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

[dlsully62]

Just wondering, and waiting for judge's exasperating sighs, and question to Brennan, re: " How much longer, Mr Brennan?"....

Funny, that it seems she only does that to the defense....IMO

Exactly. She will never do it to Brennan. She also tends to overrule the defense's objections a GREAT deal more than she does when they are crossing... So frustrating.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

Poor pathetic Brennan…. he’s asking Russell if she saw in the photographs that she viewed the bushes, etc., where John laid. There were no photos of John’s body to determine where he laid IMO

It’s called a deceptive line of questioning/bad faith questioning, and he does it all the time. He KNOWS Dr. Russell couldn’t have viewed any photos of John’s body in the lawn, because he knows they don’t exist. But he frames the question in a way that implies they do, in an attempt to mislead the jury. MOO

 

[Linda7NJ]

I’ve have never seen a “expert witness” so laughably unqualified.


IMO

 

[missy1974]

He brought up the dog DNA or lack thereof. Alessi is arguing that the CW never brought this up during their examination-in-chief, and are intentionally bringing it up now when they have no basis to. He is arguing to dismiss because he said Brennan just tainted the jury beyond anything an instruction can fix.

thank you! I missed the question asked, and the beginning of the mistrial argument!

We know how the judge will rule, and she will give some lame jury instruction, but why wouldn't the CW want the DNA witness to testify this trial if there truly was no canine DNA, I guess the trade off was that pig DNA was found.

I am finding some of Brennan's questions silly... but he is doing what they do... get info on the record to bring someone else in, or other info to light. I am not sure if he is doing the CW any favors though? He is allowing her to say things like, there is no way the tail light did that, acute grief info, and more... and she is likeable and believable, so I don't know why he would want to keep going at this point lol

 

[Derph]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

‘Brennan's too-cute strategy of deliberately concealing anything "bad" in his case in chief (Proctor, the Alberts, Higgins, and yes, anything related to Chloe the dog) has become a serious issue. There is no evidence of a dog DNA test (let alone the results or how and where it was collected) before the jury. This was a calculated choice by the prosecution. But Brennan just basically testified as an unsworn witness by suggesting that evidence exists as part of his effort to discredit Dr. Russell. Will the judge order a mistrial? Of course not. But what is the remedy here? Telling the jury to ignore what they heard? Past experience tells us that is probably all she will do.’

To piggy back a little. This was his response to a question of why brennan mentioned DNA if he knew it was brought in already

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[missy1974]

omg, not only did she deny, he can continue to ask about the DNA? LOL

 

[bobbymkii]

I’ve have never seen a “expert witness” so laughably unqualified.


IMO

Yeah, Trooper Paul. LOL

JMO

 

[Leilei]

No where does it state the DNA for two individuals was blood. It wasn’t. It was touch DNA that could be from anywhere and anyone
IMO.

Just like the tail light?

IMO.

 

[missy1974]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed (rude)
and where is the foundation for this DNA evidence?

Crazy she is allowing it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yeah, Trooper Paul. LOL

JMO

Trooper Paul has the same experience and training as every other law enforcement officer that routinely handles car accidents across the country.
IMO

 

[sunshineray]

There was no proof presented that she left at 3:45 pm and taking her word on anything is a bridge too far.
imo

Why? There was no evidence put on by the defense that she didn't leave at 3:45, after clocking over time on a night a blizzard was hitting the area. If such evidence existed (or even hinted at) don't you think the defense would have brought it up with her on the stand?

I think Officer Dever testified truthfully. I also believe what she said about the defense making veiled threats to her was true. MO

The defense tried to take her words on the stand about her testifying truthfully being tied to her job meaning Ohhh the thin blue line, when in fact what she was saying was that her honesty on the stand and off the stand is all tied to her job as a police officer. Honesty, Integrity and Loyalty...first and foremost to herself, her truth. AJMO

 

[Tortoise]

omg, not only did she deny, he can continue to ask about the DNA? LOL

It's not up to the commonwealth to cater to the defence's possible theories of the case in its case in chief. Defence knew about the dog-DNA tests and still chose to bring Dr Russell as a witness, opening the door to the state to cross examine her on the subject, because she hasn't changed her opinion and was already in possession of that information. Alessi was just being theatrical as usual IMO

 

[missy1974]

I guess, on the bright side for the defense, they can then ask about the pig DNA? dog treats seem to be a reasonable explaination for that. JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hank gets to remind the jury of all the physical evidence pointing to Karen

IMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

and where is the foundation for this DNA evidence?

Crazy she is allowing it.

It’s from someone the CW had testify in T1 that they didn’t have testify in T2. My guess for why they didn’t have her testify is that Alessi could ask on cross ‘could you rule out that the pig DNA was from a dog treat?’ And she’d have to say no.

I am just so disappointed in judge Cannone. Over and over I think ‘my goodness, she must see what the right thing to do here is’. And over and over, she lets me down. MOO.

 

[Younger Sister]

What a messy, dirty trial.......how can there be such a blatant disregard for fairness and equal treatment?????

 

[Linda7NJ]

I guess, on the bright side for the defense, they can then ask about the pig DNA? dog treats seem to be a reasonable explaination for that. JMO

Dog treats pig DNA wouldn’t be there without DOG SALIVA

IMO

 

[LvsAMystry]

Trooper Paul has the same experience and training as every other law enforcement officer that routinely handles car accidents across the country.
IMO

Do you have a link supporting that?

 

[rescuemom]

thank you! I missed the question asked, and the beginning of the mistrial argument!

We know how the judge will rule, and she will give some lame jury instruction, but why wouldn't the CW want the DNA witness to testify this trial if there truly was no canine DNA, I guess the trade off was that pig DNA was found.

I am finding some of Brennan's questions silly... but he is doing what they do... get info on the record to bring someone else in, or other info to light. I am not sure if he is doing the CW any favors though? He is allowing her to say things like, there is no way the tail light did that, acute grief info, and more... and she is likeable and believable, so I don't know why he would want to keep going at this point lol

Because he’s losing and he knows it. He’s in way over his head.

 

[themonk]

Trooper Paul has the same experience and training as every other law enforcement officer that routinely handles car accidents across the country.
IMO

Then we are collectively screwed