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

[bobbymkii]

I think it’s normal & common to get time wrong and it’s not comparable to Karen’s statements

IMO

I guess Karen just can't prove her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore she must be guilty?

 

[keek]

I guess Karen just can't prove her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore she must be guilty?

It's 'funny' because JMc's all about times that rigid clock watcher, at a party with drinks flowing even. Her clock times are not seeming to work out for her, against scientific 'CLOCK' evidence. Who left when, who was parked out front when and for how long. Is there a time when BHiggins jeep was there but was not turns out according to Nagle? There is a time stamp though when he was at the CPD. Now, that's a real proof of time, no trying to match that time up for anyone's narrative. IMO

 

[bobbymkii]

It's 'funny' because JMc's all about times that rigid clock watcher, at a party with drinks flowing even. Her clock times are not seeming to work out for her, against scientific 'CLOCK' evidence. Who left when, who was parked out front when and for how long. Is there a time when BHiggins jeep was there but was not turns out according to Nagle? There is a time stamp though when he was at the CPD. Now, that's a real proof of time, no trying to match that time up for anyone's narrative. IMO

 

[SteveS]

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?

Proctor himself is definitely NOT the cornerstone of the def -- the def is based on the fact that an expert examination (by ARCCA, elite in the field) clearly proves the damage to the car/tail light are NOT possible via JOK at all, and the damage to JOK is not from a vehicle.

The presence of the tail light pieces must be due to someone tampering with the scene. They don't need Proctor himself - and in fact, he'd just deny it and make excuses - for the rampant sloppiness and inadequacy in investigating, in securing the scene from tampering, in keeping collected evidence properly where it can't be messed with or contaminated, and so on. They've already obtained lots and lots of testimony about all that.

Proctor testifying puts a face to the monster. Without that, its left to the jury's imagination. It's impossible to say who that helps.

They'll still flesh out his incredibly bad texts via those he texted with, showing extreme bias and a primary central investigator out to get KR, making it clear that IF he didnt do it personally, he would very likely have looked the other way to let others do so.

Personally, I've thought that the failure to call Proctor was a mistake by the cw. Without him they have no actual explainer for his misdeeds that were significant enough to get him fired. And the def can (and has, and will continue to) otherwise get his misdeeds into the jury's presence, with the jury left aware that the cw is hiding him even though he built THEIR case. Not good.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Thanks for that info! I wasn't thinking they pulled the data before.. but duh.. Trooper Paul pulled it! Then Gaffney did her chip off, which didn't result in any more information anyway.

The SD card that Burgess pulled, did have infotainment on/off times (not to be confused with techstream data that has always been available and does NOT have timestamps), so could that be the new bombshell evidence? If it is their bombshell.. they sure didn't present it that way and that bomb fizzled because most commenting on the case do not even seem to acknowledge it or care JMO

I think DiSogra did a great job pointing out how the micro SD card is not ‘customarily’ (his word) used in accident reconstruction. So, similar to their single exemplary Lexus, we don’t know if it’s quality data. There’s no study’s or established methodology, or even experimentation to show that it is anything useful. For all we know, it could be junk data. Novel things like that aren’t useful in a trial if their effectiveness hasn’t been established, IMO.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I thought the blue grease paint test was so impressive. I never expected those results, to align with the areas of lacerations on his whole arm, and I didn't imagine the taillight would be as high as his upper arm. I expect Mr Brennan will present those pictures to the dog bite expert. JMO

I mean, I expected it to line up, since you can see Dr Welcher positioning himself and crouching down to ensure it does. MOO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

That could be. Or it could be that Burgess himself just couldn't do it. JMO

You’re correct, the defense expert was the only person even experienced enough to attempt. They always knew the chip off could permanently damage the infotainment system, and the defense team actually filed a motion to look for other methods to extract data that would allow for future extractions, but it was denied by Judge Cannone.

 

[keek]

You might not care about chain of custody but the jury might actually be serious about their job and consider it reasonable doubt. JMO

Crucial is evidence care in a trial. Otherwise it's useless to prove anything fairly and realistically. Broken plastic pieces all thrown in with JOK's clothing in a bag for one. Really needs to be called NO evidence to be a fair trial, which of course, the list is endless of not being, per legal eyes and ours, but we are not on the jury. Hoping they have ability to use critical thinking and sharp minds all together, not just 'she acts guilty'.. she said..and realize under what conditions of a person KR was under at that moment. Look at all the witnesses caught in lies, cringe, cringe. IMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

IMO it’s not reasonable to believe a dog caused those arm injuries. They’re abrasions.
A dog would leave DNA & hair and dogs have a lower jaw. There are no punctures one would expect.

