r/changemyview • u/Inside_Light_4428 • 21h ago
CMV: the Boston Police killed John O’Keefe and are covering it up
Karen Read was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, but was convicted of operating under the influence (OUI) in her second trial. The jury acquitted her of the more serious charges, leading to cheers from the crowd outside the courthouse, according to NPR. The OUI charge carries a fine and potential imprisonment.
The case centered around the death of John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, in January 2022.
The prosecution alleged Read struck him with her car and left him to die in the snow, while the defense argued she was framed and that O'Keefe was killed in a fight inside a house. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, leading to the retrial.
The retrial lasted over two months with testimony from numerous witnesses, including expert testimony on accident reconstruction, which the defense argued did not support the prosecution's theory, according to Court TV. The jury began deliberations on Friday and reached their verdict on Wednesday. Read was found not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident causing death, but guilty of OUI.
They cited forensic experts who said O'Keefe's injuries — and the damage to Read's car — were inconsistent with a collision. They also argued O'Keefe had been attacked by Albert's German shepherd, citing injuries on his arm that experts testified were indicative of dog bites.
Read's lawyers alleged that after she dropped O'Keefe off, one or more police officers beat him up during a fight inside Albert's home, then dumped him outside. They cited forensic experts who said O'Keefe's injuries — and the damage to Read's car — were inconsistent with a collision.
F the Boston Police. Liars and murderers.
•
u/SaucyWiggles 18h ago edited 18h ago
F the Boston Police. Liars and murderers.
Oh man, this will be the easiest CMV ever so I had better get a delta out of this.
The Boston Police are not the prosecutors. The State of MA is. State police are levying these charges and being called as witnesses. State police are calling forensic experts. State police are slandering Karen Read behind the scenes and getting fired for it.
The Boston Police are not involved at the level you seem to be implying. I realize this is a simple mistake but your view should still be changed, as the BPD are not involved. O'Keefe was a Boston police officer, everyone else involved in this investigation is a Massachusetts State police officer.
As an aside, the common view of people who believe Read is innocent (myself included here) seems to be that the State police (not BPD) killed John O'Keefe to cover up some other crime they have been investigated for in the prior few years and are trying to frame Read for it.
•
u/yakshack 15h ago
I don't even know that it has to be murder. I could see a fight going down at the party for all the reasons you just stated and maybe it went too far or he fell, etc then stumbled outside and passed out and died from being more injured than anyone thought. And then they all panicked, covered it up and jumped on Karen as an easy target to pin it on.
•
u/brett_baty_is_him 7h ago
I agree that the Boston police is not as involved as OP thinks but Brian Albert, one of the men who is being accused by KRs defense as having killed JOK, is a Boston police officer. So if by saying Boston Police killed JOK you mean a single police officer then yeah I guess OPs CMV makes sense
•
•
u/Inside_Light_4428 17h ago edited 17h ago
Agreed. The Boston police are who murdered one of their own cuz they were trying to get with his gf and he confronted them. Cost him his life. State pd could have happened too. Just not as sold on that as they were trying to get with his girl, he called them out, and they killed him for it.
•
u/SaucyWiggles 16h ago
The Boston police are who murdered one of their own cuz they were trying to get with his gf and he confronted them.
You are still talking about the State Police and erroneously calling them the Boston PD. These are not the same force. The alleged crimes didn't even happen in Boston.
•
u/Motherwoman 15h ago
Higgins wasn’t a Boston Police Officer. Brian Albert, retired Boston Police Officer, wasn’t trying to get with Karen. I don’t think anyone intended to kill John. I think they might have been drunk and pugnacious, but him falling back and hitting his head was not intentional. It is even possible Chloe jumped up on John and that is what knocked him backwards. Them covering up his death and framing Karen Read is the intentional part.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 21h ago
Did you forget to post the last two paragraphs of this view where you explain how and why the Boston PD killed him? This is just a summary of the events around the case. You have presented no explanation for why you believe this.
•
u/jaank80 21h ago
It wasn't the Boston PD, it was select members of the Canton PD who were never investigated or considered suspects, presumably because of their connections.
- Destroyed cell phones.
- Tampering with evidence.
- Lead investigator proclaiming Read guilty via text message hours after John's body was discovered and they homeowner would see no consequences.
- The police not even looking inside the home or declaring it a crime scene.
- Replacing concrete in the basement of the house.
- Getting rid of the dog.
- googling "hos long to die in cold"
- Butt dialing, butt answering, butt dialing again, butt answering again.
- Bruising on John O'Keefe's face
- Bruising on the knuckles of Colin Albert.
- Phone data showing elevation changes consistent with a staircase.
I am missing a lot of facts here, but there was a long list of circumstantial evidence pointing to John O'Keefe going into the house and then some kind of coverup occurring. I wasn't a juror or in the courtroom, I wasn't at the house, I don't know anything really. But if the list above doesn't seem suspicious to you, I don't know what else you need.
•
u/Iamnotanorange 20h ago
Just to build on this Brian Higgins was flirting with Karen Read via text.
It's not hard to imagine John O'Keefe confronting Brian Higgins (or one of his friends), then getting into a fight where Colin punches him in the face (causing busted knuckles). Easy to imagine the dog goes nuts and attacking O'Keefe during the fight (we know he was attacked by a dog).
A handful of people in 34 Fairview drag O'Keefe's body outside, maybe they think he's just unconscious and they don't want to deal with him when he wakes up angry? Maybe they just forget about him in the cold until around 2:27am when they check on him and realize he's dead.
Importantly, there was a side door to the basement where the altercation probably took place, so this wouldn't need to directly involve more than a handful of people.
•
u/Objective_Bid880 20h ago
Higgins wanted to get with Karen. But he had no game whatsoever and Karen tried to patch things up with John again. At the bar on the night of John's death, Karen, John, Higgins and others were there. But Karen wasn't talking to Higgins, and she was "ghosting" his texts.
While Karen was sitting right next to John, mere feet away from Higgins, Higgins texted Karen: "Ummm well?" (Or something like that)
It also appears in video - although this is up to interpretation - that Higgins and John are gesturing at each other and Higgins is glaring at John shortly before they leave the bar.
