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

[jepop]

Did Brennan ask Burgess about his degree and I missed it? I heard questions about where he worked, taught, and papers he’s published but no degree history. Although tbf I could have missed it

RBBM. I don't think you missed it. I went back. His education amounts to x3 certifications and some other industry training. Before he got involved in digital forensics he worked in the automotive manufacturing industry.

He, as far as I can tell, was not asked about any degrees or higher education qualifications. I'm assuming because he has none. I'm sure Alessi ( if it's him) has prepped his homework in advance. Jmo

ETA, others on thread saying a degree in general studies, which is not useful for him as an expert for this testimony I guess.

 

[missy1974]

Originally when Burgess thought data was missing, it was because he confused bits and bytes.

A bit is the smallest unit of digital information, representing a single binary value of either 0 or 1. A byte, on the other hand, is a larger unit of digital information made up of eight bits.

This would seem to be pretty basic for a forensic analyst? I imagine Alessi will have fun with that.

 

[missy1974]

RBBM. I don't think you missed it. I went back. His education amounts to x3 certifications and some other industry training. Before he got involved in digital forensics he worked in the automotive manufacturing industry.

He, as far as I can tell, was not asked about any degrees or higher education qualifications. I'm assuming because he has none. I'm sure Alessi ( if it's him) has prepped his homework in advance. Jmo

ETA, others on thread saying a degree in general studies, which is not useful for him as an expert for this testimony I guess.

JMO but I don't think education is everything, not telling the truth about it or misrepresenting it, welll, that is different.
If the person testifying can back up what they are saying, even if from experience, that is okay. BUT... I did a quick search and the fact he confused something so basic as bit/byte... is uhmm questionable. Again, JMO.

 

[missy1974]

Also... who was the woman that first looked at these modules? How do you miss an sd card? lol she had one job... lol

Will be interesting to see what is on it!

 

[jepop]

JMO but I don't think education is everything, not telling the truth about it or misrepresenting it, welll, that is different.
If the person testifying can back up what they are saying, even if from experience, that is okay. BUT... I did a quick search and the fact he confused something so basic as bit/byte... is uhmm questionable. Again, JMO.

Sure, he doesn't need physics for digital forensics. Welcher's education will be more important.

 

[mrjitty]

Also... who was the woman that first looked at these modules? How do you miss an sd card? lol she had one job... lol

Will be interesting to see what is on it!

Maggie Gaffney

 

[justwannahelp]

<RSBM>

The commonwealth isn't claiming she hit him intentionally. I've bolded the relevant portion below -


"In order to prove murder in the second degree, the Commonwealth must prove the following elements:[156]

1. The defendant caused the death of [victim's name].

2. The defendant:

a. intended to kill [victim's name]; or

b. intended to cause grievous bodily harm to [victim's name]; or

c. intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]"

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree



They are saying after an argument, she intentionally reversed at high speed up to where she knew he had just got out of the car, knowing that that action created a plain and strong likelihood of death.

JMO

That’s the same thing as hitting him intentionally

How is “c” not the same as “claiming she hit him intentionally”

The CW is charging her with second degree murder and trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally reversed with the purpose of hitting him. They are failing in my opinion….

IF she hit him, it was manslaughter. She MAY have reversed angrily/quickly and ACCIDENTALLY hit him which would be manslaughter.

BUT 3 people did not see him in the yard or the car. And if looking at phones they could have easily missed his walk from the car to the house which is why they only saw an empty passenger seat but never anyone walking to the house. I believe he was already in the house when they drove up.

Either way, they didn’t see him dead in the yard.

I notice a dead squirrel on the side of the road. At least ONE of them would have noticed a dead/dying man. The mind naturally notices when something ISN’T right or is VERY out of place whether it’s looking for it or not. I even notice shoes on the side of the road.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Sidebar re: the first ‘power on’ event timing.

 

[missy1974]

Ok... they are not showing us at all "how" he came to this conclusion, we are just going to take his word for it? LOL

Alessi must agree with me, because they are at sidebar LOL

 

[kuromiiiilove]

View attachment 587065

Ok... they are not showing us at all "how" he came to this conclusion, we are just going to take his word for it? LOL

Alessi must agree with me, because they are at sidebar LOL

It’s giving Trooper Paul all over again…

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Sidebar re: the first ‘power on’ event timing.

