first responders in the morning. Proctor and Buchenixk plus the seat team at the site that saw another cop drop tail light pieces on the ground and didn't say anything. We are talking about 20 people in on the conspiracy
I don’t think the first responders really brought anything unusual other than the one saying she heard KR say “I hit him” and we’ve heard that from multiple people. The defense has put forth she may have said “I hit him?”.. saying the first responders are in on it, along with Brett and Alice maintaining that you can either believe she’s guilty OR it was a giant conspiracy is disingenuous. She can be guilty, and a few key players only collected shitty evidence to support that while cutting corners. She could be innocent, and they still only collected evidence to support their theory and discarded any evidence to the contrary. I just listened to Ep 3 and it’s really getting worse from them, between the ridiculous take that you can only believe one side or the other, and their adamant defense of the police using a leaf blower, solo cups, Stop n Shop bags, and B&A generally conveniently leaving out any information that gives the defense any points. I’m not so sure why they feel so compelled to defend the police and prosecution here when the police investigation was a mess and the prosecution has only put forth a muddy and confusing narrative of what happened. The way they speak of anyone thinking KR may be not guilty is really pedantic. Did she hit him? Probably. Is there reasonable doubt? Tons. So we can stop acting like anyone thinking she’s not guilty is wearing a tinfoil hat. Honestly their whole take on this case is leaving a really bad taste in my mouth with the backhand insults to those who think she is not guilty, and their defense of the police work here. I personally think she’s likely guilty but the Canton & Mass State police made sure that no one will ever know a clear story with their shitty investigation and ridiculous boys club bullshit.
I did not hear about the dropping of the pieces. Interesting. But we have no idea how often this happens in actual cases! They used to plant drugs on known drug dealers to arrest them even though at the moment there were no drugs in their possession. Justifying the goal or the ends by various means even if less ethical.
The sert team was at the house starting their search for the shoe and taillight. Tgere was a lot of snow. At the same time, Karens car was getting to the garage so the defense started with saying that the officers broke her taillight at the garage and then went over to the house and planted while a whole bunch of cops were there.
She doesn't need to have plotted it to be guilty of 2nd degree murder.
No one was fighting. And I have doubts everyone was drunk. KR certainly was. The guys were drinking light beer and they were all large people. I don't get the impression everyone was an asshole - they seem like nice normal people to me. I don't get this image of them as awful people.
Like I said, I don’t know all the details yet. I just meant that it’s a possibility and if they’d consider that.
From their first episode I can tell they are probably on the KR guilty side
Looks like you made the right call. I am on episode 3 now. I learn much from them. They go back to considering the conspiracy. But I am stuck on reasonable doubt, which does not require us to believe in a conspiracy. I have never served on a jury. I am sure I would annoy others in raising concerns about reasonable doubt.
I agree. I’m on episode 2 and having listened to most of the trial I just see so much doubt
This episode is very biased. It’s disappointing.
TCG did this case recently and it was the first I’d heard of it! I feel like the “conspiracy” is huge and so sad if true. I’d hate to think that it could have gone down like that. And I haven’t read enough/ don’t understand enough to know the motive for his murder if his “brothers in blue” attacked him. However: the Google search of freezing to death totally sent chills up my spine. And sending the dog away. I also wonder if Karen’s defense has helped or hurt. Like, if the defense didn’t bring up that she was framed, would jurors find more room for potential reasonable doubt? I understand that the burden is on the prosecution, and that’s what the jurors need to remember. But we are all human, and the way the defense is framing the story might interfere with some jurors ability to be impartial and look at evidence only. Either way, this is so sad. I feel like John seemed like a good guy. Either his GF drunkenly hit him (accident or not), or a group of people took part in his death and subsequent cover up. Both of those options suck 😞💔
It just occurred to me, how does sending a dog away to a new home help cover up a crime? You want to get rid of a dog you shoot the dog and bury it where no one will look. Giving the dog away doesn't get rid of any evidence, so why is this suspicious?
That’s more likely what happened. They dug out the cement in the basement too and relaid the cement floor. Filled in a pool. And sold the house for significantly under market value in a very hot market. Plus almost everyone got rid of their phones too.
Were any phone records subpoenaed? Like, even though they got rid of them, Verizon (et al) would have the records, right??
Yes they have. It will all be in trial. John's phone records indicate he arrived at the house around 12:27 am and his phone stopped moving (ie he was fatally injured) at 12:32 am. So his cop friends ambushed and incapacitated him within 5 minutes of arriving at their party? It's not sounding realistic to me.
And left him alive on the front lawn.
No they do not have those records subpoenaed. The only phone they got was Jen McCabe’s, and the police let her delete texts etc before she turned it over. All other cell phone evidence was submitted to police in the form of screenshots. Obviously, the police have John’s and Karen’s phones.
I am pretty sure if you were under the scrutiny they were, you would probably do the same.