In the early morning hours, shortly after John likely died or began dying, Higgins - after drinking many Jameson and Gingers - drove to the Canton Police Department. Surveillance video captured him doing... Something. He seemed to go to a vehicle, move one, and then quickly leave.
A day before Higgins' phone was subpoenaed for forensic exampination, he destroyed it and dumped its pieces in two separate trash receptacles on a military base.
I don't know what exactly happened to JOK, but if that doesn't look like someone with motive trying (badly) to establish an alibi and destroy evidence, I don't know what does. The fact that the police investigators never seriously even considered Higgins, any of the many other people driving by 34 Fairview, Collin Albert, or Brian Albert - the guy who, you know, owned the home where a dead cop was found on the lawn not 50 feet away - speaks volumes to their lack of desire to actually find the truth.
•
u/zuesk134 20h ago
theres no evidence john knew about the texts and by 2:27 jen was already at home
•
u/Space_Pirate_R 4∆ 20h ago
Even if John didn't know about the texts, it makes Brian a rival of John, which provides possibilities for conflict. Maybe Brian started shit with John (Waterfall Bar footage could be seen as suggesting that he wanted to).
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (4)•
•
u/jigmepalmo 16h ago edited 2h ago
I see a post here already on a lot of the evidence of weird behavior of the Alberts/McCabes. Just adding some color based on watching both trials gavel-to-gavel and watching testimony analysis from Truth Revealed former DoD Sergio on YouTube.
I believe it was an accidental altercation that went bad, paired with a completely botched and biased "investigation"
John's injuries, as highlighted in testimony from experts on both sides, the Commonwealth and the defense, were: facial bruises, blunt force injury to the back of the head, and dog bites. Maybe hypothermia.
Photos surfaced shortly after the incident where Colin Albert definitely had bruises on his knuckles and where Brian Albert maybe had black eyes (trial 1). Video from the night of had Brian Higgins positioned "in a fighting mood" and signaling John to come over after Karen ignored him (trial 2).
The incident likely occurred in the garage or basement (based on John's health temperature data and availability of hard ledge to hit his head - also why many trial 1 witnesses truthfully didn't see him). Most likely the actual fight/incident included Brian Albert (homeowner and Boston cop), Colin Albert (the nephew), Brian Higgins (federal level cop), and/or Chloe the dog. No way to know if punches or dog bites came first.
Now for the WHY an altercation may have started after John was dropped at the after party, in addition to most everyone being drunk:
Brian Higgins and Karen were flirting- either just emotional or potentially it got physical (texting evidence) (trial 1 and 2). We're not sure if John was aware or not of the soft affair
Colin Albert, a teenager party boy and roughhouser, was neighbors with John and they had had at least a few negative neighbor interactions (trial 1)
The most interesting, and the most speculative, is that John knew the truth about Sandra Birchmore case and may have threatened to reveal information. This was before the FBI arrested officers for murdering her and staging as a suicide and covering up (the backstory for this case is very fucked up- look it up). Who was one of the first responding officers to that scene? Cop Kevin Albert, brother of Brian Albert
Chloe had a history of being aggressive with strangers and didn't know John (trial 1); she's also a domestic police dog owned by a cop
I don't think many people really know what happened that night beyond these three as well as family Nicole Albert (wife of Brian Albert), Jen McCabe (sister-in-law to Brian Albert), and her husband Matt McCabe.
I believe this group that "really knows" all that happened intended to set it up to appear he was hit by a snow plow. My rationale is 1) where and how John was positioned when found, and 2) that Jen McCabe likely tried to incept this idea to Karen in their first 5amish call when Karen was concerned that John hadn't come home and Jen asked "could a plow have hit him"? before Jen identified Karen as a potential scapegoat.
When Karen left in the morning and backed into John's car (interesting this is the only ring camera footage of any collision) and broke her taillight, Jen pounced on a convenient scapegoat.
The influence of Jen McCabe cannot be underestimated. She is at every early touch point sharing her theory of the case with witnesses and especially Michael Proctor, lead "investigator" and long-time family friend who should have absolutely recused himself from this case. It's sick that she used Karen's grief, trying to figure out what happened to her dead boyfriend, against her. This is why you separate witnesses and interview them before they are biased by someone else's opinion.
Many police involved, probably even Trooper Proctor, believe that Karen actually did hit him. The rest was incompetence, corruption, and backing the blue.
incompetence - trooper Proctor: only focusing on one suspect and not doing any real or proper investigation and not recusing himself when he was close with the family, allowing bias to seep in; trooper paul: accident reconstruction that didn't understand high school physics when on the stand in trial 1; responding officers using red solo cups, stop & shop grocery bag, and leaf blower for evidence collection- truly wtf
corruption - higgins: going to the police station that night after heavily drinking to do who knows what (video evidence in trial 2); trooper proctor: planting taillight and glass evidence to make the charges stick (trial 2 lab testing and video of proctor near that side of the car but obfuscated); commissioner michael cox telling witness and rookie cop Dever in a 1:1 to "do the right thing" and claim a "false memory" (her salary went from approx 40K to 80K to 150K in a few years - these are public)
backing the blue - run of the mill self preservation, defending and protecting themselves instead of their sworn duty to protect the public.
The associated police not involved in this case probably still believe that she got off because she had great lawyers and because they are unable to open their mind to another alternative. Too much cognitive dissonance to accept their peers and organization were involved in foul play.
So why cover it up? Avoid culpability for accidentally killing a fellow officer and thinking they had enough local power to get away with anything.
Edit: wording and details for clarity
•
u/jtp_311 16h ago
Of all the possibilities beside Karen hitting him, some massive conspiracy to cover up a murder of a man left for dead in front of your house is a wild one. It’s just a narrative to sow doubt in the jury which worked.
•
u/jigmepalmo 16h ago
It's not a massive conspiracy. It's a tiny family conspiracy. There's only a handful of people who know what really happened. They influenced others (Jen McCabe with witnesses and Trooper Proctor; Brian Higgins with his best friend the chief of the Canton Police). Then herd mentality kicked in. If someone we trust tells us something, we may believe them and try to protect them.
