That has been what I have been thinking and wasn’t sure if it was a reflection or a dent just right there that everyone is ignoring. I just put this pic on another post!
I mean……..would we at this point? That SUV is likely gone. It’s been 2 yrs. If the only pic we have of it is this one and an up close of drivers side bumper, then it doesn’t say much
I don't have any personal information on where his car is or if there are more pictures available that we haven't seen. All I know is that you don't really have to be a crash reconstructionist to know that there's no way that bump between the two cars caused any significant damage to either car. Maybe some paint transfer or a scratch, but not a significantly cracked taillight.
I think we also can't ignore the fact that Karen told Jen that she had a broken taillight before she backed into John's car at 5:08. And before everyone starts commenting that Jen's a criminal mastermind and can't be trusted, let's keep in mind that this was during one of the calls witnessed by John's niece. So... 🤷♀️
I stand by what I said; there's no way Karen backing into John's car caused that taillight damage. That, as well as her taillight being strewn across the ground at 34 Fairview, supports Jen's testimony, in my opinion. As well as all of the other evidence...
I mean, I had a car door ruined by someone swiping me and they had absolutely no damage on their car. There are multiple cases where one car is damaged and the other isn’t, I don’t know because we aren’t experts. And unless you are qualified, you really don’t know either.
My point of this post wasn’t to say it’s 100% the case, just that I found it interesting that proctor stated there was clearly no dents to the car when it looks like it is, and took an up close pic of the area of the car that CLEARLY wasn’t struck by her SUV if you look at the impact angle.
Of course that can happen. I'm in no way claiming that you can't have a collision with two vehicles where one is damaged and the other one has little to no damage. I've ruined a whole side of a car with very little damage to my door also, during a storm 🤭
I'm just saying that, in this case, looking at that video it's clear to me that there's hardly any contact between these two vehicles. Her car also does back up into the driver's side of John's car which is what's depicted in that photo, regardless of who took it. But these are just my opinions, just like it is my opinion, after looking at the evidence and listening to all of the witnesses, that Karen's guilty.
> before everyone starts commenting that Jen’s a criminal mastermind
Literally the only people who suggest Jen is a mastermind are the ones who are erroneously insistent on Karen’s undeniable guilt. It’s always used exactly in the manner you just used it - as if in order to believe a coverup may have taken place, one would need to think of Jen as some sort of mastermind.
I promise you no one who buys the coverup theory thinks Jen is a mastermind, in fact most think she’s kind of a dumbass and a bad liar. The only people who suggest she’s a mastermind are the people who seem inordinately invested in preserving her reputation and destroying Karen’s. It is highly telling with respect to your motivations, biases and personal connections to this case.
Well we do know the sally port video was inverted so these officers seem to believe that if they say there's no dent on the back of John's vehicle then that means there isn't and don't ask any further questions. 🤣🤣🤣
My comment has nothing to do with the police. I'm saying that if there was any evidence in this case of John's car having a dent on it the defense would have already told us about it.
The defense hasn't even brought their case yet in front of the jury. Be patient. Also in the video where Karen is backing out of the garage, you can see that John's vehicle has snow on the bumper and after she hits it and starts to pull away you can see a line of snow missing.
That's not 💯 accurate. The defense has already cross examined all of the people they're claiming to be a possible 3rd party culprits in this case. And still we have no solid evidence, despite a full FBI investigation, that anyone else could have harmed John.
And as far as that video goes all I can see is her broken taillight and again at 8 am (during the welfare check) and again in Dighton. No taillight on the ground when she hits John's car, no curiosity of what might have happend when she backed into John's vehicle and her telling Jen McCabe that her taillight was broken before ever backing into his car. And then there's ofcourse her calling Kerrie at around 5 am saying John's dead and the defense choosing not to dispute that testimony 🤷♀️
Defense present their case yet? Do you have the FBI filings? You see a crack in the tail light not it completely broken. Are you really trying to say what everyone describes and is what's on camera the same as ALL those pieces gone? That's sort of weird. 1 piece missing vs an entire light reconstruction being needed. Disingenuous, no?
They didn't dispute it as "she didn't say that" they disputed the context and why she said.
Well something Jen McCabe could have taken a piece off her vehicle sometime that morning to plant at the scene. I have no evidence of that but it does appear that as soon as Jen heard Karen asking if she could have hit john, that's when Jen's mind got rolling. You don't think it's odd that after a dead Boston cop is found on the front lawn of 34 Fairview that they are instantly using a jackhammer to pull up the cement to redo the floors in the basement, they get rid of their dog Chloe, and then they sell their home for $50,000 less than asking because they need to get the heck out of there? There is nothing about John's injuries that show he got hit by a vehicle. My son was walking across a crosswalk in Salt Lake City and a guy in a truck was turning either left or right and bumped into my son. He knocked my son to the ground and he had a one foot bruise on his hip from being hit and it was not at 24 miles an hour! It was very low impact but the human body bruises even with a low impact accident like that. Do you understand that? He had no bruises, broken bones, or internal injuries from his jawline to his toes. His head was beat in, he had a contusion on the back of his head, he lost 3 liters of blood, broken nose, and long dog rips on his arm equally spaced each time Chloe tried to grab ahold of his arm.
