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

[ch_13]

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.

The report of the ARCCA experts is so damaging to the prosecution's case, I guess the only way to discount it is to assume bad faith and or outright deception. Which to me seems like quite the conspiracy in itself.

I should also mention that it was never stated that the ARCCA experts were testifying "for free". What was stated was that they weren't being paid by the defense. It's likely that they have a fixed-rate consulting contract with the Feds (a very standard arrangement for professional service firms) and their testimony in front of the jury was included as a part of that contract.

 

[adot0902]

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.

I know it wasn't part of the trial. You also cherry picked the one very small part that came out that went with your theory and ignored the other two HUGE pieces that 12 out of 12 jurors voted not guilty of murder. The cherry picking is getting to be too much.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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.

Thank you for this insight. Just wanted to observe that the MA CW also didn’t reconstruct the scene or offer any reconstruction as to how their supposed ‘side-swipe’ theory IIRC had occured. MOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I know it wasn't part of the trial. You also cherry picked the one very small part that came out that went with your theory and ignored the other two HUGE pieces that 12 out of 12 jurors voted not guilty of murder. The cherry picking is getting to be too much.

Hey, you heard it from OP, document is not in dispute so KR is not guilty.

 

[Universecalling]

I know it wasn't part of the trial. You also cherry picked the one very small part that came out that went with your theory and ignored the other two HUGE pieces that 12 out of 12 jurors voted not guilty of murder. The cherry picking is getting to be too much.

Kind of like 27 cops finding microscopic pieces of plastic first, and then as weeks go by the additional pieces that revealed themselves get bigger and bigger and bigger as days pass?

 

[thebedbug]

I know it wasn't part of the trial. You also cherry picked the one very small part that came out that went with your theory and ignored the other two HUGE pieces that 12 out of 12 jurors voted not guilty of murder. The cherry picking is getting to be too much.

No. I didn't cherry pick anything.

The not guilty votes on the other two charges have to do with intent. It's very clear the jury did not believe the CW proved KR had intent.

The other charge addresses the specific case of... did KR kill JO with her SUV while drunk? 8 of the 12 jurors said... yes.

 

[Universecalling]

Thank you for this insight. Just wanted to observe that the MA CW also didn’t reconstruct the scene or offer any reconstruction as to how their supposed ‘side-swipe’ theory IIRC had occured. MOO

That’s actually not true, Sherlock. Trooper Paul put a 5’6 manikin behind the car. He also drove it in reverse in canton pd parking lot.
He then looked at key cycles, proudly disclosing he remembered to count his own operated key cycles (didn’t count the ones getting the car on and off the tow truck, but that’s a ok). He also spent time looking at the photos of the crime scene and stuff.

I just want us to keep being factual.

 

[keek]

I obviously disagree with your assessment of these professionals here. So you're stating they were hired by a federal agency to do their tests without knowing the purpose or any details, then provided a report, went to court and swore an oath merely to get media coverage, but lied????
I
MOO.

Slander comes to mind from ...someone.

 

[iamshadow21]

They built a CANNON!!!

Making us all reconsider our career life choices.

 

[kittythehare]

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

I'd go full Reid technique on that lot, for days on end, at that..

 

[cocomod]

Thank you for this insight. Just wanted to observe that the MA CW also didn’t reconstruct the scene or offer any reconstruction as to how their supposed ‘side-swipe’ theory IIRC had occured. MOO

Exactly! And, case in point, it was the CW's responsibility to PROVE their case. The defense only needs to cause reasonable doubt - which they did

 

[Universecalling]

Making us all reconsider our career life choices.

I paused and then rewound to hear that part again. And thought-wow, what a cool job. Imagine going to work thinking of all the ways to just construct the thing, let alone test it. Like an adult version of an 8yo with a heap of legos.

 

[Trailbum74]

not sure what the practice is in MA, but sometimes the plow trucks pre-salt to make the removal easier.

