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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Curiousobserver said:
While I agree it isn't the defense responsibility to prove her innocence, the defense proposed a very specific alternate theory for which there is very strong evidence that refutes that story. Unless they provide some explanation, the absence of dog DNA most likely means that JO never entered 34F at all.

It is virtually impossible to enter a person's home who has a pet and not be contaminated by detectable DNA in the form of hairs, even if you never interact with the animal (citations below). If you live with a cat it is even worse because they cover their hair with DNA from their saliva, so even non rooted hairs have DNA on them.

I will extend that published finding with a reasonable inference that it is less possible to get knocked onto the floor and/or dragged out of the house of a dog owner and not have dog hairs all over you and even less probable than that to also have been bitten by the dog and not have hairs and saliva all over you.

The case you cited is interesting in that they found pig DNA, possibly from the rawhide, but most importantly they found canine DNA as well. You will never find DNA from an animals mouth that contains the DNA from its food, but not that animal's own DNA.

And if anybody is in doubt they could have the entire shirt privately swabbed for Chloe's DNA. If they did find DNA then it would be case-closed a conspiracy, he entered that house and everybody is lying and Karen Read would not only be free, she would sue the MSP and Canton police and her lawyers would be rich. Think how powerful that would be- but they never asked to do it....Why? Because think how powerful it would be if they didn't find any.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Molecular characterization of the canine mitochondrial DNA control region for forensic applications - PubMed

The canine mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region of 133 dogs living in the area around Innsbruck, Austria was sequenced. A total of 40 polymorphic sites were observed in the first hypervariable segment and 15 in the second, which resulted in the differentiation of 40 distinct haplotypes. We...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Revolution of Animal Genomics in Forensic Sciences - PMC

Nowadays, the coexistence between humans and domestic animals (especially dogs and cats) has become a common scenario of daily life. Consequently, during a forensic investigation in civil or criminal cases, the biological material from a domestic ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...


The handling of evidence in this case was so bad, that it could not be reasonably relied on.
 
Curiousobserver said:
While I agree it isn't the defense responsibility to prove her innocence, the defense proposed a very specific alternate theory for which there is very strong evidence that refutes that story. Unless they provide some explanation, the absence of dog DNA most likely means that JO never entered 34F at all.

It is virtually impossible to enter a person's home who has a pet and not be contaminated by detectable DNA in the form of hairs, even if you never interact with the animal (citations below). If you live with a cat it is even worse because they cover their hair with DNA from their saliva, so even non rooted hairs have DNA on them.

I will extend that published finding with a reasonable inference that it is less possible to get knocked onto the floor and/or dragged out of the house of a dog owner and not have dog hairs all over you and even less probable than that to also have been bitten by the dog and not have hairs and saliva all over you.

The case you cited is interesting in that they found pig DNA, possibly from the rawhide, but most importantly they found canine DNA as well. You will never find DNA from an animals mouth that contains the DNA from its food, but not that animal's own DNA.

And if anybody is in doubt they could have the entire shirt privately swabbed for Chloe's DNA. If they did find DNA then it would be case-closed a conspiracy, he entered that house and everybody is lying and Karen Read would not only be free, she would sue the MSP and Canton police and her lawyers would be rich. Think how powerful that would be- but they never asked to do it....Why? Because think how powerful it would be if they didn't find any.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Molecular characterization of the canine mitochondrial DNA control region for forensic applications - PubMed

The canine mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region of 133 dogs living in the area around Innsbruck, Austria was sequenced. A total of 40 polymorphic sites were observed in the first hypervariable segment and 15 in the second, which resulted in the differentiation of 40 distinct haplotypes. We...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Revolution of Animal Genomics in Forensic Sciences - PMC

