MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[MerlinFalcon]

I'd love to ask you about the breeds you care for so competently but I'd be afraid of derailing the thread. Julie Nagle is unlikely to have your skills and experience, she also used to drive the daughters around and that is how the defense got past her denial of having been in the home..

She was running a script and she believed she was doing an excellent job 'defending the Alberts' even though she was testifying in a murder case . She was smug at times...it's an interesting testimony..

This is actually a good point without derailing the thread. If the dog is used to her she may not have issues. I believe Chloe's problems were dog on dog and if I remember correctly, was someone injured trying to break them up? Not sure. I also seem to think she was a police dog so her training would be different than a house pet. A dog like this would set up way too many red flags for me. The dogs I walk can't have a lot of issues. If I had to take care of a dog like Chloe i would keep it to backyard visits only and a fully secured, fenced yard. I would need to do multiple visits with the owner home ahead of visits with nobody home and that would include going in the house alone.

My feeling is this dog was very familiar with her.

MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Still... even with Lally's bungling... 8 of 12 jurors believe KR killed JO with her SUV.

Which means absolutely nothing in this case!
It was a fail for the prosecution to not have a unanimous outcome.
The prosecution could not prove what they set out to do, therefore 8 out of 12 means zero.
MOO.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Meanwhile, we have troop pauly testifying to his attempt to recreate the car hit. By placing a punching dummy behind the car. A dummy he says was about his height. He’s 5’6. JOK was 6’1 or 6’2.
I swear. I am NOT making this up.

And in some people’s eyes, fbi hired experts who used physics and math are equal, or less than, to trooper Paul’s “it just did” calculations.
In fact, some people in this group believe Paul has merit and his version has credibility.

Excellent points here Universecalling. It is odd IMO the perceived bias given to certain witnesses. And yet the same old ‘credibility belief’ when it sometimes comes to the prosecution or the state CW. And yet, much of the testimony and evidence in this case by the CW frankly causes one’s jaw to hit the floor IMO. And those two defense experts were actually hired on by the FBI / federal officials / internal affairs investigation IIUC? Just wonder what the jurors now think knowing who had hired them? Maybe they just thought they were ‘hired guns by the defense’ - since their actual involvement was clouded and shielded. Perhaps that is another issue for any future motion or filing considerations? IANAL.

Not sure why that difference exists in belief and seems so strong in this case. Although I reside in a different state, I am often perplexed at how long it takes state officials to have a necessary road repair, pothole, or collapsing storm drain repaired. So I don’t always assume instant credibility or believability.

It is bewildering. And IMO one of the defense best and most credible experts was Dr. Sheridan, IIRC the forensic pathologist. IMO much of what he testified was much more believable and credible than several others combined called by the CW. MOO

 

[Universecalling]

Those were not the best minds.

1/3 of low speed crashes with pedestrians result in severe injuries.

These guys testified for free so that every defense attorney in America would know their company's name. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

They work with national sport organizations on reducing the risk of injury.
I’m pretty sure developing a solution for the NHL, that’s been implemented across the Northern America to reduce serious injuries, makes you a highly credible source. And an asset to many organizations. In this case, the DOJ.

They’re not laughing all the way to the bank bc of KR.

They’ve been to the bank and back way before KR. And then some.

 

[Universecalling]

I don't think that's true. I thought they explicitly said they just looked at pictures. They didn't reconstruct the scene. They didn't even go to the scene. They never saw the vehicle in person. I know they said they did not consider information re: DNA or vehicle residue.

Sure, they did use their knowledge to reach a conclusion. I don't doubt their expertise in their fields. On a daily basis, I work with experts who are often wrong (for all the right reasons) about things. This is certainly a weakness in the CW's case and I would expect they will need to present a much clearer and confident picture of the incident to secure a conviction in the next trial.

Still... even with Lally's bungling... 8 of 12 jurors believe KR killed JO with her SUV.

They built a CANNON!!!

 

[MyJoey]

Excellent points here Universecalling. It is odd IMO the perceived bias given to certain witnesses. And yet the same old ‘credibility belief’ when it sometimes comes to the prosecution or the state CW. And yet, much of the testimony and evidence in this case by the CW frankly causes one’s jaw to hit the floor IMO. And those two defense experts were actually hired on by the FBI / federal officials / internal affairs investigation IIUC? Just wonder what the jurors now think knowing who had hired them? Maybe they just thought they were ‘hired guns by the defense’ - since their actual involvement was clouded and shielded. Perhaps that is another issue for any future motion or filing considerations? IANAL.

Not sure why that difference exists in belief and seems so strong in this case. Although I reside in a different state, I am often perplexed at how long it takes state officials to have a necessary road repair, pothole, or collapsing storm drain repaired. So I don’t always assume instant credibility or believability.

It is bewildering. And IMO one of the defense best and most credible experts was Dr. Sheridan, IIRC the forensic pathologist. IMO much of what he testified was much more believable and credible than several others combined called by the CW. MOO

Sorry didn’t mean to high jack your conversation. I was just thinking about the abrasions last night and I think what puzzles me is they were mostly all in the same direction. If it was a dog attack I would expect to see them in a more downward / scattered direction. Like the upper arm ones especially. Plus they all seem consistent in depth, like scraps. If an animal got to him it would seem he was laying down and something was scratching, clawing at his arm. MOO

 

[fluffypaste]

I don't think that's true. I thought they explicitly said they just looked at pictures. They didn't reconstruct the scene. They didn't even go to the scene. They never saw the vehicle in person. I know they said they did not consider information re: DNA or vehicle residue.

