MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #23 Retrial

[Warwick7]

81 Percent of the poll is saying Jen is not believable. On Court TV.

Bam!!!!!
Hahahahaha!!
I am not surprised!!

 

[lohrtabitha]

Who wants to bet JMc left the courtroom and immediately texted KerR, her chat group of MMc, NA and BA, Peg O'K, CA and JA, and who else am I missing. To keep them informed of the shock and the horraw of being subjected to such questioning! Oh, and to tell them how grand she was on the witness stand of course.

Yes and on her new burner phone.

 

[Warwick7]

Not only that but now JM is trying to say she didn't even do the search at that time.

I know I'm trying to catch up. But we have butt dialing, and NOW we have butt texting??? Lol!

 

[Warwick7]

Now that I've finally caught up. Its not rocket science to understand how many more lies these witnesses would be telling if they didn’t know the FBI had gotten involved?

The only reason any of these liars and the CW ever acquiesced any of the truth in this case, was due to the threat of potential federal perjury charges.

 

[Warwick7]

THAT The 5:07 AM call to Nicole Albert changes EVERYTHING

 

[DustysMom]

THAT The 5:07 AM call to Nicole Albert changes EVERYTHING

I don’t remember the call from T1 and with all the bantering during cross, it registered but not fully until I read your post. You are right, she admitted to calling sister NA as soon as she found out KR was on the war path looking for JO. Why?

 

[Warwick7]

What is this reluctance to even look at anything to refresh her recollection??
What a megalomaniac...

 

[Warwick7]

In T1 JM claimed she burst into the Alberts' home like a madman.

T2 she tiptoed in and gently woke them. *cough cough* Why did she tiptoe? Because she didn't want them to think something was wrong?

You can't make this stuff up...

 

[mrjitty]

I don't agree it is reasonable doubt, because it's based on more than just location data, it's the high and low accuracy of the data with the high accuracy data being consistently closest to the flagpole where it was found, the battery temperature getting consistently colder and never moving into a warmer environment, the phone camera being covered for that entire period, the non-response to texts and calls, and the absence of health data after 12.32 am. MOO

Yes as i posted in the last thread the map Alessi showed Whiffin was for 5 seconds of data. So the house was within the low confidence intervals for those 5 seconds (whereas high confidence was still near where the phone was actually recovered.

Think of this like a large unopened black box with the phone inside. Until we open the black box, the position of the phone is always somewhat uncertain. And if you cherry pick only a specific 5 second data range, that uncertainty includes the house.

But we actually opened the box and found the phone near the flagpole under the body. And as you point out, corroborating data indicates the phone only ever had one location.

Whiffin simply answered the question that what Alessi said was possible based only on the confidence intervals for those 5 seconds. But of course it is highly unlikely. Especially Alessi is being misleading that the chart offers proof that the phone was in the house. The correct way to think about it is it does not exclude it.

As you can see the rings also include the middle of the road which is just as 'likely' as what Alessi is claiming.

@48.19

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Marie A]

There are many, many attorneys online saying otherwise. I trust their knowledge of the justice system and in my own eyes, she has been and continues to be extremely bias. Judges in most court rooms do not object for the prosecution. Judges in most courtrooms say why the objection is sustained. Judges in most court rooms don’t roll their eyes at the defense attorneys and cut them off as they are questioning a witness that is obviously lying.

Absolutely agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

I recently served on a jury and the judge always thoughtfully told the jury exactly why each objection was sustained.

I have not watched this retrial in its entirety but I have watched many hours of it and the most disturbing thing to me has been the fact that this judge allows Jen Mc to ramble on incessantly when the defense asks for a simple “yes or no” answer. This sets a very biased and unfair precedent IMHO

 

[clearskies1]

I don’t remember the call from T1 and with all the bantering during cross, it registered but not fully until I read your post. You are right, she admitted to calling sister NA as soon as she found out KR was on the war path looking for JO. Why?

Maybe she thought it would be a good idea since she had seen KR's car, presumably with JO in it, at her sister's home the night before.

 

[SteveS]

Especially Alessi is being misleading that the chart offers proof that the phone was in the house. The correct way to think about it is it does not exclude it.

The testimony about location was WAY broader than you are portraying.

To start with, it is a misrepresentation of the testimony that the specified diagram of 5 seconds of data at 12:38 was somehow any different than any other, generally speaking. And it was Whiffin's own diagram, his own chart, and the time that the data represented, not something cherry-picked by someone else.

