A Mother Knows: Peggy O'Keefe's Instincts Were Spot On

A few take-aways from various interviews. I had an Italian mother-in-law, and she was very much as Peggy O'Keefe is described.

For starters, she was a magnificent cook. This was in New York. My mother-in-law shopped for most of her ingredients on Arthur Avenue in the Bronx. If you know New York, you know Arthur Avenue. Best Italian food I've ever had. And my mother-in-law kept us all very well nourished. I still dream about her cooking.

She was also fiercely devoted to and protective of her children. And she also just let herself into our house all the time.

I do relate to Karen's surprise with this, as I too had to adjust to the in-laws just walking in all the time. It was just how my ex's family engaged. It was a bit of a culture shock for me and very different from how my family engaged.

It makes sense that mothers would be connected to their children this way. A mother carries a child inside of her for 9 months, and that child is literally a part of her. It's a connection like no other. So that Peggy senses something is very off with Read the morning of the murder, is not surprising to me.

All mothers seem to have this sixth sense about the well being of their children, but Italian mothers, in my experience have this in spades.

In the Voss full interview Karen Read discusses some of the above. Her discomfort with both John O'Keefe's parents just showing up unannounced-that Read feels she has to accommodate O'Keefe's entire family. But in addition Read speaks at length about the morning of the murder and she's particularly upset, it seems with Peggy's immediate suspicion of her. It's very upsetting for Read. What Read fails to mention, is something we hear about from Peggy O'Keefe when she takes the stand, and this is that when Peggy asked Karen about what happened, Karen told Peggy that she left John at 34 Fairview. And Peggy's response was: "You just left him there?"

So is it any wonder that Peggy would be looking at Read askance. But it's Read's response that, again, like so many things Read does, SCREAMS, albeit silently, a consciousness of guilt.

There is some dispute as to whether Peggy actually said, "It looks like he was hit by a car." But regardless, what is very odd is that Karen Read NEVER pulls anyone aside, not Peggy, not Paul O'Keefe, not her parents, not David Yannetti, apparently and says to them--"I saw John enter 34 Fairview. How did he end up on the lawn?"

AND even more surprising is no one who has interviewed Karen Read ever questioned this. Gretchen Voss doesn't even ask a follow up question about it.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Karen Read is innocent. I get that perhaps in a dazed, post-drunken state, she may not remember everything clearly from earlier that morning-but at some point she has to recall watching O'Keefe enter 34 Fairview-as she later claims she did.

If Read either didn't hit O'Keefe or didn't know she hit him, how is she not immediately telling anyone who would listen, that O'Keefe must have tried to walk home; or something like this. I don't think anyone's first thought would be that O'Keefe had an issue with someone in the Albert home--but Read should be absolutely agreeing with Peggy--and saying: "Yes! John must have been hit by a car or snow plow. I saw him go inside that home."

If Read were innocent she would never have been so docile when arrested. If you know that you didn't hit someone and you saw them enter a house and the next time you see them they are supine on the front lawn of the home where you last saw them-you aren't looking for a snow plow driver to prove there was no body on the lawn.

You are looking for a snow plow driver, because you believe they are the person who killed your boyfriend!

AND NO ONE, not ONE journalist questioned this. NOT ONE. How do you hear this story and not ask about this?

A mother knows. It seems Peggy knew instantly that Read killed her son. And rather than assure John's mother that she absolutely didn't harm her son, Read scurries away-with the murder weapon (as has been pointed out by friends of John's).

Right there. Just this moment-how anyone didn't understand that this was a consciousness of guilt moment, is beyond me. The investigators knew. But how did journalists, seasoned journalists, not even ask a question about this. And the attorneys in the room? Legal professionals trained to examine this type of thing with a hyper-critical mind-are we to believe they believed this?

Much of this has been said before in one way or another-but it is interesting to read the Voss interview and observe all these skilled, seasoned professionals trained to question everything, just let this little moment slip by as if it meant nothing at all.