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]

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.

I don’t think it’s fair to reduce Scordi-Bello’s testimony to “best-intentioned but inaccurate,” especially when she was testifying under oath as the CW’s own expert in Trial 1. She wasn’t guessing. She cited her review of EMS and hospital records. If the new theory is that everyone missed a line in the hand, EMS, hospital staff, and their own ME, that raises serious chain-of-custody and documentation questions, especially when that hand was used as a reason to explain postmortem injuries!

I don’t think anyone is saying a doctor was involved in a cover up. MOO.

 

[rescuemom]

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

How would a juror be heard saying that? They have no microphone.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

If there is no change to the timeline like Brennan states, why did Shannon Burgess amend his report at all? He’s literally changing the time of the trigger. That, by definition, is a change to the timeline.

Hank is intentionally misrepresenting material facts to the court. MOO.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Before testimony started on Friday, Judge Beverly Cannone said she had an "important instruction" for the jury.

"I just want to be very clear that it's important that people do not comment on the evidence or make any comments," Cannone said, telling jurors to "just listen."

"Don't talk, don't make any facial expressions. No muttering under your breath, no audible noises because people need to hear what's going on and to understand everything," Cannone said. "Out of respect for your fellow jurors, I would ask that you be very careful to make sure you don't do that, and out of respect to the lawyers who've worked so hard to get this case before you."

Karen Read trial judge tells jury not to make faces, "no muttering under your breath"

The Karen Read trial continued today with the judge telling the jury not to make any comments in court.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I truly believe the CW never tested the unknown male DNA profiles on John’s clothing against BA, BH etc., because they were afraid of what the results would say. MOO.

 

[waldojabba]

I agree. I thought they were going to ask for a mistrial. I think that might have made the Judge think twice about what she does and doesn't allow.

Only danger with asking for a mistrial is if she granted it - they dont want a mistrial - its a long shot the Judge would have granted it but still - be careful what you wish for
Alessi may have made the mistake though of being too reasonable in coming up with only 4 days
JMO

 

[LittleSeaTree]

I could never be seated as a juror due to my facial expressions. Dead giveaway.

Same. Big face maker over here. I also can’t lie without smiling as some can

 

[Angelwatch]

How would a juror be heard saying that? They have no microphone.

Good point. Something made her issue an instruction about the jurors muttering under their breath and making audible noises and facial expressions. Not sure what that was.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I agree. I thought they were going to ask for a mistrial. I think that might have made the Judge think twice about what she does and doesn't allow.

Depending on her ruling, they still could ask for a mistrial IMO. But I doubt the defense wants another mistrial, and they will continue to do just fine despite how the CW tries to pivot.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

In the last 3 years, the CW has changed the time John was hit from 12:25, to 12:45, to 12:30, to 12:31:38 (or 12:31:43), to 12:32:16. Throwing spaghetti at the wall IMO.

 

[arielilane]

Defense at it again. Oops!

@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


MP not at autopsy as indicated by defense. Mislead much. That's their name game. They cant be trusted. jmo



And...

Here is Clip 21

5/16/2025 9:27:47

Brennan plays a clip wear Read describes picking a piece of glass out of O'Keefe's nose. (I missed recording the first few seconds.) VIDEO -->

read clip about class on okeefe nose - David Bienick.mp4

drive.google.com

Karen Read retrial: Fiery arguments over experts continue between witnesses

Testimony in the Karen Read trial resumed Friday with testimony about DNA evidence after lawyers accused each other of introducing late expert reports, which may delay the trial.

www.wcvb.com

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Ash Vallier is back on the stand. No resolution?

 

[Angelwatch]

I truly believe the CW never testing the unknown male DNA profiles on John’s clothing against BA, BH etc., because they were afraid of what the results would say. MOO.

Exactly. Everyone at 34 Fairview should have been tested against the dna. Is anyone surprised JOK’s dna was on his clothing? That’s expected. Why did they only test it against JOK?