If the tail light had injured John’s arm and caused a wound, as Welcher said, the wounds would have been going in one direction - big lateral scrapes across the arm.

Instead, his wounds are almost in a ‘V’ shape, pointing one way one his upper arm, and another below the elbow. IMO the tail light could not have caused those wounds in the way Welcher stated.

 

[keek]

I mean, I expected it to line up, since you can see Dr Welcher positioning himself and crouching down to ensure it does. MOO

Imagination at work, not science, well actually assuming JOK was even there!! IMO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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

Exactly @keek ….. and IANAL…. yet will add that IMO accessory charges could also perhaps include accessory after the fact. MOO

 

[themonk]

You’re correct, the defense expert was the only person even experienced enough to attempt. They always knew the chip off could permanently damage the infotainment system, and the defense team actually filed a motion to look for other methods to extract data that would allow for future extractions, but it was denied by Judge Cannone.

BBM

oh, you don't say

 

[keek]

Right, with all that dancing and hysterical laughing over the sister and her umbrella on the utube vid they made, says JMc. They made a timeline with JOK's mother and another sister of JMc. Sketchy?? Yes. Had to figure out TIMES to match. EXACT times, per JMc. IMO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I have no concerns - trial 1 Karen’s team managed to muddy the waters. They failed spectacularly in Trial 2
I have zero concerns about chain of custody

IMO

<modsnip>

IMO it seems that it is the CW and prosecution that has ‘muddied the waters’. And the case is also IMO heavily impacted by the absence of proper ‘Chain of Custody’ and protocol matters. And IIUC the defense has barely begun their case in Trial 2. MOO

 

[Wishbone]

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?

In turn, isn't the lead detective the cornerstone of the cw case? I would think the jury believes he is a very important part of the prosecution and they should hear from him, if he is alive. JMOO

 

[keek]

In turn, isn't the lead detective the cornerstone of the cw case? I would think the jury believes he is a very important part of the prosecution and they should hear from him, if he is alive. JMOO

The lead detective is definitely the cornerstone. The primary investigator, the LEAD. It's or it should be very, very questionable to them about his whereabouts in this trial. IMO OH, and along with JOK was not hit by a car per the real experts the Def. has.

 

[Wishbone]

I have no concerns - trial 1 Karen’s team managed to muddy the waters. They failed spectacularly in Trial 2
I have zero concerns about chain of custody

IMO

3.1. The Importance of the Chain of Custody​

The chain of custody demonstrates the integrity of an item of evidence [34,35,36]. A paper trail should be maintained so that the individuals who supervised the preservation of evidence at any given time can be recognized and summoned to testify at trial if the need arises. As highlighted in a study by Jaffe and colleagues, a chain of custody control of evidence must be established whenever an object is presented as evidence [37,38]. Otherwise, the evidence may be considered inadmissible, casting serious doubts on its authenticity/integrity (also considering the possibility of adulteration and contamination of the sample) and on the tests carried out on them such as, for example, toxicological or histological tests [39,40], in usual or unusual, or “alternative”, matrices [41,42]. Proper chain of custody has been a crucial factor in high-profile cases, such as the 1994 murder trial of former pro football star O.J. Simpson [1,43].


The chain of custody must contain and document every transmission of the object from person to person since the seizure. The goal is to establish that the evidence is related to the alleged crime, was collected at the scene, and was in its original/unaltered condition rather than having been tampered with or otherwise polluted [1]. To convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against him or her must have been meticulously handled to avoid tampering or contamination.


The traceability of the registration of the control, of the transfer, and of the analysis of the samples indicates the transparency of the procedure [44]. Maintaining the chain of custody is critical in forensic practice. Indeed, chain of custody documentation should be complete with information regarding the circumstances of the collection of evidence, the conditions of custody during the handling and/or retention of evidence, and how evidence is handed over to subsequent custodians each time that a transfer occurs (together with the signs of the people involved in the respective phase).

The Chain of Custody in the Era of Modern Forensics: From the Classic Procedures for Gathering Evidence to the New Challenges Related to Digital Data - PMC

The purpose of this work is to renew the interest and attention for the chain of custody in forensic medicine, its establishment and maintenance, protecting the integrity and validity of evidence as well as to analyze how over time the establishment ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[keek]

3.1. The Importance of the Chain of Custody​

The chain of custody demonstrates the integrity of an item of evidence [34,35,36]. A paper trail should be maintained so that the individuals who supervised the preservation of evidence at any given time can be recognized and summoned to testify at trial if the need arises. As highlighted in a study by Jaffe and colleagues, a chain of custody control of evidence must be established whenever an object is presented as evidence [37,38]. Otherwise, the evidence may be considered inadmissible, casting serious doubts on its authenticity/integrity (also considering the possibility of adulteration and contamination of the sample) and on the tests carried out on them such as, for example, toxicological or histological tests [39,40], in usual or unusual, or “alternative”, matrices [41,42]. Proper chain of custody has been a crucial factor in high-profile cases, such as the 1994 murder trial of former pro football star O.J. Simpson [1,43].


