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

[Recidivist]

AJ is considered one of the top
criminal defense attorneys in the country, and JM is not only holding her own but
calling him out for every trick.

A few years ago he ran for LA County District Attorney. He lost to Gasgon and became a defense Attorney.

 

[Warwick7]

 

[hooziewhutz]

[I'm paraphrasing. These are what I've noticed to be common 'sentiments']

Re: "JM buried herself", "AJ could have done better", "JM skating around her answer, slipping through his grip", "AJ's line of questioning is wasting time", etc.

I wonder if it be a little more fluid and/or productive, or to better benefit either side, if JM had a stronger vocabulary? Much of her testimony makes me wince, but not necessarily because I can see through her...sometimes. Ironically, I am tired and not a wordsmith myself; trying to convey what I mean may not make sense. Gulp.

 

[iQuill]

I don’t think it was testified that the dog went home with the daughter. It certainly has been speculated by the group here on WS, however. Maybe that’s where the idea came from.

Thanks, maybe you (and others) are right. I was sure I saw it but of course can't find it. I thought if true it explains both the injuries to John's arm and the reason there was no barking that night/morning. moo

 

[mrjitty]

The question has to be put to the correct witness. i.e the one who took the swabs.

I just wanted to follow up on my post from yesterday as it illustrates a point of trial procedure.

The witness who took the swabs from John's shirt and sent them to the lab for canine DNA testing was Maureen Hartnett. She took notes of her procedure which was to take two swabs from all the areas of damage on the sleeve of John's sweatshirt. So two collections, all areas. It is these swabs which are sent to the lab. The lab is only doing testing, they are not involved in forensic swabbing at crime scenes or at the crime lab. So the swabbing location was testified to - the question just has to be put to the correct witness, which AJ did here.

The other point is there in an iceberg in any case which is the large number of reports, notes etc which form part of the evidence (or discovery if not admitted), but which are not discussed much or else the case would take years. But this was all in the forensic witness's notes which the parties have.

In any event, I wanted to note this as the court does know where the swabbing was taken from.

At 1 hour 48 mins

 

[mrjitty]

I don't see it as such a big deal that she called people before the FBI meeting. She was clearly taken aback when the FBI walked up to her out of the blue. I would be if that happened to me. Even if she wanted to, she didn't have time to coordinate anything in the few minutes that the FBI was waiting to talk to her. Now the fact that she "forgot" to tell the FBI about everyone she called -- that's a different issue. JMO.

Me neither. Indeed i would have called DA first and my own lawyer second.

As for the cleanup - she was probably advised to do that by her lawyer. Obviously AJ wants to hype that but seeing the witness cleaned it up herself quickly its unlikely the FBI regarded it as lying to them IMO.

I think AJs point here is to try to get the FBI in to this thing, despite the Judge's embargo on that, as he had this info last trial but didn't ask the witness about it

 

[Forest_Wood]

Starting at 24:55 A couple big swallows when Alan reminds her that the FBI informed her it's a crime to lie to them, even in an interview. A whole bunch of licking her chops. Then watch her blink rate for the rest of that segment around 30:25 when she's defending why she called not only Kerry Roberts, but four others, in those 10 minutes. Then at 36:28, she begins waffling her explanation - speaking really, really fast. "I'm going to be completely honest, I hadn't brushed my teeth." Big laugh. So in those 10 minutes, she called 5 different people and had conversations and brushed her teeth. And we know this because she's going to be "completely honest".

Her words are very well put together when she's prepared and rehearsed. She likely reads over her notes and timelines she's collected 100X before testimony. But for her to think on the fly, she rambles and stutters and lies.

The thing we know about "close-knit", co-dependent families like theirs, is that nobody can think for themselves. Everything must be run by someone else because they have no self-identity or confidence in their own ability, their own thoughts, their own decisions. It's evidence of a highly dysfunctional family system they have IMO.

I bet she was on the phone with 10 people after the FBI visit too. There's no way these people have independent memories from that night any more.

MOO

 

[DustysMom]

Thanks, maybe you (and others) are right. I was sure I saw it but of course can't find it. I thought if true it explains both the injuries to John's arm and the reason there was no barking that night/morning. moo

I seem to recall someone saying that, too. But, it might have been speculation here on WS….

 

[Forest_Wood]

I think Jenn is a special personality though and that this is something she relishes. She’s good with deflection, to me she appears to like the dance and trying to “win” the game.
Drama and conflict do not rattle her.
I have to assume she has gotten this way with a lifetime of practice.

I think you hit the nail on the head here! <modsnip: discussing witnesses>
MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

I just wanted to follow up on my post from yesterday as it illustrates a point of trial procedure.