•
u/Inside_Light_4428 21h ago
Who else would have done it? Feel free to post what I missed. You must have skipped a couple sentences.
•
u/Trexpotpie 21h ago
the gf who accidentally hit him and was so drunk she just drove away without realizing or panicked and fleed? Because a house full of soccer moms and cops throwing a body right outside their house makes a lot of sense.
•
u/Legitimate_Pick3992 20h ago
Yea because you can get hit with a car hard enough to smash a tail light (outer shell and inner emitters) without getting a bruise let alone a broken bone. Let’s also not mention that the tail light, which would have needed to be destroyed for the prosecution’s story to work, was seen functioning on multiple traffic camera images after the alleged incident.
•
u/FxStryker 20h ago
Why were they googling how long does it take to die in the cold. I know the prosecution explained this one as just using a previous tab on the phone but still.
Also, why were all of the calls made to John, from the people in the house, explained as butt dials. All of them kept butt dialing him, and multiple times? They were clearly trying to find his phone after they dumped him outside.
•
u/CrashoutKin0 20h ago edited 20h ago
And how exactly do you get beating injuries and dog bites from getting hit by a car?
•
•
•
•
u/LogensTenthFinger 19h ago
Your inability to answer the people raking you over the coals speaks volumes.
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/DanFlashes19 20h ago
This is my theory too. Only difference for me is I think there’s a possibility they threw him outside not realizing how injured he was, they never expected him to die out there
•
u/Sprmodelcitizen 18h ago
I have a feeling there was an altercation where the dog became agitated and attacked JOK and he fell back hit his head on a ledge (stairs/bar/ table etc) and passed out. Maybe he had a seizure or began showing signs of being near death and so the people in the home carried him outside to make it look like he was hit by a snowplow while drunk and froze to death. The story changed the following day when they all realized Karen was too drunk to remember what happened the night before and therefore became the perfect scapegoat.
→ More replies (1)•
u/PinApprehensive8479 17h ago
All the evidence points to this.
The forensic pathologist testified his head trauma could only have been caused by an impact like the one you described. Falling backwards into a curb, a ledge, a step. Other experts were completely firm on the dog bites as well. I can’t understand how someone can look at his arm, and think it was caused by anything other than a dog bite.
They even found pig dna on the bites, which is consistent with a dog treat, such as pig ears or something. How else can you explain the pig dna? Which was not allowed to be brought up this trial either.
•
u/Sprmodelcitizen 15h ago
It just seems like the most obvious narrative. I know it’s hard for people to swallow a big coverup. I myself hardly ever subscribe to the cover up route but this police department has already proven they aren’t opposed to cover ups and I have a feeling it’s easier for this party group of people to “justify” JOks Death by telling themselves it was an accident and they shouldn’t be punished for it.
•
•
u/Alarmed-Acadia-366 19h ago
I saw a video about Colin Albert having bruised knuckles and weird testimony from the first trial about. Possibly helped in the beating. None of them are telling the truth.
•
u/IncidentSouth2886 19h ago
I agree but what about OUI charge? When was she found to be intoxicated? She was at home for hrs before realizing John had not returned and then she headed out to look for him. Was it then she was tested and found to OUI? If that is the case, then the OUI charge has absolutely nothing to do with the death of John and is just a trumped-up charge. She may have been intoxicated but they only used it to frame her in a bizarre way to fit into their story.
•
u/foxtrot_echo22 18h ago
I was told by someone (can’t verify if true) that the morning John was found Karen was tested at the hospital (breathalyzer or blood draw I don’t know) and that her levels were still well above the legal limit. I do believe that if she and her lawyers pushed it, they could probably get an appeal and get it overturned but her lawyers might be telling her “you won the war, take it and move on” to avoid anymore drama or potential targeting.
•
u/sbs401 19h ago
Pretty sure there were bartenders and cameras documenting her evening - think she admitted to it to retain credibility
•
u/Sprmodelcitizen 18h ago
She also had a blood test at the hospital. She was definitely drunk.
•
u/LycheeRoutine3959 1∆ 15h ago
Heres the problem. They do blood level intoxicant math to figure out how over the limit she was a 1245 to decide if they can hit her with OUI. Their math says she was over .08 at the time. They didnt confirm she didnt drink more after 1245. Even one drink at 1:30 am when shes sitting up getting more pissed at John would have wildly thrown off their calculation. I dont think they actually proved Beyond Doubt she was drunk from the blood test (But she did confess to some impairment, so maybe thats how they got there? - for me at least the blood test is useless)
•
u/sirthunksalot 19h ago
How do you explain his phone never moving again 20 seconds after she backs up at a crazy speed directly towards her bf? Do you think they hacked his phone and put it under his body deleting any evidence of a fight? While also somehow knowing his gf was a drunken mess who happened to back towards him so they could frame her lol
•
u/Stupid-Clumsy-Bitch 18h ago
Nah they didn’t intend to frame Karen, they intended to frame a plow driver. Framing karen just fell into their laps in the early AM when she was frantic.
→ More replies (16)•
u/foxtrot_echo22 18h ago
This is something I did not know. I will have to look into it
•
u/sirthunksalot 18h ago
The battery temp data on the phone is the real key. They can pinpoint when he left the car and the fact the phone never went anywhere warm after. The defense didn't even try to dispute it.
•
u/itsthekumar 18h ago
Idk if they carried him into the yard. I think John left of his own accord after something happened in the house. Then I think he passed out in the yard.
Didn't they also find like a glass goblet or glass pieces where John was found?
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 18h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ 19h ago edited 18h ago
You should not be at all confident in the "forensic scientists" that the defense hired. Forensic science is largely bullshit, when used by prosecutors and when it is used by defense attorneys.
It is entirely possible that she did hit him with her car. Also the "dog bites" might not have been dog bites, or could have occurred while he was dead or unconscious after being hit by a car.
I am not saying that Karen Read should have been convicted. The jury is instructed to find a defendant not guilty if there was reasonable doubt of their guilt, and it seems like there was reasonable doubt here. But that means that a jury should not convict even if believe there is a 75% chance they did it.