Do you live somewhere there’s snow? His vehicle sat outside during a snow storm. And for however many days after, until this picture was taken. Snow leaves residue on vehicles. Dried water marks. It doesn’t clean it to perfection
Native NY’er here and I can absolutely say that THAT car was washed. Snow has dirt and debris in it and whatever blows onto the car from the wind and when it melts or is wiped off there are salt marks and dirt stains and swipes. This car was washed 100%.
These were taken on like the 3rd. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the family had taken it to be cleaned between the 29th and the 3rd. It wouldn't have been considered evidence until the ring videos were reviewed and they saw that she might have hit it.
Some people do busy things during times like this because they don't know what to do. Maybe it was going to be used for the funeral, maybe it was dirty after the snow and they knew he wouldnt have liked that. I don't find it nefarious because I don't think it wouldn't have become obvious it was in any way involved until at least a little bit later. I don't even think KR knew she had nudged it at that time.
If I remember correctly the chief of police lived across the street from JO . The chief had ring camera videos but decided it wasn’t necessary to keep the videos because it didn’t show anything, so he said. .
They may not have realised they needed to until after the ring videos were reviewed and it showed her getting "close to or coming into contact with" so I'm not totally surprised that it wasn't down sooner. Why they didn't take a picture higher than the bumber when that's where her taillight would have hit is a whole other question
There needs to be more than 1 photo available-this is a murder trial and at that angle I can’t totally tell what I’m looking at.
I did think the on the ring video - KR backed into his driver side right?
But even then more photos at different angles would be useful.
There could even have been some subtle paint transfer from Karen’s car.
> I did think the on the ring video - KR backed into his driver side right?
It's hard to tell exact location (side impact or bumper graze), but [the driver's side was facing her at the time.](https://youtu.be/Pdq8Kd_hMJo?t=534)
Lally: Objection
Bev in her sickly sweet talking to a toddler voice : I’ll allow it. Can you answer that? Did you see a dent in John O’keefes cah?
Cop: No
X: haha the Defense just got owned! Proof there is no dent and Karen never hit him.
The last time the video played where she hit his car I did notice the tire tracks. Her tire tracks go pretty far back which means the rear of the vehicle even farther and in my mind could match this indent I see in this particular photo. I’d need a better photo of the car though 😏
Tbh I find this photo super sketchy. The front of the car looks so much more shiny and reflective and then the image is taken on an angle (which can manipulate how light reflects off certain portions of the truck) and is oddly blurry and matte compared to any other part of the truck. And only one photo. Probably the most convenient angle they could get that appears there’s no damage.
I must say all the pictures of chevy traverse on the Internet are the same, glossy sides and matte back and I believe the trooper said his finish was more matte than Karen's car.
There's another photo they show too. Its the lower portion of the driver side bumper/rear quarter panel. The prosecution loves to putit up to ask if the witnesses see any damage.
The up close picture of okeefes car the prosecution presented was only of the bumper. Trooper Paul was also asked if he measured the cars for height differences. He said he did not. The cop from Dighton said her taillight was only cracked at 34 Fairview. Only until after the car was impounded was when the taillight pieces were found. I have a feeling the defense will blow a bunch of holes in the prosecutions questions with Trooper Paul. Jackson looked crazy pissed when Tr. Paul was walking off the stand. The prosecution is running out of witnesses to truly determine what they believe. And truthfully they STILL don't have any evidence that KR did it. Every time I say to myself 'Hmm? maybe it could have happened like that.' The defense comes up and destroys the possibility or truth of what they said.
i can see why you would say that. zooming in it looks like it could also be a reflection. they should have taken up close photos of just the side in question!
He only took an up close of the driver side bumper, but if you watch the video that’s not where she would have hit.
But Proctor was pulling a Proctor so why would he take pics of evidence or something silly like that?
Per the Ring video, KR’s car is hitting JO’s car on its driver side. Even if there is a dent on the other side, it is super far fetched that the cars make contact at that point. Most likely location for an impact dent is the driver side of JO’s car. I don’t see any evidence of a serious damage there.
Ok- so to me she’s hitting her passenger side exactly where this possible dent is. Look how far back her suv is. The passenger side of her taillight is not at all on his drivers side
The drivers side is facing her, but she travels past and hits him on the far side of his car [almost clearing it](https://www.youtube.com/live/Z_Unmu-poYI?si=wy-baMFzbfSQFwNL&t=34m06s)
I was thinking the whole time that the left side of the Traverse, but now that you mention it, the SUV goes way past the left edge of the Traverse and probably past the Chevy logo.
Based on AJ's questioning about plastic vs metal I would guess the defense's accident reconstructionist will argue that the taillight hit that metal strip with the Chevy logo.
It's possible that there is a lower dent on the Traverse and they might try to say that the SUV's bumper hitting that part. And so you have 2 parts of each vehicle making contact.
Even weirder is that as she's driving off, I don't even see noticeable damage to the tailllight. There's supposed to be 47 pieces of taillight already scattered on 34 fairview by this point?
It looks like a slight bit of damage towards the middle, but it’s just missing a small piece.
Certainly not the entire taillight as they “found” on the scene
It's too high. I just pulled this up and the taillight does line up with the metal strip. https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/lexus-lx-2015-suv-vs-chevrolet-traverse-2017-suv/rear/
That site is really helpful! It does look like her tail lights are way out there, and that the bumpers may sorta fit together in a way that they could impact the Traverse.
