MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #31 Retrial

[DustysMom]

No one can download new data off the Lexus because the CW’s first expert who did the initial chip off procedure destroyed it. Welcher and Burgess had zero new information from the car, even though the CW claimed for months they had new “bombshell” data. They lied.

 

[lohrtabitha]

BBM above I don’t recall in this trial that all of Proctor’s texts to his friends were read. Some texts were read that were sent to LE but I do not recall that ones sent to his friend group were. They can only come into evidence thru Proctor or his friends.
That is why they had the voir dire Fri after court of Proctors friend Jonathan D. Whether they can have the friends testify and enter those texts into evidence or Proctor has to enter them into evidence in court - the judge has not yet ruled. That’s my understanding.
JMO

Makes sense, but I believe AJ and his Dream Team of know what they are doing. For the sake of justice, I hope the judge allow the friends to testify. The jury should hear every horrible thing that came out of Proctor’s mouth. Mo

 

[Wishbone]

It answered a lot of questions about height of the rear light, arm exposure in relation to the plastic as it broke, and also his knee aligning with the bumper and his eye level with the spoiler. Not an ineffective test at all IMO.

It answered nothing, And it certainly did not prove JO was hit by the Lexus. Just in the realm of a myriad of possibilities. It was reminiscent of a childish cartoon when adding the blue paint. JMOO

snipped
Welcher said the berm does not change his opinion because there are other possibilities and there is no way to know exactly how O'Keefe's body was positioned.
"That is one data point of many data points," Welcher said.

snipped
Earlier in the afternoon, Alessi tried to ask Welcher if Read's vehicle would have ended up on the lawn of 34 Fairview Road after backing up at nearly 24 miles per hour, allegedly hitting O'Keefe. During the tense line of questioning, Welcher said it was possible, but he can't say for sure because he would need to know where the vehicle started moving.
"Your first question was 'reasonable.' And I said no. Now you're asking 'possible.' Of course it is possible. Whether it is reasonable or not, I have to know the starting position," Welcher said. "If it's very close to the side, then it could be reasonable. If it's further toward the middle of the road because snow's building up on the side of the road, then it's probably not as reasonable. I would need more information to be able to determine whether it's reasonable or not. It's certainly possible. It's possible it could have shot into space as an engineer, but not probable."

Karen Read trial features cross-examination of crash reconstruction expert Judson Welcher

Judson Welcher, a crash reconstruction expert called by the prosecution, was back on the stand for a second day of testimony in the Karen Read trial.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[lohrtabitha]

CW expert dresses as murder victim, becomes crash test dummy & presents 5th grader-type experiments!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927550783236522376

Ofcourse I read this after I already posted about middle schoolers being smarter than Welcher.

 

[Warwick7]

It answered a lot of questions about height of the rear light, arm exposure in relation to the plastic as it broke, and also his knee aligning with the bumper and his eye level with the spoiler. Not an ineffective test at all IMO.

In M00 it's only guesstimate. He has no idea where JO was walking. JO could have been walking away with his back to her.

Even he acknowledged that he doesn't know the precise manner he allegedly was struck. He admited that he can't recreate the exact circumstances of the impact.

 

[Wishbone]

Actually, the defense doesn't need to call him. For what purpose? His texts have already been read to this jury and entered into evidence. What is your take on why the CW didn't call him if you think he needs to be seen and heard? Please defend him as I witness as I want to hear it from you.

Not the poster you were addressing but have been wondering if proctor should be called to testify.
I would never enter into defense of proctor territory but have been weighing the pros and cons of having him testify. Best guess if called he would be a hostile witness, but many damning actions would be revealed more than they have been. I'll mention one other thing that has been plaguing me....What does the jury think it knows or doesn't know about proctor? Do some of them believe him to be dead? Or have they figured out he is no longer employed in law enforcement and want to know all the reasons why. JMOO

 

[Warwick7]

