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

[SteveS]

If it is my ars on the line- I hire an expert to redo all of the analysis and show clearly that what they did is incorrect.
Defense teams hire their own independent expert to debunk the prosecution all the time. They have to dismantle the evidence with their own evidence- he didn’t do that.
I work in science and statistics- I know the difference between redoing the work of someone else and doing it yourself. The defense took a short cut here- was it cheaper?
If I’m on the side of KR, I would be wondering why they took this out.

IMO

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.

 

[LittleSeaTree]

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

This.

 

[mrjitty]

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

There is a tactical reason why they did this.

Any separate extraction and data analysis would be discoverable to the CW. But DiSogra and the defence know very well that once the data was discovered on the SD card, BERLA is going to give you the same numbers every time.

So to avoid Brennan being able to stand there and ask DiSorga about how he has a timestamped key cycle 1162 initiating outside Waterfall in his data set, DiSogra instead simply adopted the CW data.

That meant he could get away with saying in his evidence in chief that he had no reason to think the base data set was wrong, and instead he was going to argue only about the clock drift.

Even then though he did have to admit on cross that the key cycle time stamps were in the infotainment user data extracted since trial 1.

I agree it appears strange that DiSogra has no baseline analysis of his own - but the reason is "the data is the data"

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Were these texts allowed in full, in context, at the first trial?

Yes because Proctor was called. So he could then be cross examined about his statements in the texts.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Yes - I agree - and to further the analogy, the defence expert in your example also avoids analysing the exact SKUs etc on the receipts because he doesn't want to inadvertently prove part of the prosecution case. He just takes their word for it.

In the Read case key cycle 1162 is the receipts.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

Just bringing this over @missy1974

This is from Welcher's direct examination ...

in the maintenance software what we see is and this is noted in the report too that when the vehicle gets into the Canton Police Department after this event you can see the mileage is 12,665 miles so that shows up um in Trooper Paul's report it shows up in the photographs and it shows up as matching the mileage in the text stream data both at triggers 1164 and triggers 1167. Even Welcher said it was in the possession of Canton Police Department for 1164. I do not think they have the times matched with the key cycles precisely, I still think they have a list of key cycles, they have a list of times, they matched what fit. But it doesn't mean it's right.

He doesn't say 1164 was in their possession. 1165 and 1166 are tow truck on and off - i.e very short movement of the vehicle.

In any event, yesterday DiSorga himself on cross says each key cycle is time stamped in the infotainment system. Later on he proceeds to argue about those very timestamps and whether they are 3 seconds out!

Brennan: The power log on and off gives you the exact data & time you can match to the techstream data does it not?

DiSogra: Yes it does

That isn't jazz hands, that seems to be the evidence at this point, no? Even their own expert said it. (Brennan quickly moved on)

What I mean about jazz hands is they have no data / forensic argument against 1162 being the Fairview trip.

Instead they are setting up to say "she would have crashed on the lawn!", "we don't know exactly where she started reversing", "the reverse comes a few seconds too soon!"

I tip my hat to Alessi's inventiveness here, but big picture it doesn't seem great that they have conceded (up to this point), that the "data is the data" and thus the defendant did engage in the high speed reversing manoeuvre on the Fairview trip. And they have avoided revealing that for months, though they message in real time to their surrogates.

Timecode: Exchange on cross at approx 3.29

 

[mrjitty]

@Tortoise

Are you referring to the ruling on questioning Welcher about Trooper Paul's report from trial 1? Or something else?

Alessi had Dr Welcher's report and he was freely able to cross-examine him on his methods. He testified he did not use Trooper Paul's work. How is that a denial of opportunity?

yes - they need to call Trooper Paul if they want to do this.

Basically this is just an attempt to muddy the waters, as Trooper Paul would simply say that the timestamps exist now so he no longer would mix up whether any of his test results were in 1164. Trooper Pauls' report is actually correct about his testing. He just wobbled under pressure from AJ - understandable. I feel this was more for the internet audience than the jury - the jury obviously have no idea about the tow truck theory. Not will they unless AJ has a witness to say it. In comparison to Trial 1 - we are long past the point where AJ got this in last time.

In any event this was all debunked two weeks ago. We know 1162 cannot be the tow truck load since the extraction of the ignition timestamps. DiSogra stated clearly on X yesterday (see my post above) that every key cycle created by ignition on is timestamped.

What is most remarkable to me is how the likes of Mr Bederow somehow never speak to the implications of 1162 being timestamped. The intentional dangerous event (high speed reverse) is one of the biggest legs the CW need to prove, yet it appears to have been conceded pretrial. When they conceded the act, this became a causation case, but the discourse never caught on to that so far.

