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

[keek]

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....

Very clear to anyone to understand this debunked thought process!

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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.

View attachment 516790
View attachment 516791
View attachment 516792
View attachment 516793

Yes ch_13! And that could lead one to conclude that any injuries inflicted might have been from separate events perhaps? As that sleeved shirt IMO could not have been covering the arm when the other parallel furrows in the skin of the arm might have occurred. And this IMO serves to only further negate a single glancing vehicle strike or the like. MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

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

IMO the whole analysis of evidence was useless. No change of custody and clothing samples were taken so haphazardly that everything needs to be done over again directly from physical evidence.

 

[ch_13]

Yes ch_13! And that could lead one to conclude that any injuries inflicted might have been from separate events perhaps? As that sleeved shirt IMO could not have been covering the arm when the other parallel furrows in the skin of the arm might have occurred. And this IMO serves to only further negate a single glancing vehicle strike or the like. MOO

I think it shows that several objects penetrated the jersey and then caused the wounds. It would have to be something long and thin with a sharp point that could pierce the fabric (like claws or teeth).

A sharp edged object like broken glass or plastic fragments wouldn't create those kinds of punctures in the fabric. You'd see tearing or ripping instead.

I'm no expert in arm injuries, but I've destroyed enough clothing over the years to be very confident that a taillight didn't create those holes in the fabric.

 

[ShadyLady]

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.

View attachment 516790
View attachment 516791
View attachment 516792
View attachment 516793

Thanks for this! Can only be from puncture wounds...IMO.

When BA called a beloved pet an "it", he showed disdain, imo. He knows Chloe's DNA could derail "his" whole case. Can't match the dna to "that" dog. I wonder what really happened to poor Chloe.

 

[ShadyLady]

I think it shows that several objects penetrated the jersey and then caused the wounds. It would have to be something long and thin with a sharp point that could pierce the fabric (like claws or teeth).

A sharp edged object like broken glass or plastic fragments wouldn't create those kinds of punctures in the fabric. You'd see tearing or ripping instead.

I'm no expert in arm injuries, but I've destroyed enough clothing over the years to be very confident that a taillight didn't cause the fabric to puncture that way.

IIRC forensic lady MIXED samples from all the punctures. Frankly, I would not trust anything she said. Does she even know what dog DNA is?

 

[ShadyLady]

Yes ch_13! And that could lead one to conclude that any injuries inflicted might have been from separate events perhaps? As that sleeved shirt IMO could not have been covering the arm when the other parallel furrows in the skin of the arm might have occurred. And this IMO serves to only further negate a single glancing vehicle strike or the like. MOO

Parallel wounds could have happened when JO pulled his arm away...but shows multiple bites, imo.

 

[MyJoey]

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

His shirt was ripped in all the areas.

 

[ch_13]

His shirt was ripped in all the areas.

If you're referring to those long rips in the fabric, that's where the EMTs cut the shirt off of him.

You have to look at the marked sections: the triangular pieces of papers with the numbers. Those puncture marks are where something penetrated the sleeve and injured his arm.

 

[MyJoey]

If you're referring to those long rips in the fabric, that's where the EMTs cut the shirt off of him.

You have to look at the marked sections: the triangular pieces of papers with the numbers. Those puncture marks are where something penetrated the sleeve and injured his arm.

No I know. I was looking at the paper ones.

 

[OldCop]

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.

Can you imagine how many pow wows are going on in Old Cape Cod this summer? They have to be very careful though because, if they change their stories to fit the narrative, they just might be looking at a perjury charge.

 

[Curiousobserver]

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.

If I almost run you over and you hit your head on the curb while you jump out of the way, or I clip you and push you over and you hit your head, you are still guilty of manslaughter. If you intended to do it you are guilty of murder.

But of course there is ample evidence she did hit him with her car and the analysis done <modsnip - derogatory nicknames are not allowed> just falls so short of being actual science they should take away his PhD.

IMO

 

[MyJoey]

Wondering what kind of bush that is? Rose?

 

[keek]

Can you imagine how many pow wows are going on in Old Cape Cod this summer? They have to be very careful though because, if they change their stories to fit the narrative, they just might be looking at a perjury charge.

I want news coverage of a line of the special black SUV’s surrounding the Cape house and it’s special guests

 

[iamshadow21]

Wondering what kind of bush that is? Rose?

Rose bushes lose their leaves once the weather gets cooler. I doubt it would be in full leaf with that much snow around.

 

[keek]

Wondering what kind of bush that is? Rose?

Nope.

 

[Cedars]

Gordon Ramsey’s injury after being hit by a vehicle.View attachment 516776

I couldn't help but see this as I scrolled by!

Gordon Ramsey was lucky enough to survive his accident, and therefor develop bruises. Bruises take hours/days to develop.

JO didn't survive because he died of hyperthermia first. So no bruises.

JMO

 

[ch_13]

Wondering what kind of bush that is? Rose?

If you're thinking that a rose bush caused those wounds on John's arm, then no, they didn't. Rose thorns aren't long enough and they're spaced too closely together. Plus I doubt they would penetrate his sweatshirt if he just brushed against them. Source: Me having brushed up against thorned bushes many, many times.


Someone or something had to furrow into his arm to cause those wounds, just as the EMT said in the trial.

 

[Universecalling]

If I almost run you over and you hit your head on the curb while you jump out of the way, or I clip you and push you over and you hit your head, you are still guilty of manslaughter. If you intended to do it you are guilty of murder.

But of course there is ample evidence she did hit him with her car and the analysis done<modsnip - derogatory nicknames are not allowed> just falls so short of being actual science they should take away his PhD.

May I ask if your last paragraph is sarcasm?
English is my second language and sometimes things get lost in translation.

 

[ch_13]

I couldn't help but see this as I scrolled by!

Gordon Ramsey was lucky enough to survive his accident, and therefor develop bruises. Bruises take hours/days to develop.

JO didn't survive because he died of hyperthermia first. So no bruises.

JMO

<modsnip> the medical examiner did not say that in her testimony at all. In fact she testified under cross-examination that the lack of bruising to his body was inconsistent with a pedestrian strike. She also testified to bruising on other parts of his body. If there was time for bruising to develop there, then why not his midsection?

Edit - Plus the evidence is that he was alive for hours after he was incapacitated. Certainly that should be sufficient time for at least some bruising to develop.