Karen Read Update: New Trial, New Attorney, Same Terrible Start for the Prosecution as Their Second Witness Sort of Admits to Committing Perjury

Even if you're trying to do your level best to stay as neutral as possible in The Commonwealth v. Karen Read II: The Retrialing, which I'm really hoping to accomplish, you have to admit the prosecution's case is not off to a terrible start. If that doesn't sound familiar to you, it does to me. This was from the opening week of the first trial back in May:

Last time, it was all about first responders to the scene of the crime claiming they'd heard Karen Read using variations of her infamous catchphrase:

… "I hit him!" But time and time again, they were all saying this for the first time. On the witness stand. Not in their official reports. Not to investigators. Not to the Grand Jury. But now all suddenly having total recall in front of the jury. While others tried to minimize the relationships they had with the Albert family, in whose front yard John O'Keefe was found near death in a blizzard. Tried, and failed. 

But in football terms, that bad start back in May was a couple of 3 & outs on their first two possessions. This week so far has been red zone turnovers by comparison. Like I mentioned on the first day of the trial, Canton firefighter Timothy Nuttall changed a few minor details of his testimony from the first trial. And I'll add he didn't wrap himself in glory nervously tugging at his shirt collar and appearing to pop a Zyn out of his mouth when the lawyers went to sidebar:

But he gets a pass since his job is to wade into flaming danger to save the sorry asses of normies like you and me. We shouldn't expect him to deliver testimony like he's Sir Ian McKellan doing MacBeth. So his inconsistencies and demeanor on the stand are nothing compared to what happened on the second full day. 

The first witness was John O'Keefe's mom, who was a recent addition to the witness list. Apparently to give the prosecution some pathos. I say that because she was added to the witness list right after the documentary A Body in the Snow came out where Karen Read was acting all catty towards the poor lady:

So the contrast between a grieving mother and a callous, bitchy defendant throwing shade at her couldn't have been starker. To be fair though (which is what this is all supposed to be), none of Mrs. O'Keefe's testimony added anything to the prosecution's case. Other than to help prove Read is guilty of being a bit of a shrew. Realizing that, the defense just offered sympathy to the woman and rested. Pro move by Alan Jackson.

That said, you knew it was going to be a strange day in the strangest of all court proceedings when one of the Commonwealth's witnesses started the day off on Good Morning, America, of all places:

Scrub to about the 3:30 mark, because that's where this becomes relevant. Kerry Roberts, a friend of O'Keefe's who helped Read drive around in the early morning hours of January 29th, 2022 looking for him, told the interviewer that she, like a lot of witnesses in this case, has been getting harassed. Why? “For telling the truth.” 

Which is ironic, given what she testified to live and in person, just a few hours later. Essentially, that she lied to the Grand Jury about a very relevant fact in this whole spectacle. 

Central to the argument of Read's defense and her supporters is the theory that when she dropped O'Keefe off at the Albert's house, he went inside, a fight broke out, he was attacked by their German Shepherd Chloe, and was hurt badly. So in a panic, he was dragged out by the side of the road and left there, to make it look like an accident. Perhaps a snow plow. But eventually they settled on it being the passenger side back end of Read's SUV. The main element of their hypothesis is that Jen McCabe, sister of homeowner Nicole Albert and sister-in-law to Boston Police Sergeant Detective Brian Albert, Googled "hos long to die in cold" at 2:27am. So about four hours before Read, Roberts and McCabe found O'Keefe's body. 

What's the Commonwealth's counter argument? For one thing, they've presented data specialists who claim the search was done closer to 6:30am. For another, they offered proof that the Google search was the brainchild of none other than Read, who asked McCabe to look up hypothermia once they found her boyfriend lying in the snow. That proof came in the form of Kerry Roberts saying she was there and heard Read ask McCabe to look that up. So this is a fundamental part of the prosecution's whole theory of the case. Demonstrate it came late in the morning at the defendant's request, and the whole "How long to die in the cold?" issue goes away. It takes that bat right out of the defense's hands. Nothing to see here.

Except that isn't how it happened. Kerry Roberts never heard Read make the request. We know that thanks to Kerry Roberts.

Which directly contradicts what Roberts told the Grand Jury, also under oath. She tried to throw in some qualifiers. She didn't understand the question at the time. When the judge asked her directly "Was that a lie? Did you lie?" she answered "Not intentionally." She said “I didn’t want to point fingers" or "accuse anyone." And so on.

But no matter how you try to put a coat of varnish on the turd here, the fact remains that she made something up about a crucial element of a homicide investigation. More commonly known as the crime of perjury. And this time under oath, chalked it up to her being told that's what happened. By none other than the Googler-in-Chief, Jen McCabe. As the two of them worked on "the timeline" together. 

That's a bombshell. And not the good kind:

This sounds for all the world like McCabe got Roberts to go along with a story she concocted and to stick to it. Which makes for moderate-to-severe weirdness when you realize they barely knew each other. Roberts testified they'd only met once before. And yet here she is willing to lie under oath to help prop up the narrative of someone who didn't even qualify as a casual acquaintance. 

Chloe the dog agrees:

Also, for reasons I can't explain and don't think I was ever aware of happening in the 17 years I spent barely paying attention while working in the MA Trial Court, Roberts seemed to have been the contact person between the O'Keefe's and the DA's office. Both the Victim-Witness Advocate working in the ADA's office, but also the elected District Attorney of the area, Michael Morrissey. Including being the one who coordinated between the office and the O'Keefe family when they asked if it was OK to replace their Ring cameras:

"…for DA Michael Morrissey’s Office, says it’s okay to do it, then the third party culprits are magically cleared of any suspicion 

or crimes. Why was Kerry Roberts injecting herself to glean information for Jen McCabe, and others, from the DA’s Office?"

Why a family friend was designated for that assignment and not one of John O'Keefe's actual family? I haven't the first clue. And perhaps it means nothing. But it strikes me as bizarre that she'd be the one texting with the career politician overseeing the extremely important and sensitive matter of a Boston Police Officer being killed. 

And it's sketchy that the Commonwealth would allow her to testify to an untruth under oath and expose herself to legal jeopardy:

"…about what happened. If they had, they would have advised her to seek counsel.  Instead they just used her, and let her get attacked and exposed. Ethical prosecutors would have raised the issue, dealt with it, and advised her to see counsel. Lally, who elicited the perjured testimony just ignored it. So did Brennan.  This tells you a lot about how this DA’s Office works."

And while that's the big takeaway from Roberts' testimony is the possible perjury, it's by no means the only one. Then there's her description of O'Keefe's injuries, that sound less like what you'd expect if someone was hit by the right side of a car in reverse:

"… eye looked like it was huge. Like he had something happened to it."

And more like he had been in a fight. One that involved a dog:

All of which adds up to a lot of reasonable doubt for just one witness. A witness whom the prosecution was counting on enough that they put her on the stand in the first couple of days of testimony. Whether the jury sees it the same way, only time will tell. One thing we know for certain is that when McCabe does take the stand, it's going to be appointment viewing. Again.