MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #21 Retrial

[mrjitty]

In the opening statement the prosecutor painted a picture of JO getting clipped by the car on the side, then hitting the back of his head on the ground.

I would think when we get to that point in the trial, they'll have some expert witnesses to back up that assertion. We'll see.

To be blunt, the CW do in fact have significant prima facie evidence of a vehicle involved homicide - we know this from last time - based on tail light debris and missing shoe recovered at the scene, before you get to data from the vehicle, phone, location, battery etc

So as a question of evidence, the D is going to have to raise the planting of that evidence as a real possibility - otherwise the logical inference has to be vehicle involved.

Establishing corruption is a heavy lift - thus ARCCA who address this point by implication. e.g if not consistent with a vehicle then there must be staging.

FWIW the jury tea leaf reading seems to show that most jurors did think the vehicle was involved.

So that's how I see the battle lines - but this time we have more quirks.

Lally messed up in T1 by not having an analysis on the incident in JOKs driveway. And he did not have the video of Karen discussing all this.

On the other side, the defence did not have any full reconstruction last time. I remain quite surprised they did not work on that as their first priority post trial in 2024. After all, there are many top reconstruction experts and no reason they had to use ARCCA for that.

In any event, this trial will be quite different IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

BINGO - that’s game, set, match for me.
The physical evidence is IMO overwhelming

Right but only on paper.

Brennan has to deliver evidence to establish all that.

For instance maybe there is some way that the 'fender bender' generates forces in the housing that then crack the rigid plastic. I just made that up but you get the idea.

IMO this is in fact why ARCCA guy did his cannon experiment. He was trying to determine if there was some other way to account for the tail light debris.

Personally I think whatever the truth, there might be some weird fact pattern here. I just don't think it involves the extensive conspiracy claimed by the Turtle crowd.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

BIB
Please post a link to this.

As far as I am aware, the Feds discovered only the ARCCA report materials under a Touhy request. No one knows the scope or results of their investigation beyond that, or even what they were investigating. As confirmed by Yannetti on June 10 in Court below.



The Touhy procedure is somewhat opaque, but I guess you could speculate that given the Feds do not appear to have discovered anything else - such broader evidence does not exist. In any event, there does not appear to be any report from the FBI themselves laying out evidence of corruption - at least that I know of.

That's ^ conveniently omitting vital pieces of the backstory, and spinning (even misstating) key facts, to the point that it is deceptive and misinformative.

ARCCA's original work on this supposed accident was not "discovered by" the FBI, but rather commissioned by them. The FBI did not ask ARCCA to look at the case in general, but simply provided them info on car X and body (with injuries) Y and situation Z and asked to determine if it was possible. They did the testing with the science of how a body moves when hit by a car, what the injuries would look like if he was hit that far, and so on, and determined no way JOK could have been hit by that car.

The Tuohy request was simply the defense's request to the FBI to use their already-obtained ARCCA experts and their known testing and results at trial. It had NO relevance to anything else. JudgeB oddly ruled that its source (the FBI) could not be shared at trial when ARCCA testified, making the whole situation weird and murky when it could have (and should have, for factual clarity) been simply stated for what it was.

As for the idea that the FBI is done here, their statements have left wiggle room to be doing anything or nothing. The fact they did this testing in the first place hints that there could very well be more at play, and I still wonder if at some point we might see another shoe drop, but for now it's a big unknown.

 

[Spectrix]

I'm finding it very interesting how key witnesses have changed their story over time, often by omitting certain information that completely changes the context.

An example is Paramedic Daniel Whitley testifying that KR refused to give a urine sample, but then being made to admit by Yannetti that the actual context included KR being on her period, not having a tampon, and not having a chance to have any privacy to either change her tampon or provide a urine sample because of the Psych order.

Or "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him" being completely different to "Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?

I know some have questioned the aggressive nature of cross examination by the defence, but the bottom line is this case is marred by misinformation and half truths, and that makes it very difficult for the jury to understand the context under which certain things were said or the context under which certain things happened.

 

[Tortoise]

Planted evidence - taillight, shoe, cap, root hair etc - speculation is somewhat desperate. Karen had already made and continues to make incriminating statements - to John 'no one knows where you are' - to camera 'he didn't look mortally wounded to me' - to his friends the many iterations of 'I hit him, do you think I hit him, did I hit him, John's dead, John was hit by a plow' - and her question inside the ambulance, etc.

