MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #18

[acutename]

......and, mysteriously....they are implants !!
LOL.....just fantasizing here.

The CW sure has $pent alot of time trying to discredit Dr Russell, if indeed they have something beneficial, such as moulds of poor Chloes teeth. How do they PROVE it's Chloe ????

MOO

how do they prove her teeth are the same now as they were when the incident occurred?

 

[k-mac]

Hank ate Russell alive today.
He is even better than I anticipated.
KR is going down. IMO
The anxiety all over AJ was so good. glad we get to see all this!
And I am here for it!
Justice for John is on its way ...

 

[k-mac]

"dr' Russell didn't know until this very moment that JO'K sweater arm had shards of glass/ plastic in it.

uh...oh.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

how do they prove her teeth are the same now as they were when the incident occurred?

Exactly! And they’d better have undeniable proof that this new dog is actually Chloe. Does she have a microchip? Did the new owners change her info on their chip to their name and address? Did all her vets have photos of her? I know they typically do this but they aren’t always high quality.

If one tooth in her mouth has been extracted since this happened, the rest of her teeth might shift.

Besides all this, how do you prove the bites or scratches are or aren’t from her? Skin, flesh and muscle moves so much.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

"No car accident scenario could create that configuration of wounds on the arm," Russell said Tuesday.

During that questioning, Brennan revealed that the prosecution made a mold of the mouth of the dog, Chloe, who lived at Albert's home. Brennan asked Russell if her opinion would change if the measurements of the dog's teeth were significantly different than the marks on O'Keefe's arms, but she said it would not.

Disputed dog bite expert testifies in Karen Read case

There are several motions that have been filed ahead of Read's second trial in the death of her boyfriend that is set for later this year after her first trial ended with a hung jury.

www.wcvb.com

“We actually went off and found Chloe and took molds and measured the pods in her teeth,” Brennan detailed/

Defense attorney Robert Alessi shot back at Brennan’s suggestion that molds from Chloe’s mouth would be needed.

“Have you ever heard of an emergency room doctor visiting a dog, is that a rational proposition?” Alessi asked.

Dog bite expert takes the stand as Karen Read murder case returns to court

A dog bite expert was back on the stand Tuesday morning as the high-profile Karen Read murder case returned to court for another pre-retrial hearing.

www.boston25news.com

Brennan argued that Russell's opinion changed over time and that she had no methodology to support her claims. He also disputed her "insulting claim" that DNA swabs were not properly collected.

"It's repugnant for a sense of fairness in the courtroom," Brennan says. "She has done no due diligence because there is none."

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[rescuemom]

If this has been mentioned I appologize. As I look at the house, the driveway is on the right where KR dropped JOK? His body was found near the flagpole that is on the left?? Is that right or not?? If so and she backed over him, how did his body end up by the flagpole?? Or do I have it all wrong??

 

[nodamselindistress]

Doesn't make much sense does it? And if she "backed over him" as you say, how is it that there are no broken bones or major areas of impact to his midsection and lower body?

 

[keek]

"No car accident scenario could create that configuration of wounds on the arm," Russell said Tuesday.

During that questioning, Brennan revealed that the prosecution made a mold of the mouth of the dog, Chloe, who lived at Albert's home. Brennan asked Russell if her opinion would change if the measurements of the dog's teeth were significantly different than the marks on O'Keefe's arms, but she said it would not.

Disputed dog bite expert testifies in Karen Read case

There are several motions that have been filed ahead of Read's second trial in the death of her boyfriend that is set for later this year after her first trial ended with a hung jury.

www.wcvb.com

“We actually went off and found Chloe and took molds and measured the pods in her teeth,” Brennan detailed/

Defense attorney Robert Alessi shot back at Brennan’s suggestion that molds from Chloe’s mouth would be needed.

“Have you ever heard of an emergency room doctor visiting a dog, is that a rational proposition?” Alessi asked.