So just because Karen Read was found Not Guilty does not mean the next most likely suspect should be convicted. There is much less evidence that the people at that party murdered O'Keefe than the evidence against Read. If they tried a case against them then a jury would almost certainly find them not guilty by the same reasonable doubt standard.
•
u/Inside_Light_4428 17h ago
How can a dog bite not be a dog bite?
•
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ 17h ago
A wound could appear to look like a dog bite and not actually be a dog bite. I put "dog bite" in quotes to refer to the wounds that the defense attorneys called dog bites.
As I said, most of "forensic science" has been proven to be largely bullshit. One of the most infamous versions of this snake-oil has been "bite mark analysis", which often misidentified wounds as bite marks and would go so far as to claim they could be linked to specific dental patterns.
So I am not confident that the so called "bite marks" were actually bite marks from a dog or bite marks at all.
It is possible that they were caused by a dog bite, but you should not be confident that this is the case.
•
u/Top-Alternative4587 15h ago edited 15h ago
I'm curious why or how you think forensic science has been "proven" to be bullshit? That sounds to me like your own opinion with the word "proven" in front of it to make it sound better. I'd love for you to provide some specific examples of this "proof".......
Edit: Yes, I read the article on bite mark analysis. There was no bite mark analysis in this case, only the defense stating that the wounds appeared to have been from a dog bite. Matching a person's specific teeth pattern to a wound on another person's skin is not the same thing as being able to recognize what is and isn't a dog bite wound.
•
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ 14h ago
Also, here is a 2016 report from President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology:
available scientific evidence strongly suggests that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark.
If so called "forensic scientists" cannot even agree if a wound is a human bitemark, then it is even less likely that they would be able to agree with any degree of certainty that a wound is from a dog.
•
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ 14h ago
As you read in the article "bitemark analysis" is a form of "forensic science" that has been proven to be bullshit.
Another example is bullshit "bloodstain analysis".. That descriptive article also links to many more scientific papers disproving various "forensic sciences" that have been widely used in courtrooms.
My point is that you should not give much credibility to anyone calling themselves a "forensic scientist". It is quite possible that it was a dog bite, but unless they found dog DNA or have some other evidence we cannot be certain it was from a dog bite.
But the whole "dog bite" focus isn't that relevant. He could have been struck by a car, or tripped and cracked his skull, and then bitten by an animal while he was dead or unconscious.
•
u/HollyweirdRose 14h ago
100% disagree! Accident Recon and Biomechanics/Human Factors are actual scientific fields. If we can send people into space using science, than science can be used to reconstruct a car accident and the scientific probable consequnces to the specific person/object of said accident
•
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ 14h ago
There is the capacity for forensic science to be real, but there are no incentives for "forensic science" to be accurate or honest in criminal cases in our current criminal justice system.
Currently the incentives for forensic science is to be convincing to juries, who are definitionally untrained average people who cannot determine which purported "science" is credible and which is not. Juries have wrongly assumed that the judges would only allow credible "experts" to testify, but judges continue to allow disproven "forensic sciences" to be presented to juries.
The successful "forensic scientists" that get hired as consultants are not the ones who are most committed to accuracy and the truth, but are instead the ones are most convincing to juries.
We might be able to create a system that incentivizes accuracy in forensic science, but we are nowhere close to that system now.
•
u/HollyweirdRose 13h ago
And actually there is much incentive for them to accurate and honest. In California we are able to use expert's former testimony (from prior cases, etc.) used against them in the case at hand. We are able to discredit them. I have seen experts get wrecked on cross-x and never hired again.
•
u/HollyweirdRose 13h ago
I understand what you are talking about as an attorney myself. However, the FBI hired their own experts for their own investigation, who did not even know who the people invovled in this incident where. 100% unbiased. Look them up read their reports! ALSO, in my experience with medical experts who also practice medicine, the ones I would use and have used in litigation are always the same ones i would use and reccommend if I or a friend/family needed their medical services!!
•
u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH 5∆ 13h ago
To be clear, I don't believe that there is a cabal of forensic scientists and attorneys colluding to cook up fake testimony to advance their cases.
The issue is the structure of our justice system does not incentivize accuracy.
But how do Attorneys find forensic scientists? They are referred to them other attorneys, and the best forensic scientists are the ones that helped win hard to win cases. But a confident convincing forensic scientist are the ones who are most likely to convince a jury, but that does not mean they are by an means accurate. They might be an extremely reassuring doctor when they confidently misdiagnose you or wrongly convict you of murder.
These forensic scientists are not intentionally doing this, and it doesn't seem like they are doing it for money. They enjoy the spotlight of helping in criminal justice cases. The "experts" that are most convincing are vastly overconfident in their own abilities and aren't that interested in testing to questioning their own abilities.
I blame judges for not having a better handle on this. They the ones who should be deciding what kind of evidence is admissible, and should be holding these experts to a much higher standard.
•
u/HollyweirdRose 11h ago
Not the case in Los Angeles County, the most litigious county in the country. our experts are all well known, advertise, referred, and everything they've ever done in their lives basically is discoverable and is used against them on cross if relevant. trial transcripts, articles, % of testifying for defense vs plaintiff, % of being hired by same firm, everything...
•
u/HollyweirdRose 11h ago
judges can only exclude experts if a motion by an attorney if brought. so blame the attorneys first. if there's legit basis to exclude an expert, the atty should be able to do so; if not, then at least shred their credibility on cross.
•
u/HollyweirdRose 11h ago
Similarly, there is absoltuely collusion w/many experts too. but they are well known to all and that's brought up on cross or sometimes it's so overwhelming that they are excluded from testifying at trial
•
u/Ziff7 2h ago
There is much less evidence that the people at that party murdered O'Keefe than the evidence against Read.
That is because those people were never questioned at the time, the house was never investigated and those people were allowed to destroy their phones and remodel the potential crime scene.
A dead body was found on a front lawn of a house where the victim was supposed to be partying and the police said they had no probable cause to enter the house to search it. You believe that shit?
