MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
keek said:
No body damage on JO'K below his face except his back of hands and arm right? Most people bruise easily if bang a part of themselves and vice versa, not even easily, just how the body is made. No body bruising/torso or legs, yet he was sent flying by the impact to his body. Just his head some believe? He would not of come of it looking as 'whole' head wise as he did.
Click to expand...
100%. Take a look at this video embedded in this article - about halfway through he shows his bruising.

Gordon Ramsay bruising
 
Moonstrawbs said:
Did they check for DNA? Wasn't his clothes improperly bagged up together? Has there not been an absolute disregard for proper procedures when collecting and storing evidence?
Click to expand...
The shirt was checked, as far as I know arm wounds were not. Shirt was subject to contamination prior to finally being bagged as evidence (in ambulance and hospital and when JO was first discovered by KR and co). Also heard no testimony on dog hair shedding propensities or how much hair likely to be left after an episode of biting, scratching. moo
 
Curiousobserver said:
I am with you- so far there is a mountain of evidence that she did kill him, and a lot of unsubstantiated theories how she didn't.

Here is a great example of excellent defense attorney 101: the judge is allowing an "expert" to testify that the wounds are consistent with a dog bite, which they absolutely are. She is preventing her from testifying they are inconsistent to a car accident. Why? Because technically they are consistent with anything that could scratch your arm which includes Dogs, cars, racoons, bushes, fences, Jedi's or anything you would like to make up. The defense would like you to think its a dog, and forget that all the other evidence points to a car. They don't have to ever be right to win.
Click to expand...
The reason the judge isn't allowing the expert to testify to whether or not the wounds are consistent with a car accident is because she isn't an expert on car accident wounds. She is, however, qualified as an expert on dog bite wounds. As mentioned, she literally wrote the book on the issue.

The prosecution is welcome to introduce a witness to rebut her testimony, or to offer an expert witness on car accident wounds.
 
Curiousobserver said:
Are we watching the same trial?
Her broken tail light
Her tail light pieces at the scene and on his shirt.
His DNA on her tail light
Click to expand...

The tail light was "barely cracked" according to multiple witnesses

The taillight pieces at the scene had no log or chain of evidence. More pieces in the bag than listed. A trooper that was impeached and likely planted evidence.

He was her boyfriend. Touch DNA on the tail light means that they knew each other. If his arm was scratched that deeply by the tail light, where was the blood - not touch DNA??? He got into the passenger side of her car on numerous occasions. He touched the car in multiple areas at multiple times. Did they test the other taillight?
 
Curiousobserver said:
I was an EMT for 10 years- I have seen lots of drag marks that look just like that

This is why expert testimony is crap, even mine.

If it was a dog, there should be DNA, there should be hair.
Click to expand...

They didn't test both shirts for dog DNA. Also, they just swabbed the shirt and didn't test it directly. They never indicated where they swabbed either. I have a very hard time with their "evidence".

Even the prosecution isn't claiming he was "dragged" by the car. In fact, they say hit and thrown and ripped by the broken tail light. The jury won't come to the same conclusion as you since the prosecution isn't even bringing that up as a theory or possibility. Making up a scenario is just like guessing that since she was there that night and angry that he didn't come, she must have killed him. Wait, he was dead before the anger for not coming home... Wait, she was pissed that he didn't come home and kept calling to find out why he wasn't home.... Wait, she thought he was out sleeping with someone else - so she doesn't believe he is dead...
 
Last edited:
Live updates:

