But they were there much earlier than 8. Snow was accumulating fast, so think more like 3-4 inches hours earlier.
MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #26 Retrial
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
- Status
Actually, with the cold, freezing weather things like that can become frozen to the car.
Bruises on the knuckles of his right hand, carrying two glasses and a phone
ARCCA team did tests with using a device to send a glass at a rear taillight. Idea was that John O'Keefe maybe threw the glass at the car. They made a device to propel the glass at the appropriate speeds, had to get to over 20mph to generate that kind of damage.
There is circumstantial evidence. The inverted video looked awfully suspect. The subsequent video provided had missing timeframes. Fnding of tail light pieces for weeks is at a minimum very sloppy. If I recall correctly the puzzle expert showed extra tail light pieces not belonging to the car. Missing videos along the car route to the sallyport. No video's obtained from a neighbors camera facing the location JOK was found. The appealing handling of evidence. And indirectly related, the bizzare death certificate. A Death certificate lists causes of death, never what did not cause the death. The preliminary one stated something like the 'death was not caused by a fight'! T
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 6,526
- Reaction score
- 26,735
This case is quite interesting as the CW refuses to concentrate on proving what caused his death. That should be tantamount. If they want a conviction, that information should be front and center in this trial!
I thought about that as well , I live in an area where it can be snowy, snow storms, cold, etc.
I was rewatching some ring videos today. I am now not sure, when I remembered that she was parked in the garage for hours before leaving around 5am and bumped John's car. So... would they be stuck after being in the garage? and would they still be on there after that bump? Same for the hair, would it still be on there after that bump and 5am drive?
I have so many questions lol
I am shocked every day of testimony that they decided to retry her or that they were even allowed to. So many things happened in the first trial that can not be repeated as "new" to the CW and the CW got the benefit of the new timeline, etc.
Good summary showing how a jury could come to a very reasonable conclusion that some or even all of the tail light could have been transported to the site later. Jmo
In the final analysis though, if the jury is paying attention, all they need to understand is that bodily injuries, and lack thereof, do not lie, nor do the physics of impact forces and cause and effect. Whilst pieces of tail light are movable and innately manipulateable ( is this a word?) as to location and even origin (perhaps for some of them), JO's injuries and the natural laws of physics are not. This is reasonable doubt. And as another properly behaving judge currently overseeing a different case I'm following would say (IMO), this is reasonable doubt and 'twice on Sundays '. Jmo
That's all a jury needs to understand because physics, because impossible lack of bodily injuries, because dog attacked right arm. Not guilty. End of. Jmo
Higgins Snow plow when attached to his jeep? But if so, imo and conjecture, partial damage/some pieces came off, not the whole 45 pieces or however many the CW is claiming were found at no. 34. Jmo
Because the CW is on a witch hunt IMO.
Yes, the CW had the chance to do the right thing but of course they did not. Jmo
I believe many of the jurors were too unsure and intimidated by this judge's attitude throughout the trial to be comfortable asking questions of this judge. Plus I speculate the judge selected foreperson ( prior to random selection of the remaining eleven to make up a deliberating jury) was probably the retired cop we've heard was on that jury, and that foreperson may have been strongly bias and influential in deliberations without addressing their bias. Just speculating on how nine out of twelve ended up going for charge 2 (accidental manslaughter via vehicle impact). Jmo
Laws of physics are immutable but how many jurors understand how "physics of impact and cause and effect"? Prosecution promised data and science but so far mostly we have had confession and video clips as the most prominent aspect. (You lead and finish the most important part, and hide the more challenging aspects in the middle, and the middle so far is where they have put the science and data.)
Yes. Brennan's main thrust appears to be attempting to emotionally manipulate the jury into voting her guilty. Jmo
While I agree they could have dismissed M2, I think it's understandable why the top brass did not want to do so.
They likely believe, in good faith, that the defendant is guilty of killing an officer while drunk driving (whether M2, or Manslaughter). Given the scorched earth tactics of the defence and it's surrogates, particularly the attacks on witnesses and other officers, I think they will never give it up on policy grounds.
Of course that is difficult for supporters of Karen to hear, but for the DA and other key leadership who are convinced of her guilt, the decision is supportable IMO.
For me a key decision point would have been the status of the internal inquiry and the DOJ probe. IMO the DA would have been aware of where that was all heading at the time he made the decision to refile. In other words, he does not believe there is a corrupt plot to protect officers. That is important,
In any event, and as usual with this case, motivations depend on your view of guilt/innocence.
IMO
They drove together behind the tow truck, according to testimony of YB
I want to offer up a non-partisan critique of this LYK clip, on the basis that it might be useful in general to those following cases. Please note I am not giving an opinion here as to whether Peter is right or wrong, but rather the misleading framing that "lawtube" often adopts by presenting hot takes as gospel, whereas anyone who has practiced should understand there are frequently competing arguments which a Judge has to weigh.
Peter correctly notes that as a general rule, only the experts should be allowed to give testimony as to whether the injuries are consistent with a collision. But he then goes on to claim this is the worst decision the Judge ever made, without including the counter argument.
