MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #12

[AugustWest]

Amen. I don't know how there could be two better witnesses. They have tons of expertise and no Chloe in this fight.

Both of those gentlemen absolutely cooked the prosecution's goose. Not that they needed to; the prosecution case was weak.

 

[geevee]

He just schooled lally on sideswipe, lol

He surely did. Gosh, I love these two experts, and the way AJ handled them, not getting into the physics weeds or making the info incomprehensible to the jurors, just the facts, ma'am. And very well done.

 

[arielilane]

@TedDanielnews

Breaking: Defense rests in Karen Read trial. Closings tomorrow. They each get one hour. Judge says deliberations tomorrow.


1:05 PM · Jun 24, 2024




@kirstenglavin

BREAKING: The defense rests in the Karen Read murder trial. Closing arguments will start Tuesday morning, 1 hour a piece. Then 12 jurors will begin deliberations.



1:09 PM · Jun 24, 2024

 

[Maat99]

How did thd CW shatter the headlight to cause the damage consistent with the damage on CR car? They hardly shot a cannon. Yet the damage is consistent with a glass hitting the tail light (different speed) . Just my rambling opinion , I believe KR is innocent, but this concerns me. MOO

I would be interested to know the speed of an object when thrown by Proctor..er.. a human.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Where was the judge questioning KR about whether or not she would testify? I see that in every other trial.

 

[mzmarymac]

@KristinaRex

BREAKING: The defense rests its case in the #KarenReadTrial. Witness testimony is finished. Next steps will be closing arguments, then jury instructions, jury deliberation, and a verdict when it's ready.

Closing arguments will be TOMORROW morning, Tuesday 6/25. Each side gets one hour each.

How will Lally sum up 6 weeks of testimony in an hour?

 

[Aquarian]

So they are not televising the arguments over jury instructions etc?

 

[mzmarymac]

Summary of today's testimony:

JOK wasn't hit by KR's car. Nor ANY car.
KR's car did not hit JOK. Nor ANYONE else.

 

[TIGER0822]

If they were paying attention to lally's witnesses they could have gotten a clue.

Ryan Nagel just said he may have talked to the “feds” in May 2023. That is the first time the federal investigation has been directly referenced and it comes from a Commonwealth witness.

Court video, updates: Key witness Colin Albert testifies in Karen Read murder trial

Read is accused of backing over her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe and leaving him to die in the snow in Canton.

www.boston25news.com

Uh oh!

 

[jepop]

How did thd CW shatter the headlight to cause the damage consistent with the damage on CR car? They hardly shot a cannon. Yet the damage is consistent with a glass hitting the tail light (different speed) . Just my rambling opinion , I believe KR is innocent, but this concerns me. MOO

The glass wasn't thrown by JO in front of 34 fairview in reality, that was a test the witness described. The witness did not conclude that a glass caused the damage to the tail light. He just concluded that the damage could not have been caused by impact with JO's right arm or any other part of JO's body. Considerable force would have been needed to cause the damage to the tail light that was apparent when it was photographed after being secured in police custody. Imo possibly hammer imo.

 

[louvillian08]

How did thd CW shatter the headlight to cause the damage consistent with the damage on CR car? They hardly shot a cannon. Yet the damage is consistent with a glass hitting the tail light (different speed) . Just my rambling opinion , I believe KR is innocent, but this concerns me. MOO

I think you might be conflating two different statements. He said the damage to the taillight on KR's car is similar to the damage in their tests when they fired a glass at the taillight at 37mph. He then says the injuries on JO's arm are not consistent with being hit by a car.

That's great for the defense. He's disputing the CW's theory AND providing a potential other explanation for the broken taillight and the glass evidence - the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just provide other, logical scenarios to explain XYZ

***I will add the caveat that I have no clue if 37mph is a reasonable speed for someone to throw a glass at. I have absolutely zero frame of reference lol. If it's not, that still helps the defense that a glass at a fairly higher speed than KR driving is what caused that damage.