Nowadays, the coexistence between humans and domestic animals (especially dogs and cats) has become a common scenario of daily life. Consequently, during a forensic investigation in civil or criminal cases, the biological material from a domestic ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
interesting articles- the second contains this statement as well: Dogs typically drag prey to the ground and then maul it, attempting to ‘disarm’ the victim by striking its limbs. Once the victim has been knocked down, the animal usually begins to bite its throat, the back of its head, and the cranium; if the attack continues, the victim will die from asphyxia, hemorrhaging, or cranial fracture and its complications [103]."
and:
"the collection of saliva samples from the victim’s wound could take place in a variable time interval and, since the first action carried out on the victim is an aid, the use of disinfectants on tissues can drastically ‘erase’ most of the biological traces produced by the attacker." Tough to tell if the shirt was splashed with disinfectants; it was cut off the deceased in the hospital; it was in the snow and it was tested literally years later.
 
Seattle1 said:
Interesting -- A good read on the jurors vote here by Attorney Peter Tragos. Maybe not so good for KR.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1820535572836032991
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting that video. It was interesting and informative.

It didn't really give us anything new - he reviewed and responded to the motions filed today (one from each side). His take on the situation, expressed strongly and repeatedly, was that the state (both DA's and judge) have a legal obligation to provide justice, and that if counts 1 and 3 were unanimously voted to acquit, they should all work to see those counts are dismissed, because that is what the law requires.

He was unsure if they would do the right thing willingly, or whether the DA's and judge would try to make her be retried any way they can. He explained there are MANY ways for all parties to get accurate info on whether there were indeed unanimous decision to acquit on counts 1 and 3, if they want to pursue justice, in ways that preserve anonymity for the members of the jury, so "we aren't sure if it was really 12-0 and decided" is not a legit excuse.

I do think that if the judge has any legal skills and any integrity, she will work to get to the bottom of it and abide by any acquittals that may have occurred. Her reputation and judicial future (or lack thereof) is really going to be on display.

And even if she doesn't opt to seek justice and honor it willingly, I believe the defense has multiple workarounds that should get the job done and some of which would also put her head in a noose. One thing holding her feet to the fire is the double jeopardy prohibition clause which is a bedrock of our criminal legal system, embedded in the constitution itself, and the feds can also hold public officials at state and local levels personally and criminally responsible for violations of a person's rights under the law. IMO every one of the participants for the state in this trial, DA's and judge alike, should be very wary of the fact that the FBI has already taken an interest in these proceedings.
 
acutename said:
interesting articles- the second contains this statement as well: Dogs typically drag prey to the ground and then maul it, attempting to ‘disarm’ the victim by striking its limbs. Once the victim has been knocked down, the animal usually begins to bite its throat, the back of its head, and the cranium; if the attack continues, the victim will die from asphyxia, hemorrhaging, or cranial fracture and its complications [103]."
and:
"the collection of saliva samples from the victim’s wound could take place in a variable time interval and, since the first action carried out on the victim is an aid, the use of disinfectants on tissues can drastically ‘erase’ most of the biological traces produced by the attacker." Tough to tell if the shirt was splashed with disinfectants; it was cut off the deceased in the hospital; it was in the snow and it was tested literally years later.
Click to expand...
This is another extraordinary set of events that needed to have happened to explain why its a conspiracy to kill someone who nobody had any motive to kill and not just a very common drunk driving accident.

JO's shirt was like a collection sponge we use to collect DNA samples on people. It is extremely unlikely that that treatment of those wounds would have even started given the description of his emergency and ultimately futile medical treatment (he was brought in with a core temperature of 80F and no measured pulse). They attempted to re-warm him and gave him external circulatory support in the form of CPR and AED but he never warmed, never sustained a pulse, and was pronounced dead. Nobody was washing in clothes with disinfectant.

There was no dog attack.

But her defense attorney's obviously don't need to take my word for it- they can go get the entire shirt tested, I triple dog dare them.
 
Curiousobserver said:
This is another extraordinary set of events that needed to have happened to explain why its a conspiracy to kill someone who nobody had any motive to kill and not just a very common drunk driving accident.