Most of my family is in Vermont and my brother ran a plow for our town. My aunt owns/operates a rock salt business in Barre, MA. For those from regions without snow, towns and cities, especially before a known major storm, send plow trucks out to either salt the roads or spray a salt brine solution to prevent icing of the roads beforehand so people can still travel (if they must) and the plows have an easier time plowing snow off the roads.

Plows run multiple passes throughout a storm as precautions. In my hometown, with a tiny public works budget, the plows will run as soon as the snow begins to stick and accumulate. They don’t know exactly how much snow will fall, but the more they clear earlier on, the less the public is at risk or inconvenienced while traveling.

**As an aside, in the northeast, we call big storms “Nor’easters,” not “blizzards.” Just a small vent because that has chapped my backside this entire time. We, New Englanders, KNOW how to drive in that kind of winter weather, and those few inches overnight being called a “blizzard” had me laughing out of sheer appall. Obviously, my own opinion.

 

[kittythehare]

That’s actually not true, Sherlock. Trooper Paul put a 5’6 manikin behind the car. He also drove it in reverse in canton pd parking lot.
He then looked at key cycles, proudly disclosing he remembered to count his own operated key cycles (didn’t count the ones getting the car on and off the tow truck, but that’s a ok). He also spent time looking at the photos of the crime scene and stuff.

I just want us to keep being factual.

remind me of where the 30ft somersault fit into the CW fantasy? My brain jammed shut, I don't know that it will ever reawaken.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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

Thank you for the insight and question. I too was very perplexed when first seeing the many abrasions to the victim’s arm. IIRC they were referred to as furrows or gouges by one of the early medical examiners. Furrows, as in akin to the furrows of adjacent rows in a freshly plowed field.

When first seeing them and later learning they were attributed to an apparent vehicle strike I was even more puzzled. Having worked on and around automobiles and motorcycles for over 50 years it did not seem possible. And I am still convinced from the testimony and evidence presented - by both sides - that those wounds shown in that circulating photograph were not caused by a vehicle strike. Certainly not a single strike. And not a glancing one at that. And if those multiple parallel / adjacent furrow wounds were believed by the prosecution to have been caused by a vehicle - that evidence should have been shown demonstrating how that occurred. I imagine that Lexus / Toyota has complete computer CAD imagery of every surface, shape, edge, and protrusion on that vehicle. IMO I don’t believe that was given as evidence because the CW cannot demonstrate that to be the case.

The defense pathologist IIRC testified that perhaps only the two or so wounds near the elbow area might have been from a dog. I can’t recall whether it was given as either claws or teeth, or possible both or a combination. And those wounds near the elbow do appear somewhat different in appearance than the others up and down the arm. That same pathologist also indicated in testimony that the injuries were not from a vehicle strike large due to the absence of bruising and broken bones and other injury.

About the only thing I can think of that might cause such markings - speculation IMO only - would be repeated strikes or scrapes of a shovel edge, ax, broad ax, pick ax, thatch rake, or seeding tine rake? And from repeated strikes perhaps? IANAL nor a pathologist.

The other interesting point is this, and not trying to pick or toss here…… but if all of those wounds on the arm were to be attributed to a dog (and I am not suggesting or conceding that they are), to the best of my knowledge KR did not have a dog with her that evening. MOO

 

[Universecalling]

remind me of where the 30ft somersault fit into the CW fantasy? My brain jammed shut, I don't know that it will ever reawaken.

Mine just buffered the rest of the day. The mental gymnastics my brain did that day to make it make sense was astounding.
BUT, while asking myself “HOW?!”, I told my brain “IT JUST DID” and it was instant relief.