All IMO based on watching daily testimony to data.

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

@Tortoise



yes - they need to call Trooper Paul if they want to do this.

Basically this is just an attempt to muddy the waters, as Trooper Paul would simply say that the timestamps exist now so he no longer would mix up whether any of his test results were in 1164. Trooper Pauls' report is actually correct about his testing. He just wobbled under pressure from AJ - understandable. I feel this was more for the internet audience than the jury - the jury obviously have no idea about the tow truck theory. Not will they unless AJ has a witness to say it. In comparison to Trial 1 - we are long past the point where AJ got this in last time.

In any event this was all debunked two weeks ago. We know 1162 cannot be the tow truck load since the extraction of the ignition timestamps. DiSogra stated clearly on X yesterday (see my post above) that every key cycle created by ignition on is timestamped.

What is most remarkable to me is how the likes of Mr Bederow somehow never speak to the implications of 1162 being timestamped. The intentional dangerous event (high speed reverse) is one of the biggest legs the CW need to prove, yet it appears to have been conceded pretrial. When they conceded the act, this became a causation case, but the discourse never caught on to that so far.

All IMO based on watching daily testimony to data.

IMO

Yes, there's no denying that at this stage they've conceded that 1162 was Fairview, by engaging their witness in the exercise of calculating clock variances, between the Lexus and John's phone.

It seems it was a very late decision, last Sunday, to even call DiSogra to prepare to testify. I think the only reason they called him was because there is no way to avoid that data now, and they may as well get a stab at trying to confuse the jury as to whether John locked his phone after the triggering event, using irrelevant data.

So now the jury has to ignore this high speed reverse maneuver as well as all the evidence of a collision. John's phone data coinciding with the Lexus trigger event, Karen saying that is where she last saw him, also expecting to find him there, not asking Jen whether John made it inside the house or being at all curious as to what time John left the party if she really thought he made it inside, his bent arm and area of arm injury lining up to the taillight, broken shards of glass and plastic in the road and his broken bar glass with him, his shoe at the kerb, his cap, his catastrophic backwards fall and head injuries, the fragments in his sleeve, his DNA on the taillight housing, his phone not moving again and getting colder, his hypothermia, Karen asking if he could survive after being there for many hours, and late change of her story which is an obvious lie that she saw him walk up the drive and get to the door. Also her staging attempt for taillight damage, reversing into John's car at 0.7 mph with her back up warning system bleeping away, and saying he got hit by a plow before she even left Meadows.

All MOO

 

[Tortoise]

The commonwealth needs a very good timeline demonstrative for closing argument, second by second.

 

[themonk]

The commonwealth needs a very good timeline demonstrative for closing argument, second by second.

Without evidence of a car striking JOK what difference will a timeline make?

 

[Tortoise]

Without evidence of a car striking JOK what difference will a timeline make?

It's my opinion that there is a mountain of evidence that John was struck by a Lexus. All listed in my post above.

That is the opinion of the commonwealth's accident reconstructionist and I saw him as an objective and qualified expert.

Also the ME did not rule out a vehicle sideswipe impact. John's injuries were consistent with a glancing impact according to Dr Welcher, and then a fall backwards onto the ground. The ME is not an accident reconstructionist and is not qualified to give an opinion on the causation of his injuries. It is for a jury to decide.

These are my opinions.

 

[Izzylizzy]

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

I quoted it so I don't know..

 

[Warwick7]

It's my opinion that there is a mountain of evidence that John was struck by a Lexus. All listed in my post above.

That is the opinion of the commonwealth's accident reconstructionist and I saw him as an objective and qualified expert.

Also the ME did not rule out a vehicle sideswipe impact. John's injuries were consistent with a glancing impact according to Dr Welcher, and then a fall backwards onto the ground. The ME is not an accident reconstructionist and is not qualified to give an opinion on the causation of his injuries. It is for a jury to decide.

These are my opinions.

BBM
1. Incorrect. The ME stated clearly his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car.

2. Incorrect. Yes, a ME is qualified to give an opinion on the causing of his injuries, especially since it involved a sudden, unexpected, or suspicious death. ME's are trained forensic pathologists (which she is) with expertise in determining the cause and manner of death, including injuries sustained.

 

[Warwick7]

BBM
1. Incorrect. The ME stated clearly his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car.

2. Incorrect. Yes, a ME is qualified to give an opinion on the causing of his injuries, especially since it involved a sudden, unexpected, or suspicious death. ME's are trained forensic pathologists (which she is) with expertise in determining the cause and manner of death, including injuries sustained.

Lest we forget the attorney Elizabeth Little who cross examined ME Scordi-Bello, the ME admitted that most, if not all of his injuries could’ve been caused by blunt force trauma from a fight, getting punched in the face or beat up.