It was very informative that Whiffin shared significant info about the crucial time near the supposed "trigger event" [ie the cw's theorized collision time] around 12:32. In his own written narrative, and which he confirmed in his oral testimony, before 12:26 the phone was seemingly heading toward the house. Then from 12:26 to 12:38 there is no real location idea at all where the phone was, with one obvious explanation being that it was inside. [In his own written notes, his FIRST explanation for why they had no location reading was that "the device entered a building".] At 12:38 data shows up again with an area defined that was nearer the house than before.

He also stated explicitly that in general (a) the phone's location could have equally been ANYWHERE within either of his larger circles (white or black) -- ie, he said clearly that the center of such circles was not the highest likelihood, and (b) that it was "impossible" to say which location was more accurate. Those circles include most of both the yard and the house.

In addition, the location data showed variation and movement throughout the night within those circles and from one to the other. His report said this: "Over the next few hours, the GPS coordinate and the associated accuracy radius jumps around numerous times between the house and the road" and he explicitly admitted that means the phone could have been in the house during that time. It certainly doesn't rule it out. (And of course it could have been moving, too.)

None of that really supported the cw theory at all, and taken in the worst light it has created a very wide window of possibility for the very things that the def has theorized actually happened here.

 

[jepop]

THAT The 5:07 AM call to Nicole Albert changes EVERYTHING

I've been a bit slow on the uptake. I'm now understanding that this call was omitted in trial x1. It was recovered and JMc, being forced to admit she made the call, had no feasible answer as to why she made it. The data says the call lasted 18 seconds, but JMc denies it was ever answered. Again, why, why, why? Will we see corresponding data from Nicole Albert's phone during cross? I assume so. The defense is not done with the implications this data raises yet Imo.

EBM. Corrected length of call from 36 to 18 seconds.

 

[jepop]

My head is still spinning that AJ proved that there is now NO ONE to corroborate Jen’s claim that Karen told her to google hypothermia. No audio, no video, no Kerry.

A Major win for AJ. Now the jury will have to decide if she is lying or being honest; and based on her testimony I'm thinking at least some jurors are going to completely write her off in terms of the honesty factor. Either way, reasonable doubt is there. Jmo

 

[jepop]

I found him distracting and bit scary.

In trial x1 it went on for eight weeks straight. It's hard not to imagine the jury felt uncomfortable witnessing him continuously staring with undisguised contempt at the defense table. Moo

I'm very glad the seating in that area has been shuffled. Speculating that perhaps the jury or defense complained and the judge was finally forced to do something. I have my doubts that she would have done anything under her own volition but that is of course JMO.

 

[Forest_Wood]

THAT The 5:07 AM call to Nicole Albert changes EVERYTHING

Right?! I don't remember that being uncovered in T1. A 38 second call at 5:07.

 

[Forest_Wood]

In T1 JM claimed she burst into the Alberts' home like a madman.

T2 she tiptoed in and gently woke them. *cough cough* Why did she tiptoe? Because she didn't want them to think something was wrong?

You can't make this stuff up...

JMc: "I didn't want them to think something bad had happened".
AJ: Something bad did happen!

 

[Forest_Wood]

Maybe she thought it would be a good idea since she had seen KR's car, presumably with JO in it, at her sister's home the night before.

Yes! Makes perfect sense. Except ...
JMc is denying she made contact with her sister at all. A 38 second call? She never disclosed this call. No rushing into the home when they found John's body to ensure her sister was not also dead? No concern for those in the house at all with a dying man on your lawn?

 

[Forest_Wood]

What is this reluctance to even look at anything to refresh her recollection??
What a megalomaniac...

She had studied her previous statements so well, was so prepared, rehearsed and coached that she was reluctant to look at any previous statement when she knew what AJ asked her to look for was not going to be there. Then, when she knew her statement was complimentary to her and contradicted what AJ was asking her, she asked to look at her statement. It won't be lost on the jury what a conniving snake she proved herself to be IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

None of that really supported the cw theory at all, and taken in the worst light it has created a very wide window of possibility for the very things that the def has theorized actually happened here.

Taken together with the totality of the evidence the phone provided, the Cellebrite expert gave an opinion that the device never moved far from the flagpole, which does support the cw theory.

It doesn't make sense to snip and focus on just one aspect of his testimony, and ignore his conclusion, which was based on all the available corroborating data, including but not limited to battery temperature.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies