MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #27 Retrial

[Bishop Black]

Professor Was Accused of Hitting Cop Boyfriend with Car, Leaving Him to Die. Does New Evidence Exonerate Her?

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

people.com

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the January 2022 death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe outside a Canton, Mass., home.

She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Leading up to his death, the couple of two years reportedly spent the night drinking and bar hopping with friends before Read, 43, dropped O'Keefe, 46, off at the home of a fellow off-duty police officer for an after-party, PEOPLE previously reported.

Prosecutors say as O'Keefe exited the vehicle, Read allegedly proceeded to make a three-point turn during a winter storm, striking her boyfriend in the process before driving off.

After O'Keefe failed to return home hours later, Read allegedly went looking for him, before finding his body in a snowbank outside the home where she allegedly left him.

Thread #1Thread #2 Thread #3Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25
Thread #26

 

[Knitty]

Please review Best Practices - Dealing with your fellow posters.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

New data and evidence is allowed during the trial.

Murdaugh trial watchers will remember that it happened rather spectacularly with his car data coming in right at the 11th hour.

I agree it's painful this late for the experts to be reacting to each others reports, which is why the Judge asked Alessi about how much time he needed to respond. I don't agree the CW is changing it's theory - they've always said it's a variance, and the D also knows this (hence Alessi's X). Brennan is now saying he can quantify the variance, and Alessi will get time to address that if the Judge let's it in. But if not, Brennan is still going to say on close that it's variance.

MOO

 

[Malleeboy]

New data and evidence is allowed during the trial.

Murdaugh trial watchers will remember that it happened rather spectacularly with his car data coming in right at the 11th hour.

MOO

New data and evidence can but this is not new data or evidence.
Everyone knows clocks don't always match.
Just really sloppy work from prosecution team IMHO.

Prosecution cannot make significant changes to their theory, near the end of their case.

 

[mrjitty]

New data and evidence can but this is not new data or evidence.
Everyone knows clocks don't always match.
Just really sloppy work from prosecution team IMHO.

Prosecution cannot make significant changes to their theory, near the end of their case.

While I take your point they could have worked this out sooner, this new expert report is apparently in response to a defence expert report, so the Judge does have significant discretion there.

This is why i would not like to be a Judge.

In any event, we will soon find out. What's most interesting to me, is this resolves one of the most annoying issues with the data.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The CW has now changed both its vehicle data and accident reconstruction theories, AGAIN. This time mid-trial, in direct response to the defense’s arguments. This is after already shifting their timeline from Trial 1. They waited until well into Trial 2 to hand over this new theory, despite certifying months ago that all discovery was complete under Rule 14. This isn’t how you pursue truth. The truth doesn’t change. Watching the prosecution repeatedly adjust its case mid-trial while trying to secure a conviction is stomach turning. When you’re prosecuting the right person, you don’t need to keep reinventing your theory. MOO.

Hank knows ‘clocks are different’. It’s even in Burgess original report. There’s no excuse for this.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

While I take your point they could have worked this out sooner, this new expert report is apparently in response to a defence expert report, so the Judge does have significant discretion there.

This is why i would not like to be a Judge.

In any event, we will soon find out. What's most interesting to me, is this resolves one of the most annoying issues with the data.

It doesn’t really ‘resolve’ it though, does it? Burgess even states that he is issuing this knew report to ‘align’ with Whiffens. That’s not ‘new evidence’. It’s retrofitting.

Yes, the defense submitted a supplemental report, but they did so within the May 7th deadline set by Judge Cannone. The Commonwealth had access to the data the entire time and waited until mid-trial to rewrite their theory. It’s clearly a strategic pivot in an attempt to win a trial that has gone off the rails for them. MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

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?

Dr Scordi-Bello testified yesterday that there were no penetration wounds, these were superficial abrasions only. She would have noted the depth if there had been a penetrating wound.

from 1.55.43

He had "superficial" scrapes and cuts on his arm, which did not penetrate the skin or expose fat or muscle tissue, she testified.

Medical examiner details skull fractures in Karen Read murder trial testimony

An autopsy by Dr. Scordi-Bello found head trauma and hypothermia in O'Keefe's death with trial implications for Karen Read in Massachusetts.

www.yahoo.com

 

[mrjitty]

For those interested, the original Defence report the CW has responded to is someone called Matthew DiSogra who seems to be an EDR expert. Source for this is the same motion hearing i posted upthread.

 

[mrjitty]

It doesn’t really ‘resolve’ it though, does it? Burgess even states that he is issuing this knew report to ‘align’ with Whiffens. That’s not ‘new evidence’. It’s retrofitting.

Yes, the defense submitted a supplemental report, but they did so within the May 7th deadline set by Judge Cannone. The Commonwealth had access to the data the entire time and waited until mid-trial to rewrite their theory. It’s clearly a strategic pivot in an attempt to win a trial that has gone off the rails for them. MOO.

