MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #32 Retrial

[Tortoise]

Dr Sheridan (trial X 1). He was also an excellent witness. This trial the defense also has Garret Wing to come I believe. Moo

Thank you. I just watched his testimony from trial 1.

He wasn't an expert in dog bites.

 

[Warwick7]

BAJr testified in T1 that when his parents came home his dad asked him if he had let the dog out. He told him No. His dad went upstairs- not the basement, got Chloe and let her out.
BAJr said the dog pretty much stays in his parents room when people are over.

Some of the girls with BAJr said they saw BA waiting at the back door for the dog to return. They also said one of the girls went upstairs with BAJr to see Chloe.

Who did the dog bite in the past? Did she do it because she got out of the back yard?
Look at the fence- my lab can scale an 8 foot cyclone fence- she climbs it. If a German Shepherd wants to get out of that PVC fencing- I think she could.
I don’t think they would let her out the front if she had issues with strangers. So- she went out the back.

This is why Chloe is gone- IMO

Just my opinions

BBM
I don't believe a word out of anyone's mouth that was in the house.

JM testified that KR told her to look up “how long to die in cold” at 6:23/6:24. Whereas earlier in the trial there was dashcam footage timestamped at 6:23/6:24 with EMT testifying that JM/KR we’re not near each other and we’re not in communication at this time.

JM saying today she butt dialed JO 7 times.... while she was also holding her phone and sending texts?!?

Colin said he got home at 12:17. How is he then going to go wake up his father who would have been getting home essentially exactly at the same time?

JM saw KR out front at 12:45 when she was already connected to John's wifi at 12:36.

Brian Albert saying he didn’t have conversations with Higgins about their phones having sensitive private data, and what to do with them. Destroyed them. Defense then confronted him with his previous grand jury statements.

Allie stating she went home but her Life360 data showing otherwise.

The mother of Colin Alpert “very rarely” speaking with the *sister* of the lead investigator, turns out to be 67 calls in 7 months!

At the very beginning it was claimed Colin wasn't ever at 34F then Allie testified he called her to pick him up.

All the deleted “butt dials” that are on the extractions but denied by the witnesses.

JM saying she couldn't hear Kerry's statement AT ALL but then two seconds later saying she could hear a specific statement.

They rehoamed the dog. Which dog Cora or Chloe?

 

[Tortoise]

I think this will work to show you. Time stamp is around 2.50

Court TV paid an expert to review the JO images to see if he agreed with Dr. Russell.

Here is his qualifications- he lists how many cases he has testified regarding dog bites

Dog Bite Expert CV


IMO

Sorry but at about 6 minutes in he says they look like puncture wounds and deeper than abrasions, which conflicts with testimony of the medical examiner who examined John's body. I'll pass on the rest. JMO

 

[Wishbone]

Thank you. I just watched his testimony from trial 1.

He wasn't an expert in dog bites.

Among the witnesses who took the stand as part of the defence's case was a retired forensic pathologist, Dr Frank Sheridan.
He claimed that Mr O'Keefe's body would have had more bruising if it were hit by a heavy vehicle.

Karen Read: What to know about her second murder trial

The trial of a woman accused of murder in the death of her police officer boyfriend has captivated the US.

www.bbc.com

Former police Lt. Garrett Wing will be allowed to testify that injuries sustained by Read’s boyfriend, John O’Keefe, were consistent with a dog attack. Judge Beverly Cannone wrote in a brief order that Wing “appears to be qualified by experience to provide some help to the jury on some issues in dispute.”

Karen Read’s defense gains key ruling on dog bite expert testimony

The judge overseeing Karen Read's case ruled prosecutors must turn over communications with witnesses showing a reluctance or refusal to testify at the trial.

www.masslive.com

 

[ShadyLady]

BBM
I don't believe a word out of anyone's mouth that was in the house.

JM testified that KR told her to look up “how long to die in cold” at 6:23/6:24. Whereas earlier in the trial there was dashcam footage timestamped at 6:23/6:24 with EMT testifying that JM/KR we’re not near each other and we’re not in communication at this time.

