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

[missy1974]

I think there's some confusion about when the 3-pt turn occurred. Some say it happened when she went the wrong way originally on Cedarcrest, before having to turn around and then turned right onto Fairview. She met RN and his two friends at that intersection after she turned around. There has also been talk she made the 3-pt turn in front of the house. I still don't know which one it is or if it was twice, and I don't believe the evidence is strong either way.
MOO

I think it's the timing. The times are really close. 12:23:59-12:24:07 is the time that the CW experts are saying the 3 point turn happened (I do not know if the defense is also saying that key cycle 1162 is that time)

There was a screenshot from Julie Nagel that JMcC had on her phone that showed Ryan texting her at 12:23am saying he had arrived or was "here". (She is asked about it in her testimony)

I have to say.. I have spent some time figuring out these times, and how they got to that time, using MATH and the key cycle informatoin I was able to find online I do NOT think that the CW has done a good job at all explaining this to the jury and if they are not familiar with the case at all, I don't know how they figure this out without just believing what the witness on the stand is saying (credibility may play a role in this)

Doesn't the jury wonder where this 1162 thing came from? Why are we talking about 1162 trigger event 2, with no explaination of it? WE know what they are talking about, but does the jury?

I feel like Welcher shoudl have testified first, assuming he will explain in more detail about the key cycles (maybe not).

 

[Soulmagent]

I think there's some confusion about when the 3-pt turn occurred. Some say it happened when she went the wrong way originally on Cedarcrest, before having to turn around and then turned right onto Fairview. She met RN and his two friends at that intersection after she turned around. There has also been talk she made the 3-pt turn in front of the house. I still don't know which one it is or if it was twice, and I don't believe the evidence is strong either way.
MOO

How was she parked at the bars?
I think this 3 point turn thing is witchery. Folklore at the very least.
It has made me unreasonably confused.
I cant even put a decent timeline together anymore

 

[New Penny]

Someone needs to invent a drink called the sidebah. Maybe a variation on a sidecar.

To include Jameson no doubt…

 

[Malleeboy]

I think there's some confusion about when the 3-pt turn occurred. Some say it happened when she went the wrong way originally on Cedarcrest, before having to turn around and then turned right onto Fairview. She met RN and his two friends at that intersection after she turned around. There has also been talk she made the 3-pt turn in front of the house. I still don't know which one it is or if it was twice, and I don't believe the evidence is strong either way.
MOO

Thanks, I was trying to follow and couldn't determine, as it sounded like the 3 point turn was after going past the house, and then turning back to the house. However that would mean she would be on the wrong side of the road, and wouldn't have time to be there for the Nagel to pull up behind her.

If we can't sort this out, I'm not sure how the jury is supposed to.

 

[PamCake]

Wasn't KR's car in the garage at Meadows?
If so, how would there be ice and snow on it?
IMO.

She drove it to her parent’s home the next day. The car was seized from their home in Dighton, some 30 miles away, in a blizzard. There’s video of the tow driver putting it on the flatbed.

 

[Luna20]

I’m sure every juror present has had the last 2 days of this buffoon complicating their lives….and “getting in the way.”

MOO

Is he specifically being paid to testify? Or is it Aperture?

 

[Marah]

Thank you @cocomod ….. for this timely reminder. And let us also not forget, that just yesterday during Alessi’s cross of Burgess there is that matter of the introductory note on the supplemental report Burgess presented.

That intro that had words to the effect ‘in response to your request’…. (I.e. IIUC responding to Brennan and the CW apparent request for it). And the statement in which Burgess in testimony to the court tried to discount that it was simply an oversight in copying from a prior ‘expert’ report.

And add to that apparent reports just up thread….. that IIUC supposedly Burgess called Brennan on May 7 to make mention of the completed supplement report. And there is a matter of when Brennan has acknowledged receiving the report and having been surprised by it? Perhaps on May 8?

IMO there is still a large apparent discrepancy as to who solicited the supplemental report. One hopes that is not lost on this court. And IMO this should be investigated. And perhaps Brennan, Burgess, and the CW should be questioned under oath about this matter. IANAL. MOO

Wonder if he could supply the initial report with the same paragraph that he copied and pasted from?

 

[PamCake]

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

So well said

 

[Malleeboy]

I think there's some confusion about when the 3-pt turn occurred. Some say it happened when she went the wrong way originally on Cedarcrest, before having to turn around and then turned right onto Fairview. She met RN and his two friends at that intersection after she turned around. There has also been talk she made the 3-pt turn in front of the house. I still don't know which one it is or if it was twice, and I don't believe the evidence is strong either way.
MOO
ETA:
View attachment 587476
This is from the PowerPoint in Mr Burgess's presentation stating the time of the 3-pt turn stating it happened at 12:23:38.

