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

[twhel]

Even if Yannetti did receive such a phone call, I would give it a "So what?" for two reasons.

First, the caller did not provide any evidence, either directly or second-hand. And, with the technical dismissal of the "Hos long to die in the cold?"' angle, no credible hard evidence against those in the Alberts' house has developed.

Second, where else was the defense going to point the finger to explain JOK's death? A random serial killer wandering the streets of Canton, in a snowstorm? They had to go after the people in the house.

Hardly a turning point.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Even if Yannetti did receive such a phone call, I would give it a "So what?" for two reasons.

First, the caller did not provide any evidence, either directly or second-hand. And, with the technical dismissal of the "Hos long to die in the cold?"' angle, no credible hard evidence against those in the Alberts' house has developed.

Second, where else was the defense going to point the finger to explain JOK's death? A random serial killer wandering the streets of Canton, in a snowstorm? They had to go after the people in the house.

Hardly a turning point.

Where was there a technical dismissal of "hos long to die in the cold?". That's news to me.

 

[twhel]

Where was there a technical dismissal of "hos long to die in the cold?". That's news to me.

The initial leaking of reports of that angle got a lot of people interested in the case, myself included. It was technically dismissed on the stand by Ian Whiffen, a high ranking employee of Cellebrite, whose forensic data was the source of the issue.

 

[rescuemom]

Where was there a technical dismissal of "hos long to die in the cold?". That's news to me.

Agree but that will probably not be allowed in this trial either. I'm beginning to wonder what the defense will be 'allowed' to offer. What is the CW, et. al afraid of???

 

[Wishbone]

Interesting article featuring Yannetti in Boston College Law School Magazine Online

snipped
Yannetti accepted her as his client and began his usual procedure. He sent a letter to the state police and DA’s office informing them that he would be representing Karen Read, and that there was no need to arrest her because he would surrender her. Things didn’t go as Yannetti planned. “Nine out of ten times, because of my history as a former prosecutor, I have some credibility, or used to,” he said. “This was the first sign that I got that this case was going to be a little different. They ignored my promise of cooperation and arrested her two days later at her house.”

snipped
The next turning point for Yannetti was a phone call from an anonymous source (who first claimed to be Mike Lynch, a popular sportscaster). He told Yannetti that Read was innocent and that he should “look at the homeowner [of the property where the death occurred] and his nephew. They beat [the victim] up and left him outside,” the caller claimed.
It was then that Yannetti started to get the sense that there was more to the case than met the eye. He found himself fighting to keep bail charges at a reasonable amount and for discovery evidence to be turned over. “We were being stymied in our ability to get people to talk to us,” he said. “We knew people out there knew more than they were revealing. We believed that there were a lot of untapped sources.”

Boston College Law School Magazine | Defending Karen Read

David Yannetti ’89 provides a look at his role in one of the highest profile Massachusetts murder cases in years.

lawmagazine.bc.edu

 

[Forest_Wood]

Even if Yannetti did receive such a phone call, I would give it a "So what?" for two reasons.

First, the caller did not provide any evidence, either directly or second-hand. And, with the technical dismissal of the "Hos long to die in the cold?"' angle, no credible hard evidence against those in the Alberts' house has developed.

Second, where else was the defense going to point the finger to explain JOK's death? A random serial killer wandering the streets of Canton, in a snowstorm? They had to go after the people in the house.

Hardly a turning point.

Well, it obviously was a turning point for the defense since they began to look at third parties being involved, which pivoted the entire case in an entirely different direction leading to a mistrial.

 

[mrjitty]

Even if Yannetti did receive such a phone call, I would give it a "So what?" for two reasons.

First, the caller did not provide any evidence, either directly or second-hand. And, with the technical dismissal of the "Hos long to die in the cold?"' angle, no credible hard evidence against those in the Alberts' house has developed.

Second, where else was the defense going to point the finger to explain JOK's death? A random serial killer wandering the streets of Canton, in a snowstorm? They had to go after the people in the house.

Hardly a turning point.

This is why i made the main character comment. This kind of narrative seeding outside the courtroom has become super common. But as you note there is no evidence of it nor any way to know how this supposed tipster knew anything.

IMO

 

[cocomod]

There can’t be any evidence of any other angel because the “investigators” that SHOULD HAVE performed an investigation into all possibilities didn’t perform ANY professional investigation at all. Lost evidence, videos not preserved, no COC, no proper interviews, interviews performed by related parties. You name it, it was done wrong!

 

[Izzylizzy]

Today

 

[keek]

dbm

 

[Linda7NJ]

Canton Community Forum Audit Review with
Q & A from the public.

This is devastating to the defense

 

[Forest_Wood]

Watch Dateline Episode: The Night of the Nor'easter - NBC.com

An earlier documentary.

 

[SteveS]

Canton Community Forum Audit Review with
Q & A from the public.

This is devastating to the defense

No it's really not. In relation to the case, it's a big nothing burger, and the CW's thoughts here were merely what they want to say to the community in this PR event.

 

[angelainwi]

New MOTION from the CW

DNA expert on dna collection from John’s taillight

GSE Karen Read Trial State motion in limine to admit testimony of Karl Miyasako as substitute witness.pdf

drive.google.com

Trying to understand why there would be interest in DNA from John's taillight? Am I missing something?

 

[Tortoise]

Trying to understand why there would be interest in DNA from John's taillight? Am I missing something?

I believe it was the results of the analysis of John's hair, not taillight.

 

[mrjitty]

There can’t be any evidence of any other angel because the “investigators” that SHOULD HAVE performed an investigation into all possibilities didn’t perform ANY professional investigation at all. Lost evidence, videos not preserved, no COC, no proper interviews, interviews performed by related parties. You name it, it was done wrong!

I understand that issue. Nevertheless I am concerned about the wider trend of publicising things which won't be admissible at trial in order to try to poison the well.

 

[twhel]

Trying to understand why there would be interest in DNA from John's taillight? Am I missing something?

I'm sure the reference was intended to be to KR's tail light. Although, as Tortoise points out, the specific DNA testimony to be substituted for is in relation to the hair found on the rear panel of KR's vehicle.

Two different witnesses from the same lab (Bode) gave DNA testimony. The witness who gave the nuclear DNA testimony, about the DNA found on KR's tail light, Nicholas Bradford, will presumably be returning. The witness who gave the mitochondrial DNA testing about the hair found on the rear panel of KR's vehicle, Tess Chart, is medically unable to testify and being substituted for.

Mitochondrial DNA testing is done when there isn't enough DNA for nuclear testing. The confidence level testified to at the first trial regarding the hair on the rear panel was 95%. The confidence level for the DNA on the tail light was in the nonillions.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Trying to understand why there would be interest in DNA from John's taillight? Am I missing something?

My mistake - I meant Karen’s

 

[Linda7NJ]

I believe it was the results of the analysis of John's hair, not taillight.

I think you’re correct.

 

[Wishbone]

There can’t be any evidence of any other angel because the “investigators” that SHOULD HAVE performed an investigation into all possibilities didn’t perform ANY professional investigation at all. Lost evidence, videos not preserved, no COC, no proper interviews, interviews performed by related parties. You name it, it was done wrong!

I agree that a complete proper investigation was needed in order to preserve the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. The investigation failed to do so. JMOO