MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #19

[keek]

So, there were more accidents where the taillight evidence flew all the way over the lawn.

It is a not busy neighborhood street as well.

 

[Sustained]

She never said "I hit him" or that "I think I hit him". Do you have a link to that information? Thanks in advance.

Didn't the 1st responders testify to that ? And Jennifer McCabe ...

 

[mrjitty]

I re-watched the lab technician's testimony, and cross-exam, and couldn't find any mention of it. Unless it was a different witness, or day.

IIRC the confusion might be that there were 3 sources of debris. JOKs glass. Then some other glass not a match for Johns glass and then separately the tail light which is plastic.

I don’t recall extra pieces of tail light. Maybe someone has the testimony for this. But also i think i am just going to follow the evidence fresh and hopefully the presentation is better this time!

phew. Moo.

 

[ch_13]

How much bruising would there be if Read just bumped JOK, he lost his balance and fell backward onto the ice and snow ? Maybe JOK threw the Waterfall glass in anger at the Lexus and it broke the taillight. Maybe Read continued to backup over JOK after he was already down.

snipped.

Under this theory, where do the scratches on John's arm come from? Not from the taillight as the CW claimed. And wouldn't there be some evidence if he was run over? Tire marks, grease from the undercarriage, damage to the bumper, something? And also, why wasn't he found by the edge of the road instead of way up on the lawn?

What I find bemusing is that even those who are 100% convinced that KR is guilty don't seem to believe in the actual case that the commonwealth put forth at the last trial. Everyone has their own pet "what-if" theory to address its shortcomings. At this point, I think everyone knows that Trooper Paul's testimony was complete balderdash, even if they're loathe to admit it.

 

[Wishbone]

Didn't the 1st responders testify to that ? And Jennifer McCabe ...

Karen Read trial: How accounts of first responders have differed​

McLaughlin sounded like a parrot of JM but then she is good friends with the Albert daughter who was in the house that night - they have photos of her drinking together on spring break. Of course she tried to say she wasn't friends with her but the defense provided the proof. As for some of the others the video documents some of their testimony.

 

[mrjitty]

snipped.

Under this theory, where do the scratches on John's arm come from? Not from the taillight as the CW claimed. And wouldn't there be some evidence if he was run over? Tire marks, grease from the undercarriage, damage to the bumper, something? And also, why wasn't he found by the edge of the road instead of way up on the lawn?

What I find bemusing is that even those who are 100% convinced that KR is guilty don't seem to believe in the actual case that the commonwealth put forth at the last trial. Everyone has their own pet "what-if" theory to address its shortcomings. At this point, I think everyone knows that Trooper Paul's testimony was complete balderdash, even if they're loathe to admit it.

i agree with you directionally. The CW did not have any cohesive or credible theory for what happened

Especially it does not see possible that you can be struck only on the arm yet your centre of mass is thrown so far back away from the road. But I am not an accident reconstruction expert so have no idea what is actually possible. You’d think they need a much more detailed analysis.

MOO

 

[Wishbone]

IIRC the confusion might be that there were 3 sources of debris. JOKs glass. Then some other glass not a match for Johns glass and then separately the tail light which is plastic.

I don’t recall extra pieces of tail light. Maybe someone has the testimony for this. But also i think i am just going to follow the evidence fresh and hopefully the presentation is better this time!

phew. Moo.

The proof of the extra pieces of taillight is included in the testimony of Ashley Vallier with the MSP Crime Lab. It's included in the videos from many sources of the entire trial.

 

[Derph]

Also, the only damage was to the taillight. The back of the Lexus was otherwise untouched. Even though modern cars are designed with crumple zones that collapse to absorb impact.

I don't know what the CW will say in the upcoming trial, but in the last one Trooper Paul claimed it was because the only part of JO's body that touched the car was his arm (even though the arm wasn't bruised). Yet that same impact was enough to throw him back 10 feet onto the grass. As the ARCCA engineers pointed out, the physics of that just doesn't work. JO's center of mass would have to make contact with the car to get thrown back that way.

I strongly feel that the Defense should get a physics professor to explain simple physics to the jury in a way they would teach an introduction class of 9th grade students. Show them the basic principles of force and resistance that proves the CW's theory is complete and utter garbage.

 

[twhel]

Also, the only damage was to the taillight. The back of the Lexus was otherwise untouched. Even though modern cars are designed with crumple zones that collapse to absorb impact.

I don't know what the CW will say in the upcoming trial, but in the last one Trooper Paul claimed it was because the only part of JO's body that touched the car was his arm (even though the arm wasn't bruised). Yet that same impact was enough to throw him back 10 feet onto the grass. As the ARCCA engineers pointed out, the physics of that just doesn't work. JO's center of mass would have to make contact with the car to get thrown back that way.

The CW specified additional observed damage to the rear of the Lexus (as observed in Dighton on 1/29/22) in its Feb 2024 opposition to the motion to dismiss the case, as follows:

The rear right passenger side taillight was shattered and pieces were missing from the red and clear areas. On the right side of the rear tailgate, a deep scratch and minor dent were observed. On the right side of the rear bumper, two small scratches were observed as well as one area where the paint was chipped off.

