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

[kuromiiiilove]

I would agree with that statement. I have personally experienced it, twice.
However, John had zero puncture wounds from K9 teeth.

IMO

I just heard from an expert witness who believes otherwise, who I respectfully choose to believe due to her vast experience.

 

[Warwick7]

It’s not Ashley’s job to verify chain of custody

IMO

LOL!

Ashley Vallier testified that she could not verify the chain of custody for O'Keefe's clothing between the time it was collected and when it was submitted to her lab.

Specifically, she confirmed that she couldn't vouch for what happened to the clothing before it arrived at her lab, even though it had been submitted by Trooper Michael Proctor. She also stated that she didn't know where the clothing was stored in the interim.

When there is no chain of custody, it shows ANYONE at anytime can do, change, and alter evidence. This is a known fact.

The jury needed to hear this.
The jury DID hear this.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

It’s not Ashley’s job to verify chain of custody

IMO

But LE didn't verify chain of custody and anytime that is brought up, it is conveniently ignored and poo poohed.

 

[keek]

Please link me to this testimony or who testified to this.

Soon !

 

[Linda7NJ]

I just heard from an expert witness who believes otherwise, who I respectfully choose to believe due to her vast experience.

She never examined the body.
She looked at photographs.
It’s impossible to determine wound depth
The ME said they were abrasions, this witness called some wounds punctures.
There were no punctures

IMO

 

[lohrtabitha]

And sneaker and hat?
That’s not reasonable IMO

It is reasonable to lose both if your body is being dragged through the yard. IMO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

She never examined the body.
She looked at photographs.
It’s impossible to determine wound depth
The ME said they were abrasions, this witness called some wounds punctures.
There were no punctures

IMO

I thought that the ME was the "worst ME you've ever seen testify?" So is there cherry picking going on? JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is reasonable to lose both if your body is being dragged through the yard. IMO

there’s zero evidence of a fight or being dragged
IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

I thought that the ME was the "worst ME you've ever seen testify?" So is there cherry picking going on?

She did at least document the visible injuries that she saw with her own eyes

Imo

 

[Wishbone]

there’s zero evidence of a fight or being dragged
IMO

It hasn't been proved he got there any other way either.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

She did at least document the visible injuries that she saw with her own eyes

Imo

She also verified that his injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle. MOO

ETA: She also verified it wasn't a homicide.

 

[Linda7NJ]

She also verified that his injuries were not consistent with being struck by a vehicle. MOO

ETA: She also verified it wasn't a homicide.

She didn’t rule out being clipped or sideswiped
Imo

Day 16 she testified knee injury could be consistent with a sideswipe or clip and the other injury could be consistent with broken glass

IMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

She never examined the body.
She looked at photographs.
It’s impossible to determine wound depth
The ME said they were abrasions, this witness called some wounds punctures.
There were no punctures

IMO

Did you examine the body though? Aren’t you surmising from those same photographs?

 

[kuromiiiilove]

She didn’t rule out being clipped or sideswiped
Imo

She said ‘anything could happen’. So by the same logic of her not ruling out a sideswipe, she also didn’t rule out John being attacked by Sasquatch.

 

[waldojabba]

Brennan is trying his hardest not to let Chloe in with this witness

I have faith Alessi will get Chloe in

Did Chloe not get introduced yet ? Not even thru Jen McCabe when she went into the house? I am starting t have trial overlap from 1 to 2.
JMO

 

[hooziewhutz]

Haven't caught up with thread, but aware of Dr. Russell on the stand. I hope I can ask this: If the defense calls the neighbor who was bitten by Chloe what are you all's thoughts on when, ie before/after a particular witness? Would all testimonies related to canines be in succession? Curious about strategy. This my opinion asking for other opinions.

 

[hooziewhutz]

As well as shooting up to space.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Haven't caught up with thread, but aware of Dr. Russell on the stand. I hope I can ask this: If the defense calls the neighbor who was bitten by Chloe what are you all's thoughts on when, ie before/after a particular witness? Would all testimonies related to canines be in succession? Curious about strategy. This my opinion asking for other opinions.

I think either right after Dr Russell or before the other dog bite expert would make the most sense. Doggy means + ‘motive’ if you will

JMO

 

[hooziewhutz]

She said ‘anything could happen’. So by the same logic of her not ruling out a sideswipe, she also didn’t rule out John being attacked by Sasquatch.

So many possibilities in this trial! Shooting into space.

 

[missy1974]

I had to pause earlier and finally just caught up!

Apparently the defense has filed a motion for "A Missing Witness Argument and a request for subsequent Instruction"

I belive the defense's strategy with Proctor is this... the CW didn't call him, the defense has no obligation to call the lead investigator if the CW didn't, and they want the jury to be instructed that he was available, not hostile, he had distinct importance to the case and they must determine that his testimony would have been unfavourable to the CW's case (but probably worded way better haha)

all JMO. Hopefully we will get more info later in the day.

(a) Argument by counsel​

Counsel is not permitted to make a missing-‌witness argument without first obtaining judicial approval; if approval is granted, the court must give a missing witness instruction.

(b) Jury instruction​

The court may instruct the jury that an adverse inference may be drawn from a party’s failure to call a witness when

• (1) the witness is shown to be available;
• (2) the witness is friendly, or at least not hostile, to the party;
• (3) the witness is expected to give noncumulative testimony of distinct importance to the case; and
• (4) there is no logical or tactical explanation for the failure to call the witness.

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-1111-missing-witness#:~:text=A%20missing%20witness%20instruction%20is%20warranted%20where%20the%20witness%20would,Ct.