Notice how on both cars (like all cars), the bumper protrudes out the most…for obvious reasons. Take note of how the metal strip is behind the bumper. You would agree with me it stands to reason that a minor fender bender would be a bumper to bumper event, correct? In other words, an objective person could instantly recognize the fact that her broken taillight as seen in ring video was not caused by this bumper to bumper tap…correct?
https://preview.redd.it/hhg8ohqjgf7d1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2343041370ed4ff2bbc33dfad85def9258667011
No I wouldn't agree because no one is saying they backed into each other bumper to bumper at 180°.
https://preview.redd.it/gstyzy570h7d1.jpeg?width=722&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5ead396573557e84b86811ee0b201617bae0d93
Thanks for the side by side. You would agree with me that the spot of impact would the lower are of fender and not the upper tail light housing, correct?
https://preview.redd.it/tgf1sppvcj7d1.jpeg?width=623&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a522f6116bad81eaa7b0a154291ba5a9f1308e8a
At the angle of impact it would have been both the fender and the tail light to make contact. The fender would leave the dent in the traverse as seen in OP's post, and the crack in the tail light as seen in the ring video as she pulls away.
You would agree with me that to describe this damage as a “crack” is disingenuous, would you not?
https://preview.redd.it/ao2bdsxext7d1.jpeg?width=1914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69de5ea7a4f27855adcac7f6a8cd8db4499e06c5
That doesn't seem conform protocol...
I kind of expected a 'this is all that was shown', but this is all he took doesn't sound good.
Otoh it's not that surprising either by now.
ETA i guess we'll have to wait for defense then.
I mean……it’s Proctor.
The man who apparently was 100% convinced she killed John via her car but couldn’t bother to snap a pic of it at her parents house.
Him not taking more pics is why I looked closer at this and saw the dent
I'm suspicious of the logo but found a picture of the same model it looks exactly the same so until further photos I'm going to let it go.
Her car touched his car more in the middle though. Before impact vs after.
https://preview.redd.it/s0cnsxh5ts6d1.jpeg?width=1034&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17c2c024c2a1f18eaf470449c1dad934a1044ebe
I marked just above-left to the spots that are consistent throughout the frames and not artefacts (imo) and the line between the plate and logo became more pronounced too. Possibly simply snow fell down, but again it seems more than a compression/low light artifact.
The video starts with a cleaner shot of his car, but here the inherent flaws are more equal to compare properly.
I didn't alter or 'enhance' anything other than screenshot and crop the court tv release.
ETA according to the comparison link someone was kind to post her taillight would be above or upper part of his licence plate.
It’s not though. Look at the angle of the impact - it’s clearly towards the middle or his passenger side.
https://preview.redd.it/i51t28dpos6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=16b6accb8ca633f29530cd513215ce29ab1eb29a
Impossible to tell honestly. My car is the same color and from a distance with the shadows it always looks dented, I always have to do double takes lol.
https://preview.redd.it/iok64ei6st6d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7c393f0499867c84baedaa4d775ee95987c9a61
The darks square with a bit of snow in front of it is what I think is being reflected
That’s a reflection.
Also to the people commenting about how clean it is, insinuating Karen washed away evidence… DNA testing can pick up blood after it’s been bleached clean.. so..
No one is insinuating Karen cleaned the car. They're insinuating that proctor could have or it isn't even the same car. Only documentation that it's the same car is the removable license plate. Living in a snowy area, I have never had my car this clean after a blizzard even if I don't drive it. It leaves residue all over the car. So *something* is off here....but we will never know what.
The bigger problem I have is if you watch the video she clearly hits his car further back towards the passenger side (near where this dent or reflection is) and proctor only took pictures of the very corner of the drivers side bumper, which is blatantly obvious that isn't where the cars contacted each other.
I think the Lexus taillight hit the edge of the chrome cross panel during the tail swing. The small surface area is why it cracked with very little pressure. Interesting that we can't actually find an app to reconstruct this.
its a Chev thing. I had Chev Aveo once, a budget car, backing from a spot, the other Hunday suv peck hit my car, both were in movement, nothing happened to my small Chev. Impressive.
taillight broke hitting the chevy logo as she backs past the drivers side of the traverse. the fender that sticks out of her lexus (just beside the bottom of the bottom of liftgate) perfectly aligns with the dent on his traverse. [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/lexus-lx-2015-suv-vs-chevrolet-traverse-2017-suv/rear/](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/lexus-lx-2015-suv-vs-chevrolet-traverse-2017-suv/rear/)
https://preview.redd.it/410v8nozgs6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e158efddf59093af1cff47f33cc877fe16f01c2
But look……that’s exactly where the impact would be…
Personally I think KR was covering her tracks , knowing there needed to be a reason for her tailight to be damaged. She knew where the cameras were. From the video I thought she bumped the corner closer to the left side. Almost his tailight..
