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

[Forest_Wood]

I've never seen a witness act as though he's in a sales meeting delivering results rather than in a courtroom at a murder trial. He keeps looking at his laptop instead of looking up when a question is asked of him. He is trying to have a conversation instead of answering yes or no as a witness would. It seems being a witness is below him. And he's getting defensive. His disposition makes him seem like a cheap car salesman IMO.

 

[Mony Mony]

If he wasn’t going to hit himself at 20MPH, maybe he should have come up with an alternate method to prove his theory. MOO

Why not use a crash test dummy? Even Trooper Paul tried to replicate his theory properly with a dummy. I would think Aperture would have access to all the latest, greatest, state of the art accident reconstruction devices.

MOO

 

[Soulmagent]

Why not use a crash test dummy? Even Trooper Paul tried to replicate his theory properly with a dummy. I would think Aperture would have access to all the latest, greatest, state of the art accident reconstruction devices.

MOO

There are 40.000+ people watching this trial at any given time and a lot more following this.
I cannot believe this crazy from this Aperture place.
Has anyone ever seen a chart like that crap where it says 1 is drive 0 in neutral and 2 is reverse ,
okay so when does the transmission shift into overdrive? Cars have drive one ,and drive too and overdrive. The shift causes a jump or reduction in RMPs.. which should represent itself in those numbers somehow . It HAS to. Someone help! It is RPM'S .

 

[cocomod]

Edit: not sure how to post a video so I will just put a link. Jud Welcher describing most common pedestrian strike injuries

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7509547047800933663

Oh look!! A crash test dummy to prove a theory! What a novel concept! I mean, they were given such a SMALL amount of $$ for their opinion. But, then they might have to explain it to a jury? The results may show something unexpected?? Hmmmm

 

[missy1974]

So I am trying to visualize this... and I can see why the CW hasn't done this haha

The CW says the trigger event from in front of 34F, 1162-2... when a trigger starts, it goes back 5 seconds and grabs the data and takes another 5 seconds of data after the trigger.

So at the start of the data, the car was already in motion @ 13.6 mph going forward but slowing down, there is no way to know how long it was going forward, because that is just where the data starts.

The data before the trigger is all forward motion, and covers 34 feet in distance. The "trigger" is the pressure on the brake (over 30% ).

At that point, the car is put into Neutral very briefly and then Reverse.

It goes in reverse approximately 87 feet in the captured data, but obviously it was more because at that point, it was going 24 mph and no pressure on the brake at all.

Make this make sense to me? they have no idea how far forward the car had already driven, it had to be more then 34 ft because it was going 13.6 mph when the data started.. and it had to reverse more then 84 ft because we know it was at 24mph when the data stopped. That is quite the driving skills if she was aiming for JOK IMO




I have linked the testimony:

 

[missy1974]

There are 40.000+ people watching this trial at any given time and a lot more following this.
I cannot believe this crazy from this Aperture place.
Has anyone ever seen a chart like that crap where it says 1 is drive 0 in neutral and 2 is reverse ,
okay so when does the transmission shift into overdrive? Cars have drive one ,and drive too and overdrive. The shift causes a jump or reduction in RMPs.. which should represent itself in those numbers somehow . It HAS to. Someone help! It is RPM'S .

What I have learned while researching this techstream stuff is...

What we see in all the spreadsheets is NOT how the data comes out. They are all able to be manipulated by the user. I don't think that is clear to everyone. When pulling the data from the vehicle, I believe they can pick and choose what they want to pull, and from what they pull, they can choose to add it to the spreadsheet or not.

I think Trooper Pauls testimony from last year actually shows a better representation of how it looks before they put it in the spreadsheet, but I will say IMO because I don't want to go look for it LOL

all JMO

 

[Hazelnutty]

Welcher's ego! Oh my goodness. So embarrassing to watch him posturing. Reminded me of a chihuahua. Sheesh. What a day.

jmo

 

[Soulmagent]

So I am trying to visualize this... and I can see why the CW hasn't done this haha

The CW says the trigger event from in front of 34F, 1162-2... when a trigger starts, it goes back 5 seconds and grabs the data and takes another 5 seconds of data after the trigger.

So at the start of the data, the car was already in motion @ 13.6 mph going forward but slowing down, there is no way to know how long it was going forward, because that is just where the data starts.

The data before the trigger is all forward motion, and covers 34 feet in distance. The "trigger" is the pressure on the brake (over 30% ).

At that point, the car is put into Neutral very briefly and then Reverse.

