Favorite team:
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:56
Registered on:3/18/2025
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
Replying to the quote:"I don’t know what you have convinced yourself is shown in that picture."

Above what I circled is an imprint of what appears to be the Medial Epicondyle.
Replying to a quote that was an excerpt of multiple quotes"
quote:
I could give side by side photos of the cuts and what i believe caused them.


I bet you can."

I will try to.

LINK
Replying to the quote:"is some 65 IQ type shite. Stop posting. You were not meant to interact with normal people."

It is like a tire going over a stick. The stick doesn't always break. A person unconscious has a different blood flow. Circulation gets cut.. So that made the top of his arm harder to amputate. There is evidence of an amateur amputation attempt.
Replying to the quote:"False statement

quote:
'It was Karen's car that smashed him.' "

Her passenger mud flap has wear and tare markings identical to what was on John's wrist. It is a very good odds that it was from that uniquely used mud flap. And his shoulder clearly has three knife cuts. The cuts were not stabs, but more of a sawing motion. So not only did she hit him, she knew she hit him. It could have been to help him, or to free her tire. Because if a tire is stuck it is the same as a transmission not working.
Replying to the quote:"You don't know what you are talking about."

I can't believe millionaire experts are so stupid in this case. I can clearly see what happened looking at the autopsy photographs. The 25 mph is not supported by forensics. When a witness is caught in one lie, by law their entire testimony should be disqualified. His arm was caught. And there were attempts to cut off his arm for him to get unstuck. I could give side by side photos of the cuts and what i believe caused them. But fortunately for the defense this website doesn't allow photographs. It was Karen's car that smashed him.
Replying to the quote:"The quote function is useful"

None of this dinosaur American technology seems to be useful. Germany has flying cars. The states needs to shut half their lights off just for a car charger.
Replying to the quote:"No car was involved"

Horse crap. His arm was caught. The tire went up his shoulder, and was stopped by his head as it received blunt force trauma. (It was like a chocked tire at that point.) The lower part of his arm was cut by ice on the road.
Replying to an excerpt from a quote:"If he was hit by a vehicle he would have bruises and most likely broken bones at the point of impact."

When I was a kid a realative accidentally backed up his car over my foot. I didn't have any broken bones. There has to be a lot of weight on the back tires to completely do damage like that. Normally bones would be broken. So many things go into that.
Replying to an excerpt from a quote:"There was actually zero bruising on the parts of his body that the Commonwealth tried to say was struck by her vehicle."

There was plenty of bruises on his body. The photos are available to the public. I can show you hundreds of other people also ran over similarly. But the state has not proven guilt. There is no evidence her tires did that to him. Just because he may have hit her light, doesn't mean her tires did that.
Replying to an excerpt of a quote:"I’m saying based on the physics of a possible pedestrian strike Officer John O’Keefe was not hit by a vehicle."

His eyelids show me that he hit the taillight. He was not attacked. The snow and ice would have helped an attacked eye. But being next to a tail pipe infected them. On the documentary when Alan Jackson was presented photos. His first reaction was that it was a car. (They showed the arm.) What courtroom politics changed his mind? In physics you have a tampered conclusion throwing off the original arithmetic. I don't believe the body just landed where it was found. I believe it was relocated for unknown reasons. (First aid barricading or God forbid something more negligent.)
Reply to the quote:"No. Nothing covered the rear of her car. It was on a roll back and the driver said he did a walk around before and after."

A driver should have seen a pedestrian with lights working. I don't think John was seen. I think the taillight was inoperable. (Based on autopsy evidence.)
Replying to an excerpt from a quote:"Karen’s taillight was intact the next morning and the tow truck driver stated it was intact when he dropped it off at the police station"

How would a towing company know that? The lights they use are independent. The towing flashers and everything would cover the other vehicle. Plus the lights would need ice scraping just to see the light clearly. It may have still looked intact. But it wasn’t. I seriously doubt if the towing company scrapped off ice to notice a broken light because the towing lights made the car lights unnecessary.
Replying to an excerpt of a quote:"The trauma to the head may have been from falling backwards but it wasn’t from hitting a taillight or vehicle."

He fell forwards, (\) and after hitting his head quickly went backwards.(<_) when he was being wedge he may have banged his head up and down trying to escape the car. Below is an example of someone being ran over. I want to advise that the content is very graphic and should only be viewed with caution and discretion.

LINK
Replying to the quote: "I cannot believe her lawyers allowed this footage to be filmed and aired right before the 2nd trial. I was, and still am convinced she did not murder him, but she is really coming off class A bitch. I get it, you’re fighting for your life, but damn, show a little empathy for someone other than yourself."

Lawyers should advise not to discuss ongoing cases. But her lawyers are expensive. And the documentary is helping her pay them. She was saying some incriminating details. Like when Jennifer was on the stand. Karen mentioned that Jennifer and her were the only ones there. That was some very interesting information.
Replying to the quote: "John O’Keefe’s Clothes was apparently wrapped up in butcher paper. You are getting really deep in this stuff."

The first trial didn't disqualify that evidence. I'm allowed to discuss it. You are really hiding a horse saying no car was involved. I'm trying to explain how he fell setting himself up for it. I like geometry.
Replying to an excerpt of a quote: "He [censored] someone off. That person attacked him, but didn't mean to kill him.

Did the attacker use ice skates? It was extremely slippery for any physical activity. And he was a police officer trained for attackers at the police academy. The 6 cups suggest that 6 people were present. That would seem more likely for killing one of America's finest.
Replying to ??:

The evidence keeps hinting at a car. Pork is in ethanol gasoline. And people have started a car with whiskey. He didn't get pork on his arm from a dog treat. If a dog treat shows up in a lab, so should his saliva.
It is my opinion the the blunt forced trauma was caused by a fall and hitting the taillight. Afterwards some car or cars wedged him as he was attempting to get up. Some of that hypothermia may have been mistaken for carbon monoxide. If he was laying by a tail pipe he would have inhaled significant amounts. But ethanol can also be in alcohol. And it also contains pork that would have been found on his arms. His cellphone behind his back shows me he was using it. And you can see his very last texts. It was like his last living words. The timeline would suggest he was knocked unconscious at around 12:40. I don't think he had his phone out for his girlfriend angry at him. So that 2:00 thing is possibly a made up time. All 6 of the other people appear to be withholding information to save their own possible incriminations.
Replying to a excerpt of a quote: "You can absolutely shatter the taillight, and it was likely done on surveillance."

I didn't see anything like that on surveillance. He was just walking behind the car looking at the damage. Nothing was in his hands afterwards. He would have needed a pitching arm motion just for the break. And it wasn't in his hands, so he would have had to catch all 50 pieces mid air before landing and place it in his pocket. All while keeping a straight face. The jurors can review anything they want. Maybe they can zoom in better.
Replying to :"The cops got some cups from a neighbor and and scoped up the blood then put the cups in the paper bag."

What would be the incentive of that? Detective Protor would not do that to his affiliates. They were all just drunk moving John's body after an accident. All 6 of them.
Well the vehicle was hit by him. It is all over his clothes. The car was under surveillance. You can't just shatter a light on surveillance and carry over 50 pieces in your pocket like the exotic defense is suggesting.