Sure, they did use their knowledge to reach a conclusion. I don't doubt their expertise in their fields. On a daily basis, I work with experts who are often wrong (for all the right reasons) about things. This is certainly a weakness in the CW's case and I would expect they will need to present a much clearer and confident picture of the incident to secure a conviction in the next trial.

Still... even with Lally's bungling... 8 of 12 jurors believe KR killed JO with her SUV.

8 out of 12 is actually really bad if you're trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

But more importantly, according to the same document, 12 out of 12 jurors believed KR to be Not Guilty of murder, and 12 out of 12 jurors also believed KR was Not Guilty of fleeing from an accident.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Which means absolutely nothing in this case!
It was a fail for the prosecution to not have a unanimous outcome.
The prosecution could not prove what they set out to do, therefore 8 out of 12 means zero.
MOO.

The goal posts get moved around a lot.

 

[Universecalling]

8 out of 12 is actually really bad if you're trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

But more importantly, according to the same document, 12 out of 12 jurors believed KR to Not Guilty of Murder, and 12 out of 12 jurors also believed KR was Not Guilty of fleeing from an accident.

I’m still not convinced 8 yes meant 8 for guilty.
The wording of that paragraph makes it seem (to me, ESL here) like it was 8 yes to acquit.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

8 out of 12 is actually really bad if you're trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

But more importantly, according to the same document, 12 out of 12 jurors believed KR to Not Guilty of Murder, and 12 out of 12 jurors also believed KR was Not Guilty of fleeing from an accident.

And who is to say they didn't vote for manslaughter to convict her of a DUI? Those charges should have been separated.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I still think the key to figuring out what happened to JO is to compare the testimony of the people that were in that house. And to interview them again and again till one breaks. The whole "how many cars were there" does not match with Ryan and friends that went to pick up JN.


I think none of them looked out the windows, but all tried to agree that KR's SUV was there and moved 2-3 times. But, could not keep their stories straight. They forgot about the jeep. I think JM was ringlead of the group.

Yes ShadyLady!…. and would only possibly add - although not IIUC admissible in court - have them undergo a polygraph or voice stress analysis test perhaps. (While some contend the latter might be less useful.) Would also be interesting to see how many would submit to such testing. IANAL. MOO

 

[adot0902]

DBM

 

[Universecalling]

Sorry didn’t mean to high jack your conversation. I was just thinking about the abrasions last night and I think what puzzles me is they were mostly all in the same direction. If it was a dog attack I would expect to see them in a more downward / scattered direction. Like the upper arm ones especially. Plus they all seem consistent in depth, like scraps. If an animal got to him it would seem he was laying down and something was scratching, clawing at his arm. MOO

That tail light would have had to shatter in perfect threes on each side. Kind of like claws are lined up. Or teeth. Neither can be compromised while in action. Tail light can compromise after it breaks. Therefore, making it highly improbable that it shattered in such symbiotic pattern to make those cuts. Also keep in mind, the arm didn’t stay stationary.

 

[thebedbug]

I'm not trying to be rude, but do you live in the US? Do you know how our judicial system works. I'm very confused how you know the majority of the jury believed KR killed JO with her SUV. That is such an absolutely asinine assumption I must know how you got there.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I can only assume you haven't been keeping up with the case over the last few days. Please check the filings by the defense, in particular Yannetti's filings from yesterday. It will have all the answers.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I can only assume you haven't been keeping up with the case over the last few days. Please check the filings by the defense, in particular Yannetti's filings from yesterday. It will have all the answers.

Yeah, it did, it showed 12-0 NOT GUILTY FOR MURDER. Kind of hilarious how that keeps conveniently getting ignored in the scorekeeping. JMO

 

[adot0902]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I can only assume you haven't been keeping up with the case over the last few days. Please check the filings by the defense, in particular Yannetti's filings from yesterday. It will have all the answers.

Have a nice day. I think we are definitely watching different Karen Read trials, so that's why we are so confused with each other.

 

[cocomod]

Those were not the best minds.

1/3 of low speed crashes with pedestrians result in severe injuries.

These guys testified for free so that every defense attorney in America would know their company's name. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

You know that they didn't offer their report to the defense, right? The FBI offered their report. They of course agreed to testify, but that doesn't mean they are only in it for the money.

Yes, pedestrian/vehicle accidents do result in severe injury. However, he had ZERO bruises! Even the CW doesn't say the vehicle caused the head injury. So, if you declared that as your reason to find her guilty if you were on a jury, your bias should throw you off the jury. On a jury, you are to only discuss the evidence brought in to the court by the CW and the defense. The CW never asserted or proved that his head injury was caused by the vehicle.

 

[Universecalling]

You know that they didn't offer their report to the defense, right? The FBI offered their report. They of course agreed to testify, but that doesn't mean they are only in it for the money.

Yes, pedestrian/vehicle accidents do result in severe injury. However, he had ZERO bruises! Even the CW doesn't say the vehicle caused the head injury. So, if you declared that as your reason to find her guilty if you were on a jury, your bias should throw you off the jury. On a jury, you are to only discuss the evidence brought in to the court by the CW and the defense. The CW never asserted or proved that his head injury was caused by the vehicle.

Gordon Ramsey’s injury after being hit by a vehicle.

 

[thebedbug]

Have a nice day. I think we are definitely watching different Karen Read trials, so that's why we are so confused with each other.

This wasn't part of the trial and, as far as I know, there is only one Karen Read trial.

It was the defense's filing from yesterday that surfaced the 8-4 vote. That the defense made this filing is not disputed.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

This wasn't part of the trial. It was the defense's filing from yesterday that surfaced the 8-4 vote. That the defense made this filing is not disputed.

So you admit then it is not in dispute that KR was not guilty of murder?