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

[lohrtabitha]

Any expert can make it "fit" IMO Any of of us can make it fit too haha and we aren't experts! LOL

Yes to this! In college my statistics professor said, " statistics never lie, but liars use statistics. So yes, experts will manipulate them so they fit their argument. Moo

 

[lohrtabitha]

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 ...

I hear what you are saying Mr. Jitty , but I think for these jurrors and many of us that case will come down to the injuries on JOK. Do his injuries look like they came from being hit by a tail light? The answer to this is not by a long shot. When, I saw his arm, I knew it was a dog attack. The claw marks/scratches are all telling. Also, the gash on his head with the J imprint as discussed by Alessi, there is no way that frozen ground caused that.IMO

 

[Angelwatch]

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.

Hard braking would become a trigger event in the Lexus data and nothing was there. It’s not possible to reverse that fast and not slam into the supposed jeep. This is why I think Brennan didn’t elicit testimony about the jeep from good ol’ Jen McCabe.

ARCCA experts weren’t allowed to speak about Lexus trigger events in first trial. They’ve worked with Lexus directly on trigger events and can access vehicle data. Who knows if Cannone will allow them to testify about it as an expert.

 

[Spider92]

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

I don’t think the defense thought he was irrelevant at all - quite the opposite. The neurosurgeon said that the head wound was consistent with a drunken person falling backwards on the ice. That’s reasonable doubt right there, wrapped up in a gift bow by the cw’s witness. Alessi didn’t want to mess with perfection. Anything the neurosurgeon said after that was pure risk to the defense with little reward. As my mentor used to say “when the customer says ‘yes’ just stop talking.”

 

[lohrtabitha]

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.

Can you please provide the clip whereshe said she saw John go into the house? I saw the documentary and I don't recall her saying that. My recollection is that she said, she saw John walking towards the house. The video clip or even a newspaper article validating your statement would be most helpful.

 

[lohrtabitha]

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

I agree with you and Mr. B on the clips taken out of context. We all know the media is an entertainment business. They can sway things so they can have the viewers hooked.

 

[Spider92]

Can you please provide the clip whereshe said she saw John go into the house? I saw the documentary and I don't recall her saying that. My recollection is that she said, she saw John walking towards the house. The video clip or even a newspaper article validating your statement would be most helpful.

I don’t have the link handy but I’ve googled it and watched it. KR said it to a reporter on the court house steps and she was very clear about it - I think it was the week before last.
Edited to provide the link:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Forest_Wood]

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.

Beginning at 33:40 to 35:45 sums up that a vehicle did not hit Mr John O'Keefe and what may have come into contact with his head.

 

[Angelwatch]

I don’t think the defense thought he was irrelevant at all - quite the opposite. The neurosurgeon said that the head wound was consistent with a drunken person falling backwards on the ice. That’s reasonable doubt right there, wrapped up in a gift bow by the cw’s witness. Alessi didn’t want to mess with perfection. Anything the neurosurgeon said after that was pure risk to the defense with little reward. As my mentor used to say “when the customer says ‘yes’ just stop talking.”

It’s definitely reasonable doubt. I don’t think that went the way Brennan wanted it to go.

 

[Warwick7]

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.

In my feelings and opinions, it is all the same to me.

 

[Forest_Wood]

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

These two are in denial!

 

[ShadyLady]

These two are in denial!

The word "colluding" coming out of their mouth!! Look in the mirror. Phone lines were on fire after John's death.

AND why weren't the McCabes and Alberts interviewed and taped at police station?????

1162, a red herring. Look elsewhere to figure out the mystery of John's death. IMO.

 

[missy1974]

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

I think I'm going to take a 'wait and see' approach. I don't see the defense saying that at all right now.

Gaffney didn't botch anything, that was clarified in the cross. She did a chip off, which can unfortunately damage the board (it was brought up in a pretrial hearing too that I just happened to listen to on the weekend lol) The SD card, she didn't take it off because there was no way to read it at the time she did the chip off. That is in testimony too.

This is my understanding as of right now from Burgess' testimony:

He did a report in Jan 2025 in this report, he never mentions techstream at all.

DiSogra did a report responding to and disputing Burgess' Jan 25 report, submitted March 2025.

Burgess said that DiSogra's report prompted him to supplement his report.

Burgess does this supplement and sends to the CW on May 8th. But in new report he references "techstream" now and also mentions collision, both of which were not in his original report.

Burgess says from the SD card, he was able to get time on/time off times for the Lexus. But those times are still not connected to key cycles and trigger events also do not have timestamps. He does try to use known times of the car starting/shutting off to trace back the key cycles IMO But most of this info is what we already knew, it's just confirming it with timestamps from the Lexus now. I did notice that they did not do any timestamps after the 29th of January, I suspect those will come in later through a witness that actually analyzed that data.

So let me try to do a quick backwards key cycle with what we know... and what we learned that the CW is saying right now...

1067 - CW is saying this is Trooper Pauls testing now (I think)
1066 - Parking car in sallyport at Canton
1065 - Loading on tow truck
1064 - trip to Deighton
1063 - 5amish trip out to look for JOK and to JM's.
1062 - Waterfall to 34F to 1Meadows

Do you know what they didn't account for? At some point on the 30th of January, the car was turned around in the sallyport. Jackson specifically showed this video to YB and made him read the timestamp, it was the 30th and the car was turned around. Trooper Paul didn't do his testing until the 1st.

I think if the defense was going to dispute that 1162 key cycle, this wasn't the witness to do it because Burgess was relying solely on Whiffin and Welscher's reports and information he received from LE officers (not Trooper Paul's report though) and was disputing DiSogra saying he was wrong on his times. He did not look at the data himself IIRC.

