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

[imstilla.grandma]

Garrett Wing is the Mona Lisa Vito of dog bite experts. As he explained in a January 2024 interview with Attorney Melanie Little, his experience is extensive, as his father was a police K9 handler with the Miami Police Department. He grew up with multiple police dogs in the house, and his father had him bit by a police dog (in a dog bite sleeve) in front of kindergarteners as part of a demonstration when he was 8 years old.

Canton Coverup Part 491: Hank Brennan Is Afraid To Let Karen Read Jury Hear From Dog Bite Expert Garrett Wing, FBI Agent Mike Easter About John O’Keefe’s Injuries And Lack Of Proper Investigation – TB Daily News

tbdailynews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1901532727025029527

 

[HarmonyE.]

Anyone see the video of guy who bought the same tail light from Lexus and tried to break it with a hammer? It took him a few good wacks with a hammer for it to break. The plastic was really thick. Then there was a light bulb that proves there was no way the light could have even operated the way it was supposed to if it was broken the way they are claiming. Add the fact that the hammer was hitting the light with excessive force, which is completely different then the passive for of JOK's arm and his weight behind him, there is 1000% no possible way the tail light was broken with JOK's arm. NONE!!

A human arm alone cannot break a modern taillight. It's basic physics.

And while JO's arm couldn't have broken KR's taillight, even if someone takes a hammer and manages to break a taillight, the pieces of that light aren't going to magically jump up and create linear lacerations up and down the hammer user's arm, from forearm to upper arm.

Also basic physics.

 

[Derph]

A human arm alone cannot break a modern taillight. It's basic physics.

And while JO's arm couldn't have broken KR's taillight, even if someone takes a hammer and manages to break a taillight, the pieces of that light aren't going to magically jump up and create linear lacerations up and down the hammer user's arm, from forearm to upper arm.

Also basic physics.

Not only that but the shards magically went thru clothing, scratched his arm without leaving a single trace of plastic in the wounds or inside the clothing, and going back out of the clothing to land all over the lawn that no one saw. Truly a miracle upon a miracle!

 

[Tortoise]

Not only that but the shards magically went thru clothing, scratched his arm without leaving a single trace of plastic in the wounds or inside the clothing, and going back out of the clothing to land all over the lawn that no one saw. Truly a miracle upon a miracle!

From about 1.26.30 - questions for Dr Russell, Jan 7th, 2025

"when you're looking for trace evidence to see if something caused an injury you look for remnants of that [inaudible] Mr O'Keefe's body right?

A. I did not have hands on.

Ok, but you did learn that there was something remarkable in Mr O'Keefe's sweater, didn't you?

A. Can you be more specific?

I can. Glass shards, or broken taillight plastic shards, you understand they were found in Mr O'Keefe's sweater right?

A. Doesn't surprise me.

Well I know it doesn't surprise you but the question I'm asking you is when you decide to engage in differential diagnosis and you decide to exclude collision as the cause of this abrasion, didn't you want to know all the facts and information in considering whether it was the taillight that caused the abrasion? Didn't you want to know that information?

A. Yes.

Ok, and when you were considering that information did you know from the criminalistic reports that shards of that broken taillight were littered in his sweater?

A. I did not know that.

When's the first time you learned of that?

A. Right now.

Right now. And so when you've prepared for this case and you've received materials from the defense, nobody has ever sent you, ever, the criminalistic reports that showed taillight shards were in his sweater where the abrasion was? No one ever showed you that?

A. I don't recall seeing that at all.

Well [inaudible] detective and using circumstantial evidence and trace evidence, I want you now to consider this new evidence that you didn't know before you testified at the voir dire and the trial and the Daubert-Lanigan hearing, when you were ruling out the taillight as the mechanism of injury, when you excluded it in your differential diagnosis and you said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries that you looked at were caused by a dog bite. now that you know that there was a debris field of shattered taillight right near the body of Mr O'Keefe, and now that you know in his very sweater where the abrasions, the same arm, under them, is littered with shards of taillight, from that Lexus, does that in any way change your analysis in your differential diagnosis excluding the car as the mechanic of injury for that abrasion?

Objection your honor.

I'm going to allow that, minus the police officer part, the detective part.

A. No, it doesn't change my conclusion that those injuries, those abrasions were caused by a dog bite.

How do you think the shards of taillight got into his sweater?