JM saying today she butt dialed JO 7 times.... while she was also holding her phone and sending texts?!?

Colin said he got home at 12:17. How is he then going to go wake up his father who would have been getting home essentially exactly at the same time?

JM saw KR out front at 12:45 when she was already connected to John's wifi at 12:36.

Brian Albert saying he didn’t have conversations with Higgins about their phones having sensitive private data, and what to do with them. Destroyed them. Defense then confronted him with his previous grand jury statements.

Allie stating she went home but her Life360 data showing otherwise.

The mother of Colin Alpert “very rarely” speaking with the *sister* of the lead investigator, turns out to be 67 calls in 7 months!

At the very beginning it was claimed Colin wasn't ever at 34F then Allie testified he called her to pick him up.

All the deleted “butt dials” that are on the extractions but denied by the witnesses.

JM saying she couldn't hear Kerry's statement AT ALL but then two seconds later saying she could hear a specific statement.

They rehoamed the dog. Which dog Cora or Chloe?

And who was it that was the last to leave 34? But they lied about it.

 

[sunshineray]

Yeah I agree about Russell and Lucky, both did great with direct and were likable credible and believable. But…then there was Brennan

Is it possible for a person of science to say with 100% accuracy that a wound came from a dog? Not unless it was witnessed.

Is it possible for a person to memorize every action, visual, and time stamp of each day two years in the past? No

So to the thinking juror- Brennan’s tactics will be obvious.
Brennan with his monotone, beginning friendly, making connections but turning tenacious, arguing, nit picking, changing angles and using info given by a witness against them. He is quite skilled at this- as many jerk attorneys are, for me it is unkind to Dr Russell or Lucky.
Some jurors will see the witness as weakened by him, some will see through what he did.
Does Brennan’s actions represent justice for JO- I don’t think so.

I cannot imagine how the O’Keefe family could swallow all the things happening to KR and the witnesses. You would think they could see that what is happening is not Justice in JO’s name.

IMO

I disagree. I think Brennan was very efficent at tearing down those witness's testimony. He was not rude. He did use their testimony, prior and present, to show Dr Russell was not an expert on dog bites and Lucky the plow driver was compromised in his memories, whether by memory error or by intimidation from 3rd party defense zealots...probably a combination of the two. AJMO

 

[cocomod]

I think they each get an hour?

I think she was talking about when the CW gets to again present a witness to dispute the defense's expert testimony, not closing arguments. Unfortunately, we will have to listen to Brennan again after seeing ARCCA give their testimony.

With everything that is known, especially but by no means exclusively, JO's dog attacked right arm, which was apparently never, not by anyone, considered in relation to his MOD; ranging from Proctor, ambulance staff, emergency room staff (ffs), treating doctors (really?) all the way up to the ME herself (and ofcourse the various agents of the DA's office), I find it almost impossible to believe that the CW was ever really interested in real justice for Officer John O'Keefe. The DA's office and the PA are not Proctor's puppets. They decided Proctor's investigation was adequate to push ahead. They had access to all the physical evidence and more besides, and they green lighted the prosecution, not once but twice. Moo it was never about justice.

I have a huge, huge problem with not only how poorly the investigation was done in this case, but also the prosecution. Who can honestly believe they didn't investigate the flag pole, the inside of the house, question separately to the people that attended the party at the house. There is NO blood on the taillight!! There was no blood on the Lexus! Now, to the DA's office... It is abhorrent that there were multiple pieces exculpatory evidence that came in to their office that they ignored and buried. They didn't investigate further when it was found. The FBI report that said he wasn't hit by a car. Why didn't they investigate at that time? Why didn't they talk to the experts that wrote that report? Why when they realized that Proctor had single vision and didn't investigate the crime, why didn't they investigate? Why didn't they talk to the other law enforcement officer at the scene of KR's parent's home and see what the taillight looked like at that time? This is all a travesty because OJO deserved a better investigation!!!

