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

[Seattle1]

Pages of Motions filed today....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899525650651771309

 

[Seattle1]

@KristinaRex

 

[Seattle1]

@KristinaRex

 

[Seattle1]

@KristinaRex

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

The HONORABLE Judge Cannone huh?

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25 - Motion #593

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25 - CW Motion #587

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25 -- CW Motion #588

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25 -- CW Motion #575

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25 -- Defense Motion # 563

 

[Seattle1]

Sorry, I don't believe anything cited by Brennan is unintentional!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1898112140596462029

 

[Forest_Wood]

DBM.

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25 -- Defense Motion # 597

 

[Seattle1]

Kristina Rex
@KristinaRex


For context, this happened in the first trial as well. The manner (not cause) of death on the birth certificate is "unknown," because the medical examiner could not determine between accident and homicide. The cause of death is listed as blunt force trauma/hypothermia combo.


1:13 PM · Mar 11, 2025

Prosecutors in the first trial also asked to redact the manner of death. It was not redacted at trial. Dr. Scordi-Bello, the medical examiner, testified that the manner was unknown because she did not have enough information to distinguish between accident and homicide.


1:18 PM · Mar 11, 2025

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25

A Flood Of Filings In Karen Read That Could Have A Major Affect On Trial #2​

 

[Seattle1]

3/11/25

Real Lawyer Reacts - Karen Read: The Toll For Living As A Defendant On A National Stage?​

 

[mrjitty]

One more example of Brennan talking out of his head... here's hoping there's a defense expert just for the tail light!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899477316251664439

It would seem like that would be a good expert to have.

Just to set table stakes, I don't put much credence in the Read theory of the case. However I do think there has to be at least substantial doubt around the condition of the tail light and the evidence the state brought in Trial 1.

Personally I wonder if, believing Read to be guilty, investigators juiced the evidence. I don't know they did that, but I do believe the case ought to be dismissed.

Especially how can chain of custody be established for the sallyport videos when the original footage has been 'lost'. It appears the defence lost the opportunity to access this critical evidence. At the very least, that requires an adverse direction to the jury?

This 'inverted video' was my only interest in trial 1. Peter seems to think it doesn't rise to the level of dismissal. But that the Judge should direct the jury about the loss of the source video and implications of that for the defence who are unable to prove what that video showed i.e. did it always save inverted or did someone do that later? Where are the missing parts of the timeline? Loss of quality of video exports going to core issue (light from right tail light)

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899926375923941676

 

[Seattle1]

3/12/25

All of the Karen Read pre-trial motions: Full analysis​

 

[mrjitty]

I guess I am most interested in what the Judge allows on 3rd party culpability.