It goes in reverse approximately 87 feet in the captured data, but obviously it was more because at that point, it was going 24 mph and no pressure on the brake at all.

Make this make sense to me? they have no idea how far forward the car had already driven, it had to be more then 34 ft because it was going 13.6 mph when the data started.. and it had to reverse more then 84 ft because we know it was at 24mph when the data stopped. That is quite the driving skills if she was aiming for JOK IMO




I have linked the testimony:

I hear ya about the not going to look for it. Ugh.
Seriously I try to follow. We are missing data for sure.
Math though . is here.

Given that the speed is 19.9867 feet per second, the time to travel 36 feet can be calculated as follows:

Time=SpeedDistance=19.9867 feet per second36 feet≈1.801 seconds

Thus, it takes approximately 1.801 seconds to travel 36 feet at a speed of 13.6 mph.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I think Welcher used his demonstration of dressing up like JOK and the blue paint, etc, to make it seem like a re-enactment more than a reconstruction. He wanted to show the image of how John got hit and leave a lasting impression w/the jury. Subliminal messaging. MOO

Why not use a crash test dummy? Even Trooper Paul tried to replicate his theory properly with a dummy. I would think Aperture would have access to all the latest, greatest, state of the art accident reconstruction devices.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I think Welcher used his demonstration of dressing up like JOK and the blue paint, etc, to make it seem like a re-enactment more than a reconstruction. He wanted to show the image of how John got hit and leave a lasting impression w/the jury. Subliminal messaging. MOO

I think it's to test under the same conditions, as far as possible. To see if anything affects the outcome that wouldn't necessarily be obvious otherwise, such as how clothing might inter-react or change outcome, for instance on the jeans there was a scratch on the car where there was a metal stud, and IMO as regards other clothing for instance - a cap peak might hit somewhere, certain shoe soles might affect movement, a shirt sleeve length might receive damage etc. I believe that is how scientific tests are conducted by replicating all details as far as possible. Otherwise, you would get a defence lawyer saying 'but you weren't wearing the same jeans the victim was wearing, so how can you compare the two?'

I don't think he engaged in subliminal messaging. There is no evidence for him being unprofessional or biased. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Why not use a crash test dummy? Even Trooper Paul tried to replicate his theory properly with a dummy. I would think Aperture would have access to all the latest, greatest, state of the art accident reconstruction devices.

MOO

IIRC from watching his testimony a while ago, Trooper Paul only used a crash dummy to test the car to see if the back-up warning system and in-car video worked as it should.

Dr Welcher explained that a crash test dummy would not react in this type of collision like a human with motion would and there were too many unknowns, such as position, speed at impact, and whether he had a foot off the ground or was moving and reacting to try to avoid the car. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Of course he could have used a crash test dummy like most crash reconstruction experts would. Did anyone catch it when he said it might damage the Lexus? Did he mess up by saying this? Doesn’t that mean that JOK was not hit by this vehicle? It wasn’t damaged.
He is implying that his 2mph experiment, er, I mean test, would match JOK’s injuries if he was hit with a vehicle going 20mph.
I sure hope his superior attitude, (I’m smart. You all are dumb.), and constant mumbo jumbo does not fool our jurors.

BBM

What 'constant mumbo jumbo' are you referring to?

 

[mrjitty]

It's very hard to understand why Alessi tried to start disputing exactly where his client was driving 24 mph in reverse.

Every moment you talk about that in front of the Jury seems like a bad moment. What is a few feet getting you?

If Alessi has some analysis to dispute that 1162 is from some other journey instead of Fairview, why not put it to the witness? Instead he is letting that concrete dry.

I continue to feel my prediction from 2 weeks ago is accurate. DiSogra appears to have adopted Welchers Berla extraction on that point. They now argue about seconds and feet, but not that it was Fairview.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

IIRC from watching his testimony a while ago, Trooper Paul only used a crash dummy to test the car to see if the back-up warning system and in-car video worked as it should.

Dr Welcher explained that a crash test dummy would not react in this type of collision like a human with motion would and there were too many unknowns, such as position, speed at impact, and whether he had a foot off the ground or was moving and reacting to try to avoid the car. IMO

I think this is a point that coverage of the case has missed all along.

The CW is saying you infer the collision from the damage to the lexus, the location of the victim by the road, the tail light found by SERT, the debris in his shirt, the fatal basal skull injury by falling, and most critically, the proximity of 1162-Trigger2 to John's final steps.