 

[sunshineray]

An attorney helping a witness on how to present themselves in a trial isn‘t wrong.

Maybe to some it is a black and white but I think it is pretty gray- the attorney can listen to what they will say, and encourage them to tell their own truth. They can talk about possible traps in cross and tactics to respond- so long as they are telling their own truth.
Everyday people would be unaware of the types of tactics an attorney can use to make them look like liars or idiots or memory disabled. Witness prep should help here- testifying in a murder case would be terrifying as there so much at stake for all involved.

It would be wrong to encourage a witness to change a testimony to something that isn’t true or works better for the attorney’s case.

IMO

Witness prep is one thing, coaching and violating the witness sequestration order is a whole different thing. I believe throughout this second trial inappropriate behavior like this, by the defense, with some witnesses has been highlighted and is very concerning. I think the jurors will also notice. AJMO

 

[waldojabba]

Answering myself...
I can't find the audio but I did find the transcript

https://imgur.com/a/dx76k89

In Trial 1 the Prosecution called Lucky's boss Michael Trotta /dpw and the Defense called Lucky

Here is the clip from trial 1

The P interviewed Michael Trotta on 2/22/22
He told them that the route was covered by an employee and a private contractor
And he gave Michael Proctor the plowing schedule
That was it - this guy really had nothing to offer. Thats why they called him to the stand and not Lucky - they totally ignored anything that did not confitm their charges

Interestingly the Defense PI Paul McCowsky had left a card for Michael Trotta and never got a call back. When the PI called to follow up, Michael referred him to the head of dpw William Walsh.


JMO

 

[Tortoise]

There is NO blood on the taillight!! There was no blood on the Lexus!

RSBM

Nowhere does the evidence state there was no blood on the taillight. A swab was taken to collect and test all and any biological evidence on the taillight.

Maureen Hartnett

from 3.52.18:

I screened for blood on various areas of the undercarriage of the vehicle.

And what was the result?

Those were negative

from 5.26.28:

I took a polyester swab, I moistened it with sterile water, and then I applied that swab to the external front areas of the taillight.

Why did you do that?

My goal was to collect any potential biological material that was present on the exterior of the taillight.

Andre Porto

from 49.44:

Is DNA the same in every cell of a person’s body?

Yes, so what that means is if I were to take a blood sample and a saliva sample from the same person, the same DNA profile will be generated.

JMO

 

[tara83]

I disagree. I think Brennan was very efficent at tearing down those witness's testimony. He was not rude. He did use their testimony, prior and present, to show Dr Russell was not an expert on dog bites and Lucky the plow driver was compromised in his memories, whether by memory error or by intimidation from 3rd party defense zealots...probably a combination of the two. AJMO

Lucky told the info BEFORE the TB contact so how was he scared?

 

[sunshineray]

I disagree 100 percent. Dr. Russell has been practicing medicine for 30 years and in the ER at that, where the most horrific injuries are seen. She was most intelligent, polite, honest, and charismatic. There is no doubt the jury fell in love with her, just like the majority of Americans who are watching this trial. She was a much needed breath of fresh air! Finally, someone that didn't have the jury bored to tears because she was relatable and knew what she was talking about. Imo

Dr Russell's testimony was taken apart in cross examination, IMO. She was shown to not to have considered many important aspects of the case concerning JO's injuries. She had tunnel vision showing her bias in her testimony as well as, IMO, being greatly influenced in her testimony by the defense lawyers outside of the courtroom.

Her confusion and ineffecualness were almost painful to watch, IMO. When being questioned about each and every area of JO's arm/forearm and wrist injuries Dr Russell wound up being a witness for the prosecution. AJMO of course.

 

[Wishbone]

Witness prep is one thing, coaching and violating the witness sequestration order is a whole different thing. I believe throughout this second trial inappropriate behavior like this, by the defense, with some witnesses has been highlighted and is very concerning. I think the jurors will also notice. AJMO

I don't see how sequestration applies to talking to the defense atty one is testifying for.......

