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

[sunshineray]

Yes, those unknown beginning and ending points to include outer space. Not evidence. JMOO

That was just a lesson in an engineering mind and physics. I understood it to be humor.

 

[sunshineray]

Again… there is no data or witness testimony that places KR in the same area as JO at the time of 1162-2. We do NOT know where 1162-2 happened. Please stop repeating this false statement.

JO's phone clock was synced to the Lexus clock, as far as time and placement. It did not put him inside the house. MO from watching the testimony.

 

[Wishbone]

That was just a lesson in an engineering mind and physics. I understood it to be humor.

It makes as much sense as the rest of his testimony that he wasn't able to prove. JMOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

That was just a lesson in an engineering mind and physics. I understood it to be humor.

That's great. Someone has lost their life and someone else's life is on the line in a murder trial but the "expert witness" is on the stand apparently to provide humor.

 

[Soulmagent]

This hurry up from the judge is wild. I could actually listen to this guy

 

[jepop]

So claims Brennan.


View attachment 589984

Brennan never stops trying to hamstring the defense from making a fair and reasonable case at every turn. He is beyond nasty and underhand Imo.

 

[AngTxGal]

Again… there is no data or witness testimony that places KR in the same area as JO at the time of 1162-2. We do NOT know where 1162-2 happened. Please stop repeating this false statement.

Didn’t Welcher’s testimony pin down 1162-2 to be 8 min and 5 sec after the 3 pt turn?

IMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

So DiSogra says that the exemplar Lexus could have had a separate delay to Karen’s Lexus. He says without the testing of a second exemplar vehicle, you can’t certainly say the delay in Karen’s Lexus clock was 3 seconds. He says best practices would have involved testing with the key switch adjustment at 3 seconds, but to also do the entire analysis without it (that’s a null hypothesis, the thing Burgess didn’t do)

Makes complete sense from a scientific mind! Testing. Analyzing. Concluding. Not making the numbers fit their narrative as outlined by LE and the CW. It's refreshing to have a professional on stand to simplify and correct the calculations!

 

[Wishbone]

Didn’t Welcher’s testimony pin down 1162-2 to be 8 min and 5 sec after the 3 pt turn?

IMO

Refer to my post #804

 

[sunshineray]

I feel that you’re skipping over major flaws in both the physical evidence and its handling.
-DNA on the taillight ≠ proof of impact. DNA and a stray hair were found on Karen’s car. Not blood, tissue, or anything consistent with a violent collision.
-The “tiny shards” on his clothing weren’t embedded in wounds. Not evidence of a direct vehicle strike.
-The prosecution’s timeline rests on clock drift-prone tech and cherry-picked interpretations. Even their supposed “slam-on-the-gas” moment was undermined when the full vehicle data came to light.
-Evidence handling was a mess. John O’Keefe’s shirt, critical clothing that should have been immediately preserved, was kept by Trooper Proctor in his own custody for six weeks before being submitted to the crime lab. That’s a chain of custody nightmare, and it calls every trace finding into question. Defense has every right to push that.

If your case hinges on maybe-this, could-be-that, and compromised evidence that sat in someone’s possession for over a month, it’s not solid. And it’s definitely not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. MOO.

I respectfully don't agree with your interpretation of many things. We will never see certain things the same way and that's ok. I also don't put much concern on the whole Proctor did this or that to frame KR, not buying what I call the "Vannatter" effect. Respectfully AJMO

 

[arielilane]

Interesting that defense witness DiSogra used Burgess’ work.

 

[tara83]

I respectfully don't agree with your interpretation of many things. We will never see certain things the same way and that's ok. I also don't put much concern on the whole Proctor did this or that to frame KR, not buying what I call the "Vannatter" effect. Respectfully AJMO

The fact that he was actually fired for his horrid behavior doesn't give you pause at all? The guy was lead investigator and I just don't understand how people aren't outraged about a crooked cop.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Interesting that defense witness DiSogra used Burgess’ work.

It’s because he was brought on for the purpose of analyzing Aperture’s work…

 

[mzmarymac]

Trying to pay attention while working, but can someone please explain what I thought I heard the witness say? Did he say that the Aperture methodology/results were just as good as any others? Is he not saying they are wrong, but rather just saying there are other logical/sound results?

 

[Spectrix]

My goodness, Brennan objecting to every question that AJ asks.

But we all know that he's actually objecting to the the CW's "experts" being proven to be both uneducated and corrupt.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I respectfully don't agree with your interpretation of many things. We will never see certain things the same way and that's ok. I also don't put much concern on the whole Proctor did this or that to frame KR, not buying what I call the "Vannatter" effect. Respectfully

That’s completely fair, you’re entitled to your interpretation. But just to clarify, this isn’t about some dramatic Vannatter-style frame job conspiracy theory. To me, it’s about objective failures in procedure that would raise red flags in any case, regardless of who’s on trial.

Proctor wasn’t just a random rogue actor; he was the lead investigator who kept John O’Keefe’s shirt, potentially one of the most important piece of physical evidence,for six weeks outside the chain of custody before it ever made it to the lab. That’s not something to wave away, IMO. The state has the burden of proof, and when they mishandle critical evidence, the credibility of that proof is in question. You don’t have to believe in an orchestrated cover-up to acknowledge that this investigation was sloppy, biased, and deeply compromised. If this were happening to someone you loved, wouldn’t you want the same scrutiny? MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

I feel like Burgess and Welcher did their best to confuse the data and make the slides so busy they were hard to follow. DiSorga is so much clearer. Bonus points for DiSorga being likable.

He's likeable because he's respectful of how a court functions. Answer the question posed and don't try to flex your muscles to prove you're smarter than the attorney.

 

[GGbankster]

Interesting that defense witness DiSogra used Burgess’ work.

The defense expert witness is meant to counter the CW expert witness. The defense's role is not to solved the case, rather, they aim to defend and demonstrate that the CW expert witness's findings are inaccurate, thus necessitating the rebuttal.

The burden of proof lies with the commonwealth, not the defendant. IMO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Was everyone so lovey dovey over Brennan about what a great guy and attorney he was when he was defending a mobster charged with 19 murders?

 

[rescuemom]

Interesting that defense witness DiSogra used Burgess’ work.

I believe that he was asked to do just that. To impeach their shoddy expertise.