You make great points and I agree with you.
IMO JMO -
1) After arriving 34F at 12:24AM, JO exits the Lexus to walk into 34 Fairview VIA going to the back of the vehicle?
WHAT? WHY?
Then KR reverses and hits him hard enough to send him spinning towards the front of the vehicle at such an angle that he lands near the flagpole. Is this even POSSIBLE?
And, his arm took the brunt of the damage and instead of broken bones and bruising he has the scratches and punctures of a dog k?
Then, he falls backwards on the lawn resulting in severe trauma to the back of his head rendering him unconscious. OK - Dr Wolf says it’s possible and he was intoxicated. However, the ME admits JO’s injuries are not the norm for a pedestrian collision.
2) But, then a truckload of people arrive 1 minute after the Lexus, yet no one witnesses this feat of physics! Three people are parked behind the Lexus for 5 - 10 minutes and all they see is KR sitting in the drivers seat.
3) JMc is texting JO every 3 to 4 minutes while looking out the window @12:27-12:45 and she doesn’t see JO or a vehicular collision.
4) KR connects to WiFi at 1M at 12:36 and the garage ring camera has her arriving 12:41. So, she was at 34F at 12:24 and pulled into JOs driveway at 12:41. That’s 17 minutes - minus a conservative 6 minutes commute- she was at 34F a total of 11 minutes. The ‘collision’ had to happen between 12:24 and 12:35. And no one saw or heard anything.
5) Furthermore, BH, JMc, MMc, JN and CA all leave 34 Fairview after KR and do not notice an incapacitated JO on the lawn.

Trying my best to think who would believe this preposterous (to me) theory.
A) a first year law student who is trying to argue anything
B) someone with such a hatred for KR, that their common sense meter is out of commission
C) reporter who wants an interesting angle for their coverage of the case
D) criminal, expert or lawsuit recipient who gains if KR is convicted
E) juror whose head is spinning from the tech stream and key cycles ‘data’ (just make it stop!)
F) regular Joe who is just fed up with this ‘trial of a million sidebars’

BBM
Yet JM told everyone she had to "flip him over."
It's one more thing that shows cw theory isn't possible.

 

[Warwick7]

BBM
Yet JM told everyone she had to "flip him over."
It's one more thing that shows cw theory isn't possible.

Then we have the dense texts:

“tell them the guy was never in the house”….

“exactly”

 

[keek]

In M00 it's only guesstimate. He has no idea where JO was walking. JO could have been walking away with his back to her.

Even he acknowledged that he doesn't know the precise manner he allegedly was struck. He admited that he can't recreate the exact circumstances of the impact.

He was assuming EVERYTHING he pretty much said in wrapping it up. NO proof at all that JOK was even on the street at all. IMO

 

[geevee]

BBM
Yet JM told everyone she had to "flip him over."
It's one more thing that shows cw theory isn't possible.

Weird that KerriR said she had to brush snow off his face, and had he been lying there face down since 12:30 ish, any snow that had been under him would have melted by his body heat.

And had he actually been on his face, with as badly as head wounds bleed (and he had a sizeable one), the sides of his head/face would have been completely covered in blood.

Yet we saw blood streaking down his t-shirt and front of his jeans (not to mention vomit as well), wonder how that could have occurred whether he ended up face down or up? Peeps are not telling the truth.

 

[Warwick7]

When the fbi confronted Lucky did he lie to them and then cut the interview short? Ummm no.

Because Lucky didn't lie and didn't need to lie.

In M00 Jennifer McCabe is a pathological liar. She told Proctor she saw the SUV leave at 12:45, when KR at 12:36 connected to JO's wifi.

She lied to the fbi and told them she was her sister when they arrived. They asked
if she called anyone. She said 2 people.
She really called 5 in 10 min.

Imagine if KR did what JM did....

 

[keek]

Weird that KerriR said she had to brush snow off his face, and had he been lying there face down since 12:30 ish, any snow that had been under him would have melted by his body heat.

And had he actually been on his face, with as badly as head wounds bleed (and he had a sizeable one), the sides of his head/face would have been completely covered in blood.

Yet we saw blood streaking down his t-shirt and front of his jeans (not to mention vomit as well), wonder how that could have occurred whether he ended up face down or up? Peeps are not telling the truth.

She had said she didn't know it was him till she brushed the snow off his face. Seemed a little much, she knew him well. He was most likely cold enough to have the snow gather, but also KR had said when asked, that he was just laying there. No mention if needed to be turned over or was. That was from JMc. NO photographs were taken I believe by the CPD. IMO

 

[Warwick7]

When the fbi confronted Lucky did he lie to them and then cut the interview short? Ummm no.

