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

[sunshineray]

Oh come on! He lied on his CVs and LinkedIn so more people would hire him because he supposedly had a college degree. He was lying to make money and to gain employment . He got caught too by Alessi!!! This is professional business matters and personal matters don't factor in on this account.

Personal matters always factor into every aspect of one's life, even their professional matters, MO

 

[Leilei]

But that is not what he has listed on prior CVs. He has likely gotten job opportunities with these fraudulent CVs he had posted all over the internet in the past 17 years. He is deceptive. How am I supposed to trust he is a credible expert witness if I can’t even trust that the company that hired him didn’t know he didn’t have a degree?

You’re drifting from your original point. First it was ‘So what if it’s General Studies?’ Then, when it became clear that there’s no such degree as ‘General Studies in Mathematics and Business,’ you shifted to claiming it was just two minors. Let’s be honest: if a defense witness pulled this, would you be saying the same things? The reality is Burgess misrepresented his credentials, and the Commonwealth is still parading him as an expert. That’s not credible. MOO

BBM
We have time drifts, calendar drifts, why not add point drifts?
And CV drifts?
ALL THE DRIFTS.
IMO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Maybe they can delve into his job reviews and accreditations that they do numerous times a year? Maybe have another expert review Mr. Burgess's data analysis to see if it's correct?

Who is ‘they’? The CW or defense? The burden isn’t on the defense to chase down his past job reviews and hope someone double-checked his work. The burden is on the Commonwealth to vet their own expert before putting him in front of a jury. If he misrepresented his degree for nearly two decades, that goes straight to credibility, and no amount of retroactive ‘maybe someone reviewed him’ can fix that. MOO.

 

[whitelilac]

BBM
We have time drifts, calendar drifts, why not add point drifts?
And CV drifts?
ALL THE DRIFTS.
IMO.

more like grifts

 

[kuromiiiilove]

BBM
We have time drifts, calendar drifts, why not add point drifts?
And CV drifts?
ALL THE DRIFTS.
IMO.

I need a ‘Whose line is it anyways?’ style intro: “Welcome to Karen Read’s second trial, where the story keeps changing, the evidence gets lost, and the truth doesn’t matter!”

 

[Leilei]

Maybe we'll get an elaboration on that. Was his analysis wrong?

I respectfully recommend that you watch his testimony from today - he had made several "errors" that he tried to explain away.
Just like the several "errors" in his CV.
He's sloppy, fraudulent, and to accept any of his testimony as fact is ridiculous.
IMO.

 

[Leilei]

more like grifts

Bravo

 

[sunshineray]

Who is ‘they’? The CW or defense? The burden isn’t on the defense to chase down his past job reviews and hope someone double-checked his work. The burden is on the Commonwealth to vet their own expert before putting him in front of a jury. If he misrepresented his degree for nearly two decades, that goes straight to credibility, and no amount of retroactive ‘maybe someone reviewed him’ can fix that. MOO.

Either. And what is most important to credibility, right now IMO, is if his analysis of the data is correct or not. Because if it is correctly done and valid, then KR has a lot of explaining to do. AJMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Either. And what is most important to credibility, right now IMO, is if his analysis of the data is correct or not. Because if it is correctly done and valid, then KR has a lot of explaining to do. AJMO

I recommend you watch both his direct and cross to come to your own conclusion. The exact method he used of comparing the new Lexus (that the CW bought on taxpayer dime) to Karen’s, he admitted on cross, was not a commonly accepted methodology, and none of his peers reviewed his work in this case. Not one.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Either. And what is most important to credibility, right now IMO, is if his analysis of the data is correct or not. Because if it is correctly done and valid, then KR has a lot of explaining to do. AJMO

Also - per your last point - Karen has a lot to explain for… reversing? It’s not a collision event. The Lexus registered no collision (and neither did John’s body according to the ME, dispute Proctor pushing for it).

 

[waldojabba]

Doesn't "pursuing" a degree actually mean that you're enrolled?

I think so - when you pursue something you're actively working towards a specific outcome. So to me, pursue involves good faith ACTION. How to prove what good faith action is ...that's another story.
My sense is this guy has no intention of getting the degree unless he has to. He thinks he already knows everything, maybe he does.
What he could use is a course on right vs wrong and ethical behavior.
He seems to go by the school of anything to win and if you get caught just pivot and lie...no shame or accountability

He's in the wrong line of work - I might steer him towards something in the political arena.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Also - per your last point - Karen has a lot to explain for… reversing? It’s not a collision event. The Lexus registered no collision (and neither did John’s body according to the ME, dispute Proctor pushing for it).

 

[kuromiiiilove]

If Burgess never did analysis of any raw data, and only read others work, does he really present an independent opinion, or does he just fabricate a conclusion that fits the narrative the prosecution brings forward?

AKA confirmation bias. MOO

 

[cocomod]

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

Well, the CW didn't introduce his credentials, so that was left up to the defense.

Burgess said that he has it timestamped. If Alessi disagreed, he needed to put that contention to this witness IMO.

While I acknowledge the possibility to argue in the alternative e.g this Brian or that Brian or both Brians, I don't think it's realistic to argue "my client was not driving at high speed in reverse but even if she was it was 20 seconds earlier ... "

Just as a practical matter, I don't think he will do that - nor is it what he said to the Judge.

MOO

More important, he admitted that the car didn't register a collision or a bump. His times were convenient for him. He made up his own interpretations (his own procedure that was not peer reviewed or standard). He lied to his employer and the world for a decade. He cannot be trusted.

 

[lohrtabitha]

This trial feels deeply unserious at this point, IMO

And unnecessary. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

The synced timelines, Lexus and iPhone, of the vechile's arrival motion, stops and motions again leaves no room for JO entering the house. MO

 

[BUF]

and none of his peers reviewed his work in this case. Not one.

And you have to ask…why not?

They should have.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

And you have to ask…why not?

They should have.

He said not even his supervisor looked his work over on cross. Truly wild. My job is much lower stakes and I still can’t imagine doing that. MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The synced timelines, Lexus and iPhone, of the vechile's arrival motion, stops and motions again leaves no room for JO entering the house. MO

According to which time drift? The 2 second one? The 8 second? Or what about the 16-21 second variance?

Did you hear, at any point, Burgess explaining why the time drift varies when comparing the same two devices? Or is it Trooper Paul all over again: ‘It just is’?

 

[Warwick7]

Who is ‘they’? The CW or defense? The burden isn’t on the defense to chase down his past job reviews and hope someone double-checked his work. The burden is on the Commonwealth to vet their own expert before putting him in front of a jury. If he misrepresented his degree for nearly two decades, that goes straight to credibility, and no amount of retroactive ‘maybe someone reviewed him’ can fix that. MOO.

Perfectly said!!