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

[Tortoise]

" 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

How is a vehicle parked by the mailbox a problem? The collision happened in the flagpole area, IMO, at some point after an 87 ft reverse drive. That means she had to have driven forwards by at least that distance, but only the last 34 ft of that forward drive was captured in the 5-second window captured by the black box.

JMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

For their $400,000, the state of MA has received a slick 3D model of a 3-pt turn, numerous copying and pasting of MSP reports, two "expert" testimonies in court, and one dress-up re-enactment of exactly what the CW says happened that night with a car reversing at 2 miles per hour instead of 24mph. Oh! And one brand new 2021 Lexus with zero damage.

 

[lohrtabitha]

How is a vehicle parked by the mailbox a problem? The collision happened in the flagpole area, IMO, at some point after an 87 ft reverse drive. That means she had to have driven forwards by at least that distance, but only the last 34 ft of that forward drive was captured in the 5-second window captured by the black box.

JMO

I don't know where the 87 feet reverse drive came from. Lets keep the data reported straight so it doesnt mislead those reading the posts. Welcher said, " It went 34 feet forward, then it came back another 53 feet past where it went."

 

[Wishbone]

How is a vehicle parked by the mailbox a problem? The collision happened in the flagpole area, IMO, at some point after an 87 ft reverse drive. That means she had to have driven forwards by at least that distance, but only the last 34 ft of that forward drive was captured in the 5-second window captured by the black box.

JMO

None of that syncs with JW's hypothesis as far as distance from a phantom location starting point to an indefinite ending. Seems he needs to do more work on a different scenario which is what I was questioning. JMOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

How is a vehicle parked by the mailbox a problem? The collision happened in the flagpole area, IMO, at some point after an 87 ft reverse drive. That means she had to have driven forwards by at least that distance, but only the last 34 ft of that forward drive was captured in the 5-second window captured by the black box.

JMO

Not correct. Her SUV wouldn't have stopped on its own. 87 feet is not that great of a distance. It's maybe 4 car lengths total. (The distance between the flagpole and the mailbox is maybe 2 car lengths). If it was a sideswipe like they claim, something had to have stopped her SUV. They said there was no hard braking in evidence. If she was reversing for 87 ft at 24 mph, the white jeep that was supposed to be parked at the mailbox would have been in her way and therefore how could she stop other than to hit the jeep? The confusion here is in which position was her vehicle when she was reversing. Was it another 3 point turn? In which case, she goes forward 34 ft, then reverses in a different direction for 53 feet which bypasses the jeep?
For $400,000 we need better answers than all this confusion.

 

[missy1974]

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

The bumping into the Traverse... I don't think the defense has ever said that it caused all that damage, I think they have said it created a small crack and later she picked off a few pieces, never have they said it cracked and fell apart and looked the way we saw it in the sallyport. That is their whole point with the sallyport videos, Proctor, the positioning of tail light pieces, who got them, etc. So when they show the video to Welcher and say, no pieces are on the ground, well, that is not what the defense has implied all this time.

Depending on how the judge rules this morning, I think we will hear more about 1162 this morning Welcher and the CW have tried to say that he didn't use any of Paul's report or opinions, we will see what the judge says. She rarely rules in the defense's favor, so we'll see haha

One of things that Alessi got Welcher to agree on yesterday...

IF someone had the wrong trip, with wrong key cycle then you can get the wrong time of the event.

all JMO

 

[ShadyLady]

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:

Or the whole chart might be voodoo science. All from the Dr's brain.....and Burgess.

 

[Izzylizzy]

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

Welcher was the "crash dummy".
imo

 

[missy1974]

I don't know where the 87 feet reverse drive came from. Lets keep the data reported straight so it doesnt mislead those reading the posts. Welcher said, " It went 34 feet forward, then it came back another 53 feet past where it went."

No.. the data shows 34 feet forward...

Then 34 PLUS another 53 feet... a total of 87 feet in reverse ( these are minimum distances because when the data started, the car was already in forward motion and still in reverse motion when it stopped)

Alessi had him clarify yesterday, because in his direct testimony, it did sound like only reversed 53 feet.

 

[geevee]

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

I personally think it was more theater than trying to match the conditions, as he left off the hoody which covered the arm he says was struck. But speaking of the hat, if the spoiler hit him above the eye (at 24 mph and only left a small cut) wouldn't his hat have been knocked off in the street, and not way over on the lawn?

I'm still waiting for any of the experts to explain how this hat, the glass (and glass shards) and all the broken tail light pieces managed to follow him several feet to the lawn instead of being left at the point of impact.