It's not unusual that the CW experts would get an opportunity to respond IMO. But it's ultimately up the Judge how she makes sense of it.

What do you make of the fact that the defence is apparently accepting that Key Cycle 1162 is from the John drop off? Alessi seems to be saying even if Karen reversed at 24mph, John was not struck because he locked his phone after the event.

 

[Tortoise]

For those interested, the original Defence report the CW has responded to is someone called Matthew DiSogra who seems to be an EDR expert. Source for this is the same motion hearing i posted upthread.

Is he anything to do with ARCCA?

 

[Malleeboy]

It's not unusual that the CW experts would get an opportunity to respond IMO. But it's ultimately up the Judge how she makes sense of it.

What do you make of the fact that the defence is apparently accepting that Key Cycle 1162 is from the John drop off? Alessi seems to be saying even if Karen reversed at 24mph, John was not struck because he locked his phone after the event.

Maybe an "even if" argument, even of we grant you premise, it doesn't work.
We have to see the prosecution crash analysis.

I would point out that my understanding is Karen has said she did a 3 point turn. A reversing impact as part of a 3 point turn, would better explain the direction of where John ended up, as she would be reversing across the road towards him, and the direction of force and momentum would be a better fit. But it is hard to see a 24mph speed achieved, and she would have hit the curb at perpendicular manner. Although the 24 mph, may be an overstatement, as the car maybe measuring speed based on wheel movement, which on an snow/icy road with lower traction may be more spin and less speed.

 

[mrjitty]

Is he anything to do with ARCCA?

He seems to work at a company called Delta V that specialises in EDR recovery as well as accident reconstruction. Maybe he is a subbie.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe an "even if" argument, even of we grant you premise, it doesn't work.
We have to see the prosecution crash analysis.

I would point out that my understanding is Karen has said she did a 3 point turn. A reversing impact as part of a 3 point turn, would better explain the direction of where John ended up, as she would be reversing across the road towards him, and the direction of force and momentum would be a better fit. But it is hard to see a 24mph speed achieved, and she would have hit the curb at perpendicular manner. Although the 24 mph, may be an overstatement, as the car maybe measuring speed based on wheel movement, which on an snow/icy road with lower traction may be more spin and less speed.

I guess they could try to argue that, though they don't have the steering data to support it.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923330380209233963

 

[Izzylizzy]

"But after jurors were dismissed for the day, both legal teams accused each other of introducing new expert reports at the last minute, claiming they needed more time to evaluate the findings.

Read's defense attorney, Robert Alessi, suggested the trial might need to be paused".

Karen Read trial may face delays as attorneys spar over late additions of expert reports

The jurors in Karen Read murder retrial heard testimony from a medical examiner who detailed injuries to Boston officer John O'Keefe's body, while the defense argued alternate causes.

www.wcvb.com

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923323425344372881

 

[kuromiiiilove]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923323425344372881

Mark’s takes on this trial have been fantastic. This isn’t just a minor tweak. Its a full on pivot in the middle of trial that leaves the defense totally blindsided. They have built their entire cross-examinations and strategy around the Commonwealth’s previously sworn timeline. You can’t retroactively alter a case midstream just because your original theory is falling apart in real time…

What makes it even more telling is Aperture’s admission that they didn’t independently revise their findings - they changed their report to sync with Whiffen. That’s not science.

And like Mark says, the Commonwealth knew they were going to blindside the defense and waited until halfway through trial to spring it. That’s prejudicial as hell. If the defense wants a mistrial, it’s only because a fair trial is being made impossible by the CW. MOO.

 

[waldojabba]

New data and evidence can but this is not new data or evidence.
Everyone knows clocks don't always match.
Just really sloppy work from prosecution team IMHO.

Prosecution cannot make significant changes to their theory, near the end of their case.

One Hundred percent. Its clean up in aisle 7 lol.
I am sure whatever the decision is it won't be the Judge making it
DA Morrissey will have already weighed in, as well as even maybe Morrissey's buddy Maura Healy
the MA governor, who is also a lawyer.

The majority of legal opinions I have seen indicate that Brennan was angling for this little "trick or treat" surprise right from his opening statements when he called their case "fluid".
As many have stated here and every where - this is really not new information , the P had just not thought it all through until Whiffen's testimony and Alessi's cross. That was the P's bingo moment.
So to me it seems that to allow the P to do what they propose ( even without Brennans last bite at the apple) is improper. I don't think the D wants to start over /altho the P might want to with a mistrial ruling.

Interested to see what Alessi has to say - so interested that I am trying to cancel a 930 meeting as I write this .

Priorities

JMO

 

[tara83]

I guess they could try to argue that, though they don't have the steering data to support it.

Well the CW can't even say he was hit by a car when their own witness doesn't think he was. Yet here we are so is data really important?