JO's shirt was like a collection sponge we use to collect DNA samples on people. It is extremely unlikely that that treatment of those wounds would have even started given the description of his emergency and ultimately futile medical treatment (he was brought in with a core temperature of 80F and no measured pulse). They attempted to re-warm him and gave him external circulatory support in the form of CPR and AED but he never warmed, never sustained a pulse, and was pronounced dead. Nobody was washing in clothes with disinfectant.

There was no dog attack.

But her defense attorney's obviously don't need to take my word for it- they can go get the entire shirt tested, I triple dog dare them.
Click to expand...
The commonwealth could've called the FBI witnesses who determined that John wasn't struck by a vehicle, but they didn't. They chose state troopers who had no grasp of physics over verified scientists. One must ask why.
 
Regarding JOK's clothes. It was testified to by two or three MSP detectives during trial, that the clothing gathered was wet and stuffed in a bag. Then " someone" took the clothes and spread them out to dry....In an unsecured room on the floor in 'the office' , or was it a table? ...for 5 days. ( Is that a reasonable amount of time and opportunity for tampering? ) There was never an official evidence log documenting any of this. THIS creates serious doubt. IMO, the clothing should not have been allowed in as evidence at all. Same as the fabricated fairy tale tail light pieces. Documenting proof was never there.
 
shotgun09 said:
Regarding JOK's clothes. It was testified to by two or three MSP detectives during trial, that the clothing gathered was wet and stuffed in a bag. Then " someone" took the clothes and spread them out to dry....In an unsecured room on the floor in 'the office' , or was it a table? ...for 5 days. ( Is that a reasonable amount of time and opportunity for tampering? ) There was never an official evidence log documenting any of this. THIS creates serious doubt. IMO, the clothing should not have been allowed in as evidence at all. Same as the fabricated fairy tale tail light pieces. Documenting proof was never there.
Click to expand...
Right, NO documented proof. This handling would never of happened anywhere or allowed to stand as evidence. It was horribly laughable. The State Police person, good friends of Alberts and McCabe's, took care of allllllll of this from the get go. Look where he is now. Gone for good any day. No pieces of RED plastic, NOT tiny or small, not seen in the bright white snow. The light snow at the time. Not worth discussing as it has been discounted in different ways by professionals, that JO'K was hit by a car. Have to REMEMBER, the vague and false information were from people all working for the STATE. Untrained and or wanting to keep their jobs and benefits. FBI knows all. Coming down soon. Big clue is that FBI advised not to bring the case to trial due to what they do know.
 
shotgun09 said:
Regarding JOK's clothes. It was testified to by two or three MSP detectives during trial, that the clothing gathered was wet and stuffed in a bag. Then " someone" took the clothes and spread them out to dry....In an unsecured room on the floor in 'the office' , or was it a table? ...for 5 days. ( Is that a reasonable amount of time and opportunity for tampering? ) There was never an official evidence log documenting any of this. THIS creates serious doubt. IMO, the clothing should not have been allowed in as evidence at all. Same as the fabricated fairy tale tail light pieces. Documenting proof was never there.
Click to expand...
I agree. The proper collection of evidence, preservation of evidence, and chain of custody must be clearly documented if it is to be used in a trial.
 
I recall this case from way back when it first happened. Can anyone point me towards the affidavit please so that I can refresh? I recall when it first happened, thinking that the Cops were involved in his death and something nefarious happened other than the car striking him only. RIP - your shift is finished and you can now police heavens streets .Thanks for your service, from one Cop across the pond to another.
 
acutename said:
interesting articles- the second contains this statement as well: Dogs typically drag prey to the ground and then maul it, attempting to ‘disarm’ the victim by striking its limbs. Once the victim has been knocked down, the animal usually begins to bite its throat, the back of its head, and the cranium; if the attack continues, the victim will die from asphyxia, hemorrhaging, or cranial fracture and its complications [103]."
and:
"the collection of saliva samples from the victim’s wound could take place in a variable time interval and, since the first action carried out on the victim is an aid, the use of disinfectants on tissues can drastically ‘erase’ most of the biological traces produced by the attacker." Tough to tell if the shirt was splashed with disinfectants; it was cut off the deceased in the hospital; it was in the snow and it was tested literally years later.
Click to expand...