A. They could have got into his sweater from an accident, correct.

From an impact with the taillight, yes?

A. Could be.

Right and when the taillight breaks and there's jagged irregular linear sharp edges from that break what do you think is going to happen to the skin when those shards impact the skin?

A. They could cause injury, yes.

They could cause puncture wounds couldn't they?

A. Uh yes they could.

They could cause scratches couldn't they?

A. They could cause scratches.

You have no studies on how an abrasion looks after an impact with a taillight that is shattered, you don't have any studies or comparative analysis do you?

A. I have no studies, I just have my years of experience."

 

[Forest_Wood]

From about 1.26.30 - questions for Dr Russell, Jan 7th, 2025

"when you're looking for trace evidence to see if something caused an injury you look for remnants of that [inaudible] Mr O'Keefe's body right?

A. I did not have hands on.

Ok, but you did learn that there was something remarkable in Mr O'Keefe's sweater, didn't you?

A. Can you be more specific?

I can. Glass shards, or broken taillight plastic shards, you understand they were found in Mr O'Keefe's sweater right?

A. Doesn't surprise me.

Well I know it doesn't surprise you but the question I'm asking you is when you decide to engage in differential diagnosis and you decide to exclude collision as the cause of this abrasion, didn't you want to know all the facts and information in considering whether it was the taillight that caused the abrasion? Didn't you want to know that information?

A. Yes.

Ok, and when you were considering that information did you know from the criminalistic reports that shards of that broken taillight were littered in his sweater?

A. I did not know that.

When's the first time you learned of that?

A. Right now.

Right now. And so when you've prepared for this case and you've received materials from the defense, nobody has ever sent you, ever, the criminalistic reports that showed taillight shards were in his sweater where the abrasion was? No one ever showed you that?

A. I don't recall seeing that at all.

Well [inaudible] detective and using circumstantial evidence and trace evidence, I want you now to consider this new evidence that you didn't know before you testified at the voir dire and the trial and the Daubert-Lanigan hearing, when you were ruling out the taillight as the mechanism of injury, when you excluded it in your differential diagnosis and you said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries that you looked at were caused by a dog bite. now that you know that there was a debris field of shattered taillight right near the body of Mr O'Keefe, and now that you know in his very sweater where the abrasions, the same arm, under them, is littered with shards of taillight, from that Lexus, does that in any way change your analysis in your differential diagnosis excluding the car as the mechanic of injury for that abrasion?

Objection your honor.

I'm going to allow that, minus the police officer part, the detective part.

A. No, it doesn't change my conclusion that those injuries, those abrasions were caused by a dog bite.

How do you think the shards of taillight got into his sweater?

A. They could have got into his sweater from an accident, correct.

From an impact with the taillight, yes?

A. Could be.

Right and when the taillight breaks and there's jagged irregular linear sharp edges from that break what do you think is going to happen to the skin when those shards impact the skin?

A. They could cause injury, yes.

They could cause puncture wounds couldn't they?

A. Uh yes they could.

They could cause scratches couldn't they?

A. They could cause scratches.

You have no studies on how an abrasion looks after an impact with a taillight that is shattered, you don't have any studies or comparative analysis do you?

A. I have no studies, I just have my years of experience."

I think it will be a very interesting contrast between this medical doctor who is a specialist of dog bite wounds, and the DA's retired cop witness who worked with dogs, and to hear his opinion.
MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Seems the recent gag order only applies to Lawyers here:

Judge Beverly Cannone has issued a gag order on the lawyers involved in the Karen Read retrial, restricting them from sharing information that could influence potential jurors or compromise an impartial trial.

Judge issues gag order in Karen Read retrial

Judge Beverly Cannone has issued a gag order on the lawyers involved in the Karen Read retrial, restricting them from sharing information.

turnto10.com

I'm watching the Investigation Discovery Documentary now. I wonder how the gag order affects this. I suppose the ID Documentary was recorded prior to the date of the Order?

 

[jepop]

Not only that but the shards magically went thru clothing, scratched his arm without leaving a single trace of plastic in the wounds or inside the clothing, and going back out of the clothing to land all over the lawn that no one saw. Truly a miracle upon a miracle!

