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

[Forest_Wood]

She has never looked at the teeth of the dog she is accusing of killing JOK.

She never said the dog killed JOK.

 

[k-mac]

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?

Can't help you out. It wasn't mentioned in court what the material is specifically.
More interesting, nobody disputes the material IS THERE.
Even more interesting this expert witness was unaware it was there when excluding all other possible explanations.
Especially when already being compromised in the resources you have to make your assessment. Like never viewing the injuries yourself, just pictures.
Did the defence sneakily not give her all the data available to them?
or is this witness got selective memory and lied on the stand?
doesn't matter at the end of the day.
They got caught out.

As I said in my post, I suspect the defence is gunna drop her from their line up.
Hank ate her for breakfast.

moo

 

[SteveS]

As I said in my post, I suspect the defence is gunna drop her from their line up.
Hank ate her for breakfast.

moo

<modsnip - personalizing>

It's what the prosecution wants onlookers to think ^, but the way Dr Russell handled those extraneous details is actually perfect evidence on the record under oath of an expert witness doing what an expert witness is supposed to do. Onlookers won't necessarily get that, but the judge undoubtedly did, as well as any court who reviews the case later.

This testimony here was from an expert in seeing injuries and determining by sight whether they were caused by an animal's claws or teeth, or not. This is NOT a reconstruction expert who is tasked with figuring out how all the pieces of an accident scene fit together.

The fact she had not looked at the other stuff makes great drama for the uninformed, but it's actually testimony of her (and the defense) doing exactly what they should be doing with her. She shouldn't be drawing her conclusion from the position of a random shoe, presence or absence of DNA, or all these other things. The fact that she didn't, that's actually saying she does it right, like the expert she is.

I am certain the state would love to see her go away, because they can't counter her expertise - facts are facts - but they have only managed to demonstrate that she is an expert, who has done EXACTLY what an expert is supposed to do.

More damaging, this testimony was EXTENSIVE evidence of the validity of her use as an expert, and the judge (who DOES know what an expert should do and not do) will undoubtedly have to allow her in the trial. That's a big prob for the prosec.

As for how this will play at trial (if we even have one), I think the defense is confident in her testimony, and with her bona fides now having been well re-established by this nonsense, in a jury setting it will be different. There the prosec will be kept from badgering, and the irrelevant "why didn't you do this other stuff" will be put in clear context by the defense of being the RIGHT thing, or kept to a minimum. (I suspect the defense will be able to keep it out entirely, rather than be forced to hold a mid-trial seminar for the jury on what an expert witness should do.)

She's a good witness - knows her facts, doesn't get rattled, and doesn't let the other side put words in her mouth.

My guess is that the prosec has no witness who can explain the arm etc injuries any other way, which is going to be a major obstacle to ever getting a conviction, and which bolsters the defense assertion that this case is a sham and should be tossed.

 

[jepop]

<modsnip - personalizing>

It's what the prosecution wants onlookers to think ^, but the way Dr Russell handled those extraneous details is actually perfect evidence on the record under oath of an expert witness doing what an expert witness is supposed to do. Onlookers won't necessarily get that, but the judge undoubtedly did, as well as any court who reviews the case later.

This testimony here was from an expert in seeing injuries and determining by sight whether they were caused by an animal's claws or teeth, or not. This is NOT a reconstruction expert who is tasked with figuring out how all the pieces of an accident scene fit together.

The fact she had not looked at the other stuff makes great drama for the uninformed, but it's actually testimony of her (and the defense) doing exactly what they should be doing with her. She shouldn't be drawing her conclusion from the position of a random shoe, presence or absence of DNA, or all these other things. The fact that she didn't, that's actually saying she does it right, like the expert she is.

I am certain the state would love to see her go away, because they can't counter her expertise - facts are facts - but they have only managed to demonstrate that she is an expert, who has done EXACTLY what an expert is supposed to do.

More damaging, this testimony was EXTENSIVE evidence of the validity of her use as an expert, and the judge (who DOES know what an expert should do and not do) will undoubtedly have to allow her in the trial. That's a big prob for the prosec.

As for how this will play at trial (if we even have one), I think the defense is confident in her testimony, and with her bona fides now having been well re-established by this nonsense, in a jury setting it will be different. There the prosec will be kept from badgering, and the irrelevant "why didn't you do this other stuff" will be put in clear context by the defense of being the RIGHT thing, or kept to a minimum. (I suspect the defense will be able to keep it out entirely, rather than be forced to hold a mid-trial seminar for the jury on what an expert witness should do.)

