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

[mrjitty]

"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

Related to this, if you are into your trial craft, is Brennan was careful to introduce the Odometer reading photo from the Sallyport.

The user data recovery off the SD card gives timestamped ignition events and Odometer readings IIRC. So now the defence can't pull the same trick where poor old Trooper Paul was tied up in knots on cross because he had to count key cycles.

Alessi made all this clear last week but I don't think the broader punditry has caught up with how it completely changes the trial strategy compared to trial 1.

MOO

 

[Malleeboy]

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.

Trooper Paul did his best, but he simply is not an expert at the level of ARCCA. His explanation of what occurred was not based in physics or science.
1162 is just some sort of event in the car, of which there had been 30 in the time Karen had the car. Granted it may have been some sort of impact, with John O'Keefe, or side of the road, but it may have been excessive braking or any number of other things.
All you have, at the most generous explanation, using the largest discrepancy between the clocks (not the more likely median or mean value of clock discrepancy) is the car recorded some sort of event 4 second before John O'Keefe last apple steps movement ceased.

You have the possibility of guilt, it would take a lot more to move me from not proved beyond reasonable doubt. IMHO
1) Body impact does not match the CW description of the case
2) Impact to the car doesn't match CW description of the case

Aperture would have to have a scientifically plausible reason for these issues. I just cannot perceive how they could convince anyone with a reasonable knowledge of newtonian physics.

 

[Warwick7]

Well....here's an idea.
Let's just brush aside the stairs,
brush aside the steps,
brush aside the location data,
brush aside Google timestamps,
brush aside the 12:36 Wifi,
brush aside the ME,
and shuttle the timeline and it all lines up perfectly! Wow, what fresh thinking.

 

[Warwick7]

In M00 the state’s case is so bad. All their witnesses are great for the defense and put the CW in the hotseat. Lol!! Especially, telling the jury that they’d prove he was hit by a car and the car doesn’t even have a crash event.

 

[Warwick7]

And a Burgess note to Hank, “Per your request, I performed additional…”

M00, I don't care how you slice this, it's still SB telling HB I did what you asked me to do...

 

[mrjitty]

Trooper Paul did his best, but he simply is not an expert at the level of ARCCA. His explanation of what occurred was not based in physics or science.
1162 is just some sort of event in the car, of which there had been 30 in the time Karen had the car. Granted it may have been some sort of impact, with John O'Keefe, or side of the road, but it may have been excessive braking or any number of other things.
All you have, at the most generous explanation, using the largest discrepancy between the clocks (not the more likely median or mean value of clock discrepancy) is the car recorded some sort of event 4 second before John O'Keefe last apple steps movement ceased.

You have the possibility of guilt, it would take a lot more to move me from not proved beyond reasonable doubt. IMHO
1) Body impact does not match the CW description of the case
2) Impact to the car doesn't match CW description of the case

Aperture would have to have a scientifically plausible reason for these issues. I just cannot perceive how they could convince anyone with a reasonable knowledge of newtonian physics.

I certainly agree he is not an ARCCA level expert. But I do think his report was reasonable based on the info he had - broadly 1162, the recovered debris, the fragments in the shirt, the injuries and the location of the body. 99 times out of 100 that will do it.

It takes a much higher level of analysis to disprove the physical mechanics of the impact, and thus infer the critical evidence is staged.

In any event, I just wanted to offer a defence of him because I think he did a fine job considering. I certainly don't blame him for being ripped on cross when up against AJ. I guess I blame Lally for what happened and not Paul who simply did his job. Indeed if the D version of the case is true, it's hardly Paul's fault that someone else staged key evidence.

MOO

 

[Warwick7]

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.

Yep! And....SB's not entitled to a fair trial, but Karen Read is.

 

[mrjitty]

Certainly one thing is clear in terms of trial strategy. Alessi is leading the main defence and not AJ.

In T1, AJ overmatched Paul. It was a critical moment that likely pulled the manslaughter verdict out of the fire.

In T2, the defence obviously realised that was not going to fly - especially with the recovery of the user data on the SD card. So whereas the pundits have been expecting a rerun of T1 with an upgunned CW team, in fact this is much more like a complex civil litigation.

Hence Alessi's surprisingly expansive role. He seemed an odd choice given his background, and you see it in his cross that he is not a natural in a murder trial in the way that AJ is.

Yet here he is basically leading the main case and not AJ.

Maybe the D will come back to the 3rd party stuff in their case, but I believe this is where they are making their main stand.

MOO

 

[Warwick7]

It's the middle of the night and I can't sleep. I am re-watching Brian Higgins' testimony from T1.

BH testified he had 4 or 5 Jameson and Gingers at the Hillside Bar.

Then he had 2 or 3 more at Waterfall.

Thennn he drove to 34 Fairview.

So now he's 8 drinks to the wind. Then he decided... to drive to Canton and move cars.

After that he drove home and claimed to have had two more.

