Testimony is inconsistent, but she claims that whatever she said is her current memory.
MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #29 Retrial
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 10,648
- Reaction score
- 18,683
Someone should stick a finger though her brain. Might help her remember, or she could just be like
''yeah', got me some digits .''
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 474
- Reaction score
- 6,666
Exactly. I’m breaking a window to get inside if there’s a dead person on my sister’s lawn and she’s not answering. And if I wake her up, I’m telling her to get her butt out of bed because someone is dead outside and she needs to talk to the police.
RBBM. Yeah that part of Dr Wolf's testimony was notable and the defense will likely raise this specifically when they are up. Jmo.I just watched Dr. Wolf's testimony. I imagine Alessi decided after his direct testimony, that there was not much to disagree with because Dr. Wolf's testimony about HOW it happened, was still not definitive IMO
Even Dr. Wolf said that an object more likely than not would have shown a depressed skull fracture. More likely then not is not definitive. Again, JMO
His experience with cold weather falls, drunks falling, etc was from his time in Minnesota. I live in Canada, but we have similar weather to Minnesota... I have enough life experience with cold weather, snowing, blizzards to understand that the way they are saying a cold hard ground on that night may not have been as cold and as hard as they say. Again JMO And I'm sure the jury has some experience with that as well
I don't think the state of hardness of 34 Fairview's lawn at 12.30am that night, was at all necessarily the equivalent of the e.gs actually provided by Dr Wolf. Dr Wolf talked about sidewalks, he talked about ice, he talked about people shoveling snow and falling backwards. He didn't talk about lawns or the grade of hardness of a lawn in slightly above freezing temperatures. Moo
And that's fine as he is no expert on those things and Brennan didn't ask him. And certainly Alessi wasn't going to question this very well respected and qualified neuro surgeon on such things. Alessi demonstrated appropriate respect for this witness. Imo.
On the point of the relative hardness of surfaces, I also noted how Brennan kept it vague in his direct. He repeatedly used the word 'ground' when eliciting the opinion on falling backward. This serves two purposes 1) vagueness and avoidance of the words "grass" or "lawn' and 2) the more subliminal attempted suggestion that Wolf was saying this could only have happened outside. Imo
However, Dr Wolf excluded no hard surface and infact testified to side walk and ice when giving egs. Therefore the jury could, and defense will ensure this, infer concrete garage floor, concrete basement floor, a flat lying weight etc are all possibilities not excluded in any way via Dr Wolf's testimony. Jmo
Ebm for correct spelling of Wolf
Last edited:
The microscopic tail light debris in John's shirt is a core component of the CW's circumstantial case. (We still need the detailed accident evidence from Welcher).
At a high level we have:
1162 + SERT Recovery + Body at Scene + Microscopic Fragments
This is easily enough, prima facie (i.e. before D evidence) to infer vehicle involved homicide (e.g manslaughter/M2). IMO the jury will infer vehicle involved unless they really think there was staging.
Even if there could be some other explanation for the SERT recovery, the fragments really can't get in the shirt fibres except via the direct strike, or being planted. So can a reasonable possibility of framing be established?
In my opinion, the CW closed the door to Proctor staging the SERT recovery via a quick Sallyport smash and plant. But what about the microscopic fragments?
I went back to AJ's cross of YB and found his logic to be decidedly circular.
As we know, AJ's main attack seems to be that following recovery of the shirt from the hospital it did not go straight in the evidence room but was dried in a room on butcher paper from 10pm 29 Jan until 4 February. MP & YB laid them out together, then individually left the office later that night. On the 4th the dry shirt was bagged, tagged and went into the evidence room. Later in March, the Shirt was transferred from the evidence room to the Crime lab by Proctor.
AJ claims, that because there was no "drying room log" (a thing he just invents), there is a chain of custody issue. This strikes me as a logical leap, which YB points out. He then goes on to argue with the witness about who bagged the items - we know the evidence officer printed the labels, so it seems they went into the evidence officers custody and storage that day regardless of who bagged the shirt.
So the substance of his claim is Proctor corruptly salted the shirt having already planted tail light earlier that day, (and implied YB and Chief Burkowitz are involved as well). Or perhaps he did it sometime up until the 4th.
