MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20 Retrial

[Wishbone]

Watch the cross examinations of the first trial

Cheers
Let’s both hope the Truth and Justice prevails this go around and the jury doesn’t hang!

I did watch the entire trial and especially focused on the good Dr Wolf and didn't get what you mentioned out of his testimony.JMOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

The focus on appearance is insulting and that is an example of comments seeming to be one dimensional. KR's as well. This is a trial. Seeing the big picture is crucial if one is a juror and I can only hope that is the focus and assume these people are qualified on that level of perception and intellect.

The jury was indeed qualified through careful vetting by all defense attorneys and district attorneys. I don't grasp the reason why they would be disrespected for their honorable and honest work. They made the best conclusions based on the information provided to them IMO.

 

[keek]

The jury was indeed qualified through careful vetting by all defense attorneys and district attorneys. I don't grasp the reason why they would be disrespected for their honorable and honest work. They made the best conclusions based on the information provided to them IMO.

Right, based on the information and intense thought of each and every thing they had. I so hope this time around they are given all the correct instructions or know to ask and get what they require to complete their honorable obligation.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Right, based on the information and intense thought of each and every thing they had. I so hope this time around they are given all the correct instructions or know to ask and get what they require to complete their honorable obligation.

I don't think the defense will let the court get away with that one more time!

 

[Wishbone]

Ten jurors selected as empanelment continues in Karen Read retrial

After two days of jury selection, nearly half of the seats have been filled, indicating that the process may be moving faster than anticipated.

www.wcvb.com

DEDHAM, Mass. —
One juror was allowed to drop out, but four others were added Thursday as the selection process continued in a Massachusetts courtroom for Karen Read's murder retrial.

The progress brings the total number of jurors selected so far to 10, five men and five women.

 

[Angelwatch]

Didn’t Dr. Rentschler acknowledged under cross-examination that it was possible John was “nudged" by the car, fell, and died?
IIRC

“Nudged” “clipped” both mean HIT

Dr. Rentschler testified that there were a number of ways JOK could have sustained a head injury. He could have slipped or fallen or other possibilities. If you"re referring to a side-swipe impact, Dr. Rentschler testified it has different physics and doesn't generate enough force to project a person.

Dr. Rentschler testified that above 15 mph, a car hitting an arm or a head (any body part about 11 lbs) would result in over 1k lbs of force and do substantial damage. He wasn't allowed to be specific, but in a general sense, that looks like broken bones, damaged ligaments and tendons, significant bruising. JOK's injuries were inconsistent with this. The medical examiner also testified his injuries were inconsistent with pedestrian strikes she had seen.

I understand you disagree with ARCCA, and have a different opinion on JOK's injuries. The jury didn't give much weight to ARCCA either. I, personally, found them very compelling.

 

[Wishbone]

Karen Read takes double jeopardy appeal to US Supreme Court

Karen Read is asking the highest court in the nation to take up her double jeopardy claims. The court is asked to review more than 7,000 cases each year — it agrees to hear between 100 to 150.

www.masslive.com

Read filed what is known as a petition for a writ of certiorari with the nation’s highest court on Tuesday. The docket indicates that prosecutors must respond to the petition by May 5.
But unlike the other courts where Read has brought her appeal, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to take up the case. The court is asked to review more than 7,000 cases each year — it agrees to hear between 100 to 150.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yeah the defense should just roll over and not present a case.

IMO She should have accepted responsibility, a man is dead.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Dr. Rentschler testified that there were a number of ways JOK could have sustained a head injury. He could have slipped or fallen or other possibilities. If you"re referring to a side-swipe impact, Dr. Rentschler testified it has different physics and doesn't generate enough force to project a person.

Dr. Rentschler testified that above 15 mph, a car hitting an arm or a head (any body part about 11 lbs) would result in over 1k lbs of force and do substantial damage. He wasn't allowed to be specific, but in a general sense, that looks like broken bones, damaged ligaments and tendons, significant bruising. JOK's injuries were inconsistent with this. The medical examiner also testified his injuries were inconsistent with pedestrian strikes she had seen.

I understand you disagree with ARCCA, and have a different opinion on JOK's injuries. The jury didn't give much weight to ARCCA either. I, personally, found them very compelling.