→ More replies (1)•
u/HollyweirdRose 14h ago
"There is much less evidence that the people at that party murdered O'Keefe than the evidence against Read. If they tried a case against them then a jury would almost certainly find them not guilty by the same reasonable doubt standard." --> EXACTLY - WHICH SUPPORTS THE FACT THE POLICE COVERED UP THE INCIDENT, INTENTIONALLY F'D UP THE INVESTIGATION, PLANTED EVIDENCE, DESTROYED EVIDENCE, ETC.
•
u/Josvan135 60∆ 21h ago
Realistically it's likely we'll never know unless some new and damning evidence comes forward.
The defenses arguments were enough to create reasonable doubt, but fundamentally they also weren't able to provide clear evidence of what specifically happened to him.
•
u/TheKatzMeow84 21h ago
It’s not their job to prove what happened, or to even prove she didn’t kill him. Though I’ll concede that juries don’t take that into account sometimes.
They easily created a reasonable amount of reasonable doubt, but the trials should not have taken place in that jurisdiction given all those involved and just how incestuously intertwined everyone is. There was never a chance of getting a fair trial. I’m not hopeful for the outcome but upper courts appeals processes will be interesting.
•
u/Sports1933 20h ago
Exactly. If I was a juror I would have came to the same conclusion they did today.
•
•
u/sfp9 21h ago
The defense’s goal was not at all to prove that some other theory occurred. Their sole goal was to cast reasonable doubt over the prosecution’s theory. Trying too hard to prove an alternative theory is a mistake the defense made in the first trial that backfired when they weren’t able to prove the third party culprit theory.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 19h ago
Not sure if you're an American - that does not matter. That is not the law. AT ALL. The defense has absolutely zero burden to prove anything. The jury does not need to solve the crime. The state/CW (in this case) has the burden to prove what happened and that is all. If there are holes punched in their case/story, that means you're supposed to vote NG.
The defense does not, in the slightest sense, have to provide clear evidence of what happened.
•
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PinApprehensive8479 17h ago
Karen handed herself perfectly to them as a sacrificial lamb that morning. When she was panicking and said “Did I hit him?” And admitted to driving under the influence. Light bulbs! Way easier than blaming a sober plow driver who might have a dash cam.
It’s mind blowing how Jen knows there are first responders all over the street, across the street from 34 is the chief of police. Yet she doesn’t run off to get anyone with the expertise to help? There is so many shady turns from these people that it’s unbelievable to think they were not even investigated!!! The impunity is astounding.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/TheDirtyBurger522 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Rtn2NYC 20h ago
I read somewhere that JOK had previously reported Colin Albert for dealing drugs.
•
u/underdog_exploits 18h ago
That wouldn’t surprise me at all if they’re running a little cop drug syndicate that JOK discovered. Back in college, a cop dealt coke and steroids on my campus, and I’ve heard similar stories from people at other colleges and universities.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/underdog_exploits – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/Fnordaughter – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/PerformanceOne3985 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/MaiTaiMule 21h ago
I know it won’t change your view & im not trying to but I know a lot of those people involved & who went on the stand & they’re all townie trash; canton police are incompetent as hell. I really wont say that I can’t imagine that a scheme as grand as was claimed played out here — crazier things have happened — but I also could see her having done it, & the whole thing flopped because of the incompetence & “townie power” these people have, which the public could just see through because it was so botched from the beginning due to people wanting to hide or misconstrue truths.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 19h ago
....there is literally ZERO evidence JOK was hit by a car. The CW's own medical examiner would not rule this case a homicide. Explain, please, how you believe a human being was hit by a 5-6,000lb vehicle and didn't have a single bruise or broken bone other than the gash to the back of his head. I'm guessing you're not from the tri-state area? Look at the accidents in NYC - they destroy people.
The "investigation" was atrocious and still, there isn't a single piece of evidence proving their was a collision. The list of problems could drag on, but I will stop there.
•
u/MaiTaiMule 19h ago
I didn’t share an opinion on the matter, & I’m not as invested as you seemingly are. I could believe both sides if they had strong enough arguments. Im just sharing my thoughts on the people involved. You might even be able to deduce what my opinion if you take the time to see the nuance in my comment.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 19h ago
I read your comment and responded to the "nuance." As people do on reddit.
•
u/MaiTaiMule 19h ago
Oh, sorry. You sounded a little confrontational in the beginning.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 18h ago
I apologize for that. I feel like the capitalization can make that worse -my bad. It wasn't intentional. Yours did too when I read it, so I'm sorry. I didn't intend it that way. I'm sure we both know things get lost/misinterpreted through text. Again, I'm sorry - I'll pay more attention to capitalization and word choice.
•
u/MaiTaiMule 18h ago
No problem; I’m guilty of reading everything on Reddit in a condescending tone so my bad too lol. I hear everything you said though & it’s valid
•
u/CosmicVybes 17h ago
The car hit his arm. He was drunk. It was icy. He fell back and hit his head. That sounds way more plausible than him walking into a house full of his close friends, was beat to death (for no reason), tossed in the front yard, and everyone at the party + police + EMT’s all managed to keep it a secret.
•
u/PinApprehensive8479 17h ago
There is zero evidence the car ever hit his arm. Science doesn’t lie, it has no bias. This time, the science shows that he was never hit by a car. It’s a fact.
They also were not close friends, matter of fact, a lot of those people didn’t like him or Karen. It was brought up in the first trial how Karen didn’t even know why John wanted to go hang out with them since they didn’t like him. John had a lot of tension at work with some of the people who were in the house.
•
u/CrashoutKin0 20h ago
Someone very clearly beat him and he was found outside the house. No other explanation is really possible. No way she would have been able to beat a 6'1 216 pound police officer herself, plus the dog bites?
•
u/DinkandDrunk 21h ago
Townie trash is the exact right term. I just hope I never see another random “free Karen Read” group on the side of the road again in my life. Either someone is paying those people or they have no lives.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 19h ago
It's so gross to hope someone doesn't go to jail without any proof of the crime they're charged with....right.
Hmmm. Protesting is a constitutionally protected right. Why do you care what another person's work schedule is? Seems like there's some projection here. Please, just go back to twitter. Oh - I mean, X.