 

[ShadyLady]

Not correct. Her SUV wouldn't have stopped on its own. 87 feet is not that great of a distance. It's maybe 4 car lengths total. (The distance between the flagpole and the mailbox is maybe 2 car lengths). If it was a sideswipe like they claim, something had to have stopped her SUV. They said there was no hard braking in evidence. If she was reversing for 87 ft at 24 mph, the white jeep that was supposed to be parked at the mailbox would have been in her way and therefore how could she stop other than to hit the jeep? The confusion here is in which position was her vehicle when she was reversing. Was it another 3 point turn? In which case, she goes forward 37 ft, then reverses in a different direction for 50+ feet which bypasses the jeep?
For $400,000 we need better answers than all this confusion.

And that dumb chart has Karen backing out of a driveway at 50% throttle. I would throw the whole chart out. Get a Toyota expert in to download the information from the SUV. Not someone paid $400k to create a magical chart. Garbage in garbage out.

It is THE judge that is trying to give these people credibility. Why? Let the jurors decide who to believe....judge has become a juror. And arbitrator of the truth???

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Something that the Lawyer You Know pointed out that really stood out to me is the question if the ME in the case Dr. Welsher presented was able to determine the victim’s cause of death was due to being struck by a motor vehicle and if so how? What injuries in particular could have led them to definitively say the victim was struck by a car and how was this different from the findings found in JOK’s autopsy?

Also, the difference in the victim in the case study unlike JOK leaving behind visible DNA evidence on the car, having vascular injury to the arm that struck the taillight, a liver laceration and multiple abrasions to his right leg also stood to me? If he was hit with enough force to lead to his basilar skull fracture upon hitting the ground would that same force cause abrasions on his lower back, calves and heels, particularly in the context of one or both shoes allegedly flew off after being struck? Shouldn’t there have been blood or skin on the taillight? How did his head not strike the back window if KR reversed into him and his arm hit the taillight? Wouldn’t that leave skin, hair or saliva or more hair behind on it? What about fibers from his shirt on the tail light or from his jeans on the bumper?

Also, RN, HW and MMc all testified in T1that they did not see JOK in KR’s vehicle after she pulled up to the mailbox in front of the house not when she was at the corner near the flag pole. It even seems, according to RN’s testimony, that based on the position of her hands on the wheels and the fact that she was looking straight ahead that she was ready to pull out and right drive home after RN’s friend’s vehicle passed her. Arguing between the JOK and KR was neither witnessed or overheard either so it is a bit surprising that they still insist JOK exited KR’s car near the flag pole. If they arrived around 12:23/12:24 wouldn’t he have more likely gotten out closer to the time KR’s vehicle pulled up? Especially since he was getting calls and texts from JMc and BH indicating they were waiting on him? Why wait in the car for an extra 8 minutes or until 12:32 when he could have gotten out in front of the mailbox and reduce his time walking in the cold weather and getting wet from the lightly falling snow? And KR mentioned her stomach was starting to upset her and needed to use the bathroom so wouldn’t that have more likely spurred him to enter the Albert’s faster just to say hello and such before quickly leaving to head back to his place where KR could tend to herself? Also, it’s not KR wasn’t planning to spend the night, the invite was to the house came last minute and JOK had a niece waiting at home. MOO, but based on how dedicated and responsible he was when it came to his family I originally got the impression that if anything he was just going to the house to be polite after getting the invite and did not plan to stay long, let alone waste time sitting outside in KR’s car. (However, the recently released Waterfall video does make me wonder if he perhaps went to the house also to follow up on any potential drama or beef that started at the bar between him and BH).

 

[Wishbone]

How is a vehicle parked by the mailbox a problem? The collision happened in the flagpole area, IMO, at some point after an 87 ft reverse drive. That means she had to have driven forwards by at least that distance, but only the last 34 ft of that forward drive was captured in the 5-second window captured by the black box.

JMO

Per JW testimony he did not say the Lexus only traveled 87 feet. He said he didn't know how far it would have continued on. JMOO

 

[missy1974]

Not correct. Her SUV wouldn't have stopped on its own. 87 feet is not that great of a distance. It's maybe 4 car lengths total. (The distance between the flagpole and the mailbox is maybe 2 car lengths). If it was a sideswipe like they claim, something had to have stopped her SUV. They said there was no hard braking in evidence. If she was reversing for 87 ft at 24 mph, the white jeep that was supposed to be parked at the mailbox would have been in her way and therefore how could she stop other than to hit the jeep? The confusion here is in which position was her vehicle when she was reversing. Was it another 3 point turn? In which case, she goes forward 37 ft, then reverses in a different direction for 50+ feet which bypasses the jeep?
For $400,000 we need better answers than all this confusion.