A side swipe is much different -
IF he said “sideswipes can’t project” - and that’s what he testified to- he’s wrong. IMO

 

[keek]

IMO She should have accepted responsibility, a man is dead.

This is what the trial is for, others said differently. She is not guilty of anything at this point at all. AMERICA.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Dr. Rentschler testified that there were a number of ways JOK could have sustained a head injury. He could have slipped or fallen or other possibilities. If you"re referring to a side-swipe impact, Dr. Rentschler testified it has different physics and doesn't generate enough force to project a person.

Dr. Rentschler testified that above 15 mph, a car hitting an arm or a head (any body part about 11 lbs) would result in over 1k lbs of force and do substantial damage. He wasn't allowed to be specific, but in a general sense, that looks like broken bones, damaged ligaments and tendons, significant bruising. JOK's injuries were inconsistent with this. The medical examiner also testified his injuries were inconsistent with pedestrian strikes she had seen.

I understand you disagree with ARCCA, and have a different opinion on JOK's injuries. The jury didn't give much weight to ARCCA either. I, personally, found them very compelling.

I understood them the same way, and I agree that the jury did not seem to give their testimony he weight I thought it deserved.
What has never made any sense to me, is that JOK is said to have been struck by a vehicle so hard that he was thrown several feet, clear out of his shoes - but there's no bruising on his body. Common sense tells me that a vehicle accident did not happen that way. I don't know if there are a lot of cases where a pedestrian is thrown out of his shoes by a vehicle, without bruising - but I could not find even one. Bodies bruise.
I don't believe there was a big conspiracy among many, but I do think no one looked into what happened to this man, and what they did come up with is not logical - no matter how loudly it's yelled.
I don't know what happened, and why this wasn't investigated (or why it's being shouted so loudly ) but logic tells me it didn't happen as stated. If I'm a juror, that would be all I would need - but that's just my opinion.

 

[Linda7NJ]

CW Expert

ACTAR.org

Dr. Judson Welcher is a highly experienced biomechanical engineer and accident reconstruction expert affiliated with Aperture, LLC (formerly Biomechanical Research and Testing, LLC) in Long Beach, California. With over 28 years in the field, he specializes in trauma causation and prevention, human tolerance, restraint design, instrumented testing with humans and anthropomorphic test devices (crash dummies), accident reconstruction, and amusement park rider tolerances. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, and a Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Southern California.

Dr. Welcher has been accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstruction (ACTAR) since 1995 and has conducted over 1,000 staged instrumented human volunteer crash tests. He has consulted on thousands of civil and criminal forensic cases and has testified as an expert in over 200 trials across local, state, and federal courts in the United States. His work includes analyzing injury-causing accidents, performing vehicle inspections, and conducting biomechanical engineering calculations to determine occupant responses to various accident scenarios. Additionally, he has authored over 45 technical publications and presentations on topics such as collision trauma biomechanics, injury causation, and automotive seat design.

His extensive experience has made him a sought-after speaker for audiences including engineers, law enforcement, physicians, and attorneys. Notably, Dr. Welcher has been involved in high-profile cases, such as the Karen Read retrial in 2025, where he was cleared to testify as an expert for the Commonwealth, replacing a previous expert, despite defense efforts to exclude him. His qualifications and rigorous scientific approach underscore his reputation as a leading figure in accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering.

 

[Forest_Wood]

CW Expert

ACTAR.org

Dr. Judson Welcher is a highly experienced biomechanical engineer and accident reconstruction expert affiliated with Aperture, LLC (formerly Biomechanical Research and Testing, LLC) in Long Beach, California. With over 28 years in the field, he specializes in trauma causation and prevention, human tolerance, restraint design, instrumented testing with humans and anthropomorphic test devices (crash dummies), accident reconstruction, and amusement park rider tolerances. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, and a Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Southern California.

Dr. Welcher has been accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstruction (ACTAR) since 1995 and has conducted over 1,000 staged instrumented human volunteer crash tests. He has consulted on thousands of civil and criminal forensic cases and has testified as an expert in over 200 trials across local, state, and federal courts in the United States. His work includes analyzing injury-causing accidents, performing vehicle inspections, and conducting biomechanical engineering calculations to determine occupant responses to various accident scenarios. Additionally, he has authored over 45 technical publications and presentations on topics such as collision trauma biomechanics, injury causation, and automotive seat design.