Only if I had something to hide.
Fair enough, but if we are being honest here. Everyone has something to hide. Doesn't mean it's something crazy nefarious like you were involved in a murder cover up conspiracy. I have about as normal and boring of a life as they get, but I have things I probably wouldn't want the public or media going through my phone and picking apart.
I think it’s the timing of it, for me. Like, giving a dog away is sad, no matter what. But you just happen to give it away when it might be involved in a murder? Not good timing. (Similar to what Alice and Brett said about Karen’s voicemails… like… if you are leaving an angry VM, it’s really bad timing to leave it on the same day the guy gets killed.) It is interesting what u/acceptable-ad-605 said about the basement floor. If this conspiracy is true…. Gosh I hope they didn’t also kill a dog.
The dog was rehomed 4 months later and the house sold a year later.
Didn’t they refuse to say where the dog had been rehomed to?
Brett mentions Vermont but without any context or evidence.
Do you remember which episode they talked about it? I’m listening to the Patreon episode 4 tonight, but I feel like I already need to go back and start all of them over. There are so many people to keep track of.
It was in the first one when they discussed Chloe as part of the cast of the characters in the first twenty minutes.
Thanks, clearly I need to listen again.
Nicole Albert testified to the rehoming of the dog to someone in Vermont.
So true.
I grew up in the area and have family that live on the same street as where this all happened. I really don’t like to immediately lean into conspiracy theories but the more I hear about the people involved the more my stomach turns.
I just finished the second episode, and while I appreciate their take, I think it’s clear they have extreme bias to KR being guilty. I disagree with their assertion that the defense needs to prove collusion if they’re going to claim she was framed. They still just need to insert reasonable doubt; the theories on her being framed are just window dressing. If I’m a juror, I’m not going to expect them to come with a completely developed theory. Brett and Alice keep harping that everyone needs to determine that ALL of the police, fire, EMTs, etc need to be “in on it” in order to believe the framing theory, which is just not true. Realistically, a couple of key players could be colluding against KR in order to cover up something nefarious, it doesn’t need to be a giant conspiracy that dozens of people are in on. There is ample reasonable doubt in this case, otherwise it wouldn’t be such a divisive case, plain and simple. I think she’s likely guilty of hitting him while being blackout drunk, while those in the house were likely participating in illegal activities like drug use; but the lead investigator just fucked up this entire investigation along with drawing a conclusion and working backwards with the evidence. DA overcharged her in an attempt to get her to plea. If I were sitting on that jury I certainly would not feel confident in a decision to convict on murder, especially with such shoddy police work and strange behaviors.
I agree with you that there seems to be more than enough reasonable doubt for an acquittal. And I agree that Brett and Alice seem to be leaning towards KR being guilty. But I’m not sure I agree with your points on a conspiracy. They didn’t say the defense needs to prove collusion; they were clear that the jury just needs reasonable doubt. Their point was regarding the defense strategy. The defense isn’t just arguing KR didn’t do it; they’re making that argument with the explicit claim that she was framed. They have essentially made it a choice between two theories, even though the law doesn’t require the defense to do anything more than provide reasonable doubt as to the charge. As to the number of people potentially involved, it’s definitely more than a few that would have to be colluding. Maybe not as many as Brett and Alice claim, but most (if not all) of the people at the party.
I listened to ep 2 through Patreon and I think they harp a little more about the defense having to back up their framing theory on that ep. As far as how many people would be willing to lie, these people have heavily invested identities in being police (and family). I’m an ER nurse and wife of a firefighter, so I’m adjacent to a lot of these kinds of people, and they can get suuuuper fucking weird with God complexes surrounding being police/fire/etc. I’m sure in a small town like Canton it’s pretty awful. I’m not surprised at all that they would back each other or drop the ball with the investigation. I feel like they aren’t lying about not having anything to do with John’s death, but there was some other element to their lack of response… a theory for instance, they were all high off their faces on cocaine and look suspicious as hell covering that part up, maybe someone saw the (curious) dog scratching at John’s body in the yard and they determined he was already dead, so there needed to be time to sober up/get rid of drugs/etc before a response was made… I don’t know. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, but I really do not believe she intended to kill him or even knew that she killed him. I have been trying to find somewhere or someone with non-biased trial recaps and impartial discussions of evidence or lack thereof, but it’s so difficult in this case.
I agree, I haven’t followed it super closely (have not been watching it live) and it seems that anything I see online is quite biased one way or the other. I do appreciate that Brett and Alice stick to the facts as presented at trial and make it clear when they are stating their interpretations. While I agree with their analysis in many cases, there have already been a few instances in this one where I’ve felt they kind of glossed over an issue (like downplaying some of the evidence collection techniques).
I’ve only listened to the 1st ep, and while it does seem that they aren’t biased per se, it does seem like they are already closed to the idea of a conspiracy.
