MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #28 Retrial

[MerlinFalcon]

Then he could have been saved??? We, including his family, will never know because he got no immediate help from those who attacked him

And this is where everyone in that house who had a dying man inside did nothing. That’s murder to me. MOO

 

[rescuemom]

But they couldn't prove he had frostbite. 5 hours in the snow and nothing?

He was likely put in the snow at about the time the car was parked at the street to hide him. Per plow driver after 3:30am.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Answer: he was put outside during the 5:07am phone call between Jen and Nicole. IMO

The ME acknowledged that in that weather, he’d have frostbite within 30-60 minutes. And he had none.

I actually think he was put out around the time Lucky on one of his passes saw the SUV blocking the area around the flagpole.

It's illegal to have a car on the street after 1 am during the winter in Canton. Lucky testified to this last trial. He didn't want to rat out the mighty Brian Albert, so he didn't report it.

The Alberts also lied about their daughter being the first to leave the house that night. She was actually the last to leave when her burly boyfriend showed up much later. Manpower to help move a body?

 

[HarmonyE.]

But, the point I was making is that she made a 3-point turn JUST MOMENTS BEFORE she arrived at 34 Fairview. If the car's computer says she made a 3-point turn, then that could be the turn Burgess referred to in his report.

Yes, that was probably when she got lost on Cedarcrest.

My point is there would have been no reason to do a 3 point turn on Fairview to go to Meadows because she was correctly already pointing towards Chapman, the shortest route there.

 

[Angelwatch]

I still ask, cause he lost me along time ago, is it still a difference of 8 seconds???????

I mean, only sometimes. Sometimes it’s less. Sometimes it’s more. It’s like choose your own time variance.

 

[sunshineray]

But who determines what the variables are and what the correct variance might be? Him? That sounds like a specialized skill where some relevant education might be necessary. Something he doesn’t have. The whole point here is that he:
1. Magically realized his analysis did not support the CW theory (not synced) as soon as the defense expert report pointing it out was filed.
2. He is unable to explain how and why he came up with the new variances that now magically sync up the data.
3. Are we really supposed to believe that he alone has some magic method that isn’t industry standard or practice (aka made up by him) not reviewed by a single other person and Oh! Looky here! Now the “data” (source unknown) is all synced up!
4. All of this is already impossible to believe. But to top it all off, he is a fraud. His professional integrity is zero. All of his “analysis” is based on his word alone which is meaningless because he is willing to lie to make a buck.
5. Let’s just say the defense does present contradictory analysis performed by a professional with an actual education on the topic. Someone has not lied or misrepresented himself. Someone who followed standard industry practice for how to analyze this data and can explain it, and the results are different. Is that going to change your mind?

You're seem to think that nothing Mr Bugress does is the correct way for his discipline/science because he doesn't have a degree? I couldn't disagree with you more. I find him extremely knowledgeable and forthright in his testimony. His accreditations and experience in his field are apparent, from his testimony, MO. I welcome any expert the defense cares to put on in rebuttal of Mr Burgess's data analysis. The to date collection and analysis done by other defense witnesses, seen by actually missing an SD card and from reports, shows a lackluster in conscientiousness, very poorly done, AJMO.

 

[tara83]

You're seem to think that nothing Mr Bugress does is the correct way for his discipline/science because he doesn't have a degree? I couldn't disagree with you more. I find him extremely knowledgeable and forthright in his testimony. His accreditations and experience in his field are apparent, from his testimony, MO. I welcome any expert the defense cares to put on in rebuttal of Mr Burgess's data analysis. The to date collection and analysis done by other defense witnesses, seen by actually missing an SD card and from reports, shows a lackluster in conscientiousness, very poorly done, AJMO.

What defense witnesses? They haven't even started their case.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live

 

[mzmarymac]

Just a few thoughts after another crazy day in the KR trial.

I feel that some of those who lean guilty are providing little bits of evidence that give some reasonable doubt as to her innocence, but this is backward. One must begin by assuming KR is completely innocent and it is up to the CW to out together enough evidence that there would be no other reasonable explanation other than her guilt. (BARD)

Under normal circumstances, the evidence they have provided could reasonably seen as a possibility that she did this. However, the defense has done an extraordinary job of providing quite a lot of reasonable doubt to each and every one of these things, and it all comes down to trust. Yes, tail light pieces found at the scene could show proof under normal circumstances. However, it is also reasonable to believe that someone could have planted that evidence, considering the lead investigator (who was fired) is compromised by relationships with the family and his own insane way of speaking about the investigation via text messages showing a clear negative view of the defendant from the jump.

Add into that things like destroyed cell phones, butt dials, weird google searches, no sign of the dog the next morning, cop not hearing commotion outside and not coming out when even all the neighbors saw it. Then we add in inverted sallyport video, mysterious drunken trips to the Canton PD in the middle of the night, rehoming the dog, selling the house. Add to that the believability of a drunk woman driving a 6-7 minute drive through the snow in an unfamiliar area to her in under 4 minutes.

