MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #30 Retrial

[Bishop Black]

Professor Was Accused of Hitting Cop Boyfriend with Car, Leaving Him to Die. Does New Evidence Exonerate Her?

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

people.com

Karen Read has been charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision in the January 2022 death of her off-duty Boston Police Officer boyfriend John O'Keefe outside a Canton, Mass., home.

She's pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Leading up to his death, the couple of two years reportedly spent the night drinking and bar hopping with friends before Read, 43, dropped O'Keefe, 46, off at the home of a fellow off-duty police officer for an after-party, PEOPLE previously reported.

Prosecutors say as O'Keefe exited the vehicle, Read allegedly proceeded to make a three-point turn during a winter storm, striking her boyfriend in the process before driving off.

After O'Keefe failed to return home hours later, Read allegedly went looking for him, before finding his body in a snowbank outside the home where she allegedly left him.

Thread #1Thread #2 Thread #3Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25
Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29

 

[Knitty]

Please review Best Practices - Dealing with your fellow posters.

 

[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.

 

[Snoods]

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.

I wonder if they did do both this test and the backing into JOK’s car and it didn’t show what they wanted?

 

[Snoods]

Can’t they demonstrate this? Or is that not reasonable? I mean if he can paint his arm blue by rolling around the car then couldn’t they recreate a collision — an ACTUAL one that we KNOW occurred?

RSBM BBM Painted his arm blue by rolling around on the car.

 

[jepop]

Post in thread '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'

Tuesday at 11:41 PM

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...

• Wishbone

• 
• 

Responding this post from prior thread.

Exactly. Imo the so called circumstantial 'evidence' isn't strong in relation to any objective standards I'm aware of. In relation to this case in particular, giving the cw the benefit of the doubt and allowing it to be called 'evidence', I think it's pretty far from strong (Jmo "weak" is more accurate descriptor).

 

[Snoods]

Yesterday’s testimony has already made my blood pressure rise more than any other day and I just started watching it. How can the prosecution just change the expert witness’ presentation and testimony to match that of a prior witness mid-trial?! To answer my own question, because they know Judge C will allow it. Unbelievable.

 

[Soulmagent]

RSBM BBM Painted his arm blue by rolling around on the car.

I knew today was going to be good,but seeing that video made me feel like I was watching the
Wiley Coyote try and paint a tunnel in the wall of the cliff ,then when he does a train comes directly out of it and runs him over.
That will be tomorrow. I think.

 

[Snoods]

I knew today was going to be good,but seeing that video made me feel like I was watching the
Wiley Coyote try and paint a tunnel in the wall of the cliff ,then when he does a train comes directly out of it and runs him over.
That will be tomorrow. I think.

Ha! I’m just catching up watching The Lawyer You Know and I can’t wait to see it. So far I gather he has no idea how the accident happened and him awkwardly rolling around on the car in blue paint will super duper prove he has no idea what happened.

 

[mrjitty]

My speculative hot take.

The subsequent Lexus BERLA extraction of the SD card is why DOJ allowed Brennan and co to make the 'case closed' announcement.*

They've seen what we've just seen.

MOO/IMO and my speculation only.

 

[Izzylizzy]

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

"Based on the totality of the evidence, DNA, everything I've talked about, that is consistent with that happening," Welcher said. "With a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that is what happened."

@ 6:43:00

---

 

[Izzylizzy]

'NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FORENSIC SCIENCE Testimony

Using the Term
“Reasonable Scientific Certainty"

Snip:

'Statement of the Issue.'

"It is the view of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) that legal professionals should not require that forensic discipline testimony be admitted conditioned upon the expert witness testifying that a conclusion is held to a “reasonable scientific certainty,” a “reasonabledegree of scientific certainty,” or a “reasonable degree of [discipline] certainty.” The legalcommunity should recognize that medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use“to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts. Such terms have no scientific meaning and may mislead fact finders [jurors or judges] when deciding whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Forensic science service providers should not endorse or promote the use of this terminology. The Commission recognizes the right of each jurisdiction to determine admissibility standards but expresses this view as part of its mandate to “develop proposed guidance concerning the intersection of forensic science and the courtroom"


cont:

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/795336/dl#:~:text=than%20the%20commonly%20accepted%20meaning,recognized%20%5Bscientific%5D%20thought.%E2%80%9D

 

[Izzylizzy]

IV – The Problems Arising from this Terminology

"The phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty,” which combines two words of concern—“scientific” and “certainty”—has no scientific meaning. One scholar summed it up this way:The reasonable-degree-of-scientific-certainty language almost certainly was drafted by the lawyers. Scientists have no use for this phrase (outside the courtroom). Indeed, “a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” is not a defined concept in scientific disciplines or even in law. . . . It is legal mumbo jumbo derived from archaic cases in which lawyers discovered that if a medical doctor did not utter the incantation “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” his testimony might be excluded because doctors were not supposed to talk about mere probabilities. Modern cases usually recognize that suitably explained information about less-than-certain possibilities can be helpful in various circumstances,but experts want to (or are induced to) in cant not only “medical certainty” but also“clinical certainty,” “psychological certainty,” “psychiatric certainty,” “engineering certainty,” “architectural certainty,” “ballistic certainty,” “professional certainty,” and even “forensic certainty” and “legal certainty.”

David H. Kaye, The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence 82 (2010)

https://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/795336/dl#:~:text=than%20the%20commonly%20accepted%20meaning,recognized%20%5Bscientific%5D%20thought.%E2%80%9D

 

[Izzylizzy]

'Why We Must Stop Using This Misleading Phrase in Courtrooms'​

'There’s no such thing as a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty.”

05.11.21 By Innocence Staff

The risks of misleading a jury ​

Nearly 25% of exonerees were wrongly convicted in cases involving false or misleading forensic evidence, including evidence presented with “exaggerated or misleading confidence,” according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

As a result, the U.S. Department of Justice actually banned federal forensic practitioners from using the phrase “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” in 2016 based on the National Commission on Forensic Science’s recommendation. Simultaneously, federal prosecutors were asked to abstain from using such phrases — rather than being outright banned — when presenting or questioning forensic experts about reports, conclusions, or opinions.

Why We Must Stop Using This Misleading Phrase in Courtrooms - Innocence Project

innocenceproject.org