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

[jepop]

Karen arrived shortly before they did. It's likely he'd jumped out of the car and was approaching the front door or into the house before they arrived and maybe before she turned the dome light on. He didn't have a coat on and it was cold. They were able to see her because the light was on. John was no longer in the car. But they didn't see a broken body nor 47 bright red pieces of red taillight sitting on the lawn.

Ryan Nagle testified the tail light was normal and intact imo. Nothing noticeable. He would have seen if it was missing 47 pieces. Jmo

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I wish AJ wouldn’t walk around so much. It’s hard to hear him when he moves from the microphone.

 

[OldCop]

Lucky is an objective witness but I’m thinking he had his eyes on the road in front of him - not someone’s lawn. And the partygoers were too busy making sure they didn’t slip in the snow in their drunken stupors - I’m not sure they would have noticed a purple elephant climbing the flagpole, let alone a body covered in snow.

Plow drivers routinely scan the sides of the road to make sure there are no objects which their plows might inadvertently hit.

 

[Leilei]

Lucky is an objective witness but I’m thinking he had his eyes on the road in front of him - not someone’s lawn. And the partygoers were too busy making sure they didn’t slip in the snow in their drunken stupors - I’m not sure they would have noticed a purple elephant climbing the flagpole, let alone a body covered in snow.

By the time Lucky came by, JOK wouldn't have been buried in snow. There was very little snow falling until after he was found. This has been discussed previously.
IMO.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Ryan Nagle testified the tail light was normal and intact imo. Nothing noticeable. He would have seen if it was missing 47 pieces. Jmo

Yes. And this guy is a friend of the Alberts!

 

[jepop]

Having been someone who has regularly bemoaned the lack of effort by the CW to actually explain JO'K's injuries and instead spend most of their time with nonsense digital forensics banging on at excruciating length about data from his phone and the Lexus around the time of the alleged impact, (while simultaneously making pathetic excuses for digital forensic evidence that does not help their case!) it would only be reasonable in the interest of impartiality for me to acknowledge when they do their job competently. I thought Dr Wolf was a good witness for the CW, and for the defense as well actually.

I thought he did a good job at analyzing John's head injury, and also (even though it isn't strictly his wheelhouse as a neurologist) on how the effects would not result in him dying immediately, both crucial elements for them to meet their burden of proof. But Alessi, in a surprisingly brief cross, managed to get good evidence from him regarding the cut on his eye.

MOO

Agree, he was good for both. But the cw needs Welcher. As things stand now, they haven't offered anything to suggest an impact between JO and the Lexus. Jmo

 

[waldojabba]

apologies if some one has already said this :

Jen McCabe said when they found John they had to flip him over - from his stomach to his back.
Dr Wolfe was talking about people being drunk slipping and falling over backwards. So if that happened, John slipped and fell backwards, he would have still been on his back when found in the am.

Plus of course none saw him at all on the lawn

Say what hank?

JMO

 

[bobbymkii]

Agree, he was good for both. But the cw needs Welcher. As things stand now, they haven't offered anything to suggest an impact between JO and the Lexus. Jmo

If a witness is good for both the CW and the defense, then the CW are not meeting their burden of proof.

JMO

 

[Warwick7]

The three in the Nagel vehicle. They saw Karen alone in the car, dome light on. They didn't see John on the lawn or in the car. No taillight pieces either.

The CW will try to make them out as drunks, but Ryan Nagel testified that the driver, Ricky, was their designated driver and had no more than one drink.

Ryan Nagel is a friend of Chris Albert's older son, BTW. He was there at D&E pizza the day Chris Albert's sister-in-law assaulted Turtleboy, and was jeering and shouting at TB. So I will take what he testified to as the truth.

And saw the break lights on per testimony.

 

[JasmineD]

He wouldn't have been covered in snow when the party goers left. "Track a cat" only said the CW's own weather expert testified

He also wouldn't have been covered during the times Lucky went by. Even after John's body was found, you can see from one of the Canton PD officer's dash cams that the cars in driveways weren't covered in snow. It was snowing and very windy, but the snow had not yet much accumulated even then.