To put a woman in prison for 20 years? No. IMO

 

[mzmarymac]

What defense witnesses? They haven't even started their case.

To be fair, most of the CW witnesses do seem to appear to be better witnesses for the defense, so....

 

[sunshineray]

IMO, this doesn’t matter. He’s had plenty of time to correct any ‘misinformation’ on his CV and LinkedIn.
The CW cannot prove that Officer O’Keefe was hit by a vehicle, T2 should have never happened. Thus far, I’ve not seen any bit of evidence that shows he was hit by a car.
Burgess is doing a great job for the defense. This whole trial is a farce.

He didn't lie to the court. He submitted CV's that stated he was still pursuing his BA. He testified he hadn't been on those sites to even see that things were listed incorrectly. I know from experience that not everyone keeps on top of such things as they should, because they don't live online. People make assumptions that he must of gotten many jobs because of that incorrect information. I think it's just as likely he got none and it was his experience and work in his field that got people's attention, to hire him.
AJMO

 

[HarmonyE.]

You're seem to think that nothing Mr Bugress does is the correct way for his discipline/science because he doesn't have a degree? I couldn't disagree with you more. I find him extremely knowledgeable and forthright in his testimony. His accreditations and experience in his field are apparent, from his testimony, MO. I welcome any expert the defense cares to put on in rebuttal of Mr Burgess's data analysis. The to date collection and analysis done by other defense witnesses, seen by actually missing an SD card and from reports, shows a lackluster in conscientiousness, very poorly done, AJMO.

Nope. That's a straw man argument. It's not about not having a BS degree.

It's about lying and claiming you do have one. Repeatedly. To his employer, clients, and the courts.

No one is going to believe a compulsive liar.

 

[HarmonyE.]

He didn't lie to the court. He submitted CV's that stated he was still pursuing his BA.

Nope. His CV and linkedin page didn't say "pursuing". Both said he'd received the degree. He's a liar.

 

[tara83]

Nope. That's a straw man agrument. It's not about not having a BS degree.

It's about lying and claiming you do have one. Repeatedly. To his employer, clients, and the courts.

No one is going to believe a compulsive liar.

A crazy world when you have to argue that an expert witness shouldn't be dishonest about his credentials.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

He didn't lie to the court. He submitted CV's that stated he was still pursuing his BA. He testified he hadn't been on those sites to even see that things were listed incorrectly. I know from experience that not everyone keeps on top of such things as they should, because they don't live online. People make assumptions that he must of gotten many jobs because of that incorrect information. I think it's just as likely he got none and it was his experience and work in his field that got people's attention, to hire him.
AJMO

Respectfully, that’s not how credibility works in a court of law, especially not for someone testifying as an expert. Burgess didn’t just forget to update a LinkedIn page. His CVs across multiple platforms consistently overstated his credentials for 17 years. That’s not passive neglect of a LinkedIn account, that’s a pattern of deception. If he were just “still pursuing” a degree, he could have stated that clearly. Instead, he allowed incorrect information, like having a completed BGS and a ‘computer hacker’ certification, to stand uncorrected while holding himself out as an ‘expert’ in forensic analysis. And in this case, where his analysis could contribute to sending someone to prison, that matters. A lot. If we can’t trust his resume, why would we blindly trust his conclusions? MOO

 

[HarmonyE.]

A crazy world when you have to argue that an expert witness shouldn't be dishonest about his credentials.

It's insane. I can't believe people think this is just fine simply because he was called by the prosecution.

Can you imagine if the defense had put this clown on?

 

[sunshineray]

What defense witnesses? They haven't even started their case.

I was referencing the reports made by the other experts that were shown yesterday and today and also the woman who did the extractions from the module boards and missed an SD card altogether.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I was referencing the reports made by the other experts that were shown yesterday and today and also the woman who did the extractions from the module boards and missed an SD card altogether.

She didn’t ‘miss’ it. The application used at the time did not support the SD card. There was no reason for her to retrieve it. This was covered in court today.

 

[HarmonyE.]

I was referencing the reports made by the other experts that were shown yesterday and today and also the woman who did the extractions from the module boards and missed an SD card altogether.

The defense has not put on a single witness. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[Angelwatch]

You're seem to think that nothing Mr Bugress does is the correct way for his discipline/science because he doesn't have a degree? I couldn't disagree with you more. I find him extremely knowledgeable and forthright in his testimony. His accreditations and experience in his field are apparent, from his testimony, MO. I welcome any expert the defense cares to put on in rebuttal of Mr Burgess's data analysis. The to date collection and analysis done by other defense witnesses, seen by actually missing an SD card and from reports, shows a lackluster in conscientiousness, very poorly done, AJMO.

So you believe Burgess when he testified there’s nothing in the data that shows KR’s Lexus collided with JOK?