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

[Wishbone]

He is not there to testify about iphones and never claimed to be. Ridiculous.sustain sustain sustain..Just quit brennan. JMOO

 

[AngTxGal]

So in your words "this young guy Disogra" is, IMO, NOT a paid hack. He, again IMO, helped the jury who has been through the dog and pony show of the CW, possibly understand

He is still testifying on my live feed- and they are questioning if Disogra made a mistake.
I don’t know if he did or not- but he is getting frustrated and confused and doesn’t come across as secure in his knowledge as he did earlier.

It seems the timing of the phone and car events are super important evidence. They are spending a lot of time on the details that are confusing to most people. Why?
Is there not other evidence the prosecution can rely on?
Does this evidence seem like DNA to people and without flaw?


IMO

 

[BUF]

One thing I've learned from looking at the experts' PowerPoints is that they desperately need to hire graphic designers. What a gobbledygook mess of images, charts, text, and bullets! LOL! And don't get me started on the fonts and color choices. Reading 8 pt red text on a black background is not ideal. DiSogra's slides were much better but sheesh...those other ones! IMO

Yes! Juries love good demonstrative evidence that is easy to follow.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

He is not there to testify about iphones and never claimed to be. Ridiculous.sustain sustain sustain..Just quit brennan. JMOO

He aims to bury the lede and make the jury forget that Burgess’ report was garbage… MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So basically I’ve learned, Burgess had the numbers, but he applied them the wrong way, or not at all. MOO

 

[missy1974]

does anyone know of a reporter that is giving jury reactions? Sue isn't in court this afternoon. I know of a few in there but looking for someone that is not obviously biased either way lol

 

[missy1974]

So basically I’ve learned, Burgess had the numbers, but he applied it the wrong way, or not at all. MOO

yep, if I was Brennan, I may want to stop... if the jurors have clued in that DiSorgra ONLY used the data in the reports of the CW witnesses and did a bit of math and in a more appealing powerpoint, Brennan is just highlighting the problems with the reports IMO

Edit for missing words LOL

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Again DiSogra states the SD card was a novel analysis. Basically it means nothing right now. It could be great data, or junk data. We don’t know.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

yep, if I was Brennan... if the jurors have clued in that DiSorgra ONLY used the data in the reports of the CW witnesses and did a bit of math and in a more appealing powerpoint, Brennan is just highlighting the problems with the reports IMO

This is exactly what I was thinking!!!

 

[cocomod]

Interesting that defense witness DiSogra used Burgess’ work.

This is a complete misstatement of fact and misstatement of the testimony given. He was asked to REVIEW the report provided by the CW of Burgess' work. He wasn't asked to perform his own wprk

A lawyer can impeach or attack a witness's credibility by presenting evidence of the witness's bias, reputation, or inconsistent statements. This is what the defense is doing

 

[Anniesflowers]

There is no dispute she was intoxicated, as she was still over the legal alcohol limit when she was tested the next morning. The voicemails and texts she sent him that night, sounds like an intoxicated maniac to me, and not someone who should have been driving. And 50 texts? Yeah, that is a maniac to me.
We know she hit his car when backing up the morning she went to look for him- it is on video. She was still impaired and blew a 0.09% BAC. What time was that test? It was after 6AM, did she continue to drink when she went to John’s house?

Is it possible she hit him with her car hard enough to hurt him and he hit his head on something- yes.
Do I buy that cops may have tried to make the case stick more solidly- Yes.
Do I buy that the cops and family killed him and tried to cover it up? No.
Do I think she hit him on purpose? Not really, many people do things with cars when they are intoxicated that they do not mean to do.
Of course she may get off because she is fighting it- but common sense to me says she hit him with her car because she was intoxicated and angry.
The one question I have is this- Did she know she hit him with her car? Did she get out and check on him? Did she leave so quickly she didn’t know?

BBM. Please forgive me if this has been addressed, but the CW has not provided any evidence OJO was hit by a vehicle. That’s my sticking point. IMO, It doesn’t matter how drunk she was, how angry she way, or how many voicemails and texts she sent, he has no evidence on his body he was hit by a vehicle.

 

[keek]

This is a complete misstatement of fact and misstatement of the testimony given. He was asked to REVIEW the report provided by the CW of Burgess' work. He wasn't asked to perform his own

Oh exactly, review!

 

[turaj]

Boy I hope the jury is following this better than I can. I think we will have another hung jury.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Vannatter is not a part of this trial so I don't give the analogy any weight. JMOO

Thank you @Wishbone for having mentioned this. I also do not find any apt relevance to that case and do not understand why it is being brought into discussion in this trial. IMO if anything, they are actually diametrically opposed.