Planting evidence on 29th Jan, dashing between 1 Meadows, the sallyport and 34 Fairview, and between the hospital and the sallyport for a ripped out hair, would require knowledge that it would be necessary to frame KR because she was denying it, at a time that she was making incriminating statements and showing consciousness of guilt.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

That's ^ conveniently omitting vital pieces of the backstory, and spinning (even misstating) key facts, to the point that it is deceptive and misinformative.

ARCCA's original work on this supposed accident was not "discovered by" the FBI, but rather commissioned by them. The FBI did not ask ARCCA to look at the case in general, but simply provided them info on car X and body (with injuries) Y and situation Z and asked to determine if it was possible. They did the testing with the science of how a body moves when hit by a car, what the injuries would look like if he was hit that far, and so on, and determined no way JOK could have been hit by that car.

The Tuohy request was simply the defense's request to the FBI to use their already-obtained ARCCA experts and their known testing and results at trial. It had NO relevance to anything else. JudgeB oddly ruled that its source (the FBI) could not be shared at trial when ARCCA testified, making the whole situation weird and murky when it could have (and should have, for factual clarity) been simply stated for what it was.

As for the idea that the FBI is done here, their statements have left wiggle room to be doing anything or nothing. The fact they did this testing in the first place hints that there could very well be more at play, and I still wonder if at some point we might see another shoe drop, but for now it's a big unknown.

'discovered' means produced in discovery, in this context, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

That's ^ conveniently omitting vital pieces of the backstory, and spinning (even misstating) key facts, to the point that it is deceptive and misinformative.

My post including a link to a summary of the whole backstory as recounted by the defendant's attorney to the Judge. I am not sure how that is deceptive.

ARCCA's original work on this supposed accident was not "discovered by" the FBI, but rather commissioned by them. The FBI did not ask ARCCA to look at the case in general, but simply provided them info on car X and body (with injuries) Y and situation Z and asked to determine if it was possible. They did the testing with the science of how a body moves when hit by a car, what the injuries would look like if he was hit that far, and so on, and determined no way JOK could have been hit by that car.

I didn't say the FBI found it lying around. I think you are misrepresenting my post. A Touhy request is a way to compel government agencies to provide any relevant evidence they might have to the parties. It was literally in my link that the FBI commissioned them. Obviously I cannot quote the entire article in my post - nor was the commissioning relevant to my response to OP.

The Tuohy request was simply the defense's request to the FBI to use their already-obtained ARCCA experts and their known testing and results at trial. It had NO relevance to anything else. JudgeB oddly ruled that its source (the FBI) could not be shared at trial when ARCCA testified, making the whole situation weird and murky when it could have (and should have, for factual clarity) been simply stated for what it was.

As I've posted several times, I agree the Judge should have ruled that the FBI connection should be disclosed to the Jury.

As for the idea that the FBI is done here, their statements have left wiggle room to be doing anything or nothing. The fact they did this testing in the first place hints that there could very well be more at play, and I still wonder if at some point we might see another shoe drop, but for now it's a big unknown.

As i said - no one knows. But it was OP who claimed

The FBI handed well over 3000 pages of their findings to the Defense and the prosecution that let the Defense's know that were a lot of shady things, dishonest acts and many, many more inconsistencies with the investigations.

So I once again note that the FBI did not as far as I am aware, discover any of their own findings to the parties. Rather they provided the ARCCA report that was commissioned and provided to them.

We simply don't know what the FBI themselves were doing, or concluded. And it's not unreasonable of me to request a link to this claim.

 

[mrjitty]

'discovered' means produced in discovery, in this context, IMO.

Yes - that is what I meant - I probably should have said provided in response to a subpoena as I think that is roughly what Touhy amounts to but I am no Touhy expert.

 

[jepop]

BIB
Please post a link to this.

As far as I am aware, the Feds discovered only the ARCCA report materials under a Touhy request. No one knows the scope or results of their investigation beyond that, or even what they were investigating. As confirmed by Yannetti on June 10 in Court below.



The Touhy procedure is somewhat opaque, but I guess you could speculate that given the Feds do not appear to have discovered anything else - such broader evidence does not exist. In any event, there does not appear to be any report from the FBI themselves laying out evidence of corruption - at least that I know of.

I make no comment on your conjecture regarding the Touchy procedure and what was discovered, not discovered, maybe withheld or whatever.


