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

[kuromiiiilove]

Quick and painless for Porto. Ash Vallier is up.

Edited to adjust ‘Ashley’ to ‘Ash’ since that’s how they introduced themselves this trial.

 

[Angelwatch]

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.

The stain on the sneaker. I don’t remember that from the first trial. Initially when I heard multiple profiles, I thought it could be from a gross bar bathroom if they tested the bottom. But it’s from an actual stain. Hopefully the defense asks more about this. I’d like to see a pic of where it is.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The stain on the sneaker. I don’t remember that from the first trial. Initially when I heard multiple profiles, I thought it could be from a gross bar bathroom if they tested the bottom. But it’s from an actual stain. Hopefully the defense asks more about this. I’d like to see a pic of where it is.

Porto is done now, so likely no more questions re: the shoe. I am curious as well!

 

[Angelwatch]

Porto is done now, so likely no more questions re: the shoe. I am curious as well!

I’m behind. Still on direct. Shoot. A pic would be helpful.

 

[cocomod]

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

Didn’t the medical examiner indicate that the bruise on his hand was from an IV? So could the bruise on his hand be from a fight instead?

 

[missy1974]

This trial is ... different.... they seem to skip over a lot. Even the DNA, they are saying where they came from, but a picture pointing out where it is from would be helpful to the jurors. The numbers, they may be able to connect to the stains eventually, but not on the fly like that.

The testimony now... is slowwwww... lol

 

[Leilei]

This trial is ... different.... they seem to skip over a lot. Even the DNA, they are saying where they came from, but a picture pointing out where it is from would be helpful to the jurors. The numbers, they may be able to connect to the stains eventually, but not on the fly like that.

The testimony now... is slowwwww... lol

Nothing is going to live up to yesterday's craziness, so of course today feels like we're moving at a snail's pace.
"Could be anybody" doesn't sit well with me.
IMO.

 

[detectivewannab]

Didn’t the medical examiner indicate that the bruise on his hand was from an IV? So could the bruise on his hand be from a fight instead?

If his heart was not pumping he would not have a bruise from the IV. Correct???

 

[Angelwatch]

Didn’t the medical examiner indicate that the bruise on his hand was from an IV? So could the bruise on his hand be from a fight instead?

There was a close up pic yesterday of his hand with the bruise and two marks which looked liked it could be from needles. I found it believable the bruise on that hand was from an IV.

 

[arielilane]

Timestamp 7:09:12

ADA: on May 8th There was no delay It's been a week now the defense has had this information And so this is not an
attempt to align anything While it may reconcile or identify that variance more
closely it doesn't change any data whatsoever And so this is not a rule 14
violation The effort was in response to disclosures that we believe were wrong by the defense expert and it is
clarified and it is favorable for us and so we should be able to use it

Judge: Did you intend to use it in your case and chief
or only if this witness disorder I don't remember reading that name so I don't know how to pronounce it

ADA: My case and chief in my case and chief because we now have this available data as I said this wasn't uh ambush isn't something that we sat on it was in response fortunately received their exit report which caused us to focus more closely and now that we have identified that variance uh rather than having an open variance of 30 seconds um we should not be precluded from favorable information that has been revoked by a report by the defense

Judge: Okay
Yes Uh

Alessi: I'll do it quickly

Judge: Okay

Alessi: Attorney Brennan has provided a lot of information
and he has accurately provided information but he's got the time
completely wrong and the significance respectfully completely wrong I'm going to hit his four categories quickly He
said he he referenced uh Mr DiSogra who is a defense witness Mr DiSogra two points about Mr DiSogra First Mr DiSogra provided his expert report within the reciprocal discovery deadline

Judge: Okay

Alessi: And he provided that that report months ago

Judge: Okay

Alessi: So if as I heard attorney Brennan he's saying the reason
why we're getting something on May 8th is because um Mr Burgess supposedly is responding
to that that was months ago

