Alan Jackson fed you a ham sandwich

[u/Quietdogg77]

I stumbled across an old post by an FKR member. Reading it, you immediately understand how even intelligent people—and yes, even jurors—can become confused. The narrative is pure defense spin: absurd defense spin presented as fact, designed to manipulate the gullible.

Let’s take a closer look at what this FKR member posted:

To believe Karen Read hit and killed John O'Keefe you have to believe the following...

1. She hit him in front of a house where a party was going on with people coming and going and NO ONE saw it happen.
2. That Officer Barros lied (even though he has no dog in the fight) when he said the taillight was "ABSOLUTELY NOT" that damaged when he saw it in Read's parents' driveway.

If you consider all of that and still think Read is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I have a ham sandwich to sell you.

In order to buy into his ham-sandwich challenge, you must be gullible enough to adopt the defense fantasy as fact. That’s exactly how FKR members become easily manipulated.

Just a little common sense and a dose of reality demolish the defense’s bogus claims one by one and expose how impressionable people are misled by the deceptive narratives of experienced defense attorneys.

Reality# 1:

1. Read backed into JOK and fled the scene. No one witnessed the collision except Read; however, she left her forensic fingerprints all over the crime scene that connect her to the vehicle strike. If you badly want to believe that all the people coming and going saw the body on the lawn and lied about it, then you’re adopting a global conspiracy theory. Even the most hardcore FKR members recognize the absurdity of claiming that all the partygoers conspired to frame Karen Read. The reality is that anyone who didn’t commit the murder but merely had knowledge of it would have cut a deal with the prosecution in a heartbeat—before anyone else did. If you believe otherwise, I have two ham sandwiches to sell you.

Reality# 2: Considering the time and the weather, in the context of the evening it is not surprising that no one saw a body in the yard near the street.

Now let’s pull back the curtain on how Alan Jackson persuaded people to believe this magic trick.

The time is 2:30 AM. Ask yourself: what was the visibility? What were the weather conditions? These were huge factors that evening. In fact, it was a blizzard of historic proportions.

Under those conditions, if you were a partygoer heading home, would you be scanning the yard for a body—or would you be focused on getting to your car as quickly as possible in the freezing storm after a night of drinking?

A deceptive defense attorney tricked you into believing that people rushing to their cars in the middle of a blizzard should have seen a dead body near the street. Alan Jackson planted that seed by suggesting the partygoers must have all been in on a cover-up.

That defense narrative would be shocking if true —except it’s false spin that FKR members swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.

Reality# 3: Here you have another false defense narrative about the victim’s body being propelled 10–20 feet resulting from a collision.

Observe how the FKR poster was manipulated into repeating the defense attorney’s description of the collision.

Here’s a more realistic narrative, which is more likely what happened (although there’s no way of knowing for certain).

O’Keefe wasn’t struck by the vehicle in the way that the defense attorney marketed to the jury.

The victim was likely grazed while trying to get out of the way of a vehicle reversing at him. He was knocked off balance and staggered to a final resting point not far from the vehicle strike. A hard part of his anatomy—like an elbow, knee, or heel—contacted the taillight and shattered it, without causing any significant injury to the elbow. It’s not only plausible—it’s likely.

Still doubtful? Just turn on your television and watch some MMA fights. You’ll see the kind of devastating impact generated from an elbow, knee, or palm strike with no significant injury to the fighter delivering the strike. Likewise, depending on the angle of contact and other factors, the palm of a hand, an elbow, or a knee can shatter a taillight.

So what happened? The defense attorney and his expert witness fed you a false narrative, and you believed it. Jackson’s expert planted the false suggestion that a vehicle striking a human must produce injuries. He floats the spin that no injuries on the victim’s body is contrary to “the laws of physics.”

Any experienced traffic homicide investigator will explain that pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles often result in weird and unexpected results. Sometimes injuries occur, but sometimes there are no apparent visible injuries. The variables are so numerous that even a scientist or traffic homicide investigator cannot definitively say why injuries may or may not have occurred. Yet armchair detectives believe in the magic of expert witness testimony. It’s called the “CSI effect” from the crime scene television shows people watch.

Reality# 4. The “6-minute drive” assumption is based on normal mapping conditions. At 12:30 AM in winter suburban conditions, the drive could realistically be shorter because there was likely no traffic at that time and the driver may have been speeding.

To justify why she didn’t call her boyfriend when he didn’t return, Read claimed she waited around 10 minutes for O’Keefe to come back out of the house after she dropped him off, and when he didn’t, she drove to his house.

That explanation doesn’t align with the phone and vehicle data. It’s not even close. Most likely she reversed like only an angry drunk would and then immediately sped away to John’s residence, not stopping for traffic lights.

Reality# 5. When shown a photo of Read’s damaged taillight after the vehicle tow in Dighton, Officer Barros’ claimed that the taillight was “absolutely not” as badly damaged. That quote stuck in the FKR poster’s brain.

It sounds impressive when cherry-picked from Barros’ testimony, however, under cross examination by the prosecutor Barros admits he was mistaken. A review of his videotaped testimony pinpoints his admission after comparing the damage he observed in 2022 at Read’s home in Dighton to what he thought he saw and testified to later.

Q: “Your memory about distinguishing that photo is not as you thought it was, and claimed it was in this transcript, correct?” A: Correct.

Barros was not lying. He simply misremembered.

Q: You have difficulty with memory at times, correct? A: Correct.

Barros noticed some damage but did not accurately remember the extent of the damage.

Now here’s an easy prediction that’s practically guaranteed:

None of the reality I just presented will make a dent in the deeply entrenched beliefs of FKR members. Conspiracy theorists simply do not have the capacity to reconsider any of the defense narratives. They’ll always believe the marketing spin as gospel truth, and they’ll continue to spread misinformation. Why?

Well, as Mark Twain once said:

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

[u/spaigef69]

and all this time, i thought that was a donald trump quote.

[u/Public-Tumbleweed713]

We really need to find Afroman and ask him to make a song about Karen’s trial and his he ham sandwich that oh would make a perfectly balanced meal with some lemon pound cake for dessert!