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

[Angelwatch]

Brennan must really be scared of losing if he’s looking to call the Aruba witnesses. IMO.

This is so ridiculous. Forget Tully, Proctor, B Albert, C Albert, Higgins. Let's hear gossip from the Aruba sisters. The CW is desperate.

 

[Tortoise]

The Importance of EMS and Paramedic Reports in Personal Injury Cases

The information the EMS report contains is important in building a successful personal injury case.

www.smorganlaw.com

It was and every other paramedics duty to write a report. Here is the protocall:
When an EMS or paramedic responds to the scene of an accident, this sparks a report or record. The EMS or paramedic will generate a report and the report will show the following:

Time of call
Time of arrival on-scene
Personnel responding
Address of the accident
Statements made by the victim
Vitals of the victim (Blood pressure, heart rate, etc.)
Time sent to emergency room or medical facility
Location of the emergency room or medical facility

Yes one of their number writes a report. That is the duty of their lead paramedic.

timestamp 44.05 from trial 1. (AJ didn't cross her again on this matter in trial 2.)

 

[Wishbone]

Thank you for the link @Wishbone

Ashley Vallier was testifying about mechanical fits, whether edges could be matched up or aligned to other edges. She was not testifying about properties not matching under the microscope, or additional pieces not a match for Karen's taillight. Obviously there were pieces that were too small to work with, and holes apparent when the whole light was reassembled.

I just took the time to transcribe her testimony word for word, from the day of the reporting you've linked, for everyone interested. I've bolded some portions which highlight this. (Link below.)

--
A. So the taillight I called piece A in this case, and it measured approximately 14” by 9” by 8 ¼”

Q. And then which of the pieces that were contained within that taillight evidence bag did you compare to the taillight housing itself?

A. So there were, there was a lot of like very very small pieces that I took pictures of but they were very very small so they were not suitable for comparison so I didn’t look at those, there were some larger pieces that I did, that were suitable for comparison so I did look to see if they fit in with piece A.

Q. And with regard to that analysis of whether or not they fit in with piece A, which of those pieces did you find did fit?

A. So amongst item 3-1, piece A and piece B fit together mechanically and then piece A and piece F fit together mechanically.

Q. And it may be pretty apparent but if you could expound upon what you mean when you say they fit together mechanically?

A. So when things break they break in a unique pattern, it’s pretty different every time so a mechanical fit is bringing two things with broken edges together to see if they were originally part of the same item, to see if the broken edges align, and if they do then that’s a mechanical fit.

Q. Now turning your attention to items 7-5, you looked at those various pieces together as well is that correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And were there any, three pieces in total from 7-5, to A, B and C, is that correct as well?

A. (looking at notes) Yes.

Q. And what if any match did you find with item, within item 7-5?

A. There were no mechanical fits amongst those three items, uh three pieces of the item.

Q. And with reference to item 7-6 there were two pieces, A and B, within that, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. and were there any physical matches within those two pieces of item 7-6?

A. No.

Q. Now turning your attention to item 7-8, do you recall how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were 14 pieces.

Q. And of those 14 pieces they were each compared to each other is that correct?

A. Correct

Q. And what if any mechanical fit did you find between the pieces contained within 7-8?

A. Pieces C and D were found to fit together mechanically and then pieces E and F were found to fit together mechanically.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-9, you analysed three pieces for that, is that correct?

A. Sorry could you repeat your question?

Q. How many pieces were contained within item 7-9?

A. Three pieces.

Q. And what if any physical matches did you find contained within that item 7-9?

A. There were no mechanical fits.

Q. And with reference to 7-10, how many pieces?

A. One piece.

Q. And with reference to item 7-11, how many pieces contained within that?

A. Six pieces.

Q. And what if any physical matches did you find contained within 7-11?

A. There were none.

Q. In 7-11 how many different colors of pieces were contained within 7-11?

A. Black, red and colorless, apparent plastic.

Q. With reference to item 7-12, how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were 14 pieces.

Q. And of those pieces how many different colors of pieces were within 7-12?

A. They were all colorless.

Q. and from those what if any mechanical fits did you observe or did you find within item 7-12?

A. There were three. Do you want me to say all the pieces that fit together?

Q. Please.

A. So pieces B, C, D, F and K all fit together, pieces E and I fit together, and pieces M and N fit together.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-13, how many pieces were contained within item 7-13?