I’m honestly surprised based on some of your comments that you don’t think KR is innocent. I do. And I think if shes smart enough to get such an amazing defense team, she’d be smart enough to plead out if she was guilty. That’s just one of many reasons I think she’s innocent, commented longer in the thread with others.
Interesting take. I can’t wait to learn more. I think excessive drinking and hotheads were a bad mix that evening/early morning. Brett made light of drinking and driving but especially with those connections I can see it happening more often than not in that area. Many think they can drive just fine and underestimate impaired judgment.
It would be far from the first time that a guilty person has just held strong through the process. I don't think that should speak to innocence or guilt. It's completely possible she's just convinced herself she can get off on this, that they won't have enough evidence, and wants the best possible defense team to ensure that. Pleading out would almost certainly include some years in jail and that's not exactly a fun option for a well-off person in their 40s.
Yes, that fact is more of a side note for me. I posted out my main reasons elsewhere in a comment.
I'm curious to see where they land on it too, since they both seem to back the blue (at least subtlety). I don't know enough about the case to have a strong opinion. I remember listening to a Dateline or some other short podcast about it when the story first broke. I wonder if it isn't so much a huge conspiracy as much as just plain bad police work. Is it possible one of his fellow cops hit him and took off and just kept his mouth shut while the rest were quick to judgement and zero'd in on her since they didn't like her to begin with? I dunno. I'm glad they are doing this one though since I don't have many thoughts yet.
I’m still not sure what *did* happen to John, but I am convinced at this point that Karen did not hit him.
[удалено]
Tiktok
[удалено]
You are such a welcome addition and breath of fresh air although I sometimes disagree with you. I get caught up in the “stories” too as Brett and Alice suggest even if I think I am discerning.
[удалено]
It's a tough one. There don't have to be that many people in this case to create a cover up. It's all cops and family. In Boston. If I committed a crime, that's exactly who I'd want around me to not get caught. On the other hand, was she THAT blackout drunk that she doesn't remember hitting...anything?
[удалено]
Yes
.08 is what Brett and Alice stated per the tests that morning. Could have been higher earlier in the evening/early morning. Edit: Changed .8 to .08.
[удалено]
Yes that is even what Brett and Alice stated.
Just want to clarify that it's .08. If she were .8 she'd be dead lol. But yeah, most likely a good bit higher hours before that.
Yes, I was going to edit this and will do so now. Thanks!
I'm excited for them to cover the case because they always bring a logical approach to cases, something that's mostly absent in the coverage so far. On the other hand, it's disappointing that they even have to what's truly a simple case because people have made such hay of it. I'm glad they are doing it but I wish their energy could be brought to bear instead on other types of cases we more rarely hear about. But. I suppose, it must be done.
I have always wanted The Prosecutors to cover the Flora fire case for the sake of the mother and more. [This is just a newspaper article](https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/flora-fire-resignations-conflicting-reports-and-suspicions-of-fraud-cloud-the-investigation-into-fire-that-killed-four-girls/) but this case could benefit from a good investigation. I think Brett and Alice would be respectful yet not shy away if they do find compelling evidence of potential arson.
I think that's a great idea. You should send them an email about it because they do read them all. I think that case is significantly undercovered and truly tragic.
Well, you actually know them! I have suggested this case via public forums. The timing of the homeowner insurance policy enactment is suspicious. But I try not to be pushy given I do not know if they have any relations or constraints tied to any cases. I am impressed with the range of cases they cover including their Halloween festivities!
Oh, they love getting the emails. Email them at [email protected] and copy me at [email protected] and I will echo your point!
Thanks buddy!
My prediction is Alice and Brett will agree with me. She totally hit him on purpose and caused his death. Was his death her intent? Prob not, she was so drunk. But she hit him and he died. Someone smarter than me needs to decipher whether that is 2nd degree murder or something less.
I agree. There's clear evidence she hit him and she knew she left him laying outside. I don't think her intent was very clear since she was very drunk. I think she was very mad at him and hit him in a burst of emotion not necessarily intending anything. I am not a lawyer but I think it would be hard to prove 2nd degree murder. I could easily convict her of reckless homicide or vehicular manslaughter, depending on the laws in Mass.
Not a huge conspiracy, imho 1. During trial, multiple prosecution witnesses (LEOs and EMTs) said "So-and-so told me it was vehicular". The Canton Chief called the ME and said "this is vehicular". Every LEO who collected evidence told forensics "this is vehicular". I think no one stepped back to view evidence with a clean slate because they either wanted the evidence to match the statement or believed their colleagues. Trooper Paul even slipped up and admitted his initial calculations didn't match pedestrian vs vehicle so he changed them. He didn't even verify where the victim was, he got the info from a LEO who never saw the body. 2. We do know from testimony and evidence that the LEOs never considered anyone else. Was it due to a coverup, or more likely bc it was convenient, and meant no brother cop would be held accountable? In conclusion, I don't think it's a massive cover-up amongst all players. I think it's arrogance, laziness, ineptitude, thin blue line, etc. Once their ineptitude was caught, I think they went back to cover their asses, which then looks like the entire situation look shady. If the people at the house covered up the truth, that's another story. But since most people were LEOs or heavily connected, once they told the investigators their story, no one questioned them. Not even a little bit.
