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

[Forest_Wood]

Any dog can. I've had German Shepherds my whole life, loving family dogs because they were brought up that way. One was my Dad's police dog that lived with us and was a cuddler, great with the neighbors too. All depends on the upbringing. MO

Exactly! And Chloe was brought up and trained differently than your loving family dog apparently. Chloe was anxious around humans according to testimony. Like humans, anxious dogs do unpredictable things. Having a dog for 7 years is a long time for a family to decide to send her away to a farm in her middle age. Anyone who grew up with dogs as family members would know the pain caused by that decision - both to the family and to the dog. I wonder what would prompt that decision after 7 years.
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you, Linda. I did listen to the whole trial while it was happening, so I did listen to prosecution as well as the defense. I am happy to explain my reasoning a little further. All IMO.

Search engines like Google record the exact time a search query is executed using server-side timestamps. When you perform a search, the request is sent to Google’s servers, which log the exact time of the query using their synchronized clocks. This ensures that the recorded time reflects when the search was processed, independent of the user’s device clock.

Furthermore, experts testifying on behalf of the prosecution stated that the 2:27 a.m. timestamp reflected when the Safari browser tab was initially opened, not when the search query was executed. They claim this was due to the WAL (write ahead log). I find this to be an intentional conflation, and in my opinion, this is not possible. The timestamp in question comes directly from Google’s servers, not from Safari’s WAL . It cannot be altered due to tabs being re-opened, new searches from the same tab, etc. It is an accurate reflection of when Jen McCabe made the ‘hos long’ search.

As always, all IMO unless substantiated by source.

Did the expert testimony say that the server side timestamp is logged on the device?

I did not listen to that part of the trial.

TIA

 

[keek]

Exactly! And Chloe was brought up and trained differently than your loving family dog apparently. Chloe was anxious around humans according to testimony. Like humans, anxious dogs do unpredictable things. Having a dog for 7 years is a long time for a family to decide to send her away to a farm in her middle age. Anyone who grew up with dogs as family members would know the pain caused by that decision - both to the family and to the dog. I wonder what would prompt that decision after 7 years.
MOO

Albert said the dog slept in their closet in their bedroom. Pretty close bond for the dog.

 

[sunshineray]

What is going on with all this KR was texting discovery and strategies with that rabid youtuber guy who was arrested numerous times for tampering with witnesses!?

Messages between Read, Turtleboy discussed at hearing days before murder trial begins

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied Read's federal appeal, meaning her retrial can move ahead as scheduled.

www.wcvb.com

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

I've never seen someone wanting to be swallowed up by the ground as much as Proctor was on cross that day.
I hope they make him do that again this time around.

I hope their first question is, “Mr Proctor, could you please tell the jury why you are no longer employed as a police officer?”

 

[sunshineray]

Maybe they were out of challenges for potential jurors? Did you watch the trial?

No, I've already mentioned I did not.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Did the expert testimony say that the server side timestamp is logged on the device?

I did not listen to that part of the trial.

TIA

The prosecutions experts implied, although did not outright state, that the Google’s server-side logs may have been conflated with the local device data. In my opinion, neither of them went as far as to state that Jen DID somehow alter the server side logs because both experts know this is not possible. Instead, both of the prosecutions experts implied that the data was misunderstood.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense experts claimed explicitly that the ‘server side timestamps were logged on the device’ as you asked (I may be misunderstanding your question). Both agreed that there are typically two logs of search history, one in a browser like Safari, which can be changed by the user, and one in Google’s servers, which cannot be altered by the user. The prosecutions experts argued that the devices local history or the WAL may have contributed to a *misunderstanding* of when the search was actually made. But neither of the CW experts said that JM DID somehow alter Google’s server side records, IMO because they know that that is simply not possible. During cross, both experts said that they could not explain how JM’s phone activity could have altered Google’s records.

 

[sunshineray]

Exactly! And Chloe was brought up and trained differently than your loving family dog apparently. Chloe was anxious around humans according to testimony. Like humans, anxious dogs do unpredictable things. Having a dog for 7 years is a long time for a family to decide to send her away to a farm in her middle age. Anyone who grew up with dogs as family members would know the pain caused by that decision - both to the family and to the dog. I wonder what would prompt that decision after 7 years.
MOO

Has that question not been asked of the owners, the Alberts?

