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

[Wishbone]

Exactly. All of this is ‘this is a non collision event we’re choosing to interpret as evidence of a collision’. Once again, Karen in Wonderland, MOO.

Amazing, the cw wants to turn a non collision event into a collision in hopes of securing a conviction. despicable. JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

Dr. Welcher's testimony may make the picture clearer, as to what happened. I'm very interested to hear it all.

You can continue to listen to the non collision event becoming a collision because that's what the cw wants to portray, but IMO it's just drivel.

 

[Izzylizzy]

@LawyerYouKnow
Follow


Just catching up... another change, another edited report/presentation, another problem stemming from Burgess. This time - the judge allows a voir dire which I find interesting. Is she starting to realize how bad all this is from the CW? Even if these experts are great and their information is accurate, the way they are handling the prep for this trial just ain't it. Alessi uncovered multiple issues in a short VD, wonder how they come out in front of the jury.


10:55 AM · May 27, 2025

 

[barfy]

To my knowledge Dr. Welcher has not lied about his credentials...which are extensive, MO.

Aperture is presenting a unified expert opinion. If one of their key analysts fabricated his credentials and may have produced a shifting, unreliable report then Welcher is either complicit or negligent. Their analysis is built on sand. It doesn’t matter if the architect has a PhD if the foundation was poured by a liar, the whole thing collapses. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

You can continue to listen to the non collision event becoming a collision because that's what the cw wants to portray, but IMO it's just drivel.

I figure the man has a PHD and 30 years experience, I want to hear what his analysis is and how it relates to the case.

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927374172373537174

 

[sunshineray]

Aperture is presenting a unified expert opinion. If one of their key analysts fabricated his credentials and may have produced a shifting, unreliable report then Welcher is either complicit or negligent. Their analysis is built on sand. It doesn’t matter if the architect has a PhD if the foundation was poured by a liar, the whole thing collapses. IMO

Dr. Welcher just testified as to how he processed the data himself. I won't not consider his work before he's even fully testified to it.

 

[Spider92]

Did the cw have an accident reconstructionist in T1? If so, who was it - trooper Paul?

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Did the cw have an accident reconstructionist in T1? If so, who was it - trooper Paul?

Yes but I’d use the term “accident reconstructionist” very loosely. JMO

 

[keek]

Did the cw have an accident reconstructionist in T1? If so, who was it - trooper Paul?

Yes, but he really was not. He also was a state trooper. He had scant credentials and was called out. Remember his answer when questioned about an important issue, 'it just did'.. You can look that part up I would think. IMO

 

[Wishbone]

Did the cw have an accident reconstructionist in T1? If so, who was it - trooper Paul?

Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joe Paul, a crash expert who worked on the case, returned to the stand on Monday. The defense argues that the accident reconstructionist has "confirmation bias," and that he was told what happened when he got to the scene, and that he looked for evidence to support that conclusion.

The prosecution argues the evidence clearly indicates a pedestrian strike.

Paul said O'Keefe was struck by Read's SUV, which was traveling in reverse at up to 24 mph and that O'Keefe was "projected" more than 30 feet.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Alan Jackson challenged Paul's qualifications and the formulas used in the calculations that enabled him to reach his conclusion.


He questioned Paul about a cocktail glass and cellphone that were found near O'Keefe.


"The cellphone was found under his torso, under his body. What is your theory on how that cellphone ended up flying 30 feet?" Jackson asked.

"It just did," Paul said. "It just did. That is the evidence at the scene. I didn't put the evidence there."

Paul told the jury he does not know where the phone had been prior to the collision. The defense argues that the damage to Read's SUV and injuries to O'Keefe are not consistent with a pedestrian strike, but rather a fight inside the house.

Karen Read murder trial: Experts testify about crash, disputed digital records

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer, by striking him with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank.

www.wcvb.com

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joe Paul, a crash expert who worked on the case, returned to the stand on Monday. The defense argues that the accident reconstructionist has "confirmation bias," and that he was told what happened when he got to the scene, and that he looked for evidence to support that conclusion.

The prosecution argues the evidence clearly indicates a pedestrian strike.