"Eyes off the road"? Multiple times? Pure speculation on your part.

And the list of partygoers and others that went by his body walking away from the house or driving by in cars is pretty long. Find it hard to believe that every single person didn't see a body of the lawn.

The three in the Nagel vehicle. The four in the McCabe vehicle. Higgins. Caitlin Albert and her boyfriend. Up to TEN people right there, and this doesn't include Lucky and any other persons in any other vehicles that went by that night. It's a thru road.

Flatly not believable in my opinion. He wasn't out there until later.

THIS. A million times over. All these people didn't just miss seeing him. He wasn't there!

 

[Angelwatch]

I need to go back and rewatch Dr. Stonebridge from trial 1 and figure out why the CW didn't call her in favor of Dr. Wolf. Does anyone have a quick answer?

 

[jepop]

apologies if some one has already said this :

Jen McCabe said when they found John they had to flip him over - from his stomach to his back.
Dr Wolfe was talking about people being drunk slipping and falling over backwards. So if that happened, John slipped and fell backwards, he would have still been on his back when found in the am.

Plus of course none saw him at all on the lawn

Say what hank?

JMO

Yeah, I can't point to specific testimony but I'm sure there is no dispute about body position when found and he was on his back. Imo neither side are trying to argue anything else. JMc's words on the 911 call are an anomaly or have been misheard or misinterpreted. Jmo of ofcourse!
L

 

[kuromiiiilove]

AJ will be crossing Ms. Hanley.

The tail light is made of plasticine. It’s not glass. It’s basically reinforced plastic.

Now AJ is talking about the glass material. Ms. Hanley noted nothing consistent with blood, skin or other biological materials on the glass shards, even though she inspected them under a microscope. Ms Hanley says she would have noted any ‘apparent’ blood, skin, etc.

Now discussing Ms. Hanleys comparisons. Comparing the glass found in John’s hand (which they’re referring to as a ‘cup’ for clarity purposes, but is item 3-2), the five glass items on the bumper (item 3-3), and the nine glass shards/items collected from 34 Fairview by Yuri Buhkenik, item 7-12. Brennan fought hard to object to Buhkeniks name being included on record. That bag is associated with the nine pieces found at 34 Fairview. And there’s 7-12, a single piece of glass found at Fairview.

And Proctor found the single piece of glass, 7-14.

So just so we’re clear:
3-2 is the cup.
3-3 is the bumper glass.
7-12 is the Buhkenik glass.
7-14 is the Proctor glass.

Talking about bumper glass 3-3(A) - one of the five pieces found on the bumper. Hanley testified in trial 1 and now that 3-3(A) does not match the cup (3-2) or the Buhkenik glass (7-12) OR the Proctor glass (7-14). Neither did item B. Item E was consistent with 7-14, the Proctor glass.

Now discussing the glass Buhkenik collected at Fairview. A-F, I, K and L. A, B, C, D, F and K all matched the 3-2 cup. Items I and L did not match the 3-2 cup.

Finally the 7-14 - the single piece of glass Prcotr recovered. Hanley testifies it did not match the 3-2 cup OR the 7-12 shards that Buhkenik collected.

 

[jepop]

If a witness is good for both the CW and the defense, then the CW are not meeting their burden of proof.

JMO

Yes, they aren't not by a long shot.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

The tail light is made of plasticine. It’s not glass. It’s basically reinforced plastic.

Now AJ is talking about the glass material. Ms. Hanley noted nothing consistent with blood, skin or other biological materials on the glass shards, even though she inspected them under a microscope. Ms Hanley says she would have noted any ‘apparent’ blood, skin, etc.