  • 2:13 p.m. Stonebridge describes seeing a subarachnoid hemorrhage in O'Keefe's brain with no evidence of a ruptured aneurism.
  • 2:01 p.m. new witness is Renee Stonebridge, from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
  • 1:55 p.m. Testimony resumes and Guarino returns to the stand but is quickly dismissed
  • 12:50 p.m. Guarino says the "three clocks" issue is related to the phone's power log, not the GPS data.
  • 12:45 p.m. Lally begins his re-direct questioning by asking Guarino to list his certifications.
  • 12:40 p.m. Guarino acknowledges that they found no deleted phone calls on Read's phone. Phone also showed she called her parents that night, did no Google searches.
  • 12:30 p.m. Yannetti is showing this phone log which shows two calls from Jen McCabe to her sister. Log shows "answered" and "deleted". Guarino says he can explain why. Yannetti doesn't give him the chance.
  • 12:20 p.m. Yannetti asks if Guarino knows that iPhone apps can pull data from three different clocks. Guarino says yes but says he didn't research which clocks O'Keefe used.
  • 12:10 p.m. Yannetti is asking about the phone health app data that shows him going up/down three floors. Guarino says the data shows that happened at 12:22:14am. Yannetti says the data shows it could have over a time range.
  • 12 p.m. Yannetti says no one could have seen Read outside 34 Fairview Rd at 12:45am, including Jen McCabe. Guarino agrees, says Read connected to O'Keefe's home wifi at 12:36 a.m.
  • 11:50 a.m. Guarino says he didn't look at the phone's geo data and health data until April '23. Yannetti says that was AFTER the defense's expert. Richard Green, had produced an affidavit about that data.
  • 11:40 a.m. Yannetti points out that in his initial report Guarino wrote that Proctor recovered O'Keefe's phone "while on scene." Guarino says he later learned Proctor had gotten the phone while at Canton Police Dept.
  • 11:35 a.m. Jury returns. Guarino is back on the stand. Yannetti begins cross-examination by asking about his experience in computer forensics. He's trying to cast doubt on Guarino's ability to assess the "hos long to die in cold" search.
  • 11:30 a.m. After a recess, Assistant District Attorney Laura McLaughlin tells the judge prosecutors want to show jurors a google search for DUI attorneys that Read allegedly conducted at 1:27pm on the day O'Keefe died.
  • 10:15 a.m. Guarino says they determined where the phone was located at 12:25 a.m. within an area of three feet, says that area is 72 feet from the front door of the house.
  • 10:12 a.m. Guarino says he was able to map the route O'Keefe's phone took from the Waterfall bar to 34 Fairview Rd. Says they drove on Cedarcrest, went past Fairview Rd and made 3-point turn to come back to the intersection.
  • 10:07 a.m. Guarino says he and Proctor went to scene on Feb 8 and took measurements, including distance between where O'Keefe was found and the house.
  • 10:05 a.m. Guarino says the geo-location precision depends on the cell phone signal strength. Says the signal at 34 Fairview Rd is "not great."
  • 10 a.m. Guarino says they also found a Waze search on O'Keefe's phone for 34 Fairview Road, says it shows phone arrived at the address at 12:24 a.m. and stayed within a 3-feet area for the entire night.
  • 9:55 a.m. Guarino says he was also able to extract health data from O'Keefe's cell phone showing how many steps he took. But Guarino says the data is not always active. "Just waving it around could cause it to think you're moving," he says.
  • 9:50 a.m. Lally plays the eight voicemails. In some Read repeatedly swears at him. In one there's no audio. In the last one, from 6:08 a.m., we hear the pulse of the windshield wipers as 911 is called from the scene. Read is heard screaming in the background.
  • 9:40 a.m. Guarino says Read tried to call O'Keefe's phone more than 50 times after 12:30 a.m. on Jan 29th, says she left eight voicemails.
  • 9:37 a.m. Guarino reads text messages from Read to O'Keefe where she tells him she's going home, the kids are alone and she's in Mansfield. (She did not go to Mansfield at that time.)
  • 9:35 a.m. Guarino reads text messages between Read and Laura Sullivan. Lally notes that Read tells Sullivan O'Keefe was found at 5 a.m. (an hour earlier than when she arrived at the scene with McCabe and Roberts).
  • 9:30 a.m. The jury enters. Trooper Guarino returns to the stand. Prosecutor Adam Lally resumes his direct examination about Read's phone logs from Jan 28 and Jan 29.
  • 9:25 a.m. Judge says accident reconstructionist Daniel Wolfe will be allowed to testify about his findings but says she has reserves of his colleague Andrew Rentschler. She will rule on that at a later time.
  • 9:20 a.m. Judge rules defense witness Dr. Marie Russell will be allowed to testify. Says her testimony will be limited to whether marks on O'Keefe's arms are consistent with animal attack. Russell will not be able to testify about whether they are inconsistent with motor vehicle crash.
  • Follow posts from reporter David Bienick
www.wcvb.com

Karen Read murder trial: Profanity-laced voicemails played for jury

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 www.wcvb.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 465 (members: 170, guests: 295)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
295
Total visitors
465
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,129
Messages
18,249,930
Members
234,542
Latest member
QueenSleuth86
Back
Top