 

[mrjitty]

A good watch and summary. Also includes interesting points concerning judge's bias against the Defense and lack of impartiality. Despite this, both thought there would be no problem with defense FBI investigation expert being allowed to testify. Oh well, they underestimated the judge there. C'est la vie in the cannone court room. Jmo

Peter made one interesting comment here. The defence found no precedent for such an expert under state law, after which the Judge did find one relevant case apparently.

So that means it might be hard for the defence to argue on appeal that this decision was incorrect, seeing apparently allowing this expert would have been the first time in the state.

So though it appears to be common out of state, this might not be a reversible error.

I tend to agree she should have just allowed this witness on a YOLO basis.

FWIW

 

[sunshineray]

The prosecutions experts implied, although did not outright state, that the Google’s server-side logs may have been conflated with the local device data. In my opinion, neither of them went as far as to state that Jen DID somehow alter the server side logs because both experts know this is not possible. Instead, both experts implied that the data was misunderstood.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense experts claimed explicitly that the ‘server side timestamps were logged on the device’ as you asked (I may be misunderstanding your question). Both agreed that there are typically two logs of search history, one in a browser like Safari, which can be changed by the user, and one in Google’s servers, which cannot be altered by the user. The prosecutions experts argued that the devices local history or the WAL may have contributed to a *misunderstanding* of when the search was actually made. But neither of the CW experts said that JM DID somehow alter Google’s server side records, IMO because they know that that is simply not possible. During cross, both experts said that they could not explain how JM’s phone activity could have altered Google’s records.

So she didn't do that delete then?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So she didn't do that delete then?

That depends on if you’re asking the defense or the CW. I tend to side with the defense expert. Google’s servers showed that the ‘hos long’ search was manually deleted. So it wasn’t just a local device action (like the prosecutions experts claim), it was an actual deletion request sent to Google servers.

Prosecution basically said ‘She didn’t delete it, and if she did, it was an accident’. They did not provide any explanation on why Google logs showed the deletion attempt, other than more of the same - implying Safari can affect Google’s server-side logs.

As always, all IMO

 

[twhel]

The prosecutions experts implied, although did not outright state, that the Google’s server-side logs may have been conflated with the local device data. In my opinion, neither of them went as far as to state that Jen DID somehow alter the server side logs because both experts know this is not possible. Instead, both of the prosecutions experts implied that the data was misunderstood.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense experts claimed explicitly that the ‘server side timestamps were logged on the device’ as you asked (I may be misunderstanding your question). Both agreed that there are typically two logs of search history, one in a browser like Safari, which can be changed by the user, and one in Google’s servers, which cannot be altered by the user. The prosecutions experts argued that the devices local history or the WAL may have contributed to a *misunderstanding* of when the search was actually made. But neither of the CW experts said that JM DID somehow alter Google’s server side records, IMO because they know that that is simply not possible. During cross, both experts said that they could not explain how JM’s phone activity could have altered Google’s records.

In its motion to exclude Richard Green from this second trial, the CW contended that, in the wake of the first trial, Cellebrite updated its data extraction software so as not to rely on timestamps generated by Safari.

The result, according to the CW, is that when Cellebrite's current software is run against Jen McCabe's phone, the 2:27 timestamp does not appear and the search at issue is shown to have been made after 6 a.m., as JM testified.

From the linked MassLive article:

"When McCabe’s phone is analyzed in the latest version of Cellebrite, the 2:27 a.m. timestamp no longer appears in the extraction report, according to the motion. Instead, the software shows the searches in question occurred around 6:24 a.m. and shows no evidence they were deleted."

New Mass. SJC decision on Cellebrite software could impact Karen Read trial

In a decision that could impact the Karen Read case, Massachusetts' highest court determined a judge correctly allowed a lay person to testify about cell phone extraction.

www.masslive.com

We will see what plays out at trial. Since Cellebrite's reason for existence is to provide accurate forensic information, if what the CW says is true, it would seem to present a significant hurdle for the defense and Mr. Green.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

In its motion to exclude Richard Green from this second trial, the CW contended that, in the wake of the first trial, Cellebrite updated its data extraction software so as not to rely on timestamps generated by Safari.

The result, according to the CW, is that when Cellebrite's current software is run against Jen McCabe's phone, the 2:27 timestamp does not appear and the search at issue is shown to have been made after 6 a.m., as JM testified.

