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

[mrjitty]

I went back to the testimony on timestamps and techstream, as it wouldn’t make sense for Lexus to create an IT setup where the tech stream 'stopwatch' off the airbag black box module couldn’t be reconciled to the actual Lexus clock. No one would design that system!

Burgess says the way you reconcile the tech stream stopwatch to the actual clock is by referencing the time stamp of the ignition event. That makes sense. The problem in Trial 1 was that all the user data timestamps were missing - not that techstream can't be timestamped.

Because the user data was missing poor old Trooper Paul was forced to count key cycles and got confused between his testing and Dighton. But once Burgess recovered the user data the CW didn’t have to do that.

DiSorga apparently agrees - that is why his reconciliation of 1162 to iphone time differs by seconds and not 16 hours (towtruck), or days (testing). Especially given his report in evidence, DiSorga is not going to be able to come to court and argue something completely inconsistent.

Discussion of how to find the actual lexus clock time for the techstream stopwatch is at 1 hour 36 approx here.

MOO based on trial testimony.

 

[mrjitty]

Putting aside timestamps, elapsed time gives another methodology that locks the keycycles.

From Burgess testimony in my last post ignition on/off gives you the total runtime for each trip independently of the tech stream blackbox.

Ignition on/off for the tow truck load is

On: 4.11.46
Off 4.12.56

so 70secs

It has nowhere near enough elapsed time to be 1162.

IMO

 

[Morag]

Here’s a summary from the Boston Herald:

Karen Read murder retrial so far: A summary of the presentation, evidence, controversy

BOSTON — It's been a month since testimony began in Karen Read's second trial in the murder of John O'Keefe, and the new trial has brought a notable change in presentation.

theday.com

 

[Tortoise]

2 How do you get BARD "intent" by KR to hit him,

<RSBM>

That's not the law, in Massachusetts, for Murder 2nd degree.

Quote from the relevant statute
[...]

c. intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]"

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree



They are saying after an argument, she intentionally reversed at high speed up to where she knew he had just got out of the car, knowing that that action created a plain and strong likelihood of death.


Clip 17

Timestamp 2.04.16, trial day 10

Defendant’s interview with ID Docuseries air date Jun 22, 2024

“I gave an interview with ABC with Matt Gutman, I think, I think this was who I gave the interview to, and I said, he asked why was I saying ‘could I have hit him, did I hit him’? and I said yeah my first thought was right I’d been out late I’d been drinking and he’s in the general vicinity of where I last saw him and I mean they talk about the left side of the property and the right as if it’s you know Hammersmith Farms, it’s, it’s a postage stamp, it’s, it’s 50 feet, um so he’s in the front yard to the left of the front door and no one , no one’s coming out of the house, Jen’s telling me nobody’s seen him, so I’m thinking Jesus was I starting to pull away and I ran over his foot? Like he’s he’s roughly where I left him so yeah when I found him I was thinking did I like clip him somehow..”

Clip 16

Timestamp 6.25.15, trial day 8

Defendant’s Interview with ID Docuseries April 13,2024

Let’s start at 34 Fairview, so who were you with and ..

I was with Jen McCabe and Kerry Roberts in Kerry Roberts’s Ford Explorer. And I’m in the back leaning over the front two seats, Kerry’s driving and Jen’s in the passenger seat. And uh I, I’ve described this to everyone so you’ve probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie, it was just a lawn and a heap that wasn’t a bush or a hydrant or a dog, it was, it was a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road, I was expecting I’d find him, and the fear of what I was gonna see is the worst feeling I’ve ever experienced. The anticipation of what is awaiting me was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realising what happened to him.

 

[themonk]

JOK was not hit by a car. Alas, that matters not to the CW.

The CW doesn’t really care if KR is convicted. That’s not the goal of all this nonsense.

The goal is to hide the rot in the system, nothing more.

It’s appalling.

 

[SteveS]

They are saying after an argument, she intentionally reversed at high speed up to where she knew he had just got out of the car, knowing that that action created a plain and strong likelihood of death.

Thank you for proving my point. As you note in the law, the "intention" can be in the act of intentionally having the car travel in a certain way, but that action then has to create "a plain and strong likelihood of death."

There's nothing in a minor side-swipe and pirouette and/or stumbling fall that meets that standard of having "a plain and strong likelihood of death. It's extremely unlikely, freakish even, to think death would occur. A scrape, a bruise, some bumps, at worst a broken bone, but people aren't PLAINLY and STRONGLY LIKELY to die from a fall in the snow on a lawn.