Mr Burgess is being asked to go more in depth on how he determines a ‘power on’ event. He says they can identify a ‘power on’ event, which depicts the time the logo on the infotainment screen goes on in the car, by referencing the ‘ignition on’, which he says occurs approximately 3 seconds before the ‘power on’ event. He says it’s standard methodology.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

View attachment 587065

Ok... they are not showing us at all "how" he came to this conclusion, we are just going to take his word for it? LOL

Alessi must agree with me, because they are at sidebar LOL

Also, power off at 12:42:08??? So now Brennan is going to say that Karen didn’t power off her car until 12:42:08? There is literally audio with her heels in the garage and the WiFi at 1 meadows at 12:36! is Hank just ignoring this/hoping it doesn’t come up?

ETA: I guess they could say she left the car on for 6 minutes after arriving home while pacing the garage… kind of seems unlikely though. MOO.

 

[missy1974]

Also, power off at 12:42:08??? So now Brennan is going to say that Karen didn’t power off her car until 12:42:08? There is literally audio with her heels in the garage and the WiFi at 1 meadows at 12:36! is Hank just ignoring this/hoping it doesn’t come up?

ETA: I guess they could say she left the car on for 6 minutes after arriving home while pacing the garage… kind of seems unlikely though. MOO.

ohhh thanks for that info... I just don't have the times of all the calls, etc in my head yet lol

It feels like something is missing in this testimony... I don't know what, and I'm sure Alessi will go through it all, but seems like some of it is "trust me" type testimony. JMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Originally when Burgess thought data was missing, it was because he confused bits and bytes.

A bit is the smallest unit of digital information, representing a single binary value of either 0 or 1. A byte, on the other hand, is a larger unit of digital information made up of eight bits.

This would seem to be pretty basic for a forensic analyst? I imagine Alessi will have fun with that.

It’s like a chemistry expert confusing milliliters and liters in a legal motion. Embarrassing. Hank Brennan tried to steamroll past Mr. Burgess’ f*ckup at the pretrial hearing. He refused to acknowledge Burgess’s blunder and IMO leaned on Judge Cannone’s lack of technical knowledge to get this “expert” qualified. After all, they had have someone to replace Trooper Paul after his own credibility went up in flames... MOO

 

[keek]

And who in the family is an IT guy?

Matt McCabe.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Also, power off at 12:42:08??? So now Brennan is going to say that Karen didn’t power off her car until 12:42:08? There is literally audio with her heels in the garage and the WiFi at 1 meadows at 12:36! is Hank just ignoring this/hoping it doesn’t come up?

ETA: I guess they could say she left the car on for 6 minutes after arriving home while pacing the garage… kind of seems unlikely though. MOO.

Sure hope he is not ignoring it (like he ignores former Troopah Proctah). I think Brennan is going to have some other reason to refute the wifi connection time at 1 Meadows.

It is my opinion that all these different clocks are not synced and there are 1, 2 or sometimes 3 minute differences. At this point in the trial, "clock drift" has led me to regard all of these times as approximate.

 

[Amber29]

I just can not fathom the glass and the single hair surviving this amount snow shown in these videos. imo

 

[missy1974]

ok, so I can see that they are going to try to line this up with the ignition cycles.... will see how they try to do that. I do recall the ignition cycles and how they didn't make sense in the CW's timeline of them.

 

[Angelwatch]

Also, power off at 12:42:08??? So now Brennan is going to say that Karen didn’t power off her car until 12:42:08? There is literally audio with her heels in the garage and the WiFi at 1 meadows at 12:36! is Hank just ignoring this/hoping it doesn’t come up?

ETA: I guess they could say she left the car on for 6 minutes after arriving home while pacing the garage… kind of seems unlikely though. MOO.

More clock drift, I presume.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

More clock drift, I presume.

This is the first trial I’ve ever watched where time means everything, but clocks mean nothing. It’s very ‘Karen in Wonderland’ IMO