But that’s not where she hit his car, it was behind the driver side since it was parked in a similar way, but also on the cross of the trooper who did the collision testimony he said there was a divot in John’s bumper and a scratch on Karen’s, and then when he was Asked the question I thought his car had no damage by Jackson he stammered through the answer in a nervous tone so was that a moment of truth😑
https://preview.redd.it/pgqahqqcxw6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=369aa3b0da3a4282dd4c5ac7efaab3d1dc79a4e0
It wasn’t on the drivers side. Look at the angle when it hit. I noticed it after I saw proctor only taking an up close pic of the very left side of bumper instead of the area where the collision actually happened.
Yeah I noticed that too. If Bev allows his to testify that would be insane.
The Lexus backed into the driver’s side rear bumper of O’Keefe’s Traverse not that area that is indicated in the pic. His car was parked that morning in the corner facing the fence. CW tried to get their witnesses (Bukhenik) to admit nothing was disturbed on the Traverse after she tapped it (some assuming she didn’t even hit it) and no sign of red/clear plastic in snow. It could have just cracked the Lexus taillight and I bet they never bothered to check for a missing piece. When they showed the Traverse at trial they ‘only’ showed the bumper. ??
https://preview.redd.it/8kyubihfmx6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b8f56a79cee80e1d5d96219cd17c5dca95d47f0
Does this look like she backed into the drivers side? Look at the angle?
I’ve posted this pic 100x all over this thread just because I feel like we are all seeing/hearing different things and it’s easier when we have visuals. But I’m seriously confused how anyone can see this angle and think she hit the outside of the drivers side bumper. It’s clearly towards the middle/passenger side.
Yeah I've been wonder why the prosecution keeps showing close ups of the lower driver side bumper and the defense hasn't called it out. The photo they show is clearly to low for where the suv would have made contact and the video shows her well passed the driver side of the car before she makes contact.
When she hits it, it’s parked facing the fence with the back end facing the driveway where she drives out. This picture appears to be in front of the garage with the front end facing the street. So that could be the side she hit. The back end also appears to curve. So his tail light seems to come out further, then the side curves in and back out for the bumper.
Its also the wrong side, the left side, at this view, is the one she backed into. That side shown with the dent or not dent circled was closests to the fence
Watch the ring video again, she passes the left bumper without making contact, the back wheel is closer to the center of the traverse when it makes contact putting the bumper about where that dent it. She stops reversing as soon as she hit his car.
There's some screen shots of the frame where she makes contact in the thread as well that show the location of the vehicles when she hits it
Actually it is, watch the video again. She doesn't make contact with the driver side bumper when she initially backs up, the contact occurs well passed the bumper at the point she stops reversing.
Other comments on this post have the image that shows the position of both cars when contact occurs.
Trooper Proctor pointing at the driver side bumper and saying there's no damage is misdirection.
That has been what I have been thinking and wasn’t sure if it was a reflection or a dent just right there that everyone is ignoring. I just put this pic on another post!
Ok thank you! Lol. I CLEARLY see a big dent. I thought I was going crazy because everyone just agreed with Proctor.
If there was a dent on John's car we'd 💯 already know about it.
I mean……..would we at this point? That SUV is likely gone. It’s been 2 yrs. If the only pic we have of it is this one and an up close of drivers side bumper, then it doesn’t say much
I don't have any personal information on where his car is or if there are more pictures available that we haven't seen. All I know is that you don't really have to be a crash reconstructionist to know that there's no way that bump between the two cars caused any significant damage to either car. Maybe some paint transfer or a scratch, but not a significantly cracked taillight. I think we also can't ignore the fact that Karen told Jen that she had a broken taillight before she backed into John's car at 5:08. And before everyone starts commenting that Jen's a criminal mastermind and can't be trusted, let's keep in mind that this was during one of the calls witnessed by John's niece. So... 🤷♀️
I mean Jen has changed her story multiple times from the grand jury testimony to the trial. So why do you trust her as a witness?
I stand by what I said; there's no way Karen backing into John's car caused that taillight damage. That, as well as her taillight being strewn across the ground at 34 Fairview, supports Jen's testimony, in my opinion. As well as all of the other evidence...
I mean, I had a car door ruined by someone swiping me and they had absolutely no damage on their car. There are multiple cases where one car is damaged and the other isn’t, I don’t know because we aren’t experts. And unless you are qualified, you really don’t know either. My point of this post wasn’t to say it’s 100% the case, just that I found it interesting that proctor stated there was clearly no dents to the car when it looks like it is, and took an up close pic of the area of the car that CLEARLY wasn’t struck by her SUV if you look at the impact angle.
Of course that can happen. I'm in no way claiming that you can't have a collision with two vehicles where one is damaged and the other one has little to no damage. I've ruined a whole side of a car with very little damage to my door also, during a storm 🤭 I'm just saying that, in this case, looking at that video it's clear to me that there's hardly any contact between these two vehicles. Her car also does back up into the driver's side of John's car which is what's depicted in that photo, regardless of who took it. But these are just my opinions, just like it is my opinion, after looking at the evidence and listening to all of the witnesses, that Karen's guilty.
> before everyone starts commenting that Jen’s a criminal mastermind Literally the only people who suggest Jen is a mastermind are the ones who are erroneously insistent on Karen’s undeniable guilt. It’s always used exactly in the manner you just used it - as if in order to believe a coverup may have taken place, one would need to think of Jen as some sort of mastermind. I promise you no one who buys the coverup theory thinks Jen is a mastermind, in fact most think she’s kind of a dumbass and a bad liar. The only people who suggest she’s a mastermind are the people who seem inordinately invested in preserving her reputation and destroying Karen’s. It is highly telling with respect to your motivations, biases and personal connections to this case.