But I do want to return the focus to some of the established facts of the case. I comment as below because moo it is what is relevant to this case and speaks to the integrity of the CW's prosecution of KR and is pertinent to the question of her innocence or guilt. Jmo

Moo, the point is that the prosecution had available to them the same fbi commissioned report/ findings as the defense; these were the ARCCA professionals' findings of the non- fit between the taillight damage and JO's documented injuries (rear head wound and deep, symmetrical scratch like wounds and one puncture like wound to the right arm). This was a pure, unadulterated finding, uninfluenced by knowledge of the case at the time, other than that there was a victim with wounds as mentioned (and no bruising below the neck of any significance) and there was a taillight broken into approximately 45 pieces. Moo

I point you to the relevant trial testimony for a link to this. There may be other pre-trial documents that establish this, but I don't think and have never come across these specific facts being contested by the CW or in the threads in this case.

As far as I'm concerned the CW had equal access to the FBI commissioned ARCA report findings prior to trial X 1 and they chose to ignore them, one assumes this was because they were bad, extremely bad, for the CW's case against of KR.

One can only speculate as to what was going on in the DA Office's collective head space when the findings were made available to them and subsequently rejected / brushed aside/ignored. Jmo

 

[jepop]

The US Attorney's Office and the FBI Investigation are responsible for ARCCA entering this case but what most may not know (news to me) is that the ARCCA Independent Investigation Report came to the defense in a 3,000 page reciprocal discovery document dump from the CW.

In other words, the very ARCCA investigation report citing scientific data that JOK was not killed by a collision with KR's Lexus was first provided to the CW, and they not only chose to ignore this very important information, but they then fought to keep the defense from using ARCCA and their investigation/test results as defense expert witnesses during the first trial!

(The ARCCA information was kept from being disclosed and/or discoverable to the parties under a federal protection order until just before the first trial). See KR Interview w/Ted Daniels linked below. Begins about minute marker 19:00 to 29:00.

And here we are a year later, and it's deja vu where the CW is again fighting to keep the defense from using ARCCA as their expert witness by mandating the firm turn over a seemingly unlimited data sweep to the Court (Order 683) and be subjected to another voir dire hearing during the ongoing retrial. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" JMO...
___________________________________

Karen Read tells her story in exclusive one-on-one interview: The extended cut​

Thank you. I never realised that it was the CW that had the ARCCA stuff first. I thought both sides were provided the ARCCA findings simultaneously by the DOJ. This info that the ARCCA report only came to defense's attention via cw finally ceding it in discovery dump makes me speculate even more as to what on earth was going in the collective head of the DA/PA. Moo

 

[jepop]

"The idea of dog bites on his arm - without any proof - is the stuff of fantasy"
The picture of his arm has been posted many times - wondering what are you calling those injuries?

Using common sense mind you, stone cold sober, I compared that photo to photo's online of dog bites. That was BINGO moment for me - no fantasy invloved - the wounds really mimic those of dog bites.

JMO

Bingo for me too, but I believe the arm injuries are a combination of dog clAw scratches and one, possibly two glancing bites. I shored up my opinion after listening to the testimony of defense experts DR Russel and DR Sheridan at trial X 1. Jmo

 

[jepop]

OK, so when he was clipped on the side, that's when he got the large knot above his eye and then, in addition, he got the injury on the back of his head when it hit the ground? I'm just trying to picture how this could have played out. It doesn't seem like his head hitting the ground would cause severe injury but maybe they'll say the hit on the forehead that did most of the damage. It will be interesting to see how they explain it in detail.

Except that the possibility that he hit his forehead and that did most of the damage is not the testimony of any of the medical experts at the last trial. Infact DR Sheridan ( defense) and the ME agreed on the nature of the back of head wound and its role in COD.

So yeah, brennan will have to come up with something else as he twists a pretzel trying to make absurd theories match actual evidence. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

I make no comment on your conjecture regarding the Touchy procedure and what was discovered, not discovered, maybe withheld or whatever.


But I do want to return the focus to some of the established facts of the case. I comment as below because moo it is what is relevant to this case and speaks to the integrity of the CW's prosecution of KR and is pertinent to the question of her innocence or guilt. Jmo

Again to be fair - my post was asking OP to substantiate the claim about evidence of "dishonest acts" discovered via Touhy. Because I too would like us to focus on the established facts of the case.