Judge: Okay

Alessi: The more apt point is or an even more apt
point is Mr DiSogra was responding to the information of Aperture It wasn't like
Mr DiSogra was coming up He was resp he was rebutting as defendants do So and
it's Mr DiSogra
DiSogra that's an important point with regard to Mr DiSogra
Now I want to go to attorney Brennan's comment about clocks are different
I agree with at uh attorneyBrennan on that The shortcoming for attorney Brennan's argument however is
that the clocks are different concept has been in existence in this case for
over 6 months I can give you by memory Mr Whiffin's report of December of 2024 where his report went into the
different clocks and what their significance was

So that is almost 6 months ago at least five months ago the issue of different clocks has been in existence in this case

So therefore the issue of different clocks dates back to then But even more fatal for the commonwealth argument is that Mr Burgess himself issued his report and talked about the difference in clocks He already knew it He already had it

Judge: Did he testify to that last time Did he testify

Alessi: Aperture was not part of the first

Judge: All right I I thought Burgess was No No

Alessi: Neither No one from Aperture was I knew Aperture wasn't

Judge: I thought he may have been some The name just sounded

Alessi: neither Burgess nor nor Welcher were part of the first trial but they were retained
Aperture was retained I believe in October of 2024

Judge: Okay

Alessi: And at at best for the Commonwealth
Aperture had and and Mr Bridges and Mr and Dr Welcher had Mr Whiffin's report
that talked about the the clock differences So the clock differences
cannot be as the Commonwealth is profering some sort of new information
that caused uh Aperture to uh provide a new report This variance that attorney
Brennan talked about this it's called the clock drift a more a more lay
person's term is a variance of time Mr Burgess in his original report on months
ago has a whole section on clock drift That's not a new concept for him He's
just changing the drift

Judge: Okay So what I'd like to do because I want to address the other issue and I don't want to keep
people here too long Can you wrap it up Mr Allesie or is that

Alessi: in 60 seconds Thank you your honor Uh so uh your your
honor the last point I wanted to make and I think I heard attorney Brennan correctly is he said he was surprised
that he got this report dated May 8th That's what I heard So if the
Commonwealth is surprised that they got it that should me to me your honor be a
an outstanding fetching reason to not allow it because they're surprised to
get it And I can lastly say this your honor there's nobody that's more
surprised to getting this than the defendant when we got it on May 11th

Judge: Okay Thank you The other
issue about um calling your expert on rebuttal Mr
Brennan based on the late disclosure of the aa materials What what's your argument on that

ADA: I won't iterate the
entire path but your honor has found discovery violations
your honor has found that the I want to phrase this properly
efforts of the defense um were improper and inevitably we've now
received an extraordinary amount of discovery on the most important issue in
this case well beyond the discovery deadlines without any excuse And the
court uh understandably has overruled government objection and has stated that
is going to allow the defense to offer two expert witnesses in a very complicated field
um in in a issue that is the heart of this case If you're going to allow them to testify despite the fact that we have
not had the time to review and to prepare and to address it the
Commonwealth has the burden of proof The Commonwealth has an obligation to prove this case beyond a reasonable
doubt And this isn't simply late disclosure of some evidence This is a massive amount of evidence of the most
critical issue And so we provided this information to doctor As you know he was away He did
not get a report until maybe May 7th He did not have a chance to look at it until May 9th An extraordinary amount of work effort and expense has gone into preparing our case for the jury
He is still in the process of reviewing the materials There are entirely new subject areas
within this information well beyond the simple four
opinions that they gave at the beginning There are studies there are demonstrations there are experiments
This requires not only review but an analysis testing vetting and then
comparing testimony to address the claims made by the defense experts

Not to get into a battle of disparagement but our expert has found extraordinary
issues in his first reviews of material And some of those concerns lead him to
need his opinion to actually conduct his own tests to demonstrate the failures of
these arro witnesses That's going to take time You've heard from the ARCCA witnesses
themselves that the amount of data they've received they estimated they needed 5 weeks and they were given five
weeks despite all the discovery deadline um violations They were given five weeks
We did not get the report until May 7th And so we believe we are entitled to
have our expert review all the materials do his testing provide opinions None of
that is going to happen anytime soon because he still has not finished reviewing all the materials There's many
many gigabytes Uh he is in a difficult schedule He is away tomorrow Saturday We
were going to try to begin to prep at the end of the weekend There is no way he's going to be able to testify anytime
soon and have all of this validation and vetting and test