A. Three pieces

Q. And how many different colors of items were contained within 7-13?

A. It was red and black apparent plastic.

Q. What if any physical matches did you find within item 7-13?

A. There were none.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-14 how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There was one piece.

Q. And what color was that one piece?

A. It was colorless.

Q. And turning your attention to item 7-15, how many pieces were contained within that?

A. There were eight pieces.

Q. And as far as those eight pieces how many items were of different colors, or what color were they?

A. They were red and colorless apparent plastic.

Q. And of those eight pieces what if any mechanical fits did you find within that?

A. Piece F and piece H were found to fit together.

Q. Turning your attention to item 7-16 how many pieces were contained within 7-16?

A. There were seven pieces.

Q. And of those seven pieces what if any differences in color were the seven pieces within 7-16?

A. It was red and colorless apparent plastic.

Q. And of those pieces what if any mechanical fits did you find within 7-16?

A. Pieces A, C and D fit together mechanically.

Q. Now with reference to those pieces once you did those inspection from or analysis from the individual items, what if anything did you do with those individual items with reference to the taillight housing?

A. Before even comparing it to the taillight I compared all of the questioned items to each other so if the 7-5 to 7-19, to see if any of those pieces would fit together and amongst those I was able to make five larger pieces, that I called piece 1 through piece 5.

Q. And of those larger pieces which of those larger pieces were you able to mechanically fit together prior to comparing them to the taillight housing?

A. Sorry can you…

Q. From your analysis of those larger pieces and analysing them together with other larger pieces, what if any opinions did you draw what if any conclusions did you come to as far as your analysis of those pieces?

A. So for the larger pieces amongst item, like the different items, that fit together mechanically, I considered those items were once a part of the same unit.

Q. And so I guess what I’m asking is with reference to say item 7-6 or 7-5, were the items in and of themselves, which of those items were you, if any, were you able to find mechanically fit with each other?

A. Amongst like, are you asking me which specific items made up like piece 1?

Q. Correct

A. So piece 1 contained pieces from item 7-5, 7-8, 7-10, 7-11, 7-13, 7-15, and 7-16.

Q. And so based on their mechanical fit what if any conclusion did you draw with reference to those several items?

A. That those specific pieces from all of those items were at one time together as part of a larger unit.

Q. And what if any comparison or analysis did you do of items between item 7-15 and item 7-16?

A. So pieces from item 7-15 and 7-16 were part of piece 1, I could look through my notes and see if there are part of any other pieces that I fit together? (permission given). So piece 2 consisted of pieces from item 7-15 and 7-16.

Q. And then with reference to item 7-6 and 7-11, what if anything did you observe between those pieces?

A. So piece 3 consisted of pieces from item 7-6 and 7-11.

Q. And similar to what you had described before with 7-15 and 7-16 as far as them mechanically fitting together and now I’m talking about item 7-6 and 7-11, what if any conclusions did you draw in regard to that?

A. That those pieces from item 7-6 and item 7-11 were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. and then as far as item 7-8, 7-9, and 7-16, what if anything did you were you able to do with reference to those?

A. So piece no.4 consisted of pieces from item 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16.

Q. And as far as mechanically fitting those pieces together again what if any conclusions did you come to in reference to those items 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16?

A. That those pieces from items 7-8, 7-9 and 7-16 were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. Now lastly with reference to 7-12 and 7-14, what if any analysis did you do with reference to pieces from those items?

A. I have item 7-11 and 7-12 that fit together for piece no.5.

Q. And your honor with what’s now been marked as exhibits 384 through 402 if I could ask to publish some of those to the jury? (Yes.) Miss Gilman if I could have photograph 2069. Miss Vallier do you recognise what’s up on the screen as now exhibit 384?

A. I do.

Q. and what are we looking at here?

A. within item 7-16 those are pieces that were mechanically fit together

Q. Miss G if I could have 2096? And Miss V do you recognise what’s now been marked as exhibit 386?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. So that is what I called piece 1, so the piece that is made up of apparent plastic pieces from many of the different items.

Q. Miss G if I could ask you to zoom in a little to the middle of that photograph. And from this zoomed in version of 386, Miss V are you now able to see some of the stickers or evidence stickers that you put labelling these pieces?

A. Yes. So these labels right here are the labels that I put on each piece individually when I initially examined it. So all of the little white labels.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2097? Miss V do you recognise what is up on the screen, what has now been marked as exhibit 387?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s still piece 1, it’s just from a different angle.