While we are all familiar with the criticisms of evidence handling in this case, I think it is a distraction here. MP as the case officer, and YB as his supervisor have access to the shirt that very day. No invented drying room log can ever address that.
Rather the allegation is circular. Because MP drank on the job, and sent inappropriate texts - he is the kind of person who corruptly frames someone for murder and look no drying room log - more evidence he must have done so.
Yet - the Lexus user data combined with the Sallyport video time stamp show he simply cannot have broken out tail light pieces and staged them at 34F unless all of YB, Chief Burkowitz and the whole SERT team are in on it.
So what evidence actually exists that the defendant was framed via microscopic tail light pieces on the shirt beyond innuendo?
AJ seems to be down to inferring it from whether pieces of the glass can be a mechanically matched. Proctor staged the glass therefore he staged the shirt.
I do sympathise with defence attorneys in cases of police corruption, because the deck is stacked against them in proving that. But end of the day, in this case, i don't see evidence of any corruption, as opposed to a Trooper who was fired for other misconduct.
MOO
Timecode re John's shirt X - around 1 hour 20
* ETA - Mess up re Hanley/Microscopic analysis
At a high level we have:
1162 + SERT Recovery + Body at Scene + Microscopic Fragments
This is easily enough, prima facie (i.e. before D evidence) to infer vehicle involved homicide (e.g manslaughter/M2). IMO the jury will infer vehicle involved unless they really think there was staging.
Even if there could be some other explanation for the SERT recovery, the fragments really can't get in the shirt fibres except via the direct strike, or being planted. So can a reasonable possibility of framing be established?
In my opinion, the CW closed the door to Proctor staging the SERT recovery via a quick Sallyport smash and plant. But what about the microscopic fragments?
I went back to AJ's cross of YB and found his logic to be decidedly circular.
As we know, AJ's main attack seems to be that following recovery of the shirt from the hospital it did not go straight in the evidence room but was dried in a room on butcher paper from 10pm 29 Jan until 4 February. MP & YB laid them out together, then individually left the office later that night. On the 4th the dry shirt was bagged, tagged and went into the evidence room. Later in March, the Shirt was transferred from the evidence room to the Crime lab by Proctor.
AJ claims, that because there was no "drying room log" (a thing he just invents), there is a chain of custody issue. This strikes me as a logical leap, which YB points out. He then goes on to argue with the witness about who bagged the items - we know the evidence officer printed the labels, so it seems they went into the evidence officers custody and storage that day regardless of who bagged the shirt.
So the substance of his claim is Proctor corruptly salted the shirt having already planted tail light earlier that day, (and implied YB and Chief Burkowitz are involved as well). Or perhaps he did it sometime up until the 4th.
While we are all familiar with the criticisms of evidence handling in this case, I think it is a distraction here. MP as the case officer, and YB as his supervisor have access to the shirt that very day. No invented drying room log can ever address that.
Rather the allegation is circular. Because MP drank on the job, and sent inappropriate texts - he is the kind of person who corruptly frames someone for murder and look no drying room log - more evidence he must have done so.
Yet - the Lexus user data combined with the Sallyport video time stamp show he simply cannot have broken out tail light pieces and staged them at 34F unless all of YB, Chief Burkowitz and the whole SERT team are in on it.
So what evidence actually exists that the defendant was framed via microscopic tail light pieces on the shirt beyond innuendo?
AJ seems to be down to inferring it from whether pieces of the glass can be a mechanically matched. Proctor staged the glass therefore he staged the shirt.
I do sympathise with defence attorneys in cases of police corruption, because the deck is stacked against them in proving that. But end of the day, in this case, i don't see evidence of any corruption, as opposed to a Trooper who was fired for other misconduct.
MOO
Timecode re John's shirt X - around 1 hour 20
* ETA - Mess up re Hanley/Microscopic analysis
Last edited:
This is not correct IMO
Per the testimony of YB, only the evidence officer can print the labels. The items were bagged on the 4th and label printed i.e the evidence officer had custody from the 4th. They were in the evidence room until later transferred to the Crime Lab for analysis.
if they sat around for weeks in the evidence bag, surely AJ would have raised this on cross?