Moo, the point is that the prosecution had available to them the same fbi commissioned report/ findings as the defense; these were the ARCCA professionals' findings of the non- fit between the taillight damage and JO's documented injuries (rear head wound and deep, symmetrical scratch like wounds and one puncture like wound to the right arm). This was a pure, unadulterated finding, uninfluenced by knowledge of the case at the time, other than that there was a victim with wounds as mentioned (and no bruising below the neck of any significance) and there was a taillight broken into approximately 45 pieces. Moo

I point you to the relevant trial testimony for a link to this. There may be other pre-trial documents that establish this, but I don't think and have never come across these specific facts being contested by the CW or in the threads in this case.

As far as I'm concerned the CW had equal access to the FBI commissioned ARCA report findings prior to trial X 1 and they chose to ignore them, one assumes this was because they were bad, extremely bad, for the CW's case against of KR.

Well yeah! They are downright bad.

One can only speculate as to what was going on in the DA Office's collective head space when the findings were made available to them and subsequently rejected / brushed aside/ignored. Jmo

For me the whole situation is Kafka-tier

How can you have the FBI stroll in to the middle of the case, for reasons they don't provide, drop some exculpatory evidence, but then not bother to tell anyone what their conclusions were? Shouldn't they either say to the CW, hey this needs to be dropped because we have at least some evidence showing XYZ so there is a risk of a miscarriage of justice? Or alternately shouldn't they say hey despite the ARCCA stuff, our overall view is that you should proceed? Or even just they have no view?

It's bonkers IMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Except that the possibility that he hit his forehead and that did most of the damage is not the testimony of any of the medical experts at the last trial. Infact DR Sheridan ( defense) and the ME agreed on the nature of the back of head wound and its role in COD.

So yeah, brennan will have to come up with something else as he twists a pretzel trying to make absurd theories match actual evidence. Jmo

Brennan won’t have to come up with anything. This trial he’ll be using a very qualified expert, that had all the data, unlike ARCCA.

 

[RatFace]

Except that the possibility that he hit his forehead and that did most of the damage is not the testimony of any of the medical experts at the last trial. Infact DR Sheridan ( defense) and the ME agreed on the nature of the back of head wound and its role in COD.

So yeah, brennan will have to come up with something else as he twists a pretzel trying to make absurd theories match actual evidence. Jmo

So then the question would be if the ground was hard enough to cause a severe injury to the back of his head. It's not the same as hitting ice or a hard surface floor, but maybe it was frozen enough to do the damage?

 

[jepop]

So then the question would be if the ground was hard enough to cause a severe injury to the back of his head. It's not the same as hitting ice or a hard surface floor, but maybe it was frozen enough to do the damage?

Imo it's a moot point. None of it works. Where he was located does not jive with his lack of injuries (no below the neck bruising) and that's leaving aside all the issues with his arm wounds. I've posted that many times about that so I can't be bothered repeating it again. What Brennan has is ludicrous circular logic. Jmo

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

A hair stuck to a vehicle in the winter is not like putting a coffee cup on the roof of the car. The metal is cold, there is a mixture of salt, grime, and whatever else... any bit of warmth or moisture can make something stick instantly - go look at any vehicle in late January in Massachusetts and you will find all sorts of things stuck (bonded) to them.

I don't want to post detailed AI - but if you ask the one of your choosing the question, you'll more specifically be informed of a variety of forces like static electricity, surface adhesion, ice bonding, aerodynamic sheltering, and the hair’s physical properties which can all conspire to keep it stuck, despite high-speed driving in harsh blizzard conditions.

Yeah so there easily could be a hair from him leaning on the bumper.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

So who else has been charged with a crime in this case?
Where is all this evidence of wrong doing?
Do you have a link where I can read the 3,000 pages provided to both the defense and the CW?

The only, beneficial to the defense, thing that came from the FBI was a really poor investigation by ARCCA.
I don’t believe their shoddy work will hold up for this trial.
Edited to add- Proctors private personal texts
IIRC & IMO

So don't believe their work would hold up but go gaga over Trooper Paul's "reconstruction"

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

BINGO - that’s game, set, match for me.
The physical evidence is IMO overwhelming

Lets not act like that changed your mind.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Brennan won’t have to come up with anything. This trial he’ll be using a very qualified expert, that had all the data, unlike ARCCA.

Will this expert they present lie like other witnesses they have presented so far?