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

[AngTxGal]

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.

I don’t think it was a total waste- but I do think she didn’t do as well as she could have.
It is her first case- so she will have to learn when to give short answers and not explain.
Her explanations ended up giving Brennan more ammo- IMO

 

[sunshineray]

@lohrtabitha
I totally agree with your post
@sunshineray I am attaching the bolded below from your post she replied to since I hate a long chain - inserting my comments with a different color -
What was Aleesi doing riding in the car with a witness? Couldn't she get a cab, an uber,
There is nothing inappropriate about expert witnesses riding with the defense. The prosecution uses Lieutenant Tully as their "uber" driver. LT Tully recently ferried Welcher (blue paint guy for the P) from Logan which is a long ride esp in traffic. You bet there was lots of trial chatter happening between them too

Then Attorney Alessi has a bit of a meltdown, yelling and banging, demanding a mistrial. Trying very hard to cut their loses because there was no doggie DNA found on the tears in JO's clothes. Oh the CW can't bring THAT up! That's a mistrial? That's a fact, swabbed and tested. MO Nobody is dismissing the fact of the lack of dog dna. This was more about that there was no legal foundation to introduce it at that moment by Mr Brennan. The judge "allowed" Brennan to continue but the Judge preserved Alessi's right to pursue his grievance in another court. I will agree ALessi was very passionate but I think he is very particular/a stickler for the law. He in no way thought she was going to call a mistrial. HIs intent was to have the legal issue preserved in the event they need it in an appelate case. Good strategy IMO if a bit theatrical

Now today, this poor plow guy doesn't know when he was on Fairview, he's been all over the place with his times. He and his brother have been harassed by a rabidly pro-KR blogger, written about online, talked about on podcasts, calling the plow driver's boss...all when the poor man had lost his wife.
The poor plow guy, Lucky, spoke to a PI long before any type of harrassment began. His story has stayed consistent. He began plowing about 230am going down Fairview twice before the police arrived at Fairview at approx 6am. So he drove by the crime scene twice between 230am and 6 am and saw NO BODY. Thats all we need to know except he also saw a Ford Edge at around 330am in front of the flagpole area.

JMO

It's not the driver, it's the lawyer discussing testimony in the back seat with the witness that's concerning, MO.

Attorney Brennan laid out nicely the foundation already established about the negative doggie DNA test, it was always there. Calling for a mistrial with such histrionics was all for show, MO. I think the defense is very worried about how their case is looking, also JMO.

Lucky the plow guy's timeline was disassembled by Brennan as was his ability to remember. He remembers so seemingly efficient no body but missed a huge dumpter on the front lawn across the street. He also identifies the Franken truck one time but can't identify all the other passes he made being him. His testimony was not consistent nor trustworthy. AJMO

 

[Tortoise]

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 abrade his skin.

IMO

No that guy was talking about depth, of teeth.

Something sharp can tear a hole and scrape the skin superficially without sinking into deeper layers of the skin and fat etc to any depth. There were no puncture wounds, according to trial testimony.

 

[missy1974]

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

that is a good point. And the shirt holes did not look "ripped" which is odd.

Anyone every have a puppy that liked to pull on your socks? or is just my puppies? lol Looks very similiar. imo

 

[AngTxGal]

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

While what you’ve said is true… it may have little to do with how she came across in totality to the jury. Some here clearly think Brennan destroyed her testimony. Some on the jury will too.

Brennan’s cross is like death by 10,000 cuts, or being pecked to death by ducks…he wears away until he gets the witness to agree wit him. She did- and I didn’t think she would. He chipped away at her for so long she walked around in a circle and through a loop until she was tied in a knot.

She just hasn’t testified a lot- and who could prepare for what he does? Especially if you are a teacher- so you like to explain…

I don’t like him- but if I needed a bull dog of an attorney- he would be a good choice!

IMO

 

[sunshineray]

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

I think you'd have to ask that "blogger" and his minions who congregate outside the courthouse (down the street a ways? wherever they have been contained) about that. What was his/their problem with Lucky?

 

[Wishbone]

It's not the driver, it's the lawyer discussing testimony in the back seat with the witness that's concerning, MO.

Attorney Brennan laid out nicely the foundation already established about the negative doggie DNA test, it was always there. Calling for a mistrial with such histrionics was all for show, MO. I think the defense is very worried about how their case is looking, also JMO.

Lucky the plow guy's timeline was disassembled by Brennan as was his ability to remember. He remembers so seemingly efficient no body but missed a huge dumpter on the front lawn across the street. He also identifies the Franken truck one time but can't identify all the other passes he made being him. His testimony was not consistent nor trustworthy. AJMO

There is nothing untoward about a defense attorney having a discussion with his witness. JMOO

 

[AngTxGal]

No that guy was talking about depth, of teeth.

Something sharp can tear a hole and scrape the skin superficially without sinking into deeper layers of the skin and fat etc to any depth. There were no puncture wounds, according to trial testimony.

I’m pretty confident that if the ME was asked again- she would agree some are punctures.
It is semantics- not black and white.

I agree that the person looking at the body would have more information, when I first saw the photos I didn’t think they were dog bites.

After putting them up on my big screen I do. But, I’m not a dog bite expert either.
I have had dog bites that broke the skin and didn’t puncture a clear hole- so the presence of a puncture is not a line that makes a wound a dog bite.

Anyone who has had a puppy has had dog bites that abrade and some puncture, their teeth are not like adult dogs- they are like needles.