Q. Miss G if I could have 2101. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen now, that’s been marked as exhibit 390?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at here?

A. That’s still piece 1, photo taken from another angle.

Q. Miss G if I could have 2103. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 392?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at here in 392?

A. That is another angle of piece 1.

Q. Miss G if I could have photo 2107. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 395?

A. I do.

Q. And what are we looking at in exhibit 395?

A. That is piece 2.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2110. Miss G if you could just zoom in a little bit. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 398?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That is piece 3.

Q. And Miss G if I could have photo 2111, and if you could zoom in. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 399?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That is piece 4.

Q. And Miss G if I could have photo 2113, and zoom in just a little. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 401?

A. I do. That is piece 5.

Q. Thank you. Your honor may I approach? (Yes.) So Miss V earlier I’d put before you another 23 photographs, do you recognise what’s depicted in those 23 photographs?

A. I do.

Q. What do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s comparisons between item 3-1 and piece 1.

Q. And item 3-1 again was the taillight, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Your honor with the court’s permission the cw would seek to introduce and admit as the next exhibits. (D- no objection)

(exhibits 403 through 434 your honor)

Q. Your honor with the court’s permission if I may publish some of these photographs for the jury? (yes)

Q. Miss G if I could have photograph 2156. Miss V do you recognise what’s now up on the screen and been marked as exhibit 403?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s one of the photos comparing item 3-1 and piece 1.

Q. Miss G if I could have photo 2125. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 411?

A. I do.

Q. And what do you recognise that to be?

A. That’s the contents of item 3-1.

Q. That’s prior to you.. at what stage of this analysis or comparative process is that?

A. So that’s when I initially looked at item 3-1.

Q. If I may have a moment (yes). Miss G if I could have photo 2150. Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 431?

A. I do.

Q. And what are we looking at in 431?

A. So on the left is item 3-1 piece A, and on the right is piece 1.

Q. And Miss G if I could have 2151? Miss V do you recognise what’s up on the screen which has now been marked as exhibit 432?

A. I do.

Q. What are we looking at in 432?

A. That is piece 1, on top of item 3-1, in a mechanical fit

Q. Is that the mechanical fit that you were talking about earlier in your testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Miss G you can take that down. Miss V in reference to those items that you testified to earlier in item 3-1 the taillight housing, what if any conclusions regarding those items as far as a physical match, what if any conclusions did you come to?

A. That item 3-1 and the pieces that make up piece 1, were at one time together as a larger unit.

Q. Thank you very much I have no further questions.

My concern is focused on the other sets of apparent plastic with no matches. If you are in disagreement with what I've posted, you are entitled to your own opinion.

”I look at the photos to see if there are any similarities, dissimilarities,” Vallier said, adding that she also checks to see if any pieces match together. She said she analyzed the plastic pieces from the crime scene with a microscope.

Vallier also identified a separate batch of photos she took of pieces of plastic that appeared to fit together. She compared one larger piece of the taillight, identified as piece A, with other smaller ones. She said piece A fit together with two other smaller pieces.

In another set of colorless pieces of plastic, she said, several “fit together.” Another set of red and colorless apparent plastic pieces included two that “were found to fit together,” Vallier said.

Three pieces in another set also fit together, she testified.

In other sets of apparent plastic, Vallier testified, there were no matches.

‘I don’t know, it happened last night.’ State police investigator recounts initial interview of Karen Read at trial. - The Boston Globe

Earlier Wednesday, a forensic scientist at the State Police crime lab testified that plastic found in John O’Keefe’s clothes was "consistent with" Read’s broken taillight.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Anniesflowers]

@DrLauraPettler


The manner of death "homicide" is the medicolegal term for is the killing of one human being by another human being. However, murder is a type of homicide that involves the unlawful killing of one human being by another human being. Not all homicides are murders, but all murders are homicides.

Generally speaking, as an expert in #DVHomicide, when I say #DVHomicide, I am talking about the killing of one human by another human in relation to #DomesticViolence.

@USDOJ's definition of #DomesticViolence, "Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate partner relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone."

The way #KarenRead spoke to JOK in voicemails she left January 29th is not ok. No one should treat anyone the way Karen treated John in those voicemails. #MenToo #HisNameWasJohn #DVAwareness


11:53 AM · May 14, 2025

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922681762683236784

Wow! KR is a domestic abuser now? I’m not sure what to say. Moo.

