The Karen Read Jury Is Hung! Mistrial Declared! Ten Pieces Of Reasonable Doubt, And The Question Of What In The Ever Loving F_ck Are we Doing? (Part 1)

 

A recent poll on Reddit of over 2,400 voters had 2,200 of them vote not guilty when given guilty, not guilty, or hung jury as options.  Six days ago on Law and Crime Network, a poll of 34,612 had 85% for not guilty, 9% for guilty, and 6% for a hung jury.  A CourtTV poll of 42,000 viewers had 71% not guilty, 12% guilty, and 18% voted for a hung jury.  My point in showing these statistics is that a large majority of these viewers saw the same trial that the jury did.  In fact they got to see more than the jury did during times where the jury was not in the courthouse.  I am shell shocked that any rationally thinking person could have felt that the Commonwealth met it's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  You can take guilty or not guilty out of it, the only conclusion is that not only is there reasonable doubt, but. there is so much reasonable doubt that it makes one wonder what the actual F is going on here?

Why don't we examine the reasonable doubt for a minute?  We really don't have to look further than the indictment of Karen Read to realize something is very wrong.  Karen was first indicted on charges of motor vehicle manslaughter while operating under the influence.  Four months later, a second grand jury indicted her on second degree murder charges.  To prove second degree murder the Commonwealth must prove the following 5 elements:  

Unlawful Killing: The defendant unlawfully killed the victim. This means that the killing was intentional, but not premeditated or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, which would elevate it to first degree murder.

Malice Aforethought: The killing was committed with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought generally means that the defendant intended to cause death or intended to cause grievous bodily harm that could result in death.

Lack of Legal Justification: The killing was not legally justified. This means that the defendant's actions do not fall under any legal justification or excuse, such as self-defense, defense of others, or accident.

Intent: The defendant had the specific intent to kill, or intended to cause grievous bodily harm that resulted in death, or acted with an extreme indifference to human life resulting in death.

State of Mind: The defendant acted with a state of mind that showed a conscious disregard for human life, but not with the premeditation or extreme cruelty required for first degree murder.

So I have some serious problems with this charge.  Number one, there was no malice aforethought whatsoever.  There is no evidence of this other than a drunken voicemail when Karen was waiting for John to come home that screamed, "John I fucking hate you!"  A lot, and I mean a lot, of Karen Read "guilters" have claimed this is evidence that she wanted to kill John, intended to kill John, and I can't think of one good reason why it should lead someone to believe that.  I can tell you from experience that it is quite common for people under the influence of alcohol, and especially those that are really intoxicated, to say things they later regret or don't mean.  For about a year and a half the guilters used the voicemails as their smoking gun, if you will, for why she is guilty of killing her boyfriend.  I was shocked to find out that they ended up being a huge nothingburger.  It would be one thing if she said something like, "I just drove over your ass you fucking loser and left you for dead!  How do you feel now?"  However, all it really was is an angry girlfriend frustrated with her boyfriend for making her wait.  

The second part of the second degree murder charge is the intent.  There is nothing to support the idea that she intended to kill her boyfriend.  If you look at pictures from that night, the couple is embracing and interacting with each other in a very loving manner.  Even Commonwealth witnesses testified there was no sign of tension or fighting at any point during the evening.  There are a lot of people that have opined that the Commonwealth charged Karen with second degree murder in the hopes that she will later accept a plea.  I do not have the experience or knowledge to say whether or not that could be true, but if it is true, it should be something that is prohibited in the future, in my humble opinion.  

I want to try and list the reasonable doubt.  I will try to do so chronologically.  Here goes:  

1.  The Canton Police Department did a thorough search of the scene when there would have been a lot less snow and found no pieces of taillight, no shoe, and no drinking glass that would not match any other piece of glass in evidence.  It wasn't until later when the state police, when there was a lot more snow on the ground, found the taillight, the shoe, and the drinking glass.  

2.  A lot of the first responders testified that Karen said "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" when they tried to get her to recount what had happened.  In 2023, Karen was on Nightline and she denied this by saying what she actually said was, "Could I have hit him" or "Did I hit him."  This might seem like an innocuous difference but, in my opinion, the extra two words have a massively different meaning.  In the beginning part of my interest in this case I was under the impression that these statements weren't even admissible because they are hearsay.  However, I later learned that these are what are referred to as excited utterances.  To qualify as an excited utterance in Massachusetts, the statement must meet the following criteria:

1. Startling Event: The statement must be made in response to a startling event or condition.

2. Spontaneity: The statement must be made spontaneously and without any significant delay after the startling event. The declarant's excitement or stress should be evident at the time the statement was made.

3. Reliability: The statement must be considered reliable under the circumstances, typically due to the spontaneity and lack of time for reflection or fabrication.

