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

[PamCake]

Same same @jepop
HB is so pathetic ...that I almost feel sorry for him - that someone goes through life like that -does not mean I approve of his behavior or that I would want him any where near me
HB has made his choices and he is marinating in them about now - but he is raking in the cash which I think is all that matters to him - he's a craven, unethical, not very bright guy.
He has to know that even with the favoritism being shown to the P - he is taking a beating and that he is a total laughing stock.
JMO

Craven is the perfect word to describe him.

 

[missy1974]

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.

It changes everything, again. They have argued from the beginning of this trial that it happened at a certain time. Questions have been asked to specifically refute the timing, whether JOK would have been incapacitated and not able to use his phone, unlock his phone, walk, etc.
There was even a hearing for ARCCA, the defense experts to be able to have a rebuttal to the original report, it was due May 7th. This amendment was given to the CW on May 8th, the defense on May 11th.

I have never watched a trial where the experts were allowed to amend within days of testifying.

all JMO

 

[missy1974]

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 half to house and back, then she backs into him?

yep to make one timeline work, they have to shift another one and make it more unlikely. Crazy

 

[twhel]

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 half to house and back, then she backs into him?

You touch on some good points.

The CW's position is that impact was at 12:32:16 per JOK's phone, which Brennan suggested today runs 20-30 seconds fast.

There were 36 health data steps recorded from 12:31:56 to 12:32:16.

We don't know the route KR took to get to JOK's. There is a plausible route that is slightly longer but with fewer potential interruptions. The notion that KR would necessarily stop for a red light on deserted streets, fleeing from her alleged crime, is, I would suggest, questionable.

You're right that it would be helpful to have a more precise time than just 12:36 for the contact with JOK's wifi. And today's discourse on time variance brings up the need for time synchronization, if one were to get truly serious about it. I doubt either side will, not because of the time synch issue itself, but the overall difficulty of putting on a witness that could effectively testify on the drive time issue.

 

[PamCake]

Running around with no apparent purpose. Last time he testified he went there instead of returning to his home in West Roxbury so he could "move cars around".

So maybe he moonlighted as the property manager during storms. But now we see the video of him coming and going without moving cars around.

Can't wait for the defense to call him. Unless he was dropping something off or picking something up at the Canton PD, he had no purpose there. What would he have been getting or dumping there?

Somebody on another discussion board suggested that BH might’ve been looking for a luminal light; the ones that reveal blood.

 

[Angelwatch]

This makes my head hurt. It almost has to come in because the expert has to be able to say to a high degree of scientific certainty that they believe in their conclusions. If it’s not allowed, then that leaves mistrial or dismissal. I don’t see the judge dismissing charges. I guess we’ll see what Alessi suggests. It’s going to be a late night for her team.

 

[Malleeboy]

You touch on some good points.

The CW's position is that impact was at 12:32:16 per JOK's phone, which Brennan suggested today runs 20-30 seconds fast.

There were 36 health data steps recorded from 12:31:56 to 12:32:16.

We don't know the route KR took to get to JOK's. There is a plausible route that is slightly longer but with fewer potential interruptions. The notion that KR would necessarily stop for a red light on deserted streets, fleeing from her alleged crime, is, I would suggest, questionable.

You're right that it would be helpful to have a more precise time than just 12:36 for the contact with JOK's wifi. And today's discourse on time variance brings up the need for time synchronization, if one were to get truly serious about it. I doubt either side will, not because of the time synch issue itself, but the overall difficulty of putting on a witness that could effectively testify on the drive time issue.

Google maps gives 3 routes
via Pleasant St @ 2.6 miles 6 mins 4 traffic lights
via Sherman St @ 2.3 miles 6 mins 2 traffic lights
via Cedarcrest Rd and Pleasant St @ 2.6 miles 6 mins (this would require turning around and Karen testifies to doing a 3 point turn, and this is part of the way she came) 3 traffic lights

Routes are suburban, noticeable high speeding as a criminal increases chances someone will see and remember.

 

[missy1974]

Somebody on another discussion board suggested that BH might’ve been looking for a luminal light; the ones that reveal blood.

I have also read suggestions that he maybe grabbed a medical bag... a stretcher... so much speculation. I hope they call BH, but might be better off not calling him, it makes the CW look bad for not calling him to answer those questions.

 

[Luna20]

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!
View attachment 586360


View attachment 586361

What did she testify to?

 

[Malleeboy]

You touch on some good points.

The notion that KR would necessarily stop for a red light on deserted streets, fleeing from her alleged crime, is, I would suggest, questionable.

Honestly in a suburban area, I could argue the opposite, last thing you would want fleeing a scene, is to run a red light and got pulled up for it. That would make you look very guilty.
I presume Canton doesn't have red light cameras??

 

[mrjitty]

You touch on some good points.

The CW's position is that impact was at 12:32:16 per JOK's phone, which Brennan suggested today runs 20-30 seconds fast.

There were 36 health data steps recorded from 12:31:56 to 12:32:16.

We don't know the route KR took to get to JOK's. There is a plausible route that is slightly longer but with fewer potential interruptions. The notion that KR would necessarily stop for a red light on deserted streets, fleeing from her alleged crime, is, I would suggest, questionable.