 

[tara83]

This is so ridiculous. Forget Tully, Proctor, B Albert, C Albert, Higgins. Let's hear gossip from the Aruba sisters. The CW is desperate.

Well if all you have is cops who keep telling lies under oath and an ME who can't come up with a cause of death what else do they have?

 

[Tortoise]

My concern is focused on the other sets of apparent plastic with no matches. If you are in disagreement with what I've posted, you are entitled to your own opinion.

”I look at the photos to see if there are any similarities, dissimilarities,” Vallier said, adding that she also checks to see if any pieces match together. She said she analyzed the plastic pieces from the crime scene with a microscope.

Vallier also identified a separate batch of photos she took of pieces of plastic that appeared to fit together. She compared one larger piece of the taillight, identified as piece A, with other smaller ones. She said piece A fit together with two other smaller pieces.

In another set of colorless pieces of plastic, she said, several “fit together.” Another set of red and colorless apparent plastic pieces included two that “were found to fit together,” Vallier said.

Three pieces in another set also fit together, she testified.

In other sets of apparent plastic, Vallier testified, there were no matches.

‘I don’t know, it happened last night.’ State police investigator recounts initial interview of Karen Read at trial. - The Boston Globe

Earlier Wednesday, a forensic scientist at the State Police crime lab testified that plastic found in John O’Keefe’s clothes was "consistent with" Read’s broken taillight.

www.bostonglobe.com

I've read the article. I've provided the transcript which is word for word what she testified to and more explanatory than the reporter's summary, and which as I've already pointed out, she was answering in regards to mechanical fits/alignments. She never said the pieces were not a match for this vehicle, and the defense has never claimed that, as they have for the glass on the bumper not matching John's glass.

It's not my opinion, it's the testimony of Ashley Vallier.

 

[Wishbone]

I've read the article. I've provided the transcript which is word for word what she testified to and more explanatory than the reporter's summary, and which as I've already pointed out, she was answering in regards to mechanical fits/alignments. She never said the pieces were not a match for this vehicle, and the defense has never claimed that, as they have for the glass on the bumper not matching John's glass.

It's not my opinion, it's the testimony of Ashley Vallier.

I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[mrjitty]

Ms. Hartnett, who is on the stand right now, notoriously testified about “John’s hair” being found on Ms. Read’s vehicle. But it should be noted that DNA testing performed by Karen’s DNA expert, who was present for CW’s testing of the hair, determined the hair was not only inconsistent with Mr. O’Keefe’s DNA profile - it wasn’t even a human hair. This detail was included in a court filing - the defendant’s motion to modify conditions of release - and directly contradicts the implications made in Hartnett’s testimony. I wonder if she will testify on the ‘hair’ this trial.

This was addressed by trial evidence in Trial 1.

You haven't given any link to whatever that filing is, but I assume it is some early motion.

Tess Chart, a technology forensic DNA analyst at Bode, testified that per mitochondrial DNA testing, she can say with 95% confidence that the hair found on the rear of Read's SUV is a match for O'Keefe.

Expert in Karen Read murder trial testifies that John O'Keefe's DNA was on taillight

The high-profile Karen Read murder trial resumed on Thursday with witness testimony from police and DNA experts.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Leilei]

Wow! KR is a domestic abuser now? I’m not sure what to say. Moo.

No DV charges, either.
Hmm.
IMO.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Yes he just said it again ‘there was one particular item that was about a foot, a foot and a half, under the snow’

There you go, proof that the pieces were planted. Another great witness for the defense! MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I've read the article. I've provided the transcript which is word for word what she testified to and more explanatory than the reporter's summary, and which as I've already pointed out, she was answering in regards to mechanical fits/alignments. She never said the pieces were not a match for this vehicle, and the defense has never claimed that, as they have for the glass on the bumper not matching John's glass.

It's not my opinion, it's the testimony of Ashley Vallier.

I mean let's cut to the chase. The defence don't say it isn't from her Lexus. Their case is Proctor smashed it out of her Lexus. So they agree with this witness at the end of the day.

IMO

 

[themonk]

I mean let's cut to the chase. The defence don't say it isn't from her Lexus. Their case is Proctor smashed it out of her Lexus. So they agree with this witness at the end of the day.