She's a good witnETess - knows her facts, doesn't get rattled, and doesn't let the other side put words in her mouth.

My guess is that the prosec has no witness who can explain the arm etc injuries any other way, which is going to be a major obstacle to ever getting a conviction, and which bolsters the defense assertion that this case is a sham and should be tossed.

Perfect, logical, factual. Thank you! Your posts are always honest, always clear.

ETA: I do worry, and possibly not rationally, about this Judge's impartiality. Based on demeanour and jmo her attitude on display at trial x1.But moo yes there is no way for her to legally exclude Dr Russell as expert for the defense and that will never happen.

 

[k-mac]

Listened again to Dr Russells testimony.

There is just no sensible reason to not look at and study ALL the evidence when reaching a hypothesis.
There is only one logical reason for such ignorance.
Because all that evidence makes your hypothesis look ridiculous.

Brennan is absolutely the right man to prosecute this case.
He is calm, measured, polite yet hard hitting.
Stella effort so far.
The O'keefe's looked happy with what they seen and can have confidence this time the trial is going to convict Karen Read.

moo

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

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.

What experience do you have to call a doctor a fraud and out of her depth? Do you have experience as a physician or pathologist?

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Listened again to Dr Russells testimony.

There is just no sensible reason to not look at and study ALL the evidence when reaching a hypothesis.
There is only one logical reason for such ignorance.
Because all that evidence makes your hypothesis look ridiculous.

Brennan is absolutely the right man to prosecute this case.
He is calm, measured, polite yet hard hitting.
Stella effort so far.
The O'keefe's looked happy with what they seen and can have confidence this time the trial is going to convict Karen Read.

moo

I'm sure they are happy because it helps hide them as the real killers. JMO

 

[TIGER0822]

She never said the dog killed JOK.

Did we hear her final opinion?

 

[MassGuy]

NEW: Dr. Marie Russell will be allowed to testify at Karen Read's second trial. The court denied prosecutors' motion to exclude/limit her testimony. #WBZ

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878869159456760186

 

[Derph]

Excellent news!!

 

[shotgun09]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

And, my opinion of Hank Brennan has decreased significantly.
Dude has poor 'methodology' and 'strateegery '.
Epic Fail, Hank

MOO

 

[geevee]

Given that last bit at the end, I expect we'll hear a lot of "I'll allow it" to the numerous objections from the defense in response to the inane questions and inferences Mr. Brennen will throw at Dr. Russell.

It was only a "close" call if a certain mind had already been made up, imo.

Moooo till the cows come home.

 

[Seattle1]

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

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.

Trial lawyers including Prosecutor Brennan understand that to argue effectively, evidence must not be considered in a vacuum. If defense witnesses such as Green and Russell are allowed to testify as experts, and their opinions are combined with the other evidence, they may very well convince jurors that there is a reasonable possibility that the google search was made much earlier than alleged by the prosecution, and the abrasions on JOK's arm were caused by a dog.

In other words, it's very clear the unprecedented and seemingly desperate Motions to keep Green and Russell away from the stand altogether is the CW acknowledging reasonable doubt exits in these critical areas of their case, and the CW is working hard here in round two-- to keep their case from collapsing!

What it's not is taking cheap, personal shots at the professionals or impugning their character. To be clear, there's nothing in the Court's recent Order to indicate Dr. Russell was exposed as a "fraud" or "out of her depth," but that she satisfied the 5 foundational elements to testify as an expert. MOO

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878869159456760186

 

[jepop]

Given that last bit at the end, I expect we'll hear a lot of "I'll allow it" to the numerous objections from the defense in response to the inane questions and inferences Mr. Brennen will throw at Dr. Russell.
(Snipped respectfully for focus)

RBSBM

Will probably hear a lot of "Say it the right ways" too, before getting to the the "I'll allow its". Judge Cannonne, quirks and all.

 

[cocomod]

The fact that "Hank" wants to disallow the accident reconstruction testimony from the FBI says a lot too. The CW knows that there case has holes and leaves reasonable doubt in a reasonable mind. Therefore, they are trying their best to stop the holes that continues to sink their case.