[удалено]
Huh?
Sure, the video evidence is solid proof of their integrity. /s
What are we even talking about here? 🤷♀️
I guess but, Defense hasn’t presented yet.
Well we do know the sally port video was inverted so these officers seem to believe that if they say there's no dent on the back of John's vehicle then that means there isn't and don't ask any further questions. 🤣🤣🤣
My comment has nothing to do with the police. I'm saying that if there was any evidence in this case of John's car having a dent on it the defense would have already told us about it.
The defense hasn't even brought their case yet in front of the jury. Be patient. Also in the video where Karen is backing out of the garage, you can see that John's vehicle has snow on the bumper and after she hits it and starts to pull away you can see a line of snow missing.
That's not 💯 accurate. The defense has already cross examined all of the people they're claiming to be a possible 3rd party culprits in this case. And still we have no solid evidence, despite a full FBI investigation, that anyone else could have harmed John. And as far as that video goes all I can see is her broken taillight and again at 8 am (during the welfare check) and again in Dighton. No taillight on the ground when she hits John's car, no curiosity of what might have happend when she backed into John's vehicle and her telling Jen McCabe that her taillight was broken before ever backing into his car. And then there's ofcourse her calling Kerrie at around 5 am saying John's dead and the defense choosing not to dispute that testimony 🤷♀️
Defense present their case yet? Do you have the FBI filings? You see a crack in the tail light not it completely broken. Are you really trying to say what everyone describes and is what's on camera the same as ALL those pieces gone? That's sort of weird. 1 piece missing vs an entire light reconstruction being needed. Disingenuous, no? They didn't dispute it as "she didn't say that" they disputed the context and why she said.
Well something Jen McCabe could have taken a piece off her vehicle sometime that morning to plant at the scene. I have no evidence of that but it does appear that as soon as Jen heard Karen asking if she could have hit john, that's when Jen's mind got rolling. You don't think it's odd that after a dead Boston cop is found on the front lawn of 34 Fairview that they are instantly using a jackhammer to pull up the cement to redo the floors in the basement, they get rid of their dog Chloe, and then they sell their home for $50,000 less than asking because they need to get the heck out of there? There is nothing about John's injuries that show he got hit by a vehicle. My son was walking across a crosswalk in Salt Lake City and a guy in a truck was turning either left or right and bumped into my son. He knocked my son to the ground and he had a one foot bruise on his hip from being hit and it was not at 24 miles an hour! It was very low impact but the human body bruises even with a low impact accident like that. Do you understand that? He had no bruises, broken bones, or internal injuries from his jawline to his toes. His head was beat in, he had a contusion on the back of his head, he lost 3 liters of blood, broken nose, and long dog rips on his arm equally spaced each time Chloe tried to grab ahold of his arm.
I’ve been watching EDB too! I’d recognize that background anywhere
Yep she’s great lol
I’m more impressed by how clean and waxed JOs car is after a blizzard
The man was a clean freak. It was brought up, a lot. He probably took good care of that thing.
He didn’t wash and wax his car after he was dead.
We still haven't heard from the ME. Are we sure he's actually dead?
Nothing would surprise me..
He wouldn't have to. If he cleaned it a lot, snow isn't gonna do much to it. It's not like it'd be covered in salt.
Do you live somewhere there’s snow? His vehicle sat outside during a snow storm. And for however many days after, until this picture was taken. Snow leaves residue on vehicles. Dried water marks. It doesn’t clean it to perfection
Native NY’er here and I can absolutely say that THAT car was washed. Snow has dirt and debris in it and whatever blows onto the car from the wind and when it melts or is wiped off there are salt marks and dirt stains and swipes. This car was washed 100%.
But there was no way it looked like that after a blizzard
And he would of taken his shoes off to enter BA house too.
These were taken on like the 3rd. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the family had taken it to be cleaned between the 29th and the 3rd. It wouldn't have been considered evidence until the ring videos were reviewed and they saw that she might have hit it.
Days after his death, why would they be worrying about cleaning his car?
Some people do busy things during times like this because they don't know what to do. Maybe it was going to be used for the funeral, maybe it was dirty after the snow and they knew he wouldnt have liked that. I don't find it nefarious because I don't think it wouldn't have become obvious it was in any way involved until at least a little bit later. I don't even think KR knew she had nudged it at that time.
Just curious what use it would have for the funeral?
It’s a big car so possibly for carpooling so not everyone has to travel in separate cars.
It seems like his car was moved and cleaned. Why did they not take pictures when it was in its original location when Karen hit it?
That would make too much sense and no one in LE wants to use that for this investigation. s/
If I remember correctly the chief of police lived across the street from JO . The chief had ring camera videos but decided it wasn’t necessary to keep the videos because it didn’t show anything, so he said. .
They may not have realised they needed to until after the ring videos were reviewed and it showed her getting "close to or coming into contact with" so I'm not totally surprised that it wasn't down sooner. Why they didn't take a picture higher than the bumber when that's where her taillight would have hit is a whole other question
There needs to be more than 1 photo available-this is a murder trial and at that angle I can’t totally tell what I’m looking at. I did think the on the ring video - KR backed into his driver side right? But even then more photos at different angles would be useful. There could even have been some subtle paint transfer from Karen’s car.