In short, the counter argument is that AJ opened the door with his Bowden theme of cross-examination that Yuri failed to investigate a competing theory. So on redirect, Brennan is entitled to ask the witness what happened during the investigation, to justify him heading in the car accident direction. Yuri answers that it was his impression of the combination of John's injuries and the damage to the Lexus. So he is not giving expert testimony to prove that John was hit by a car, but rather explaining what he thought based on his experience as an investigator - as evidence of why the investigation developed as it did. Remember that AJ on cross has specifically said that the investigation developed either as a corrupt coverup, or a wilfully blind undertaking to protect officers. So it's certainly arguable than Brennan is entitled to ask YB what evidence justified him in adopting the investigative pathway he took. Indeed it would be kind of bizarre if YB is not allowed to explain to the jury what his thought process was, given AJ's allegations. It's also important that Brennan is doing this on redirect after AJ opened this door, and not beforehand on Direct - which is why the Judge allowed it in part, but struck it in part when YB went on to talk about the amount of force required.
So here's the thing.
If Peter wants to detail all this, and then claim Judge Cannone is biased, that's fine with me. But he at least needs to set out the terms of the procedural argument. I get that he handles a lot of experts in his practice so this is hot button for him. But both Brennan and Judge Cannone have vastly more criminal trial experience - and importantly in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where as far as I am aware, Peter has never practiced.
Now personally I listen to Peter a fair amount and find much of his commentary useful. But I wanted to offer this as an example of the dangers of the law tube "REAX" format.
Testimony on redirect @4 hours 50mins
All my opinons.
ETA: Typo/gardening
Peter correctly notes that as a general rule, only the experts should be allowed to give testimony as to whether the injuries are consistent with a collision. But he then goes on to claim this is the worst decision the Judge ever made, without including the counter argument.
In short, the counter argument is that AJ opened the door with his Bowden theme of cross-examination that Yuri failed to investigate a competing theory. So on redirect, Brennan is entitled to ask the witness what happened during the investigation, to justify him heading in the car accident direction. Yuri answers that it was his impression of the combination of John's injuries and the damage to the Lexus. So he is not giving expert testimony to prove that John was hit by a car, but rather explaining what he thought based on his experience as an investigator - as evidence of why the investigation developed as it did. Remember that AJ on cross has specifically said that the investigation developed either as a corrupt coverup, or a wilfully blind undertaking to protect officers. So it's certainly arguable than Brennan is entitled to ask YB what evidence justified him in adopting the investigative pathway he took. Indeed it would be kind of bizarre if YB is not allowed to explain to the jury what his thought process was, given AJ's allegations. It's also important that Brennan is doing this on redirect after AJ opened this door, and not beforehand on Direct - which is why the Judge allowed it in part, but struck it in part when YB went on to talk about the amount of force required.
So here's the thing.
If Peter wants to detail all this, and then claim Judge Cannone is biased, that's fine with me. But he at least needs to set out the terms of the procedural argument. I get that he handles a lot of experts in his practice so this is hot button for him. But both Brennan and Judge Cannone have vastly more criminal trial experience - and importantly in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where as far as I am aware, Peter has never practiced.
Now personally I listen to Peter a fair amount and find much of his commentary useful. But I wanted to offer this as an example of the dangers of the law tube "REAX" format.
Testimony on redirect @4 hours 50mins
All my opinons.
ETA: Typo/gardening
Last edited:
On what grounds is that likely?
Please provide a link to support this given of " the scorched earth tactics of the defense and it's surrogates...'.
Your use of emotive and obscuring language doesn't assist in understanding what is actually meant here. IMO
Similarly, please provide an approved source to support your contention that Karen Read's defense has attacked witnesses and other officers, assuming you are not referring to the correct and proper cross examinations of officers and witnesses during trial x1.
Although your contention is obscuring, if you are referring to TB please provide an approved source to show that Karen Read's defense was/is involved in any of the charges/ civil suits he currently faces.
I'll just speak for myself here, rather than make an unsupported statement about how supporters of Karen Read feel.
Personally, it's a no brainer to me that that the "DA and other key leadership are convinced of her guilt" and therefore they find the decision "supportable". That's not difficult for me to hear at all and you aren't telling me anything new here. Jmo
I'll only note that the above is speculation on your part and I don't see anything here supporting these assumptions about what was and is going on in the mind of the DA.
Other than that, IMO the CW saw ARCCA's independent findings and ignored them. Personally, I find asking why that was so, to be the salient and pertinent question. However, everyone to their own. Jmo
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2024
- Messages
- 2,427
- Reaction score
- 34,100
24 have testified at the Karen Read retrial so far. Here’s who’s left
At least nine key witnesses remain for both the prosecution and the defense at Karen Read's second trial. Here's who they are.
There are 9 people who will almost certainly testify before the prosecution rests:
John O’Keefe’s niece and nephew
Judson Welcher - Executive VP at Aperture, testifying for prosecution
Aizik Wolfe - neurosurgeon to testify on John’s head injury, prosecution expert witness
Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler - ARCCA experts testifying for the defense
Marie Russell - emergency room doctor, expected to testify on John’s arm wounds being consistent with a dog bite
Elizabeth Laposata - New defense witness. A former ME in Rhode Island, she is likely to testify that John’s body showed no signs of hypothermia, insidcating he died somewhere warmer.
Garrett Wing - another dog bite expert for the defense. Garrett has made a highly informative YouTube video on what he thinks happened with John’s arm injuries.
Crazy that neither the lead investigator nor the original ME is listed!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 125
- Guests online
- 2,982
- Total visitors
- 3,107