Shaking my head.....

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924538165324341540

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922092926684782887

 

[Snoods]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1924538165324341540

The way Alessi yelled “ACTUALLY” made me lol

 

[Malleeboy]

Certainly one thing is clear in terms of trial strategy. Alessi is leading the main defence and not AJ.

In T1, AJ overmatched Paul. It was a critical moment that likely pulled the manslaughter verdict out of the fire.

In T2, the defence obviously realised that was not going to fly - especially with the recovery of the user data on the SD card. So whereas the pundits have been expecting a rerun of T1 with an upgunned CW team, in fact this is much more like a complex civil litigation.

Hence Alessi's surprisingly expansive role. He seemed an odd choice given his background, and you see it in his cross that he is not a natural in a murder trial in the way that AJ is.

Yet here he is basically leading the main case and not AJ.

Maybe the D will come back to the 3rd party stuff in their case, but I believe this is where they are making their main stand.

MOO

I would think the Defence broke up potential witnesses.
AJ got the people they wanted to challenge with a tough cross
Alessi got the crosses where detail was critical.
Yanetti got things were a local knowledge would help.
And lets not forget Mr Wolfe, who has allowed (what Commonwealth countries would call barristers) lawyers to punch out points.

Prosecution has not called BH, MM, former trooper Proctor which I think AJ would have done but AJ's cadence\stagecraft was very good for opening statement.
Alessi certainly has been the star for Defence, his ability to do detail and seeming to appear to match most experts in their fields has been awesome.

Certainly Karen Read has had about as a good a Defence team that anyone could hope for.

Her statements is hurting her badly but in some ways she needed the media $$$ to pay for such a team. State has generally more money than most defendant but maybe not in this case.

Although to be honest retrial is huge benefit to Prosecution, they got to have a run through and then new a redo. It may be unpopular with the anti-Karen people (but reverse to the pro-Karen people) but IMHO the judge has leaned to the Prosecution

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if the defence will still be calling Mr DiSogra, after yesterday.


From yesterday's testimony:

HB: If we could zoom back on this. The box on the right, is that from your report or is that Mr DiSogra?

[my note - what is shown on screen is pointing to a call to John’s phone at 1.14.11 AM, when vehicle was powered off] -
(DiSogra): “O’Keefe’s phone is slow relative to infotainment. Infotainment time should be adjusted back by 2 seconds to align with phone time. 12.31.43 AM becomes 12.31.41 AM”

Shanon Burgess: That’s Mr Disogra.

HB: Was there anything about that analysis that concerned you?

SB: Sure, so that analysis is misleading because again it’s not comparing Mr O’Keefe’s iPhone to the infotainment system, it’s actually comparing the defendant’s iPhone to Mr O’Keefe’s iPhone.

HB: Is there any acknowledgement anywhere in Mr Disogra’s report that he appreciated that this was iPhone to iPhone rather than iPhone to infotainment?

SB: No, there’s not.

timestamp on livefeed 3.55.42

 

[mrjitty]

I would think the Defence broke up potential witnesses.
AJ got the people they wanted to challenge with a tough cross
Alessi got the crosses where detail was critical.
Yanetti got things were a local knowledge would help.
And lets not forget Mr Wolfe, who has allowed (what Commonwealth countries would call barristers) lawyers to punch out points.

Prosecution has not called BH, MM which I think AJ would have done but AJ's cadence\stagecraft was very good for opening statement.
Alessi certainly has been the star for Defence, his ability to do detail and seeming to appear to match most experts in their fields has been awesome.

Certainly Karen Read has had about as a good a Defence team that anyone could hope for.

Her statements is hurting her badly but in some ways she needed the media $$$ to pay for such a team. State has generally more money than most defendant but maybe not in this case.

Yeah. What i was mostly getting at is on the face of it, Alessi was an unusual choice to argue a murder case in front of a jury. Has he even done one before? But now we see why that is - the strategies are very different to last time. He comes with advantages and disadvantages. I personally think his courtroom manner is more suited to big litigation.

Although to be honest retrial is huge benefit to Prosecution, they got to have a run through and then new a redo. It may be unpopular with the anti-Karen people (but reverse to the pro-Karen people) but IMHO the judge has leaned to the Prosecution

Agree on the do-over.

IMO Judge Cannone has been exceptionally lenient about scope of cross. Plenty of Judges would not have allowed such latitude in my opinion. Prosecutors I've spoken to think she is D-leaning (in order to cut down appeal potential). YMMV!

MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

I wonder if the defence will still be calling Mr DiSogra, after yesterday.


From yesterday's testimony:

HB: If we could zoom back on this. The box on the right, is that from your report or is that Mr DiSogra?

[my note - what is shown on screen is pointing to a call to John’s phone at 1.14.11 AM, when vehicle was powered off] -
(DiSogra): “O’Keefe’s phone is slow relative to infotainment. Infotainment time should be adjusted back by 2 seconds to align with phone time. 12.31.43 AM becomes 12.31.41 AM”

Shanon Burgess: That’s Mr Disogra.