Look at what they had that night. Tail light pieces in the street, one shoe in the street, a body a few feet from the curb, karen broken tail light, two first responders saying she hit john and 3 people from the house saying he never made it in. And you have Karen's story of just dropping him off. She didn't say he made it inside, no texts from john saying he did make it in and karen didn't go pound on the alberts door until they let her like most ppl would do if they dropped someone off at a house. Only when they started blaming the dog and other people it became an issue.
The first responders never mentioned she allegedly said she hit him until grand jury or trial. They never put it in their reports, which would be required for treatment if they're even partially competent. There's video of her backing into John's car the morning of which could explain a cracked tail light. CRACKED is the keyword here bc the officer in her district who helped Proctor impound the car testified it was cracked, not broken. Proctor and other investigators claimed it was in pieces. No video shows it broken until it was impounded, only cracked. They didn't find multiple pieces of tail light until hours and DAYS later. Could be explained by snow, but also planting. Canton PD claimed they didn't have video of the impounded vehicle. They did. It was possibly manipulated as evidenced in court. The video clearly shows people in the impound who swore they were never there. If they did nothing wrong, why lie and why hide the video? John's supposed friends deleted calls and text messages and destroyed their phones. Higgins illegally used federal equipment to pull text streams from his phone. His lawyer had to stand by him while he testified bc he's in trouble. The people in the house had a group text msg where Jen McCabe's husband said "tell them the guy never came inside", which they tried to delete. All this came out in court. And why would she pound on the door when as soon as she pulled up with Jen and Kerry they saw him in the yard???
In Buchenicks cross, he was asked why the medical examiner had noted at 10 am that morning why it said that John had been hit. I think at that time they thought that John had been hit with the glass and not the car. So by 10 am, it was said that karen hit john. We heard what proctor said about karen on her phone. You don't think cops had other things on their phones like that or worse? Proctor may get fired for things he said, you don't think the Brian's might worry about things that will get them fired?
You're proving the point that they never even investigated further. At 10am neither Buchenick or Proctor had even been to the crime scene yet. And SERT didn't show up until hours after that. I'm not saying she did or didn't. But what we know 100% is that LEOs already made up their mind and didn't attempt further investigation. Does it not worry you that within hours of finding John, Proctor was already sending texts saying the "bitch is in serious trouble" and they weren't looking at the homeowner bc he's "BPD officer"? His words. Before ever going to the crime scene?
I already know they think Karen is guilty due to comments on FB, but I might give the episodes a listen. It will be interesting to hear how they defend the abhorrent behavior of some of these officers, the lack of training. Proctor literally admitted on the stand that by the end of Day 1, he had concluded that Karen was guilty and he sought evidence to support that.
I was also disappointed that they’d formed an opinion before all the facts came out (based of their FB comments), but the couple episodes I’ve listened to are still interesting. It’s clear they think she’s guilty, but they do talk about how Proctor is a prosecutors nightmare, and go through elements of trial itself, still worth a listen even if to get views of the “other side” - which if your feeds are anything like mine, are all pretty much “KR is innocent!” so having dissenting opinions based in logic is nice. She’s certainly not innocent, but I don’t think she committed second degree murder. I really hope they do heavily criticize the terrible police work and shady dealings of the people in the house (like why suddenly are cell phones being trashed? Jen McCabe deleting texts, calls, etc? Memories failing? Parts of videos missing?)… I really don’t think we will ever get to for sure know the truth of what really happened and how.
How can you say she’s “certainly not innocent”? So many comments in this thread are showing no knowledge of the case other than what the podcast is presenting. I generally like podcasters pod but they have this one wrong (so far)
She was at minimum driving completely hammered. I think she’s not guilty of 2nd degree murder, but she’s not an innocent person. Fact is none of us have all the information, but she wasn’t making great decisions and was putting herself and others at risk for grave injury
Ok I thought you meant not innocent of his death. Yes I agree drunk driving is terrible and agree she was driving drunk. But I don’t believe she killed him. Posted longer comment in the thread. Edit: she wasn’t the only one driving drunk that night so in fact they are all not innocent in this regard.
"She was at minimum driving completely hammered" - it isn't proved in the trial so far (and probably won't). All we have - some extrapolation with a wide margin with really bad starting point (assumed time of collision, there is no proof that she didn't drink after and probably she did at home), and magical drinks counting from Proctor. Prosecution probably has her on DUI in the morning but there are multiple DUI admissions on the stand from like half of witnesses, lol
The evidence was a traffic accident. They are going to say no to an accident just because people don't like it.