His extensive experience has made him a sought-after speaker for audiences including engineers, law enforcement, physicians, and attorneys. Notably, Dr. Welcher has been involved in high-profile cases, such as the Karen Read retrial in 2025, where he was cleared to testify as an expert for the Commonwealth, replacing a previous expert, despite defense efforts to exclude him. His qualifications and rigorous scientific approach underscore his reputation as a leading figure in accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering.

Why wasn't a proper accident reconstruction expert brought in during the first trial I wonder. I suppose the CW didn't think the jury or the public needed one and would buy into Trooper Paul's nonsense. I also wonder how much they're paying this guy for his testimony. They still have Trooper Paul on the witness list though.

 

[Izzylizzy]

 

[mrjitty]

Why wasn't a proper accident reconstruction expert brought in during the first trial I wonder. I suppose the CW didn't think the jury or the public needed one and would buy into Trooper Paul's nonsense. I also wonder how much they're paying this guy for his testimony. They still have Trooper Paul on the witness list though.

I assume for the same reason as Paul testified. They had the tail light glass so it must have happened somehow. QED.

It was poor from Lally IMO but I guess he did not know ARCCA would hit until too late.

 

[mrjitty]

@twhel

Just bringing your post over here:

How can I be certain, on that point? As of time of the arrival of KR's towed vehicle at Canton PD, the SERT team was already on the scene of the alleged crime. It was snowing heavily. The items of evidence eventually recovered (five tail light pieces and JOK's sneaker) were dug out from the snow with a shovel and photographed in situ. The shovel itself was photographed. KR's defense has not even attempted to venture a scenario in which Proctor could have planted evidence under those circumstances.

I listened to Yanetti's cross of Lt O'Hara on this out of interest. It's kind of fascinating to go back to it now, given the somewhat changed dynamics - if unfortunately a large time investment. Many of these testimonies end up being multi hour investments.

IMO the SERT witness was excellent, but the testimony (as ever) is somewhat frustrating as multiple witnesses have to come together to make sense of it. e.g SERT guy can discuss the procedure and what was found, but not the photography (apparently done by Tully), nor the distances - as for the purposes of the X he did not have the map to reference.

The focus of Yanetti was not to dispute what was recovered, but rather where it was discovered. e.g he kept trying to dispute how far apart the items were (plastic and shoe)

I think this is an area where we need to be quite specific. Even if you believe there are COC issues and crime scene integrity issues later (a valid argument), Yanetti does not dispute that parts of the Lexus tail light were in fact recovered from the scene of the alleged accident at the first practicable search. Personally I don't see that the elapsed time is an issue. The items were under the snow. Plenty of cases I have followed have seen evidence recovered from the CS over subsequent days or weeks.

So the actual meaningful allegation - by implication on X - is someone planted the tail light pieces sometime between the dashcam video, and the arrival of the investigators enmasse. Given how many people were present, I personally don't think it's credible that the officers unknown to O'Hara did it at the time. Also that would start to involve Tully having to be in on the conspiracy.

So I come back to a critical question for T2. Given the dashcam shows pieces of the tail light out that morning AND the defence alleges the collision with JOK's car broke the tail light, someone had to collect the pieces from JOK's driveway and take them to 34

My reason for doing all this was to match how investigative failures might be specifically relevant to the D case. Obviously the failure to post a watch at the crime scene is the biggy, in addition to no photo of the Lexus pre-seizure. However many of the other generic issues are not actually relevant to this core issue in my opinion.

I'd also note, I think significant resource was actually devoted to this phase. It's hardly the fault of the responders if some unknown person had planted to the evidence long before, and no procedures would have helped with that.

Interested in your thoughts on this!

MOO etc

 

[mrjitty]

Dr. Rentschler testified that there were a number of ways JOK could have sustained a head injury. He could have slipped or fallen or other possibilities. If you"re referring to a side-swipe impact, Dr. Rentschler testified it has different physics and doesn't generate enough force to project a person.