The Medical Examiner also confirms that the bruising on the back of Officer O’Keefe’s hands/fists could be consistent with defensive wounds.

She also confirms that she does not know what caused the scratches and wounds on John O’Keefe’s arm, because
his injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live now.

 

[jepop]

Just bringing this over @missy1974



He doesn't say 1164 was in their possession. 1165 and 1166 are tow truck on and off - i.e very short movement of the vehicle.

In any event, yesterday DiSorga himself on cross says each key cycle is time stamped in the infotainment system. Later on he proceeds to argue about those very timestamps and whether they are 3 seconds out!

Brennan: The power log on and off gives you the exact data & time you can match to the techstream data does it not?

DiSogra: Yes it does



What I mean about jazz hands is they have no data / forensic argument against 1162 being the Fairview trip.

Instead they are setting up to say "she would have crashed on the lawn!", "we don't know exactly where she started reversing", "the reverse comes a few seconds too soon!"

I tip my hat to Alessi's inventiveness here, but big picture it doesn't seem great that they have conceded (up to this point), that the "data is the data" and thus the defendant did engage in the high speed reversing manoeuvre on the Fairview trip. And they have avoided revealing that for months, though they message in real time to their surrogates.

Timecode: Exchange on cross at approx 3.29

Imo none of this matters, that is if you are even correct in your assumptions about what the defense has conceded and what you think their strategy is. Moo

For those who watched trial X 1, moo it's rational and reasonable to conclude that the injuries to JOK are not (or it is extremely improbable) the result of vehicular impact. I watched trial X 1 so I know that the defense has sound evidence coming to definitively challenge and overcome the CW's case, such as it is. Imo

What continues to surprise me is the mental gymnastics which seem to be occurring in order to have this digital data from the Lexus etc prove there was an impact. Maybe the focus and compartmentalisation required to eke out a scenario for an impact, makes it easy to ignore the meaning of JOK's injuries and lack thereof, to ignore the absence of biological evidence on the Lexus or the tail light pieces, and finally, to ignore the physics of impact forces which make his injuries a non-fit with the vehicle damage. Moo

(As shown in trial X 1, there are far more reasonable scenarios to account for JOK's injuries; one of these involves a dog causing the arm wounds, with acquisition of the head wound occuring in some other, non car related circumstance. )Jmo

The idea that the CW's current case has met something approaching BARD I find truly phenomenal. Especially for those who watched the first trial. It appears to me that there's some strange block, or hump that cannot be got over, a conviction KR is guilty regardless of the physical evidence to the contrary. Jmo

 

[Wishbone]

Why ever not? Isn't he the cornerstone of the defense's whole SODDI?

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?

 

[Warwick7]

As for Welcher. If I remember correctly, his own slide had the phone locking 26 seconds after John was apparently sideswiped…

 

[themonk]

The idea that the CW's current case has met something approaching BARD I find truly phenomenal. Especially for those who watched the first trial. It appears to me that there's some strange block, or hump that cannot be got over, a conviction KR is guilty regardless of the physical evidence to the contrary. Jmo

RSBM

I think it is very hard, if not impossible, for some folks to accept the idea that corruption is commonplace in the systems that exist to supposedly 'serve and protect' them.

 

[jepop]

Just bringing this over @missy1974



He doesn't say 1164 was in their possession. 1165 and 1166 are tow truck on and off - i.e very short movement of the vehicle.

In any event, yesterday DiSorga himself on cross says each key cycle is time stamped in the infotainment system. Later on he proceeds to argue about those very timestamps and whether they are 3 seconds out!

Brennan: The power log on and off gives you the exact data & time you can match to the techstream data does it not?

DiSogra: Yes it does



What I mean about jazz hands is they have no data / forensic argument against 1162 being the Fairview trip.

Instead they are setting up to say "she would have crashed on the lawn!", "we don't know exactly where she started reversing", "the reverse comes a few seconds too soon!"

I tip my hat to Alessi's inventiveness here, but big picture it doesn't seem great that they have conceded (up to this point), that the "data is the data" and thus the defendant did engage in the high speed reversing manoeuvre on the Fairview trip. And they have avoided revealing that for months, though they message in real time to their surrogates.

Timecode: Exchange on cross at approx 3.29

"And they have avoided revealing that for months, though they message in real time to their surrogates."

Quoting from your post above

The above reads as if you are stating some sort of fact. This is an opinion I believe and a comment, a dig actually, at Karen Read's defense, "surrogates" being a term I don't think is used in MSM reporting in this case. Just wanted to get that straight for the benefit of others reading here who may not have a lot of back ground.