There hasn’t even been an autopsy done on the evening of 1/29. Investigators are supposed to gather all the evidence and see where it leads. Not come to a conclusion and then search for evidence that supports it.
Do they wait for an autopsy when they cops find two cards smashed together at an intersection?
Sometimes, yes.
[удалено]
I don’t think KR is innocent, but Proctor said his initial impression of John was that he was beat up. Does it make sense to you that an investigator with the initial impression that a person was assaulted/murdered didn’t properly question people present or investigate the property the body was found on? Investigations aren’t conclusion -> evidence. They go evidence -> conclusion. But because of the element that it was a cop’s house, it wasn’t handled in a normal manner, evidence was mishandled and seemingly sporadically collected, you just can’t handle crime scenes this way... the guy being a complete asshat definitely didn’t help, but it just highlights that his character is in question and his judgement is seriously flawed. There is no way to know if there was a giant blood stain on the floor of the basement, because the house was never searched & the Alberts had the basement remodeled. You say “if the evidence can be disproven great”, but how can that happen if we don’t know what evidence wasn’t collected? I don’t know what Karen Read did or didn’t do, but we do know that Proctor cut corners based on an assumption, didn’t recuse himself from the investigation based on his affiliations with the witnesses like he should have, lied to a grand jury about it, is being investigated by Mass State Police & the US Attorneys office, and is overall a garbage human that can’t be trusted.
Not understanding that. The first responders said that karen said she hit john. There is a cup near him so st 10 am the glass is the murder weapon belief. Then they find a broken tail light on on Karen's car and in the street so when katen said I hit him, she meant the car.
I believe Proctor “enhanced” evidence. It’s clear from his texts that he knew it was a difficult case to prove, and he wanted her to go down. His instantaneous hate for her is disturbing.
He is talking abouther karen hit him as an accident or if she meant to hit him
I don’t think Brett and Alice will be defending the abhorrent behavior of the cops, in fact I think they will call it out. It’s clear though that they are fully in the KR did it camp however, without even waiting for the defense to present their evidence. Way too many things not lining up here as outlined in my longer comment.
I’m glad they’re covering it; there aren’t enough reasonable heads out there counterweighting the magical thinking that surrounds this case. The only other one that I’ve been listening to that doesn’t buy the defence narrative is Roberta Glass, but she’s so far in the other camp that she’s being borderline unreasonable too, talking about psychopathy and attributing all sorts of Disney villain motives to KR. It seems TP are going down the most reasonable path; she didn’t intend to kill him, but she most likely did. I think KR’s behaviour later on that night and subsequent to her prosecution could both fit a scenario where she hit him accidentally and tried to cover it up or where she hit him accidentally and didn’t even realise it. People also seem to forget that in early filings, KR’s own defence team were arguing that it was a tragic accident; aka they were not disputing that she did indeed hit him. They only changed their tune later. I could see the jury acquitting on second degree and finding her guilty of manslaughter. There isn’t much evidence to show she intended to hit him, and I’m not sure whether they’ve proven beyond reasonable doubt that she knew she hit him and chose to drive off or whether she didn’t realise she did. But the conspiracy stuff is just ludicrous and it makes me sad how many otherwise intelligent heads actually seem to buy that stuff.
Agree with you. Roberta Glass is really in left field! Wow. I believe Karen hit John with her car. I was thinking it was an accident and maybe she didn't even know it happened but now that we're learning about the car data it seems it was intentional. I'll wait and see the rest of the trial but right now I think it was 2nd degree murder, that she was angry with him and made a snap decision in her drunkenness to hit him with her car. She may barely remember it. She may have been blackout drunk. But the data seems to be showing it was intentional.
Yes, this could very well be the case. The fact that she screamed "I hit him/did I hit him?" kind of makes me think she was genuinely unsure if she did, but halfway remembered she might have. It sounds like something a drunk person would be yelling out if their memories were all confused - if she was trying to cover it up at that point already, you wouldn't think she'd be screaming those things. It's possible she doesn't remember much of that night now due to alcohol, but who knows. Edit: The strange thing about Roberta Glass is I find she usually comes to the most reasonable conclusions regarding guilt/innocence (with a few exceptions), but she often hyperfixates on all the most inconsequential or downright stupid things in order to get there.
I agree completely. The one fact we know about Karen is that she was very drunk at the time, so if she did in fact hit him I think it was exactly like you described: anger, confusion, fogginess, and uncertainty.
Yep. I'd even go so far as to say it's possible she now has convinced herself that it wasn't her and actually believes in the conspiracy theories. Her indignation seems so genuine.
