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

[jepop]

was on tv

Which motion?

 

[AngTxGal]

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

When I turned it off they were still discussing if D would be forced to call Proctor, and D said that P could if they wanted to do so.

IMO

 

[jepop]

Just heard: Motion Denied!!

Which motion has been denied ? CW's re Kelly Denver?

 

[nodamselindistress]

Matt Johnson on CTV said it

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Matt Johnson on CTV said it

Said what?

 

[Teche]

Thank y’all for posting all day long. Plus, the comments are on point. The reporters and the lawyers on X have nothing over WS posters.

 

[lohrtabitha]

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

They don't need to call him. His texts were already read by his boss YB. Proctor would either plead the 5th or be a royal pain in the buttocks anyway. That's why they added 4 new witnesses. To discuss MP. I can't wait to hear what they will say.

 

[wackyw]

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.

IMO

No, expert 3 is saying experts 1 and 2 "misinterpreted/misused" the data they themselves collected.
It is not up to the defence to prove anything, that's the proec job to do. The def job is simply to counter/cast doubt on the prosec conclusions.

As for the validity of the data collected, that's a different argument and the defence don't necessarily have to address/prove that, again just cast doubt.

Proof of what happened is solely the responsibility of the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt which should be well beyond "probably more likely according to what we have told you".

That's the legal requirement, but whether this all sinks in with jurors/us, over "what I think"/human nature is debateable. A trial doesn't seek to discover the truth, it's just a restricted argument. The truth is often elsewhere.

 

[TDoc72]

Voir dire of an old high school friend of Proctor (who’s nick name is Chip) who was on a text chain of all these high school friends for some 30 years.

I think the defense is trying to get some of these texts in.


ETA: WOW….one was something like…..
We’re going to pin it on the girl. She’s going to go down for this.

Holy crap! How did this not get read in T1? And wondering who the ‘we’ in “we’re” is/are—like the house people or other LE.

It's just where the lawyers can ask questions of a witness.... the judge will rule whether they can testify or not, or about a certain topic.

Sometimes it is done to see if a witness can be considered an "expert" too.

Just wanted to add that it’s not in front of the jury. They are out of the room.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Me too Anniesflowers. She is totally fine and a regular woman, well superwoman to survive all this from that first morning and go forward so strongly with grace and intelligence. Carry on you!! I noticed as well people put off by her, did not like, and worse. Personalization, projecting..jealous, something. I totally agree with you about all. Real human being women here is right. IMO

On a side note she was a very generous woman,a quality that is not that common.
Also JOK's brother Paul and his wife Erin testified how much they had liked her and she and Erin were very close friends.
IIRC: she got high reviews from her students.
imo

 

[keek]

On a side note she was a very generous woman,a quality that is not that common.
Also JOK's brother Paul and his wife Erin testified how much they had liked her and she and Erin were very close friends.
IIRC: she got high reviews from her students.
imo

Teachers and or other HS staff also spoke up about her, athletic and outgoing. Honor Society. People may not remember or know little at all about her personally but should know she is a cancer survivor, lives with MS and lives with a colostomy bag. YES people. Then the likes of a proctor comes along and mocks that?? Brains apart from all of them she is. IMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Voir dire of an old high school friend of Proctor (who’s nick name is Chip) who was on a text chain of all these high school friends for some 30 years.

I think the defense is trying to get some of these texts in.


ETA: WOW….one was something like…..
We’re going to pin it on the girl. She’s going to go down for this.

Whoa Nellie!

"ETA: WOW….one was something like…..
We’re going to pin it on the girl. She’s going to go down for this."

I missed this afternoon.

 

[Tortoise]

Jackson asked DiSogra whether O'Keefe could have locked his phone prior to the reverse event recorded on Read's car. DiSogra said no, the "lock event" happened after.

Link MSN

Jackson knows the techstream data only shows a 5 second window each side of the trigger event. It doesn't mean the collision had to have happened in that timespan, so what's his point about John locking his phone after that end time? It's not an end to the event, she was still in reverse without braking.

(even if DiSogra is correct, which he doesn't appear to be, based on more accurate data available IMO)

MOO

 

[keek]

Teachers and or other HS staff also spoke up about her, athletic and outgoing. Honor Society. People may not remember or know little at all about her personally but should know she is a cancer survivor, lives with MS and lives with a colostomy bag. YES people. Then the likes of a proctor comes along and mocks that?? Brains apart from all of them she is. IMO

She also has a Masters in finance. She was and is a very accomplished woman. She remet JOK, he looked her up, had dated while back. The rest is history unfortunately. IMO

 

[nightowl1975]

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

So, the problem with this last line of thinking is it really doesn’t matter either way. If the data collection and/or data was incorrect, then none of expert 1 or 2 testimony can be trusted. If the data is correct, then expert 3 is offering a reasonable explanation for said data had experts 1 and 2 finished their calculations. Either way, the CW has a huge problem. I don’t think it helped the CW at all to get up there and cast doubt on expert 1 and 2’s data and data collection. Hello. Those are supposed to be CW experts.

 

[louvillian08]

If the defense wants Michael Proctors text to come in, they should call him,

IMO

This trial stopped being about justice and upholding the rule of law once the CW refused to call the lead investigator. Not to mention they only called the ME because the judge compelled them to. MOO

 

[waldojabba]

Good article from trial 1 /Proctor and AJ

‘Shame on you, sir’: Trooper Proctor admits he ‘dehumanized’ Karen Read with vulgar texts

Karen Read was the only person who had motive to kill John O’Keefe, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor testified Wednesday.

www.boston.com

 

[Seni]

Good article from trial 1 /Proctor and AJ

‘Shame on you, sir’: Trooper Proctor admits he ‘dehumanized’ Karen Read with vulgar texts

Karen Read was the only person who had motive to kill John O’Keefe, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor testified Wednesday.

www.boston.com

Yes, soo odious and vile from Proctor. Obviously Jackson's heartfelt reaction was struck from the record, but must have had great resonance at the time.

 

[Derph]

The Defense is NOT going to call proctor according to Yanetti.

Karen Read’s lawyers call first 2 witnesses to testify, say they won’t call Trooper Michael Proctor

On the way out of court, Read’s lawyer David Yannetti said it was a “team decision” to not have Proctor take the stand.

www.boston25news.com

" On the way out of court, Read’s lawyer David Yannetti said it was a “team decision” to not have Proctor take the stand.


Instead, the defense plans to use people Proctor messaged as a way to introduce his crude texts in the trial. "

Too bad. I wanted to see him squirm again.

 

[Amber29]

Whoa Nellie!

"ETA: WOW….one was something like…..
We’re going to pin it on the girl. She’s going to go down for this."

I missed this afternoon.

Where did this come from? Who has the texts they are trying to get in from that group chat?