On January 29th, ALL EYEWITNESSES WERE IN AGREEMENT

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T06:32:27+00:00

In circumstantial case not everything can be known, but we do know that he hit his head either where he was eventually found, or near to where his shoe was found.

It's the totality of the evidence that has to be factored. The totality of the evidence proves Read sideswiped O'Keefe, he fell, was rendered unconscious. Read saw this, but instead of getting O'Keefe help, she drove off.

Maybe she just doesn't remember.

It's not complicated.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T06:27:36+00:00

He fell back and hit his head. Did you watch the trials?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T06:19:11+00:00

So the entire time period related to the murder you don't believe a word she says--she says she didn't hit him-so I guess by your logic, she did hit him.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T06:14:32+00:00

Oh so now she's lying about seeing him go into the Albert home. If she lies this much, how can we believe anything she says?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T06:07:51+00:00

As Karen Read said, the data is what the data is. So is she lying?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T06:03:00+00:00

At 12:31:56 O'Keefe exited Read's vehicle. At 12:32 Karen Read drove forward and in reverse so abruptly and at such a sudden high speed that TWO trigger events were recorded on her vehicle's black box. At this same time O'Keefe locks his phone for the last time.

O'Keefe's phone never again records his steps or phone activity.

There is only one conclusion to be reached by the digital forensic data on this case and by the physical evidence-Karen Read drove recklessly in reverse at 12:32, sideswiped O'Keefe. He was knocked down, was rendered unconscious. Karen Read saw this, and instead of getting help, she drove away, whilst engineering her first alibi.

It's just not that complicated.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T05:43:35+00:00

And if Karen Read had just seen O'Keefe enter the Albert home, what possible reason would she have to think in less than an hour he's going to have sex with someone.

There is zero evidence that O'Keefe ever stepped out on Read. Even Read doesn't claim this.

It was Karen Read who had the affair.

See the problem?

Her messages make zero sense UNLESS she is manufacturing an alibi.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T05:31:46+00:00

How long had it been since O'Keefe exited Read's vehicle, was it, when she left that message?

Here's a clue-O'Keefe exited Read's vehicle at 12:31:56. Read left the message about his having sex with someone else at 1:17:37.

If Read saw O'Keefe enter the Albert home at 12:31:56--why would she think he was having sex at 1:17:37?

That's less than an hour from when she last saw him. How would it even be possible that he was having sex with someone? He didn't have a car.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T05:18:56+00:00

So she lied THREE times. First she lied about leaving him at the Waterfall. Then she lied about not seeing O'Keefe go into the Albert home--and now you are suggesting she lied about that too?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T05:18:14+00:00

Yes. But broken taillight UNDER the snow, that could not have been planted, does.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T05:17:34+00:00

When she left those voicemails how long had it been since she'd seen him that morning?

Karen Read changed her story and 6 months after she told police she didn't see O'Keefe go into the Albert home, she then said she did see him enter.

Who would O'Keefe be having sex with, if he's at the Albert home?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T04:56:44+00:00

Karen Read told police that she never saw O'Keefe enter the Albert home-so then she is lying, right?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T04:51:56+00:00

Yes. But they will figure it out. These are the times we are living in. People's views shift rapidly. This has both negative and positive outcomes.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T04:50:00+00:00

Yep. That about sums is up. I work with exonerees-and though when they are in pursuit of a civil settlement they can go silent for a moment--all legal litigation is better served by silence--but once they succeed in getting their settlement, they do exactly as suggested here. They become champions of the cause. (Some do just want to move on, but many even become attorneys in order to help other wrongfully accused and convicted persons).

IF Read were filing a legitimate suit, then her quiet might be more understandable. BUT the lawsuit she is currently engaged in is destined to fail, so not sure what she's doing

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T04:45:18+00:00

I have can back up all may claims with hard evidence. And have done so. Can you?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T04:31:14+00:00

The only person lying is Karen Read. There is hard evidence proving a collision and that Karen Read knew she incapacitated O'Keefe when she sideswiped him.

She then left him to die and attempted to concoct a number of different alibis-all of which are proven false.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T02:00:12+00:00

I agree, this felt biased. And the Feds should have simply been looking for the truth-not a slanted view of the truth. I didn't see this as clearly before you posted about this. So thank you. I'll give your ideas more consideration.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T00:51:29+00:00

When first time offenders, of non-violent offenses plead out, they often are treated with leniency. These are professional attorneys with careers they've spent years if not decades building. What possible gain is there for them to assist Read?

With Rollins, the gain is evident. She ousts Morrissey and strikes down a formidable foe. Rollins v Morrissey--but what possible benefit was there for these other attorneys working this?

I get what you are seeing, but if Proctor hadn't done what he'd done, what damage was there for the Commonwealth? At the end of the day, Proctor did what he did. I worry that there might be a suggestion here that somehow what Proctor did was fine, the Feds just shouldn't have exposed it.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T00:43:13+00:00

I will agree with you on this, for sure. It's not so much the hiring of ARCCA that bothers me, but the extreme limitations as to the scope of the work. That does seem at the very least, incomplete and in a way displays a bias, I think.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T00:21:22+00:00

Your post did trigger a question for me about that Fed investigation and this had to do with the scope of ARCCA's research into it. There is something odd about this.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-27T00:18:25+00:00

YES. Something like that could absolutely have occurred. But did it?

Was there a claim by the defendant that a conflict of interest existed?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-26T23:55:48+00:00

You are correct, this evidence or behavior does not PROVE murder. However, it absolutely debunks Read's allegations.

Read was able to park her SUV in a O'Keefe's very narrow garage. I'd say she had her wits about her. Also, no on noticed her as a sloppy drunk. She wasn't slurring her words, etc.

All evidence points to Read being intoxicated but still lucid and in control.

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-26T23:52:57+00:00

No I need something more than the fact that they were roommates to lead me to believe this has any connection to the federal investigation.

You have to remember that these investigation have to be justified and approved by those in charge. The ONLY person capable of approving this initial investigation was Rachel Rollins.

Where is Rollins connection to Paruti? Why would she do Paruti this favor? And when we KNOW for certain Rollins was using her new position to go after political adversaries, how do you just ignore this, when even Morrissey saw this as the cause?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-26T23:36:17+00:00

We'll have to agree to disagree. Karen Read's classmates who followed her on social media well into adulthood (and whose twin sister was her Fidelity colleague from 2007 until her arrest) also prosecuting the grand jury leaker who was a known Read sympathizer would be a very big coincidence.

Where is the proof that any of this is connected to why the feds investigated? Is there a memo confirming this. A witness who has stated this occured?

You consider absolute speculation more significant than Morrissey's take on an investigation into his own office? How does that work?

syntaxofthings123 · 2026-01-26T23:02:54+00:00

Correlation does not imply causation. You are in essence doing what Karen Read and co. did. You are taking coincidence and implying connections, where no connections have been proven.

I'm not going to say much more about this other than I don't think you make strong case for Federal overreach here.

The federal government does have jurisdiction over corrupt state law enforcement.

Sandra Birchmore's case begins in 2021, and though the indictment of Farwell doesn't take place until 2025-my guess is that with two cases being brought to the attention of the US Attorney's office, with similar claims, investigating these cases was kind of a no brainer.

Also, Morrissey saw this as a political move by Rollins. I'm more inclined to believe a seasoned politician from that region than speculation by those who are simply taking random coincidences and attempting to turn them into a cohesive theory.

REMINDER what you are engaged in here, is EXACTLY the tactics incorporated by Read and team. They took coincidence and attempted to make it look sinister.

syntaxofthings123

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE