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

[Izzylizzy]

REviewing ChrisA's 1st trial testimony.

And I finally found my answer. WHO ASKED JOHN TO THE WATERFALL???

And then, WHO made sure John went to BA's after the Waterfall. Seems earlier in the evening John had stopped by Chris' pizza place with his nephew. And Chris told John he was going to Waterfall later in the night. Chris texted John a few times. "Where are you"....making sure John would meet him there. And CA said he did not know BH very well. hmmmmm....

So why did CA grab BH's arm when they were leaving (seems like an overly familiar thing to do)? And the next thing BH did was to wave to John and make sure he was going to BA's house.

KevinA who it seems had some sort of issue with John drove home with BH and BA.....hmmmm. And as did CA's son.

What did they talk about??

And what were BA, BH AND CA whispering about at the Waterfall after John arrived.

I am back to being very suspicious.....

"What did they talk about?"

During T-1 when AJ asked BH who he told about his flirtatious texting with KR he denied telling BA or anyone else.
He said he told his female boss about the kiss (peck) KR gave him not the texts.
I find that really hard to believe and can see them all gossiping like old hens,
IMO

 

[mrjitty]

one can nitpick witness testimony. one can nitpick police procedure. one can imagine things happened for which there is no evidence. but...

i think pretty much anyone can see that Karen Read was lying - in big unforgettable ways - and knows she hit JO. if she had said she saw him go into the house and i saw him on the porch at the door - I'd say that's a reasonable discrepancy. i saw JO go into the house and i might've hit him are completely incongruent memories.

he wasn't ambushed by a gang of conspirators in the basement... attacked by a dog... then dragged out into the snow to die, instantly, or kept in the basement for hours... while dozens of people kept silent or went along with the charade... with, again, absolutely nothing to actually indicate that happened.

it's all a bunch of nonsense.

For me this is the biggest issue, which Bederow tried to minimise as "clips taken out of context". But it is pretty clear for instance, that the BITS version is simply untrue, whether or not she is innocent.

Why it's untrue is a different question, but personally were I a juror, I would need the defendant to come clean about it, and especially why she backed so far in high speed in reverse. Ironically 1162 makes sense of her statement of wondering if she did hit John - but I would need to hear from her.


IMO

 

[Warwick7]

RSBM

This argument is not possible anymore because of the user data recovered from the SD card i.e. timestamped ignition events with odometer read.

It's why Brennan carefully put into evidence the photo of the Odometer from the sallyport before they did any testing. I guarantee you that odometer read is the same ignition off read from the tow truck offloading at the Sallyport.

IMO

Respectfully mrjitty, you must be talking about the digital sd card that was discovered on a circuit board of one of the vehicle's modules by an expert??

Oh you mean the so-called expert who lied about his education and used that lie to testify under oath before a jury.

Yes, I remember he was the one that was hired by the CW for his credentials. Yes, he's the one who accepted money based on fake credentials...

Brennan told us on 5/15/25 that they received SB's report on this alleged sd card on May 8th and how he was surprised to receive it. Yet, SB testified under oath that not only had he discussed his report with Brennan on May 7th, the day before, he also added that he finished the "report" as requested from the CW. It's probably better not to get into his reply of the whole cut and paste....that's a whole nother can of worms SB.

If I was a juror and heard about a "new find" about a sd card (cards that can be manipulated) or... about when SB's powerpoint inexplicably was off 24 hours or... when Burgess himself showed several examples of video evidence that contradicted his own analysis, I would be shaking my head and be disgusted with his testimony.

Edit: and respectfully, I'll pass on your guarantee, we better stick to facts. M00

 

[mrjitty]

Respectfully mrjitty, you must be talking about the digital sd card that was discovered on a circuit board of one of the vehicle's modules by an expert??

Oh you mean the so-called expert who lied about his education and used that lie to testify under oath before a jury.

Yes, I remember he was the one that was hired by the CW for his credentials. Yes, he's the one who accepted money based on fake credentials...

Brennan told us on 5/15/25 that they received SB's report on this alleged sd card on May 8th and how he was surprised to receive it. Yet, SB testified under oath that not only had he discussed his report with Brennan on May 7th, the day before, he also added that he finished the "report" as requested from the CW. It's probably better not to get into his reply of the whole cut and paste....that's a whole nother can of worms SB.

