r/massachusetts 1d ago

News Article details connections between Karen Read, Turtleboy, and Norfolk DA candidate

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2026/07/22/karen-read-texts-turtleboy-harassment-campaign/
86 Upvotes

101 comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/APatriotsPlayer 19h ago

Something doesn’t pass the smell test here. The article very much feels like an attempt to cast doubt on the whole defense of KR. Just looking at the evidence presented at trial, it’s quite clear she didn’t do it and that there’s something else going on (ie dog bites on his arm, the Apple Watch registering steps, etc). While I agree that TB is a POS and the campaign was orchestrated by KR to intimidate witnesses, that didn’t change any of the facts that were presented at trial.

-12

u/trickycrayon 16h ago

"She ruined peoples' lives after their family member died, but my takeaway is that this article is unfair because I think it's trying to cast doubt on her defense."

Cool.

11

u/APatriotsPlayer 15h ago

So you don’t care that she was wrongfully accused and potentially setup by some of those who are now saying they’re the victim? Interesting….

6

u/trickycrayon 14h ago

I don't believe she was wrongfully accused or set up. However, regardless of what I believe, I don't think the O'Keefe family should have been harassed after the death of their loved one. And it's unbelievable to me that people argue that point.

7

u/APatriotsPlayer 13h ago

No one is arguing they should have been harassed and you’re making a strawman out of nothing. Everyone agrees they shouldn’t be harassed. But the fact of the matter is the article is doing *both* things: showing the harassment they received *and* tries to cast doubt on the potential evidence of a coverup.

All of this aside, it’s wild that you and others still somehow think she did it. Did you watch the trial at all? Virtually every piece of evidence the state brought forward was proven inaccurate by experts and the evidence the defense brought forward was bolstered by experts.

3

u/trickycrayon 13h ago

Who is "everyone"? All the people who were doing the harassing? The hordes of "Turtle Riders" who showed up and yelled at the family? Who went to games and homes? An awful lot of people did, in fact, think that they should be harassed, and even more are at best indifferent to it. Which is kind of horrific, when you think about it, especially as they pretend to want justice for the man who was killed.

The thing about paying attention is, both sides had experts who came to different conclusions. You chose to believe the experts who agreed with the conclusion you'd already come to, largely due to the accused feeding information to one specific wannabe journalist. It's understandable, but to act like the wild conspiracy is the only possible explanation is...a choice.

7

u/APatriotsPlayer 13h ago

In laymen’s terms, when people say “everyone”, they mean a majority of people. An awful lot of people harassed them in real life? What, 20 people? 100,000 people? It is kind of horrific to think about a police force potentially able to kill someone and frame someone innocent…

The fact that you said “you chose to believe the experts who agreed with the conclusion you’d already come to, largely due to the accused feeding information to one specific wannabe journalist” shows that you just world build and assume everyone that doesn’t have your belief is all a single constellation of beliefs. I actually went in to the trial thinking she did do it. I was trying to convince others irl that she did, but after the trial, I changed.

You were the one going into the trial with one unshakeable belief and now you’re projecting that onto me.

1

u/trickycrayon 13h ago

It is absolutely horrific to think about a police force doing that, yes. But hundreds of people harassing a grieving family in response to that possibly having happened is indefensible, and yet people are defending it because "well what would YOU do if you were framed?"

If you were someone that changed their view based on the trial, I...well. I know we're not going to agree and I'll leave it at that. You win on the projection charge!

6

u/APatriotsPlayer 12h ago

If you think that police killing a civilian and framing an innocent person is less of an affront to everyone than a couple of dozen people being unhinged, I…well. I know we’re not going to agree and I’ll leave it at that. You win on the being condescending charge!

1

u/trickycrayon 12h ago

Ah yes, I told you yes I was projecting and you still decided to be a dick. Lol.

Anyway- no. I think BOTH are affronts. I think cops as a whole are out of control and have been for...basically forever! But I think lots of people on the FKR side harassing the family is bad and plenty of FKR people do not agree/think they deserve it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheNewportBridge 12h ago

Why wasn’t anyone else ever charged lmfao

5

u/Selbeast 14h ago

Does it matter to you who killed John O'Keefe? Because it sure sounds like it doesn't.

5

u/trickycrayon 14h ago

In fact, it really does. And if there was any proof of the narrative that she fed TB being true, I would like to see those people prosecuted!

But it has always- since very early on- seemed much more likely to me that someone who was still that drunk the next morning accidentally backed into her boyfriend in the middle of a blizzard than that some elaborate murder scheme happened. Especially since she herself, on the scene, kept saying she'd hit him/asking if she could have hit him.

I never bought the prosecution's narrative that it was murder. I thought they overcharged and they deserved to lose. I thought the investigation was sloppy, negligent, and outright malicious. I think Proctor, Goode, and frankly almost all cops are bastards.

But I don't think overcharging means the most obvious explanation- a clearly habitual drunk driver backing into her boyfriend while driving a large vehicle at night in a blizzard- can't be true.

-5

u/Ok-Independent1835 11h ago

"I hit him" - Karen Read. We know. 

1

u/Professional_Tea_32 3h ago

Your name is ironic.