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]

duplicate

 

[Warwick7]

What's more questionable is that absolutely NONE of his dear, close friends ever texted, called or left messages ( at least the ones that weren't deleted) asking anyone at the party at 34 Fairview that night WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED????!!!! No one asked for any details! No one asked another if they saw anything! No one inquired if they heard anything? There was absolutely no chatter or questions, or concern about anything!! Well except for all the phone calls that no one made and blamed on butt dials. WHO THE HELL DOES THAT????!!!!!!

If you had just found out that a " very close friend of yours that you had been partying with just hours before was found dead on the lawn of the place you had been at, again just hours before, would you not be chomping at the bit to find out any information about it????? Yet no one asked a single question. No one was shocked or surprised! No one was freaking the hell out? No one said anything except to " tell then the guy never came in the house!" No one inside the house could be bothered to get off their hungover buttz and go outside to see exactly WTH was going on on their lawn??? Are you freaking kidding me!! Karen was the only one freaking out and trying to find answers.

Yes! This!! omg!!!

 

[Warwick7]

.. a man in the snow... not omg he looks beat up or is bleeding, etc. Here we go: the infamous a man in the snow line. Not her friend. Not John Okeefe but a man (a stranger in the snow) Just like her husband's description: " tell them that the man never came into the house." Not John, not our friend John but that man.Two impersonal statements from one lovely couple(Not!)that to me, have third party guilt written all over them. Mo

Crap! This ripped right through my stomach.

 

[Warwick7]

I think I've had my fill of online youtubing or podcasting lawyers with some previous cases. I rather like to form my own opinions, like the jurors do, day by day, just listening to the trial. Just my preference.

BBM
I could be wrong but I thought you were promoting that docuseries. Because of you I even decided to take a look at it.

 

[Lost mittens]

Am I the only one that has not watched these shows? LOL

I haven’t seen any of them either, and I’ve been following this case since before trial 1 began.

My name is also Missy btw

 

[jepop]

BBM above - thank you @cocomod
"His body is the biggest piece of evidence in this trial! His body does not say he was hit by a vehicle."
Quite simply this.
Everything else is a distraction
JMO

So true. I sometimes think of it this way; some evidence, e.g. tail light pieces, can be manipulated. The wounds of the victim are not open to manipulation, they can't be transported, they can't be planted.

Moo

 

[jepop]

I also thought the tail light was polycarbonate - not prone to breaking/shattering into a 47 pieces.
I suspect we will hear about this from ARCCA and we will know the scoop on the actual material and how it reacts to impacts of varying degree.
I confess to not thoroughly listening to Brennan and Welcher go thru his power point - the two of them together slithering - constitute a triggering event for me - so I don't know if Welcher addressed that
JMO

I get you Waldojabba. For Welcher I found I could only listen to Brennan's direct in small doses.

 

[jepop]

Those two people are so cold. Heartless.

I find the contrast really stands out during JMc's 911 call. While we can hear KR wailing and screaming in the background which I don't believe anyone could say is not genuine emotion, we hear JMc refer to JOK, and I believe these are her actual words, as "a guy" lying on the lawn. Moo

For those criticising the defendant's statements as presented cherry picked by Brennan for this witch hunt, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Jmo

 

[jepop]

No, what Alessi did was have him try to do the "math" because he didn't "show his math". Alessi very painfully had Welcher figure out how much force to break various bones in his hand and/or arm, and asked him about the literature.

I suspect we will find out more from ARCCA.

all JMO

What I got from that is that Welcher claimed he eliminated the null hypothesis but whadda you know, he never documented how he did that. Just more vagueness and the strong implication he carried out his work whilst being partial to the CW's theories. Jmo

 

[TristanP]

The defense could certainly play extended clips to provide whatever context they think would be helpful. If they are choosing not to, it's their decision.

In the trial where I previously mentioned I was a juror, the prosecution presented clipped text messages that one could believe were talking about a certain thing... when the defense presented extended context of the before/after along with unconnected additional messages that showed use of the same phrasing... it was far less incriminating.

Legally, the defense cannot play any clips to provide context. The only way Karen can say anything during the defense's case is if she decides to testify.

 

[jepop]

<modsnip> He's primarily not there to argue with them (my claim vs yours). Instead, he wants the guy to commit to specifics, and he focuses on places where the vagueness and assumptions and the transparent stupidity lingers. Alessi was nailing him down to commit to this or that (If you listen, he's asking "Is that your testimony?" and working to get that question answered, in this point or that.).

When W said that "an arm would break the taillight if the car was traveling at over 8 mph", with no actual tests, and something that doesn't pass the sniff test for anyone who has ever jogged past a car, Alessi doesn't want to mess with that. Just mark it. The ball is positioned perfectly on the tee.

Let the cw rest its case, which locks in their experts' claims. THEN bring the def experts to knock the stuffing out of the stupidity on display by this one claiming to be an expert, claiming to have integrity, claiming he's not making stuff up to pad a weak-to-nonexistent case.