Paul said O'Keefe was struck by Read's SUV, which was traveling in reverse at up to 24 mph and that O'Keefe was "projected" more than 30 feet.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Alan Jackson challenged Paul's qualifications and the formulas used in the calculations that enabled him to reach his conclusion.


He questioned Paul about a cocktail glass and cellphone that were found near O'Keefe.


"The cellphone was found under his torso, under his body. What is your theory on how that cellphone ended up flying 30 feet?" Jackson asked.

"It just did," Paul said. "It just did. That is the evidence at the scene. I didn't put the evidence there."

Paul told the jury he does not know where the phone had been prior to the collision. The defense argues that the damage to Read's SUV and injuries to O'Keefe are not consistent with a pedestrian strike, but rather a fight inside the house.

Karen Read murder trial: Experts testify about crash, disputed digital records

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer, by striking him with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank.

www.wcvb.com

This is where AJ famously exclaimed ‘We know YOU didn’t put it there!’ lol. It got struck from the record, but still iconic

 

[sunshineray]

Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joe Paul, a crash expert who worked on the case, returned to the stand on Monday. The defense argues that the accident reconstructionist has "confirmation bias," and that he was told what happened when he got to the scene, and that he looked for evidence to support that conclusion.

The prosecution argues the evidence clearly indicates a pedestrian strike.

Paul said O'Keefe was struck by Read's SUV, which was traveling in reverse at up to 24 mph and that O'Keefe was "projected" more than 30 feet.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Alan Jackson challenged Paul's qualifications and the formulas used in the calculations that enabled him to reach his conclusion.


He questioned Paul about a cocktail glass and cellphone that were found near O'Keefe.


"The cellphone was found under his torso, under his body. What is your theory on how that cellphone ended up flying 30 feet?" Jackson asked.

"It just did," Paul said. "It just did. That is the evidence at the scene. I didn't put the evidence there."

Paul told the jury he does not know where the phone had been prior to the collision. The defense argues that the damage to Read's SUV and injuries to O'Keefe are not consistent with a pedestrian strike, but rather a fight inside the house.

Karen Read murder trial: Experts testify about crash, disputed digital records

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer, by striking him with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank.

www.wcvb.com

The defense will have the opportunity to argue Dr. Welcher's testimony too. I look forward to hearing it all.

 

[Wishbone]

The defense will have the opportunity to argue Dr. Welcher's testimony too. I look forward to hearing it all.

Spider asked who was the previous reconstructionist in T1

 

[Wishbone]

OK, he can show me the actual accident now......JMOO

 

[mzmarymac]

Is anyone actually following what this guys is saying? So complicated,

 

[Wishbone]

Is anyone actually following what this guys is saying? So complicated,

This is convoluted, confusing and not making sense. Is the jury checked out yet? JMOO

 

[justwannahelp]

I’m a glutton for pain, so I rewatched some T1 testimony on this long break. When Brian Albert was asked under oath whether John O’Keefe came into his house on January 29, 2022, his exact answer was “John O’Keefe never came into my house before or after that date.” That’s… interestingly phrased, no? Not ‘on that date’, but “before or after.” It leaves just enough wiggle room to avoid directly saying he wasn’t there on the 29th. Intentional? Hard to ignore how carefully worded that is. I mean, it’s clear John never came in AFTER that date, since he was deceased.

I personally believe people typically really dislike directly lying. They’re much more likely to use some couched language or verbal trick. IMO, this fits that.

MOO

Good catch

Never there Before that date and never there after that date doesn’t exclude the actual date in question.

 

[iusedtofloat]

One argument I can see the defense saying about Welcher... the CW wants to bring him back as rebuttal to the ARCCA experts. He just made it clear he was able to 'adjust' his presentation with new information he got, there is no reason for him to not be able to dispute or rebut ARCCA's findings in this testimony.

JMO

and we all know any objection from the defense to Brennan pulling this crap will be overruled... only prosecution objections sustained in this court!

 

[ShadyLady]

This is convoluted, confusing and not making sense. Is the jury checked out yet? JMOO

I am checked out. Seems 1162 had two events?? I am doubtful.