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]

Thank you! I didn't know how they should be medically defined. Abrasions does seem, as a descriptor, quite obfuscating, kind of suggests they are not as deep as they actually are.

Moo the defense should use a visual every chance they get to impress on the Jury the nature and symmetry of the lacerations. Each time the term abrasion is used improperly. Jmo

IIRC "lacerations" was the descriptor used in trial testimony but now I don't remember exactly which witness said this

FWIW/MOO etc

 

[RatFace]

Why are there none visible in the autopsy photos to his face?

The ME was calling the 2 scratches on his nose and the small laceration above his eye "blunt force injuries" if you listen to the video. It seems strange to characterize them as such but she did.

 

[jepop]

IIRC those records could not be obtained from Ring.

So testified Proctor who had access to JOK's phone sans warrant. This was established as a fact during his 2.5 days of testimony. Source: multiple links to Proctor's cross are available online

 

[mrjitty]

I assume given the phone location data, the D case will have to be that JOK dropped his phone by the tree somehow before going inside?

 

[jepop]

Even Cannone called her Mrs. McCabe since we know who is actually the Director here.

Lol. Yeah, there were two classic freudian slips during Kerry's testimony if you believe in that sort of thing; 1)Brennan used "Mrs McCabe" on redirect IIRC and very quickly corrected himself (will look for time stamp if noone has already isolated it); and yeah 2) cannone excusing Kerry as "Mrs McCabe", which she didn't even correct? Hard to say if cannone really did not realise at the time or did realise but made a micro decision to let it pass (trying not to draw attention to it). Omg the irony. Jmo

 

[Forest_Wood]

Thank you! I didn't know how they should be medically defined. Abrasions does seem, as a descriptor, quite obfuscating, kind of suggests they are not as deep as they actually are.

Moo the defense should use a visual every chance they get to impress on the Jury the nature and symmetry of the lacerations. Each time the term abrasion is used improperly. Jmo

The ME defined lacerations as tears to the skin while abrasions were scratches. See post 645.
Post in thread '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'
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

 

[Forest_Wood]

No.

[...]

"Accordingly, evidence that [CA] is a third-party culprit is excluded from trial."

[...]

Order [dated March 31, 2025]

"It is hereby ordered that the defendant is precluded from raising a third-party culprit defense alleging [CA] is culpable for John O'Keefe's death."



Kristina Rex
@KristinaRex
Breaking - Judge Cannone just ruled that the defense can NOT use Colin Albert as a third party culprit in Karen Read’s second trial. They can use Brian Albert and Brian Higgins. #WBZ






8:08 PM · Mar 31, 2025
·Thank you
112.9K
Views

Thank you

 

[jepop]

I’ve loosely followed this case, mainly the headlines. I haven’t read much on this forum.

I am interested in following the trial this time around. So have a few questions if you’re willing to answer.

I saw a picture somewhere of his arm. The wounds do look like dog bites. Why wouldn’t that be clearly called out in the autopsy report? The only other injuries were severe head trauma correct? Was that from a beating? How exactly is it thought this went down? What was the provocation? He didn’t really know these people right?

RBBM. Why wouldn't the likely origin of the arm lacerations be called out clearly in the autopsy report? We can only guess. Moo

If you watch the ME's testimony it appears she showed no interest whatsoever in researching the arm injuries, getting a learned opinion, taking time to consider them in terms of MOD.Moo

The ME left MOD as undetermined (under pressure from Proctor jmo to do otherwise), but also she never took an independent interest as ME in seeking answers to various possibilities in relation to the origin of the arm lacerations.

I waited through the interminable lay witness line up for ME testimony, with an expectation the arm wounds would be addressed. They were not. Moo

Like I thought maybe she would have a network of professionals, maybe a wound data base or something, for situations such as this when she is presented with a type of wound she is unfamiliar with and cannot immediately see how it connects to MOD. Moo

And it's not like she could rule them out as unconnected to MOD, the circumstances surrounding death. She did testify that medical evidence demonstrated that the wounds occurred at around the same approx time as the head wound. They occurred in close proximity to each other temporally speaking. Moo

 

[jepop]

The ME defined lacerations as tears to the skin while abrasions were scratches. See post 645.
Post in thread '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'
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

I don't really think the official category is that important actually. As long as they are described correctly in the details and the Jury is not mislead about their depth and symmetry. Jmo

 

[Linda7NJ]

The injuries on John's arm were actually lacerations, by definition.

So you’re claiming the medical examiner is wrong?

 

[Forest_Wood]

Thank you.

I don't really think the official category is that important actually. As long as they are described correctly in the details and the Jury is not mislead about their depth and symmetry. Jmo

Exactly! The jury needs to understand the definition of each word to get what she’s talking about. I’m now wondering if she is saying the arm injuries were caused by blunt force and not sharp objects.