The same was true with the 1162 nonsense that you and others crowed about, when def didn't challenge it in the moment. They left his nonsense right there on the tee, and then let the later cw witness be dismissive of the idea (which happened) and then left the ball on the tee again for the def experts to smash to smithereens. They're coming.

Why would Alessi challenge it and push for something better? For the def, that testimony was PERFECT.

Absolutely, Alessi got what he needed to set up Welcher later via the ARCCA witnesses. For e.g. no doubt ARCCA is going to debunk the ridiculous 8 miles per hour speculation ( and speculation is all Welcher's biomechanical testimony amounted to Imo). That was the point. Jmo

 

[jepop]

I watched the documentary and you know what it was? Entertainment. This is how the TV business makes the big bucks. It's preys on persuasion techniques which can mislead viewers in their thought processes. So many of the important facts, evidence, the extensive questioning with the full witness testimonies are not seen in this 3 part doc. The producers of the doc used entertaining clips of what it could sell to an audience. It doesn't represent the whole picture and never will because it was solely made to make money. That is how the Entertainment business works. Moo

And that is precisely why the documentary is not evidence and cannot be evidence. And rightfully so. This is a trial and should be based on admissible evidence. It's taking place in a court room not a movie theatre. Jmo

 

[AngTxGal]

It seems a better reenactment would be one that can break a taillight on a car with the body of a person. I can’t see how an impact of 25 mph in reverse is enough force for a rigid plastic tail light to be broken by the body of a person that is soft tissue and can move back.

Also, why was the glass from the drink with the body. If he went into the house he would have sat it down. If there was a fight, he would have set down the glass. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Trying to go back through the posts here to find evidence that makes sense

 

[mrjitty]

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

IMO Welcher clearly explains the following on X

1. Ignition on event creates a key cycle. Unlike in Trial 1, we now have the ignition on/off timestamps and odometer read. This stuff is saved in the infotainment system and since recovered from the SD card redundancy. So in this case we do know the time 1162 was created.

2. Separately the EDR diagnostics system (the so called black box airbag module) monitors the Lexus data stream in realtime. When it sees something it considers interesting, it creates a marker with elapsed time and odometer read, for the particular key cycle. and saves the stream 5 seconds plus and minus from the trigger.

So while the EDR does not save the absolute time, you know what it is via the key cycle time stamp in the infotainment. This is just obvious stuff. Toyota wouldn't build a diagnostics system where you couldn't reconcile the data to the trip.

What Alessi tries to do, is go on to introduce the Trooper Paul cross about 1164 and 1167. But we know Paul simply was confused about that because he didn't have timestamps. All his testing is in fact in 1167 post impoundment. Then the Judge shut it down. My guess is Welcher had no idea what Alessi was even trying to imply about "trip counting" as presumably he doesn't spend his days deep in the folklore of this case.

Even if you disagree somehow on all of the above, 1162 simply cannot be the tow truck load as AJ argued in T1. The reason is that the tow truck load is only 70 seconds long and the timing is independently confirmed by video.

It does seem like in his case in chief, Alessi will try to jazz hands this, because I guess what else can he do. We have video footage from the Waterfall to corroborate the beginning of key cycle 1162, Ring video for 1163 and 1164 (Dighton), tow truck video for 1165 and 1166 AND the odometer corroboration AND the 3 point turn GPS.

Relevant X from Welcher

All my opinion based on the trial testimony of Welcher.

 

[themonk]

the transparent stupidity lingers

RSBM

excellent post. And this phrase applies perfectly to the entirety of the CW’s case

 

[MerlinFalcon]

I find the contrast really stands out during JMc's 911 call. While we can hear KR wailing and screaming in the background which I don't believe anyone could say is not genuine emotion, we hear JMc refer to JOK, and I believe these are her actual words, as "a guy" lying on the lawn. Moo

For those criticising the defendant's statements as presented cherry picked by Brennan for this witch hunt, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Jmo

If we didn’t have so much evidence of the coverup, I would actually be ok with Jen’s demeanour outside of not identifying John as a friend or a cop. When someone is hysterical and another person is there, it’s better that they be somewhat calm.

However in this case, Jen knew exactly what happened inside and was part of, if not the head of, this coverup. Someone, somewhere needs to be charged with their physical crimes, and the rest of them need to be charged with letting him die.

 

[Tortoise]

For anyone saying it doesn't matter that key cycle 1162 wasn't challenged during the cw's case, and that defence didn't challenge the expert's opinion that an arm can shatter a taillight of a car travelling over 8 mph, this is incorrect.

Defense counsel has a duty to challenge the commonwealth's evidence during cross-examination of cw's experts, if it is their case that the expert's evidence is wrong.

See -

Kulbicki v. State

In 1995, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined in Clemons v. State that, under the Frye-Reed standard, Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence was not generally accepted by the...

law.justia.com

Kulbicki v. State​

In 1995, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined in Clemons v. State that, under the Frye-Reed standard, Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence was not generally accepted by the scientific community. Within a few years of his conviction, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, arguing that the admission of “unreliable” CBLA evidence during his trial in the form of testimony from Agent Ernest Peele of the Federal Bureau of Investigation constituted a due process violation and that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance for failing adequately to cross-examine Agent Peele. The circuit judge denied relief, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed Petitioner’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that Petitioner’s attorneys rendered ineffective assistance when they failed to investigate a report Peele co-authored in 1991 that presaged the flaws in CBLA evidence and to challenge the State’s scientific evidence on cross-examination at trial.