Dog bite expert takes the stand as Karen Read murder case returns to court

A dog bite expert was back on the stand Tuesday morning as the high-profile Karen Read murder case returned to court for another pre-retrial hearing.

www.boston25news.com

Brennan argued that Russell's opinion changed over time and that she had no methodology to support her claims. He also disputed her "insulting claim" that DNA swabs were not properly collected.

"It's repugnant for a sense of fairness in the courtroom," Brennan says. "She has done no due diligence because there is none."

MSN

www.msn.com

...went off and found Chloe...did ya now>

 

[k-mac]

Hoping the judge allows this <modsnip> Russell testimony.
Hank has set her up beautifully for trial.
boom!!

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Exactly! And they’d better have undeniable proof that this new dog is actually Chloe. Does she have a microchip? Did the new owners change her info on their chip to their name and address? Did all her vets have photos of her? I know they typically do this but they aren’t always high quality.

If one tooth in her mouth has been extracted since this happened, the rest of her teeth might shift.

Besides all this, how do you prove the bites or scratches are or aren’t from her? Skin, flesh and muscle moves so much.

Yes @MerlinFalcon …. so very true. And IIRC, the CW had indicated earlier in the prior trial perhaps or other evidentiary disclosure, that no swabbing or canine type DNA analysis was conducted on JOK arm wounds? So how is this new information being posited for other purpose, evidence, or in a future trial? SMH. MOO

 

[shotgun09]

Yes @MerlinFalcon …. so very true. And IIRC, the CW had indicated earlier in the prior trial perhaps or other evidentiary disclosure, that no swabbing or canine type DNA analysis was conducted on JOK arm wounds? So how is this new information being posited for other purpose, evidence, or in a future trial? SMH. MOO

MOO, but I believe what Brennan was doing yesterday to Dr Russell was all for show. He doesn't want her testimony in because it's so detrimental to his case. Look at John O'Keefes' arm !!! He said the word " methodology" eight times in his closing argument. To him, Dr Russell's methodology was on trial. And, Brennan thought by his blow-a rific manner that he could intimidate the woman. Not so. She was not at all intimidated by him in the least. She probably held back giggles when he brought up 'Chloe's' dental impression.

So? You say you saw Elvis? Bwah haa haaa !

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

MOO, but I believe what Brennan was doing yesterday to Dr Russell was all for show. He doesn't want her testimony in because it's so detrimental to his case. Look at John O'Keefes' arm !!! He said the word " methodology" eight times in his closing argument. To him, Dr Russell's methodology was on trial. And, Brennan thought by his blow-a rific manner that he could intimidate the woman. Not so. She was not at all intimidated by him in the least. She probably held back giggles when he brought up 'Chloe's' dental impression.

So? You say you saw Elvis? Bwah haa haaa !

Yes @shotgun09 …. and IMO this might be an attempt to lead one down a road with an unexpected turn or dead end. If there is no testing done for the presence (or absence) of canine or related DNA or biological fluids on those wounds, then how convincingly could one argue whether or not the wounds were caused by such? Seems like a potential trap or trap door IMO? And there is that standard of reasonable doubt. It could possibly work two different directions. IANAL. MOO

 

[k-mac]

MOO, but I believe what Brennan was doing yesterday to Dr Russell was all for show. He doesn't want her testimony in because it's so detrimental to his case. Look at John O'Keefes' arm !!! He said the word " methodology" eight times in his closing argument. To him, Dr Russell's methodology was on trial. And, Brennan thought by his blow-a rific manner that he could intimidate the woman. Not so. She was not at all intimidated by him in the least. She probably held back giggles when he brought up 'Chloe's' dental impression.

So? You say you saw Elvis? Bwah haa haaa !

Interesting take on it.
Watching AJ squirm in his chair...
I personally would be surprised if the defence even brings her back.
It was a train wreck.
Time will tell.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

All these questions having absolutely nothing to do whether, Dr. Rusell is qualified or not. Why Judge Canone is letting this farce continue is beyond me?

While it has the feel of something productive, getting an expert witness excluded who is already considered an expert and is there to testify based on their expertise is an incredible long shot.