Police dogs (which Chloe was or was trained for??) are trained to go for the arm.
 
OldCop said:
I agree. The proper collection of evidence, preservation of evidence, and chain of custody must be clearly documented if it is to be used in a trial.
Click to expand...
That's one thing that has long baffled me about this case. I've seen or heard of many cases where evidence was not properly collected or there was some issue with the evidence somehow, but it resulted in them not being able to even use that evidence in court. At all. It's thrown out. They just have to pretend it didn't exist or that it never happened. This includes problems with chain of custody, or with illegal search and seizure (a Constitutional issue), improper collection/handling/testing of evidence, problematic police interviews (usually too rough treatment or lasting far too long, withholding basic necessities like water etc.), and even false confessions (coerced, under duress, delusional, lying, many reasons why confessions end up having to be thrown out). Sometimes it's a major problem with one individual officer or one agency or even a particular lab or medical examiner. But if there's a problem, ALL the evidence related to that problematic entity is deemed unusable, and they are forced to throw it out. It can't be used in court.

So imo, a number of these kinds of issues plagued the evidence in this case. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that evidence was properly collected on scene (Solo cups) for example. I know I'm not the only one who sees problems in chain of custody of items like his clothing and even her vehicle. I see problems with the testing done at labs for DNA etc. And of course, the lead detective in the case has now been implicated in problems we don't even know the extent of, but that were bad enough to have caught the feds' attention and is now the subject of a federal investigation, and if I'm correct, along with that entire police department.

So I can't understand why there has to be all this debate and speculation over these evidentiary items, when it should just be deemed inadmissable and thrown out. Jury for SURE never should have seen some of it. IMO, the whole case was so tainted and had so many of these various problems with evidence and the investigation, that there should have been no choice but to dismiss it altogether. Instead, here we are about to re-try the case all over again?? That will just compound those problems and indeed, I foresee new ones popping up even. Just a waste of time. If KR were truly believed to be a threat to the community, I would feel differently, but NO ONE is saying that. This is all being done in the name of revenge which they will call justice, but it's all messed up.
 
OldCop said:
I agree. The proper collection of evidence, preservation of evidence, and chain of custody must be clearly documented if it is to be used in a trial.
Click to expand...
Yes OldCop!^^^….. agree 100%….. and not a question to you or anyone else….. just an observation.

Maybe there is an exception in the courtroom that presided over the KR case? /sarc

After watching the Ashley Benefield case in FL, Michelle Troconis case in CT, and the Alex Murdaugh case in SC and evidence collection and presentation of it in those cases - compare and contrast to this judge in KR case courtroom. Stark contrast. Wide differences. Still SMH.

And IMO it is unsettling and disturbing. Will be very interested in the update and release of the FBI / internal affairs investigation now that testimony in the KR case is complete. When exactly is to be released one has to wonder? MOO
 
sunspun said:
That's one thing that has long baffled me about this case. I've seen or heard of many cases where evidence was not properly collected or there was some issue with the evidence somehow, but it resulted in them not being able to even use that evidence in court. At all. It's thrown out. They just have to pretend it didn't exist or that it never happened. This includes problems with chain of custody, or with illegal search and seizure (a Constitutional issue), improper collection/handling/testing of evidence, problematic police interviews (usually too rough treatment or lasting far too long, withholding basic necessities like water etc.), and even false confessions (coerced, under duress, delusional, lying, many reasons why confessions end up having to be thrown out). Sometimes it's a major problem with one individual officer or one agency or even a particular lab or medical examiner. But if there's a problem, ALL the evidence related to that problematic entity is deemed unusable, and they are forced to throw it out. It can't be used in court.

