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

[Leilei]

I found when Trooper Paul got the techstream data.

February 2nd, 2023.

1 year and 1 day after he did his testing. I will listen to more of it later, but he describes all the tests he did, they seem to coincide with the 1164, and has the correct mileage. I am curious to know if the Defense has him on their witness list?

He's on both witness lists

 

[Warwick7]

Not according to Proctor T1

Sorry I meant Trooper Paul T1

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Instead of the weird blue paint thing (look! when something with blue paint touches my arm, it leaves blue paint!), maybe use that Lexus to show how running down a 215 object in reverse doesn’t register as anything in the vehicle computer.

Like what was that supposed to prove? That Karen’s vehicle had ragged edges? Wouldn’t the paint be more consistent with a bruise than cuts?

 

[Tortoise]

Jonathan Hall

@JHall7news
·
1h


Brennan says the ultimate issue is manslaughter or other charge. He says an expert can give his opinion… the evidence is obvious - he is entitled to give an opinion on whether a collision occurred.

Jonathan Hall

@JHall7news


Brennan says it’s clear the defendant will have her own experts saying there was no collision. Brennan says he will ask about difference between a clip or a side swipe. Brennan says it’s close to the end of this witness but we are not at the end








Jonathan Hall

@JHall7news
·
1h


Alessi rises to say we practice what we preach. He says ARCCA guys will say damage to car and injuries to victim are not consistent with a vehicle striking a pedestrian. Not going to say there was no collision. Judge says we will discuss tomorrow before court.









Jonathan Hall

@JHall7news
·
1h


Now we are done

 

[justwannahelp]

IMO What we witnessed today is no different than if the defense puts an “expert” up there to show a video of a fight with a person falling on the back of their head then saying “in my opinion this is what happened.” What we witnessed was a THEORY.

There is no EVIDENCE one way or the other of HOW John ended up with that head injury. There is no EVIDENCE Karen’s car hit him and there is no EVIDENCE he was in a fight with those in the house.

(BUT they never investigated the house nor did they swab anyone inside to see if their DNA matched the 2 male DNAs found on John.)

There is medical evidence however that it was MOST LIKELY a fall and not a blow to the head based on the brim line hat theory. That is an actual researched “thing”
What caused this likely fall we still don’t KNOW….

Lastly, why didn’t they collect ring cameras if they are so “SURE” her car reversed into him? Wouldn’t they WANT all video from that night and morning? If they didn’t want it, WHY?

 

[Warwick7]

Now is a good time to remind everyone that an expert wildly speculating and assuming, in part based upon what he saw in other evidence, some of which may be unreliable, is not how the party with the burden of proof is supposed to prove a homicidal vehicle-pedestrian collision.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927447517504946229

 

[Wishbone]

I know many of us here follow the trial closely and love diving into the weeds: key cycles, timestamps, witness behavior, all of it. But I keep wondering how deep the jury will actually go. Most jurors don’t have an excel sheet at home to track key cycles and tech stream events, you know?

If I were a juror, the Medical Examiner’s ruling alone would give me serious pause before convicting Karen. The fact that it was ruled “not consistent with a pedestrian strike by a car” isn’t nothing. That’s the Commonwealth’s own ME. Add to that: almost every CW witness has ended up scoring points for the defense during cross. The prosecution experts (especially on crash reconstruction) gave opinions that directly contradicted the defense’s, and vice versa. Jurors literally came forward after the trial and said they didn’t know who to believe and set much of the crash reconstruction data aside.

So here’s where I land: What in this trial has clearly and simply proven that John was struck by a car? That’s the foundation everything else depends on. And after all this time, that core fact still hasn’t been nailed down. Not for me, anyway. MOO

IMO the jury has to have seen how the defense has destroyed every witness the cw has presented. And now with this latest testimony that can't even tell them how JO could have been hit by the Lexus they must have doubts about him being killed by that car to begin with. Not to forget the ME testimony. JMOO

 

[Warwick7]

what we are missing from this presentation is actual SCIENCE and real data as regards the alleged impact between the SUV and John O'Keefe, which is, you know, THE ALLEGED CRIME

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927444336918044729

 

[nodamselindistress]

If Welcher really wanted his re-enactment to be authentic, he needed a BAC over 2.0 to make it work. He seemed to move kinda quick for a drunk person.

