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

[waldojabba]

it was the guys attorney that testified in voir dire... sorry, I didn't catch his name at the beginning of voir dire.

It was proctors friend from the text chain. The D want to avoid Proctor and call in the recipients of the text. The Prosecution filed against it. They want Proctor.
The friend brought his lawyer.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

It was proctors friend from the text chain. The D want to avoid Proctor and call in the recipients of the text. The Prosecution filed against it. They want Proctor.
The friend brought his lawyer.

Was there a ruling on if the friend will testify or will we not hear until Monday?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Was there a ruling on if the friend will testify or will we not hear until Monday?

Ruling coming up at 4:30

 

[wackyw]

I’m baffled that the defense didn’t have DiSorga do the analysis as an independent expert.
He simply analyzed data and charts created by someone else. Why?

Some may not see that as a big deal- I do. He cannot come across as the expert he is trying to appear to be- if he cannot show that their analysis is wrong. He can’t speak on how they collected or analyzed the data at all- he can only speak on what was presented.

To me that is a huge mistake on the part of the defense

IMO

Imagine a case where a person is being tried for conspiracy to cause an explosion.
The prosecution expert gets a receipt, or two, that proves the accused bought some fertiliser and some diesel.
Prosec expert says that fertiliser and diesel is used for making explosives, case closed !
Using a copy of the receipt from the Prosec a defence expert says that type of fertiliser can't be used to make explosives, and the accused has a diesel car.
Same data as provided by the prosec., but def expert casts doubt on prosec witness conclusions. He doesn't have to actually make a bomb to cast doubt, but can use expert knowledge.

 

[waldojabba]

Was there a ruling on if the friend will testify or will we not hear until Monday?

We will hear Monday

 

[Warwick7]

They’re going to have to

IMO

Have to what?

 

[AngTxGal]

Do you know or have you heard of AARCA???? If not, stay tuned

Yea I have, and am working through their testimony from Trial 1.
I saw they had created an air cannon to shoot a glass at the tail light to model JO throwing the glass at the taillight to see if it would shatter both.
If I speculate what could happen- it depends on the think ness of the base of the glass. A martini glass- No. A bar glass- yes.
If he did- wouldn’t he have walked to the car and picked up the glass instead of leave it in someone’s yard? I think so- and that would give him a reason to walk back toward the car.

AARCA is like the MythBusters of accident reenactments from what I understand.

IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Have to what?

I’m betting the defense is going to have to call Proctor - but strategically- they can’t.
Imo

 

[Linda7NJ]

IIRC ARRCA witnesses confirmed Karen tapping John’s car would not have broken the taillight

IMO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Just heard: Motion Denied!!

 

[tara83]

IIRC ARRCA witnesses confirmed Karen tapping John’s car would not have broken the taillight

IMO

But hitting an arm breaks it into 47 pieces and doesn't even break an arm!

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1928547754575319084

 

[Linda7NJ]

But hitting an arm breaks it into 47 pieces and doesn't even break an arm!

But hitting an arm breaks it into 47 pieces and doesn't even break an arm!

Elbow.
We don’t know if there was hairline fractures - zero x-rays done on extremities

IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Just heard: Motion Denied!!

Link ?

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Elbow.
We don’t know if there was hairline fractures - zero x-rays done on extremities

IMO

So we should disregard what the ME says? Got it.

 

[tara83]

Elbow.
We don’t know if there was hairline fractures - zero x-rays done on extremities

IMO

But explain to be how any part of a body breaks a taillight into 47 pieces?

 

[AngTxGal]

Imagine a case where a person is being tried for conspiracy to cause an explosion.
The prosecution expert gets a receipt, or two, that proves the accused bought some fertiliser and some diesel.
Prosec expert says that fertiliser and diesel is used for making explosives, case closed !
Using a copy of the receipt from the Prosec a defence expert says that type of fertiliser can't be used to make explosives, and the accused has a diesel car.
Same data as provided by the prosec., but def expert casts doubt on prosec witness conclusions. He doesn't have to actually make a bomb to cast doubt, but can use expert knowledge.

This is what I gathered from this case… An expert 1 and an ‘expert’ 2 present information from tests they did and data they collected themselves, analyze the data, and present the results.

Expert 3 tries to debunk and says their timing is off by x seconds. Then presents what expert 3 says is a correction of the wrong results presenting it as more accurate results.
When Expert 3 is asked how they came to those more accurate results they explain that they used the data collected by expert 1 and 2.
So- Expert 3 is saying the data used by expert 1 and 2 is wrong, but when corrected it became right. Problem is- they don’t know how the data by expert 1 and 2 was collected.
And—- they didn’t collect the data themselves.

If data is incorrect- conclusions are incorrect. That is what the prosecution was saying.
And If you don’t know how it was collected- you don’t know how to correct what is wrong.
Does his question make the defense expert 1 and 2 more correct? Maybe if…
Does his question cast doubt on the results from expert 1 and 2? Not if…
If… and especially if the jury discounts all of Expert 3’s testimony because they see the expert doesn’t know how the data was collected.

IMO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Link ?

was on tv

 

[Linda7NJ]

So we should disregard what the ME says? Got it.

IMO She was the worst ME I have ever witnessed testifying. I personally have no faith in her or her opinions.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

IMO She was the worst ME I have ever witnessed testifying. I personally have no faith in her or her opinions.

What if she said there was evidence of a vehicle collision? Then she'd be the best ME ever witnessed. JMO