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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #321
  • #322
25 feet to front door and 30 feet to window, according to AJ. That’s helpful.
 
  • #323
Are we actually going to get the BAC test this time instead of the weird BAC calculation that Nicholas Roberts came up with?
 
  • #324
Oh my, I can already tell that AJ is going to eat this witness alive.
 
  • #325
  • #326
Are we actually going to get the BAC test this time instead of the weird BAC calculation that Nicholas Roberts came up with?
NOPE. More of the same that KR’s lawyers tore to shreds in trial 1.
 
  • #327
  • #328
Jen and the Judge smile at each other as she sits down.
That was...telling. It was a very familiar and friendly, hey there, smile, greeting of looking sympathetic while judge was at it. Pretty clear and I wasn't looking or expecting that. JMc has been treated very sympathetically and 'so sorry' by this judge and it is shocking. IMO
 
  • #329
So, this scholar is going to approximate her calculations.
Yep. The same retrograde extrapolation. It kind of made me chuckle that they got a different guy than the one who testified on this T1. I guess he wasn’t as convincing as they thought he would be.
 
  • #330
Just FYI y’all, there’s so many cases of retrograde extrapolation being excluded from courts because it’s not reliable - State v. Armstrong for one. It’s not scientifically precise. It’s speculative assumption, dressed up in frilly language. MOO.
 
  • #331

Summary in 50 Words or Less: Reverse extrapolation of one’s blood alcohol content to the time of driving assumes that the driver metabolizes ethanol at a certain rate (“absorption rate”), 0.015% per hour, based on an average person’s age, gender, kidney function, liver function, body fat, emotional state, hydration level, metabolism, hematocrit, breathing rate and many other “averages” that may or may not apply to the driver. The calculation also assumes the BAC was declining throughout, which may not have been true.”
 
  • #332

Summary in 50 Words or Less: Reverse extrapolation of one’s blood alcohol content to the time of driving assumes that the driver metabolizes ethanol at a certain rate (“absorption rate”), 0.015% per hour, based on an average person’s age, gender, kidney function, liver function, body fat, emotional state, hydration level, metabolism, hematocrit, breathing rate and many other “averages” that may or may not apply to the driver. The calculation also assumes the BAC was declining throughout, which may not have been true.”
I feel like the whole thing is mumbo jumbo!!!
 
  • #333
CW playing tired documentary clips in lieu of, say, actual hard evidence. Yawn.

If these video clips are supposed to be some big bombshell, they are failing spectacularly! No one wants to see random clips played seemingly without any kind of order or context. hank has butchered the video and just thrown them at the jury without any cohesive flow. The jury has already forgotten them. Do you think they are going to remember the 3 video clips shown on say Day 4 of the trial? Do they think KR's lawyers weren't right beside making sure she doesn't incriminate herself? There is not going to be some big revelation or gotchya moment. If there was anything there, a bigger deal would have been made about it. Compared to the disaster that was jen mcabe these videos are useless.
 
  • #334
  • #335
I feel like the whole thing is mumbo jumbo!!!
it really is. There is no magic formula to retrograde extrapolate BAC accurately. It really depends on Karen and her metabolism, how much food she ate, and what she was drinking. The problem is here that while they are alleging the person they are testing was drunk, they also have to trust them to be accurate in what they drank or ate at all times. Simply not realistic. The varying absorption rates and lack of verifiable info make it essentially tarot reading, IMO
 
  • #336
Here we go, Yanetti!!!!!
 
  • #337
This witness is the Trooper Paul of Forensic Scientists.
 
  • #338
Here we go, Yanetti!!!!!
Yanetti points out that the testing from the hospital lab is not accredited the same way this Ms Knowles’ lab is.

Witness said ‘I have no knowledge of their QC (quality control) procedures’

Witness Knowles acknowledges that ‘my calculations are only as good as the numbers I was provided.’

Ms. Knowles will be coming back Monday.
 
  • #339
sidebaaaaah
 
  • #340
This witness is the Trooper Paul of Forensic Scientists.
I mean, I completely understand her unwillingness to hitch herself to the CW bus. As she said, she is only making calculations based on the formulas approved by her lab, and has no idea what the standards are of the lab that actually took Karen’s blood. It makes sense to me that, even when talking to the CW, she didn’t want to make a 100% statement. Because she can’t. She’s basically a Chinese Room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
3,011
Total visitors
3,142

Forum statistics

Threads
632,623
Messages
18,629,238
Members
243,222
Latest member
Wiggins
Back
Top