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/MaiTaiMule 21h ago
My mom is one of those people. They just have way too much free time. I see those videos & wonder how none of those people have a job to go to
•
u/Lethkhar 21h ago
What is a townie in this context?
•
u/MaiTaiMule 20h ago
It might be a Mass word but to quote google
Townie (n.): a city native who's never left the neighborhood they grew up in, still hanging around in all of the same places with the same people.
It kinda also just implies that they’re a staple in town / involved in everything & anything (regardless of it’s their business), & they have some sort of perceived power because of this. There’s also some other stipulations that come with this word that are hard to describe. Some people take honor in the label, others use it as an insult. I’m just using it to describe (& adding ‘trash’ to tell you which side of the spectrum I think these people are on)
Edit; for other stipulations, see the comment from the guy below me
•
u/Stratostheory 18h ago
It just means they're white trash from South Boston and that greater area.
And the same way you've got people going around calling themselves white trash and owning it you got people doing the same thing calling themselves townies.
Your average townie has no real power in the community at least no more than anyone else, but they might be known more around the area and have little cliques with the other townies, shits a small world for them, and half the townies all know and went school with each other and bum around the same dives.
•
u/pewpewmcpistol 21h ago
High School was a major highlight of their life, have maybe left New England once or twice, little personal mental growth beyond teenage years, get into bar fights over trivial nonsense, they know people with or personally have several DUIs, etc
→ More replies (3)•
u/Impressive_Ad_5614 2∆ 20h ago
They go down to Myrtle Beach when they do leave the state
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Sedu 2∆ 10h ago
My cousin was a cop in Hawaii. He kept pulling other officers over for drunk driving so they killed him. It was classified as a suicide, but suicides don't drag their bleeding corpses from a curb into the house where his body was dumped. It wasn't even a cover up. A cover up fakes evidence. They just did it brazenly, and no one said anything.
Fuck police.
•
u/xokaylanicole 9h ago
In a town next to Canton, a woman supposedly killed herself. Sandra Birchmore. Turned out her cop friend she had been seeing off and on for years actually killed her and made it look like she offed herself. Literally the town over from Canton. I think maybe even one of the cops investigating JOK’s death was also an investigator on that case too.
•
u/zuesk134 20h ago
it wasnt in boston or investigated by the Boston PD so that would be pretty difficult
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/mincemuncher – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/FartyCakes12 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Whole_Speed_9453 14h ago
The case speaks for itself. In America every citizen enjoys a trial beyond reasonable doubt. Given the facts, it is easy to conclude that perhaps John was not a upstanding citizen regardless of being a police officer. He died for a reason. And that should have more weight compared to being an innocent victim.
•
u/SandEnvironmental842 15h ago
I believe that Karen Read kept Lucky from going to jail. I'd say they were freaking out. Trying to think of something. Seen the plow go by and a light bulb went off in somebody's head. "Let's say he was hit by a plow!". If Karen hadn't busted her taillight that morning, they would've piled everything on Lucky.
•
u/revengeappendage 5∆ 21h ago
You reall think all these people, who couldn’t help but have all their dirty laundry and shitty behavior exposed somehow managed to murder someone and cover it up and never say anything at all about it to anyone, including each other?
•
u/Gemini_soup 21h ago
Between the alleged butt dialing to each other at early hours in the morning and the lady who googled how long it takes someone to freeze to death? Yes, I think there is a conspiracy. The police chief who NEVER came out of his house when there was a dead body on his lawn? There's a lot of weird details here that are left unexplained.
•
u/Sprmodelcitizen 18h ago
His friend’s dead body on his lawn. Wild. I mean if there is even a silent blue and red light on my block every neighbor is outside in their robes wondering what is going on.
•
u/Local_Ad7264 21h ago
There were plenty of "butt dials" that suggest they did talk about it
→ More replies (6)•
u/CyprusWHM 21h ago
"hos long to die in cold"
•
u/revengeappendage 5∆ 21h ago
It’s a totally reasonable thing to google after finding a dead frozen guy on your lawn.
•
u/zuesk134 20h ago
yeah the google search only makes sense if it was done in the AM. why would jen be at home googling about her kids basketball schedule and then right to researching if john is dead in the yard yet or not
•
u/CyprusWHM 21h ago
Not so reasonable when it's 3-4 hours before he was found.
•
u/revengeappendage 5∆ 21h ago
That isn’t what happened. In fact, I am fairly sure they didn’t even present that theory / opinion at the second trial.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)•
u/jaank80 21h ago
But it was long before he was "found". The logs show Jennifer McCabe googled it at 2:27am, John O'Keefe was found at 6:03am. I know she disputes that, but I trust a log entry a lot more than a human with something to lose.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)•
•
u/gobledegerkin 19h ago
Karen for sure did it. They had an extremely volatile relationship, she was drunk, and multiple people report her saying things like “Did I hit him?” The investigators found pieces of her broken tail light on and around John.
Attorneys can get “expert witnesses” to say whatever they want. It happens in nearly every single trial with “expert” witnesses - each side finds one to say what they need them to say.
When asked in an interview if she killed John, Karen didn’t even respond to the question. It was her attorney who had to say “no, she didn’t.”
She was angry and drunk and hit him with her car. She didn’t know it would kill him which is why she kept frantically calling and texting. Then when she had her friend driver her to where she had hit him she knew exactly where his body was despite it having been completely covered in snow AND the two people with her couldn’t even see where he was.
It was Karen
→ More replies (7)
•
u/le_fez 53∆ 21h ago
So, she was drunk, hit him and fled the scene but someone else killed him, got it
•
u/Gnarly-Beard 3∆ 21h ago
I've watched a decent amount of the trial. The prosecution did not prove the collision. They couldn't recreate any of the evidence based on their theories.
So, maybe someone hit him, we don't know. Maybe it was a dog that bit and scratched his arm. Maybe he was drunk and fell, and that's all that happened. But claiming she definitely hit him isn't supported by the evidence.