 

[arielilane]

Live updates:

• 1:04 p.m. Rentschler dismissed, Judge calls a sidebar
• 1 p.m. Rentschler describes the difference in forces between a direct and side-swipe impact.
• 12:44 p.m. Cross-examination begins
• 12:42 p.m. Rentschler says a car hitting an arm would cause the body to spin but would likely not cause the body to be projected.
• 12:38 p.m. Rentscher says the injuries on O'Keefe's right arm extended over 12 inches and the taillight width was only about 6 inches.
• 12:33 p.m. Rentscher says an arm hit by a car travelling at 24mph would have caused fractures, bruises and other more significant injuries.
• 12:32 p.m. Rentschler says the head injuries could have been caused by being knocked the ground. Says any snow on the ground would have soften the blow.
• 12:31 p.m. "It's inconsistent for a number of reasons," Rentschler says about the possibility of a motor-vehicle collision.
• 12:28 p.m. Rentschler says injuries to O'Keefe's head are not consistent with being struck by a vehicle. Says in that case there would like be spine and other injuries.
• 12:29 p.m. Next defense witness: Andrew Rentschler, an biomechanics and accident reconstruction expert with ARCCA. (He's Wolfe's co-worker.)
• 12:25 p.m. Rentschler says in a collision involving a vehicle travelling 24 mph, you would expect to see fractures and other "significant injuries."
• 12:15 p.m. Next defense witness: Andrew Rentschler, an biomechanics and accident reconstruction expert with ARCCA. (He's Wolfe's co-worker.)
• 12:08 p.m. "Absolutely not," Wolfe says when asked by Jackson if the hair and the DNA evidence change his opinion about the nature of the collision.
• 12:05 p.m. Wolfe says he was aware that a hair was found on the car but not aware that hair matched O'Keefe's mitochondrial DNA to more than 99%.
• 12 p.m. Wolfe noted in his report that they would have expected to find O'Keefe's DNA on the car. Lally says his DNA was in fact found. Wolfe says he did not know that.
• 11:50 a.m. Wolfe says they put the items used in their testing were at a temperature of 29F. Lally asks if they accounted for wind gusts in their testing. Wolfe says wind wouldn't have been a factor.
• 11:42 a.m. "No, I would not expect the shoe to come off," Wolfe says of an impact to the arm of a pedestrian. But agrees that in a general sense, shoes can come off in pedestrian collisions.
• 11:37 a.m. Lally begins cross examination of Wolfe. Notes that the ARCCA team issued its report in Feb 2024 and that new info might have surfaced since.
• 11:10 a.m. Wolfe says under the conditions described by the prosecution, he would expect to see more damage to the vehicle.
• 11:05 a.m. Wolfe says a collision at 24mph would have resulted in 2.5 times more damage. Says he did not see that level of damage on Read's SUV.
• 10:58 a.m. Wolfe says they did not test the prosecution's theory in which the taillight was broken by O'Keefe's arm while holding the glass.
• 10:57 a.m. Wolfe says they did two tests: one with the glass flying at 31mph and the other at 37mph. Says the second test did damage to the taillight consistent with the damage to Read's taillight.
• 10:55 a.m. Wolfe says he and Rentschler did testing involving a drinking glass. Says they wanted to see if the glass was thrown at the taillight. They built an air cannon. "Yeah, it was pretty awesome," Wolfe says.
• 10:50 a.m. Wolfe says in pedestrian collisions, there is often damage to the bumper. He saw small scratches on the bumper but not enough to be consistent with a pedestrian impact.
• 1o:42 a.m. Wolfe says he focused on the damage to the SUV while Rentschler focused on O'Keefe's injuries. Says they consulted with each other throughout their investigation.
• 10:40 a.m. Defense attorney Alan Jackson points out that Wolfe was hired by "another agency". This agency is the Dept of Justice and the FBI. But the judge has ruled there can be no mention of the federal investigation before the jury.
• 10:30 a.m. Next defense witness: Daniel Wolfe, director of accident reconstruction at ARCCA.
• 10:25 a.m. Defense attorney Elizabeth Little begins re-direct questioning by handing Sheridan a picture of O'Keefe's knees.
• 10:22 a.m. Sheridan persists in his opinion, says he does not believe it's possible that this was a motor vehicle collision.
• 10:20 a.m. Lally points out that O'Keefe had bruising on his right hand, the same hand he was seen holding the cocktail glass at the bar. Sheridan says he doesn't remember hearing about pieces of cocktail glass found with O'Keefe's DNA.
• 10:15 a.m. "I asked about that, myself," Sheridan says about the DNA reports. But it sounds like he did not see those reports. Lally seems to be trying to indicate Sheridan was provided cherry-picked info.
• 10:10 a.m. Sheridan says he was not aware of photos of a bite mark caused by the Alberts' dog, Chloe. Says he didn't know about the plastic pieces found in O'Keefe's clothing, nor that O'Keefe's DNA was found on taillight.
• 10:04 a.m. Lally asks if it's normal to see animal attack injuries on one side of the body. Sheridan says he recalls a couple of cases where the injuries were limited to one part of the body.
• 10:02 a.m. Sheridan agrees that O'Keefe had no injuries to his left arm and left leg. Sheridan says he agrees with the finding of the medical examiner and the neuropathologist who testified for the prosecution.
• 10 a.m. Little concludes direct examination. Prosecutor Adam Lally begins cross examination of Sheridan.
• 9:55 a.m. "They can be. They could be," Sherdian says when asked if O'Keefe's injuries are consistent with a fight.
• 9:52 a.m. "If there's a fall involved here, it would be on a hard surface," Sherdian. "Grass is too soft," he says.
• 9:50 a.m. Sheridan says the injury to the back of O'Keefe's head was likely the cause of death. Noted extensive bruising, fracture that started at the point of impact, and brain contusions and bleeding.
• 9:45 a.m. Little demonstrates how the prosecution says O'Keefe was standing and asks if his injuries are consistent with being hit by a vehicle at 24 mph. He says no.
• 9:35 a.m. During sidebar, the judge is consulting a thick book at the bench. It seems she might be discussing a point of law with the attorneys.
• 9:32 a.m. "All of these marks are consistent with scratches marks," Sheridan says. Says the injury near the elbow is the most likely candidate for a bite mark.
• 9:30 a.m. Sheridan says his initial reaction is that these arms injuries are likely the result of a dog using its claws and possibly its teeth, but he says "not 100 percent sure."
• 9:27 a.m. Little re-asks the question. Sheridan says "if you mean be struck in that part of the arm," I would say no. "You would at least expect bruising."
• 9:23 a.m. Sheridan describes the injuries to O'Keefe's arms as "friction injuries", says they were inflicted before he died.
• 9:15 a.m. Sheridan is the former chief medical examiner of San Bernardino County in southern California. He's soft-spoken and defense attorney Elizabeth reminds him to keep his voice up so jurors can hear.
• 9:05 a.m. Next defense witness: Dr. Frank Sheridan, retired doctor with specialty in forensic pathology
• Day 29 of testimony. The prosecution rested on Fri. The defense called 3 witnesses. Today we might hear from 2 independent experts hired by the FBI as part of a fed investigation. They determined O'Keefe's injuries were likely not caused by vehicle strike.