 

[k-mac]

This is great!
So happy the judge is going to allow Dr Russell to testify.
Which is going to lock in the defence as the dog bite. lol IMO

Hopefully she will bring as much supporting evidence to the trial as she did the hearing.

moo

 

[BeKind_BeWell]

I would have been surprised if Dr Russell was not approved as an expert witness (again/trial 2). (Though I am aware the judge is biased, imo and that the Defense tried to get her recused).

Problem in the judge's decision is, at the end, she gives the Commomwealth a compliment and optimism by saying (to the effect): the Dr didn't consider all available information (dog's dentition molds, other measurements) that's an issue. On this last point (the compliment to the prosecution and/or subtly undermining the expert), judges just don't do that in a decision, i.e. "throwing shade". That's coming from a lawyer (Peter at Lawyer You Know on YouTube - good channel!). Normally it would be factually why the expert is in, end of story.

What I do not understand is, did the Defense now/lately have the opportunity to examine Chloe? In person with Dr Russell and a veterinarian (if I'm Defense, I'd want an excellent vet present too, at an examination. I do respect Dr Russell's experience and expertise, but I'd want the vet too to strengthen an examination and anything Russell isn't an expert on when it comes to examining an animal). That is inferred in the Daubert hearing (quote below). If Defense had/has the opportunity, why haven't they? I thought, in trial 1, they raised the issue of not having access to Chloe the German Shepherd. Are they arguing the validity of that information Russell didn't examine? That is, the molds? (And I agree with some comments re: is it proven it was truly Chloe whom the molds came from?) I didn't hear that during the hearing (just clips), or objections to Commonwealth mentioning that information.

The injuries to the arm look like bite marks and claw marks. She testified to it being both in the trial, and then said at some point it was just bite marks? So that's mystifying. I'm not an expert but it looks like both - clamping on with the teeth and then clawing at the arm whether in the air or with JOK on the ground/floor.

If the dog is available and it's 100% the GS Chloe, I don't understand why Defense isn't going all the way with examining her. Or is Chloe still being withheld from the Defense? It's one thing to be offered an examination on paper and molds vs. in person experts' examination. If there's a question as to the validity it's her, maybe we'll only see that at trial 2?

Yes, I think it's a dirty case and they are doing their best to frame KR. Clearly I'm not saying anything that isn't publicly available and the opinion of many. I only got into the case recently and did not/could not watch the hearing. Even trying to get caught up via YT is a challenge!

From Boston.com January 7, 2025
"Brennan also said authorities visited Chloe, since rehomed to Vermont, and took molds and measurements of her teeth and paws.

“Now that you know that Chloe’s available, wouldn’t those molds be helpful? Wouldn’t you want to look at them and compare them to the distances on the abrasions on Mr. O’Keefe’s arm?” Brennan asked.
“I don’t think it’s necessary for many reasons,” Russell replied.
2024
From Boston Herald January 14,2025
"Dr. Russell is a qualified expert as to these topics,” the judge wrote, later adding, “The Court finds that Dr. Russell’s testimony satisfies the five foundational elements (for expert testimony) and therefore will allow Dr. Russell to testify as to whether the abrasions on John O’Keefe’s right arm were caused by a dog.”...
Cannone, in her Monday ruling, noted that the prosecutors on cross-examination focused on several issues about Russell’s testimony.

“… That Dr. Russell’s expertise primarily concerns the treatment, not the identification, of dog bites,” the ruling reads. “That her evaluation of the abrasions failed to consider all available information; that she has not compared the abrasions with the dentition of the German Shepherd in question; and that her opinion is inconsistent with findings that there was no canine DNA in the area of the victim’s clothing near the abrasions.”

 

[jepop]

I would have been surprised if Dr Russell was not approved as an expert witness (again/trial 2). (Though I am aware the judge is biased, imo and that the Defense tried to get her recused).

Problem in the judge's decision is, at the end, she gives the Commomwealth a compliment and optimism by saying (to the effect): the Dr didn't consider all available information (dog's dentition molds, other measurements) that's an issue. On this last point (the compliment to the prosecution and/or subtly undermining the expert), judges just don't do that in a decision, i.e. "throwing shade". That's coming from a lawyer (Peter at Lawyer You Know on YouTube - good channel!). Normally it would be factually why the expert is in, end of story.

