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

[iamshadow21]

When he says 'the licenced engineer ', take a shot.

 

[Derph]

Was Karen Read's insurance claim denied in this case?

There was no insurance claim. Why you ask? Because proctor never filed an accident report. Why didn't proctor file an accident report you ask? Because then Karen's insurance company would have sent their accident investigator to look into the accident and we know that their findings would have been WAAAY different than proctor's and paul's theory of the accident.

But we're just supposed to ignore that and take their word for it!!! Just another coincidence huh? Nothing to see here right?

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924793991104741799

 

[kuromiiiilove]

IMO Burgess adding "according to the unadjusted clock" is just reinforcing to the jury that his May 8th supplemental report was submitted to correct a glaring error in the CW's original analysis….

 

[kuromiiiilove]

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

 

[missy1974]

Alessi asked him questions about what he looked at AFTER his initial Jan 2025 report. He looked at Welcher's report, also from Jan 2025, and Whiffens report.

from Welchers report:


From Whiffens:


I have a feeling Alessi is going to show him what else he looked at but isn't saying he looked at.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Is that John's niece in the front row today sitting beside Peg.

 

[Angelwatch]

So Burgess failed to apply the variances HE listed (The offset times between the Infotainment system and John’s phone) to the infotainment time on the Lexus associated with tech stream event 1162(2). What on earth.

Burgess says the clock variances don’t apply to that time frame. Oh, convenient that they only apply in certain times… MOO

I cannot believe how bad this is. Is this the only company who would take the case? I honestly cannot think of another expert in any other case that is this bad.

 

[Maat99]

Bottomline, I don't think they are experts. I think they come up with gobblily goo to help their clients. Opinion for hire. I wonder if Aperture will get sued. If they were involved in a case denying insurance coverage or any other case, a civil lawsuit might be coming their way. And a deeper look at who insurance companies and prosecutors hire is necessary. imo

Yes. Also, a big deal was made of the “Not for expert designation” disclaimer on SBs CV - turns out it is on all the aperture expert CVs. But why? Why don’t they provide credentials that are appropriate for “expert designation” as part of their CVs. Isn’t that literally what they are paid to do - act as experts?
On the other hand, there is no disclaimer on the ARRCA expert CVs. The CVs are complete and thorough - as one would expect when your business is based on expertise.
It makes me think Aperture have either been caught fudging credentials before and/or they know there is BS in those profiles and/or clients don’t pay for expertise per se just the appearance of expertise. This whole company seems shady imo.

 

[Warwick7]

"So unless this jury is completely checked out and have no critical thinking skills, this is a slam dunk no-brainer acquittal across the board."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924801085631283544

 

[ShadyLady]

There was no insurance claim. Why you ask? Because proctor never filed an accident report. Why didn't proctor file an accident report you ask? Because then Karen's insurance company would have sent their accident investigator to look into the accident and we know that their findings would have been WAAAY different than proctor's and paul's theory of the accident.

But we're just supposed to ignore that and take their word for it!!! Just another coincidence huh? Nothing to see here right?

Wow, good point. They only wanted "their" experts. And this decision had to have been right away. No investigation from the start, and held up the evidence for a month and a half.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Alessi is talking about the face unlock event on John’s phone, which occurred after the 1162-2 tech stream event (according to Welcher’s timeline).

Alessi is asking about the side lock event which occurrred at 12:32:09. Also after the 1162-2 TSE.

Looking at Whiffens report which establishes additional activity on John’s phone after the event identified by Dr. Welcher.

The side lock event occured 26 seconds after the 1162-2 TSE identified by Dr. Welcher. Burgess said ‘correct, using the unadjusted clock’.

Alessi asks if Dr. Welcher uses the phrase ‘unadjusted clock’ anywhere in his reports. He does not.

Alessi is driving home that the side lock event requires human interaction. Burgess said it could have auto locked - but we know it’s a side lock event. So he’s just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

 

[Leilei]

Yes. Also, a big deal was made of the “Not for expert designation” disclaimer on SBs CV - turns out it is on all the aperture expert CVs. But why? Why don’t they provide credentials that are appropriate for “expert designation” as part of their CVs. Isn’t that literally what they are paid to do - act as experts?
On the other hand, there is no disclaimer on the ARRCA expert CVs. The CVs are complete and thorough - as one would expect when your business is based on expertise.
It makes me think Aperture have either been caught fudging credentials before and/or they know there is BS in those profiles and/or clients don’t pay for expertise per se just the appearance of expertise. This whole company seems shady imo.

Didn't they add the "not for expert designation" yesterday, after Burgess self-destructed on the stand?
They're in CYA mode, but I sure don't see how they get out of this without being sued.
IMO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Now talking about the 36 steps over 84 feet. Occurring at 12:32:16. Also after the 1162-2 TSE…

Finally, discussing the entry ‘pocket state detected’ at 12:33:14 AM. Alessi asks if Burgess sees it. Objection + sustained.

Burgess did not analyze pocket state detections on John O’Keefe’s phone.

 

[Warwick7]

"few minutes in for Burgess and its more of the same: emphasis to the jury that Brennan tip-toed around the expert's dubious academic history followed by more evidence of his incompetence/carelessness: his powerpoint inexplicably was off 24 hours."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924821088699130246

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Now talking about the 36 steps over 84 feet. Occurring at 12:32:16. Also after the 1162-2 TSE…

Finally, discussing the entry ‘pocket state detected’ at 12:33:14 AM. Alessi asks if Burgess sees it. Objection + sustained.

Burgess did not analyze pocket state detections on John O’Keefe’s phone.

Going back and summarizing: every single one of the user interaction events Alessi brought up occurred after Dr. Welcher claims a collision occurred - a collision the CW claims immediately incapacitated John.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

"few minutes in for Burgess and its more of the same: emphasis to the jury that Brennan tip-toed around the expert's dubious academic history followed by more evidence of his incompetence/carelessness: his powerpoint inexplicably was off 24 hours."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924821088699130246

Just sloppy. A woman’s future is on the line and he’s submitting sloppy work. Absolutely shameful IMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Going back and summarizing: every single one of the user interaction events Alessi brought up occurred after Dr. Welcher claims a collision occurred - a collision the CW claims immediately incapacitated John.

Coming back from sidebar, Alessi is asking about the 1162-2 TSE

So every single one of the user interactions listed - locks, steps, etc. - occurred after the 1162-2 TSE.

Burgess says steps and pocket state are not always indicative of user interaction. Alessi says ok, let’s talk about the device lock event that you agree with a user interaction. Really driving home that even Dr. Welcher stated that the user interaction occurs 26 seconds after the end of the 116-2- event. Burgess says again, ‘Yes, of the unadjusted clock’. Dude, don’t throw your coworker who actually HAS a degree under the bus!

 

[arielilane]

Interesting how the cross always longer than the direct. jmo​

 

[arielilane]

Karen Read, Guilt by Evidence or Doubt by Design? | Profiling Evil​