If I was a juror and heard about a "new find" about a sd card (cards that can be manipulated) or... about when SB's powerpoint inexplicably was off 24 hours or... when Burgess himself showed several examples of video evidence that contradicted his own analysis, I would be shaking my head and be disgusted with his testimony.

The report received on 8 May '25 was the supplemental response to DiSorga's report on clock drift, not the SD card user data.

The SD card was discovered after Trial 1. Alessi did not dispute the existence of the SD card or the recovered user data on cross. It was discovered to the defence months ago.

We actually know DiSorga analysed the same data from the card to arrive at his drift calculations.

MOO

 

[Warwick7]

Brennan’s strategy with his opening statement where he:

1. Did not once mention his lead investigator, Michael Proctor.

2. Where he did not once mention Shanon Burgess’ track record of deceit.

Is, in M00 a direct evidence of his consciousness of guilt.

 

[Warwick7]

The report received on 8 May '25 was the supplemental response to DiSorga's report on clock drift, not the SD card user data.

The SD card was discovered after Trial 1. Alessi did not dispute the existence of the SD card or the recovered user data on cross. It was discovered to the defence months ago.

We actually know DiSorga analysed the same data from the card to arrive at his drift calculations.

MOO

DiSorga? Hmmm...

As someone mentioned earlier, Brennan actually entered the defense’s entire expert report of DiSogra into evidence.

Rarely, if ever, are expert reports admitted at trial.

A good lawyer would certainly not allow a report to come into evidence.

Why? They are objectionable, improper and inadmissible hearsay.

However, pretty much any attorney would be ecstatic if given the opportunity to get their expert’s report admitted into evidence.

The other side doing it for them is practically unheard of, which probably explains the non-objection made in utter amazement by Alessi.

This is an example of the amateurish and emotional moves Brennan makes that leaves one questioning those who praise him for being a good lawyer.

 

[Warwick7]

I went back to re-watch the testimony of the neurosurgeon. While Alessi gave him the utmost respect, he gave him no time on that stand at all. In M00 I think Brennan was shocked.

Instead of Alessi going on and on with cross it was one simple question, "...you’re not a forensic pathologist. You deal with live brains not dead ones. And oh this injury could have been from a fall in a basement, right? ..."

And that's it. Alessi completely dismisses him like I have no time for you. Your opinion is irrelevant to this case. It was brilliant.

More genius lawyering. That neurosurgeon thought he would be on the stand boasting all day long. But, instead, he got to take an early flight home. It was epic. The defense tossed him out like they have no time for it. M00

 

[Warwick7]

During cross, Alessi asked SB if he's ever been an expert in accident reconstruction, and he said NO, that is not my expertise. Then, on recross, Alessi shows a federal court document stating Burgess was acting an accident reconstructionist for another case.
*cough cough*

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1926971579038048604

 

[Tortoise]

During cross, Alessi asked SB if he's ever been an expert in accident reconstruction, and he said NO, that is not my expertise. Then, on recross, Alessi shows a federal court document stating Burgess was acting an accident reconstructionist for another case.
*cough cough*

That's not quite correct.

Mr Alessi asked him if he is involved in accident construction and he said it is not part of the work that he does. That is in the present tense. There was no question asking if he had ever been a expert in accident reconstruction.

 

[Forest_Wood]

For me this is the biggest issue, which Bederow tried to minimise as "clips taken out of context". But it is pretty clear for instance, that the BITS version is simply untrue, whether or not she is innocent.

Who is Bederow???? Are you watching this actual trial to come to your conclusions here? It's so confusing when you talk about people who are not even associated with this trial.

 

[Wishbone]

Burgess testified to it. He explained both the recovered, timestamped ignition events, plus the key cycle events working on elapsed time. and IIRC it is actually the defence expert who did the first botched chip off. Burgess testified to what was done by Gaffney (she will be the primary witness to that).

But in any event much of this will be stipulated. The defence don't appear to dispute all the timestamped ignition events since recovered from the SD card - they dispute the variance to JOKs IOS clock.