IMO

Re: the tail light

What is your take on the inverted sally port video the CW presented?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

@DrLauraPettler


The manner of death "homicide" is the medicolegal term for is the killing of one human being by another human being. However, murder is a type of homicide that involves the unlawful killing of one human being by another human being. Not all homicides are murders, but all murders are homicides.

Generally speaking, as an expert in #DVHomicide, when I say #DVHomicide, I am talking about the killing of one human by another human in relation to #DomesticViolence.

@USDOJ's definition of #DomesticViolence, "Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate partner relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone."

The way #KarenRead spoke to JOK in voicemails she left January 29th is not ok. No one should treat anyone the way Karen treated John in those voicemails. #MenToo #HisNameWasJohn #DVAwareness


11:53 AM · May 14, 2025

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922681762683236784

JOK wasn’t exactly sweet to Karen either. The relationship was clearly toxic, but mutual nastiness isn’t the same as violence, and it sure as hell isn’t proof of murder.

Dr. Pettler isn’t even an expert witness in this case. She’s just a commentator spinning a domestic violence narrative from voicemails, while ignoring the complete lack of forensic evidence that Karen ever physically harmed John. She’s being emotionally manipulative, IMO. This is a classic appeal to emotion/outrage fallacy dressed up in fancy lingo. If she has actual evidence, let’s see it. Otherwise, she can spare us the dramatics. MOO.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

JOK wasn’t exactly sweet to Karen either. The relationship was clearly toxic, but mutual nastiness isn’t the same as violence, and it sure as hell isn’t proof of murder.

Dr. Pettler isn’t even an expert witness in this case. She’s just a commentator spinning a domestic violence narrative from voicemails, while ignoring the complete lack of forensic evidence that Karen physically harmed John. She’s being emotionally manipulative, IMO. This is a classic appeal to emotion/outrage fallacy dressed up in fancy lingo. If she has actual evidence, let’s see it. Otherwise, she can spare us the dramatics. MOO.

So if I leave my girlfriend an angry voicemail, I'm a DV abuser, right?

 

[shotgun09]

Wow! KR is a domestic abuser now? I’m not sure what to say. Moo.

It kind of 'goes' with the KR didn't take off her shoes, doesn't it?
smh

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So if I leave my girlfriend an angry voicemail, I'm a DV abuser, right?

Well, you certainly better hope she doesn’t come to an unfortunate end, apparently!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

It kind of 'goes' with the KR didn't take off her shoes, doesn't it?
smh

Exactly. Just more character assassination. Not even the CW is claiming that Karen is an abuser.

 

[Tortoise]

Right.. so we still don't know who they are? They seem to know what dept's they belonged to, but no names?

Officers Lank, Goode, Saraf, Malaney and Gallagher.

From Lt Gallagher's testimony day 9

eta link

 

[mzmarymac]

JOK wasn’t exactly sweet to Karen either. The relationship was clearly toxic, but mutual nastiness isn’t the same as violence, and it sure as hell isn’t proof of murder.

Dr. Pettler isn’t even an expert witness in this case. She’s just a commentator spinning a domestic violence narrative from voicemails, while ignoring the complete lack of forensic evidence that Karen physically harmed John. She’s being emotionally manipulative, IMO. This is a classic appeal to emotion/outrage fallacy dressed up in fancy lingo. If she has actual evidence, let’s see it. Otherwise, she can spare us the dramatics. MOO.

My husband and I always joke that if either of us are murdered, some of our texts to each other would convict us for sure.

 

[lohrtabitha]

The way #KarenRead spoke to JOK in voicemails she left January 29th is not ok. No one should treat anyone the way Karen treated John in those voicemails. #MenToo #HisNameWasJohn #DVAwareness


11:53 AM · May 14, 2025

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922681762683236784

The longer a person lives and the more a person dates or marries, the greater the chance that they too may know how it feels to be cheated on or at least have the feeling that their partner could be cheating on them. We all have jealous tendencies by nature, that is what makes us human. I can say firsthand and as a middle aged female, being cheated on is a devastating feeling and yes, people say horrible things to each other and that is a fact that many of us can relate too. It doesn't make the person a murderer. This is just releasing emotion and often it is not pretty. My husband who is also my best friend, curse at each other at least once a month and we have been together for 21 years. Show me a couple that never argues and I would call their relationship suspect. MO