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

[tara83]

That's not correct.

The defence asked him about the small laceration on John's upper eyelid being caused by force which had nothing to do with the ecchymosis/raccoon eyes. And Dr Wolf agreed.

In fact Mr Alessi indicated he was in agreement with the doctor's description of the fall backwards -

"this injury is unrelated to any of what you've been describing, the fall backwards, the force transfer inside the skull...all of that dynamic you so ably described on your direct examination, this injury has nothing to do with that, correct?

Answer: "correct"

On direct examination Dr Wolf said, when asked if those injuries to the back of the head, the skull and brain etc could have been from an attack with a weapon -

"Well, he did not have a depressed skull fracture, so any focal hit like that would more likely than not have caused a depressed skull fracture."

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

Blows to the head don't have to be from an actual weapon....

 

[OldCop]

Holiday, no court. ODD though not on tomorrow. FRiday prev announced. THIS is a longgg time.

Cape traffic is always bad, but on a holiday weekend it is 10 times worse. The lucky ones get on the road early on Friday to beat the rush. The really lucky ones don’t have to work on Thursday.
I just don’t get a 5 day vacation in the middle of the trial.

 

[Tortoise]

Blows to the head don't have to be from an actual weapon....

He wasn't asked any other questions about blows to the back of his head, by either side. The defence only focused on the laceration on John's upper eyelid, in terms of causation.

 

[lohrtabitha]

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.

To me, proof of Proctor planting evidence!

 

[Wishbone]

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.

Loughran testified that he passed by the house around 2:45 a.m. and that he could see "a very large portion, almost to the front steps" of the lawn and "saw nothing." When he drove by again about 30 minutes later, he said, he again he saw nothing on the lawn but did see a car parked in the road in front of the house. He said he knew Albert and his family, so he was "being courteous" and decided not to report the car for violating snowstorm parking restrictions.

When Loughran returned around 5:30 a.m, the street was blocked and first responders were there, he said.

Defense in Karen Read murder trial begins presenting case that she was framed

The Karen Read murder trial will have a full day in court on Friday.

turnto10.com

 

[bobbymkii]

He probably wants as far away from this case as he can possibly get

There's still time for him to flee to Brazil. I'm sure they have car crashes there that need investigating.

 

[tara83]

He wasn't asked any other questions about blows to the back of his head, by either side. The defence only focused on the laceration on John's upper eyelid, in terms of causation.

So I'm curious your argument is that KR sideswiped him with 4-5000 pound SUV that only caused him to fall and hit his head in the snow and die?

 

[lohrtabitha]

"It's a classic blunt trauma laceration," Wolf said.



Link: MSN

A fist is a blunt object.

 

[keek]

Cape traffic is always bad, but on a holiday weekend it is 10 times worse. The lucky ones get on the road early on Friday to beat the rush. The really lucky ones don’t have to work on Thursday.
I just don’t get a 5 day vacation in the middle of the trial.

Right. VERY right. Cape.

 

[Tortoise]

A fist is a blunt object.

So it is. But his opinion was that it was a backwards fall onto the ground that caused it. No fists mentioned by anyone.

 

[keek]

Loughran testified that he passed by the house around 2:45 a.m. and that he could see "a very large portion, almost to the front steps" of the lawn and "saw nothing." When he drove by again about 30 minutes later, he said, he again he saw nothing on the lawn but did see a car parked in the road in front of the house. He said he knew Albert and his family, so he was "being courteous" and decided not to report the car for violating snowstorm parking restrictions.

When Loughran returned around 5:30 a.m, the street was blocked and first responders were there, he said.

Defense in Karen Read murder trial begins presenting case that she was framed

The Karen Read murder trial will have a full day in court on Friday.

turnto10.com

There you go of course. IMO

 

[tara83]

There you go of course. IMO

He didn't say a car did it either This was supposed to be a reply to Tortoise.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

To me, proof of Proctor planting evidence!

I mean, literally how else can that be explained? The Proctor glass only matches ONE of five pieces of glass on Karen’s bumper. And NEITHER match the ‘cup’ John had with him.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So it is. But his opinion was that it was a backwards fall onto the ground that caused it. No fists mentioned by anyone.

And did he say a vehicle strike caused it?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Any chance this isn’t true and they need time to figure out what to do? I can’t imagine Welcher wants to go ahead with his planned testimony which was based on trust for SB’s analysis and conclusions. Jmo.

Definitely possible. He could be reworking his testimony to try to have SOME findings that are independent of the disgraced Mr. Burgess. MOO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

That's not correct.

The defence asked him about the small laceration on John's upper eyelid being caused by force which had nothing to do with the ecchymosis/raccoon eyes. And Dr Wolf agreed.

In fact Mr Alessi indicated he was in agreement with the doctor's description of the fall backwards -

"this injury is unrelated to any of what you've been describing, the fall backwards, the force transfer inside the skull...all of that dynamic you so ably described on your direct examination, this injury has nothing to do with that, correct?

Answer: "correct"

On direct examination Dr Wolf said, when asked if those injuries to the back of the head, the skull and brain etc could have been from an attack with a weapon -

"Well, he did not have a depressed skull fracture, so any focal hit like that would more likely than not have caused a depressed skull fracture."

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

It’s not agreeing for Alessi to ask about what Dr. Wolf testified to on direct.<modsnip> It’s not time for the defense to put on their case and assert what they think happened to John. They are crossing the CW witnesses on relevant testimony. That’s why you hear ‘objection - relevance’ sometimes in court. It wouldn’t be relevant for Alessi to start telling Dr. Wolf that he doesn’t think John fell backwards. They can assert that when they present their case. They are required to cross him in a way that is relevant to what he testified to on direct.

Also, a punch is a ‘force’ to the front of John’s face. It may not have been openly stated, but it was clearly implied. MOO

 

[bobbymkii]

It really shouldn't be this difficult to prove that someone died because they were hit by a car, if it actually happened.

The moment that Karen allegedly struck and killed John O'Keefe with her car is like the tree that falls in the middle of a remote forest. If no-one was there to hear it does that mean that it never made a sound? Instead the only sound being reported ocurring at the time was that of Jen McCabe playing a video of someone dancing to The Weather Girls' 'It's Raining Men' on her phone to amuse guests present at 34 Fairview.

Really, did no-one hear the engine, tyres screeching, impact and glass smashing?

JMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

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

 

[Warwick7]

It’s not agreeing for Alessi to ask about what Dr. Wolf testified to on direct lol. You even bolded Alessi saying ‘as YOU’VE been describing’. It’s not time for the defense to put on their case and assert what they think happened to John. They are crossing the CW witnesses on relevant testimony. That’s why you hear ‘objection - relevance’ sometimes in court. It wouldn’t be relevant for Alessi to start telling Dr. Wolf that he doesn’t think John fell backwards. They can assert that when they present their case. They are required to cross him in a way that is relevant to what he testified to on direct.

Also, a punch is a ‘force’ to the front of John’s face. It may not have been openly stated, but it was clearly implied. MOO

BBM
That is exactly what I heard.

 

[missy1974]

It’s not agreeing for Alessi to ask about what Dr. Wolf testified to on direct lol. You even bolded Alessi saying ‘as YOU’VE been describing’. It’s not time for the defense to put on their case and assert what they think happened to John. They are crossing the CW witnesses on relevant testimony. That’s why you hear ‘objection - relevance’ sometimes in court. It wouldn’t be relevant for Alessi to start telling Dr. Wolf that he doesn’t think John fell backwards. They can assert that when they present their case.

Also, a punch is a ‘force’ to the front of John’s face. It may not have been openly stated, but it was clearly implied. MOO

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