If the premise is that a former Los Angeles detective had done something in that circa 1994/1995 case it was IIUC at the supposed peril to the defendant perhaps? In this case of KR, there appears to be belief or supposition that the investigators might have been trying not to examine certain areas relating to others involved in law enforcement? For example, IIRC there was no initial entry or initial questioning of those that were at the 34 Fairview Road residence that evening. The residence where a non responsive JOK was later observed on their property. And there is also that odd matter IMO of the video from the residence across the street that seems to have been deleted? And it might not have been adequately investigated. And IIRC there is that matter of BH and his phone, and if it was destroyed in a surreptitious manner in a federal facility.

I do wish that the results of the ‘FBI’ / internal investigation of trooper proctor on this case would be made public. I wonder if any entities or investigative journalists have filed a FOIA request for its contents? MOO

 

[TDoc72]

Hypothetically I can imagine a scenario that makes sense to me

He was behind the car, about to walk around to her door.

snipped by me

The passenger side was facing the house (in both jury visits, although once by the driveway and once nearer the flagpole). I can’t find why he would have any need to walk behind or in front of the car. Wouldn’t he just hop out and head to one of the doors?

 

[AngTxGal]

That is one of the CW’s theories. As my original comment said, there is no GPS or car data, nor witness testimony to back up that theory.

The only data point for the Lexus location we have is her arrival at Meadows Ave at 12:36am. It’s at least a 6 minute drive. So the only data we can reference points to her leaving 34 Fairview at least 2 minutes before 1162-2. Meaning it occurred away from O’Keefe

Is there no data to back up that theory- or is there data that doesn’t back up that theory.
JM says the car sat out in front of the house for some times.
Other witnesses saw the car in front of the house- the young man who came to pick up his sister.

So you are saying the event 1162-2 happened after she left the house and was not her leaving the house? So what was she doing? Where? Why?

IMO

 

[ShadyLady]

snipped by me

The passenger side was facing the house (in both jury visits, although once by the driveway and once nearer the flagpole). I can’t find why he would have any need to walk behind or in front of the car. Wouldn’t he just hop out and head to one of the doors?

And cars in the driveway would have blocked Ryan and crew from seeing John!

 

[Anniesflowers]

I think you’ve done a great job creating a story that seems possible, and this may work for the jury to get her off, but that doesn’t mean it is what happened.

KR says she saw JO walk into the house, yet all of the people in the house say they didn’t see him. So that means all of them were willing to perjure themselves in court? I don’t think that is likely.

I don’t think the wounds on his arm look like dog bites. Google dog bites on an arm- they don’t look like that and the side of your arm is not where you get hurt defending yourself. Those bites should be on the underside of his lower arm- not outside of upper arm.

Others have testified that they never even met the dog and had gone to the house many times. Where was this dog kept that it attacked him but others came in the house and never had seen the dog?

His face wounds do not look like a fist fight- he barely had any skin broken. They look to me like he hit the back of his head on a curb and got a skull fracture and concussion.

Do I think the cops jumped in to try to make the case more ‘solid’ ? Yes, that is possible. But I think the entire situation began with an argument and a drunk woman who was angry and jealous backed up and hit him with her car. Is it in debate if she was angry? No, Drunk? No. Jealous? No. She may have not done it on purpose- still she is responsible

All my opinion

Did you watch the ME’s testimony?

 

[keek]

There is no dispute she was intoxicated, as she was still over the legal alcohol limit when she was tested the next morning. The voicemails and texts she sent him that night, sounds like an intoxicated maniac to me, and not someone who should have been driving. And 50 texts? Yeah, that is a maniac to me.
We know she hit his car when backing up the morning she went to look for him- it is on video. She was still impaired and blew a 0.09% BAC. What time was that test? It was after 6AM, did she continue to drink when she went to John’s house?

Is it possible she hit him with her car hard enough to hurt him and he hit his head on something- yes.
Do I buy that cops may have tried to make the case stick more solidly- Yes.
Do I buy that the cops and family killed him and tried to cover it up? No.
Do I think she hit him on purpose? Not really, many people do things with cars when they are intoxicated that they do not mean to do.
Of course she may get off because she is fighting it- but common sense to me says she hit him with her car because she was intoxicated and angry.
The one question I have is this- Did she know she hit him with her car? Did she get out and check on him? Did she leave so quickly she didn’t know?

Best advice and information would be to watch the actual trial from the first one. You would find realistic information there, timelines, and most likely be able to come to different thoughts than the basic one of hit him because she was said to be intoxicated and angry. He was not hit by a car, nor the plow which was the assumed plan by the house party people. He was not out there till after 3 AM. Lots to learn. IMO

 

[Anniesflowers]

Agree, the problem is she rattles off all of the possibilities as if she doesn’t know what happened, and then she says she saw him walk into the house.

In the documentary she is contradicting her own words.

IMO

Is she contradicting her own words, or is she playing out scenarios in her head? I watched the ID documentary. Frankly. I found her refreshingly honest and open. I’m from Massachusetts so maybe I see a kindred spirit where folks from other states and/or countries, might find her abrasive…..I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately….imo.