MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #24 Retrial

[rescuemom]

Early release for the jury again.

Hope I don't jinx it, but I have been pleasantly surprised at the lack of juror issues so far in this trial. Seems we had several issues last time, so this is refreshing!

Two things that we can count on in this courtroom is that there will be sirens blaring during the defense time at the podium AND the judge will cut the day short if possible

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Thank you! . I just tried it and was able to see every page I visited in the last month, or so, separated by date. I wasn’t able to get any timestamps, though. I’ll keep playing with it!

I could be wrong but I believe that the timestamps are acquired via the extraction software used. But you may be able to request your search logs with Google Takeout.

 

[rescuemom]

I will say one thing - I think this is the first trial I’ve ever watched where the prosecution has waited so long to introduce the meat & potato’s of the case.

10 days with no autopsy photos, no manner of death. In the meanwhile, they’ve heard over a dozen out of context, three-second clips of Karen.

The CW is floundering. MOO.

They are really dreading that part of this case.

 

[mzmarymac]

I'll be honest. Even though "Hos long" was my initial hook into this case, I really don't necessarily believe this happened. I actually do believe that there was no search until the next morning. Maybe KR did ask JM to search it and doesn't remember or lied about remembering to try to help her case. That said, I really don't think they can actually PROVE it. If they could, it certainly would be a slam dunk.

But I don't really think it matters. There is WAY more than enough reasonable doubt all over the place.

 

[Wishbone]

I was blown-away with all that Alessi knows about this area of forensics.
Did he have to learn all this on top of everything else in these 2 trials...and remember what it meant and how it works to boot.
Scream, just the thought.
imo

He is amazing. JMOO

 

[KSwizzle]

I like Alessi in that he's extremely good at re-arranging or re-phrasing questions on the fly and still have the questions be concise and straight forward, I would imagine the jurors like that as well moo

 

[rescuemom]

These clips without context are designed to affect the jury psychologically. He wants the members of the jury to be affected mentally in their thinking, emotionally in their feelings and behaviorally in their verdict. A form of manipulation.

Me thinks the jury like most of us are not impressed. These clips are like a prop in the magic show

 

[Anniesflowers]

So Alessi is not going to cross this lady? What is with the head scarf??

It is a hijab, worn by some women of Muslim faith.

 

[Anniesflowers]

Just gently pointing out that this is attorney Alessi doing this cross.

I have been impressed with his knowledge of the law and his attention to detail.

He has a very soothing voice.

 

[Anniesflowers]

I could be wrong but I believe that the timestamps are acquired via the extraction software used. But you may be able to request your search logs with Google Takeout.

Never heard of Google Takeout. I’ll check it out! . Thank you!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

My question is how can either of the Commonwealth’s digital forensic examiners be reliable sources of information when neither of them examined the complete, authentic phone extraction for the devices they’re analyzing?

And why is it ok that Hyde was paid by the CW BEFORE(!) the first trial (and spoke to the looming specter Tully over 10 times by her own admission), but it’s not ok that ARCCA was paid post-trial 1?

 

[Derph]

My question is how can either of the Commonwealth’s digital forensic examiners be reliable sources of information when neither of them examined the complete, authentic phone extraction for the devices they’re analyzing?

And why is it ok that Hyde was paid by the CW BEFORE(!) the first trial (and spoke to the looming specter Tully over 10 times by her own admission), but it’s not ok that ARCCA was paid post-trial 1?

Because the human masquerading as a judge in this sham of a trial said so!! There are rules for only one side of this trial and not for the other.

 

[rescuemom]

Hi all. It's been a long while since I have posted here, but do still read the forums. It is nice to see a lot of familiar names and read most of the comments. My point is that this case brings me back to Caylee Anthony and the trial of her "mom". It seems to be kinda the same as it was back then, where certain posters are only on here to start an argument or initiate a debate into things that are almost to keep people from reading what the facts are. Disagreements are fine, but the baiting and antagonizing is not. I am 100% about different perspectives and views but some of these posters are just trying to bait for an argument, not to discuss different view points. I am a verified 911 Dispatcher, which include answering 911 calls, dispatching police and fire. I have 30 years experience, and I still work and dispatch for departments that have 40 officers on duty at a time to as little as 2 officers on at any given time. IMO the initial 911 call says everything - "there is a "man" passed out in the snow". That was not a "man" not only was it supposedly her friend she loved dearly, he was also an off duty police officer. I have in the span of 30 years taken every different type of call you can imagine. That call in my expertise is someone who is out during the day on a walk and finds a random stranger down on the ground in the snow. Everything from that 911 call to where we are today in this trial is deplorable and a disgrace to any Law Enforcement Agecny. IMO