And not only that, there was no blood or skin found on any of those tail light shards that supposedly landed all over the lawn after shredding up JOK's arm. Still, I'm sure the judge will shortly find a reason to ensure Dog Bite expert Garret Wing is excluded from the defense's line up. Colour me surprised if that's not the case. Just more witch hunting imo.

 

[jepop]

From about 1.26.30 - questions for Dr Russell, Jan 7th, 2025

"when you're looking for trace evidence to see if something caused an injury you look for remnants of that [inaudible] Mr O'Keefe's body right?

A. I did not have hands on.

Ok, but you did learn that there was something remarkable in Mr O'Keefe's sweater, didn't you?

A. Can you be more specific?

I can. Glass shards, or broken taillight plastic shards, you understand they were found in Mr O'Keefe's sweater right?

A. Doesn't surprise me.

Well I know it doesn't surprise you but the question I'm asking you is when you decide to engage in differential diagnosis and you decide to exclude collision as the cause of this abrasion, didn't you want to know all the facts and information in considering whether it was the taillight that caused the abrasion? Didn't you want to know that information?

A. Yes.

Ok, and when you were considering that information did you know from the criminalistic reports that shards of that broken taillight were littered in his sweater?

A. I did not know that.

When's the first time you learned of that?

A. Right now.

Right now. And so when you've prepared for this case and you've received materials from the defense, nobody has ever sent you, ever, the criminalistic reports that showed taillight shards were in his sweater where the abrasion was? No one ever showed you that?

A. I don't recall seeing that at all.

Well [inaudible] detective and using circumstantial evidence and trace evidence, I want you now to consider this new evidence that you didn't know before you testified at the voir dire and the trial and the Daubert-Lanigan hearing, when you were ruling out the taillight as the mechanism of injury, when you excluded it in your differential diagnosis and you said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries that you looked at were caused by a dog bite. now that you know that there was a debris field of shattered taillight right near the body of Mr O'Keefe, and now that you know in his very sweater where the abrasions, the same arm, under them, is littered with shards of taillight, from that Lexus, does that in any way change your analysis in your differential diagnosis excluding the car as the mechanic of injury for that abrasion?

Objection your honor.

I'm going to allow that, minus the police officer part, the detective part.

A. No, it doesn't change my conclusion that those injuries, those abrasions were caused by a dog bite.

How do you think the shards of taillight got into his sweater?

A. They could have got into his sweater from an accident, correct.

From an impact with the taillight, yes?

A. Could be.

Right and when the taillight breaks and there's jagged irregular linear sharp edges from that break what do you think is going to happen to the skin when those shards impact the skin?

A. They could cause injury, yes.

They could cause puncture wounds couldn't they?

A. Uh yes they could.

They could cause scratches couldn't they?

A. They could cause scratches.

You have no studies on how an abrasion looks after an impact with a taillight that is shattered, you don't have any studies or comparative analysis do you?

A. I have no studies, I just have my years of experience."

Yes. The, on average, one sixteenth ( from memory) of an inch, 'microscopic' plastic pieces found on the shirt are so incongruent with the rest of the evidence. So very odd. Someone will have to remind me if the CW was able to produce decent evidence they even came from KR's tail light. I can't recall. Someone will have to remind me what happened to JOK's shirt from the moment he was transported to hospital until the moment the shirt reappeared in time for testing. I can't remember now how many weeks exactly it was MOA. IIRC Proctor was about the only witness who could explain the shirt's whereabouts in trial x1. Still he's such a credible and trustworthy witness and all that so no worries there. Jmo

 

[ilovewings]

If arrogance is an evidentiary fact that means someone is a murderer, then there's a lot of murderers walking around the Earth. JMO

I have not followed this case but did watch the program on ID last night. I don't know if she is guilty or not but she comes across in an arrogant manner- I was particularly turned off when she was being arrested and worried about how she would look on TV!!! that was very inappropriate. I was a paralegal for many years and attended many trials. I can tell you if a juror or jurors do not like the defendant, or are put off by the defendant's attitude, it can influence their opinion as to guilt or innocence.---I am looking forward to watching part II tonight- it is a very interesting case.

 

[jepop]

Anyone see the video of guy who bought the same tail light from Lexus and tried to break it with a hammer? It took him a few good wacks with a hammer for it to break. The plastic was really thick. Then there was a light bulb that proves there was no way the light could have even operated the way it was supposed to if it was broken the way they are claiming. Add the fact that the hammer was hitting the light with excessive force, which is completely different then the passive for of JOK's arm and his weight behind him, there is 1000% no possible way the tail light was broken with JOK's arm. NONE!!

