MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #22 Retrial

[Soulmagent]

Someone upthread even mentioned it was taught in police training. I’ll try to find and link it.

It was me , no worries.

 

[shotgun09]

Ha !

Did Alessi just get Whiffen to admit that he himself has reasonable doubt as to the 2:27 am Hos Long to Die in cold?

Its not very strategic of the Prosecution not to understand that Wiffen's report would be compared to the powerpoint under cross examination and that the P will look as though( even if they did not) had him cherry pick to fit their agenda.

Overall it seems that Alessi scored many points just now.
JMO

Alessi just had Whiffen testify that he himself had Reasonable Doubt to his own conclusion on the "Hos long to Die in cold" search.
Alessi emphasized it....and let it hang in silence.

Incredible.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Brennan said in his opening there is a black box of sorts. I don’t know the official term. (In response to @Soulmagent )

 

[kuromiiiilove]

It was me , no worries.

I was gonna say, I’m talking to the source! Lol

 

[LvsAMystry]

If you have been following this trial and the previous one the question would be WHEN that happened. When the defense presents it's case the answer will be available again. JMOO

IIRC wasn’t the answer that she was driving to Fairview from The Waterfall and she missed the turn onto Fairview and had to back up to make the turn onto Fairview?

 

[HighlanderNH]

You’re saying the defense is playing a “reasonable doubt game,” but isn’t the Commonwealth doing the same thing? Cherry-picking tech evidence that supports their narrative while ignoring or refusing to pursue more definitive sources like Apple/Google/Lexus? If the data is as “slam dunk” as you say, why not verify it through the companies themselves and put it to bed?

<modsnip>

Prosecution or Defense, take your pick...but someone or both do not want to bring in experts from Apple, Google, Lexus, etc...because if they did, this case would have been over a long time ago. All the rest is just blahblahblah...like the DNA in the OJ case, the data for the vast majority of time does not lie.

 

[waldojabba]

Is it in evidence she only drove at 30mph?

As far as I know - Nobody knows what route she took or how fast she drove or exactly what the road conditions were on those roads that she took to get from Fairview to John's house.

 

[Soulmagent]

Brennan said in his opening there is a black box of sorts. I don’t know the official term.

event data recorder . And it works way different than it appears they are trying make it seem.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yup, she took a 6,000 lb Lexus LX 570 and hit 24 MPH in reverse (over a short distance) in a snowy driveway at night? I live in New Hampshire, please make that make sense. The only question in my mind is, was this accidental or deliberate?

Wasn’t in the driveway
But agree with everything else
IMO

 

[Soulmagent]

IIRC wasn’t the answer that she was driving to Fairview from The Waterfall and she missed the turn onto Fairview and had to back up to make the turn onto Fairview?

At this point KR would have to tell me herself...cuz..I just dont know

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Prosecution or Defense, take your pick...but someone or both do not want to bring in experts from Apple, Google, Lexus, etc...because if they did, this case would have been over a long time ago. All the rest is just blahblahblah...like the DNA in the OJ case, the data for the vast majority of time does not lie.

If ‘data doesn’t lie,’, and since you mention DNA… did you know there’s zero DNA from JOK on KR’s bumper or undercarriage? <modsnip: Removed personalizing comment>

 

[waldojabba]

I am confused. Is the gentleman testifying that the search happened at 2:27 am or it didn't happen?

IMO he's really not sure

 

[nodamselindistress]

Sorry Hank, no saving your witness after Alessi got through with him.

ETA: He is just wasting time with all this rehashing. The Jurors no longer have faith in Ian Whiffin.

 

[Soulmagent]

Court TV just run a poll asking to grade the CW''S case , they got an F from 50 percent of the polling audience .

 

[RatFace]

It drives me insane that the lawyer keeps calling it "healthcare" data. It's health data! No care involved.

 

[jepop]

Its not very strategic of the Prosecution not to understand that Wiffen's report would be compared to the powerpoint under cross examination and that the P will look as though( even if they did not) had him cherry pick to fit their agenda.

Overall it seems that Alessi scored many points just now.
JMO

That power point verses report move was dodgy on the part of Brennan. Jmo

 

[Wishbone]

IIRC wasn’t the answer that she was driving to Fairview from The Waterfall and she missed the turn onto Fairview and had to back up to make the turn onto Fairview?

no

 

[KSwizzle]

Why is Hank badgering his own witness, he's getting mad he's not getting the answers he wants moo

 

[rescuemom]

Watching the voir dire hearing, it became readily apparent that the issues being vetted by the prosec were not of any material (an important legal term) significance to this trial, and it was just a fishing expedition using extremely exaggerated claims of malfeasance. And to JudgeB's credit, she used this venue to force the prosec to do all their irrelevant nitpicking outside the trial itself, so the jury doesn't have to hear their pointless examination of experts over such nothingness.

Today ARCCA's experts got to see Brennan at work, doing his best to take them down, and he got nowhere with them. In fact, watching the back-and-forth between ARCCA people and Brennan, it's even more clear why the prosec is looking for a hail mary to keep them from testifying at all.

After this display I am even more confident ARCCA's updated testing and testimony will be compelling for the jury in T2. The case is simple - the science says JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle, and ARCCA will deliver the news. And in T2, ARCCA will have the advantage of knowing what scientifically impossible claims the prosec has been trying to offer, and then be able to show the jury how and why they are wrong, now that they have been read in on the whole case and the prosec's claims.

It was obvious JudgeB is going to give some latitude to the prosec so their experts get to test ARCCA's latest and try to counter it, but there's no way she will be able to keep the defense from using their exculpatory testing and testimony to its full effect, which should be plenty. JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle.

Call me belaboring the point. AARCA was employed by the FBI (with this case in mind, or not, if so why?) and given the job of does "A" cause damage to "B" and/or are damages to "B" caused by "A". AARCA said no. AARCA knew nothing about this case, individuals etc. It was an independent study. This project was paid for by FBI.

Then AARCA delivered those facts/results to FBI who in turn offered access/opportunity of facts/results to both the CW and Defense.

CW chose to ignore/reject the results. Defense chose to accept. I'm assuming then that there would be a contract to be paid for at some point between AARCA and defense. The money did not go directly to the experts who are hourly employees and who will testify. What is so wrong with this and so hard to understand??

Do we know why the FBI took on investigating this case????

 

[Spectrix]

Is it in evidence she only drove at 30mph?

I picked 30 mph as an example and gave the time it would take to get from the fairview house to the meadows house and then asked you how fast you believed she was driving to make it there in four minutes.

So, I planned this route in Google Maps and it's suggesting 6 or 7 minutes.
This is daytime, perfect conditions.

I wasn't able to find any option to select a route based on an incredibly drunk driver at night in a blizzard, but it's think it's safe to assume it took her longer than 6 or 7 minutes.
-