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

[typical_vacation]

I said I wasn’t going to follow this trial closely on round 2, and here I am. I resisted until today. sigh. I’m back in.

 

[shotgun09]

I said I wasn’t going to follow this trial closely on round 2, and here I am. I resisted until today. sigh. I’m back in.

Welcome Back to the Crazy Train !!!
All Aboard !!!

 

[ShadyLady]

I said I wasn’t going to follow this trial closely on round 2, and here I am. I resisted until today. sigh. I’m back in.

Worth watching. And Ms Jen has changed significant details.

 

[Spectrix]

If this is the route she took from Fairview, why would she have made a 3 point turn and reversed at all? She would’ve just drove off straight down the road, as that’s the way she was facing.

Yeah I agree. I don't think she did a three point turn there at all.

I think the alleged reversing at 24MPH & three point turn happened after the police were in possession of the car.
Actually, I've got a vague recollection of footage from trial 1 of the car being reversed out of the driveway at Karen's parents house when it was seized. It was a long driveway and the car was reversed really fast.

 

[typical_vacation]

Worth watching. And Ms Jen has changed significant details.

How are we doing this AGAIN lol. I gotta go digging now!!

 

[RatFace]

It’s interesting to me. I hear people say ‘Well, I can imagine Karen doing it because she was drunk’ … ALL the individuals involved were drunk. It’s moot. Just as she could have killed John in a drunken rage.. so could somebody else at 34 Fairview. MOO.

Unless Jen was lying about what she drank, she wasn't drunk with having only 2-3 beers over the course of 3+ hours. Do we know everyone else was? I haven't seen all the testimony. If someone at 34 Fairview did it, seems they must have done it out in the yard given the strong evidence (IMO) JOK never entered the house.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I missed a lot, what has JM changed this time around?

Will we start tomorrow with cross examination?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Unless Jen was lying about what she drank, she wasn't drunk with having only 2-3 beers over the course of 3+ hours. Do we know everyone else was? I haven't seen all the testimony. If someone at 34 Fairview did it, seems they must have done it out in the yard given the strong evidence (IMO) JOK never entered the house.

Jen herself said everyone was drinking. So assuming Karen was the only impaired one that night, despite being the only one who actually left… is a stretch, to say the least. Unless we’re now saying drinking only counts when it supports the CW’s theory?

 

[iusedtofloat]

Unless Jen was lying about what she drank, she wasn't drunk with having only 2-3 beers over the course of 3+ hours. Do we know everyone else was? I haven't seen all the testimony. If someone at 34 Fairview did it, seems they must have done it out in the yard given the strong evidence (IMO) JOK never entered the house.

I may be misremembering but in the 1st trial everyone in the friend group kept confirming and talking about the collective drunkenness of the group. they're toning it down this trial IMO

 

[sunspun]

That is my recollection as well, in fact the only observation that I recall about the possible timeline was counting back from the number of keystrokes, which was when Alan Jackson completely demolished poor Trooper Paul on cross examination.

[Edit - this video cued at 1:05:15 has the key cycle discussion.]

It was established that the 24MPH reversing manoeuvre had occurred AFTER the vehicle was seized, and probably in the possession of Proctor.
I distinctly remember thinking "Why is revelation this not surprising?!"

My other observation at the time was that Alan Jackson was both terrifying and brilliant,
I recall likening the interaction between him and Trooper Paul to a dog who's gotten hold of a fluffy toy. The toy is completely destroyed in the first five minutes, but somehow the dog manages to just keep on tearing strips off of it for hours to come.

-

That video was excruciating to watch. So much cringe!

But somehow I still don't feel like defense attorney AJ got his point across, to the jury. Despite his noble effort! I feel he tried, really tried, but it was all too much, too confusing in the end. I think it came down to there being far too many things that Trooper Paul simply wasn't educated in, wasn't qualified to answer. Too much stuff, in Paul's word.

If they needed a mathematician or a physicist or whatever discipline applies to this incident, then they should have had one there to answer these questions... If they thought those answers would prove their point. Maybe that's it though, maybe those answers from a qualified expert in the relevant fields would not give them what they need to prove their point. I don't know. Maybe it would. But we certainly didn't find that out from Paul's embarrassingly clueless-sounding testimony.

But what did we find out? Anything? Other than that TP was not the expert they were looking for? Did this exchange tell the jury what they needed to hear? I say no. Especially wrt to the key cycle evidence, the significance of which I'm afraid was thoroughly lost after having to suffer thru the calamitous physics lesson.

And it's always seemed to me that the key cycle data is crucial, maybe even the most crucial evidence in this case. Unless it's just plain wrong, and if so, that changes everything. But I haven't heard anyone from either side say we can't trust this data, so I trust it, and I see no way around it! If it's correct, there's no way the actions of the car shown in the key cycle data caused the death or any injury of JOK. Because the data shows that that fast reverse happened while the vehicle was in the possession of LE, namely Trooper Proctor. This would have been part of LE efforts to reconstruct the accident or to test different actions and conditions. Perfectly expected things they would do in this situation.

But then they're pointing out this action seen in the data and saying that this was done while KR was driving and that this is when she hit him. But if the data is reliable, that is impossible. You can count the key cycles and you can count the actions you know for a fact that happened with the vehicle, and you can see that fast reverse matches to a time when LE had the car.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I may be misremembering but in the 1st trial everyone in the friend group kept confirming and talking about the collective drunkenness of the group. they're toning it down this trial IMO

You’re not misremembering. Multiple witnesses in trial 1 talked openly about everyone drinking that night - including Jen. It’s interesting how that’s suddenly being downplayed for trial 2. Selective framing by JMC and Brennan doesn’t change what was already sworn to under oath. Excited for cross. MOO.