Prosecution played clip of Karen's speaking, she testifies to the 3 point turn being on Cedarcrest, they pass Fairview Rd turnoff and then have to do 3 point turn to get back to turn down Fairveiw. that is when the reach intersection.

The prosecution appears to be using Karen's testimony of arriving at John's at 12:41, for their timeline. Ignoring the 12:36 wifi connection, if you're pissed with someone, you'd make the angry shouty calls from the car.

 

[PamCake]

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

Nope, not buying it. His job demands a precise, diligent, and detail oriented individual. He is the opposite! Consider the sloppy work and stupid mistakes, and him not even posting a real college degree on his CV. I would never give his research any credence.

 

[New Penny]

Is he specifically being paid to testify? Or is it Aperture?

IDK

 

[missy1974]

Prosecution played clip of Karen's speaking, she testifies to the 3 point turn being on Cedarcrest, they pass Fairview Rd turnoff and then have to do 3 point turn to get back to turn down Fairveiw. that is when the reach intersection.

The prosecution appears to be using Karen's testimony of arriving at John's at 12:41, for their timeline. Ignoring the 12:36 wifi connection, if you're pissed with someone, you'd make the angry shouty calls from the car.

This is where it gets tricky for the CW... she connects to the wifi... she calls and leaves 1st VM. at 12:41: 35 the buttdial VM, you can hear her walking, but they also say the SUV was powered off at 12:42:08 (drifting?)

It's possible she pulled into the driveway, called him numerous times, finally turned the car off and went into the house. She did go into the garage, because we see her back out at 5amish...

curious how she drove into the garage and of course that ring video is missing. Watching her skills when backing out of it, do we really believe she just pulled in without having to back up and straighten out? (wouldn't that register as a 3 point turn? and why do some 3 point turns register as a techstream event but not others? So many questions lol)


12:36:39 <<< phone auto connects to the wifi

12:37:08 - VM #1 John I f'n hate you

4 more calls not answered

12:41:35am - VM #2 - can hear her walking

From testimony today:

 

[Malleeboy]

Is he specifically being paid to testify? Or is it Aperture?

Alessi should have asked him his charge rate and how many billable hours he has billed. Most experts would just put in billable hours to the specific code for this project/task. The company would bill base on what the agreement was. It is extremely unlikely he would do work without knowing it was billable.

 

[SteveS]

Does that then mean [Burgess'] data analysis of the two events, the 3-point turn and the backup, are incorrect?

You have asked this several times, and the answer is obviously: "Yes, based on what we've seen in his testimony, it's more likely than not that Burgess' testimony on 3-point turn and the backup are incorrect."

We know all the following, from his own testimony:
1 His claims may simply be lies. He has shown us he will give info that's not true, that he knows are not true, and repeat it over and over.
2 They may be using errors he doesn't notice. We have seen his reports FOR EVIDENCE have and do contain errors of scientific fact that he doesn't know exist until someone confronts him. He didn't understand the technology of the SD card until he was called out on it (after he accused someone else of error using his lack of knowledge).
3 They may be deliberate distortions, items added or changed to suit what the cw needs him to say. He now has new and DIFFERING testimony from what he had to say before, and he indisputably changed his report at an odd time (way into the trial) in an odd way (amending reports mid-trial is not something he has ever done before) and under odd circumstances (there were conversations with multiple members of cw team prosecuting this case whose "facts" had become problematic, and who clearly needed his reports to say something different).
4 They may be the result of testing that is NOT reliable, because his methodology (ie formula to derive an answer) is not peer-reviewed for reliability or accuracy, nor used by anyone else. He INVENTED his own way to get answers, no one else does it like that (or necessarily agrees with its reliability), and the formula determines the answer he uses (as needed).
5 There are undoubtedly more reasons he has shown himself to be undependable, maybe that I am forgetting or maybe that we haven't seen yet.

I don't have to be an expert myself to see that we can't depend on what Burgess says. He's supposed to be the expert, but since he's shown he's not dependable, we just ignore what he says and look elsewhere (we have no obligation to redo his work and figure out all the blunders and distortions and lies buried in it)..

In total, based on what we've seen, it's way more likely than not that what he's said is not accurate at all, and just wrong. There's no way anyone can (or should) depend on anything he says.

 

[Warwick7]

.

 

[SteveS]

ARCCA Dr. Wolfe, claimed had no relationship with the defense and that was a lie. They both also did not follow the sequestration order.

This is NOT true, and all the testimony in the ARCCA hearing said it was not true. There was no testimony or evidence otherwise.

Any claim that ARCCA somehow violated rules at all, or of their own volition, in T1, either has not actually watched T2, or is just willing to make stuff up (I've outlined this many times before). Because those claims are totally false.

THE FACTS ARE: Brennan and cw actually KNOW objectively that ARCCA was hired by the Feds prior to T1, not the def, with the mandate to do tests and see if KR vehicle and JOK injuries support the theory he was hit by her vehicle. They found it was scientifically impossible, based on the injuries to JOK and the damages found on JR, for that to have happened.