But did that side-swipe, pirouette, stumble, fall even happen? Even though the cw wanders into the "maybe it was a side-swipe" narrative (in desperation when their testimony is not holding up), it couldn't have. The "evidence" the cw itself has given us tells us that's a lie they're trying to peddle.

(Of course, the cw case doesn't stand up to scrutiny for different KR-did-it ideas they've tried to sell either, so there's that.)

 

[Tortoise]

Asking for information please. I haven’t followed this case with much attention except to know that this is the second trial. It’s very confusing to pop in to. I’m curious to know why some think she is not guilty and some think she is.
It seems that her car couldn’t have killed him and yet she was worried she had hit him. So can both sides give me brief explanations of why you think she is guilty or not guilty. I’d really appreciate a list of points on either side, so I can follow the rest of the trial without going nuts. Thank you in advance.

I'll list my reasons for thinking she is guilty. All MOO and takeaway from the evidence presented. The commonwealth's accident reconstructionist hasn't given evidence yet, but I don't even need to know that, because IMO John's body position at the time of the collision can't be known.This is a variable that would be needed for the physics of it. It could have been a glancing blow as he was trying to move out of the way, making him twist his foot and lose a shoe on the kerb, and as she was braking, so two dynamics, involving a man who was very likely not steady on his feet from drink, IMO.

These are all my interpretations of evidence in the trial and not word for word from testimony:

1. Karen says John was found where she last saw him, showing she had lied to Jen that she left him at the Waterfall bar. She’s now changed her story to seeing him go inside the house. In her recent filmed interview she said she saw him going up the driveway to the door, which is the opposite side of the frontage of the house to the flagpole area where he was found and where she said in June 2024 she last saw him. She never said to anybody that morning that she thought he had gone inside the house when she drove away, even though she knew Jen had been inside the house and had been texting directions to them how to get there and where to park their car. From the car in the dark that early morning with snow coming down thick, she identified she could see him when no one else could, and they were looking, and he was just a mound of snow (in her words) at that point. She said she expected to find him there.
2. She asked a paramedic if there was a chance he could be alive if he had been there for many hours. She told a female paramedic and a male paramedic at separate times she hit him.
3. She asked Jen to search how long it takes to die in the cold, showing she knew he had been there all along and was alive and wounded but not dead when she left. In one interview she said he hadn’t looked mortally wounded, she didn’t say ‘he didn’t look wounded’. This shows IMO she saw him at the time she left, and she knew she could have hit him but left him there anyway. She has a back-up warning system in her car that worked. Knowledge that she hit him is not a requirement for murder 2 in Massachusetts, only knowledge that her actions caused a plain risk of death to a reasonable person (wtte).
4. The defence theory is that he was killed by someone in the house and his arm was attacked by their dog. Yet he had no injuries that would show he was in a fight. He had two small minor cuts on his face, one on the side of his nose and one on his eyelid, and Karen says she pulled a piece of glass out of the one on his nose. If he was punched and fell backwards it left no bruise, just one small cut on his eyelid, and he didn’t fight back to defend himself. The two black swollen eyes he had were caused by his brain injury. He had a bruise on the back middle of his hand with a pinprick in it, which the ME says was probably caused by the paramedics trying to find a vein to set up an IV. No dog DNA was found on a swabbing of the area around the holes in his sleeve. None of the wounds on his arm were deep puncture wounds according to the ME, they didn't expose fat or muscle, they were superficial lacerations.
5. He got out of the car carrying one or two drinking glasses, Karen’s, and possibly his own. The base of a broken glass, and other pieces broken off it, with his DNA, were found under the snow where he had been laying. Broken glass was found in the road and on the bumper, which couldn’t be matched to his glass but could have been a second glass.
6. Broken pieces of her taillight were scattered around the area and in the road where he was found.
7. She reversed slowly out of her garage that morning and despite having a back-up warning system she bumped John’s car on the same corner. This IMO was a deliberate attempt to explain her broken taillight, yet no pieces of red taillight can be seen on the snow as she drives away. The defence expert at last trial said a bump at that slow speed and contact with John’s car would not have caused that damage to her taillight.
8. John’s DNA was found on the exterior broken taillight housing on her car. Hair with his mitochondrial DNA was also found on that corner of the car. There were also scratches on the car and a dent.
9. The brain surgeon said he wouldn’t have died immediately, that his skull fractures were caused by a fall backwards on the ground, and that he could have made involuntary movement after he was unconscious. IMO the injuries on his arm could have been caused by the hit, with his elbow bent, or by him moving around in the broken shards of drinking glass and taillight plastic on the ground.
10. Tiny fragments of broken taillight debris and glass were found on a scraping of his sleeve in the lab.
11. His cap was found under the snow frozen to the ground, one of his shoes was found under the snow by the edge of the road, and also a drinking straw.
12. His phone was found underneath his body, on the grass, and had been in a pocket state, (camera covered) since the time Karen left. The phone battery temperature had only got increasingly colder since that time too.
13. The time his phone stopped moving, seconds after he’d locked the phone, and it went into pocket state (possibly in his back pocket) coincides with the time of the reversing event recorded in the SD card in her car black box.

All MOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Have summons gone out to the defense's witnesses for this week?
Is there a minimum time in notifying the person?
Just curious if the defense will be calling Proctor,BA and BH & JM etc if any summons have gone out or they're all sitting ducks waiting to see if their served?
imo

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you for proving my point. As you note in the law, the "intention" can be in the act of intentionally having the car travel in a certain way, but that action then has to create "a plain and strong likelihood of death."

There's nothing in a minor side-swipe and pirouette and/or stumbling fall that meets that standard of having "a plain and strong likelihood of death. It's extremely unlikely, freakish even, to think death would occur. A scrape, a bruise, some bumps, at worst a broken bone, but people aren't PLAINLY and STRONGLY LIKELY to die from a fall in the snow on a lawn.

But did that side-swipe, pirouette, stumble, fall even happen? Even though the cw wanders into the "maybe it was a side-swipe" narrative (in desperation when their testimony is not holding up), it couldn't have. The "evidence" the cw itself has given us tells us that's a lie they're trying to peddle.

(Of course, the cw case doesn't stand up to scrutiny for different KR-did-it ideas they've tried to sell either, so there's that.)

IMO your para 2 is not the correct analysis

An objective person need only realise that the high speed reverse in the dark is a dangerous manoeuvre in the circumstances - which i think a reasonable / objective person would realise, given there could be a pedestrian back there, specifically John, but actually could be another partygoer leaving or arriving in the dark.

It's also obvious on the reasonable person standard that hitting someone with you car at high speed creates a strong and obvious likelihood. You don't need to foresee the exact nature of the collision, merely anticipate the risks of one.

Now of course Karen could testify that when she reversed she checked her mirrors and saw no one. That is the kind of thing that would help, as what is reasonable does depend on the circumstances the defendant was in.

But in any event, the statute doesn't require the exact type of accident to be foreseen, just the risk of striking a pedestrian in this case, IMO

IMO, based on the words of the statute posted by @Tortoise

 

[Spider92]

<RSBM>

That's not the law, in Massachusetts, for Murder 2nd degree.

Quote from the relevant statute
[...]

c. intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]"

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree



They are saying after an argument, she intentionally reversed at high speed up to where she knew he had just got out of the car, knowing that that action created a plain and strong likelihood of death.


Clip 17

Timestamp 2.04.16, trial day 10

Defendant’s interview with ID Docuseries air date Jun 22, 2024

“I gave an interview with ABC with Matt Gutman, I think, I think this was who I gave the interview to, and I said, he asked why was I saying ‘could I have hit him, did I hit him’? and I said yeah my first thought was right I’d been out late I’d been drinking and he’s in the general vicinity of where I last saw him and I mean they talk about the left side of the property and the right as if it’s you know Hammersmith Farms, it’s, it’s a postage stamp, it’s, it’s 50 feet, um so he’s in the front yard to the left of the front door and no one , no one’s coming out of the house, Jen’s telling me nobody’s seen him, so I’m thinking Jesus was I starting to pull away and I ran over his foot? Like he’s he’s roughly where I left him so yeah when I found him I was thinking did I like clip him somehow..”

Clip 16

Timestamp 6.25.15, trial day 8

Defendant’s Interview with ID Docuseries April 13,2024

Let’s start at 34 Fairview, so who were you with and ..

I was with Jen McCabe and Kerry Roberts in Kerry Roberts’s Ford Explorer. And I’m in the back leaning over the front two seats, Kerry’s driving and Jen’s in the passenger seat. And uh I, I’ve described this to everyone so you’ve probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie, it was just a lawn and a heap that wasn’t a bush or a hydrant or a dog, it was, it was a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road, I was expecting I’d find him, and the fear of what I was gonna see is the worst feeling I’ve ever experienced. The anticipation of what is awaiting me was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realising what happened to him.