 

[jepop]

Thank you.

Exactly! The jury needs to understand the definition of each word to get what she’s talking about. I’m now wondering if she is saying the arm injuries were caused by blunt force and not sharp objects.

I don't think so. As far as the arm wounds are concerned she didn't even try to discover possible origins. But they could not have been caused by blunt force. I haven't followed the head wound discussion closely if that is what your referring to. Jmo

 

[Forest_Wood]

I don't think so. As far as the arm wounds are concerned she didn't even try to discover possible origins. But they could not have been caused by blunt force. I haven't followed the head wound discussion closely if that is what your referring to. Jmo

The head wounds she definitely said caused by blunt force but I didn’t find it clear if she included the arm wounds in with that conclusion.

 

[RatFace]

I don't think so. As far as the arm wounds are concerned she didn't even try to discover possible origins. But they could not have been caused by blunt force. I haven't followed the head wound discussion closely if that is what your referring to. Jmo

This came from a chapter in a medical textbook chapter titled Blunt Force Trauma: "Blunt impact to the body may result in a variety of injuries. Severity is related to both the mechanism of injury as well as the underlying comorbidities of the patient. Blunt impact injuries generally can be classified into four categories: contusion, abrasion, laceration, and fracture." The ME characterized the scratches and lacerations to JOK's face and arm as blunt force trauma, which is correct according to this definition. [See: Blunt Force Trauma - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf]

 

[jepop]

This came from a chapter in a medical textbook chapter titled Blunt Force Trauma: "Blunt impact to the body may result in a variety of injuries. Severity is related to both the mechanism of injury as well as the underlying comorbidities of the patient. Blunt impact injuries generally can be classified into four categories: contusion, abrasion, laceration, and fracture." The ME characterized the scratches and lacerations to JOK's face and arm as blunt force trauma, which is correct according to this definition. [See: Blunt Force Trauma - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf]

Ok. Still I don't think the definition is the important point. It's the mechanism of how they got there; for e.g. they were not caused by a flat large heavy object being whacked into his arm. Jmo

I will stick to calling them wounds or injuries. I'm not a medical professional but in terms of significance, I don't find the category they fall under of much relevance in terms of the issues these wounds raise in this case. Moo

 

[RatFace]

Ok. Still I don't think the definition is the important point. It's the mechanism of how they got there; for e.g. they were not caused by a flat large heavy object being whacked into his arm. Jmo

I will stick to calling them wounds or injuries. I'm not a medical professional but in terms of significance, I don't find the category they fall under of much relevance in terms of the issues these wounds raise in this case. Moo

I agree the category isn't important. But it was surprising to me that lacerations can be considered as blunt force injuries. Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[jepop]

I agree the category isn't important. But it was surprising to me that lacerations can be considered as blunt force injuries. Just wanted to clear that up.

No, that's fine. Sorry if I came across the wrong way . Looks like blunt force is some kind of umbrella term, from your link. That's ok. Seems under blunt force you have these further sub categories including abrasion, laceration etc. So I guess it's still a matter for ME to decide which sub- category. Hahah which brings us back to abrasion or laceration. But yeah, I don't really care which category it is, I mean we know it's not fracture right and I don't know what a contusion is is but guessing arm wounds are not that. Thanks for the reply!

ETA: So having a little think about it. Moo "Blunt Force" trauma or injury and its sub categories are descriptors only. They just describe an injury's characteristics. They don't describe a mechanism.

For eg, when a dog with claws places its paw and claws on an arm and applies pressure/force in a scratching/scraping motion across the surface of the arm, the wounds left behind (lacerations/abrasions) are categorised as blunt force injuries generally. Moo

As opposed to a knife, say, when it is used to stab down. Those wounds will have depth and a point? and will be characterised as sharp force injuries is my guess.

 

[Marah]

Have they looked at their phones to see if there were other times or days where they butt dialed each other?

Have they looked at the fitbit or health data of all the people involved to see if anything comes up?

 

[Forest_Wood]

I agree the category isn't important. But it was surprising to me that lacerations can be considered as blunt force injuries. Just wanted to clear that up.

Yes. In other words not from a sharp object. Claws and teeth are sharp.

 

[Forest_Wood]

No, that's fine. Sorry if I came across the wrong way . Looks like blunt force is some kind of umbrella term, from your link. That's ok. Seems under blunt force you have these further sub categories including abrasion, laceration etc. So I guess it's still a matter for ME to decide which sub- category. Hahah which brings us back to abrasion or laceration. But yeah, I don't really care which category it is, I mean we know it's not fracture right and I don't know what a contusion is is but guessing arm wounds are not that. Thanks for the reply!

Contusion = bruising