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

[missy1974]

A couple of hours ago, I listened to the end of today’s episode of Lawyer You Know

He was talking about some huge dispute between the cw and the defense with respect to the cw’s accident reconstructionist changing his report at the last minute (like 5/8). The defense says they were ambushed and that arcca should have had that report when they wrote their own report. He played a bunch of clips of HB and one of the defense attorneys but I couldn’t hear it well enough to understand the issue. Does anybody know what that is all about? I guess they’re gonna continue to argue about it tomorrow.

The CW experts from Aperture submitted a new report on May 8th, Defense recieved it on May 11th. (Note: Defense experts from ARCCA had to have their rebuttal report to Aperture's findings done by May 7th). The new report MOVES the CW timeline of the "triggering event" that caused JOK's death most likely based on testimony that has already happened. The defense says, wait a minute... this is an ambush and we are almost at the end of the CW's case and they want to change the timeline?!?! we have done our defense, questioning, reports, experts, based on what the CW has already presented or submitted in reports.

Brennan says oh this was a surprise to them too (my commentary: uh huh). He even asks the judge to allow them to use their experts from Aperture to testify in the rebuttal and not in their case in chief. Alessi says, this would shift the burden of proof to the defense, not cool, but in more words.

The short version... the CW experts have made a new report based off already given testimony, shifting the timeline. Defense says "AMBUSH". Judge does what she does and can't make a decision and they will have more in the morning.

 

[missy1974]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923182784782196893

Right, this doesn't make sense to me either. No way did they just decide to do this without hearing testimony or being asked to do it.

Didn't ARCCA experts get a spanking for getting some information about testimony last year before they testified? (the info came from the DOJ, NOT the attorneys).

Highly suspect that the Aperture experts come out with a report after testimony calls their timeline into question.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I think it’s a two-fer. That, and he’s discrediting the CW neurosurgeon witness before he even gets on the stand. Dr Stonebridge was specifically accredited in neuropathology. Why would the CW need to hire someone else, if she consulted on John’s cause and manner of death?

Interesting question @kuromiiiilove ….. and my guess would be maybe someone didn’t have the opinion that a certain group desired or needed? MOO

 

[Spider92]

Thanks everyone for your help on the arcca v aperture issue. Hopefully the judge does the right thing. HB must be desperate to be playing this card.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Thanks everyone for your help on the arcca v aperture issue. Hopefully the judge does the right thing. HB must be desperate to be playing this card.

If Apeture is actually dedicated to using science to uncover the truth, as their website claims, they are going to struggle to come up with a plausible theory explaining the the head injury and the arm lacerations. Trooper Joe Paul was completely clueless about hard stuff like physics, but supposedly these people can at least do basic math.

I think Hank knows ARCCA has it all over his experts and he's doing his best to get an unfair advantage from a judge who has been wicked nice to him so far.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Everyone was laughing at that.
Laughing at witness testimony is a whole 'nother animal.
IMO.

Well then , at which point exactly did they laugh?
What was being testified to?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Glass is a doubt thing. People normally don't take a glass with them into a house from a car. They are much more likely to take a glass out of a house.

Well, Karen has said, he took the glass with him when he got out of the car.
I’m sure that will be played for the jury at some point. IMO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

They kept the body warm in the basement?

And maybe that is why that search ‘hos long to die in cold’ was conducted? MOO

 

[Leilei]

Well then , at which point exactly did they laugh?
What was being testified to?

Best bet is to look back through the posts/comments here, and through the approved X accounts.
Hope that helps.
IMO.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Alessi says they cannot provide a defense without being able to evaluate that new information in terms of their entire defense. It’s not just limited to ARCCA. Alessi believes this may have been calculated - that the CW intentionally delayed handing this new information to the defense.

Mr. Burgess states that the reason why that time is being changed is to ‘Align the trigger with Mr. Whiffen’s analysis’, which was based on the extraction from Johns’ phone. The data has been available for years.

Alessi is arguing that at this stage, ‘approaching the end of the trial’, just days before Aperture expert testimony, that this has put the defense in an impossible situation.

Wow….. and the hits keep coming.

IMO time for a directed verdict from this judge. And IMO it should be NG on all charges. IANAL. MOO

 

[SteveS]

This is a major development in this trial.

What's informative in this desired change by the cw's experts, is that it reveals their prior report's claims were NOT objectively reliable at all. One day, with all the data, the time they want to testify as being the right one is X. They give that to def as support for their case. But when the cw needs a different time, because the defense's cross poked holes in some testimony, BAM now they are swearing it must be Y.

That the cw has done this intimates they are suborning perjury and manipulating testimony -- which the jury needs to hear in all fairness to evaluating the cw's case - and which calls into question the remainder of the case.

This isn't only about the cw's lack of integrity, on full display with this stunt.