You're right that it would be helpful to have a more precise time than just 12:36 for the contact with JOK's wifi. And today's discourse on time variance brings up the need for time synchronization, if one were to get truly serious about it. I doubt either side will, not because of the time synch issue itself, but the overall difficulty of putting on a witness that could effectively testify on the drive time issue.

If the router connection time is closer to 12.37, then she may have had the best part of 5 mins for the trip. She may also have connected to the router from the street before she pulled in to Meadows.

There are crime enthusiasts who have done the drive in just under 4 mins, which you can confirm via research.

But in any event, if one looks at the distance, and factors in a drunk driver leaving the scene, it is easily possible to do the route in 4.30 without excessive speed and rolling through stops.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Yes.

It should also be noted that this evidence can come in via the back or front door.

Aperture report already notes the sync issue as a variance. So the Judge may well let them resync it based on the Brennan's new report.

However even if she doesn't let Aperture do this. the new report may still come in. It's not a discovery violation. New evidence can emerge during trial.

Or even that the three clock issue is simply explained by non-expert testimony.

End of the day, I don't think there is going to be a way for the defence to keep from the Jury that there are 3 different clocks out of sync - because it's already in the Aperture report and Whiffin already said this.

Of course Alessi will still argue the IOS and Lexus clocks are both correct.

IMO

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

If the router connection time is closer to 12.37, then she may have had the best part of 5 mins for the trip. She may also have connected to the router from the street before she pulled in to Meadows.

There are crime enthusiasts who have done the drive in just under 4 mins, which you can confirm via research.

But in any event, if one looks at the distance, and factors in a drunk driver leaving the scene, it is easily possible to do the route in 4.30 without excessive speed and rolling through stops.

IMO

Trooper Guarino testified that KR's phone connected with John's wifi at 12.36.39, and that it's either a 150ft indoor range or 300ft outdoor range.

Time stamp from 3.40.07

 

[mrjitty]

IMO the legal stoush between Brennan and Alessi misses the most significant development here and it's a big difference for trial 1*

It appears that the CW does indeed now have the timestamp for the start of the key cycle with the high speed reverse. If so, any theories about it happening after seizure of the Lexus are out.

Much more of Alessi's cross of Whiffin/Hyde makes sense now because it seems he was setting up to argue that despite that high speed reverse, it happened a few seconds before John locks his phone. So it can't be manslaughter/murder.

It's a clever technical argument in isolation, and of course it could work, but it would mean all of the defendant's BITS version is false.

Could a jury really believe Karen reversed at 24 mph clean past John who is standing to the side, the Lexus hits 'something' and then meanwhile John locks his phone, takes his final steps and is murdered or suffers misadventure seconds later?

Even if there is variance, a timestamped high speed event seems a very bad fact.

And what to make of AJs statement in opening that they both got out? Was that a misstatement or do they have the drivers door opening?

* I am always a bit hesitant to read the tea leaves of motions as they are not evidence, but it does seem that both Alessi and Brennan accept the time stamps and are arguing about a 30 second variance in time line.

The above is speculation by me, based on tea-leaf reading from arguments by Brennan and Alessi

Brennan's statements about the timestamp "ignition on and off" 7 hours 8 mins approx

 

[mrjitty]

Trooper Guarino testified that KR's phone connected with John's wifi at 12.36.39, and that it's either a 150ft indoor range or 300ft outdoor range.

Time stamp from 3.40.07

Thanks!

I've added it to my timeline.

It's interesting that a number of us had this 30 second variance which could never be resolved between key cycle 1162 and JOKs phone.

Obviously using the GPS time as a source of truth is more accurate.

IMO/MOO etc

 

[mrjitty]

Honestly in a suburban area, I could argue the opposite, last thing you would want fleeing a scene, is to run a red light and got pulled up for it. That would make you look very guilty.
I presume Canton doesn't have red light cameras??

What I suspect now, is that since the reading of the Lexus data after Trial 1, both sides are boxed in to the same timeline but with 30 seconds variance.

So neither wants to talk about it. It doesn't help the CW case. And for the D case, its also unhelpful, because in BITS Karen was working to a 12.41 arrival with 10 mins wait time and normal pace back to 1 Meadows.

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

@mrjitty in your opinion - if - according to the time on John's phone at 12.37.08 - Karen left her first voicemail 'John I f'ing hate you', does that mean the time for the purposes of reconstruction is more accurately 20 or 30 seconds earlier than that? So in the region of 12.36.38 to 12.36.48? About when she connected with the wifi?

 

[mrjitty]

@mrjitty in your opinion - if - according to the time on John's phone at 12.37.08 - Karen left her first voicemail 'John I f'ing hate you', does that mean the time for the purposes of reconstruction is more accurately 20 or 30 seconds earlier than that? So in the region of 12.36.38 to 12.36.48? About when she connected with the wifi?

a good question. I don’t know!

 

[jepop]

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.

Yeah, that's the crux of the matter. Moo. How does Aperture explain an arm covered in symmetrical, patterned animal claw like wounds and at least one animal bite like puncture?

 

[Malleeboy]

Prosecution stated their facts which laid out their theory, Defence built strategy on those facts, Defence asked cross questions around that. Prosecution is now changing those facts. It seems such an obvious issue and all the data was available months ago. These clearly aren't new facts.

Prosecution cannot just change its theory of the crime mid trial.