What I do not understand is, did the Defense now/lately have the opportunity to examine Chloe? In person with Dr Russell and a veterinarian (if I'm Defense, I'd want an excellent vet present too, at an examination. I do respect Dr Russell's experience and expertise, but I'd want the vet too to strengthen an examination and anything Russell isn't an expert on when it comes to examining an animal). That is inferred in the Daubert hearing (quote below). If Defense had/has the opportunity, why haven't they? I thought, in trial 1, they raised the issue of not having access to Chloe the German Shepherd. Are they arguing the validity of that information Russell didn't examine? That is, the molds? (And I agree with some comments re: is it proven it was truly Chloe whom the molds came from?) I didn't hear that during the hearing (just clips), or objections to Commonwealth mentioning that information.

The injuries to the arm look like bite marks and claw marks. She testified to it being both in the trial, and then said at some point it was just bite marks? So that's mystifying. I'm not an expert but it looks like both - clamping on with the teeth and then clawing at the arm whether in the air or with JOK on the ground/floor.

If the dog is available and it's 100% the GS Chloe, I don't understand why Defense isn't going all the way with examining her. Or is Chloe still being withheld from the Defense? It's one thing to be offered an examination on paper and molds vs. in person experts' examination. If there's a question as to the validity it's her, maybe we'll only see that at trial 2?

Yes, I think it's a dirty case and they are doing their best to frame KR. Clearly I'm not saying anything that isn't publicly available and the opinion of many. I only got into the case recently and did not/could not watch the hearing. Even trying to get caught up via YT is a challenge!

From Boston.com January 7, 2025
"Brennan also said authorities visited Chloe, since rehomed to Vermont, and took molds and measurements of her teeth and paws.

“Now that you know that Chloe’s available, wouldn’t those molds be helpful? Wouldn’t you want to look at them and compare them to the distances on the abrasions on Mr. O’Keefe’s arm?” Brennan asked.
“I don’t think it’s necessary for many reasons,” Russell replied.
2024
From Boston Herald January 14,2025
"Dr. Russell is a qualified expert as to these topics,” the judge wrote, later adding, “The Court finds that Dr. Russell’s testimony satisfies the five foundational elements (for expert testimony) and therefore will allow Dr. Russell to testify as to whether the abrasions on John O’Keefe’s right arm were caused by a dog.”...
Cannone, in her Monday ruling, noted that the prosecutors on cross-examination focused on several issues about Russell’s testimony.

“… That Dr. Russell’s expertise primarily concerns the treatment, not the identification, of dog bites,” the ruling reads. “That her evaluation of the abrasions failed to consider all available information; that she has not compared the abrasions with the dentition of the German Shepherd in question; and that her opinion is inconsistent with findings that there was no canine DNA in the area of the victim’s clothing near the abrasions.”

I won't watch the current hearings so can't help you there. But sounds like there was no clarification re where and when the moulds originated? Defense must surely be privy to that though.

Moo, the claw marks are important and I believe Dr Russell's expertise extends to these sorts of injuries. I recall that was covered in voir dire x1. Jmo

During testimony at trial x1, I clearly recall Dr Russell stating that most of the uniform and parallel wounds were likely the result of claws scratching. She opined that one of the wounds (speculating because memory is fuzzy re which specific wound,) was likely to be a scrape by teeth, not necessarily a bite. I believe this was the elbow wound but not certain. Will dig up the testimony some time soon.

The other thing to note is that in trial x1, IIRC,defense was being constantly limited in their questioning, and Lally was constantly objecting. Dr Russell had only very recently been engaged. My personal opinion was that Judge Cannone patronised and treated Dr Russell with barely disguised disdain during the voir dire and then Lally continued the same treatment during cross. It was horrible to watch.

She is in a much stronger position this time. Jmo

ETA: Sorry, I see it's reported the Prosecution visited Chloe in Vermont? Moo, that must have been after trial x1 imo. I'm not going to jump the gun on why Dr Russell might opine moulds made so
so long after the fact of the injuries may not be particularly useful but sure Dr Russell will clarify at trial. Moo.

 

[TIGER0822]

NEW: Dr. Marie Russell will be allowed to testify at Karen Read's second trial. The court denied prosecutors' motion to exclude/limit her testimony. #WBZ

View attachment 557355View attachment 557356

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878869159456760186

Not much point testifying if the judge will not let her state her opinion, like the same judge has already done so. Trial needs a new judge

 

[MassGuy]

NOW: Suspended State Trooper Michael Proctor is inside the Framingham State Police Headquarters for a trial board hearing to determine the future of his job with MSP. Here's what we know at this time. #WBZ

https://twitter.com/x/status/1879585488941863367