It seems to be kinda the same as it was back then, where certain posters are only on here to start an argument or initiate a debate into things that are almost to keep people from reading what the facts are. Disagreements are fine, but the baiting and antagonizing is not. I am 100% about different perspectives and views but some of these posters are just trying to bait for an argument, not to discuss different view points.

Really appreciate your input, and especially agree totally with your assessment of some posters. I'll even stick my neck out further and say that it seems as if there is a "tag team" effort to keep it going.

I mean that I've noticed certain member posters will be on here incessantly stirring the pot and then disappear only to be replaced by another member poster. One or two in particular but never on the same day or week. But the claims, subject and attitude is the same. AJMO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Courtesy of Court TV.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Hi all. It's been a long while since I have posted here, but do still read the forums. It is nice to see a lot of familiar names and read most of the comments. My point is that this case brings me back to Caylee Anthony and the trial of her "mom". It seems to be kinda the same as it was back then, where certain posters are only on here to start an argument or initiate a debate into things that are almost to keep people from reading what the facts are. Disagreements are fine, but the baiting and antagonizing is not. I am 100% about different perspectives and views but some of these posters are just trying to bait for an argument, not to discuss different view points. I am a verified 911 Dispatcher, which include answering 911 calls, dispatching police and fire. I have 30 years experience, and I still work and dispatch for departments that have 40 officers on duty at a time to as little as 2 officers on at any given time. IMO the initial 911 call says everything - "there is a "man" passed out in the snow". That was not a "man" not only was it supposedly her friend she loved dearly, he was also an off duty police officer. I have in the span of 30 years taken every different type of call you can imagine. That call in my expertise is someone who is out during the day on a walk and finds a random stranger down on the ground in the snow. Everything from that 911 call to where we are today in this trial is deplorable and a disgrace to any Law Enforcement Agecny. IMO

Great that you chimed in..thank you and consider sticking around..noticeably.
JM sounded prepared when she called 911, so calm.
We know, we know, that everyone reacts different but I would be more upset than she was if I came across a deceased stranger.
IMO

 

[themonk]

I will say one thing - I think this is the first trial I’ve ever watched where the prosecution has waited so long to introduce the meat & potato’s of the case.

10 days with no autopsy photos, no manner of death. In the meanwhile, they’ve heard over a dozen out of context, three-second clips of Karen.

The CW is floundering. MOO.

Well, the thing is once the autopsy photos are presented the jury is going to wonder whose dog attacked the victim.

 

[Leilei]

Two things that we can count on in this courtroom is that there will be sirens blaring during the defense time at the podium AND the judge will cut the day short if possible

Three things, actually - Her Honor will sigh HEAVILY at various times throughout the day.
IMO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I could be wrong but I believe that the timestamps are acquired via the extraction software used. But you may be able to request your search logs with Google Takeout.

This is most likely true. I don't really know for sure, I just google stuff when I don't know.

 

[rescuemom]

I'll be honest. Even though "Hos long" was my initial hook into this case, I really don't necessarily believe this happened. I actually do believe that there was no search until the next morning. Maybe KR did ask JM to search it and doesn't remember or lied about remembering to try to help her case. That said, I really don't think they can actually PROVE it. If they could, it certainly would be a slam dunk.

But I don't really think it matters. There is WAY more than enough reasonable doubt all over the place.

Did A cause B is the slam dunk.

 

[sunshineray]

I can’t believe she really looked Alessi in the eye and told him her analysis methods were better than reviewing Apple Source Code directly.

She said that because in her line of work, which is why she was testifying, Apple's Source Code is #1 not available because it's a closed source
#2 because Apple's Source Code too voluminous. Her answer then makes perfect sense, especially the it's unavailable part. MO