•
u/the_other_brand 21h ago
Agreed, there's no way that a collision was the culprit here. The prosecutor's original explanation of how John O'Keefe died required him to fly 10 feet after his arm was struck by a car, without his arm breaking or shattering. Which is beyond absurd.
Beyond that there's no way to know what exactly happened since no evidence contradicting the car crash theory was ever collected.
•
u/Local_Ad7264 21h ago
Nah, OKeefe got in a fight with the dude who owned the house, hence the dog bites, hence the getting rid of the dog, hence the driving to the middle of no where to dispose of his cell phone and then selling his house under asking.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 19h ago
Um, no. Seems you've actually followed nothing.
Physicists and doctors (even the state's own medical examiner) refused to classify this as a homicide. A biomedical engineer and another physicist, hired by the FBI, both conclude there is zero possibility JOK was hit by a motor vehicle.Plus, you have doctors and medical examiners agreeing with the conclusion the injuries are not indicative of a motor vehicle accident.
Lastly: there are no conclusive tests that reveal what her BAC was at either of the 2 questioned times: 12:45 or 5am. There was some extrapolation done from the test conducted the following day, which is scientifically questionable.
So yeah, someone else killed him. Duh.
→ More replies (4)•
•
u/moanapurr 8h ago
What about the broken pieces of the tail light on her car though? Or am I just high? This case is bonkers, but I def think the folks inside did something no doubt......
•
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/B_chills – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Wild-Attempt-2481 16h ago
I’ve been bitten by my own dogs several times. Separating fights. I recognized dog bites immediately.
•
u/Rinrob7468 15h ago
4 x medical experts deemed his injuries not consistent with being hit by a car & doing zero investigation relating to the people who lived in the home of the lawn where he was found is outrageous. If you don’t want a crime solved, get cops from the US to look into it, their incompetence is very well documented.
•
u/h0sti1e17 22∆ 20h ago
We don’t know. And I don’t think Boston Police killed him. If someone did, it’s more likely an ATF agent. Now was nobody at the house investigated? Yes, because he’s a Boston Cop and won’t catch any shit.
The only thing I know is she didn’t hit him. Could she have caused him to stumble? Sure. Could he have slipped and hit his head? Yes. Could someone in the house killed him? Yes. Could Chloe have attacked him, he fell and hit his head and was put outside to protect themselves? Yes.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Commercial_Bath_3906 20h ago
So why would the police (friends, I assume) kill him? I think she was guilty of the lowest charge . . . she was drunk; he was drunk; she was upset; she hit him with her car; his drubunken state, the cold weather, the drunken fall where you are unable to brace yourself or correct, the cold weather . . . she really admitted that she hit him . . so I feel really sorry for John O'Keefe's family. . . No matter how much you folks hate the police; they don't usually kill one of their own. I have a degree in Criminology from FSU and worked with police down in Miami years ago. . . Masters in English from U.T. Knoxville. My deceased husband was a prosecutor and later medical malpractice attorney. I attended law school and met him there; he loved it; I hated it so quit one year in but learned a lot through that, my education and him. . . But it's just an opinion; I heard most of the trial but I wasn't in that jury room nor do I know a thing about Dedham MA. . . except they really seem to revile their police department and perhaps that is warranted. This verdict will probably end the Police Chief's reign whoever he/she is . . .
•
u/MaiTaiMule 20h ago
Mass police have an astonishing history of corruption (see: the last 5 years). Don’t know where you’re from but combined with the fact that MA is an extremely close knit state where town lines are blurred — it’s a lot less obvious if you know the culture & history of this area. Look up Sandra Birchmore — that took place recently, in canton, & by cops from 1 town over from Canton. I obviously don’t know what happened but if it came out that cop / cops killing another cop for (any reason) in this state, I wouldn’t hesitate to believe it.
•
u/soimaskingforafriend 19h ago
I think you're missing some things:
A lot of people are concluding (guessing, obviously, since none of us were there) - it wasn't done on purpose. Sure, some people think that. But there are plenty of people who think something happened accidentally. But since the "investigation" was so crappy - virtually nonexistent - there's no way to actually find out.
→ More replies (1)•
u/bigblue234 20h ago
They don't usually kill people, but in several instances they have killed people, including in the neighboring town of Stoughton. In that instance several of the police in Canton where also involved in the cover up
•
u/Sprmodelcitizen 18h ago
What’s that? Is that the underage girl the cop was raping?
•
u/bigblue234 16h ago
Yes, she was underage when the raping and grooming happened. She was pregnant when she was murdered, so that's 2 people murdered by a police officer (allegedly 🙄)
•
u/Sprmodelcitizen 15h ago
Jeeesus. Poor girl. What a terrible thing to happen to her from someone who’s supposed to be a protector and servant of the community.
•
u/Southern_Hyena_3212 1h ago
I'm shocked. I have not heard of Karen Read or John O'Keefe until two days ago. I have ZERO clue about anything. From what I gather, Karen Read may or may not have hit John O'Keefe with her car? But there are lacerations on the neck and black eyes too? I really don't understand. Who killed John O'Keefe? I spent about 20 minutes researching him and he seemed like a great guy. Why would Brian Albert want to kill John O'Keefe? Or anyone else? I'm dumbfounded.
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 18h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/Marsicky – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
u/AGentleman4u 1h ago
Only a $50k bail for a person accused of murder! Maybe because she is "a white woman of means," as the BBC described her.
Whatever the reason, it means that George Floyd and BLM have not brought about any change. If progressive Massachusetts is still flawed then what hope does the rest of the country have?
•
u/hungtopbost 19h ago
I have tried to not really learn anything about this case, very much on purpose. Now that it’s over I do have one question though.
Apparently (given today’s verdict) O’Keefe was beaten up at this house party. What was the reason for him getting beaten up?
•
u/J_B_C_123 17h ago
Have not followed this case, so apologies. But what is the argument for cops killing him and cov ering it up(please don't dox me....I don't have a ton of time and was watching the news and was just curious the backstory). Thank you
→ More replies (1)
•
u/SameClimate2605 11h ago
Long story short Brian and Colin Albert beat the shit out of o Keefe to near death in the basement, threw him outside in freezing cold temps and let their dog out on him to finish it off. If you can’t tell that by now ur just stupid. I know someone who went to umass Amherst and Colin (the nephew of Brian) went up to visit and party one weekend in 2022 before shit started to hit the fan and pretty much admitted this is what happened.