We can't know the fine details of the collision because the defendant left the scene and engaged in staging - which is something that happens in many murder cases.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I think this is a point that coverage of the case has missed all along.

The CW is saying you infer the collision from the damage to the lexus, the location of the victim by the road, the tail light found by SERT, the debris in his shirt, the fatal basal skull injury by falling, and most critically, the proximity of 1162-Trigger2 to John's final steps.

We can't know the fine details of the collision because the defendant left the scene and engaged in staging - which is something that happens in many murder cases.

MOO

And that the cops had no reason to stage anything or frame KR because on that day she was saying she hit him and was not saying to anyone John went inside the house.

MOO

 

[Wishbone]

It's very hard to understand why Alessi tried to start disputing exactly where his client was driving 24 mph in reverse.

Every moment you talk about that in front of the Jury seems like a bad moment. What is a few feet getting you?

If Alessi has some analysis to dispute that 1162 is from some other journey instead of Fairview, why not put it to the witness? Instead he is letting that concrete dry.

I continue to feel my prediction from 2 weeks ago is accurate. DiSogra appears to have adopted Welchers Berla extraction on that point. They now argue about seconds and feet, but not that it was Fairview.

MOO

" It's very hard to understand why Alessi tried to start disputing exactly where his client was driving 24 mph in reverse."


It could be because of JM and BH saying the jeep was parked in front of the mailbox of the house on fairview. JW couldn't say what total distance the Lexus would have traveled or exactly where it started it's backward drive. The jeep being parked in front of the mailbox is a problem that most likely will be brought up when the defense presents it's case if not sooner. JMOO

 

[abams]

Why not use a crash test dummy? Even Trooper Paul tried to replicate his theory properly with a dummy. I would think Aperture would have access to all the latest, greatest, state of the art accident reconstruction devices.

MOO

They do and they could've, as they demonstrated with the tail light experiment, but I think his excuse was we don't know all the correct variables for the supposed pedestrian strike etc etc... So instead how about a sober man at a different height kind of walking into the vehicle that is moving at a lower speed than what even he, the expert, claims? To me it's too silly and contradictory to take seriously and I'm actually kind of surprised it was let in given how prejudicial it could be.

It's funny (but sad for taxpayers) the amount Aperture will be paid by the state and the only real accident "reconstruction" they've done is for the one on video and not really at the heart of the matter.

 

[mrjitty]

" It's very hard to understand why Alessi tried to start disputing exactly where his client was driving 24 mph in reverse."


It could be because of JM and BH saying the jeep was parked in front of the mailbox of the house on fairview. JW couldn't say what total distance the Lexus would have traveled or exactly where it started it's backward drive. The jeep being parked in front of the mailbox is a problem that most likely will be brought up when the defense presents it's case if not sooner. JMOO

Right

But surely the best answer is "my client was not driving 24mph in reverse"

If you are trying to argue exactly where your client was reversing 24mph, or finely slicing 30 seconds on the timeline, or apparently both - that feels like a bad argument for the defendant because she always denied reversing.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

I must say it's odd to me how little the wider pundit discourse around this case has focussed on the implications of 1162, or the Traverse accident reconstruction. It's always been obvious that such a low speed tap could not shatter the Lexus tail light as the bumpers would make first contact, and need to crumple significantly in order for there to be any contact with the Lexus tail light. That's why we have bumpers!

IMO Welcher put that issue to bed once and for all with his 3D model.

Maybe ARCCA have some super clever alternate explanation, but until that time 1162 and the ruling out of M1 for the tail light damage are, prima facie, highly incriminating.

Indeed one would have to say, absent some solid exculpatory arguments, the defendant is looking down the barrel of at least a manslaughter conviction right now. This is especially the case when one considers, that roughly there was a 8-4 majority for manslaughter last time, on a much weaker CW case.

Interesting times ahead for the defence, and a lot will depend on how Alessi can recover from his DiSorga reversal. The least 2 weeks have illustrated quite clearly why he needed to keep Burgess's variance calculations out of evidence.

MOO

 

[Wishbone]

Right

But surely the best answer is "my client was not driving 24mph in reverse"

If you are trying to argue exactly where your client was reversing 24mph, or finely slicing 30 seconds on the timeline, or apparently both - that feels like a bad argument for the defendant because she always denied reversing.

IMO

I don't presume to know how the defense will proceed but JW's scenario doesn't explain much of anything when he can't even define the starting point nor the distance the Lexus traveled among a myriad of other things. That being what his company has been paid to prove. JMOO