The witness is clearly credentialed as an expert as this is all sorted out pre-trial based on his expert bio submitted to court. e.g Berla, Axiom etc. Pre-trial expert voir dire has happened in this case, though not with this witness IIRC.
The LinkedIn fiasco goes to credibility i.e. if he has this qualification incorrect on his LinkedIn profile perhaps he is the kind of person who might misrepresent his testimony.
As to when the defence knew, they would have got all the info on him when he was first revealed in the pretrial process. It's hard to know whether they sat on it, my guess is yes, and its more use on cross and useless pre-trial.
All IMO
Last edited:
I am not mistaken. The post I replied to was mistaken "a fist is a blunt object" in response to a snipped post of mine quoting Dr Wolf describing the blunt force trauma to the back of the head.
OK a possible solution that puts many pieces but maybe not all.
(Both sides will probably hate this_
John and Karen arrives, and John goes to side gate, as Brian Albert and Brian Higgins wanted to confront him about Karen's playing up with Brian. He is told about BH and Karen. Fight occurs, John injures fist and gets cut about eye. Dog attacks him and does arm injury. He storms back to where Karen is, really pissed at her. Throws the glass at the car, breaks the taillight but is close enough to get shards. Karen reverses to get away but he yells at her about sleeping with someone else. Karen leaves. John then falls over drunk and hits rear of head. BH and BA hear the tail light break. Karen thinks he is not answering because he has gone to someone else, thus the angry calls.
BH and BA go round front and find John on the ground. They presume Karen has hit him. They take John to basement, as house is full of people, and less chance for leaving evidence on concrete than carpet and furnishing. People in the house become aware, and believe Karen has killed John but need to hide the fight etc as it might get Karen off. Thus the night time call etc. Jen tries to find John's phone thus the butt dials. Brian Higgins goes to Canton PD to pick up some stuff to help clean basement. Jen's early call to Coco was to put the body back outside. As they thought he was effectively dead.
Crazy but a lot of pieces would fit.
(Both sides will probably hate this_
John and Karen arrives, and John goes to side gate, as Brian Albert and Brian Higgins wanted to confront him about Karen's playing up with Brian. He is told about BH and Karen. Fight occurs, John injures fist and gets cut about eye. Dog attacks him and does arm injury. He storms back to where Karen is, really pissed at her. Throws the glass at the car, breaks the taillight but is close enough to get shards. Karen reverses to get away but he yells at her about sleeping with someone else. Karen leaves. John then falls over drunk and hits rear of head. BH and BA hear the tail light break. Karen thinks he is not answering because he has gone to someone else, thus the angry calls.
BH and BA go round front and find John on the ground. They presume Karen has hit him. They take John to basement, as house is full of people, and less chance for leaving evidence on concrete than carpet and furnishing. People in the house become aware, and believe Karen has killed John but need to hide the fight etc as it might get Karen off. Thus the night time call etc. Jen tries to find John's phone thus the butt dials. Brian Higgins goes to Canton PD to pick up some stuff to help clean basement. Jen's early call to Coco was to put the body back outside. As they thought he was effectively dead.
Crazy but a lot of pieces would fit.
Last edited:
Who knows. Whatever the truth really is, at least this theory and others all add up to doubt. Given your theory explains the arm wounds it's more possible/probable/reasonable than the CW's will ever be. Jmo
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2024
- Messages
- 2,425
- Reaction score
- 34,095
I don’t think Dr. Wolf was the nail in the coffin some people are claiming he was for Karen. His testimony didn’t feel like a bombshell to me. Yes, he’s credible and well spoken, but all he said was that John’s injury is consistent with falling backwards and hitting his head.
Crucially, he never said the words “car,” “vehicle,” “sideswipe,” or “collision.” A backward fall could come from a push, a slip, a dog knockdown, any number of scenarios.
And THAT, to me, is reasonable doubt: multiple plausible causes for the same injury. Dr. Wolf didn’t rule anything out.
All MOO
Crucially, he never said the words “car,” “vehicle,” “sideswipe,” or “collision.” A backward fall could come from a push, a slip, a dog knockdown, any number of scenarios.
And THAT, to me, is reasonable doubt: multiple plausible causes for the same injury. Dr. Wolf didn’t rule anything out.