So the Feds sent ARCCA testing and reports to the cw and court to help them objectively understand what happened to JOK (and perhaps fnd the killers). CW/prosec chose to ignore ARCCA's work, and tried to hide ARCCA testing (buried it in a discovery dump, hoping the def would not notice it). It's informative that prosec now plays the game of saying ARCCA and def were somehow conspiring in T1, at a time when they KNOW Feds both owned ARCCA reports, and also controlled ARCCA's possible activities on the case including any permission to testify.

All the hearing testimony showed that the ONLY interaction between ARCCA and def in T1 was coordinating scheduling of their time to testify, travel, etc. Brennan speculated otherwise, in hopes of getting ARCCA (and their incredible testimony) barred from T2, but not one bit of testimony said they collaborated. The testimony also showed that if there was a so-called sequestration violation in T1, it was actions done by the Feds, not ARCCA (who worked for the Feds and under the terms and with the info they provided, not the other way around), and the testimony also told us ARCCA was never told there was a sequestration order to consider. The def was NOT involved in any of that activity at all.

 

[mrjitty]

She also has the right to walk by a microphone without giving a comment. She knew that her interviews - 20/20 etc, would be watched by millions. How can anyone feign outrage when they’re put up on the screen? In fact, I believe that in one of her interviews or docuseries. she said something like “this is my testimony”. And yet people complain that her “testimony” is presented in court? She can’t have it both ways.

The defendant knew that the interviews could be used in Court. Indeed in some of the interviews she is sitting there with her lawyers. Whatever the strategy in giving the interviews, nothing was trampled.

IMO

 

[jepop]

This is NOT true, and all the testimony in the ARCCA hearing said it was not true. There was no testimony or evidence otherwise.

Any claim that ARCCA somehow violated rules at all, or of their own volition, in T1, either has not actually watched T2, or is just willing to make stuff up (I've outlined this many times before). Because those claims are totally false.

THE FACTS ARE: Brennan and cw actually KNOW objectively that ARCCA was hired by the Feds prior to T1, not the def, with the mandate to do tests and see if KR vehicle and JOK injuries support the theory he was hit by her vehicle. They found it was scientifically impossible, based on the injuries to JOK and the damages found on JR, for that to have happened.

So the Feds sent ARCCA testing and reports to the cw and court to help them objectively understand what happened to JOK (and perhaps fnd the killers). CW/prosec chose to ignore ARCCA's work, and tried to hide ARCCA testing (buried it in a discovery dump, hoping the def would not notice it). It's informative that prosec now plays the game of saying ARCCA and def were somehow conspiring in T1, at a time when they KNOW Feds both owned ARCCA reports, and also controlled ARCCA's possible activities on the case including any permission to testify.

All the hearing testimony showed that the ONLY interaction between ARCCA and def in T1 was coordinating scheduling of their time to testify, travel, etc. Brennan speculated otherwise, in hopes of getting ARCCA (and their incredible testimony) barred from T2, but not one bit of testimony said they collaborated. The testimony also showed that if there was a so-called sequestration violation in T1, it was actions done by the Feds, not ARCCA (who worked for the Feds and under the terms and with the info they provided, not the other way around), and the testimony also told us ARCCA was never told there was a sequestration order to consider. The def was NOT involved in any of that activity at all.

Thankyou @SteveS. As I have commented in earlier threads, I'm tired of the misrepresentations and misinformation being posted in these threads about ARCCA, both in regards to their role in trial X 1 and what occurred in the recent April hearing a week or so into this trial. I prefer factual information to misrepresentations and false statements so again, thank you very much for standing up with patience to counter inaccurate posts that imo contain misinformation. Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Wait - did she back up at 24 miles an hour on a curve and strike him (Trooper Joe PauL) or did she kill him by doing a three point turn at a much slower speed? (Whilst John stood there and watched)

Which version is the Commonwealth going with this time?

Trooper Paul deserves some retrospective kudos in my view!

He was right about 1162 when the whole world was calling him an idiot. This is one reason why I really do not like the online vitriol against witnesses and citizens.

My opinion only.

 

[Tortoise]

"Burgess revealed he uncovered a secure digital card on the car’s circuit board—overlooked in the initial investigation—that records detailed time stamps of vehicle activity, including powering on/off and specific maneuvers like backing up or three-point turns.

He explained, “When the Lexus is powered on, an internal clock begins running like a stopwatch. When the car performs a maneuver, a time stamp is created.”

Burgess used GPS data from O’Keefe’s cellphone navigation app and Ring camera footage to verify these time stamps, which the prosecution says are critical in establishing when Read allegedly hit O’Keefe with her vehicle."

https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/karen-read-trial-suv-data-and-dna-evidence-spark-new-questions-in-boston-cop-john-o-keefe-s-death-11747775382114.html