The chain of custody must contain and document every transmission of the object from person to person since the seizure. The goal is to establish that the evidence is related to the alleged crime, was collected at the scene, and was in its original/unaltered condition rather than having been tampered with or otherwise polluted [1]. To convict a defendant of a crime, the evidence against him or her must have been meticulously handled to avoid tampering or contamination.


The traceability of the registration of the control, of the transfer, and of the analysis of the samples indicates the transparency of the procedure [44]. Maintaining the chain of custody is critical in forensic practice. Indeed, chain of custody documentation should be complete with information regarding the circumstances of the collection of evidence, the conditions of custody during the handling and/or retention of evidence, and how evidence is handed over to subsequent custodians each time that a transfer occurs (together with the signs of the people involved in the respective phase).

The Chain of Custody in the Era of Modern Forensics: From the Classic Procedures for Gathering Evidence to the New Challenges Related to Digital Data - PMC

The purpose of this work is to renew the interest and attention for the chain of custody in forensic medicine, its establishment and maintenance, protecting the integrity and validity of evidence as well as to analyze how over time the establishment ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How could this even be questioned as so crucial? Thank you for posting for all. Needed, IMO

 

[AngTxGal]

Respectfully, I would caution you not to assume that if something wasn't done at this particular point, by this specific witness, that it then is not going to be done at all.

The def has no obligation to make one witness wear all the hats, if they don't want to. They can elicit the needed testing and testimony from someone more compelling, if they wish. I would wager what you think is missing is going to come later via a different witness.

THINK: Why then would they not have DiSogra be the one to do the testing and then present it? They're only going to have one person do that, to be sure. Is it perhaps because they have a more persuasive authority who has done the testing and will be even more compelling on the stand in presenting its story in a way that can't be torn down by the cw? I bet that's the plan.

Those of us who watched the 1st trial unfold saw powerful defense testing that was compelling, and those ARCCA witnesses (who are the best of the best) were NOT even actually working for the defense then. They had been hired by the feds to determine whether it was even possible for the claimed event to have happened, based on the damage to the car vs the injuries to JOK. They worked for the feds alone, then they were essentially loaned, so to speak, to the defense to show up at trial and testify as to that testing and their conclusions. That's all. Their conclusion was that it was scientifically impossible to have happened.

This time they ARE working directly for the defense, and they can do whatever other testing and reports may be needed, along with providing the related testimony to the court.

Those of us who saw this before know what's coming, only now it will be an expanded version. The facts are the facts - JOK was not hit by KR vehicle or by any vehicle, in fact. Not possible, no matter what KR may have feared or said (or even thought) initially. It's just a matter of finding the best way to get the jury to see that truth.

I wasn’t assuming- I just stated my point of view at that moment in time. Of course we don’t know what the defense will do- they barely got started. Probably a week or two left.

The KR trial is one part of the case. If she is found guilty they will stop trying to find a cause or blame. There will be appeals and such and likely tampering with evidence.
If she is found No Guilty- JOs manner of death isn’t wrapped up. So questions remain.

Timeline is tight- if we assume JO phone lock is near the time of his last movement then we must say that something happened to JO right near that time. If it did it happened between the time KR pulled up to the Fairview house and she left the Fairview house.
I’d like to hear all the different interpretations of what JO’s phone lock could mean and not mean.

IMO there is already plenty of info to support reasonable doubt, she should be found Not guilty.
But… I think it is because of the physical evidence being used to prosecute her.

Physical evidence- tail light and autopsy- This to me creates huge reasonable doubt, it doesn’t work so the timeline doesn’t matter. I can’t see how she could have backed up and hit a glancing blow on a person hard enough to shatter a tail light and only put scratches on his arm.

So what could have happened to JO? Given the time line it is still possible that KR knocked him down, or he tripped, and he fell hit his head and broke the glass. Incapacitated he moved around in the glass and cut up his arm- this is in line with the timeline and the autopsy.

IMO— hoping to get to see ARCCA present crash reconstruction evidence

 

[Warwick7]

I have no concerns - trial 1 Karen’s team managed to muddy the waters. They failed spectacularly in Trial 2
I have zero concerns about chain of custody

IMO

You may have zero concerns but in M00 the jury WILL have concerns.