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

[Linda7NJ]

Answering questions from Brennan, Scordi-Bello testified no one ever asked her to change O’Keefe’s death certificate or encouraged her to reconsider her findings. She also confirmed most of the fatal pedestrian crashes she’s seen involve a collision with the front end of a car. She testified that a bruise to the knee could be consistent with a sideswipe impact.

While O’Keefe’s nose abrasion could be consistent with a punch, the wound could also track with injuries from broken glass, sharp plastic shards, and first aid efforts, she confirmed.

Karen Read murder trial: Medical examiner who conducted John O’Keefe’s autopsy takes the stand

John O’Keefe died of blunt impact injuries to the head and hypothermia, according to medical examiner Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello.

www.boston.com

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Answering questions from Brennan, Scordi-Bello testified no one ever asked her to change O’Keefe’s death certificate or encouraged her to reconsider her findings. She also confirmed most of the fatal pedestrian crashes she’s seen involve a collision with the front end of a car. She testified that a bruise to the knee could be consistent with a sideswipe impact.

While O’Keefe’s nose abrasion could be consistent with a punch, the wound could also track with injuries from broken glass, sharp plastic shards, and first aid efforts, she confirmed.

Karen Read murder trial: Medical examiner who conducted John O’Keefe’s autopsy takes the stand

John O’Keefe died of blunt impact injuries to the head and hypothermia, according to medical examiner Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello.

www.boston.com

Correct. And she also ruled John’s death was not a homicide nor a vehicle strike. Even after Brennan bullied his own witness on the stand.

 

[hooziewhutz]

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

I apologize, I don't follow. What do you mean by '+ motive'? I would also think it'd be all together. However, I don't have much experience in trials as far as strategies. When I think something makes sense I remind myself that telling the story, if you will, in the eyes of the lawyers isn't always linear.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Correct. And she also ruled John’s death was not a homicide nor a vehicle strike. Even after Brennan bullying his own witness on the stand.

<modsnip>
The only thing her testimony was good for was documenting the external visible injuries.

IMO

 

[Warwick7]

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

Visual aids like photographs, medical illustrations, animations, and 3D rpics are commonly used to illustrate expert testimony and help the jury understand complex information. These aids can be used in conjunction with or instead of physical examination. This is M00 and Harvard Law School 101.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I apologize, I don't follow. What do you mean by '+ motive'? I would also think it'd be all together. However, I don't have much experience in trials as far as strategies. When I think something makes sense I remind myself that telling the story, if you will, in the eyes of the lawyers isn't always linear.

Sorry, just a bad joke! I mean the ‘means’ would be testimony that shows Chloe has the ability to bite and injure in a way similar to John’s injuries, and the ‘motive’ part of that would be that she’s bitten before. I was saying I thought it would be compelling to hear the medical aspect of the dog bite testimony back-to-back with someone who was personally bitten by Chloe!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Visual aids like photographs, medical illustrations, animations, and 3D rpics are commonly used to illustrate expert testimony and help the jury understand complex information. These aids can be used in conjunction with or instead of physical examination. This is M00 and Harvard Law School 101.

Photographs don’t document wound depth - imo

 

[kuromiiiilove]

<modsnip>
The only thing her testimony was good for was documenting the external visible injuries.

IMO

But you find her testimony on John’s arm wounds compelling evidence? To me, that feels a bit like cherry picking a piece of her findings that work for a given theory, and discarding the rest.

Personally, I don’t think Dr Scordi-Bello’s testimony will contradict Dr. Russell’s, since Dr. Russell already said abrasions are possible through lighter bites and scratches of nails.

 

[acutename]

They are family, tight and there is only the few main players. LE of CPD is part of it for their own reasons, not all, just Albert's brother Kevin, Proctor's supervisor Yuri, Higgins bff with the then Chief Berkowitz. There are ties. Proctor is personal friends of them as well. The D.A. is running this show, the rest want to keep their jobs, not their self respect. It became a domino effect. Know nothing, look the other way, remember they did not expect to ever have to be on a witness stand in this.

when I try to look at this from the most favorable perspective of LE:
1. they thought KR admitted to an impact
2. they were into justice for JO
3. they did not anticipate a trial-

not that I believe what they did was right but when I try to see the LE side,
that is it

The other problem I have with JO's death is that with his level of intoxication, he was in danger of death or injury without any outside force:

BAC 0.15%: You may experience an altered mood, nausea and vomiting, and a loss of balance and some muscle control.
BAC 0.15% to 0.30%: You may experience confusion, vomiting and drowsiness.

• BAC 0.30% to 0.40%: You’ll likely have alcohol poisoning and experience a loss of consciousness.