Judge: So what is it exactly you're proposing So what would we like
to do is

ADA: have him testify about what he has prepared If he's had adequate time to prepare if either of these ARCCA
witnesses testify and they introduce new opinions new testing new
demonstrations he should be able to continue reviewing the materials actively engage his own testing Now so
by by the time the defense case is over he prepared to come back and address the
new issues not the older issues or regurgitate his testimony but to address any new issues that were provided in
violation of discovery orders uh and so that he can then address the jury on
those specific new issues I see no other way of this expert fairly being provided
presented to the jury

The unfair prejudice cannot be cured in any other way We ask that he be able to continue
his review offer rebuttal opinion opinions on anything that is new and not
to encroach on anything that's been previously provided

Judge: Can Burgess testify after Welcher

ADA: No No Because Dr Welcher relies on Shannon Burgess' information material It will
make no sense I thought about it It makes no sense to the jury this presentation unless Shannon Burgess has
an opportunity to provide the background information

Judge: All right Mr Alessi I'll hear you on this

Alessi: Thank you your honor I think the the uh and I
understand that it's very well understand the time of the day so I'm going to do this hopefully efficiently
When we're talking about ARCCA and the information of ARCCA
it's very important analytically to put them in their two proper buckets

The first bucket is the information and opinions of ARCCA that have been extend have been in existence since February of 2021

Judge: Let's focus on the beyond Let's focus on

Alessi: Okay good because my my pathy
conclusion is there should be no prejudice on the and

Judge: I don't think the CW is even suggesting that

So we're focusing just on the quote new information bucket

Alessi: Your honor it's very
important to understand that what ARCA is doing is in
response to the testing of Aperture
ARCCA did not come up with new
uh approaches We again to state the obvious are the defense We get to rebut
what the prosecution has put forward And so what ARCCA has done with the new
information new testing is simply to rebut what Aperture has done So I do not
understand the length of time or the lift if you will that's being profered
for for Aperture Um now with regard to
the time period your honor has already determined what the appropriate
approach is for the new information from ARCCA you when uh Mr uh Dr was
on stand or Dr What you said when can you get me the information and they said I think it was May 6th or May 7th
whatever and they met the deadline they did it We proceeded along with the trial
with that information We complied with that request to
continually try to claim that there should be ongoing remedies of something
that's already been decided I do not understand

Judge: So I I did leave open I did leave it open to address

Alessi: You did leave open the time but you honor didn't leave open that you were going
to continue to address this matter as if the defense
is making perpetual violations There was a determination made and then the
question was the remedy So I'm just addressing the Commonwealth positing that somehow there's continuing
violations My final two points What Mr Brennan is seeking is improper
What it's seeking is the most extraordinary situation which
is have Aperture come before the jury testify to certain
things have ARCCA have to come on and then have Aperture come back and
essentially have almost a rebuttal to a rebuttal as of right I I do not
understand that process I do not understand that proposal It inverts it
inverts the order of proof It prejudices the defendant act because it almost ifs
so facto gives a a double uh uh rebuttal s rebuttal to the defense I
believe your honor the final point is if your honor is inclined to give Aperture more time and and and I haven't
even heard a deadline yet for Dr Welcher It's it's still open What I
would recommend your honor is that we follow the proper order of proof we
determine when Aperture can conclude its review of the ARCCA work and that there
be a reflection that keeps the order namely that the prosecution comes in
with Aperture Dr Welcher and and and uh uh Mr Burgess and then the defense as
part of its uh case and chief puts on ARCCA and we make the determination as to
what happens there Otherwise what we're what we're happening is here it's almost a self serving matter where the uh
commonwealth is getting to put on certain witnesses here from our witnesses and then have an automatic
rebuttal in your honor I just think that's improper and prejuditial There's another and it's and and and importantly
it's a burden shifting to the defense

Judge: All right So I have a question for you Mr Alessi Are you still thinking that if
the defense puts on a defense that will take roughly a week and a half for for that to take place

Alessi: That is our best estimate still your honor Uh and

Judge: not holding you to this because obviously you have no burden If ARCCA is part of that
defense when in that week and a half time frame would that be

Alessi: We haven't made a final decision your honor but we're we're pretty close that it would be toward the end

Judge: Okay All right I needed all this information now so I appreciate it All right Thank you

As mentioned by @mrjitty DiSogra is w/DeltaV.
Witness for the defense Matthew DiSogra (EDR Lab) Our Team - DELTA |v| was discussed late in the day. Link above.

