Anyone hear about this case?

Karen Read is accused of purposely backing over and killing her cop boyfriend as she dropped him off at another cop friend's house for a party. Defense says he died inside the house and was taken outside. Taillight fragments found at the scene. Defense says they were planted.

She also has a huge following that thinks she's innocent.

"Did a successful South Shore woman really kill her police officer boyfriend? Or, as she claims, did a slew of dirty cops frame her? Inside the simmering tabloid drama dividing this tight-knit Massachusetts suburb."

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/

I was thinking this was about south shore harbor for a minute...

That's nuts though. I don't think I can even form an opinion, because who knows what's really going on.

Is there an article that presents the facts without padding it with tons of irrelevant fluff designed to trigger an emotional reaction? I couldn't make it halfway through OP's link.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Anyone hear about this case?

Karen Read is accused of purposely backing over and killing her cop boyfriend as she dropped him off at another cop friend's house for a party. Defense says he died inside the house and was taken outside. Taillight fragments found at the scene. Defense says they were planted.

She also has a huge following that thinks she's innocent.

"Did a successful South Shore woman really kill her police officer boyfriend? Or, as she claims, did a slew of dirty cops frame her? Inside the simmering tabloid drama dividing this tight-knit Massachusetts suburb."

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/27/canton-karen-read/

---

Thanks for sharing. She did it.

Would appear easily proved/disproved by autopsy and biomechanical analysis.

Google it. First one I saw.

I do too. I think she was so drunk and doesn't remember.

This trial has started. And what a show!

The crooked cops are getting pummeled

Reminder: What Yannetti had to say about Trooper Proctor in his opening statement. #KarenRead #KarenReadTrial pic.twitter.com/kBAOyy1WLu

— Vicky 💜 Radical Centrist (@QueenOfCodebass) June 10, 2024

Wow! In text messages with Trooper David DiCicco, Michael Proctor tells him that he "laid out the entire case" to the medical examiner, prior to her examining John O'Keefe's body. DiCicco responds by saying "you should've had me or Jeff do it." Proctor responded by saying "she…

— Aidan Kearney (@DoctorTurtleboy) June 10, 2024

Was curious enough to listen to opening statements in this case and the first few witnesses.

Prosecution's opening statement was all over the place both in timeline and who the witnesses were going to be. Very very difficult to follow. The first few witnesses were disjointed, again not establishing a timeline of the alleged events.

Frankly, I don't know if she did it or not but the state has really botched their presentation so badly and those facts that can be gleaned are counterintutive to the state's theory of the case. A lot of reasonable doubt, in my view.

So they are saying she backed into him on a residential street? and then purposely left him in 34F temps to die?

Trial of the Century!

Trooper Proctor is on the stand explaining what a "ballon Knot" is.. LIve! https://t.co/ZnNg0PIuD6

— Joe Lnu (@joe_Lnu) June 12, 2024

And the grand finale of the text messages - Michael Proctor told friends that he wanted Karen Read to kill herself. This actually makes perfect sense - if she killed herself there would be no trial, no embarrassment for him or the DA's Office, and no one would ever suspect the…

— Aidan Kearney (@DoctorTurtleboy) June 12, 2024

Crooked cop needs to go!

Im Gipper said:

---

Trial of the Century!

Trooper Proctor is on the stand explaining what a "ballon Knot" is.. LIve! https://t.co/ZnNg0PIuD6

— Joe Lnu (@joe_Lnu) June 12, 2024

---

what a time to be alive!

Any theories on what happened that night?

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Any theories on what happened that night?

---

Cops got hammered, got in a fight and left him out in the snow to freeze to death. Then began to start covering it up.

Gotta say, from what I've seen so far, these cops aren't credible at all. If I were a juror I'd have a hard time believing anything the prosecutors brought forward.

Closings were this morning. The jury has been charged. They will have lunch first and then retire to deliberate, so we are on verdict watch.

Have caught some more snippets of this case after the state finally rested and the defense case was very short but very persuasive, IMO. Several very impressive experts two of which were actually hired by the DOJ during the federal investigation into this case. They shattered what there was of the prosecution's case. Again, in my view there is soo much reasonable doubt as to how the injuries to O'Keefe's body were not consistent with a pedestrian/vehicular accident. Certainly not in the manner that the state was attempting to present.

The jury instructions did include the lesser offenses of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence, so there is that off ramp if there's a holdout. I don't expect one however. State's case was just a mess.

I followed it in bits and pieces.

The state accident investigator had a hilarious cross examination. The guy is a cop with an associate's degree in crim justice and could not explain basic scientific concepts. When asked how he came to his conclusion that somehow the victim was hit in the arm by a car and flew thirty feet, he would say things like "I just you know put the stuff in the thing." He did not measure the weight of the car or even estimate the weight of the victim in making his accident reconstruction report.



There are too many hilarious things to fit into one video but the guy was just about as smart as the sock sitting on my bathroom floor.

Saw a stream that Sean did regarding that witness. He was a complete disaster on the stand.

I watched the two very excellent accident reconstruction experts called by the defense yesterday as well as an incredibly qualified retired forensic pathologist. Don't suppose you caught any of that?

No verdict. Jury went home for the day.

This trial was wild. Listened to it almost everyday.

No way a jury can get to beyond a reasonable doubt here. The lead detective was trash, prosecution introduced mirrored video to prove a point. The video was taken at the police station and 45 minutes of footage was missing.

Ring doorbell footage that could have Brady evidence was also deleted from the dead guys phone while in police custody.

There's confusing google search deletions the prosecutions experts couldn't explain in plain English.