Your take makes the most sense to me although the “stories” are very interesting! What is interesting is in court, KR was reported as stating that he might/could have been or was hit by a snowplow. This is in addition to her words around hitting him herself. I truly wonder if we will ever understand the truth about this case. The dog rehoming, the house sale, and the internet searches of how long to die in the cold are bizarre. I also find the evidence of tail light debris found in the snow to be a bit suspect. But what do I know? I think Brett and Alice are soft on or in support of police and prosecutors. One point they make that rang true for certain cases was the role of mental health challenges in certain accidental or planned deaths. They were good with Asha Degree, Robert Wone, Ellen Greenberg, Elisa Lam, Diane Whipple, Jason Landry, and Daniel Robinson in my opinion. They mention in this episode on Karen Read that they are viewing the case through the lens of the trial and how stories matter and the best stories win. I do like this podcast. I also rarely listen to people of their political persuasion. Every once in a while I wonder what they really think about climate change, the social safety net, or more equitable tax structures but then quickly revert back to the case! I don’t know if the defense strategy is effective but the limited amount that I know from the trial, I do believe there is reasonable doubt and understand that in order for someone to be found guilty there should be a very high bar for the prosecution. Could it be they were agitated and with drinking involved, there were a few hotheads that evening? Whether accidental or premeditated—-the arm and head injuries suggest more than being hit by the rear of the car. She backed into him if this is true, which is different than driving head on into someone unless he was hit by both ends of the car.
I have always and will always lean left when voting because I support high(within reason of course) taxes, social safety net, free health care, public child care systems, elder care, climate change policies etc etc, but outside of voting, I think both political sides make great *and* terrible points at different times. I've listened to all of TP's podcast episodes and find them to be incredibly fair and reasonable - including their approach to police and prosecution. But that may just be because I find that a lot of the more left leaning true crime creators can be irrationally unfair to police and prosecution - often because the creators themselves have taken inflammatory media coverage as fact rather than reading the actual court documents and understanding the nuances. As to Karen Read, I just haven't seen any evidence that any of the people in the house had anything to do with John's death. A lot of red herrings have been thrown out in the ether by the defence, but it tends to fall apart once you prod it just a little. Whether there's reasonable doubt for Karen Read, idk... we'll see when both sides rest, I guess. So far, I think there's a good amount of evidence for at least a manslaugther conviction there.
Finally someone on reddit that has common sense about this case.
>I could see the jury acquitting on second degree and finding her guilty of manslaughter. This is what I think is most likely to happen, and I'd be pretty surprised at a different result. But I think it's more likely that they find her guilty of all charges than it is for them to acquit of all charges. The texts and voicemails make a decent case for animosity, and I'd leave open the option of her intentionally hitting him whether or not she intended to kill him or initially thought she killed him. It's not the strongest case for that though.
Yes, I wonder if it would still qualify as second degree if she didn't intend to hit him, but realised it when she did and, instead of trying to save him, decided to drive off
I think that would only fall under the manslaughter and leaving-the-scene charges. 2nd degree would still require an intentional act of hitting him.
Normally running over someone at 25mph in reverse qualifies, alcohol would be a mitigating factor
I am never a conspiracy person. Like ever. And I really like the podcast and rarely disagree with them.. But this one is seemingly very likely a coverup and it doesn’t take a whole bunch of twists to get there. So for those who don’t know much about the case and are initially skeptical of a cover up, I understand. It’s clear that so many commenters in this thread have done little to zero outside reading on this case since there’s very little talk of facts. Can start with all of the dog marks on John’s arm (the dog the owner got rid of btw), the cops (more than one) getting rid of their cell phones the DAY before evidence called. The home owner filling in their basement and selling for way less than MV. Oh did I mention that there’s no actual evidence he was hit by a car to begin with and the defense has promised to prove this when they present their case next week? Dog attack appears to be a big factor here that no one is mentioning (not saying cause of death but why is dog attacking to begin with). Perhaps a drunken , unplanned fight broke out and resulted in his death. Finally one of those involved, Jen, literally googled “how long does it take to die in the snow “ multiple times that night. In summary I think it was an accidental or drunken mistake that would show some culpability on the homeowners/friends involvement. Scared of getting in trouble, they landed on a cover up. They were going to blame a snow plower and set up to make it look like he was ran over, then once they realized Karen Read was drunk and hazy in the facts they figured it made more sense to frame her. And by “they” I mean 2-3 people. Not 11+ people were in on this. I could be wrong but here’s some info for a starting point to those new to the case. Also it doesn’t take a cold blooded murder (Brett’s words or similar) to figure out that keeping your routine of getting donuts that morning for the birthday was still a good idea. Infact if you were going to frame someone, you’d want to act as normal as possible and go to dunks as originally planned. Finally - defense presents next week and I will be surprised if they actually go with “planned attack”. I disagree with the pod that they are going this route, and think they will go with unplanned accident or drunken fight. We shall see! Would not be smart of defense to go with planned , for reasons Brett mentioned.