Great quotes there in bold. And she wasn’t in the throes of hysteria when she said them, so no excuses there. It really contrasts with “I saw John go in the house.” Her attorneys must cringe when she does this, but she can’t resist the lure of the spotlight.

 

[mrjitty]

<RSBM>

That's not the law, in Massachusetts, for Murder 2nd degree.

Quote from the relevant statute
[...]

c. intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]"

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree



They are saying after an argument, she intentionally reversed at high speed up to where she knew he had just got out of the car, knowing that that action created a plain and strong likelihood of death.


Clip 17

Timestamp 2.04.16, trial day 10

Defendant’s interview with ID Docuseries air date Jun 22, 2024

“I gave an interview with ABC with Matt Gutman, I think, I think this was who I gave the interview to, and I said, he asked why was I saying ‘could I have hit him, did I hit him’? and I said yeah my first thought was right I’d been out late I’d been drinking and he’s in the general vicinity of where I last saw him and I mean they talk about the left side of the property and the right as if it’s you know Hammersmith Farms, it’s, it’s a postage stamp, it’s, it’s 50 feet, um so he’s in the front yard to the left of the front door and no one , no one’s coming out of the house, Jen’s telling me nobody’s seen him, so I’m thinking Jesus was I starting to pull away and I ran over his foot? Like he’s he’s roughly where I left him so yeah when I found him I was thinking did I like clip him somehow..”

Clip 16

Timestamp 6.25.15, trial day 8

Defendant’s Interview with ID Docuseries April 13,2024

Let’s start at 34 Fairview, so who were you with and ..

I was with Jen McCabe and Kerry Roberts in Kerry Roberts’s Ford Explorer. And I’m in the back leaning over the front two seats, Kerry’s driving and Jen’s in the passenger seat. And uh I, I’ve described this to everyone so you’ve probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie, it was just a lawn and a heap that wasn’t a bush or a hydrant or a dog, it was, it was a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road, I was expecting I’d find him, and the fear of what I was gonna see is the worst feeling I’ve ever experienced. The anticipation of what is awaiting me was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realising what happened to him.

Just as a general comment, I think driving at such high speed in reverse in a public street meets the standard every day of the week, even if you didn't see the person you hit, or know they are there.

I would never do that, precisely because it creates risks of hitting an unseen pedestrian, or even crashing - causing injury/death. It's just a risk any objective person can foresee.

This is even before being heavily intoxicated is factored in. If you've been drinking you definitely know the risks are elevated!

ETA: The jury instructions hammered out between CW and Defendant's attorneys will explain all this - and there is a lot of boiler plate.

 

[Izzylizzy]

CW witness list "Expert" Mike Merolli, Aperture LLC

Mike Merolli | Forensic Expert

Mike Merolli

www.aperturellc.com

"But in 2002 he was a police officer in the neighboring town of Millville when he was speeding to his home in Mendon and hit and killed a German Shepherd with his cruiser while on duty."

Karen Read trial witness lists: Who’s returning, who’s new, and who’s missing?

Prosecutors and defense attorneys in the Karen Read case have submitted their witness lists. Here's who's on them.

www.boston.com

 

[mrjitty]

Great quotes there in bold. And she wasn’t in the throes of hysteria when she said them, so no excuses there. It really contrasts with “I saw John go in the house.” Her attorneys must cringe when she does this, but she can’t resist the lure of the spotlight.

This is why the proof of 1162 is so important to the case.

It gives you one of the critical legs of the murder charge i.e the intentional act

Now the case boils down to causation. Did the act cause the injury and not in a way that is too remote?

 

[missy1974]

I went back to the testimony on timestamps and techstream, as it wouldn’t make sense for Lexus to create an IT setup where the tech stream 'stopwatch' off the airbag black box module couldn’t be reconciled to the actual Lexus clock. No one would design that system!

Burgess says the way you reconcile the tech stream stopwatch to the actual clock is by referencing the time stamp of the ignition event. That makes sense. The problem in Trial 1 was that all the user data timestamps were missing - not that techstream can't be timestamped.

Because the user data was missing poor old Trooper Paul was forced to count key cycles and got confused between his testing and Dighton. But once Burgess recovered the user data the CW didn’t have to do that.

