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

[ShadyLady]

He spoke to Brennan, Lally, Tully....
multiple conversations...

AND Burgess??????

 

[missy1974]

One argument I can see the defense saying about Welcher... the CW wants to bring him back as rebuttal to the ARCCA experts. He just made it clear he was able to 'adjust' his presentation with new information he got, there is no reason for him to not be able to dispute or rebut ARCCA's findings in this testimony.

JMO

 

[Anniesflowers]

So why is the defense so up in arms about better data being testified to?

Is that what some folks believe? The data is only as good as the one doing the interpretation. IMO, Burgess did not come across as an ‘expert’ at interpreting the data.

 

[mzmarymac]

Try Law&Crime on youtube

Thank you so much!

 

[Soulmagent]

Is that what some folks believe? The data is only as good as the one doing the interpretation. IMO, Burgess did not come across as an ‘expert’ at interpreting the data.

He admitted to making mistakes repeatedly.
This guy also just cussed in court ,making the company look as if it hires people who are not as professional as they could be.
It is a horrible thing happening in a lot of fields right now.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So why is the defense so up in arms about better data being testified to?

1) who determines it’s ‘better’ or ‘worse’? Seems like only the CW is saying it’s better or more accurate data. The defense seems pretty clear that they believe data was being moved around by these witnesses in order to better suit the CW’s timeline.

2) Alessi has made it clear that seconds can incriminate or exonerate Karen. They are arguing that regardless of the quality of this new data, it is representative of the CW changing their own timeline of when Karen supposedly hit John, during the active trial - which is pretty absurd, IMO. It takes away from Karen’s ability to defend herself when the CW is asserting a particular timeline, the defense prepares a defense based of rebutting that timeline, and then the CW changes THEIR timeline mid-trial.

 

[missy1974]

did he really just say "no dog in this fight?"

hmmm an odd thing to say in this case

JMO

 

[Anniesflowers]

I'm working from home today, so its the first opportunity I have to actually have it on in the background. Is there an alternative place to watch?

If you’re using YouTube, you can search for nbc10 or Boston25, I watch either, depending on who has fewer commercials. NBC 10 Boston also has a 20 minute wrap up at 7pm each day: Canton Confidential, which I enjoy!

 

[kuromiiiilove]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927379941978497129

 

[Izzylizzy]

Welcher says that ‘unfortunately’ he’s been bombarded with emails regarding Burgess’ credentials (or lack thereof) but he did not read them, outside of ‘one or two lines’.

Is Welcher an owner of Aperture LLC?
Anyone

 

[sunshineray]

Is that what some folks believe? The data is only as good as the one doing the interpretation. IMO, Burgess did not come across as an ‘expert’ at interpreting the data.

I thought Burgess did very well at his data interpretation, MO. I was talking about Welcher who's on the stand.

 

[Wishbone]

did he really just say "no dog in this fight?"

hmmm an odd thing to say in this case

JMO

HaHa, not so odd if one thinks about it....JMOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Is Welcher an owner of Aperture LLC?
Anyone

I can see from Apertures own site that Judson Welcher was the president of BRT (Biomechanics Research and Testing) when Aperture acquired them in 2021. Not sure where he sits now but I imagine he still has a supervisory role, at minimum.

ETA: I see on their site he is the Executive VP of Accident Reconstruction and Biomechanics at Aperture.

 

[Soulmagent]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927379941978497129

I also shows the crappy experts public defenders are often forced to rely on . Sad.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Alessi has made it clear that seconds can incriminate or exonerate Karen. They are arguing that regardless of the quality of this new data, it is representative of the CW changing their own timeline of when Karen supposedly hit John, during the active trial - which is pretty absurd, IMO. It takes away from Karen’s ability to defend herself when the CW is asserting a particular timeline, the defense prepares a defense based of rebutting that timeline, and then the CW changes THEIR timeline mid-trial.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't care one way or the other. (paraphrasing Welcher).

This guy is pretty much a yawn fest. Very unimpressive to me. He can't remember simple things like how long he's been a crash reconstructionist (30 years is a big surprise). He can't recall how many offices Aperture has even though he's high up. He doesn't care if he puts an innocent woman in prison for life because he has no dog in the fight.

MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927379941978497129

snip:

"Judson has consulted on thousands of civil and criminal forensic cases; he has testified in local, state, and federal courts regarding accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineering across the country. Judson has qualified and testified as an expert in over 200 trials."

Judson B. Welcher | Executive Vice President

Judson B. Welcher

www.aperturellc.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

So far he claims to have never been called by a private defense attorney, just Public Defenders.

 

[sunshineray]

1) who determines it’s ‘better’ or ‘worse’? Seems like only the CW is saying it’s better or more accurate data. The defense seems pretty clear that they believe data was being moved around by these witnesses in order to better suit the CW’s timeline.

2) Alessi has made it clear that seconds can incriminate or exonerate Karen. They are arguing that regardless of the quality of this new data, it is representative of the CW changing their own timeline of when Karen supposedly hit John, during the active trial - which is pretty absurd, IMO. It takes away from Karen’s ability to defend herself when the CW is asserting a particular timeline, the defense prepares a defense based of rebutting that timeline, and then the CW changes THEIR timeline mid-trial.

Well Welcher would be testifying to why he feels it's better data to be applied. Then it's before the jury to decide.

IMO, if there's better more precise data to be seen why shouldn't the jury see it? If it winds up incriminating KR more, then that's strong evidence to be considered. AJMO

 

[Wishbone]

He said he purchased a Lexus. Making it sound like he personally paid for it, which I doubt....JMOO

 

[Anniesflowers]

I thought Burgess did very well at his data interpretation, MO. I was talking about Welcher who's on the stand.

Generally, IMO, scientists are meticulous with their work. Burgess wasn’t even fastidious enough to verify that his information on his CV, LinkedIn, etc were updated.