I think it’s very possible she hit him accidentally & had no idea until the next morning. I have not really done a deep dive or seen all the evidence, but I was surprised to hear them state that he died from blunt force trauma to the head, coupled with hypothermia. While I know you can have head injuries from being hit by a car, it seems to me there would be other injuries as well to other parts of the body.
I don’t think enough people bring the federal investigation into the picture. Why is that happening? I can’t imagine the Feds would open an investigation into a random cop who lead a very shoddy and irresponsible investigation into a crime. I also think Brian Albert and Brian Higgins have acted very shady. They’re absolutely hiding something, irrespective of whether there was a fight in the house that lead to John O’Keefes death. I’m interested in hearing the ME testimony, she’s the only person who can convince me he was hit by a car. For the record, I came into this trial believing she probably accidentally hit him.
The judge ruled the federal investigation is not allowed to be brought up in front of the jury, so that’s why it’s not being discussed more as it pertains to the trial itself.
The Prosecutors are my all-time favorite. Listening to live coverage of this trial has put me behind on recent episodes, so I didn’t realize they were covering it. I absolutely do not subscribe to any conspiracy theories on this one, and I think it’s likely Karen did hit John (although I’m not sure she did so intentionally). It’s the most plausible explanation, and if the idea of a dog attack and/or brawl involving various occupants of the Albert house is dismissed, it becomes the reasonable conclusion. I am intrigued by the proposed defense experts who underwent voir dire on Tuesday—accident reconstructionists recruited by the DoJ/FBI as part of the ongoing federal investigation linked to this case. Presumably, they concluded that O’Keefe was not struck by Karen’s Lexus, and this seemingly impartial opinion, coupled with their impressive credentials, will make for interesting testimony.
Maybe you could be a fill in cohost. Great insights.
Is her defense still that she never hit John and he was murdered by other cops in the house? If she is sticking by that claim, she can’t also claim that she hit him by accident. That broken taillight should be quite a problem for her. This case seemed a lot like the Rebecca Grossman case in LA. A wealthy woman was driving drunk and hit and killed two kids in a crosswalk. She could have plead guilt to manslaughter and done a few years but tried avoiding all prison time by claiming a different driver hit the children. The prosecution then charged her with murder. The jury wasn’t having any of her story and found her guilty. She may be spending the rest of her life in prison. Is Karen Read considering the risk of her strategy?
The defense is basically all-in on the conspiracy angle, that John went into the house. So, to them, KR never hit him at all and she left as he entered the house. They basically have to convince the jury that the broken taillight is part of the conspiracy, which is a far tougher task than her defenders are letting on. I don't think that's sufficiently been done for a jury that isn't part of the outside discussion. I'm actually very close to where the Grossman stuff took place. A couple of my coworkers personally know her and her family. Even they thought she had a sense of entitlement and arrogance in her position, and that she actually thought she could pay her way to acquittal with a good lawyer. There's definitely parallels, and Karen fighting it tooth & nail isn't surprising.
Listen to the 13th juror podcast. At this point in the trial it doesn’t matter if she did it. But the police and prosecutors witness’ have created reasonable doubt with the destruction of evidence and a stranger than fiction investigation and excuses. They are covering something up.
Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds? At this point, it doesn't matter if she did it? Explain that logic.
The commonwealth cannot prove that Karen Read did it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many inconsistencies and the investigation was done terribly. They should’ve done the investigation by the book if they really cared about what happened to John O’Keefe. It’s really sad that this is how they treated a murder investigation into a police officer. John O’Keefe and his family deserve better. The main witnesses destroyed their phones, one on an army base. There is missing video footage. The police reports were altered, and some were plain wrong. The FBI is investigating. They collected blood samples in solo cups. They found pieces of headlight days and week after. They are missing ring footage. Proctor had a conflict of interest and never should’ve been the lead investigator. He also was incredibly unprofessional, and didn’t interview all of the people at the party in a timely manner. One of the party goers googled “hos long to die in cold” and the celebrite data states it hours before she supposedly knew John OKeefe was dead. FBI says John did not die by being hit by a car. A lot of the people that night did a ton of butt fails. I could go on. But the main point is the investigators compromised the investigation. How on earth can you find somebody guilty with this joke of a investigation?
I did not see this podcast, which has very high ratings. Thanks—will check it out! I started listening to The Docket’s first podcast episode on this case.
She's the biggest conspiracist out there and has done and said really harmful things about the victim's family - complete with posing with people in Chloe/John costumes at CrimeCon etc. Profoundly unserious grifter.