Not to mention the other 'suspects' were treated as witnesses because one is an ATF agent and the other was a cop. The both got new cell phones the weekend before a Monday that they were served to preserve their phone.

The prosecution/ detectives also didn't interview the snow plow driver and misrepresented his times in their report. They didn't record any video with any witnesses in this investigations.

Yeah. As I have said before, I watched the opening arguments and knew the prosecution was a s***show with their narrative.

The Hubs was a firefighter. First responders have their own code and way of protecting each other. Throw in the Boston factor and this prosecution was very thin. And saying "thin" is an understatement.

Crap case. Should have never been brought. BUT these families control law enforcement and other first response teams, EMS for example.

The state's narrative just doesn't fit.

Plus when you have the FBI and DOJ jumping in on this case and the investigation is just not a good look for the Boston PD and the Prosecutors.

Closing arguments are awesome

My wife grew up in a town adjacent to Canton. She's been following the trial from day one. It sure seems Reed was set up.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

This trial was wild. Listened to it almost everyday.

No way a jury can get to beyond a reasonable doubt here. The lead detective was trash, prosecution introduced mirrored video to prove a point. The video was taken at the police station and 45 minutes of footage was missing.

Ring doorbell footage that could have Brady evidence was also deleted from the dead guys phone while in police custody.

There's confusing google search deletions the prosecutions experts couldn't explain in plain English.

Not to mention the other 'suspects' were treated as witnesses because one is an ATF agent and the other was a cop. The both got new cell phones the weekend before a Monday that they were served to preserve their phone.

The prosecution/ detectives also didn't interview the snow plow driver and misrepresented his times in their report. They didn't record any video with any witnesses in this investigations.

---

I would absolutely refuse to convict as a juror

aggiehawg said:

---

Yeah. As I have said before, I watched the opening arguments and knew the prosecution was a s***show with their narrative.

The Hubs was a firefighter. First responders have their own code and way of protecting each other. Throw in the Boston factor and this prosecution was very thin. And saying "thin" is an understatement.

Crap case. Should have never been brought. BUT these families control law enforcement and other first response teams, EMS for example.

The state's narrative just doesn't fit.

---

Is it common for there not to be an objection during closing arguments

Quote:

---

Is it common for there not to be an objection during closing arguments

---

Objections during opening and closing statements are considered to be a matter of decorum between professionals. Some judges don't like them for that reason and frown upon them. Obviously, they are allowable but generally, are reserved for egregious behavior to preserve the record.

Having listened to both closings twice now, there could have been some objections to statements made by both defense and the state in my view. Defense did not object to the state's misstating evidence because their closing had been very very strong they didn't feel the need to do so.

At the end of the day, both sides are watching the jury's reactions and making judgment calls.

One last point directly related to this trial. The judge was holding each side to a strict time limit which she enforced with time left warnings. So making repeated objections would interfere with the timing, which the judge would not have appreciated. Judgment call there on the part of the attorneys. It has been quite a long trial. They are all exhausted, attorneys, jury and judge just want it to be over.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Is it common for there not to be an objection during closing arguments

---

Objections during opening and closing statements are considered to be a matter of decorum between professionals. Some judges don't like them for that reason and frown upon them. Obviously, they are allowable but generally, are reserved for egregious behavior to preserve the record.

Having listened to both closings twice now, there could have been some objections to statements made by both defense and the state in my view. Defense did not object to the state's misstating evidence because their closing had been very very strong they didn't feel the need to do so.

At the end of the day, both sides are watching the jury's reactions and making judgment calls.

One last point directly related to this trial. The judge was holding each side to a strict time limit which she enforced with time left warnings. So making repeated objections would interfere with the timing, which the judge would not have appreciated. Judgment call there on the part of the attorneys. It has been quite a long trial. They are all exhausted, attorneys, jury and judge just want it to be over.

---

.

But did they discuss jury nullification?

That was a wild trial. Judge was lenient with Brooks and as a pro se defendant, she needed to lessen the chances of appeal. (Not that there many grounds on which to appeal, case against Brooks was air tight but the constitutional due process issues could easily have enhanced those chances of appeal.)

Again, I have to give massive kudos to that prosecution team. They were practically flawless and handled Brooks' outbursts and bad behavior with grace and did not respond, although were it me, I would have been sorely tempted to slap the crap out of him.

Jury should be going back for day two of deliberatins shortly in the Read trial. I expect a verdict today, possibly even before lunch.

Hmm. Jury had a quesion but it was to be released before 4PM today since a juror has a longstanding appointment, according to Court TV.

That is disconcerting if they are not close enough to be contemplating deliberations for tomorrow.

aggiehawg said:

---

That was a wild trial. Judge was lenient with Brooks and as a pro se defendant, she needed to lessen the chances of appeal. (Not that there many grounds on which to appeal, case against Brooks was air tight but the constitutional due process issues could easily have enhanced those chances of appeal.)

Again, I have to give massive kudos to that prosecution team. They were practically flawless and handled Brooks' outbursts and bad behavior with grace and did not respond, although were it me, I would have been sorely tempted to slap the crap out of him.

Jury should be going back for day two of deliberatins shortly in the Read trial. I expect a verdict today, possibly even before lunch.

---

The patience and restraint from everyone in that trial still blows my mind.

When the parties gathered for court this morning, the defense raised an issue with the court about the jury verdict forms. The lesser included verdict forms do not have a "not guilty" option. They just say "guilty."

The judge denied it was a problem and says that's just how it's always done.

Jackson not happy. Read made a face and the judge chastised her before walking off the bench.