Zero. Moo

Hopefully the jury will consider the evidence and try to consciously put aside their emotions and biases this time around. Though if the exclusion of defense expert witnesses happens, KR will be disadvantaged.

Imo the CW will get their way and KR will be at trial once again on April 1st because I think we all can guess that even though this case could and should legitimately and legally be dismissed, the judge in her 'honourable' opinion and discretion will make sure that never happens. Jmo

 

[Linda7NJ]

Which isn’t provable - there is no definitive evidence JOK was hit by a vehicle. It is a theory. So the second part of my question still stands. You *feel* that she was drunk and killed him. The evidence we have does not support this. Would you like to see her convicted based on your feelings?

I believe the physical & circumstantial evidence proves it.

Which isn’t provable - there is no definitive evidence JOK was hit by a vehicle. It is a theory. So the second part of my question still stands. You *feel* that she was drunk and killed him. The evidence we have does not support this. Would you like to see her convicted based on your feelings?

I believe it’s been proven. The evidence both physical and circumstantial supports it. I would be comfortable convicting her.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Judge Cannone ruling on ARCCA witnesses....she said she finds material misrepresentations by the defense wrt the ARCCA witnesses.

ETA: She is NOT excluding ARCCA witnesses. KR questioned by Judge at sidebar to see if she wants to continue with her current attorneys, which of course she does.

 

[Derph]

Absolute joke of a courtroom IMO! Karen is not getting a fair trial PERIOD. Cannone is going to make sure of it!

 

[Wishbone]

Brennan says its “graceful” for the 3 hostile witnesses to be present for closing arguments. Defense says it's intimidating to the jurors and doesn't want them there.

 

[jepop]

Brennan says its “graceful” for the 3 hostile witnesses to be present for closing arguments. Defense says it's intimidating to the jurors and doesn't want them there.

Graceful huh? Brennan needs a thesaurus. Jmo

 

[Forest_Wood]

Karen Read's defense, prosecutors to go head-to-head in 2-day hearing

Karen Read returns to court for a two-day hearing on a range of motions including one to bar her from using a third-party defense.

www.courttv.com

Live proceedings today.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Judge Cannone ruling on ARCCA witnesses....she said she finds material misrepresentations by the defense wrt the ARCCA witnesses.

ETA: She is NOT excluding ARCCA witnesses. KR questioned by Judge at sidebar to see if she wants to continue with her current attorneys, which of course she does.

According to the Judge, what exactly did the defense do wrong here? I know they paid a large sum to ARCCA after they received a substantial invoice from them. Did the defense have an agreement with ARCCA to pay for their testimony then? Still, ARCCA already had made their conclusion that JOK did not sustain those injuries from the vehicle. So, that wouldn't have changed their testimony.
Also, if ARCCA is testifying again, will they charge the defense an outrageous amount again?
MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

According to the Judge, what exactly did the defense do wrong here? I know they paid a large sum to ARCCA after they received a substantial invoice from them. Did the defense have an agreement with ARCCA to pay for their testimony then? Still, ARCCA already had made their conclusion that JOK did not sustain those injuries from the vehicle. So, that wouldn't have changed their testimony.
Also, if ARCCA is testifying again, will they charge the defense an outrageous amount again?
MOO.

The defense stated in a pleading in February 2025 that ARCCA were "not hired or paid for by the defense" and from what I can gather also deliberately made a material misrepresentation regarding discovery to the Commonwealth.

"Flagrant violation of Rule 14 obligations" and lack of candor.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

“Based on all the evidence, I conclude that … the candor required of all lawyers has not been demonstrated here,” Judge Beverly Cannone said Tuesday. “I find that there have been repeated misrepresentations made to the court by defense counsel, and I conclude that they were deliberate concerning the relationship with the ARCCA witnesses.”

Karen Read murder case: Judge admonishes defense attorneys for ‘repeated misrepresentations’

Dozens of outstanding motions remain, many of them requests to determine the evidence and arguments lawyers will be allowed to present.

www.boston.com

 

[Linda7NJ]

Graceful huh? Brennan needs a thesaurus. Jmo

You should look up the definition of graceful