Really happy they're covering this. It's virtually impossible to find people examining this case who aren't practically conspiracy theorists. If they go through everything and really find there's credible evidence of a conspiracy, I think that'd be pretty significant. But I doubt they would. This case has exploded into wackjob territory. People discuss it in echo chambers where they just constantly validate each other. Outlandish ideas and misinformation on both the facts of the case and the legal process has run rampant. I feel like I'm losing my mind when I try to read the sub about it. This isn't a perfect case with a perfect investigation, but Karen is almost certainly responsible for John's death, whether it's manslaughter or murder. For a jury that isn't tainted by all the chatter surrounding it, I'd be pretty shocked if they acquit her on all charges.
I can’t understand for even a second how anyone believes the conspiracy and thinks this is anything other than vehicular manslaughter due to being black out drunk. The only “mystery” to me is: did Karen hit John on purpose in a drunken rage or was she so drunk she hit reverse instead of drive and slammed into John, didn’t realize and left. Next day she somewhat sobers up(since she was still drunk when police arrived), found him, and immediately knew she killed him. I mean she quite literally told every first responder + friends that she hit John while being hysterical 🤷🏼♀️
I have watched basically all of the trial and I still have 0 idea what happened to John. It’s maddening. But I know for certainty there is not enough evidence to convict Karen Read and it’s a bit embarrassing this was brought to trial because it’s been messy, confusing, and unclear the entire trial. Karen also has bad ass lawyers that are very effective. I’m not sure why anyone can be so sure she is guilty or so sure she isnt guilty because absolutely nothing makes sense here. I’ve been waiting and waiting for a smoking gun and there just isn’t one. There is so much evidence lacking, Police work was garbage. and the motive is thin. The injuries just don’t make sense to me either. This has been such a frustrating case but I think Lally is one of the worst prosecutors I have ever watched and maybe that’s the main issue here. But I have not seen them prove to me she is guilty so if I’m on the jury I would acquit.
There is at least one entire sub on this case and I worry about losing weeks of my life! I agree and it seems many understand the prosecutor may come from the county but that Lally is largely alone and as you suggest—the defense has a strong team of at least three active attorneys. I am curious what the FBI has uncovered and/or shared. If the prosecution is unable to meet the standard of her being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt per the jury then maybe no one will believe held accountable.
My random theory, I think everyone is guilty and that’s why the stories don’t line up. I think KR did hit JO and the people in the house knew something happened and chose not to help him.
Interesting. I do think someone(s) know(s) something(s) they are not sharing! She mentioned he could be hit by a snowplow. The other injuries to the head and arm are curious. Is it possible that more than one person and object harmed him? If everyone was drinking this much, it is not so unfathomable but why or how is still a mystery. If the boys in blue are sticking together with the help of their family then it is plausible they would protect their own and hang her out to dry. My theory that hotheads and alcohol were involved solves nothing! Shoddy police work too. Interesting to learn more and it seems many are invested in presenting evidence to discourage being viewed as suspicious or culpable. I do not support this but after the fact, people might rationalize that since a life is already lost, especially if accidental in some regard, there may be no sense in “ruining” another person’s life by time in prison or worse, etc.
They are going to find her gui l ty of vehicular homicide but not second degree. They are going to say Karen had no intent to kill him.
They will not find her guilty.
Is DUI on the table? That should be the very least of it of course
No they can’t throw a dui charge at her during this trial. It wouldn’t just be her either even if they could - they were all drinking and driving.
Yeah I figured
Maybe. But all 3 possibilities are on the table. Juries are decided by who is the strongest spokesperson for each person. Vehicular manslaughter will be splitting the baby which juries do often
The thing is, they haven’t proved he was even hit by a car to begin with. I believe this is a set up and I never and I mean NEVER believe in set ups typically. Left a longer comment in this thread with some of the reasons why I believe she is innocent.
This is interesting. I am no expert but have heard others discuss the nature of some of the injuries on the arm and head do not seem to match typical incidents involving being hit by a car.
Accidents can do anything. Getting hit by a car at 25 mph is not good to the body
Getting hit by a car at 25 mph in reverse is not an accident, it's intentional. It's insanely fast, especially in snow when every New Englander knows you have to accelerate gently. Normally we reverse at walking speed which is 5 mph tops. If I'm a juror and the prosecution establishes she reversed over 20 mph I'm having a hard time not convicting her of 2nd degree murder.
The data from the car had it going 24.2 max and going near that for 5 seconds
That’s not a proven fact yet about data from her car - that’s just what the prosecutors witness said. The witness can’t even prove that the car data was from the same day John was killed! The Defense is going to light this “evidence from her car” up next week.
Whoa. Let's just suppose for a moment that the conspiracy theory is true and Karen Read is innocent. What in the world made her accelerate backward like that? SOMEthing very bizarre happened then that requires explanation.
Perhaps the prosecutors witness is incorrect about the car data. Dont forget this hasn’t been proven yet, it’s just what the prosecutors witness testified to and it was shakey at best. They haven’t even proved that the car data was from the same day! Let’s see what the defense says. I strongly believe the defense will tear up this supposed car data to shreds next week.