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

[shotgun09]

Judge Cannone even went as far as saying that they're not allowed to make facial expressions while evidence is being heard

Brennan probably went crying to Judge. He knows....( He's loosing )

 

[Tortoise]

@JHall7news


Hank Brennan announced an agreement stating M Proctor did not attend the autopsy, he played a Read media clip talking about removing a piece of glass from John O’Keefe’s face at the crime scene


9:34 AM · May 16, 2025

Thanks arielilane.

I've transcribed it below

Clip 21

Defendant’s Interview with ID Docuseries April 13,2024

So John’s laying there, his left and his right, and I approached John from the left, that’s where the street is, and he had a piece of glass like perched on his nose, like just wedged like a splinter would be, and I just, just pulled it and as soon as I pulled it, it just gushed blood down his face”

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The nail clippings that were taken from John, in conjunction with the fact that the emergency physician had apparently told the ME there was some kind of altercation, makes me think that medical staff definitely thought he got in a fight. Fingernail clippings are usually taken to check if anyone else’s DNA is under the victims nails, indicative of a struggle. I wonder if the clippings were ever tested.

JMO

 

[Mony Mony]

Interesting instruction. Wonder if it was a juror who said under their breath?

Do you know what/when was said under their breath? I missed this bit of info.
Thanks!

 

[Angelwatch]

Perhaps you missed redirect

Nope, didn’t miss redirect. While it’s possible that a vehicle side swipe could cause a singular bruise, Dr. Scordi-Bello made it clear that the totality of O'Keefe's injuries were not consistent with this scenario. If JOK had indeed been side-swiped, the injuries would have been more widespread, and there would have been more localized points of trauma, particularly in the lower body. She was clear in her statement that his lower extremities showed no evidence of an impact.

<modsnip>

 

[louvillian08]

Was Canton PD not allowed at the autopsy? I understand why Keefe wouldn’t want to bring disgraced former Trp Proctor up on the stand, but why fudge the log early on?

ETA: it’s early! Trp Proctor wasn’t with Canton PD.

It would at least make some sense if he was with Canton PD. Why would a state trooper manipulate the log to cover up the lead investigator attending the autopsy just one day into the investigation?

ETA: I see the update that it was Trooper Watson. Still seems very strange to fudge the log

 

[Spectrix]

I've transcribed it below

"So John’s laying there, his left and his right, and I approached John from the left, that’s where the street is, and he had a piece of glass like perched on his nose, like just wedged like a splinter would be, and I just, just pulled it and as soon as I pulled it, it just gushed blood down his face”

It's a puzzling statement you know, because if John was indeed lying in a Blizzard for 6 hours as alleged by the CW, his nose would be frozen solid, not gushing blood.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The nail clippings that were taken from John, in conjunction with the fact that the emergency physician had apparently told the ME there was some kind of altercation, makes me think that medical staff definitely thought he got in a fight. Fingernail clippings are usually taken to check if anyone else’s DNA is under the victims nails, indicative of a struggle. I wonder if the clippings were ever tested.

JMO

Ope here we go - coming up in court. Mr. Porto was able to generate a DNA profile. He says John was the only contributor for the nail clippings.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Porto is on cross now. Yanetti is crossing him.

 

[Angelwatch]

It would at least make some sense if he was with Canton PD. Why would a state trooper manipulate the log to cover up the lead investigator attending the autopsy just one day into the investigation?

I know, right? It’s another one to put in the unexplained box.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Porto is on cross now. Yanetti is crossing him.

Yanetti is asking about the sample from the passenger side taillight. Yanetti points out that Porto was never asked to do DNA testing with any of the pieces of taillight found in the lawn. Only the actual taillight attached to the Lexus.

 

[Forest_Wood]

So according to the guy up right now, Porto, the fingernail clippings were from JOK's DNA and nobody else's, (therefore, including Karen Read).

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Perhaps you missed redirect

6.44.47

Hank Brennan: "A bruise on the knee, is that consistent with a side-swipe impact?"

Dr Scordi-Bello: "It could be."

Which also infers it could NOT be

 

[Forest_Wood]

It's a puzzling statement you know, because if John was indeed lying in a Blizzard for 6 hours as alleged by the CW, his nose would be frozen solid, not gushing blood.