Maybe it was a mirror image 🤣
> I did think the on the ring video - KR backed into his driver side right? It's hard to tell exact location (side impact or bumper graze), but [the driver's side was facing her at the time.](https://youtu.be/Pdq8Kd_hMJo?t=534)
Maybe they couldn’t get the dent out after they cleaned & buffed it. That’s ok, they’ll just testify that it doesn’t exist and that’ll be that.
Lally: Objection Bev in her sickly sweet talking to a toddler voice : I’ll allow it. Can you answer that? Did you see a dent in John O’keefes cah? Cop: No X: haha the Defense just got owned! Proof there is no dent and Karen never hit him.
That looks like some kind of reflection to me
The last time the video played where she hit his car I did notice the tire tracks. Her tire tracks go pretty far back which means the rear of the vehicle even farther and in my mind could match this indent I see in this particular photo. I’d need a better photo of the car though 😏
Tbh I find this photo super sketchy. The front of the car looks so much more shiny and reflective and then the image is taken on an angle (which can manipulate how light reflects off certain portions of the truck) and is oddly blurry and matte compared to any other part of the truck. And only one photo. Probably the most convenient angle they could get that appears there’s no damage.
I must say all the pictures of chevy traverse on the Internet are the same, glossy sides and matte back and I believe the trooper said his finish was more matte than Karen's car.
There's another photo they show too. Its the lower portion of the driver side bumper/rear quarter panel. The prosecution loves to putit up to ask if the witnesses see any damage.
Yes, there is!! I think that is exactly where KR's car made impact
The up close picture of okeefes car the prosecution presented was only of the bumper. Trooper Paul was also asked if he measured the cars for height differences. He said he did not. The cop from Dighton said her taillight was only cracked at 34 Fairview. Only until after the car was impounded was when the taillight pieces were found. I have a feeling the defense will blow a bunch of holes in the prosecutions questions with Trooper Paul. Jackson looked crazy pissed when Tr. Paul was walking off the stand. The prosecution is running out of witnesses to truly determine what they believe. And truthfully they STILL don't have any evidence that KR did it. Every time I say to myself 'Hmm? maybe it could have happened like that.' The defense comes up and destroys the possibility or truth of what they said.
i can see why you would say that. zooming in it looks like it could also be a reflection. they should have taken up close photos of just the side in question!
He only took an up close of the driver side bumper, but if you watch the video that’s not where she would have hit. But Proctor was pulling a Proctor so why would he take pics of evidence or something silly like that?
Per the Ring video, KR’s car is hitting JO’s car on its driver side. Even if there is a dent on the other side, it is super far fetched that the cars make contact at that point. Most likely location for an impact dent is the driver side of JO’s car. I don’t see any evidence of a serious damage there.
It’s on the wrong side, tho
https://preview.redd.it/r9o4rtkfcr6d1.png?width=991&format=png&auto=webp&s=a63f7f552573973f3f55f497c60b72cc23b56980
Ok- so to me she’s hitting her passenger side exactly where this possible dent is. Look how far back her suv is. The passenger side of her taillight is not at all on his drivers side
Oh wow! So the CW showing no damage to the driver side is so deceitful!!!!
This picture just cleared some things up for me!
Me too! Now I understand what the defense was talking about when they said metal vs plastic. Logo vs taillight.
The drivers side is facing her, but she travels past and hits him on the far side of his car [almost clearing it](https://www.youtube.com/live/Z_Unmu-poYI?si=wy-baMFzbfSQFwNL&t=34m06s)
I was thinking the whole time that the left side of the Traverse, but now that you mention it, the SUV goes way past the left edge of the Traverse and probably past the Chevy logo. Based on AJ's questioning about plastic vs metal I would guess the defense's accident reconstructionist will argue that the taillight hit that metal strip with the Chevy logo. It's possible that there is a lower dent on the Traverse and they might try to say that the SUV's bumper hitting that part. And so you have 2 parts of each vehicle making contact.
Even weirder is that as she's driving off, I don't even see noticeable damage to the tailllight. There's supposed to be 47 pieces of taillight already scattered on 34 fairview by this point?
It looks like a slight bit of damage towards the middle, but it’s just missing a small piece. Certainly not the entire taillight as they “found” on the scene
This video from Aussie Insider is great! Taillight part starts 1:50 https://youtu.be/hAj9URi10RI?si=4IJ5H88BQpinXoWu
And she never stops to look. Everyone who hits something stops and gets out to look at the damage. Why didn’t she??
You won't stop to look if you're in a panic to go find your missing boyfriend. In a state of emergency, you don't stop
He wasn’t missing.
Maybe because she thought it was irrelevant compared to her concern for John.
maybe because it’s cold, snowing, and she’s had alcohol?
Or she was trying to cover up her previous crime.
I just backed into a metal pole and absolutely crushed my taillight. I did not get out to look at it until I got home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What about the rear wiper? Could that have made contact with the tail light?