Also this evidence is now split. In T1 Trooper Paul testified both to 1162 and the accident reconstruction, and AJ put to him the 1162 dispute.

This time around Mr Alessi did not dispute 1162 with Burgess. Apparently because of the new user data which has the time stamped ignition on events with odometer read.

Maybe the defence experts will still contest the meaning of 1162, but typically you would expect them to put that issue to the CW witness on cross, rather than just let him claim these things as uncontested facts.

IMO/MOO

That witness disgraced himself with his lies and sloppy report. An expert does not submit a report riddled with the errors that his included and expect to be taken seriously. No credibility whatsoever. The cross by Alessi called attention to those errors. JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

Bederow himself says the case comes down to some seconds on the timing of these various events. And I agree it does.

But my point was, that means he implicitly accepts that 1162 happens at most 60s before JOK's final movement / phone lock.

Especially Bederow, who spells out large lists of D case theory over 90mins with Tragos, never says 1162 happened on the tow truck. Now maybe you can claim the D have some secret surprise on that, but remember that Brennan already has all the D expert reports.

Perhaps they will contest it with the 4 extra days the Judge gave them ...

IMO the case comes down to proving the Lexus hit JO and his injuries were caused by that happening. Proving damage to the car and JO is consistent with a car to body strike, which hasn't happened. JMOO and ARCCA's.

 

[lohrtabitha]

I still wonder about the drug dealing JO was talking to KA about and wonder what young men were involved.

Yes Wishbone, I can't wait for the defense to start calling witnesses and to hear their theory unfold. I believe there is something big that's going to unfold.

 

[Wishbone]

Yes Wishbone, I can't wait for the defense to start calling witnesses and to hear their theory unfold. I believe there is something big that's going to unfold.

I wonder if that will even be a part of the defense. Chief Rafferty called attention to it at a public meeting and that was the end of that. IMO

 

[lohrtabitha]

Is it possible that it can be turned off?

I have wondered if 1162 is actually her backing up and if it was actually as fast as the CW is saying... why didn't slamming on the brakes also record as a trigger? If she doesn't slam on the brakes, she runs him over ... which we know that didn't happen in any theory put forth so far.

You know we have said this before but, why didnt the CW or defense get a Lexus engineer or authorized Lexus mechanic to go over all of these issues? To me, they would have the most credibility.

 

[keek]

I still wonder about the drug dealing JO was talking to KA about and wonder what young men were involved.

One was Colin I believe. JOK prob thought doing a favor and that KA would get after them even to just clean up their act and that he was on to them. I have read that locals believed Chris A's pizza shop was a front. I do know he was behind thousands in back taxes to Canton, yet he is the selectman sitting there and making decisions for the town. Maybe an accumulation of thinking JOK was a problem amongst them all. Why would the Alberts take such an interest in getting JOK to the house, though it was BHiggins that was very affronted by the likes of JOK with KR. They didn't shut him down though did they and JMc just loved her role in making sure her loved friend got to the house as well then of course, the big plan to railroad KR once it became a great idea instead of the plower that one of them decided would do. IMO

 

[geevee]

IF (and that's a great big IF) KR hit JOK and sent him flying over to the flagpole, wouldn't his phone have shown an increase in speed/distance? It shows 36 *steps* covering approx. 84 feet, which is much farther than street to flagpole, why didn't it show increase in speed as it does when a phone is moving (like in a vehicle)?

 

[lohrtabitha]

I assume it can be turned off. My assumption is based on my experience with my 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee which can be disabled. I have never done it but did look into it when learning about this case. I recall HB entering into evidence photos (Guariano?) took of the back up screen on the Lexus dash display along with the odometer but it was never discussed.

That is the thing, why would you turn that off? It helps you from damaging your car.

 

[ShadyLady]

This morning reviewing Julie Albert's testimony from 1st trial. WOW!

Listening to this a year later, I have more questions. I would like Courtney Proctor on the stand. Proctor's sister.
Per phone records, Julie and Courtney spoke 67 times in 7 months after John was killed. Just too many loose ends that need to be investigated further before this mystery can be solved. IMO.

And Julie and Chris differ on timeline. Really hope the FBI has not dropped their investigation. Something odd in Canton. IMO