Page 17 of CW filing:

https://www.insideedition.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/Karen Read Higgins.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

Everything is outside. The blood, the broken drinking glass/es, the shoe, the hat, the phone which didn't move again a minute after the time of arrival, the broken taillight, the drinking straw. I'm not buying that all of that, tiny shards of glass etc, was put there by third parties. There is no bruising from a fight and no defensive injuries. How can they reconstruct anything to do with the dynamics of John and the vehicle without knowing how John was positioned to start with - bent over, standing, walking, staggering, slipping, hit while tripping up, already fallen over and getting up, even?

JMO

 

[twall]

This trial and LVD AZ trial happening at the same time. What to do? AZ is a couple hours behind my time zone right now so that helps a bit.

 

[Derph]

The proof of the extra pieces of taillight is included in the testimony of Ashley Vallier with the MSP Crime Lab. It's included in the videos from many sources of the entire trial.

Was it her that opened the supposed "sealed" evidence bag that had more pieces in it than claimed? There was another surprise incident on the stand as well.

I can't remember who it was that was given a CD or DVD of camera footage to identify that was supposed to be his, but it had been changed and labelled by someone else!!! He sat there under questioning by Lally and told him right to his face that it wasn't his handwriting on the disc and that the disc wasn't his at all!! Ooooops! Just another one of those darned coincidental mistakes. His DVD just magically miracled itself out of the evidence room and got replaced by someone else's disc. Nothing to see there right?!!!

 

[ch_13]

The CW specified additional observed damage to the rear of the Lexus (as observed in Dighton on 1/29/22) in its Feb 2024 opposition to the motion to dismiss the case, as follows:

The rear right passenger side taillight was shattered and pieces were missing from the red and clear areas. On the right side of the rear tailgate, a deep scratch and minor dent were observed. On the right side of the rear bumper, two small scratches were observed as well as one area where the paint was chipped off.

Page 17 of CW filing:

https://www.insideedition.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/Karen Read Higgins.pdf

OK, but a couple of scratches and a dent is not what I'm talking about. Those could have happened anywhere.

I'm talking about the crumple zones. I think most of us have had experience with even minor fender-benders that resulted in serious damage to the car. That's just the way cars are constructed these days. They work by absorbing energy so the car takes the brunt of the impact in order to keep the passengers safe.

Crumple zone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edit - Oh, and if the scratches were caused by JO being hit, shouldn't there be paint from the car on his body/clothing?

 

[Derph]

There is no bruising from a fight and no defensive injuries.

I disagree with this. He had 2 black eyes and a big bruise on his right hand.

 

[Sustained]

snipped.

Under this theory, where do the scratches on John's arm come from? Not from the taillight as the CW claimed. And wouldn't there be some evidence if he was run over? Tire marks, grease from the undercarriage, damage to the bumper, something? And also, why wasn't he found by the edge of the road instead of way up on the lawn?

What I find bemusing is that even those who are 100% convinced that KR is guilty don't seem to believe in the actual case that the commonwealth put forth at the last trial. Everyone has their own pet "what-if" theory to address its shortcomings. At this point, I think everyone knows that Trooper Paul's testimony was complete balderdash, even if they're loathe to admit it.

KR can be guilty of running JOK down but found "not guilty" at trial if the CW doesn't/didn't present a case strong enough to counter reasonable doubt. No one can say with 100% certainly where the scratches on JOK's arm came from. No one can say with 100% certainty whether he moved if KR had hit and partially run over him. And wasn't he only 6-12' off the road ? That is not that far depending on where Read's vehicle actually was driven. She was severely intoxicated.

It is far easier to believe KR hit and ran down JOK either accidentally or on purpose than some massive conspiracy theory involving 10+ individuals.

 

[Tortoise]

I disagree with this. He had 2 black eyes and a big bruise on his right hand.

That was explained in testimony by the ME

Prosecutor Adam Lally asked Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello if she had seen any indications of a physical altercation during her autopsy on John O’Keefe, and she said she did not.

She said the small contusions on the backs of his hands were consistent with an attempt to insert an IV, but she did not see any bruising to his knuckles or breaks in his fingernails.

She explained that the swelling around O’Keefe’s eyes was a very common response associated with a fracture at the base of the skull, and is known as “raccoon eyes.”


“Emergency room physicians are always very alerted to any hemorrhage and any bleeding around the eyes, because it could signify or it could mean there is a much bigger injury inside the skull and it’s not just some bleeding around the eyes. It’s actually associated with a skull fracture,” she said.

Karen Read trial live updates: GPS data shows O’Keefe never entered the house

Testimony resumed in the Karen Read trial on Thursday. Follow the latest updates here.

www.masslive.com

 

[Linda7NJ]

How many accidents do you think have happened in a neighborhood directly in front of the Alberts' house? Quite a stretch. JMO

I live on a suburban dead end…I can’t explain the little pieces of debris!

 

[Wishbone]

<modsnip - quoted post was not an approved source, removed. Following is regards to Vallier testimony>
In her testimony she explained she had pieces that did not fit in with that taillight.

 

[twhel]

In her testimony she explained she had pieces that did not fit in with that taillight.

Thank you; as I say, I will listen to the entirety. From my scan of the cross, it did not appear that the defense attempted to attribute any significance to that angle.

 

[Wishbone]

She testified on two different days so you must not have it all.

Judge Beverly Cannone ended Monday’s court session with Vallier on the stand. Read’s trial is not in session Tuesday; Vallier’s testimony will resume Wednesday.

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