So imo, a number of these kinds of issues plagued the evidence in this case. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that evidence was properly collected on scene (Solo cups) for example. I know I'm not the only one who sees problems in chain of custody of items like his clothing and even her vehicle. I see problems with the testing done at labs for DNA etc. And of course, the lead detective in the case has now been implicated in problems we don't even know the extent of, but that were bad enough to have caught the feds' attention and is now the subject of a federal investigation, and if I'm correct, along with that entire police department.

So I can't understand why there has to be all this debate and speculation over these evidentiary items, when it should just be deemed inadmissable and thrown out. Jury for SURE never should have seen some of it. IMO, the whole case was so tainted and had so many of these various problems with evidence and the investigation, that there should have been no choice but to dismiss it altogether. Instead, here we are about to re-try the case all over again?? That will just compound those problems and indeed, I foresee new ones popping up even. Just a waste of time. If KR were truly believed to be a threat to the community, I would feel differently, but NO ONE is saying that. This is all being done in the name of revenge which they will call justice, but it's all messed up.
Click to expand...
Quoting @sunspun “…but it’s all messed up”
You betcha lol.
Watching all of this transpire in real time here in my county is so totally other worldly to me. I’ve asked it many times but really “ Who are these people” ?
Who thinks it’s a good idea to retry? Please put them on my local news and make them raise their hands.
Nobody I know supports this charade. Our tax dollars are better spent fixing the pot holes.
Let KR move on with her life, and let the fbi take it from here
Or does that make too much sense ?
JMO
 
I think that there's a very big issue that's mostly been ignored by the DA and judge so far, but that they will have to answer to, to their peril, if they don't make this go away.

It's this: The FBI, independently, hired experts to determine if POK was even hit by a vehicle. And the science said 'no, there was no way he was hit by anyone. It's a fact. The injuries (and lack of same) on the body just don't support the thesis. Nor does the terrain.' All of us may not understand how the science works, but those that do can see that he couldn't have been hit by her vehicle.

The FBI shared their findings with the DA and judge. And both essentially said, 'We don't care what you objectively know about the injuries and whether he was even hit by a vehicle. We want to try her and imprison her for vehicular homicide anyhow.'

Wait, what?

In the courtroom, it was obscured from the jury that it was the FBI who had searched for the truth and had the scene tested. It would be easy for the jury to wonder if they could completely trust the impartiality of the experts. BUT THE DA AND JUDGE KNEW IT WAS JUST AN FBI SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, AND THAT THE FBI SHARED IT WITH THEM SO THEY COULD LOOK FOR WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE!

If, knowing this, you want to put KR on trial for having hit him with a vehicle, when the science says no one hit him with a vehicle, then are you trying to get justice? Or are you making up crap for some other agenda, and finding a convenient bystander to blame for what happened? And most important of all, aren't you putting yourself in peril of legit charges of "malicious prosecution" when you are trying someone for something -- a vehicle hitting POK -- that scientifically was impossible to have happened? What about financial lawsuits? And what if the FBI and others run this up the ladder?

If DA and judge are smart, they will settle with KR and all and dismiss everything (because, if the vehicle couldn't have hit POK, she literally has to be innocent, with no other possibility) and walk away.

But they need to look for the real killer. It could not have been KR. The science of the body and the terrain have spoken.

BOTTOM LINE. If the DA and judge don't pursue the truth, and justice, I think there's a real good chance it turns around and bites them hard somewhere down the road. Professionally. Personally. Financially. And even criminally.
 
Last edited:
SteveS said:
It's this: The FBI, independently, hired experts to determine if POK was even hit by a vehicle. And the science said 'no, there was no way he was hit by anyone. It's a fact. The injuries (and lack of same) on the body just don't support the thesis. Nor does the terrain.' All of us may not understand how the science works, but those that do can see that he couldn't have been hit by her vehicle.

The FBI shared their findings with the DA and judge. And both essentially said, 'We don't care what you objectively know about the injuries and whether he was even hit by a vehicle. We want to try her and imprison her for vehicular homicide anyhow.'

Wait, what?