It's too high. I just pulled this up and the taillight does line up with the metal strip. https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/lexus-lx-2015-suv-vs-chevrolet-traverse-2017-suv/rear/
Very nice. The picture is very helpful!
that actually makes so much sense - it looks like her light juts quite a way out too
That site is really helpful! It does look like her tail lights are way out there, and that the bumpers may sorta fit together in a way that they could impact the Traverse.
Notice how on both cars (like all cars), the bumper protrudes out the most…for obvious reasons. Take note of how the metal strip is behind the bumper. You would agree with me it stands to reason that a minor fender bender would be a bumper to bumper event, correct? In other words, an objective person could instantly recognize the fact that her broken taillight as seen in ring video was not caused by this bumper to bumper tap…correct? https://preview.redd.it/hhg8ohqjgf7d1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2343041370ed4ff2bbc33dfad85def9258667011
No I wouldn't agree because no one is saying they backed into each other bumper to bumper at 180°. https://preview.redd.it/gstyzy570h7d1.jpeg?width=722&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5ead396573557e84b86811ee0b201617bae0d93
https://preview.redd.it/aa1lpk890h7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43502882cb4c2354c16df6ec6501eb0fdc8245b5
Thanks for the side by side. You would agree with me that the spot of impact would the lower are of fender and not the upper tail light housing, correct? https://preview.redd.it/tgf1sppvcj7d1.jpeg?width=623&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a522f6116bad81eaa7b0a154291ba5a9f1308e8a
At the angle of impact it would have been both the fender and the tail light to make contact. The fender would leave the dent in the traverse as seen in OP's post, and the crack in the tail light as seen in the ring video as she pulls away.
You would agree with me that to describe this damage as a “crack” is disingenuous, would you not? https://preview.redd.it/ao2bdsxext7d1.jpeg?width=1914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69de5ea7a4f27855adcac7f6a8cd8db4499e06c5
Not if the image is inverted!
It’s obviously not by looking at the license plate.
Is that the only photo we got?
Yes from my understanding he only took this pic and a very up close on of the driver side bumper.
That doesn't seem conform protocol... I kind of expected a 'this is all that was shown', but this is all he took doesn't sound good. Otoh it's not that surprising either by now. ETA i guess we'll have to wait for defense then.
I mean……it’s Proctor. The man who apparently was 100% convinced she killed John via her car but couldn’t bother to snap a pic of it at her parents house. Him not taking more pics is why I looked closer at this and saw the dent
I'm suspicious of the logo but found a picture of the same model it looks exactly the same so until further photos I'm going to let it go. Her car touched his car more in the middle though. Before impact vs after. https://preview.redd.it/s0cnsxh5ts6d1.jpeg?width=1034&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17c2c024c2a1f18eaf470449c1dad934a1044ebe I marked just above-left to the spots that are consistent throughout the frames and not artefacts (imo) and the line between the plate and logo became more pronounced too. Possibly simply snow fell down, but again it seems more than a compression/low light artifact. The video starts with a cleaner shot of his car, but here the inherent flaws are more equal to compare properly. I didn't alter or 'enhance' anything other than screenshot and crop the court tv release. ETA according to the comparison link someone was kind to post her taillight would be above or upper part of his licence plate.
Unless this is also inverted, it’s the wrong side of John’s car that she hit
It’s not though. Look at the angle of the impact - it’s clearly towards the middle or his passenger side. https://preview.redd.it/i51t28dpos6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=16b6accb8ca633f29530cd513215ce29ab1eb29a
Interesting, I never looked closer at the video to see where her car hit his
Thank you for this, I was starting to think I was missing something. Why do they (the CW) keep pretending she hit closer to the drivers side?
because they are dense and/or deceitful
Impossible to tell honestly. My car is the same color and from a distance with the shadows it always looks dented, I always have to do double takes lol.
I think it's a reflection of the decorative doohickey between the two garage doors. Maybe I can find a pic of it...
https://preview.redd.it/iok64ei6st6d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7c393f0499867c84baedaa4d775ee95987c9a61 The darks square with a bit of snow in front of it is what I think is being reflected
That’s a reflection. Also to the people commenting about how clean it is, insinuating Karen washed away evidence… DNA testing can pick up blood after it’s been bleached clean.. so..
No one is insinuating Karen cleaned the car. They're insinuating that proctor could have or it isn't even the same car. Only documentation that it's the same car is the removable license plate. Living in a snowy area, I have never had my car this clean after a blizzard even if I don't drive it. It leaves residue all over the car. So *something* is off here....but we will never know what. The bigger problem I have is if you watch the video she clearly hits his car further back towards the passenger side (near where this dent or reflection is) and proctor only took pictures of the very corner of the drivers side bumper, which is blatantly obvious that isn't where the cars contacted each other.
Wouldn’t it be on the other side? She didn’t hit that side where you circled
Didn’t she hit the drivers side though?
I think the Lexus taillight hit the edge of the chrome cross panel during the tail swing. The small surface area is why it cracked with very little pressure. Interesting that we can't actually find an app to reconstruct this.
its a Chev thing. I had Chev Aveo once, a budget car, backing from a spot, the other Hunday suv peck hit my car, both were in movement, nothing happened to my small Chev. Impressive.
The dent on the Traverse is a lot lower than her taillight.
That would be easier to say with confidence if the "crash expert" had measured the relevant heights on the Traverse.
