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

[mzmarymac]

Depends how many dead bodies in a snowstorm they've dealt with. Especially not understanding exactly what occured to the victim. JMO

Dead COPS to be exact!

 

[Soulmagent]

Who testified it was not from KR's car?

No one ,but not one person has said they are either (T2). I mean outside the internet box ,a ton of us live in.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

This statement implies that the ARCCA witnesses conducted their studies at the request of the defense team. This is NOT true.
ARCCA conducted a blind study requested by the FBI. It had nothing to do with this trial. It is a separate investigation. ARCCA was provided with the facts of a body with John’s height and weight and John’s injuries and also the vehicle information and were requested to try and determine if this body was hit by this vehicle. The determination was that JOK did not die from being hit by a, (any) vehicle.
The results of that study were provided to both the CW and the D team prior to T1. The CW elected not to use these test results. The defense team did. As a result, the defense team has paid ARCCA for trial preparation and the associated expenses.
It is disingenuous to repeatedly imply otherwise.
Again, for those that may have missed it:

ARCCA: Expert Forensic, Scientific and Engineering Solutions

Discover the ARCCA advantage with our forensic analysis & engineering, expert witness consulting services, and forensic accident reconstruction solutions.

arcca.com

Andrew Rentschler, Ph.D. | ARCCA Experts & Engineers

Dr. Rentschler is a biomechanist specializing in the study of the forces and mechanics associated with injuries to the human body with ARCCA.

arcca.com

Daniel M. Wolfe, Ph.D., ACTAR | ARCCA Experts & Engineers

Dr. Wolfe is a forensic scientist and accident reconstructionist specializing in the reconstruction of motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions.

arcca.com

So they testified to a hypothetical case, a made-up case similar to KR’s case.
Their determination then was not that JOK was not hit by a vehicle. Their determination was that someone of John’s height and weight in this hypothetical case was not hit by a car.
Interesting.
If I’ve got something wrong here, please, respectfully, let me know, as I am sure somebody here will.

Just thinking on things.

 

[Angelwatch]

Thanks very much for re posting that from prior thread. Hopefully we can move on from this non-point being continuously raised. As with the last thread; I am tired of the uninformed misinformation being posted about ARCCA. And again, this is getting old fast. Jmo

There's an intentional misinformation campaign happening in this trial. You'll never convince those that are intentionally trying to confuse and misrepresent facts. It's helpful, though, to refute the misinformation for those who are learning about the case or don't have all the facts. Try not to let it get to you Thankfully, this trial is happening in a court room and not in social media.

 

[Wishbone]

It was not from Karens car. Again the Tail light is not something I will fight with you over. I have eyes and they saw.
And the wording was shifty in this part of the testimony IMO..

Understand you perfectly and I am in the very same camp. I elaborated on it extensively during the first trial. I will not waste my time and effort on bantering with closed minds for this trial.

 

[Soulmagent]

So they testified to a hypothetical case, a made-up case similar to KR’s case.
Their determination then was not that JOK was not hit by a vehicle. Their determination was that someone of John’s height and weight in this hypothetical case was not hit by a car.
Interesting.
If I’ve got something wrong here, please, respectfully, let me know, as I am sure somebody here will.

Just thinking on things.

Please tell me Sandra is not the blind study,,

 

[sunshineray]

It’s only “ridiculous” if you insist on flattening it to a cartoon version of events. Noone is saying every person involved is a co-conspirator. What’s being pointed out is that some people may have lied to protect themselves, others were coached, and the investigation was so sloppy that it’s impossible to trust the chain of evidence.

Also, you seem to insist on repeatedly stating baseless and sourceless ‘facts’. Karen never definitively said she hit John. NEVER. Not in any police report. Not in any officer’s notes. Not on body cam. And not in her own words. Some witnesses now claim she said it, months later, after major media coverage, and lawyering up, but even that testimony has shifted over time. Kerry Roberts retracted her claim. Katie McLaughlin’s version has changed. Jen McCabe didn’t even bring up the alleged ‘I hit him’ comments in her own grand jury testimony. If this were so clear-cut, why all the revisions?

The firefighter paramedic testified KR said "I hit him" repeatedly (her version only only mildly changing from 3 to 4 times repeated). JM also testified to the same and maybe certain things weren't asked in the GJ as they were asked at trial. KR changed her language in the documentary (which she stated she considers her "testimony") to, "Did I hit him?". It's up to the jury who and what is believable...or not. MO

 

[tara83]

The firefighter paramedic testified KR said "I hit him" repeatedly (her version only only mildly changing from 3 to 4 times repeated). JM also testified to the same and maybe certain things weren't asked in the GJ as they were asked at trial. KR changed her language in the documentary (which she stated she considers her "testimony") to, "Did I hit him?". It's up to the jury who and what is believable...or not. MO

Strange that the cop standing next to her showed zero reaction in the video when she supposedly said this.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

In a trial the evidence itself is essentially also "on trial". It's admissible, it's relevant and just like the defendant is subject to scrutiny and challenge.
imo

I agree. Everything must be considered.
But a lousy investigation in itself doesn’t prove she’s not guilty.
Guilty people are found guilty everyday based on less than stellar investigations.