All JMO and I look forward to more testimony because it is still not 100% clear.

 

[missy1974]

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 ...

I haven't had a chance to watch him ... you are talking about his video with LYK from the weekend, I'm assuming? lol

 

[Forest_Wood]

The word "colluding" coming out of their mouth!! Look in the mirror. Phone lines were on fire after John's death.

AND why weren't the McCabes and Alberts interviewed and taped at police station?????

1162, a red herring. Look elsewhere to figure out the mystery of John's death. IMO.

Yes, she used the word colluding, and she also brought in their children. But the thing is, it was her husband's conduct that affected their family and children. It wasn't Karen Read, who they so want to blame. Oh, and also, her husband needed to vent so his conduct is A-OK. Denial. Minimisation. Projection. And it's not lost on anyone that Proctor is using his family to speak out on his behalf because he can't. These people are so sick in their denial IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

The reason why Brennan exhibited DiSorga's report is because it's got a bad gaffe in it where DiSorga used a call between the defendant and John to estimate clock variance - except it was a time when the Lexus was off (all ignition events are timestamped).

Clearly that is an error - the kind which Alessi might characterise as mendacious

Indeed one certainly has to wonder how DiSorga though that was a valid method (or to be charitable maybe he simply didn't realise). Either way, it's quite a blow to his credibility and one wonders if the defence can even still call him.

So that is why Brennan seized the chance to damage him before he even got in the court room.

IMO

 

[tara83]

The reason why Brennan exhibited DiSorga's report is because it's got a bad gaffe in it where DiSorga used a call between the defendant and John to estimate clock variance - except it was a time when the Lexus was off (all ignition events are timestamped).

Clearly that is an error - the kind which Alessi might characterise as mendacious

Indeed one certainly has to wonder how DiSorga though that was a valid method (or to be charitable maybe he simply didn't realise). Either way, it's quite a blow to his credibility and one wonders if the defence can even still call him.

So that is why Brennan seized the chance to damage him before he even got in the court room.

IMO

Look at the credibility of the guy the CW just called and yet some believe and defend him.

 

[mrjitty]

I think I'm going to take a 'wait and see' approach. I don't see the defense saying that at all right now.

Gaffney didn't botch anything, that was clarified in the cross. She did a chip off, which can unfortunately damage the board (it was brought up in a pretrial hearing too that I just happened to listen to on the weekend lol) The SD card, she didn't take it off because there was no way to read it at the time she did the chip off. That is in testimony too.

This is my understanding as of right now from Burgess' testimony:

He did a report in Jan 2025 in this report, he never mentions techstream at all.

DiSogra did a report responding to and disputing Burgess' Jan 25 report, submitted March 2025.

Burgess said that DiSogra's report prompted him to supplement his report.

Burgess does this supplement and sends to the CW on May 8th. But in new report he references "techstream" now and also mentions collision, both of which were not in his original report.

Burgess says from the SD card, he was able to get time on/time off times for the Lexus. But those times are still not connected to key cycles and trigger events also do not have timestamps. He does try to use known times of the car starting/shutting off to trace back the key cycles IMO But most of this info is what we already knew, it's just confirming it with timestamps from the Lexus now. I did notice that they did not do any timestamps after the 29th of January, I suspect those will come in later through a witness that actually analyzed that data.

So let me try to do a quick backwards key cycle with what we know... and what we learned that the CW is saying right now...

1067 - CW is saying this is Trooper Pauls testing now (I think)
1066 - Parking car in sallyport at Canton
1065 - Loading on tow truck
1064 - trip to Deighton
1063 - 5amish trip out to look for JOK and to JM's.
1062 - Waterfall to 34F to 1Meadows

Do you know what they didn't account for? At some point on the 30th of January, the car was turned around in the sallyport. Jackson specifically showed this video to YB and made him read the timestamp, it was the 30th and the car was turned around. Trooper Paul didn't do his testing until the 1st.

I think if the defense was going to dispute that 1162 key cycle, this wasn't the witness to do it because Burgess was relying solely on Whiffin and Welscher's reports and information he received from LE officers (not Trooper Paul's report though) and was disputing DiSogra saying he was wrong on his times. He did not look at the data himself IIRC.

All JMO and I look forward to more testimony because it is still not 100% clear.

I can't really respond to most of this as there is no links. I realise it is very difficult given the volume of info in this case to always provide them, so I am personally not a stickler for it, but just so you realise, why i am not replying in any detail!

I agree that damage to the chip is a risk - but it nevertheless was botched by Gaffney. She then recovered no user data, and submitted no report. It was Burgess who submitted a new proposal to see what could be recovered. (Brennan redirect).

As we know, the techstream was already recovered and was in trial 1. But what is different, is they now have every single timestamped ignition event, with odometer read.

IMO

ETA - removed claims until i can source them

 

[mrjitty]

Look at the credibility of the guy the CW just called and yet some believe and defend him.

The information came from DiSorga's own report that was put on screen for the jury to see for themselves. This is why Alessi tried to so hard to keep this testimony out.

You obviously cannot use Karen's phone to correct John's IOS time.

IMO

 

[Angelwatch]

The first jury didn’t go this deep with anything. It will be interesting to hear jury #2 take on the timestamps. IMO, the variances are too confusing to figure out. Every clock needs adjustments and it’s like Alice in Wonderland. I think they’ll focus on whether JOK’s body shows evidence he was hit by a car. ARCCA and the ME state his injuries were not consistent with car collision.