Because Lucky didn't lie and didn't need to lie.

In M00 Jennifer McCabe is a pathological liar. She told Proctor she saw the SUV leave at 12:45, when KR at 12:36 connected to JO's wifi.

She lied to the fbi and told them she was her sister when they arrived. They asked
if she called anyone. She said 2 people.
She really called 5 in 10 min.

Imagine if KR did what JM did....

Thennnnnnn her husband, after fbi left, advised her to call fbi and fess up.

 

[keek]

Thennnnnnn her husband, after fbi left, advised her to call fbi and fess up.

Imagine being Queen of your own world and dis the FBI, especially after giving them her sister's name when they asked if she was JMc. All follows a pattern that I hope ends up in a courtroom at some point for orchestrating and being accessory to the death of JOK. At some point up the road. IMO

 

[LittleSeaTree]

I agree, I’ve said it before but I think just-world fallacy plays a huge role in this case (the belief that bad things only happen to bad people, and that the legal system naturally sorts good from the guilty). People want to believe that Karen must have done something wrong, because it’s more comfortable than accepting the alternative, that an innocent woman could be framed, railroaded, or blamed to protect others in positions of power.

This bias shows up when people dismiss evidence of police misconduct, or when they brush off inconsistencies in the timeline, DNA questions, or deleted phone records, because facing the full weight of the alternative is disturbing. It means acknowledging that corruption and coverups can happen in real life, not just in movies. But I think believing in justice doesn’t mean assuming the system always gets it right. In fact, true belief in justice means being willing to question the system when it appears to go off the rails. MOO.

You’re seriously amazing, thank you for every one of your posts!

 

[Izzylizzy]

I mean they appear in the documentary, I can’t help but assume they approved her doing them. IMO

Thanks, I didn't watch any of her interviews.

 

[sunshineray]

Not much benefit in having a hostile witness on the stand. The better question is why didn't the cw call the lead detective in their case?

I don't think there's a question at all about that but I'll be very surprised if the defense doesn't call him. Isn't he the cornerstone of their cover-up and planting evidence defense?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Love the phone messages “Where are you”????

After she just dropped him off.

And seriously, who thinks she wouldn’t have been pounding on the Albert’s door when he didn’t turn up instead of calling everyone pressing she had NO IDEA where he was and LYING saying she left him at the Waterfall?

All in my opinion

 

[sunshineray]

B

Because he is vengeful, lying sack of *****, who has always had the same motive of let's destroy KR . He is not about justice and now that he has been fired he's what people call a loose cannon. His texts have already been read to this court so nobody needs to look at this disgusting waste of a human being. The best thing that happened in this case so far is that he lost his badge! So happy for the citizens of MA. I'm sure it was a long time coming! Mo

It's seems the defense desperately wants to get more of Proctor's texts in evidence...the "Chip" texts. But instead of calling Proctor and destroying him on the stand they want to bring in some random friend of his (who only had one late hour text in the specific KR convo) to read the "Chip" texts. Doesn't it seem for some reason the defense doesn't want Proctor on the stand to be lambasted in front of the jury? I don't know why because that would seem like a win-win for the defense, no? JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Have you hear of PTSD? Annieflowers is correct in saying she was playing with scenarios in order to try to process her feelings. And for the record and several times over, KRs feelings are not facts.

If you're talking strictly about things KR said during her trial, which were filmed for that documentary, I don't believe PTSD had anything to do with those. They were well thought out, IMO.

If you mean the things said by KR during the trauma the night and early morning JO was found, all I can say is excited utterances in shocking or stressful times are thought to be likely more trustworthy. MO

"Excited Utterance falls under the spontaneous category of hearsay exceptions. This means that excited utterances are spontaneous statements made without any thought to the effect of the statement.

As a result, a spontaneous statement (like an excited utterance) is usually seen as more trustworthy because the declarant did not have the time to strategically make the statement in their best interest."

Simplifying the Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay - Law Venture

Learn how to master the Excited Utterance exception to the rule against hearsay. These hearsay examples will definitely help!

lawventure.com