From the linked MassLive article:

"When McCabe’s phone is analyzed in the latest version of Cellebrite, the 2:27 a.m. timestamp no longer appears in the extraction report, according to the motion. Instead, the software shows the searches in question occurred around 6:24 a.m. and shows no evidence they were deleted."

New Mass. SJC decision on Cellebrite software could impact Karen Read trial

In a decision that could impact the Karen Read case, Massachusetts' highest court determined a judge correctly allowed a lay person to testify about cell phone extraction.

www.masslive.com

We will see what plays out at trial. Since Cellebrite's reason for existence is to provide accurate forensic information, if what the CW says is true, it would seem to present a significant hurdle for the defense and Mr. Green.

BBM. IMO, the claim that Cellebrite ‘updated its software’ after the first trial to remove reliance on Safari timestamps raises even more serious questions: What exact changes were made? Why was this issue only ‘discovered’ after the first trial…? They are basically acknowledging the mistake (intentional mistake or no…) IMO, it’s very sketchy that they are trying to say the updated software reflects their hypothesis while not in court.

I had heard that Cellbrite had used an outdated OS when reviewing JM’s search data. Thank you for posting that link!

Edited to add: very interesting to me that they still do not state that they are not seeing the 2:27 search in GOOGLE’s search logs with the updated software. They are still talking about how data is extracted and interpreted from the device. Which still doesn’t explain away the Google logs.

 

[Wishbone]

Yes I saw all that on the documentary. I'd say it was brutally uncomfortable for that witness and others. I've read some articles about the other stuff and his charges.

IMO he deserved to be made uncomfortable in the very least after making fun of KR's health problems and physically altering procedures she suffered through.Then to top it off he wanted her to commit suicide. He gets no sympathy from me.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Has that question not been asked of the owners, the Alberts?

How about you do some research of the first trial and let us know? Even though I watched the trial after the fact, I can't recall how the Alberts explained that.

 

[Wishbone]

What is going on with all this KR was texting discovery and strategies with that rabid youtuber guy who was arrested numerous times for tampering with witnesses!?

Messages between Read, Turtleboy discussed at hearing days before murder trial begins

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied Read's federal appeal, meaning her retrial can move ahead as scheduled.

www.wcvb.com

brennan wants to know what their private messages were about. Fishing.

 

[keek]

IMO he deserved to be made uncomfortable in the very least after making fun of KR's health problems and physically altering procedures she suffered through.Then to top it off he wanted her to commit suicide. He gets no sympathy from me.

He is done due to all of his unprofessional, illegal behaviors and creating, through NOT treating the scene of finding J.O on the lawn as a suspicious and unattended death, period. He has put this horrific ordeal that followed where it is today due to NOT doing his job, but his instant despise of KR and his doing a big favor to his friends. Wonder if they 'know' him now.

 

[Spectrix]

So she didn't do that delete then?

I watched the entire first trial. There were four or five experts who gave witness testimony on the 'hos long to die in cold' search, and they all contradicted each other. In the end I (imagining my self as a juror) discounted that particular piece of evidence.

Same as I discounted the fact that Jen McCabe came off as completely evil and conniving. So yes, I could totally imagine her making that search at 2:27am while waiting for JOK to die, and subsequently deleting the search, but that doesn't mean that she actually did. The evidence was just not clear.

 

[Wishbone]

Canton police audit findings​

The audit did find inadequacies in Canton Police investigations in general, as well as the investigation into the death of John O'Keefe.

Audit of Canton police finds deficiencies in Karen Read investigation

The town of Canton released the findings of an audit into its police force as Karen Read's second trial begins.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[mrjitty]

The prosecutions experts implied, although did not outright state, that the Google’s server-side logs may have been conflated with the local device data. In my opinion, neither of them went as far as to state that Jen DID somehow alter the server side logs because both experts know this is not possible. Instead, both of the prosecutions experts implied that the data was misunderstood.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense experts claimed explicitly that the ‘server side timestamps were logged on the device’ as you asked (I may be misunderstanding your question). Both agreed that there are typically two logs of search history, one in a browser like Safari, which can be changed by the user, and one in Google’s servers, which cannot be altered by the user. The prosecutions experts argued that the devices local history or the WAL may have contributed to a *misunderstanding* of when the search was actually made. But neither of the CW experts said that JM DID somehow alter Google’s server side records, IMO because they know that that is simply not possible. During cross, both experts said that they could not explain how JM’s phone activity could have altered Google’s records.

Thank you