Now discussing Ms. Hanleys comparisons. Comparing the glass found in John’s hand (which they’re referring to as a ‘cup’ for clarity purposes, but is item 3-2), the five glass items on the bumper (item 3-3), and the nine glass shards/items collected from 34 Fairview by Yuri Buhkenik, item 7-12. Brennan fought hard to object to Buhkeniks name being included on record. That bag is associated with the nine pieces found at 34 Fairview. And there’s 7-12, a single piece of glass found at Fairview.

And Proctor found the single piece of glass, 7-14.

So just so we’re clear:
3-2 is the cup.
3-3 is the bumper glass.
7-12 is the Buhkenik glass.
7-14 is the Proctor glass.

Talking about bumper glass 3-3(A) - one of the five pieces found on the bumper. Hanley testified in trial 1 and now that 3-3(A) does not match the cup (3-2) or the Buhkenik glass (7-12) OR the Proctor glass (7-14). Neither did item B. Item E was consistent with 7-14, the Proctor glass.

Now discussing the glass Buhkenik collected at Fairview. A-F, I, K and L. A, B, C, D, F and K all matched the 3-2 cup. Items I and L did not match the 3-2 cup.

Finally the 7-14 - the single piece of glass Prcotr recovered. Hanley testifies it did not match the 3-2 cup OR the 7-12 shards that Buhkenik collected.

Alan does a way better job at making these complex pieces and sub-items of evidence clear than Brennan does, IMO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Continuing Ms. Hanley’s cross:

The tail light is made of plasticine. It’s not glass. It’s basically reinforced plastic.

Now AJ is talking about the glass material. Ms. Hanley noted nothing consistent with blood, skin or other biological materials on the glass shards, even though she inspected them under a microscope. Ms Hanley says she would have noted any ‘apparent’ blood, skin, etc.

Now discussing Ms. Hanleys comparisons. Comparing the glass found in John’s hand (which they’re referring to as a ‘cup’ for clarity purposes, but is item 3-2), the five glass items on the bumper (item 3-3), and the nine glass shards/items collected from 34 Fairview by Yuri Buhkenik, item 7-12. Brennan fought hard to object to Buhkeniks name being included on record. That bag is associated with the nine pieces found at 34 Fairview. And there’s 7-12, a single piece of glass found at Fairview.

And Proctor found the single piece of glass, 7-14.

So just so we’re clear:
3-2 is the cup.
3-3 is the bumper glass.
7-12 is the Buhkenik glass.
7-14 is the Proctor glass.

Talking about bumper glass 3-3(A) - one of the five pieces found on the bumper. Hanley testified in trial 1 and now that 3-3(A) does not match the cup (3-2) or the Buhkenik glass (7-12) OR the Proctor glass (7-14). Neither did item B. Item E was consistent with 7-14, the Proctor glass.

Now discussing the glass Buhkenik collected at Fairview. A-F, I, K and L. A, B, C, D, F and K all matched the 3-2 cup. Items I and L did not match the 3-2 cup.

Finally the 7-14 - the single piece of glass Prcotr recovered. Hanley testifies it did not match the 3-2 cup OR the 7-12 shards that Buhkenik collected.

thank god, there’s a chart being shown. Around the 6:03:45 mark of the Court TV livestream.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Continuing Ms. Hanley’s cross:

thank god, there’s a chart being shown. Around the 6:03:45 mark of the Court TV livestream.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So the only piece of numbered glass on the bumper to match ANYTHING else in Hanleys analysis was…

Can you guess?

7-14. The single piece of glass collected by Proctor.

NOTHING Hanley analyzed coming from the bumper matched the cup (3-2)

And as we established, Karen’s tail light is not glass.

That’s all for cross.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Is Welcher the next witness? I think she probably calls it for today after this sidebah

ETA: Judge says we are so far ahead of schedule the jurors are off tomorrow (was planned 1/2 day)

 

[Izzylizzy]

Courts over for the day.
No court Thurs & Fri.

 

[waldojabba]

Courts over for the day.
No court Thurs & Fri.

Looks like Welcher could not make it this week after all. Is he the last one that will testify for the P?
JMO