Karen Read trial jurors to hear closing arguments on Tuesday morning

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer, by striking him with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank.

www.wcvb.com

 

[jepop]

How will Lally sum up 6 weeks of testimony in an hour?

Monotonously. Jmo

 

[TIGER0822]

Could FBI be the "outside agency" that hired ARCA? Why is name of agency being kept a secret?

Judges orders! Trying not to impress the jury.. my guess moo .

 

[geevee]

The glass wasn't thrown by JO in front of 34 fairview in reality, that was a test the witness described. The witness did not conclude that a glass caused the damage to the tail light. He just concluded that the damage could not have been caused by impact with JO's right arm or any other part of JO's body. Considerable force would have been needed to cause the damage to the tail light that was apparent when it was photographed after being secured in police custody. Imo possibly hammer imo.

Especially if you look at the reconstructed taillight, the abrasions on the lower center of the plastic, looks like a good smack or two of a hammer.

 

[mzmarymac]

Judges orders! Trying not to impress the jury.. my guess moo .

Unbelievable how simple facts can be excluded as prejuidicial???

 

[jepop]

I think you might be conflating two different statements. He said the damage to the taillight on KR's car is similar to the damage in their tests when they fired a glass at the taillight at 37mph. He then says the injuries on JO's arm are not consistent with being hit by a car.

That's great for the defense. He's disputing the CW's theory AND providing a potential other explanation for the broken taillight and the glass evidence - the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just provide other, logical scenarios to explain XYZ

***I will add the caveat that I have no clue if 37mph is a reasonable speed for someone to throw a glass at. I have absolutely zero frame of reference lol. If it's not, that still helps the defense that a glass at a fairly higher speed than KR driving is what caused that damage.

Thanks. Good explanation and think that's how I understood it but had difficulty articulating. Certainly I don't feel there is anything of concern to the defense from the testimony.

 

[pavlovsdaughter]

My expectations for Wolfe and Rentschler were high based on their voir dire, but holy hell their testimony today blew them out of the water. Incredible witnesses and brilliant guys obviously. CW is cooked imho.

 

[mzmarymac]

I know I've asked this before but don't recall an answer. Is there some kind of law, whether case law or statutory law that says that jurors cannot be shown on camera? Or is that just a case-by-case thing? Obviously, the people in the courtroom can see the jury as can all the parties in the case. Just wondering if they do this out of politeness, or if by the judge's orders or what the mechanism is. The reason I ask is that I wonder if say a juror is accidentally shown on camera, does it constitute some kind of mistrial mechanism, or anything like that?

 

[arielilane]

@TedDanielnews

Charging conference at 2:30


1:22 PM · Jun 24, 2024