 

[rescuemom]

By that logic then the CW must be very afraid of the ARRCA data as they were making the same exact argument. MOO

They are scared to death of AARCA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[missy1974]

If I understand this right...

ARCCA has their initial report that they did for the DOJ/FBI.

CW hired Aperture to do their own analysis. Which they did, and the report was submitted I believe in late Jan of this year.

ARCCA did their own tests, analysis of the Aperture report. That was due on May 7th. (we saw the voir dire for that issue early in the trial)

Aperture, on May 8th submitted to the CW a "new" report, shifting/aligning the timeline. This was given to the defense on May 11th. Another defense witness DiSogra's report is mentioned, but his report was submitted months ago.

So ARCCa was given time to rebut (do testing, etc) the Aperture report, they do that and then Aperture changes it?

Alessi argued that their whole defense strategy to this point was based on the initial report. That they chose to ask questions or not ask questions based on that.

Without knowing exactly what changed, what is in the report, it's hard to know which side is stretching the "truth". Wish we had access to them.

The judge seems open to doing a voir dire of the Aperture witnesses. May depend on what is on that printed out page the defense gave her. Hopefully we will hear more later.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

Good point. Something made her issue an instruction about the jurors muttering under their breath and making audible noises and facial expressions. Not sure what that was.

There is a reporter in the court room from a local boston station that does nothing but report on the jurors reactions during the trial and testimony - she puts her comments on twitters. Her observations also get reposted widely IMO/IME
JMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

If I understand this right...

ARCCA has their initial report that they did for the DOJ/FBI.

CW hired Aperture to do their own analysis. Which they did, and the report was submitted I believe in late Jan of this year.

ARCCA did their own tests, analysis of the Aperture report. That was due on May 7th. (we saw the voir dire for that issue early in the trial)

Aperture, on May 8th submitted to the CW a "new" report, shifting/aligning the timeline. This was given to the defense on May 11th. Another defense witness DiSogra's report is mentioned, but his report was submitted months ago.

So ARCCa was given time to rebut (do testing, etc) the Aperture report, they do that and then Aperture changes it?

Alessi argued that their whole defense strategy to this point was based on the initial report. That they chose to ask questions or not ask questions based on that.

Without knowing exactly what changed, what is in the report, it's hard to know which side is stretching the "truth". Wish we had access to them.

The judge seems open to doing a voir dire of the Aperture witnesses. May depend on what is on that printed out page the defense gave her. Hopefully we will hear more later.

JMO

Yes. You have it straight. Completely absurd IMO

 

[LaineyJ]

Do we have any idea how many more witnesses the CW is gonna call?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Yanetti is crossing Ms. Vallier regarding her reconstruction of the tailight, item 3-1.

AV’s lab has different departments. DNA analysis is done before AV gets the items - namely, the tailight pieces.

AV was not made aware that there were 3 DNA contributors to item 3-1.

AV agrees the tailight was missing a piece or pieces after her reconstruction. She was not provided with any pieces of tailight that would have filled in that missing spot. She was never provided or told about any tailight pieces collected from 1 Meadows, nor was she informed of Karen hitting John’s car.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Yanetti is crossing Ms. Vallier regarding her reconstruction of the tailight, item 3-1.

AV’s lab has different departments. DNA analysis is done before AV gets the items - namely, the tailight pieces.

AV was not made aware that there were 3 DNA contributors to 3-1.

AV agrees the tailight was missing a piece or pieces after her reconstruction. She was not provided with any pieces of tailight that would have filled in that missing spot. She was never provided or told about any tailight pieces collected from 1 Meadows, nor was she informed of Karen hitting John’s car.

AV is discussing that she received the debris labeled as coming from the clothing (MH retrieved and packaged the debris from John’s clothing). She never saw the clothing or the debris inside the clothing.

Brennan objects to AV reading off who brought the clothes to the MSP lab. I wonder why…

Sidebar.