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

[Aquarian]

Multiple skull fractures did not evolve slowly or in any other fashion because that is impossible. The skull houses the brain and there is minimal expansion movement.

It’s the underlying brain and ventricles etc which kill. A friend fell off a skate board, admitted to icu with skull fracture. Kept him several days to eval for a bleed. Thankfully it did not happen.

 

[jepop]

They did. I remember cos I wasn't sure what his body temp was, thought 80something but defense clarified 80F

But did they point out that it meant body could not have been outside for that long? Did ME admit this or did Dr Sheridan say it on direct? That's the bit I don't remember

 

[jepop]

Yes… that is what I said

wow, sorry. posting so much am losing track of who I'm replying to!

 

[fluffypaste]

I think it may have been an error for the defense to try so hard to argue that she never said "I hit him." Because I do think she probably said that or something quite similar to that.

But she was in a state of extreme emotional disturbance. She was confused and distraught. She wasn't confessing; she was just trying to figure out what happened, albeit in a hysterical manner.

 

[Yemelyan]

I often wish jury members could ask a witness questions for clarification while that witness is still on the stand instead of sending them to deliberate on some piece of evidence that they may not understand. This is especially true of forensic, scientific, and digital types of evidence. Witnesses come in all shapes and forms; some extremely believable, some not so much, some very clear and precise, some not so much. Expert witnesses in particular can provide very long, intricate statements to bolster their theories, some of which go right over the head of some jury members. Some of these tedious statements can include extremely important information, but what good is their testimony if it is not understood by the jury?
Edit to add that I realize it is the job of both the defense and prosecution attorneys to try and extract the needed information from a witness, but sometimes you still have questions.

I watched a televised trial in Arizona where this was allowed. At the end of each witness testimony a court officer collected written questions from the jury. The judge read them and then conferred with attorneys. Sometimes one or the other lawyer would not agree for the question to be asked, or asked with that particular wording. But most of the time the judge read them out and the witness attempted to answer. They were each instructed that if they didn't know the answer, to just say that. I will say that my impression was that most of the time the questions were a bit ridiculous and not used at all for the type of clarification that seemed useful. (There was a lot of cell site/gps/geolocation evidence in this particular trial).

 

[Curiousobserver]

But did they point out that it meant body could not have been outside for that long? Did ME admit this or did Dr Sheridan say it on direct? That's the bit I don't remember

There is no way to calculate how long he was out in the cold from his body temperature.

Evaluation of Postmortem Changes - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

Postmortem changes constitute the natural progression of the body’s decomposition after death, beginning at the cellular level. The process involves complex cellular and biological phenomena. The changes that commence immediately after death continue to occur over a prolonged period at different...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Algor mortis is the postmortem cooling of body temperature until it equalizes the temperature of the surrounding environment. The rate of cooling lags initially, then becomes linear before slowing down again as it approaches the ambient temperature, giving a sigmoid-shaped curve when graphically represented. The ambient temperature is a critical factor that affects the rate of postmortem cooling of the body. Postmortem cooling of the body continues for about 6 hours after death, and the rate of cooling is primarily dependent on the difference in body temperature at the time of death and the temperature of its surroundings. The rate of cooling will hasten in a body immersed in water, a naked body, and a thin body. The rate of cooling will be slower in a well-clothed body and an obese body. A prudent forensic pathologist will not estimate the time since death based on the single criterion of algor mortis. The rate of postmortem cooling of the body is affected by multiple variables.

 

[fluffypaste]

I watched a televised trial in Arizona where this was allowed. At the end of each witness testimony a court officer collected written questions from the jury. The judge read them and then conferred with attorneys. Sometimes one or the other lawyer would not agree for the question to be asked, or asked with that particular wording. But most of the time the judge read them out and the witness attempted to answer. They were each instructed that if they didn't know the answer, to just say that. I will say that my impression was that most of the time the questions were a bit ridiculous and not used at all for the type of clarification that seemed useful. (There was a lot of cell site/gps/geolocation evidence in this particular trial).

I remember that from the Jodi Arias trial. However, I think that may be something that is unique to Arizona.

 

[turaj]

I watched a televised trial in Arizona where this was allowed. At the end of each witness testimony a court officer collected written questions from the jury. The judge read them and then conferred with attorneys. Sometimes one or the other lawyer would not agree for the question to be asked, or asked with that particular wording. But most of the time the judge read them out and the witness attempted to answer. They were each instructed that if they didn't know the answer, to just say that. I will say that my impression was that most of the time the questions were a bit ridiculous and not used at all for the type of clarification that seemed useful. (There was a lot of cell site/gps/geolocation evidence in this particular trial).

i love questions allowed by jury...I think lawyers do too as it gives much insight on a witness by witness basis how they are thinking. You can tell a lot from the questions.