If I'm a defense lawyer, on ANY future case involving these experts, this is the featured evidence of these guys lack of expertise, reliability, and credibility. Hacks do this sort of stuff. Even JudgeB should be able to see how UN-expert this is. (IMO it should really be grounds to bar them from testifying at all, frankly, since they pantsed themselves and showed their data is not reliable and merely manipulated.)

When JudgeB asked Alessi to be ready with HIS recommendation on what she should do, I think she might have opened the door for him to offer a brief making these kinds of points, and give her the needed arguments to order a dismissal with prejudice. That's how judges get wording and evidence for a ruling. Despite her ongoing bias, this could be enough to knock her over the line the other way.imo

 

[Luna20]

So he is facing the truck and just waiting for it to hit him in reverse dead in the face? Everyone agrees the light worked then so he should of saw it coming.

That has been my question. The lights are not the same height as JO. He would have had to turn around and squat to make contact with the light. Plus she didn’t floor the car in reverse. If that happened she would have run over him completely. It makes no sense.

 

[DropthePuck]

They’re were laughing when Alessi said Canton NY by mistake

IMO

That does not even compare to laughing at YB (the former boss of FIRED Michael Proctor) because some of his answers, were, well, laughable.

 

[DropthePuck]

But then she said, the Lexus coulda clipped him
Causing the leg injury

Not such a little bruise if ya ask me & the knee aligns with the back bumper

IMO

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone ever do measurements that confirm JOK's knee aligns with the back bumper like you are stating here?

 

[DropthePuck]

The CW experts from Aperture submitted a new report on May 8th, Defense recieved it on May 11th. (Note: Defense experts from ARCCA had to have their rebuttal report to Aperture's findings done by May 7th). The new report MOVES the CW timeline of the "triggering event" that caused JOK's death most likely based on testimony that has already happened. The defense says, wait a minute... this is an ambush and we are almost at the end of the CW's case and they want to change the timeline?!?! we have done our defense, questioning, reports, experts, based on what the CW has already presented or submitted in reports.

Brennan says oh this was a surprise to them too (my commentary: uh huh). He even asks the judge to allow them to use their experts from Aperture to testify in the rebuttal and not in their case in chief. Alessi says, this would shift the burden of proof to the defense, not cool, but in more words.

The short version... the CW experts have made a new report based off already given testimony, shifting the timeline. Defense says "AMBUSH". Judge does what she does and can't make a decision and they will have more in the morning.

"Alessi says, this would shift the burden of proof to the defense, not cool, but in more words." Thanks for the chuckle!

 

[twhel]

The issue of the time variance between JOK's phone and the Lexus "black box" was previewed in Brennan's opening statement.

After setting forth the timeline of JOK's last seconds of movement as reflected by his phone data (12:32:09 turning off phone; 12:32:16 health date movement ceases), Brennan said (at 1:37:25 of linked Court TV video):

"We'll also have the information from the defendant's Lexus black box. The clocks run differently; there's a 30 second variance; but it's right in the heart of that time."

The current issue, I gather, is that the CW's witness who analyzed the Lexus data wants to refine exactly what he is going to say about this time variance, which was always going to be at issue and the subject of his testimony. The defense is doing its job in objecting, but, on the face of things, I don't see why the consequence would involve having to revisit Ian Whiffin's testimony about the time data reflected by JOK's phone.

 

[Malleeboy]

So Prosecution now has impact at between 12:32:09 to 12:32:16??
But we have wifi connection at John O'Keefe at 12:36. (Be great is that had more precise time.)
Least distance route is 2.3m/3.7km with 5 turns, crossing at least 2 intersections with traffic lights (she hits a red on either of these and trip can't be done in the time).
Also have the 80 phone "steps" before the impact, so what happened there? Walks halfway to house and back, then she backs into him?

 

[Derph]

After thinking of things, and I apologize for not stating it sooner, I think we all owe a GREAT DEAL of RESPECT to Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello!!!! She was honest and stood up in a very high profile case and answered with honesty and integrity! She did not compromise her principles or bend the knee to any potential bullying or intimidation she may have encountered from some very powerful people who slung her name in the mud and grime of this farce of a trial. She took an oath, stood up and gave the 1st real honest testimony of this trial and the 1st one!

Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello I salute you and am so very, very damn proud of you!

 

[PamCake]

The temperature of his cell phone indicates he never came inside. it started dropping shortly after they arrived at Fairview and never warmed up again until the next morning after he was found.

I have a theory about that. What if the “incident” happened in the back yard near the bulkhead and his phone dropped on the ground during it.( The men could’ve been outside with the dog, maybe having a smoke.) When the thing happened there must’ve been chaos, shock, and confusion. They may not have thought about the phone until later and the snow had accumulated over it. Plausible?

 

[PamCake]

Don't forget the smashed cocktail glass from the bar, too! Probably dropped with the phone.

Good thought. He was pretty drunk. This truly could’ve happened.