 

[Odeto BJ]

To my mind, the defense experts collectively established that:
1) The theory of the CW that the only area of contact between vehicle and JO was one arm, striking just the immediate area of the tail light, was completely debunked.
2) That any contact between JO and a vehicle traveling in reverse would not have thrown his body the distance from where the CW indicated he was struck, and where he ended up on the lawn.
3) That any contact between JO and any vehicle, at any speed over 10 mph, would have resulted in many more injuries, of greater severity, spread over a larger portion of his body, than those that were identified during autopsy and were shown in the photography they reviewed. In essence, the CW-ME could offer nothing to dispute that.
4) That the nature of the death injury was such that, JO could not have been struck on the back of his head and subsequently walked or crawled to his final location, that he would have been knocked flat and in the absence of some input that caused him to move, he would have stayed where he landed.
5) There was no object in the immediate area of his final location that would be consistent with the head injury.

There was considerable additional, some of which represented opinion even if it was expert opinion. But summarizing from the above, some unidentified party or creature, either assaulted JO very near to where he fell or moved JO to his final location. Assuming they could cause the blow to the back of his head, I suppose a bear or some very large dogs could do that; but barring that, the supposition would be that a second party had to be involved. MOO

In the face of what the defense presented, and in order to renew the charges against KR, it seems the CW needs to believe (and prove) that the 110 lb KR moved the 220 lb JO to that final location without leaving any identifiable trail in the surface of the lawn....not even a trail of blood. Seems like that effort would have been witnessed because it would take some time and KR would have had a bunch of cleaning up to do because there would be a lot of blood involved. MOO but it doesn't really fit...And we know the rest of that platitude.

I suppose the CW could go looking for some animal DNA when they haven't found any but some pig skin to this point....

 

[kittythehare]

Thank you for the insight and question. I too was very perplexed when first seeing the many abrasions to the victim’s arm. IIRC they were referred to as furrows or gouges by one of the early medical examiners. Furrows, as in akin to the furrows of adjacent rows in a freshly plowed field.

When first seeing them and later learning they were attributed to an apparent vehicle strike I was even more puzzled. Having worked on and around automobiles and motorcycles for over 50 years it did not seem possible. And I am still convinced from the testimony and evidence presented - by both sides - that those wounds shown in that circulating photograph were not caused by a vehicle strike. Certainly not a single strike. And not a glancing one at that. And if those multiple parallel / adjacent furrow wounds were believed by the prosecution to have been caused by a vehicle - that evidence should have been shown demonstrating how that occurred. I imagine that Lexus / Toyota has complete computer CAD imagery of every surface, shape, edge, and protrusion on that vehicle. IMO I don’t believe that was given as evidence because the CW cannot demonstrate that to be the case.

The defense pathologist IIRC testified that perhaps only the two or so wounds near the elbow area might have been from a dog. I can’t recall whether it was given as either claws or teeth, or possible both or a combination. And those wounds near the elbow do appear somewhat different in appearance than the others up and down the arm. That same pathologist also indicated in testimony that the injuries were not from a vehicle strike large due to the absence of bruising and broken bones and other injury.

About the only thing I can think of that might cause such markings - speculation IMO only - would be repeated strikes or scrapes of a shovel edge, ax, broad ax, pick ax, thatch rake, or seeding time rake? And from repeated strikes perhaps? IANAL nor a pathologist.

The other interesting point is this, and not trying to pick or toss here…… but if all of those wounds on the arm were to be attributed to a dog (and I am not suggesting or conceding that they are), to the best of my knowledge KR did not have a dog with her that evening. MOO

The elbow wounds were described as puncture wounds, consistent with a dog attack.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The elbow wounds were described as puncture wounds, consistent with a dog attack.

Thank you kitty! Yes, that is correct! And there was I believe a couple of puncture marks through a sleeve of that shirt in that area. And that was also not clarified by the prosecution. There is so much information to keep track of in this case. Thanks again for the clarifying input! MOO

 

[ch_13]

The elbow wounds were described as puncture wounds, consistent with a dog attack.

And the holes in John's hoodie sleeve can only have come from multiple objects that punctured the cloth. There is no way they could be considered scrapes, rips or cuts.