 

[missy1974]

If his heart was not pumping he would not have a bruise from the IV. Correct???

I am wondering the same... the gushing of blood from his nose seems odd too. These are the questions I wish were asked lol and if we are wondering.. are the jurors wondering?

 

[mrjitty]

As mentioned by @mrjitty DiSogra is w/DeltaV.
Witness for the defense Matthew DiSogra (EDR Lab) Our Team - DELTA |v| was discussed late in the day. Link above.

Thank you!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

There was a close up pic yesterday of his hand with the bruise and two marks which looked liked it could be from needles. I found it believable the bruise on that hand was from an IV.

In trial 1 on cross, Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello testified that John did not have IV access to his right hand. She said in her review of EMS and hospital notes, the ONLY IV’s noted were placed in both his tibias, then administered via catheter/femoral line in the hospital. I don’t know why that didn’t come up yesterday.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I am wondering the same... the gushing of blood from his nose seems odd too. These are the questions I wish were asked lol and if we are wondering.. are the jurors wondering?

Would the jurors even know that blood doesn't gush after the heart stops? I don't think that has been explained to the jury by any expert. If there was blood that gushed out, does that mean he was still alive with heart pumping after the glass entered the side of his nose, long enough for it to settle at point of entry from the shard of glass.
ETA: And therefore, he wasn't laying there as long as the CW states he was, if the blood wasn't frozen?
MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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”

Respectfully, IIUC KR is speaking of an apparent ’piece of glass’ on JOK nose? And this is a statement from a video, although possibly admitted in evidence IIUC, but not under oath? And my questions are not directed at you @Tortoise but rather, general observatory questions.

From where exactly is the piece of glass supposed to have come? Is the CW stating such? On the court record, in evidence? AFAIK the taillight lens on the Lexus vehicle KR owned is made of polycarbonate. Not of glass.

IMO the origin and nature of the glass fragment, if deemed evidentiary and relevant needs to be known, understood, and documented. Not simply speculation or conjecture.

I can think of many different possible scenarios, but none perhaps relevant or implicating KR vehicle. MOO

 

[louvillian08]

Didn’t the medical examiner indicate that the bruise on his hand was from an IV? So could the bruise on his hand be from a fight instead?

There was testimony in the first trial from the same ME, and photo evidence, of the IV placed in his tibia

 

[kuromiiiilove]

There was testimony in the first trial from the same ME, and photo evidence, of the IV placed in his tibia

And Dr. Scordi-Bello agreed on her cross in T1 that it was possible that the bruising on his hands was consistent with a fight or struggle.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1923382483627733080

 

[Deleted member 246707]

In trial 1 on cross, Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello testified that John did not have IV access to his right hand. She said in her review of EMS and hospital notes, the ONLY IV’s noted were placed in both his tibias, then administered via catheter/femoral line in the hospital. I don’t know why that didn’t come up yesterday.

The best-intentioned witnesses don't always give 100% accurate testimony. If there is other evidence (ie. pictures) that seems to show convincingly otherwise (there was an IV or other simple reason), the defense probably isn't going to argue.

What would be the point? Remember, the defense here is that there is a murder conspiracy and an effort to frame KR. Would the defense now be trying to convince the jurors that random doctors are in on it? At some point it would pass into a level of absurdity and could likely hurt KR's chances.

The defense has to pick and choose their battles, wisely.

Along those lines, here are a couple of examples from the first trial that I didn't think helped the defense. I don't know if they have or will go back down these roads, but I'd be curious...

1) Trying to imply Colin Albert could've done it. I think this isn't allowed in the new trial, but I thought it looked bad for the original defense.

2) The plow driver. Not only did his testimony seem dubious, at best, but it also didn't seem to fit other conspiracy narratives.

 

[missy1974]

Judge is hearing arguments from Alessi about the late report issue that came up yesterday.