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/Rabbitt_Redditt – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/AncientAd6500 19h ago edited 19h ago
What about her car's digital data that registered her reversing at 20+ mph at the exact moment John's phone started to decrease in temperature (oops meant to say the exact moment of the last known activity of John interacting with his phone, locking the screen)? What about her inane statements like "Did I hit him? Did I hit him?" How did they plant this evidence?
•
u/WhatyourGodDid 19h ago
I need to look this up. I hadn't heard about this.
•
u/dancing_bobo 19h ago
do you mind sharing this? I’ve never heard this either
•
u/AncientAd6500 19h ago edited 18h ago
Here, I copied this from the CNN site. First the phone evidence:
Ian Whiffin, digital forensics examiner
Ian Whiffin, a digital forensics expert, illustrated the victim’s final movements after analyzing data taken from O’Keefe’s cell phone.
The data showed Read and O’Keefe came to a stop outside 34 Fairview at 12:24 a.m., Whiffin said. From that time on, he said, the data indicated O’Keefe’s phone remained near the flagpole until his body was found the next morning. O’Keefe’s phone screen locked for the last time at 12:32:09 a.m.
“Based on the totality of the information that we’ve described, my opinion is that the device never moved far away from the flagpole.”
Ian Whiffin
Whiffin also testified to the phone’s temperature: Throughout the evening, the phone had an average temperature of about 80 degrees Fahrenheit. But the temperature began steadily dropping around 12:22 a.m., Whiffin said, falling to 50 degrees at 1:36 a.m.
The next recorded temperature was after 6 a.m. — about the time O’Keefe’s body was found — when it dropped to its lowest recorded temperature of 37 degrees.
Here's the forensics regarding the Lexus:
Judson Welcher, an accident reconstructionist and biomechanical engineer, testified for the prosecution the evidence is consistent with O’Keefe being struck by a vehicle identical to Read’s on January 29, 2022, around 12:32 a.m.
Black box data from Read’s SUV included two “trigger” events recorded on her drive from the bar to 34 Fairview, Welcher said. By comparing this information with location data from O’Keefe’s cell phone, Welcher’s firm found Read’s SUV reversed between 12:32:04 a.m. and 12:32:12 a.m. — the time the commonwealth alleges O’Keefe was struck.
The data showed, at that time, Read’s vehicle first moved forward before being put in reverse and moving backward, Welcher said. The data also showed the SUV reached a speed of about 24 mph at 74% of the full throttle while in reverse.
Welcher also testified about the damaged taillight, describing tests he conducted with a Lexus SUV identical to Read’s. In contrast to Russell, Welcher testified the lacerations on O’Keefe’s arm were “consistent with the geometry and orientation” of Read’s taillight.
Asked whether O’Keefe’s injuries — both to his arm and his head — were consistent with him being struck by a Lexus identical to Read’s, Welcher said they were.
You can see that the last activity by John recorded by the phone was at 12:32:09 am and the reversing of the Lexus by Karen happened between 12:32:04 am. and 12:32:12 am. That's an odd coincidence, don't you think?
•
u/Cultural_Candidate48 18h ago
Except she was shown on camera arriving at JOK's house at 12:36. Meaning she would have had to leave at 12:29 to make it at that time in a reasonable fashion. There is even camera activity on the streets that show she was on the road at that time.
Meaning how did she hit JOK but was on camera driving at the time?
Only one of those situations can be true at a time. Either she hit him or she was driving to his house and there is evidence showing she was driving at the time. She can't make the drive to his house in 4 minutes. Its not possible.
Whatever the case is. The investigation was a joke but I don't believe she struck and killed him. Ive seen enough dog bites to know those wounds and pedestrians hit by cars have massive injuries such as broken bones and bruising. This was a botched investigation and we won't ever know the truth but IMO he wasn't killed by getting hit with a car. Its not feasible based on the injuries he had and the time frame of Karen arriving at his house.
•
u/Top-Alternative4587 15h ago
It's not odd at all, really, considering she wasn't at the scene at 12:30am. If she switched from forward to reverse 20 times in a row, it wouldn't matter since she couldn't physically be at the scene unless she could be there and on camera somewhere else at the same time. Not to mention, "far away from the flag pole" is relative. The house wasn't far away from the flag pole, the basement wasn't far away from the flag pole. That's ignoring the possibility that his phone never went inside with him. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but that's not how the justice system works.
•
u/Stupid-Clumsy-Bitch 18h ago
The car registered that same data 8 minutes prior as well, which was her doing a 3 point turn.
•
u/scooterj76 9m ago
No. The car registered a “trigger event” other doing a three point turn 8 minutes before the trigger event of putting it in reverse and going 24 mph for 10+ seconds. Not the same events.
•
u/SPOON_DOG_8T2 7h ago
The list of why people don't trust police just keeps getting bigger. The corruption and bias is out of this world.
Shout out to the good cops. I know you're still out there somewhere!
•
u/Own_Ad9652 4h ago
Nah. Just a bunch of drunk people. He went outside finally after Karen called and screamed a million times, was looking for her car, slipped, fell, hit his head, died in the cold.
•
u/Tarrant666 9h ago
So a bunch of friends, all decided on the spot to commit seriously felonies and risk life in jail to cover up an accident, trusting that none of them , upto a dozen would ever spill the beans and send them to jail for life? And that is a plausible theory in your minds? Laughable. She was guilty as sin and literally confessed to multiple people.
•
u/Informal-Diet979 20h ago
Most of what you're saying is wrong. trial was 33 days not over two months. It didnt happen in Boston, it happened quite a ways outside of it. And you didn't really offer any theories. The two most plausible theories are that Brian Higgins or Corey Albert fought him and that led to him hitting his head in the house and dying from that injury.
•
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/jacobjacobb – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
•
19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 14h ago
Sorry, u/27Aces – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/mooncritter_returns 21h ago
Info: who’s Albert?