Dr. Rentschler testified that above 15 mph, a car hitting an arm or a head (any body part about 11 lbs) would result in over 1k lbs of force and do substantial damage. He wasn't allowed to be specific, but in a general sense, that looks like broken bones, damaged ligaments and tendons, significant bruising. JOK's injuries were inconsistent with this. The medical examiner also testified his injuries were inconsistent with pedestrian strikes she had seen.

I understand you disagree with ARCCA, and have a different opinion on JOK's injuries. The jury didn't give much weight to ARCCA either. I, personally, found them very compelling.

BIB

This is mostly why I was a NG in T1.

My 'common sense' is that at such a speed, there would be other impact injuries. Of course I am not an accident expert so that feeling could be incorrect - but the state did nothing to rebut it, so i had to follow the evidence as presented.

The other view could be that the reconstruction is simply incorrect. This is where I lean. Paul simply assumed things that 'must have happened' instead of putting together a credible reconstruction. For instance, maybe JOK was simply hit in the road (seems more probable) staggered back a ways, then actually just slipped and fell. These are questions that had me leaning more in the manslaughter direction. My speculation only.

Of course this all shows, IMO, that the correct verdict in T1 was NG, and the CW needs to do much better to convict on any of the charges. And they may not be able to do that, because the lead investigator banjaxed the investigation.

We shall see!

 

[twhel]

@twhel

Just bringing your post over here:



I listened to Yanetti's cross of Lt O'Hara on this out of interest. It's kind of fascinating to go back to it now, given the somewhat changed dynamics - if unfortunately a large time investment. Many of these testimonies end up being multi hour investments.

IMO the SERT witness was excellent, but the testimony (as ever) is somewhat frustrating as multiple witnesses have to come together to make sense of it. e.g SERT guy can discuss the procedure and what was found, but not the photography (apparently done by Tully), nor the distances - as for the purposes of the X he did not have the map to reference.

The focus of Yanetti was not to dispute what was recovered, but rather where it was discovered. e.g he kept trying to dispute how far apart the items were (plastic and shoe)

I think this is an area where we need to be quite specific. Even if you believe there are COC issues and crime scene integrity issues later (a valid argument), Yanetti does not dispute that parts of the Lexus tail light were in fact recovered from the scene of the alleged accident at the first practicable search. Personally I don't see that the elapsed time is an issue. The items were under the snow. Plenty of cases I have followed have seen evidence recovered from the CS over subsequent days or weeks.

So the actual meaningful allegation - by implication on X - is someone planted the tail light pieces sometime between the dashcam video, and the arrival of the investigators enmasse. Given how many people were present, I personally don't think it's credible that the officers unknown to O'Hara did it at the time. Also that would start to involve Tully having to be in on the conspiracy.

So I come back to a critical question for T2. Given the dashcam shows pieces of the tail light out that morning AND the defence alleges the collision with JOK's car broke the tail light, someone had to collect the pieces from JOK's driveway and take them to 34

My reason for doing all this was to match how investigative failures might be specifically relevant to the D case. Obviously the failure to post a watch at the crime scene is the biggy, in addition to no photo of the Lexus pre-seizure. However many of the other generic issues are not actually relevant to this core issue in my opinion.

I'd also note, I think significant resource was actually devoted to this phase. It's hardly the fault of the responders if some unknown person had planted to the evidence long before, and no procedures would have helped with that.

Interested in your thoughts on this!

MOO etc

mrjitty, thank you for your post. IMO, there are a lot of problems with any notion of tail light pieces being taken by some unknown party from JOK's driveway to the crime scene that first day, and, to my knowledge, KR's defense has not suggested it as a scenario.

I'd also note that the ARCCA testimony is, IMO, a big problem for any theory that the tail light could have been broken so as to create significant loose pieces at the very slow speed at which KR's vehicle was backing up in that driveway.

I will go back and look at Yannetti's cross of O'Hara, but I do recall that the GPS mapping of the shoe and two of the tail light pieces located by SERT essentially overlapped. And I don't see how quibbling over the exact distance between sneaker and pieces would be compelling. If the tail light pieces are there, and weren't planted, the tail light was shattered at the scene and KR must have been aware of that shattering impact.

