Did The Prosecution Prove That Karen Read Is A Murderer?

In this episode of "Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski," defense attorney Bob Motta discusses the ongoing trial of Karen Read, offering a critical perspective on the prosecution's case. Motta highlights the prosecution's struggles, particularly with expert witnesses like Trooper Paul, whose credibility and competence were severely lacking. He expresses skepticism about the prosecution's ability to prove Read's intent for second-degree murder, suggesting that the evidence, especially the reliance on the taillight theory, is insufficient. Motta also critiques the investigation's handling and speculates that John O'Keefe's death might have been an accident rather than foul play. He emphasizes the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's theory and doubts a conviction will be achieved. Motta also notes the heavy toll on all parties involved and the need for closure, suggesting that a not guilty verdict might bring some peace.
- Defense attorney Bob Motta criticizes the prosecution's handling of the Karen Read trial.
- Prosecution's expert witness, Trooper Paul, performed poorly, damaging their case.
- Lack of evidence to prove intent for second-degree murder against Read.
- Motta suggests that John O'Keefe's death might have been an accident, not murder.
- Prosecution's reliance on the taillight theory is seen as insufficient proof.
- The investigation's poor handling and tunnel vision on Read as the suspect are highlighted.
- Motta doubts a conviction will be achieved and stresses the need for closure for all involved.
Hashtags
#KarenRead #JohnOkeefe #Trial #DefenseDiaries #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #Investigation
Subscribe & Listen on Apple Podcasts: shorturl.at/opFUZ
Spotify: shorturl.at/eksC5
Follow Us On Social Media:
Instagram: / hiddenkillerspod
TikTok: / hiddenkillerspod
Facebook: / hiddenkillerspod
#truecrime #truecrimecommunity #murdermystery #unsolvedmysteries
#coldcase #truecrimepodcast #documentary #justicefor #truecrimeaddict #crimejunkie

[@user-tl5in8fp4p]

but if he had fallen on the way to the door, lucky and everyone else in the house would have seen him? that doesn't make sense

[@chocol8milk]

Lucky is fortunate that Karen was hysterical and drunk when worried about JO and frantically looking for him. Otherwise, he’d be the defendant. It appears to me that initially this whole thing was set up to blame a snow plow hit. Fortunately for the McCalberts, they heard Karen talking about her taillight and in a drunk hysterical mode questioning if she hit him.

[@ln2397]

Find it hard to believe Proctor put tail light pieces in n under snow in front of search n rescue team n local news filming.. Proctor didnt have time to do that. The time of his text was later after met with all officers investigating.

[@CW1971]

He didn't have to 🤦‍♀️

[@RobertP-kk5ou]

Yes they proved her guilt to me by laying out the verifiable evidence.

[@CW1971]

😂😂

[@laradale2540]

It's not going to get better for the prosecution to try a second time. That case should have been thrown out.

[@The_10th_Man]

“I saw Karen at the scene” - Literally Nobody, not. one. person.

[@kerrygold6494]

Meaning what?

[@BoiseGreatDane]

Oh snap Bob motta