Instead, the expert is admitted as an expert, and then testifies in the trial in their area of expertise, and then the jury is tasked with deciding the value of that testimony.

In all likelihood, this grilling of Dr Russell is just a fishing expedition in an attempt to try to find some angle to attack her conclusions when she testifies in the real trial.

It can backfire, of course, because this sort of approach also shows the defense (and Dr Russell) what's ahead, and allows them to be better prepared as needed.

 

[SteveS]

Brennan argued that Russell's opinion changed over time and that she had no methodology to support her claims. He also disputed her "insulting claim" that DNA swabs were not properly collected.

IMO Brennan was doing all he could to create confusion and misinformation about Dr Russell and the content and value of her testimony.

Her testimony was that the wounds on the arm were from an animal, that she believes was a large dog.

But if you go back and look at all the things he was bringing up, it was one irrelevancy after another. She didn't testify it was any particular dog, so all the stuff about Chloe is irrelevant. The fact there may be pieces of this or that on the garments, again that doesn't change her observations of the wounds being caused when a dog clawed or bit or scratched JOK. It doesn't take DNA to have dog wounds and see them for what they are. He wants to imply that the wounds could have been caused by tail light (but we won't hear an expert who thinks that looks like a car strike). And his assertion that she lacked a methodology was asked and answered repeatedly (and was an absurd claim).

Most of all, Dr Russell is a person with the massive experience to recognize what was in plain view to all of us, and label it properly for the court.

 

[k-mac]

IMO Brennan was doing all he could to create confusion and misinformation about Dr Russell and the content and value of her testimony.

Her testimony was that the wounds on the arm were from an animal, that she believes was a large dog.

But if you go back and look at all the things he was bringing up, it was one irrelevancy after another. She didn't testify it was any particular dog, so all the stuff about Chloe is irrelevant. The fact there may be pieces of this or that on the garments, again that doesn't change her observations of the wounds being caused when a dog clawed or bit or scratched JOK. It doesn't take DNA to have dog wounds and see them for what they are. He wants to imply that the wounds could have been caused by tail light (but we won't hear an expert who thinks that looks like a car strike). And his assertion that she lacked a methodology was asked and answered repeatedly (and was an absurd claim).

Most of all, Dr Russell is a person with the massive experience to recognize what was in plain view to all of us, and label it properly for the court.

She admitted on the stand that she did not know JOK had glass/plastic shards in his sweater.
She admitted she did not know where JOK shoe was in the snow.
She did not know that JOK dna was on the taillight.
She did not know JOK hair was on the bumper of KR car.

She can't decide whether it is bite marks or scratch marks.
She has never looked at the teeth of the dog she is accusing of killing JOK.
Kind of important to me and I assume a jury.

NO dog dna on JOK.

I don't think the defence can clean this up.
She won't even make it to trial.

'BELIEVING' it is a large dog is just not good enough.

imo

 

[SteveS]

She admitted on the stand that she did not know JOK had glass/plastic shards in his sweater.
She admitted she did not know where JOK shoe was in the snow.
She did not know that JOK dna was on the taillight.
She did not know JOK hair was on the bumper of KR car.

She can't decide whether it is bite marks or scratch marks.
She has never looked at the teeth of the dog she is accusing of killing JOK.
Kind of important to me and I assume a jury.

I don't think the defence can clean this up.
She won't even make it to trial.

imo

None of this is of any real substance. The prosec atty is doing his best to misdirect us, but gotta keep our eye on the ball.
1 "She admitted on the stand that she did not know JOK had glass/plastic shards in his sweater." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
2 "She admitted she did not know where JOK shoe was in the snow." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
3 "She did not know that JOK dna was on the taillight." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
4 "She did not know JOK hair was on the bumper of KR car." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
5 "She can't decide whether it is bite marks or scratch marks." -- TRUE. But doesn't change or diminish the impact of her testimony.
6 "She has never looked at the teeth of the dog she is accusing of killing JOK." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches (because she did not say any specific dog -- it's takes other testimony to connect those dots)
7 "NO dog dna on JOK." -- Simply not a reliable assertion at all. The evidence collection was shoddy, at best, and in some areas non-existent. IIRC there was no DNA collection whatsoever made from the arm or arm wounds.