I will have to look later to see if we have actual distances in that area. Like how wide of a lot was the Albert's yard? or the neighbour's yard? It's so much easier to visualize to have a comparison like that. The CW didn't do that

 

[missy1974]

And that dumb chart has Karen backing out of a driveway at 50% throttle. I would throw the whole chart out. Get a Toyota expert in to download the information from the SUV. Not someone paid $400k to create a magical chart. Garbage in garbage out.

It is THE judge that is trying to give these people credibility. Why? Let the jurors decide who to believe....judge has become a juror. And arbitrator of the truth???

Right, someone that is qualified and really does have no dog in the fight.

Oh wait... that was ARCCA in the first trial haha

 

[missy1974]

Something that the Lawyer You Know pointed out that really stood out to me is the question if the ME in the case Dr. Welsher presented was able to determine the victim’s cause of death was due to being struck by a motor vehicle and if so how? What injuries in particular could have led them to definitively say the victim was struck by a car and how was this different from the findings found in JOK’s autopsy?

Also, the difference in the victim in the case study unlike JOK leaving behind visible DNA evidence on the car, having vascular injury to the arm that struck the taillight, a liver laceration and multiple abrasions to his right leg also stood to me? If he was hit with enough force to lead to his basilar skull fracture upon hitting the ground would that same force cause abrasions on his lower back, calves and heels, particularly in the context of one or both shoes allegedly flew off after being struck? Shouldn’t there have been blood or skin on the taillight? How did his head not strike the back window if KR reversed into him and his arm hit the taillight? Wouldn’t that leave skin, hair or saliva or more hair behind on it? What about fibers from his shirt on the tail light or from his jeans on the bumper?

I actually took a screenshot of the "example" he used in his slide show from direct testimony (sorry I had captions on lol)

 

[Soulmagent]

And that dumb chart has Karen backing out of a driveway at 50% throttle. I would throw the whole chart out. Get a Toyota expert in to download the information from the SUV. Not someone paid $400k to create a magical chart. Garbage in garbage out.

It is THE judge that is trying to give these people credibility. Why? Let the jurors decide who to believe....judge has become a juror. And arbitrator of the truth???

They should have replicated the same data in the test Lexus at least. I doubt these breaking and throttle things are correct.

 

[sunshineray]

Just got through, finishing to the lunch break, yesterday's cross examination by Attorney Alessi. As an example of the kind of cross examination I saw...

Alessi gets done asking, Dr. Welcher, you first testified yesterday, correct? (meaning Tuesday the 27th), then in the next breath asks the witness at 2:29:25 (on the trial live feed from Law&Crime Network I watched) on Wednesday the 28th...

Q: "And you testify...began testifying the day before yesterday, correct Sir? The day after Memorial Day?"

A: "I testified yesterday."

Then Alessi's quick, "Yes" followed by a very long pause in questioning because, IMO, he was caught saying something very senseless.

I also noticed Attorney Alessi making quite a lot of inaccurate statements or assumptions and then being corrected by the witness, most times with details. Alessi was repeatedly trying, IMO, to get Dr. Welcher to say he used a wrong single data point to determine a time, while the witness was stating repeatedly he used ALL the data to determine something, not just one data point.

It seemed Alessi, IMO, was way out of his depth on the actual subject matter and wanted to determine things are something they are not (using the totality of the data) MO

Alessi would often then state, "My question to you "is" or "was to you", repeating himself over and over, which seemed, IMO, a tactic in trying to cover up being corrected by Dr. Welcher, in front of the jury.

The judge even had to tell Alessi to rephrase his questioning a few times, lay more foundation for his questions and herself called for sidebars about his questions. Alessi would start again only to be stopped for yet another sidebar requested by the judge.

Alessi was even asking the witness about specific things in his report, on specific pages, without even having the report himself at the podium (around 3:14:00 on the Law&Crime Network live feed of the trial), he had to retrieve it from the defense desk. I watched Attorney Alessi being corrected by the witness over and over again.

Dr. Welcher seemed very calm and collect on the stand with an occasional look of being honestly perplexed that what he was testifying to was not being understood by the defense's attorney.

This all left me with the impression that Attorney Alessi was floundering in his cross examination of Dr. Welcher, MO.

These are my impressions and opinions on how the cross examination of Dr. Welcher went yesterday...not very well for the defense. AJMO

 

[Soulmagent]

There goes the timeline .

 

[missy1974]

Listening to Alessi... just gonna guess... they do NOT agree about 1162. JMO