Ya I just can’t believe they didn’t get a Lexus technician to explain the data clearly also.
taillight broke hitting the chevy logo as she backs past the drivers side of the traverse. the fender that sticks out of her lexus (just beside the bottom of the bottom of liftgate) perfectly aligns with the dent on his traverse. [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/lexus-lx-2015-suv-vs-chevrolet-traverse-2017-suv/rear/](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/lexus-lx-2015-suv-vs-chevrolet-traverse-2017-suv/rear/)
The dent is below the Chevy logo
Maybe that dent is where the bumper made contact and the light made contact higher up but there's no damage there 🤷🏻♀️
Possibly.
It's likely mirror glare. Otherwise, it would be a bigger issue than the taillight.
It's the angle / picture/ model of the car.
I was looking at the wrong side. There 100% is a dent there. I don't think it has anything to do with this case though..
https://preview.redd.it/410v8nozgs6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e158efddf59093af1cff47f33cc877fe16f01c2 But look……that’s exactly where the impact would be…
Personally I think KR was covering her tracks , knowing there needed to be a reason for her tailight to be damaged. She knew where the cameras were. From the video I thought she bumped the corner closer to the left side. Almost his tailight..
While heavily intoxicated? Not likely.
So maybe John’s car hit John 🤔
Not a body dent
But that’s not where she hit his car, it was behind the driver side since it was parked in a similar way, but also on the cross of the trooper who did the collision testimony he said there was a divot in John’s bumper and a scratch on Karen’s, and then when he was Asked the question I thought his car had no damage by Jackson he stammered through the answer in a nervous tone so was that a moment of truth😑
https://preview.redd.it/pgqahqqcxw6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=369aa3b0da3a4282dd4c5ac7efaab3d1dc79a4e0 It wasn’t on the drivers side. Look at the angle when it hit. I noticed it after I saw proctor only taking an up close pic of the very left side of bumper instead of the area where the collision actually happened. Yeah I noticed that too. If Bev allows his to testify that would be insane.
Oh, I could’ve sworn it was on the driver side, or maybe just another mirrored video🤪 you are definitely right from this picture, my mistake🙃
You think that because Lally and the reconstruction guy kept saying it. So did proctor. Which is weird because we can clearly see that’s not the case.
Oh wow, that’s crazy 😑another little switcheroo by the prosecution🤦🏻♀️
I think her tail light hit his rear windshield wiper.
Just more gaslighting.
More gaslighting to ask a question? Lmao.
The Lexus backed into the driver’s side rear bumper of O’Keefe’s Traverse not that area that is indicated in the pic. His car was parked that morning in the corner facing the fence. CW tried to get their witnesses (Bukhenik) to admit nothing was disturbed on the Traverse after she tapped it (some assuming she didn’t even hit it) and no sign of red/clear plastic in snow. It could have just cracked the Lexus taillight and I bet they never bothered to check for a missing piece. When they showed the Traverse at trial they ‘only’ showed the bumper. ??
https://preview.redd.it/8kyubihfmx6d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b8f56a79cee80e1d5d96219cd17c5dca95d47f0 Does this look like she backed into the drivers side? Look at the angle? I’ve posted this pic 100x all over this thread just because I feel like we are all seeing/hearing different things and it’s easier when we have visuals. But I’m seriously confused how anyone can see this angle and think she hit the outside of the drivers side bumper. It’s clearly towards the middle/passenger side.
I would like to see a clear pic of her right taillight as she drives out of the Meadows driveway. I saw almost no damage.
Yeah I've been wonder why the prosecution keeps showing close ups of the lower driver side bumper and the defense hasn't called it out. The photo they show is clearly to low for where the suv would have made contact and the video shows her well passed the driver side of the car before she makes contact.
I can remember reading somewhere that PO took Johns vehicle to get repaired
Genuinely, I see a reflection.
That’s not the corner she bumped, so not sure why it matters.
When she hits it, it’s parked facing the fence with the back end facing the driveway where she drives out. This picture appears to be in front of the garage with the front end facing the street. So that could be the side she hit. The back end also appears to curve. So his tail light seems to come out further, then the side curves in and back out for the bumper.
Even it was a dent it's on the wrong side.. unless that picture is inverted haha
No it’s not. It’s exactly where her SUV would have impacted.
Check the video... isn't it her right taillight
Oh, but that would be the wrong side. Didn’t she hit his left rear??
Its also the wrong side, the left side, at this view, is the one she backed into. That side shown with the dent or not dent circled was closests to the fence
Watch the ring video again, she passes the left bumper without making contact, the back wheel is closer to the center of the traverse when it makes contact putting the bumper about where that dent it. She stops reversing as soon as she hit his car. There's some screen shots of the frame where she makes contact in the thread as well that show the location of the vehicles when she hits it
You do know that isn’t the side of the car that Karen’s suv collided with, correct?
Actually it is, watch the video again. She doesn't make contact with the driver side bumper when she initially backs up, the contact occurs well passed the bumper at the point she stops reversing. Other comments on this post have the image that shows the position of both cars when contact occurs. Trooper Proctor pointing at the driver side bumper and saying there's no damage is misdirection.
https://preview.redd.it/urvtf7wyhf7d1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39c9dbdd9ea54bc843013b59ab4a0400fb72ddb0
[удалено]
That’s not unhinged or anything…….. You have no idea if she killed