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

[Angelwatch]

Considering the testimony today with Dr. Welcher's data analysis and last Wednesday from the Forensic Scientist Hanley, that while doing her angry and drunken exit from the scene KR's Lexus and JO's phone were in the very same area, together at the same time and the broken tail light pieces were found around JO's body and tiny shards were on his clothes. Pretty powerful testimonies and analysis to contemplate. AJMO

Dr Welcher himself said he couldn’t show how JOK was hit. He didn’t know when or at what speed. It was powerful testimony for sure, especially when he disgracefully dressed up as JOK.

 

[missy1974]

I can't take credit for this.. but I have been reading.... I read that her SUV was equipped with Active Height Control. If Welcher didn't account for this in his scans/measurements, they will be off for her bumping the Traverse. Also, no indication that his Blue Man Group experiment had the vehicle raised or lowered, not that I could find in the testimony today.

I do recall it being mentioned in the video of her Dad pulling into his driveway with her car, that you can see the car lower.

Just one more thing to consider. I hope Alessi asks him about this.

 

[keek]

Dr Welcher himself said he couldn’t show how JOK was hit. He didn’t know when or at what speed. It was powerful testimony for sure, especially when he disgracefully dressed up as JOK.

No DNA on the found as time went on, red plastic pieces, nor the undercarriage of the Lexus, not a scientist but, no skin fragments and blood on those found as time went on, red tail light pieces. So, no, this display today was more smoke and mirrors, but the taxpayers of MA are footing that bill, that very large bill, which includes the price of the Lexus that was bought for testing purposes I'm sure. Not forgetting the entire outfit down to the sneakers. This man was a witness brought in by Brennan who has looked foolish by using this company. He is JUST a witness for the CW. He is not the be all and end all. Defense up next. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

I mean, there’s ONE major item I’d like to hear from the CW that I haven’t heard yet… evidence of Karen’s Lexus striking Johns body. MOO

IMO, there's lots of strong circumstantial evidence that KR did hit JO, in ny opinion. Like that lawyerly teaching example (it can vary a bit so I'm combining two). If you go to sleep with no snow on the ground and wake up at daybreak to footprints in accumulated snow across your front lawn, you can concluded it snowed and someone walked across your lawn that night...even if you or anyone else didn't see it or them.
AJMO

 

[SteveS]

I didn't have time to directly view all the Welcher testimony today, but I heard this and that and am trying to digest what was said.

Are any of these accurate takeaways? If so, which? Thanks for any help.

1 The cw expert theorized and illustrated JOK being hit from his side, but somewhat of a glancing blow.
2 The tail light was shattered into the MANY pieces solely by striking JOK's arm, which was tied to him pirouettting or staggering rather than being thrown by the car.
3 The science expert's overall conclusion was along the lines of "what the cw says" and didn't specify any actual hard facts, but just JOK was hit at some unknown time in some unknown way resulting in some unknown result -- but it had to be KR vehicle and cause, just because.
4 The cw expert made various claims without any actual supporting facts offered, in particular his assertion that JOK's body or arm was perfectly capable of breaking that tail light in the circumstances the cw claim happened.
5 In support of his conclusion, the so-called expert offered no actual "science" (his area of expertise) work to validate his assertions, instead relying on what others said (and no science at all) as his "validation" for his supposed "expert" opinion.

Thanks to anyone who can clean up any errors in my understanding, if there are some. But if any or all of the above are accurate, it's an incredibly bad body of work by an "expert" who was hired to show how the cw claims are true. He doesn't even know, and is just guessing, right?

If I'm on the jury and THIS is the cw's expert, good grief let's go home. It feels like all he really offered was "Using my expertise, I couldn't find anything to prove KR actually hit JOK. But I'm willing to say she did it anyhow because I can imagine an unsupported-by-any-facts scenario that maybe could have caused it."

I have a strong feeling Alessi will pin him down on all these gaping holes, and his lack of ANY actual supporting test (that worked), and shred him and his testimony.

 

[Luna20]

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

It is a very difficult case to follow because of what you mentioned. I usually follow a case closely but this is so confusing because of the prosecution grabbing at everything to see what sticks.

I tuned in this morning and within minutes I turned it off. It’s far too technical for me to follow and I wonder if every juror is able to compartmentalize all of the details. It’s exhausting and it’s intense.

The Lexus wasn’t going at a fast enough speed to kill John. I don’t believe that she killed him but even if I did the facts don’t change.

 

[lohrtabitha]

IMO, there's lots of strong circumstantial evidence that KR did hit JO, in ny opinion. Like that lawyerly teaching example (it can vary a bit so I'm combining two). If you go to sleep with no snow on the ground and wake up at daybreak to footprints in accumulated snow across your front lawn, you can concluded it snowed and someone walked across your lawn that night...even if you or anyone else didn't see it or them.
AJMO

But when JK walked across the lawn there was very little accumulation so there would be no footprints. The meteorologist in this trial gave the snowfall amounts at the various times after midnight until JKs body was found.

 

[sunshineray]

Was the first trigger event. That data shows multiple, large changes in the steering angle.

There is only one, slight change of the steering angle that stays consistent for the second trigger event. Welcher himself testified to this. 1162-2 was not a 3 point turn.

The second trigger was a strong reverse acceleration, with 74% throttle and no brake. IIRC they was also mention of some movement of the steering to the left?

"Welcher picked back up to describe what he called the “second trigger event” that he analysed where Read’s SUV reached a speed of 23 miles per hour while driving in reverse. The data showed the car at ¾ of full throttle, according to Welcher."

Karen Read trial recap: Expert dressed like John O’Keefe and used paint to test car crash scenarios

Here's a recap of the testimony on Tuesday in the Karen Read retrial.

www.masslive.com

 

[sunshineray]

There is ZERO testimony or data tying the Lexus and John O’Keefe’s location once they arrive at 34 Fairview and he exits the vehicle. The only data point we have is the time Karen returned to Meadows Ave at 12:36am. It’s a 6 minute drive and an identically named trigger event occurred 8 minutes earlier when she missed a turn. It is much more likely that she was on her way home, missed another turn, reversed the 54ft to go back, then ultimately made the turn, and was back perfectly in line with the time that drive takes.

Too bad MSP deleted Karen’s GPS information off her phone. That would prove she left by 12:30am

According to Dr. Welcher testimony today, he spoke of the syncing of the Lexus time clock and JO's phone time clock. There was also testimony concerning the position data of both. Strong circumstantial evidence, IMO.

 

[sunshineray]

Dr Welcher himself said he couldn’t show how JOK was hit. He didn’t know when or at what speed. It was powerful testimony for sure, especially when he disgracefully dressed up as JOK.

There was no disgrace in that recorded testing, IMO. I thought it very helpful in visualizing the height of the victim against the vehicle and that vehicle's features in relation.

 

[Wishbone]

IMO, there's lots of strong circumstantial evidence that KR did hit JO, in ny opinion. Like that lawyerly teaching example (it can vary a bit so I'm combining two). If you go to sleep with no snow on the ground and wake up at daybreak to footprints in accumulated snow across your front lawn, you can concluded it snowed and someone walked across your lawn that night...even if you or anyone else didn't see it or them.
AJMO

I am not aware of strong circumstantial evidence that proves KR hit JO with the Lexus or that JO's injuries are consistent with being hit by a car. Which is the crux of the matter. Even the ME couldn't say he was hit by a car. Thus an undetermined cause of death. JMOO

 

[sunshineray]

But when JK walked across the lawn there was very little accumulation so there would be no footprints. The meteorologist in this trial gave the snowfall amounts at the various times after midnight until JKs body was found.

The weather that overnight was not the topic of my post, that well known circumstantial evidence story, teaching tool was...but it did snow a good amount during that storm, as shown in scene pictures and videos. AJMO

 

[Warwick7]

Lolololololol!!!!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927550783236522376

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927453349063876820

 

[sunshineray]

I

I am not aware of strong circumstantial evidence that proves KR hit JO with the Lexus or that JO's injuries are consistent with being hit by a car. Which is the crux of the matter. Even the ME couldn't say he was hit by a car. Thus an undetermined cause of death. JMOO

I was referring to Dr. Welcher's testimony and media presentations today and also Forensic Scientist Hanley's testimony/analysis last week right before adjournment for the holiday weekend.

 

[cocomod]

Did he match JOK's underwear too?
Sicko.
imo

Did he throw up in the underwear too?

 

[geevee]

I didn't have time to directly view all the Welcher testimony today, but I heard this and that and am trying to digest what was said.

Are any of these accurate takeaways? If so, which? Thanks for any help.

1 The cw expert theorized and illustrated JOK being hit from his side, but somewhat of a glancing blow.
2 The tail light was shattered into the MANY pieces solely by striking JOK's arm, which was tied to him pirouettting or staggering rather than being thrown by the car.
3 The science expert's overall conclusion was along the lines of "what the cw says" and didn't specify any actual hard facts, but just JOK was hit at some unknown time in some unknown way resulting in some unknown result -- but it had to be KR vehicle and cause, just because.
4 The cw expert made various claims without any actual supporting facts offered, in particular his assertion that JOK's body or arm was perfectly capable of breaking that tail light in the circumstances the cw claim happened.
5 In support of his conclusion, the so-called expert offered no actual "science" (his area of expertise) work to validate his assertions, instead relying on what others said (and no science at all) as his "validation" for his supposed "expert" opinion.

Thanks to anyone who can clean up any errors in my understanding, if there are some. But if any or all of the above are accurate, it's an incredibly bad body of work by an "expert" who was hired to show how the cw claims are true. He doesn't even know, and is just guessing, right?

If I'm on the jury and THIS is the cw's expert, good grief let's go home. It feels like all he really offered was "Using my expertise, I couldn't find anything to prove KR actually hit JOK. But I'm willing to say she did it anyhow because I can imagine an unsupported-by-any-facts scenario that maybe could have caused it."

I have a strong feeling Alessi will pin him down on all these gaping holes, and his lack of ANY actual supporting test (that worked), and shred him and his testimony.

He also said that JOK's hat came up and off as he slid on the ground after impact, though no dirt, grass or other ground debris was found in his head wound.

He should have done more homework.

 

[Wishbone]

I

I was referring to Dr. Welcher's testimony and media presentations today and also Forensic Scientist Hanley's testimony/analysis last week right before adjournment for the holiday weekend.

Like I said he didn't prove the car hit JO. JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

Lolololololol!!!!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927550783236522376

Exactly

 

[Angelwatch]

There was no disgrace in that recorded testing, IMO. I thought it very helpful in visualizing the height of the victim against the vehicle and that vehicle's features in relation.

Fair enough. It was below my professional and ethical standards of an expert witness.