None of these are points of any real substance, and it would take a good defense attorney about 2 minutes to show it all as being entirely irrelevant to her testimony. In fact - as an expert, she is only testifying in her area of expertise ("when you look at these wounds, what made these wounds") and those other details for others, not her, because she is looking at the arm to see what it shows. Properly so.

 

[keek]

None of this is of any real substance. The prosec atty is doing his best to misdirect us, but gotta keep our eye on the ball.
1 "She admitted on the stand that she did not know JOK had glass/plastic shards in his sweater." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
2 "She admitted she did not know where JOK shoe was in the snow." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
3 "She did not know that JOK dna was on the taillight." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
4 "She did not know JOK hair was on the bumper of KR car." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
5 "She can't decide whether it is bite marks or scratch marks." -- TRUE. But doesn't change or diminish the impact of her testimony.
6 "She has never looked at the teeth of the dog she is accusing of killing JOK." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches (because she did not say any specific dog -- it's takes other testimony to connect those dots)

None of these are of any real substance, and it would take a good defense attorney about 2 minutes to show it all as being entirely irrelevant to her testimony. In fact - as an expert, she is only testifying in her area of expertise ("what made these wounds") and those other facts are issues for others, not her, because they are irrelevant.

Exactly right, a no brainer really!

 

[k-mac]

None of this is of any real substance. The prosec atty is doing his best to misdirect us, but gotta keep our eye on the ball.
1 "She admitted on the stand that she did not know JOK had glass/plastic shards in his sweater." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
2 "She admitted she did not know where JOK shoe was in the snow." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
3 "She did not know that JOK dna was on the taillight." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
4 "She did not know JOK hair was on the bumper of KR car." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches
5 "She can't decide whether it is bite marks or scratch marks." -- TRUE. But doesn't change or diminish the impact of her testimony.
6 "She has never looked at the teeth of the dog she is accusing of killing JOK." -- IRRELEVANT to her testimony that the arm wounds were dog bites, claws or scratches (because she did not say any specific dog -- it's takes other testimony to connect those dots)
7 "NO dog dna on JOK." -- Simply not a reliable assertion at all. The evidence collection was shoddy, at best, and in some areas non-existent. IIRC there was no DNA collection whatsoever made from the arm or arm wounds.

None of these are points of any real substance, and it would take a good defense attorney about 2 minutes to show it all as being entirely irrelevant to her testimony. In fact - as an expert, she is only testifying in her area of expertise ("when you look at these wounds, what made these wounds") and those other details for others, not her, because she is looking at the arm to see what it shows. Properly so.

All the points I raised matter.
To suggest they don't is ludicrous

Dr Russell has exposed herself as a fraud and totally out of her depth and scope.
The defence will not use her 'expertise' IMO.

Watching AJ gulping while she on the stand...tells us so.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

All the points I raised matter.
To suggest they don't is ludicrous

Dr Russell has exposed herself as a fraud and totally out of her depth and scope.
The defence will not use her 'expertise' IMO.

Watching AJ gulping while she on the stand...tells us so.

Respectfully, mention was made above in post #276 of apparent ‘glass/plastic’ shards in JOK sweater.

Is it glass or plastic? One, or the other? Both materials? They differ from a chemical and compositional perspective. What type of ‘plastic’ is in discussion?

AFAIK the taillight lens on the circa 2021 Lexus LX570 is actually constructed of polycarbonate. It is not glass. That polycarbonate lens would be considered a plastic in most conventions. IIRC that is the model year of the vehicle that Ms. Read had driven that evening. And with regard to a supposed broken taillight lens, I believe the evidence collection, number of pieces located, number of pieces unaccounted for, and actual ‘reassembly’ or ‘reconstruction’ of that lens are in dispute.

And unfortunately I have not been able to listen to recent testimony and will not be able to do so. MOO