A typical motion at trial is for all witnesses to be sequestered,that is, to be kept out of the courtroom while all other evidence is presented. The theory of sequestration is simple: By isolating the witnesses, no witness will hear the questions posed and answers given by others, or attempt to conform to the others' testimony.

A typical sequestration order directs the witnesses to remain out of the courtroom and not to discuss their testimony with others until the trial has concluded.

Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert | Sequestration

Learn more about the typical motions that are sequestered at a trial.

nij.ojp.gov

 

[missy1974]

Lucky told the info BEFORE the TB contact so how was he scared?

I have not followed all the TB drama. I didn't even follow anything between these 2 trials other than maybe reading the odd headline about it. I didn't even know what or who a TB was until a few weeks into this trial LOL

This sequence of events with Lucky and TB is really easy to see if you want to see it and not really clouded by the external information IMO

 

[missy1974]

In Trial 1 the Prosecution called Lucky's boss Michael Trotta /dpw and the Defense called Lucky

Here is the clip from trial 1

The P interviewed Michael Trotta on 2/22/22
He told them that the route was covered by an employee and a private contractor
And he gave Michael Proctor the plowing schedule
That was it - this guy really had nothing to offer. Thats why they called him to the stand and not Lucky - they totally ignored anything that did not confitm their charges

Interestingly the Defense PI Paul McCowsky had left a card for Michael Trotta and never got a call back. When the PI called to follow up, Michael referred him to the head of dpw William Walsh.


JMO

so basically... MP didn't go any further. Thanks

 

[themonk]

Perjury charges and the threat of jail time would answer a lot of questions in this case, including how John died and who was responsible.

The CW is aware of this fact.

The CW does not want justice.

 

[AngTxGal]

Sorry but at about 6 minutes in he says they look like puncture wounds and deeper than abrasions, which conflicts with testimony of the medical examiner who examined John's body. I'll pass on the rest. JMO

Dog bites would have abrasions and punctures- not one or the other.
No way JO didn’t get punctures- whatever hit his skin clearly poked holes through his shirt first.
A hole poked by a sharp object is a puncture

It wouldn’t be possible to puncture his shirt and then only abrade his skin.
Not sure it is even possible to abrade a shirt in one strike. Maybe?

IMO

 

[ShadyLady]

Perjury charges and the threat of jail time would answer a lot of questions in this case, including how John died and who was responsible.

The CW is aware of this fact.

The CW does not want justice.

Start with Mama of Allie McCabe lying to FBI.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Dr Russell's testimony was taken apart in cross examination, IMO. She was shown to not to have considered many important aspects of the case concerning JO's injuries. She had tunnel vision showing her bias in her testimony as well as, IMO, being greatly influenced in her testimony by the defense lawyers outside of the courtroom.

Her confusion and ineffecualness were almost painful to watch, IMO. When being questioned about each and every area of JO's arm/forearm and wrist injuries Dr Russell wound up being a witness for the prosecution. AJMO of course.

OH nooo. She is a scientist as all doctors are. She is a veteran doctor for over 30 years. she teaches interns and other doctors. She has taken countless photos of dog bites and attacks on her patients because of her special interest in the patterns and markings. <modsnip - personalizing> One piece of tail light could never cause those injuries. moo

 

[cocomod]

I don't see how sequestration applies to talking to the defense atty one is testifying for.......

A typical motion at trial is for all witnesses to be sequestered,that is, to be kept out of the courtroom while all other evidence is presented. The theory of sequestration is simple: By isolating the witnesses, no witness will hear the questions posed and answers given by others, or attempt to conform to the others' testimony.

A typical sequestration order directs the witnesses to remain out of the courtroom and not to discuss their testimony with others until the trial has concluded.

Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert | Sequestration

Learn more about the typical motions that are sequestered at a trial.

nij.ojp.gov

Agreed @Wishbone ! Let's talk about sequestration with the CW when Welcher changed his report in the middle of trial because Brennan asked him to because of the testimony going on in the trial from Welcher's coworker Burgess (whom I refuse to call an expert).