As for the overall significance of the ARCCA testimony, if I may skip to your other post, IMO, the jury may have given considerable weight to that testimony, and the doubt cast on the specific scenario proposed by the CW, in acquitting on the murder charge. Given the specific intent required to support that charge, I think the jury was correct in doing so and the CW should have dropped the charge for this trial.

The motor vehicle manslaughter charge is a different story. The jury, IMO. could properly find that there was, BARD, no plausible scenario of events that would account for the facts presented that would not have involved at least recklessness/negligence on the part of an intoxicated KR.

The shattered tail light is there and there is no candidate for what it could have collided with other than JOK's person, or an object held in or launched from his hand. The latter scenario still leaves us with a violent altercation involving KR's vehicle about which she has not told the truth.

And there's the fact of the tiny pieces of tail light presented as being embedded in JOK's clothing. This is a data point of which the ARCCA witnesses admitted being unaware and for which they had no come back.

For anyone who thinks there must be plausible scenario(s) that would account for the presented evidence that would not involve negligence, at least, on KR's part (and do not rely on planting of evidence) be my guest.

 

[mrjitty]

mrjitty, thank you for your post. IMO, there are a lot of problems with any notion of tail light pieces being taken by some unknown party from JOK's driveway to the crime scene that first day, and, to my knowledge, KR's defense has not suggested it as a scenario.

Ok - interesting. I don't see where else they can come from personally.

I'd also note that the ARCCA testimony is, IMO, a big problem for any theory that the tail light could have been broken so as to create significant loose pieces at the very slow speed at which KR's vehicle was backing up in that driveway.

I am sceptical of the driveway backing theory - unless the defence can prove that JOK's bumper (or some other part of the car) can impact the tail light, without having to do significant damage to the bumpers of both cars? As I look at it, for the cars to collide in that orientation the two bumper zones are in opposition, so have to compress before JOK's car can reach the taillight. However I cannot tell the respective heights from the video.

I will go back and look at Yannetti's cross of O'Hara, but I do recall that the GPS mapping of the shoe and two of the tail light pieces located by SERT essentially overlapped. And I don't see how quibbling over the exact distance between sneaker and pieces would be compelling. If the tail light pieces are there, and weren't planted, the tail light was shattered at the scene and KR must have been aware of that shattering impact.

I did not understand where Yanetti was going with it. At some level, he seemed to just be making a generalised argument that the locations had not been properly mapped whereas the witness said the opposite. But seeing as Yanetti did not clarify what measurements he was referring to, it was hard to understand, and as the witness replied several times, he was not able to comment on Yanetti's source seeing he did not have access to it or know what Yanetti was referring to.

As for the overall significance of the ARCCA testimony, if I may skip to your other post, IMO, the jury may have given considerable weight to that testimony, and the doubt cast on the specific scenario proposed by the CW, in acquitting on the murder charge. Given the specific intent required to support that charge, I think the jury was correct in doing so and the CW should have dropped the charge for this trial.

Agreed.

The motor vehicle manslaughter charge is a different story. The jury, IMO. could properly find that there was, BARD, no plausible scenario of events that would account for the facts presented that would not have involved at least recklessness/negligence on the part of an intoxicated KR.

The shattered tail light is there and there is no candidate for what it could have collided with other than JOK's person, or an object held in or launched from his hand. The latter scenario still leaves us with a violent altercation involving KR's vehicle about which she has not told the truth.

This is my take as well. Jury's are a black box, and they may take a practical view of it.

And there's the fact of the tiny pieces of tail light presented as being embedded in JOK's clothing. This is a data point of which the ARCCA witnesses admitted being unaware and for which they had no come back.

Yes - that requires staging, upon which ARCCA cannot testify.

For anyone who thinks there must be plausible scenario(s) that would account for the presented evidence that would not involve negligence, at least, on KR's part (and do not rely on planting of evidence) be my guest.

I started out a week or two ago with a strong suspicion Proctor might have engaged in some 'evidence enhancement' shall we say. But the amount of staging feels like a lot. e.g someone has to stage the shoe even before the tail light.

So much would seem to depend on the 'deleted search' as the tent pole. If you don't have that I feel like you don't really have the conspiracy angle.

Perhaps the D really should focus on Bowman and angle for doubt on Murder 2?

 

[Linda7NJ]

DBM - can’t figure out how to add video