In the courtroom, it was obscured from the jury that it was the FBI who had searched for the truth and had the scene tested. It would be easy for the jury to wonder if they could completely trust the impartiality of the experts. BUT THE DA AND JUDGE KNEW IT WAS JUST AN FBI SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, AND THAT THE FBI SHARED IT WITH THEM SO THEY COULD LOOK FOR WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE!

If, knowing this, you want to put KR on trial for having hit him with a vehicle, when the science says no one hit him with a vehicle, then are you trying to get justice? Or are you making up crap for some other agenda, and finding a convenient bystander to blame for what happened? And most important of all, aren't you putting yourself in peril of legit charges of "malicious prosecution" when you are trying someone for something -- a vehicle hitting POK -- that scientifically was impossible to have happened? What about financial lawsuits? And what if the FBI and others run this up the ladder?
Click to expand...
^^rsbm

What did I miss here?

If we are to believe a select group of the jurors communicated with the defense and the DA's office and provided to them that the panel was only deadlocked on Indictment 2 (Manslaughter), where the vote vacillated at 6-6 GUILTY, 8-4 GUILTY, and finally 9-3 GUILTY, does this not also say that 9 jurors believe that JOK was struck by KR's vehicle?

To be clear, they further offered: "Nobody thought she hit him on purpose, or even knew she hit him."

And all knowing the FBI provided science says no vehicle struck JOK, his injuries do not support being hit by a vehicle, nor does the terrain support this thesis-- but still there are 9 jurors who voted KR was GUILTY of manslaughter, and who presumably thought JOF was "hit" by KR (vehicle) but NONE thought it was on purpose or that she was aware she "hit" him.

"Hit" being the operative word.

The objective experts, FBI, the science, their qualifications, and it fell on deaf ears?

But more important, how does the defense overcome the next 9 panelists inclined to vote KR guilty of (vehicular) manslaughter?

MOO
 
SteveS said:
I think that there's a very big issue that's mostly been ignored by the DA and judge so far, but that they will have to answer to, to their peril, if they don't make this go away.

It's this: The FBI, independently, hired experts to determine if POK was even hit by a vehicle. And the science said 'no, there was no way he was hit by anyone. It's a fact. The injuries (and lack of same) on the body just don't support the thesis. Nor does the terrain.' All of us may not understand how the science works, but those that do can see that he couldn't have been hit by her vehicle.

The FBI shared their findings with the DA and judge. And both essentially said, 'We don't care what you objectively know about the injuries and whether he was even hit by a vehicle. We want to try her and imprison her for vehicular homicide anyhow.'

Wait, what?

In the courtroom, it was obscured from the jury that it was the FBI who had searched for the truth and had the scene tested. It would be easy for the jury to wonder if they could completely trust the impartiality of the experts. BUT THE DA AND JUDGE KNEW IT WAS JUST AN FBI SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, AND THAT THE FBI SHARED IT WITH THEM SO THEY COULD LOOK FOR WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE!

If, knowing this, you want to put KR on trial for having hit him with a vehicle, when the science says no one hit him with a vehicle, then are you trying to get justice? Or are you making up crap for some other agenda, and finding a convenient bystander to blame for what happened? And most important of all, aren't you putting yourself in peril of legit charges of "malicious prosecution" when you are trying someone for something -- a vehicle hitting POK -- that scientifically was impossible to have happened? What about financial lawsuits? And what if the FBI and others run this up the ladder?

If DA and judge are smart, they will settle with KR and all and dismiss everything (because, if the vehicle couldn't have hit POK, she literally has to be innocent, with no other possibility) and walk away.

But they need to look for the real killer. It could not have been KR. The science of the body and the terrain have spoken.

BOTTOM LINE. If the DA and judge don't pursue the truth, and justice, I think there's a real good chance it turns around and bites them hard somewhere down the road. Professionally. Personally. Financially. And even criminally.
Click to expand...
1000% to this
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 429 (members: 156, guests: 273)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
273
Total visitors
429
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,618
Messages
18,256,205
Members
234,706
Latest member
CharlieOBrien
Back
Top