Now I have a significant problem with this as you may imagine.  If you look at criteria number two, it says the utterances must be made spontaneously and without significant delay after the startling event.  When Karen was making these statements, it was six hours after the alleged incident took place.  I am not sure that six hours would qualify as a "significant delay", but I was baffled that these statements were never challenged in terms of admissibility.  

3.  Reasonable doubt number three is an important one, and one that really got the ball rolling in the wrong direction.  Trooper Proctor I would imagine needs no introduction, but he is the much maligned lead investigator on the Karen Read case.  The murder happened on January 29, 2022, and during the trial several strings of Mr. Proctor's text messages were read aloud to the jurors.  In one such exchange on January 29, 2022, trooper Proctor is texting with a group of his friends and when the topic of who will be held accountable for John O'Keefe's murder, trooper Proctor's response was, "She's fucked!"  THIS IS ON THE DAY OF THE MURDER.  Proctor had not even met Karen, and had not been to the scene of the crime, and the lead investigator is already zeroed in on Karen as the killer.  He told his friends in these text messages that "he hopes that she (Karen) kills herself."  This is an example of what is commonly called "tunnel vision."  Karen didn't stand a chance after that.  

4.  Reasonable doubt item number four is the sally port video from the Canton Police Department.  Let's not forget that this video was shown first by Mr. Lally, and throughout Trooper Bukhenik's entire testimony, Lally failed to alert the court that the video he was presenting was inverted.  During that testimony, the jury was lead to believe that trooper Proctor was examining the left side taillight of Karen's car while he was conveniently hidden behind it.  However, the truth was that Proctor, while he was hiding behind the car, was actually behind the right side taillight, the one that has been so controversial throughout this case.  This is, after all, a case known nationally as "The Taillight Murder."

Sally port video inverted: 

Sally port video correct image with Michael Proctor standing right next to the right rear taillight, which we conveniently can only see his head:  

5.  Reasonable doubt item number five:  Red Solo cups, a Stop and Shop bag, and a GODDAMN leaf blower!  A LEAF BLOWER!  The Canton Police Department evidence collection methods as featured in these photographs:  

6.  Reasonable doubt item number 7 is the fact that first responding officers allowed Jen McCabe to enter 34 Fairview and speak to the owners, who happen to be her sister and brother in law, at approximately 6:30.  These are the same owners, Brian and Nicole Albert, who never exited their house when firetrucks, ambulances, police cars, and plows all at or very near their residence, and they did not come out.  However,Jen McCabe went in!  It was what officer Saraf of the Canton Police Department labeled "an oversight" while testifying in the early stages of Karen Read's trial.  

7.  Reasonable doubt item number 7 has to do with the relationships the Albert's had with the town of Canton.  Chris Albert, who testified early on this case and is the father of third party culprit Colin Albert, is a member of the Canton Select Board and the brother of Brian Albert, the owner of 34 Fairview.  Kevin Albert, Chris and Brian's brother, is a detective with the Canton Police Department.  The Canton Police had a conflict of interest in this investigation and were supposed to be "conflicted off" of the investigation.  However, throughout the investigation, the Canton PD had it's hands involved every step of the way.  Kevin Albert was continuously being updated about the status of the investigation when he really had no reason to be involved after the Massachusetts State Police took over.  However, we know that the corruption in this investigation didn't end there.  Lead State Police Detective Michael Proctor lives in Canton and has deep ties to the area and law enforcement in the area.  Michael Proctor's own mother refers to the Alberts as "The Proctor's second family" in social media posts.  

8.  Reasonable doubt item number 8 goes back to lead investigator Michael Proctor.  Michael Proctor gave sworn testimony that he had Karen's SUV towed at 5:30 pm on January 29, 2022.  According to defense attorney David Yannetti, Proctor had possession of the vehicle 90 minutes prior to when his sworn affidavit stated he did.  

9.  Reasonable doubt item number 9 has to do with the, then, Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz.  Chief Berkowitz was driving by 34 Fairview about a week after John's body had been found.  During his drive by, the 63 year old Canton Police Chief claimed that he saw a piece of taillight while driving past in his police cruiser.  This stroke of luck would find it's way into evidence and would be discussed during trial.  I find it extremely hard to believe that, at 63 years old, a man would be able to see a piece of taillight from the road while driving past 34 Fairview.  If that doesn't scream BS, I don't know what would.  

10. Reasonable doubt item number 10 has to do with the defense hiring one of the leading forensic computer and phone experts in the country, Richard Green, who discovered that Brian Albert's sister in law, Jennifer McCabe, googled, "hos long to die in the cold" at 2:27 am on January 29, 2022.  This is just under 4 hours before John was found dying in the cold.  Why would one google that if they did not know that  body was outside dying in the cold?  Why???