It is the pattern- I can clearly see on the right side both top canines and the incisors between them in one of those bites.

The odds of a piece of randomly broken taillight to make that exact pattern have to be statistically exceptional low. So- I’m convinced

IMO

 

[Wishbone]

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

He wasn't and said he wasn't.

 

[sunshineray]

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

Just talking and being coached, actually picking what a witness will answer are two very different things, MO. So is sharing information between witnesses, MO. That's what I believe occured and hopefully it will be looked into by the court, at a later date.

 

[Wishbone]

Just talking and being coached, actually picking what a witness will answer are two very different things, MO. So is sharing information between witnesses, MO. That's what I believe occured and hopefully it will be looked into by the court, at a later date.

I don't have any basis to believe or actually to understand that statement. JMOO

 

[missy1974]

I think you'd have to ask that "blogger" and his minions who congregate outside the courthouse (down the street a ways? wherever they have been contained) about that. What was his/their problem with Lucky?

His problem with him in June 2023 was that he didn't think Lucky had talked to anyone yet and was assuming he was covering for the Alberts because of his connections to them.

TB was WRONG. TB just didn't know that and assumed something that was wrong. It is impossible for Lucky to have felt intimidated to give a statement when he had given them17 months earlier, or months earlier. Lucky had already talked to the PI and FBI when this supposed threat/intimidation happened. Lucky had not talked to the MSP, because they never tried until Aug 2023.

 

[sunshineray]

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

She was a very bad witness on the dog bite "science" and that's what matters to me, this case and how badly she testified to that topic, MO. Respectfully, we don't agree on many things to do with Dr Russell's testimony.

 

[Warwick7]

LOL yes, but it sits better than all of these people being in cahoots to cover up an intention attack on a man by another man- resulting in an accidental death they have to coverup!

The coverup still happened- but later when they found JO. I think

IMO

They are in cahoots in my opinion.

 

[lohrtabitha]

While what you’ve said is true… it may have little to do with how she came across in totality to the jury. Some here clearly think Brennan destroyed her testimony. Some on the jury will too.

Brennan’s cross is like death by 10,000 cuts, or being pecked to death by ducks…he wears away until he gets the witness to agree wit him. She did- and I didn’t think she would. He chipped away at her for so long she walked around in a circle and through a loop until she was tied in a knot.

She just hasn’t testified a lot- and who could prepare for what he does? Especially if you are a teacher- so you like to explain…

I don’t like him- but if I needed a bull dog of an attorney- he would be a good choice!

IMO

I don't agree. I think most people who are watching the trial including the jury, absolutely are bored to tears and tune Hank Brennan out each time that he speaks. I also don't think they liked the way he spoke to her and to Lucky. When he told Lucky, " sorry for your loss", there was no empathy there so it really dehumanized Brennan in my opinion.

 

[Warwick7]

Wow. Thanks for posting this. I thought Court TV was against KR. This sure seems like they believe JOK was bitten.

Court TV bounces around, but generally they are against KR.

M00

 

[missy1974]

One thing in this trial that annoys me...

We don't get to see the reports. So much is not available to us or the jury. We only get to hear what the lawyers want us to know through questions.

 

[AngTxGal]

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

Yeah, I think he was rude in asking an elderly woman if she has ‘memory issues’.
Her gasp was audible, he puts on a persona of a jerk and maintains it until he gets what he wants.

It is an effective tactic- and now I understand my ex husband so much better. He would try to do that- and it was unfair, undercut, and rude.
He seems to be feeling pressure- and it comes out. I hope a witness comes up that doesn’t follow him on his little journey of confusion and pisses him off. I would love to see him pushed off balance.

IMO

 

[jepop]

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.



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!!!

Yes I agree1000 times over! The woeful lack of investigation (including a feasible explanation to account for the wounds on JO's right arm) originated with Proctor's tunnel vision and his writing off of others present at no. 34 that night ( including Chloe). But you are absolutely right; the PA's office did nothing, a big fat zero, when exculpatory material kept materialising. You outlined the most significant ( FBI's commissioned ARCCA expert report; lack of biological material (blood, skin)on tail light housing and tail light pieces).

Yes. It was the DA and the PA who made the decision to prosecute. This decision was made and doubled down upon, even when the most basic physical evidence was exculpatory to KR hitting John O'Keefe with her Lexus. Imo the prosecution tied their interpretations of the digital data from the phones and later the Lexus into a theory which was already completely compromised and flawed at the most foundational level. Moo

And even the CW's take on the digital data proves nothing, it doesn't indicate a collision, it doesn't indicate an impact. But it does require that KR somehow drive between 34 F and 1 Meadows in four minutes. One more exculpatory fact Imo. The CW never even addressed this extremely unlikely to zero chance necessity in their case in chief!! I doubt the defense have forgotten it though. Stay tuned! Moo

 

[missy1974]

I don't agree. I think most people who are watching the trial including the jury, absolutely are bored to tears and tune Hank Brennan out each time that he speaks. I also don't think they liked the way he spoke to her and to Lucky. When he told Lucky, " sorry for your loss", there was no empathy there so it really dehumanized Brennan in my opinion.

I didn't finish watching her testimony, I wasn't home at the time and jumped to Barros' testimony that day. I never did go back, but partially because everything I read said it was just more of the same... here was a tweet about the jurors towards the end of Brennan's recross:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1929967545534361883