Karen Read ReTrial ...

Okay, this is more of a head-scratcher than it first appears.

Because at first, it seems like an open-and-shut case - after bar-hopping, she drunk-drove her drunk cop boyfriend to his friend's house for an afterparty during a blizzard, but backed over and killed him (accidentally or on purpose), and in the morning, she noticed her taillight was busted out.  

When he didn't come home, she called everyone trying to find him, searching for him in the snow until they found him, and then said "Oh my God, I didn't kill him, did I?  I killed him?"

Also, she left horrible, verbally abusive voicemails for him previously, and admits they were arguing and she was angry when she dropped him off at his friend's house (nobody at the party liking her).

Now, Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is the answer - she killed him.

However, Occam's razor isn't always right -  some things aren't as simple as they first appear.

Because remember, we once believed the sun traveled across the sky over our flat earth because it "looked that way."

But let's go with Occam's razor for the sake of argument and just say that she's guilty.

Then what explains the below?

O'Keefe's body had dog bites on the arm, though neither O'Keefe nor Karen Read owned a dog.  The friend who owned the house did have a dog that was also known to be aggressive, but was inside the house due to the blizzard - however, everyone at the party said O'Keefe never arrived.

The bite marks were tested for DNA and came back positive for animal bites; however, they can't test his dog because the friend has since "sent it away because it was too aggressive," but no one can find where they sent it.

There is home-security movement-detection video evidence of Karen arriving home and parking her car after dropping him off, and the rear taillight appears to still be intact at that time - however, her taillight appeared broken by that same motion-detection video the next morning.

The evidence collection at the scene was botched horribly, collected in red Solo cups and plastic shopping bags by the cop friends themselves - and most importantly -  pictures at the crime scene revealed the red taillight fragments belonging to Karen's car supposedly found near the body weren't covered with snow, like the body was, though it was a blizzard.

There had been a  a previous coverup in that same town police department over their cop friend strangling to death his underage teenage girlfriend. 

Anyone who has publicly written or spoken about the Canton police department ended up finding dead animals in their yard or hanging on ropes on their porches.

Two of the cops at the house that night have been suspended for not disclosing evidence about their previous cop friend who had killed his underage girlfriend, as well as inappropriately harassing their critics.

Lastly and most importantly - the defense is hanging almost their entire argument entirely on this piece of evidence - Jennifer McCabe, girlfriend to one of the cops at the house that night. Googled ,  "How long does it take a body to die in the cold" at 2:27 a.m." - about an hour after O'Keefe was dropped off - and 4 hours before his body was found.

So the defense's theory is that O'Keefe actually did make it in the house, the dog attacked him, he hit the dog, his cop friend who owned the house became angry and then the two physically fought and O'Keefe went down hard, busted his head on the floor, and later died, and the cops and their wives/girlfriends at the party are covering it up.

So let's go with Occam's razor and say Karen is guilty, whether she did it on purpose or not - but then we still have these questions:

Where did those dog bites come from and where is the dog now?

Why weren't the shards of taillight covered in snow, like the body?

Why was her taillight not busted upon arriving home after dropping him off, but was busted by 6:30 a.m.?

Why was anyone at the friend's house searching for how long it takes for someone to die in the cold at 2:27 a.m. - 4 hours before his body was found?

In watching her interviews, even if Karen IS guilty, I believe she believes herself that she's not - but that wouldn't be uncommon.  Some people can't come to terms later with what they've done, plus she was drunk.

The saddest thing about this whole story is the O'Keefe's adopted children, who lost both parents to cancer (their mother was O'Keefe's sister) and O'Keefe is now dead - so these children have lost everyone they've ever known as a parent 😢

So I don't know, though she's most likely guilty, I will admit, those are odd things that do leave doubt, so I will officially say that I have no opinion, I just don't know?

What I DO know for sure is that - I would never hang out with any of those people on either side ever! 

Bar-hopping cops during blizzards who drive home drunk?

One of those cops being O'Keefe, who is partying instead of being home with his adopted kids during a blizzard?"

Girlfriends that scream "I hate you" on repeat voicemails that drive drunk during blizzards and drop off their drunk boyfriend's and don't wait for him to make it to the door?

However, this case has been an interesting case study of people going with what they choose to believe rather than evidence, which is rampant nowadays, because people don't seem to know the difference between belief and fact.

The only thing I know for sure is that not only would I never want to hang out with any of these people, but remind me never to go to Canton, Massachusetts!