DiSorga apparently agrees - that is why his reconciliation of 1162 to iphone time differs by seconds and not 16 hours (towtruck), or days (testing). Especially given his report in evidence, DiSorga is not going to be able to come to court and argue something completely inconsistent.

Discussion of how to find the actual lexus clock time for the techstream stopwatch is at 1 hour 36 approx here.

MOO based on trial testimony.

Right, this is how I understand it too, they still don't actually have a timestamp on ignition cycles., but they should have a list of times the car was turned on/off. This was not explained well in the testimony though IMO

On another note... I live in colder winter climate... we typically start our vehicles before we go somewhere... remote start, usually a good 10 minutes or so... is that not normal there? lol Especially once it gets colder/snowy out?

 

[Warwick7]

This is why the proof of 1162 is so important to the case.

It gives you one of the critical legs of the murder charge i.e the intentional act

Now the case boils down to causation. Did the act cause the injury and not in a way that is too remote?

The problem is, KR didn't hit JO with her vehicle.

 

[Wishbone]

 

[Warwick7]

Intetesting.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927189029574869322

 

[missy1974]

CW witness list "Expert" Mike Merolli, Aperture LLC

Mike Merolli | Forensic Expert

Mike Merolli

www.aperturellc.com

"But in 2002 he was a police officer in the neighboring town of Millville when he was speeding to his home in Mendon and hit and killed a German Shepherd with his cruiser while on duty."

View attachment 589168

Karen Read trial witness lists: Who’s returning, who’s new, and who’s missing?

Prosecutors and defense attorneys in the Karen Read case have submitted their witness lists. Here's who's on them.

www.boston.com

I can hear Alessi now...

Is that Merolli with 2 L's?



No way they call this witness, right? LOL

 

[Izzylizzy]

AJ's Opening Statement

“The data, the science, the witnesses will all unequivocally establish that John O’Keefe went into the Albert home that night,” Jackson argued."

Karen Read retrial: Defense calls Proctor a ‘cancer’ as prosecutors hammer ‘science and data’

The prosecution and defense offered vastly different facts and theories as Karen Read's second murder trial got underway Tuesday.

www.boston.com

 

[lohrtabitha]

<RSBM>

That's not the law, in Massachusetts, for Murder 2nd degree.

Quote from the relevant statute
[...]

c. intended to do an act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.[157]"

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/model-jury-instructions-on-homicide-v-murder-in-the-second-degree



They are saying after an argument, she intentionally reversed at high speed up to where she knew he had just got out of the car, knowing that that action created a plain and strong likelihood of death.


Clip 17

Timestamp 2.04.16, trial day 10

Defendant’s interview with ID Docuseries air date Jun 22, 2024

“I gave an interview with ABC with Matt Gutman, I think, I think this was who I gave the interview to, and I said, he asked why was I saying ‘could I have hit him, did I hit him’? and I said yeah my first thought was right I’d been out late I’d been drinking and he’s in the general vicinity of where I last saw him and I mean they talk about the left side of the property and the right as if it’s you know Hammersmith Farms, it’s, it’s a postage stamp, it’s, it’s 50 feet, um so he’s in the front yard to the left of the front door and no one , no one’s coming out of the house, Jen’s telling me nobody’s seen him, so I’m thinking Jesus was I starting to pull away and I ran over his foot? Like he’s he’s roughly where I left him so yeah when I found him I was thinking did I like clip him somehow..”

Clip 16

Timestamp 6.25.15, trial day 8

Defendant’s Interview with ID Docuseries April 13,2024

Let’s start at 34 Fairview, so who were you with and ..

I was with Jen McCabe and Kerry Roberts in Kerry Roberts’s Ford Explorer. And I’m in the back leaning over the front two seats, Kerry’s driving and Jen’s in the passenger seat. And uh I, I’ve described this to everyone so you’ve probably heard this before but John looked like a buffalo on the prairie, it was just a lawn and a heap that wasn’t a bush or a hydrant or a dog, it was, it was a weird shaped lump at that time in those elements. And I was looking to find him on the side of the road, I was expecting I’d find him, and the fear of what I was gonna see is the worst feeling I’ve ever experienced. The anticipation of what is awaiting me was as extreme a feeling as the grief of realising what happened to him.

With respect , once again this is from the documentary and we already noted Karen's feelings are not facts. They are merely feelings. In the aftermath of a traumatic event, people naturally process their feelings. Psychiatrists have proven that feelings are not facts. Mo