The witness who took the swabs from John's shirt and sent them to the lab for canine DNA testing was Maureen Hartnett. She took notes of her procedure which was to take two swabs from all the areas of damage on the sleeve of John's sweatshirt. So two collections, all areas. It is these swabs which are sent to the lab. The lab is only doing testing, they are not involved in forensic swabbing at crime scenes or at the crime lab. So the swabbing location was testified to - the question just has to be put to the correct witness, which AJ did here.

The other point is there in an iceberg in any case which is the large number of reports, notes etc which form part of the evidence (or discovery if not admitted), but which are not discussed much or else the case would take years. But this was all in the forensic witness's notes which the parties have.

In any event, I wanted to note this as the court does know where the swabbing was taken from.

At 1 hour 48 mins

But I also found it very interesting that clothes were not turned over for testing till March 14. A month and a half later. And no chain of custody, except for the brake light that was removed from the car by Maureen. And we all know who was in possession of everything.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I believe the whole "daughter took the dog" misconception started with a post I made yesterday about it, although I clearly stated in my post that it was MOO and deduced by me after watching Trial 1. I never stated anyone testified to it, though.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Me neither. Indeed i would have called DA first and my own lawyer second.

As for the cleanup - she was probably advised to do that by her lawyer. Obviously AJ wants to hype that but seeing the witness cleaned it up herself quickly its unlikely the FBI regarded it as lying to them IMO.

I think AJs point here is to try to get the FBI in to this thing, despite the Judge's embargo on that, as he had this info last trial but didn't ask the witness about it

I think he’s trying to show that yet another witness has a memory well after the day of the event. He showed it with the paramedic.

So far this case has been a big win for the defence and they haven’t even called their own witnesses. Hopefully the jury sees it this way but we’ll have to see who the judge picks as jury foreman.

 

[ShadyLady]

Bottomline from yesterday, JenMc was cornered and had to admit that the last time she looked out from the "window" (when Karen's car was gone), THERE was no body dressed in black on white snow in her line of vision.

 

[Soulmagent]

Thanks, maybe you (and others) are right. I was sure I saw it but of course can't find it. I thought if true it explains both the injuries to John's arm and the reason there was no barking that night/morning. moo

You did see it . IMO..

I seem to recall someone saying that, too. But, it might have been speculation here on WS….

You did hear someone saying it! IMO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

You did see it . IMO..

You did hear someone saying it! IMO.

Only partially true. I never said it was testified to, that part was assumed or added by the OP.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I believe the whole "daughter took the dog" misconception started with a post I made yesterday about it, although I clearly stated in my post that it was MOO and deduced by me after watching Trial 1. I never stated anyone testified to it, though.

It was TB speculation at the time of the last trial. No Albert ever admitted to the Albert daughter and her boyfriend taking the dog to their home in Easton in the middle of the night. In fact, the Alberts initially lied to investigators and said their daugther left the house much earlier (around midnight, I believe, before John arrived) and never mentioned her boyfriend (yet another person who didn't report a body on the lawn) ever coming to the house that night.

I think it's very possible, if not likely, that's exactly what did happen, but it's not in anyone's testimony.

 

[mrjitty]

But I also found it very interesting that clothes were not turned over for testing till March 14. A month and a half later. And no chain of custody, except for the brake light that was removed from the car by Maureen. And we all know who was in possession of everything.

The witness can only testify to her own part of the chain of custody. i.e from when she receives the evidence. IMO

 

[Leilei]

Does anybody remember what time the FBI agents initially tried to speak with JM? She was outside her house, in or next to her car (?), she told them that she was her sister?
She claimed that they called her afterwards, and she needed ten minutes, then made five phone calls... and brushed her teeth...
JM doesn't strike me as someone who waits to brush her teeth. Look at them, they're chalk white. And, if she had been returning home from somewhere when they approached her, it's even more unbelievable to me that she would go out in public with morning breath and unbrushed teeth.
Just something that occurred to me this morning.
IMO, as always.

 

[Angelwatch]

It was TB speculation at the time of the last trial. No Albert ever admitted to the Albert daughter and her boyfriend taking the dog to their home in Easton in the middle of the night. In fact, the Alberts initially lied to investigators and said their daugther left the house much earlier (around midnight, I believe, before John arrived) and never mentioned her boyfriend (yet another person who didn't report a body on the lawn) ever coming to the house that night.

I think it's very possible, if not likely, that's exactly what did happen, but it's not in anyone's testimony.

There was the really odd testimony by Allie McCabe in the first trial about the lost dog she found the night of the crime. IMHO, that was fake to cover up any evidence Chloe was in her car that night.

 

[DustysMom]

I believe the whole "daughter took the dog" misconception started with a post I made yesterday about it, although I clearly stated in my post that it was MOO and deduced by me after watching Trial 1. I never stated anyone testified to it, though.

I heard it before yesterday…. Or maybe deduced that from testimony in T1….
I’m gonna have some TIME on my hands next several days so I’m gonna poke around