 

[Yemelyan]

I remember that from the Jodi Arias trial. However, I think that may be something that is unique to Arizona.

The case where I saw it was this one: Murder of Sasha Krause: Judge sentences airman to life in prison for kidnapping and killing Mennonite woman

This was a very informative trial to watch, on many levels.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

I think it may have been an error for the defense to try so hard to argue that she never said "I hit him." Because I do think she probably said that or something quite similar to that.

But she was in a state of extreme emotional disturbance. She was confused and distraught. She wasn't confessing; she was just trying to figure out what happened, albeit in a hysterical manner.

I get what you're saying. I guess in a situation like this, where KR was instantly disliked, for no other reason than being an outsider, and for being a woman? (proctor...), then maybe they didn't want to add more fuel to that fire. The CW have really went in on HER, instead of actual solid evidence with better witnesses, imo. Not only was Proctor calling her disgusting things, he also sexualised her. Just look at how many comments there have been on her appearance. I remember on here someone said because she was whispering to AJ, she was FLIRTING. Just ridiculous and has been a common theme throughout.

 

[jepop]

The people that feel like KR is guilty will keep feeling that way if this jury is hung. Or if there is a NG result. These people will hold onto their cloud of suspicion. JMOO

Yeah. I suspect that would be the case for the majority who feel that way. An ng verdict wouldn't alter that. Jmo and speculation. I'm sure polls can, and probably will, be coducted post verdict

 

[OldCop]

I watched a televised trial in Arizona where this was allowed. At the end of each witness testimony a court officer collected written questions from the jury. The judge read them and then conferred with attorneys. Sometimes one or the other lawyer would not agree for the question to be asked, or asked with that particular wording. But most of the time the judge read them out and the witness attempted to answer. They were each instructed that if they didn't know the answer, to just say that. I will say that my impression was that most of the time the questions were a bit ridiculous and not used at all for the type of clarification that seemed useful. (There was a lot of cell site/gps/geolocation evidence in this particular trial).

Sometimes testimony bounces around in a juror’s head like triangulation off a cell tower.

 

[nodamselindistress]

It is not unique to AZ, I have also seen it in some FL trials.

 

[TTF14]

Thanks, @TTF14 I did not realize that. In cases where it is allowed, how does that work? Can they raise their hand/send a note while the witness is still on the stand? I worked for a major city PD and that was not allowed in our state. I wish it was!

In the Florida case (Tallahassee), after the State and defense were finished with a witness, the judge would say, "do any jurors have any questions?" The jurors must have had slips of paper just for this because they submitted them that way, handed them to the bailiff, who handed the questions to the judge. The judge didn't read them all aloud, only the ones the judge approved as being legal/within the bounds of the law to ask in a trial. Always really interesting to see what the jurors wanted to know!

IMO

 

[ch_13]

The people that feel like KR is guilty will keep feeling that way if this jury is hung. Or if there is a NG result. These people will hold onto their cloud of suspicion. JMOO

I think in the long run there may be consensus especially if the federal investigation results in any charges of evidence tampering. But even if not, eventually some people may start talking, some new evidence may come to light, there'll be books written that will look at what happened with fresh eyes, and so on.

OJ's verdict was controversial for a long time, but today I'd say there's general agreement that he was the killer.

 

[james1962]

I agree with that. There was nothing inappropriate done in front of the jury. Judicially, she was fine. However, the cameras were rolling. Judge, in her momentary lack of reasoning, forgot that. Under such, she herself just moments before scolding KR for laughing, had giggled/chuckled out loud at Yannetti's comment about him not ever seeing a Verdict form like that before. Then she does her snarling take-down of KR for laughing. Netflix was watching.....We all were watching.

She needed to act quickly to redeem herself, and she did. But we saw it.

I do wonder who will portray her in the series.

Jeanine Pirro

 

[turaj]

is it 1-2 CST that they can't come back with anything as people are away at lunch? Almost that now.

 

[TIGER0822]

This beats if the glove don’t fits!

Does any of that Lilly razzle dazzle change your opinion ?
FBI hired Ilinvestigator ‘absolutely not’

 

[turaj]

I think in the long run there may be consensus especially if the federal investigation results in any charges of evidence tampering. But even if not, eventually some people may start talking, some new evidence may come to light, there'll be books written that will look at what happened with fresh eyes, and so on.

OJ's verdict was controversial for a long time, but today I'd say there's general agreement that he was the killer.

I think for KR a hung would be a real bad outcome. Does she have to stay around MA if she is found NG...ie for any of the other investigations that she would be needed for? If hung she would have to stay until CW decides if they will try again. Does she face any civil suits...not well versed on anything other than this courtroom case.

 

[TTF14]

is it 1-2 CST that they can't come back with anything as people are away at lunch? Almost that now.

1-2 EST.