 

[SteveS]

Listening to Brennan's nonsense followed by JudgeB's ruling regarding ARCCA was frustrating in the way he twisted what was actually said yesterday into something different, and then she stupidly (or crookedly) endorsed his account AND didn't let the def speak to set the record straight. That skewing of the facts might matter on appeal one day.

But at least the ruling was correct. ARCCA gets to testify fully, both what they tested and testified in T1 and also concerning the additional testing they did for T2. She admitted she must defer to the mandate that "The defendant is entitled to a fair trial" which means they are entitled to present the exculpatory evidence they have. She is well aware ARCCA is a huge piece of that (and that this trial would eventually get tossed on appeal, perhaps with prejudice, if she barred ARCCA and the defense didn't prevail).

For those wondering, the May 7 reference has to do with 2 things:
1 That's when she will issue her written formal ruling that corresponds to what she just ruled orally, and
2 That's the deadline for ARCCA to submit their in-process report and work as additional discovery to the prosec for this case.

 

[Snoods]

A REAL "robust" discussion of ARCCA would include a discussion of their being hired by the FBI. Bev's idea of "robust" is letting the corrupt Norfolk County DA's office ask whatever they want but then prevent the Defense from telling the truth about ARCCA.

Exactly! One of the jurors said they disregarded the ‘hired gun’ crash expert witness testimony from ‘both sides’ because they thought they cancelled each other out. How is that even remotely fair to Karen Read?

 

[RatFace]

Jen herself said everyone was drinking. So assuming Karen was the only impaired one that night, despite being the only one who actually left… is a stretch, to say the least. Unless we’re now saying drinking only counts when it supports the CW’s theory?

I'm just saying that it appears at least Jen was not drunk. No doubt some others were but not necessarily all.

 

[ShadyLady]

I missed a lot, what has JM changed this time around?

Will we start tomorrow with cross examination?

1. BH was there for a while. Did not leave right away. And BA and BH were in family room.

2. Jen CALLED her sister before Karen got to her house.

3. Crack in tail light became missing pieces.

4. Karen told her at the bar that she had started new prescription.

For starters.

 

[shotgun09]

In collaborating with the witnesses this time for Trial 2, it seems that Brennan has changed the theme to "FROZEN".

Jen McC mentioned that word today, in her testimony. First time I heard that word out of her mouth. She's testified how many times?
Grand Jury, FBI, Trial 1. ???
The phone temperature nonsense all day yesterday and today, as well as in opening statements. Brennan is focusing on body temperature, and Hypothermia this time around. Where as last time they went with Trooper Pauls theory of injuries and death.

Nope.. The ARCCA witnesses still come in.
There was NO COLLISION. So how did he get there on the lawn at 34 Fairview, frozen?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I'm just saying that it appears at least Jen was not drunk. No doubt some others were but not necessarily all.

Here’s the thing - that’s speculation. Time distortion and minimization are common with hours of drinking. Saying ‘3-4 beers’ over 3 hours may sound casual and responsible, but alcohol affects different people differently. Not to mention the effects of different medications, food vs. empty stomach, etc. She also said she had a white claw in the Albert’s home but ‘only took a few sips’, which again, is pretty subjective.
Multiple other people from trial 1 testify to heavily drinking/drunk. Isn’t the safe assumption that Jen was likely on her friends level?
Also, even 3-4 beers over 3 hours is absolutely enough to affect judgement, especially in a woman with a smaller frame. MOO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

In collaborating with the witnesses this time for Trial 2, it seems that Brennan has changed the theme to "FROZEN".

Jen McC mentioned that word today, in her testimony. First time I heard that word out of her mouth. She's testified how many times?
Grand Jury, FBI, Trial 1. ???
The phone temperature nonsense all day yesterday and today, as well as in opening statements. Brennan is focusing on body temperature, and Hypothermia this time around. Where as last time they went with Trooper Pauls theory of injuries and death.

Nope.. The ARCCA witnesses still come in.
There was NO COLLISION. So how did he get there on the lawn at 34 Fairview, frozen?

Sounds like he knows the ‘intentional car strike causing immediate death’ is a no go and is angling for a guilty verdict on leaving the scene, as hypothermia played a role in John’s death. MOO.

ETA: Leaving the scene is allegedly the charge that the jury from trial 1 was hung on. I wonder if he knows the heavier charge is not going to happen…

 

[RatFace]

Here’s the thing - that’s speculation. Time distortion and minimization are common with hours of drinking. Saying ‘3-4 beers’ over 3 hours may sound casual and responsible, but alcohol affects different people differently. Not to mention the effects of different medications, food vs. empty stomach, etc. She also said she had a white claw in the Albert’s home but ‘only took a few sips’, which again, is pretty subjective.
Multiple other people from trial 1 testify to heavily drinking/drunk. Isn’t the safe assumption that Jen was likely on her friends level?
Also, even 3-4 beers over 3 hours is absolutely enough to affect judgement, especially in a woman with a smaller frame. MOO.

She said 2-3 beers between 9pm and when they left the bar past 12. That would not be enough for anyone with a functioning liver to be drunk, even without food. A person can metabolize ~1 drink per hour. I don't think it's safe to say she was on her friend's level - especially KR who would definitely have been very intoxicated based on what she herself said she drank and her BAL the next morning. But Jen could have been lying or mis-remembering, no way to know for sure.

 

[Bethlamb16]

Worth watching. And Ms Jen has changed significant details.

I didn't see the first trial. Can you explain some of the things she has changed?