Driscoll, 71 F.3d at 709.

71 F3d 701 Driscoll v. Delo Driscoll | OpenJurist

openjurist.org

[...] Considering the circumstances as a whole, defense counsel's failures to prepare for the introduction of the serology evidence, to subject the state's theories to the rigors of adversarial testing, and to prevent the jury from retiring with an inaccurate impression that the victim's blood might have been present on the defendant's knife fall short of reasonableness under the prevailing professional norms.

 

[AngTxGal]

Yes! This!! omg!!!

None of the people in the home were his close friends, except for JM, the person who invited JO and KR to come to the party. JM text him several times and testified looking out to see KRs dark SUV and if he was coming inside.
To me the phone texts- timing, and reactions are consistent with KR hitting JO with her car when she says she dropped him off.
He had a glass in his hand when he exited- that same glass was found near his body. It doesn’t make sense if he entered the home and there was an altercation for that glass to be near his body. I do not buy that someone followed him around and knew that glass was one he walked in with and collected it, broke it, and tossed it out where he was found. I don’t buy that he still held it during an altercation, a fist fight, or that he didn’t finish the drink and simply sit the glass down in the home. Doesn’t make sense to me at all, I don’t think he ever made it into the house

 

[mrjitty]

For anyone saying it doesn't matter that key cycle 1162 wasn't challenged during the cw's case, and that defence didn't challenge the expert's opinion that an arm can shatter a taillight of a car travelling over 8 mph, this is incorrect.

Defense counsel has a duty to challenge the commonwealth's evidence during cross-examination of cw's experts, if it is their case that the expert's evidence is wrong.

See -

Kulbicki v. State

In 1995, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined in Clemons v. State that, under the Frye-Reed standard, Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence was not generally accepted by the...

law.justia.com

Kulbicki v. State​

In 1995, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. In 2006, the Supreme Court determined in Clemons v. State that, under the Frye-Reed standard, Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence was not generally accepted by the scientific community. Within a few years of his conviction, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, arguing that the admission of “unreliable” CBLA evidence during his trial in the form of testimony from Agent Ernest Peele of the Federal Bureau of Investigation constituted a due process violation and that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance for failing adequately to cross-examine Agent Peele. The circuit judge denied relief, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed Petitioner’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that Petitioner’s attorneys rendered ineffective assistance when they failed to investigate a report Peele co-authored in 1991 that presaged the flaws in CBLA evidence and to challenge the State’s scientific evidence on cross-examination at trial.


Driscoll, 71 F.3d at 709.

71 F3d 701 Driscoll v. Delo Driscoll | OpenJurist

openjurist.org

[...] Considering the circumstances as a whole, defense counsel's failures to prepare for the introduction of the serology evidence, to subject the state's theories to the rigors of adversarial testing, and to prevent the jury from retiring with an inaccurate impression that the victim's blood might have been present on the defendant's knife fall short of reasonableness under the prevailing professional norms.

This is how I learned it, FWIW, but I am not from MA.

Quite apart from anything else though, AJ attacked Trooper Paul on 1162, precisely because he needed someone else to be causing that Trigger 2 event at some other place and some other time. You don't want to let the experts evidence of 1162 being 34F solidify with the jury. Throwing Trooper Paul into confusion was apparently critical in avoiding the manslaughter verdict.

You can also see that Alessi did put other things to the witness like the accident reconstruction / crash test dummies - so we can expert to see that on direct IMO. Ditto the bone breaking stuff.

What Alessi actually put to the witness of T2 was that there wasn't enough room to drive that far back without crashing into another car, and that she would lose control and go onto the lawn.

That suggests to me, more of a jazz hands "this can't be right and damn the data" approach on direct. We will see ...

 

[MerlinFalcon]

None of the people in the home were his close friends, except for JM, the person who invited JO and KR to come to the party. JM text him several times and testified looking out to see KRs dark SUV and if he was coming inside.
To me the phone texts- timing, and reactions are consistent with KR hitting JO with her car when she says she dropped him off.
He had a glass in his hand when he exited- that same glass was found near his body. It doesn’t make sense if he entered the home and there was an altercation for that glass to be near his body. I do buy that someone knew that glass was one he walked in with and broke it and tossed it out where he was, or that he still held it during an altercation, or that he didn’t finish the drink and sit the glass down in the home. Doesn’t make sense to me

We don’t know when she left the house though. However, we know when she arrived at his house and she would have had to drive like a maniac to make your theory work.

As far as the glass goes, they knew he entered the home and they wanted to make it seem like he didn’t so they easily could have taken that glass and dropped it to the ground so that it would break. Make sure his hat and second shoe are also outside. End of story from their point of view, no sign of him inside, case closed. Except Karen fought back.