Yes. And wouldn't his blood have stopped flowing if he'd been laying dead for many hours? And wouldn't his blood be frozen also if he had been laying frozen for 6 hours?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Yanetti is asking about the sample from the passenger side taillight. Yanetti points out that Porto was never asked to do DNA testing with any of the pieces of taillight found in the lawn. Only the actual taillight attached to the Lexus.

Onto the three contributors. One was John. Porto says the other two contributors ‘could be anybody’.

Porto was not asked to compare DNA profiles from Kevin Albert or Berkowitz to the tailight.

With regard to the broken drinking glass, there were also 3 contributors on that glass. One was John. Porto again says the other two contributors ‘could be anybody’. Porto was never asked to compare the DNA of the other two profiles to Brian Albert or Brian Higgins.

Now onto the stain from the upper right leg of Johns jeans. His DNA was on his own jeans, unsurprisingly. But there were two other contributors of DNA on Johns jeans. Porto again says the other two profiles ‘could be anybody’.

Now onto stain B from the upper right leg. Three contributors there, again. John was one of the three. The other two ‘could be anybody’.

Ditto for stain C. At least 2 contributors, 1 John. The other unknown. Porto acknowledges that it could be more than two. The other contributor ‘could be anybody.’

Stain D. 3 contributors. 1 was John. The other two ‘could be anybody’. Porto says this repeatedly.

Stain E. 2 contributors. One was John. The other? Could be anybody.

 

[louvillian08]

Perhaps you missed redirect

6.44.47

Hank Brennan: "A bruise on the knee, is that consistent with a side-swipe impact?"

Dr Scordi-Bello: "It could be."

There is also testimony about IV placement in the tibia, which would also be consistent with a small bruise

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Onto the untrained area of the jeans. He found a DNA profile in the untrained area with FOUR contributors. One was John. The others ‘could be anybody’.

Quick question re: passenger side taillight with three contributors. Porto is not able to determine when John’s DNA was deposited on the vehicle. He cannot say with any certainty that the DNA was deposited 1/29/22 to Karen’s Lexus. The deposit could have been earlier than 1/28-1/29.

Porto wasn’t told it was John’s girlfriends car when he was sampling.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Onto the three contributors. One was John. Porto says the other two contributors ‘could be anybody’.

Porto was not asked to compare DNA profiles from Kevin Albert or Berkowitz to the tailight.

With regard to the broken drinking glass, there were also 3 contributors on that glass. One was John. Porto again says the other two contributors ‘could be anybody’. Porto was never asked to compare the DNA of the other two profiles to Brian Albert or Brian Higgins.

Now onto the stain from the upper right leg of Johns jeans. His DNA was on his own jeans, unsurprisingly. But there were two other contributors of DNA on Johns jeans. Porto again says the other two profiles ‘could be anybody’.

Now onto stain B from the upper right leg. Three contributors there, again. John was one of the three. The other two ‘could be anybody’.

Ditto for stain C. At least 2 contributors, 1 John. The other unknown. Porto acknowledges that it could be more than two. The other contributor ‘could be anybody.’

Stain D. 3 contributors. 1 was John. The other two ‘could be anybody’. Porto says this repeatedly.

Stain E. 2 contributors. One was John. The other? Could be anybody.

I am noticing a trend here. JMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Now onto the sneaker. There’s a stain on the sneaker with AT LEAST FIVE DNA contributors.

Porto says he cannot do any testing on the sneaker because the amount of contributors makes the stain not suitable for comparison. He cannot say if John’s DNA was on the sneaker stain, or who any of the five profiles are.

Now onto stain L on the back bottom of John’s long sleeved shirt. 2 contributors to that stain. John was 1 of them. The other? Porto doesn’t know.

Going over the unstained area of John’s long sleeved shirt. There was a DNA profile with two contributors. John was 1. The other is unknown.

With regard to any of the stains of the upper right jeans leg (five of them), Porto wasn’t never asked to compare those unknown DNA profiles with the DNA of Higgins or Albert.

One more question for Mr. Porto. Who did he send the reports to?

Objection + sustained.

Yanetti: Did you send those reports to Michael Proctor?

Objection + sustained. Jurors told to strike He Who Shall Not be Named from their notes.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I am noticing a trend here. JMO

Canton PD’s/MSP’s investigative strategy seems to be ‘don’t ask questions’… MOO