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

[bobbymkii]

Calling someone who has spent the last 17 years trying (and failing) to get a batchelor's degree to testify as an expert witness is the exact sort of thing I would expect from a County DA's office who has spent the last three years trying (and failing) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened when it actually didn't.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

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

For me the MAJOR two points:
-Johns injuries - look at his arm please - do not match being hit by a car
-ARCCA report - we have to see what they say this time but - they independently came to the conclusion that John was not hit by a vehicle first time around

THEN : ADD in all the sketchy, lying, and downright shifty and suspicious behavior above - none of which has a reasonable explanation and just litters this trial with reasonable doubt -

Makes me a firm NOT GUILTY. And I came here just as the first trial was starting as a firm GUILTY.

JMO

adding:
- Matt McCabe text about how KR needs to take a plea deal or there will be an "episode" - sus obvi
- BA text - Just tell them he never came into the house ( if he never went into the house why would that be necessary to state) susobvi

 

[cocomod]

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.

Especially if she had to make it to his house in 4 minutes, which is almost impossible to do!

 

[HarmonyE.]

Especially if she had to make it to his house in 4 minutes, which is almost impossible to do!

It is impossible. It's not a highway. Mostly residential with stop signs, stop lights and some twisting roads.

 

[geevee]

The watermarks were added yesterday, during or shortly after Burgess testified.

Probably around the same time his pink slip was being printed out.

 

[cocomod]

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?

Would the judge have even allowed him to be put on as an "expert" for the defense given his lack of education? Doubtful

 

[missy1974]

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.

SBM/BBM

It was testified to today, that the microSD card was not taken out for a reason. It was useless at the time because no technology existed to extract the info at the time.

It is in his cross examination.

 

[Leilei]

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 discipline/science are you referring to? He doesn't have one, technically, just General Studies.
It's not even a matter of his lack of education, it's that he (and/or the company he works for) lied about his credentials and labeled him an expert. TWICE - once in Federal Court.
AND got paid for it.
Any analysis done by a person who commits fraud like he did should be very suspect, if not disregarded altogether. I'm not even going into his "oopsies" errors during both crosses.

IMO.

 

[LookingForClues]

For some reason, lying, corruption and criminal behavior is now more acceptable in society. Across the board. I don’t get it.

 

[cocomod]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924659562734616995

I think the fact that Brennan lied about the report is very troublesome! This CW is not truthful either. Where is the outrage that he has lied and he has asked for this report to be tweaked to match the rest of the testimony? We are talking about a woman's life here!

This is the very thing that bothers me the most about this case. We are talking about true justice and about a fair trial. Nothing about this trial has been fair - starting with the investigation that didn't look at anyone besides KR

 

[jepop]

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.

Huh? The reports referenced by Burgess ie Whiffen and Welcher are CW witness reports. The defense hasn't even presented yet! But I get it, this happened in the first trial, people sometimes confused the CW and defense because it seemed like the cw were proving nothing and the defense were disproving everything. Jmo

 

[Wishbone]

You’re forgetting the taillight pieces
Imo

Can't forget those pesky extra taillight pieces that weren't a part of the lexus taillight,. JMOO

 

[keek]

Science says otherwise.
So does the testimony from the CW's own witness.
IMO.

Didn't they say anyone that is related to the maternal side? That hair is very suspect anyway. Who found it and how, massively tiny. The two photos showed two different looking hairs remember. One with a hook to it, the other not. Sallyport was busy with these couple. One fired from the State Police. Others ... IMO

 

[missy1974]

Didn't they say anyone that is related to the maternal side? That hair is very suspect anyway. Who found it and how, massively tiny. The two photos showed two different looking hairs remember. One with a hook to it, the other not. Sallyport was busy with these couple. One fired from the State Police. Others ... IMO

My theory on the hair...
It was in the car and whoever was in the car, the tow truck driver, crime collection staff, LE, whoever was physically in the car could have inadvertently brought it out with them. It doesn't even need to be "planted".

JMO

 

[Leilei]

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

He is the one who created those CVs and posted them. He also testified that he gets alerts when his profile is checked. No excuses. He's not a teenager. This is a grown man who has worked for this company for 7/8 years (?), doing all sorts of intricate things, but can't keep up with his own profile or CV. Not buying it, sorry. No more excuses for him.
The Federal case was TWO YEARS AGO. Why didn't he reach out to HR to update his info at work, or update his own LI profile?
IMO.

 

[Anniesflowers]

Imagine if Higgins or anyone else the defense accuses of killing him had left those voicemails on John O’Keefe’s phone and ran around yelling “I HIT HIM” to everyone- and left broken taillight pieces of their vehicle near his body - along with a cocktail glass & straw he left the bar with.
With less than a 30 second timeframe discrepancy, of when Karen Read backed up and John’s phone locked and the phone never moved again and neither did he.

IMO

Officer John O’Keefe’a body never showed signs of a vehicle strike. This information came straight from the ME’s, (CW witness) mouth. I did not see any reliable information come from Shanon Burgess’ testimony today. MOO The “Karen Read is a drunk, hysterical vengeful, partner abusing woman, who admitted it to many people who didn’t find it important enough to write it down, or testify to it to the GJ” folks will see it another way (moo). Those folks are all over the internet, and I wonder what their motivation is? I saw twitter-X posters who flat out LIE about the day’s testimony. Moo

 

[Leilei]

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

He's for sure consistent in his "credibility", IMO.

 

[Wishbone]

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.

Not because he doesn't have a degree,but because he lied about it and continues to hem and haw and to make unbelievable excuses and reasons to try to cover his lies. He has lost all credibility IMO.

 

[geevee]

He is the one who created those CVs and posted them. He also testified that he gets alerts when his profile is checked. No excuses. He's not a teenager. This is a grown man who has worked for this company for 7/8 years (?), doing all sorts of intricate things, but can't keep up with his own profile or CV. Not buying it, sorry. No more excuses for him.
The Federal case was TWO YEARS AGO. Why didn't he reach out to HR to update his info at work, or update his own LI profile?
IMO.

Not to mention the wording of his (non)degree changed several times. He was always very aware of what it said and to whom it was provided.

 

[jepop]

Yes, the little hair was statistically equally consistent with JO and his maternal line relatives ie at least three other people. That was the expert testimony. It was not exclusive of JO but it was also equally not exclusive of all his maternal rellies. So, along with all the other issues this hair presents, the DNA expert's testimony renders it a complete non-starter and of no evidentiary value at all IMO.