HB: Was there anything about that analysis that concerned you?

SB: Sure, so that analysis is misleading because again it’s not comparing Mr O’Keefe’s iPhone to the infotainment system, it’s actually comparing the defendant’s iPhone to Mr O’Keefe’s iPhone.

HB: Is there any acknowledgement anywhere in Mr Disogra’s report that he appreciated that this was iPhone to iPhone rather than iPhone to infotainment?

SB: No, there’s not.

timestamp on livefeed 3.55.42

Alessi's pleadings last week sure do make a lot more sense if DiSorga is simply wrong about John's phone being slow.

I am especially intrigued about Mr Alessi saying he decided to let 12.36 ride in the Guarino X, effectively in reliance on DiSorga, and now Alessi saw that decision as prejuducial.

MOO.

 

[Malleeboy]

I wonder if the defence will still be calling Mr DiSogra, after yesterday.


From yesterday's testimony:

HB: If we could zoom back on this. The box on the right, is that from your report or is that Mr DiSogra?

[my note - what is shown on screen is pointing to a call to John’s phone at 1.14.11 AM, when vehicle was powered off] -
(DiSogra): “O’Keefe’s phone is slow relative to infotainment. Infotainment time should be adjusted back by 2 seconds to align with phone time. 12.31.43 AM becomes 12.31.41 AM”

Shanon Burgess: That’s Mr Disogra.

HB: Was there anything about that analysis that concerned you?

SB: Sure, so that analysis is misleading because again it’s not comparing Mr O’Keefe’s iPhone to the infotainment system, it’s actually comparing the defendant’s iPhone to Mr O’Keefe’s iPhone.

HB: Is there any acknowledgement anywhere in Mr Disogra’s report that he appreciated that this was iPhone to iPhone rather than iPhone to infotainment?

SB: No, there’s not.

timestamp on livefeed 3.55.42

I know Burgess thinks he has the magic bullet but the link between the phone and Infotainment is much less direct, it has to be inferred to an external event. He thinks he has an external event to match to but the problem is he doesn't know exactly where in the three point turn the trigger occurred, so the difference to the beginning and end of a turn could be a range of maybe 5 to 10s. (My guess would be that it is in the reverse part of the 3 point turn, as it is when most people hit the curb, which my guess would be that is what triggered the Lexus system, but can't prove that.) Or it could even the trigger event was a pothole not the 3 point turn. Also appears that Infotainment system offset is far more variable, it changes a lot. No one has indicated why it drifts so much and how often it checks with the GPS for updates. Nor does he know if after the 3 point turn, the Lexus contacted the GPS and realigned the clock, leaving the offset to zero.

Whereas a phone to phone time gap can be matched by call/texts between the phones. Also phones generally are in almost constant interaction with cell towers, so they have far less drift. Given the number of phone calls/texts between Karen's and John's phone they have a plethora of sample times to align them.

(Is pothole a word in the USA? I'm surprised in some ways we all use three point turn but I suppose it is obvious, as it has three turns lol. So many car words are different Boot = Trunk, Hood = Bonnet, pickup truck = ute.)

 

[Wishbone]

Agree. My hubs passed 4 1/2 years ago from a knee infection that went septic. Not so much anymore, but for a long time I questioned what I should or shouldn’t have done.

I wanted him to say when his last class was. I’m betting it wasn’t anytime recently or he would’ve mentioned it.

Not having a degree didn’t bother me, although lying about that is a huge red flag. I cared more about the amount of times he made errors (or whatever he called them). They were numerous. He was supposed to be an expert and I didn’t find his work expert-like at all.

I can't help but put him in the category of a flimflam man. That he has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of some and evoke empathy or pity shows he is practiced in his scheme. I find him unreliable and untrustworthy lacking any credibility. JMOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

It's the middle of the night and I can't sleep. I am re-watching Brian Higgins' testimony from T1.

BH testified he had 4 or 5 Jameson and Gingers at the Hillside Bar.

Then he had 2 or 3 more at Waterfall.

Thennn he drove to 34 Fairview.

So now he's 8 drinks to the wind. Then he decided... to drive to Canton and move cars.

After that he drove home and claimed to have had two more.

Shaking my head.....

That guy Higgins is one of the biggest drunks of all of them!
He's constantly thinking about drinking, planning to drink, talking about drinking, sharing pictures about drinking, or actually drinking. His entire life is consumed by alcohol. To live is to drink. A pathetic life for Brian Higgins.
MOO

 

[LookingForClues]

(Is pothole a word in the USA? I'm surprised in some ways we all use three point turn but I suppose it is obvious, as it has three turns lol. So many car words are different Boot = Trunk, Hood = Bonnet, pickup truck = ute.)

Not only is pothole a word in the USA, if you look it up in the dictionary, there is a picture of Boston.