 

[jepop]

-- Opinion - all my own

Defendant apparently is a functional drinker. I still cant believe someone could drive under the influence with all that liquid in her. I recall her pushing to drink in the afternoon via text messages with John - John telling her she doesnt need to announce going for a drink. Wonder if she’s been enabled in life...

Imo JOK wasn't hit by a vehicle. Both the damage to the Lexus and JOK's injuries and lack thereof make that possibility extremely unlikely to impossible. Jmo. Therefore, KR's level of intoxication on the night and certainly, baseless speculations and innuendo that she was an alcoholic or whatever before, don't seem relevant. Jmo.

Except I guess her intoxication level on the night might work in her favour as moo it would seem impossible for someone in this speculated state of inebriation to depart 34 Fairview at 12.32 and arrive at 1 Meadows at 12.36am. Sober or drunk actually. There are many prior posts on this topic from people familiar with the roads (I am not) so I won't repeat the main points of the previous discussion. Moo

 

[Soulmagent]

No but it puts their evidence much in doubt. Should a jury really be okay considering evidence from a shopping bag and cups from a neighbor?

It is Mass. They burned women for good cooking and a love of herb/aka flavor.

 

[tara83]

I agree. Everything must be considered.
But a lousy investigation in itself doesn’t prove she’s not guilty.
Guilty people are found guilty everyday based on less than stellar investigations.

Well that is a scary thought because that is not what our justice is supposed to be about. By the way you said guilty people are found guilty but that means innocent people are also found guilty.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So they testified to a hypothetical case, a made-up case similar to KR’s case.
Their determination then was not that JOK was not hit by a vehicle. Their determination was that someone of John’s height and weight in this hypothetical case was not hit by a car.
Interesting.
If I’ve got something wrong here, please, respectfully, let me know, as I am sure somebody here will.

Just thinking on things.

Yes, you’ve got the jist! ARCCA used a hypothetical scenario, because they weren’t allowed access to full autopsy data or full photos. So they had to build a model based on the known injuries, body dimensions, and physics of the ‘accident’. But it was 100% accurate to the scene of John’s death.

I think their conclusions were very valuable. Both McDonough (forensics) and Rentschler (accident reconstruction) concluded that the injuries described, linear scrapes, clustered abrasions, and lack of impact trauma,were inconsistent with a vehicle strike at the speeds and angles proposed by the state. That includes the Lexus reverse theory.

So yes, it was technically a “hypothetical person” but it was an accurate stand-in for John based on his known height/weifht and injury descriptions. And their conclusion was very clear that the injury pattern did NOT match a typical car impact. Which directly challenges the Commonwealth’s version of events.

 

[Soulmagent]

No offence but you have posted a 15 minute video, with no question or reference as to what I am supposed to watch or address?

Is your 15 more important than mine?

/f

 

[Izzylizzy]

I have great faith in the defense's closing argument.


"Upon cross-examination, the defense continued challenging the memory of witnesses against Read by pointing out inconsistencies between testimony given to the grand jury, in the first trial and on the stand at the ongoing trial.

Jackson pressed McCabe on why she didn’t tell the first grand jury that she heard Read say, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him,” if the memory was as ingrained in her memory as she said."

Karen Read: What did star witness text to other witnesses?

Karen Read's defense team has long argued she was framed for John O’Keefe's death. Jennifer McCabe's testimony is central to the case.

www.usatoday.com

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The firefighter paramedic testified KR said "I hit him" repeatedly (her version only only mildly changing from 3 to 4 times repeated). JM also testified to the same and maybe certain things weren't asked in the GJ as they were asked at trial. KR changed her language in the documentary (which she stated she considers her "testimony") to, "Did I hit him?". It's up to the jury who and what is believable...or not. MO

The same first responder who said that she wasn’t taking notes on scene and then just yesterday was shown on video taking notes? The same one who claimed a police officer heard Karen say ‘I hit him’ who did not log that in HIS notes or make any statement about it? The same paramedic trying desperately to distance herself from the Alberts?

Yeah.

 

[louvillian08]

RSBM

Not correct.

Timecode 32.12

This is why I kindly request that you provide links. If SERT had not documented recovery, obviously the defence would have made hay out of that on cross. The defence did not do so, and the photographs were accepted into evidence without objection.

I was responding to @Warwick7 's original statement that there was no evidence the pieces were there before the Lexus was seized. If you want to now debate a different point, I think it is fair for me to ask you to provide a link to what you are referring to.

It takes hours of work to listen back to testimony to find these pieces of evidence.

TYIA

MOO

Per that testimony, O'Hara arrived at 4:56pm and waited on the rest to arrive. The search started at 5:20pm. The Lexus was seized at 4:12pm. It correct that there were no photographs taken of the taillight pieces until the car was in police custody.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I agree. Everything must be considered.
But a lousy investigation in itself doesn’t prove she’s not guilty.
Guilty people are found guilty everyday based on less than stellar investigations.

And unfortunately, innocent people are also found guilty based on less than stellar investigations. That’s why investigators are held to certain standards, and why orgs like The Innocence Project exist. JMO

 

[Soulmagent]

This testimony kinda shows how Jen was interjecting into KR and JOK's relationship.
Like the phone records of Jen look a ton like KR records.
Observation.

 

[mrjitty]

Is your 15 more important than mine?

/f

it's you who is asking me a question. If you don't want to invest the time to explain it, then I am happy not to answer.