Alcohol Poisoning

ME report said 21-.28 for his BAC

Medical examiner outlines findings from John O'Keefe ...​

WHDH
https://whdh.com › news › medical-examiner-outlines-f...


May 15, 2025 — A toxicology report found O'Keefe had not used any drugs, including prescriptions, but his blood alcohol level was high, between .21 and .28 ...

so, JO- impacted by a car? punched? tripped? blacked out? curious what created the head wound, but his BAC was bad enough that he was a danger to himself. IMO.

 

[Linda7NJ]

But you find her testimony on John’s arm wounds compelling evidence? To me, that feels a bit like cherry picking a piece of her findings that work for a given theory, and discarding the rest.

Personally, I don’t think Dr Scordi-Bello’s testimony will contradict Dr. Russell’s, since Dr. Russell already said abrasions are possible through lighter bites and scratches of nails.

I don’t believe Chloe laid a tooth or toenail on John O’Keefe

IMO

 

[hooziewhutz]

Sorry, just a bad joke! I mean the ‘means’ would be that Chloe has the ability to bite and injure in a way similar to John’s injuries, and the ‘motive’ part of that would be that she’s bitten before. I was saying I thought it would be compelling to hear the medical aspect of the dog bite testimony back-to-back with someone who was personally bitten by Chloe!

Ahh, ok, thank you! Clever

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I don’t believe Chloe laid a tooth or toenail on John O’Keefe

IMO

That’s not really what I asked though

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Dr Russell believes John was bitten several times. She calls them dog ‘strikes’.

She says the characteristics of the wounds are highly specific to a dog attack. ‘Attack’ is objected to and stricken from the record, but ‘dog bite’ remains.

 

[Soulmagent]

I personally do not feel that there needed to be a whole bunch of people that witnessed the fight. I believe it was likely BA and BH and possibly JM and NA who learned after the fact perhaps. I believe the rest of those involved either assisted the investigation by planting evidence, or simply went along with the narrative from those they know and love and their confirmation bias led them along.

Bottom line - JOK was not struck by a vehicle and looks very much like he was attacked by a dog, so I am not sure how else to figure everything else out other than KR is not guilty.

so she is actually guilty of dui, imo.
I pray the jury sees the heart of the truth.
Jok was not hit by a car and the same amount of guilt should be applied to all parties who lead him to his death. BA should carry a burden. Intent to end JOK's life? The only motive is BH hopes to have a few minutes of some kinda sex life.imo he may desire an intimate relationship. KR had no motive to even need JOK out the way. If she was that kind of person ,she would not have had her own home ,her own career and a 60,000 dollar Lexus.

It’s not reasonable that Chloe has no saliva & no hair and no bottom jaw and no K9 teeth
As there are no punctures.


IMO

do we think KR needs to be taken off the street to protect society from her crimes?
I feel we need more protection from people like Jen.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Dr Russell is pointing out an arch-like structure near Johns wrist. She says it is from a dogs front teeth. She says you must remember that a human is not a mannequin, a persons skin is elastic and will slide over underlying bone. She says this some wounds can be created by the same teeth but look different depending on clothing, skin elasticity, the person pulling away, etc.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Hank is objecting left and right. Sidebar

 

[mzmarymac]

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

IMO

Nor is it Karen Read's

 

[missy1974]

so, JO- impacted by a car? punched? tripped? blacked out? curious what created the head wound, but his BAC was bad enough that he was a danger to himself. IMO.

RSBM

I agree! and Dr. Wolf's comment about 'common with drunk people falling over' really does stick in my head.

JMO

 

[themonk]

so she is actually guilty of dui, imo.

RSBM

I mean who isn't in Canton

 

[louvillian08]

I feel like there is no ‘new’ theory. I knew this was a possibility when the forensic expert was asked on cross if Berkowitz and Higgins were swabbed to compare to the two unknown male DNA profiles, so it certainly wasn’t a surprise to me. Berkowitz also called YB and told him that he ‘saw’ a piece of tail light days later in the snow. The defense has always floated him as someone participating in a potential cover up.

I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine multiple people in on this. Saying one person is in doesn’t mean another person is out. It’s a moving goalposts fallacy (implying previously mentioned suspects have been ‘given up on’ just because a new player is brought into the game), and IMO a bit of a straw man (misrepresenting the defenses argument as inconsistent or weak, rather than ignoring that multiple suspects may be a valid approach)

BBM. This was also brought up in the first trial when the defense used the key card swipe report to prove Higgins and Berkowitz were alone in the Sallyport for a period of time (I don't remember off the top of my head the time frame)