All MOO
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2023
- Messages
- 948
- Reaction score
- 9,016
Plows damage things ALL the time. My friend's retaining wall was knocked down by a plow. Sidewalk plows tear up grass because the snow covers ground and the driver can't always see where the sidewalk is. They sideswipe parked cars. If you live in a cold weather climate you'll see how many people complain about damage plows do to property. The basketball net was up high and he was driving a plow that was put together with various parts and misjudged the width. When he drove by the Alberts' house - a house he knew - he did the normal thing and looked at it. The front lawn is much smaller than it is in photos and he would have noticed a man over 6 feet tall and 200+ pounds lying not far from the road. Dark jeans, dark hair and one dark sock would have stood out against the snow.
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>
Right out of the gate Peter accused Judge Cannone of not only being "biased" but "one of the most obvious illustrations of judicial bias I have seen in a long time"
Right out of the gate Peter accused Judge Cannone of not only being "biased" but "one of the most obvious illustrations of judicial bias I have seen in a long time"
Last edited by a moderator:
Hardly. Not sure which commentators say that but there is no nail or coffin. I think Wolf's testimony was just fine and takes nothing away from the defense. It's the CW's burden to show impact between the Lexus and JO and at this point there is zero. Wolf will be useful for the defense whatever Welcher comes up with, as he had nothing to say about the head wound being the result of vehicle impact and provided no testimony on the arm wounds. His opinion can easily be co-opted by the defense when they present their case, to bolster reasonable doubt. Jmo
Does Peter say the Judge is corrupt?
Again the reason why i replied to @Warwick7 's post is that Attorney appeared to allege judicial corruption which is a far more serious allegation.
So I am wondering what form of corruption there is supposed to be?
Even if you accept Peter's argument on the merits, so long as the Judge reached the decision on her best interpretation of the law that is far short of corruption - even if it is eventually overturned on appeal. Judges get the law wrong all the time.
I tend to agree on that decision, that the Judge was incorrect. I tend to disagree with Peter that it's bias - but in any event, bias is nowhere near corruption.
IMO
I think it’s so interesting how many professionals who work in these same fields are gobsmacked by the display of corruption and incompetence as this unfolds in real time. Lawyers obviously - former prosecutors and defense attorneys. <modsnip: If it can't be linked to an approved source it can't be discussed>
Last edited by a moderator:
If I were a corrupt Judge sitting on this case, there are easier, and more subtle techniques I could employ day to day to sabotage the defendant, including things like not allowing or substantially limiting the scope of the extended fishing expeditions on cross.
I also could have done stuff pre-trial like never allowing both of the dogbite experts in the first place, not allowing the 3rd party alt stuff, not allowing ARCCA in T1 without rule 14 compliance, and inviting in the witness intimidation conspiracy stuff.
I think ejecting AJ would be risky even for a highly motivated judge because it would have derailed the trial and creates obvious appealable issues.
In any event, I think we are nowhere close to the sorts of decisions from which we could imply ulterior/corrupt motivations. I am confident the Judge believes in every decision she is making, and many of them are made to limit appeal potential.
All IMO.
I also could have done stuff pre-trial like never allowing both of the dogbite experts in the first place, not allowing the 3rd party alt stuff, not allowing ARCCA in T1 without rule 14 compliance, and inviting in the witness intimidation conspiracy stuff.
I think ejecting AJ would be risky even for a highly motivated judge because it would have derailed the trial and creates obvious appealable issues.
In any event, I think we are nowhere close to the sorts of decisions from which we could imply ulterior/corrupt motivations. I am confident the Judge believes in every decision she is making, and many of them are made to limit appeal potential.
All IMO.
The evidence collection in particular - they seemed pretty certain that a lot of the key evidence would not have been admissible due to the blatant chain of custody and collection issues. Anyhow it’s interesting to see how out of the norm this trial has been and continues to be. Jmo
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 2,734
- Reaction score
- 22,683
His CV and LinkedIn profile have disappeared, and he has no education under his Education, but they still have "Expert Testimony" under his Capabilities. I think he's the only expert on their site who has no education or CV listed now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 102
- Guests online
- 3,543
- Total visitors
- 3,645