 

[justwannahelp]

I know many of us here follow the trial closely and love diving into the weeds: key cycles, timestamps, witness behavior, all of it. But I keep wondering how deep the jury will actually go. Most jurors don’t have an excel sheet at home to track key cycles and tech stream events, you know?

If I were a juror, the Medical Examiner’s ruling alone would give me serious pause before convicting Karen. The fact that it was ruled “not consistent with a pedestrian strike by a car” isn’t nothing. That’s the Commonwealth’s own ME. Add to that: almost every CW witness has ended up scoring points for the defense during cross. The prosecution experts (especially on crash reconstruction) gave opinions that directly contradicted the defense’s, and vice versa. Jurors literally came forward after the trial and said they didn’t know who to believe and set much of the crash reconstruction data aside.

So here’s where I land: What in this trial has clearly and simply proven that John was struck by a car? That’s the foundation everything else depends on. And after all this time, that core fact still hasn’t been nailed down. Not for me, anyway. MOO

& it would be easier to believe their non evidenced based theories if the behavior of those in the house after his death wasn’t so bizarre and IF we could actually rule out the house being the scene of his injuries due to it being investigated and cleared. But we can’t because they weren’t interested in investigating the house. Of course their lack of investigating isn’t evidence something occurred inside, but it creates a lot of reasonable doubt….

 

[Maat99]

Like what was that supposed to prove? That Karen’s vehicle had ragged edges? Wouldn’t the paint be more consistent with a bruise than cuts?

Idk. It is bizarre. Is it an accurate reenactment? Obviously not. Most notably Welcher didn’t end up thrown 30 feet with the back of his head smashed in per the CW theory. But somehow it is supposed to accurately show the position of his body when his arm is lightly brushed in circumstances completely unlike the actual ones. Ridiculous.

ETA: actually not even sure what the current CW theory is. But if his body moves out of harms way when his arm is glanced by the car as “proven”, then I really don’t know how KR is to blame for anything other than arm scratches.

 

[Oakland CA]

How much does it cost to hire one third of the Blue Man Group for an hour?

 

[shotgun09]

If Welcher really wanted his re-enactment to be authentic, he needed a BAC over 2.0 to make it work. He seemed to move kinda quick for a drunk person.

Exactly ! And, for cryin out loud! Be a scientist. Be an expert. NOT an actor, who 'dresses up' like the victim. This is all drama. Brennan drama.
IMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

53 minutes in.
Live

 

[ShadyLady]

This is a very detailed presentation demonstrating how O’Keefe’s vehicle tap was not the cause Read’s Lexus taillight damage.

IMO

You are right. The tail light was broken/shattered into 40 pieces probably with a HAMMER.

 

[Angelwatch]

What I think is obviously missing is the math showing how much force it would require to break the tail light. Clearly, the math didn't support the CW version so they just ignored it. How much force would it require to shatter the tail light? Why are there no bruises or bone breaks? The arm is point one of the vehicle contact. You need to prove it's possible and the CW didn't even attempt it other than a pathetic blue paint reenactment. That's not science. Nor is matching his clothes. That's theater.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Cannot wait to see what Alessi gets out of Dr. Welcher. Popcorn time for sure!!

 

[ShadyLady]

What I think is obviously missing is the math showing how much force it would require to break the tail light. Clearly, the math didn't support the CW version so they just ignored it. How much force would it require to shatter the tail light? Why are there no bruises or bone breaks? The arm is point one of the vehicle contact. You need to prove it's possible and the CW didn't even attempt it other than a pathetic blue paint reenactment. That's not science. Nor is matching his clothes. That's theater.

Trying hard to avoid the obvious.

Let's hope this jury sees through it all.

 

[bobbymkii]

Cannot wait to see what Alessi gets out of Dr. Welcher. Popcorn time for sure!!

Wednesdays are my work-from-home day. Perfect timing!

 

[nodamselindistress]

What I think is obviously missing is the math showing how much force it would require to break the tail light. Clearly, the math didn't support the CW version so they just ignored it. How much force would it require to shatter the tail light? Why are there no bruises or bone breaks? The arm is point one of the vehicle contact. You need to prove it's possible and the CW didn't even attempt it other than a pathetic blue paint reenactment. That's not science. Nor is matching his clothes. That's theater.

And that is why we need to hear from the ARCCA guys! They did the math!!