Didn't we have testimony, yesterday, of literal car plastic embedded with JO's clothing?
MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #6
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Charlot123
- Status
Wishbone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,698
- Reaction score
- 17,529
Federal investigation
In February, the U.S. Attorney's office provided over 3,000 pages of documents about their investigation into the case. Defense attorney Alan Jackson said in court Tuesday that included in the paperwork was information about federal investigators hiring a reconstruction expert."The federal investigators hired, independent of us, we had no idea, and independent of the Commonwealth, hired a professional reconstructionist, three PhDs, to look into exactly this issue," Jackson said. "Did Karen Read's SUV make contact with John O'Keefe? And their conclusion, to a person, was his injuries were inconsistent with the damage on the car. The damage on the car was inconsistent with having made contact with John O'Keefe's body. In other words, the car didn't hit him, and he wasn't hit by the car."
Karen Read defense team says federal expert found John O'Keefe was not hit by SUV
The defense team for Karen Read said Tuesday that a federal expert concluded evidence does not support that John O'Keefe was hit by an SUV as Massachusetts prosecutors allege.
www.cbsnews.com
We don't have access to the material the FBI handed over. According to the defense, the FBI provided a biomechanical expert's report that concluded JO's injuries could not have been caused by being hit by a vehicle. The prosecution has never disputed it's existence. They have the same FBI material.
If this is an outside expert, the defense can use this expert and their report at trial. If it's an in-house FBI employee, it's likely it can't be, as the judge wants no direct discussion of the FBI's involvement in the investigation.
Thus far the prosecution has not even attempted to explain their theory or, more importantly put on an accident reconstructionist who can demonstrate how an SUV caused the victim's injuries. I'm not sure they'll even try. The defense on the other hand, has three biomechanical experts who, using math and medical science, will testify it's not possible that his injuries were caused by a motor vehicle.
No, not that I recall. Who said it?
Oh, but there are massive chain of custody problems with that clothing and those pieces of plastic. More to come.
These problems were caused by the same individual who was likely responsible for planting the taillight at the scene. The taillight pieces the Canton PD never saw, despite an early limited snow fall search.
Of course, it's the lead state investigator, who the state still hasn't called to the stand. He's apparently not even on the state's current witness list. When he's called by the defense, it's anticipated his counsel will advise him not to answer on the grounds the answers might tend to incriminate him.
You may not care about this because you believe all law enforcement is good and never plants evidence, but I suspect the jury will come to the opposite conclusion.
Wishbone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,698
- Reaction score
- 17,529
RBBM
It is extremely odd to write such a thing, as if the ME were 'instructed' to include this.
John O'Keefe didn't drown either, but the ME doesn't say that.
Why declare it was not a fight?
Vallier?
It's possible you missed it with Lally fumbling around with papers for minutes at a time, but it's pretty damning evidence.
Only if you believe Michael Proctor is a good and honest lead investigator.
It's possible I missed it a mention to it. But I watched all of her testimony and if she said it, there was no discussion of it. Which pieces of clothing and where on the clothing? How were the pieces collected? How tightly were they embedded in the fabric? And of course, there's been no cross yet.
Hardly damning if it was just one brief mention that didn't even make it into any of the trial recaps in the MSM.
edit - Actually, it's coming back to me now. Didn't Vallier say the pieces were found on the orange tee? I remember thinking that was weird because John was wearing the sweatshirt over the t-shirt. How did they get on the t-shirt? Then they started going through and identifying all the exhibits and never came back to it. Let's see what's discussed tomorrow.
Last edited:
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Someone asked her to add that.
And I'm willing to bet that person was Michael Proctor, but hopefully we'll hear soon directly from the ME as to why that random bit was added.
Karen Read trial: 3 from State Police testify about physical evidence collected
Three Massachusetts State Police witnesses testified Monday about the physical evidence in the case.
www.boston.com
You're saying it's not damning, but you're also uninformed about the testimony that is taking place. The entire trial is also being live streamed and available to be re-watched on YouTube.
nodamselindistress
On Time Out
- Joined
- May 29, 2020
- Messages
- 2,154
- Reaction score
- 24,572
According to Post #305 from yesterday, the hair was not even human. Not expecting DNA confirmation that it was JO's hair.
Elliot_Alderson
Well-Known Idiot
Karen Read trial: 3 from State Police testify about physical evidence collected
Three Massachusetts State Police witnesses testified Monday about the physical evidence in the case.www.boston.com
You're saying it's not damning, but you're also uninformed about the testimony that is taking place. The entire trial is also being live streamed and available to be re-watched on YouTube.
I'd say ch_13 is one of the more informed posters. They are here daily and I'm sure they know where to watch the trial.
There's absolutely no need to be rude just because you disagree with someone's opinion. We all know the trial is available on YouTube, and as I mentioned in my post I did watch Vallier's testimony.Karen Read trial: 3 from State Police testify about physical evidence collected
Three Massachusetts State Police witnesses testified Monday about the physical evidence in the case.www.boston.com
You're saying it's not damning, but you're also uninformed about the testimony that is taking place. The entire trial is also being live streamed and available to be re-watched on YouTube.
And, as I added in my edit, I do now recall a brief mention that there was some taillight pieces on the orange tee.
Is it damning? If they don't come back to it on Wednesday, IMO (and it is only my opinion), then the answer is no. Simply because it barely got mentioned, it never made it into any of the trial recaps that I saw, and I doubt the jury will even remember it when they finally get to deliberations several weeks from now. (Or several months from now at the rate we're going.)
However, I do expect to hear more about these pieces when the trial resumes, so I'll hold off on judging their impact until the testimony on this item (including cross) is complete.
Last edited:
That was from months ago. Which is why I addressed how long it took to have the hair processed. It almost didn't get admitted by the judge because the prosecution still didn't have DNA results back at the eve of trial.
I don't see much point in the prosecution saying it's been confirmed as O'Keefe's hair if it hasn't. Lally isn't quite that dumb. But we'll see soon enough what they're claiming.
Thank you. You're very kind.
What's not damning is pretty much the CW's entire case, so far.Karen Read trial: 3 from State Police testify about physical evidence collected
Three Massachusetts State Police witnesses testified Monday about the physical evidence in the case.www.boston.com
You're saying it's not damning, but you're also uninformed about the testimony that is taking place. The entire trial is also being live streamed and available to be re-watched on YouTube.
This whole thing is a non-starter. A case where the mere mention of the lead investigator is objected to.
What a farce.
- Status