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

[missy1974]

Dighton police sergeant testifies​

Barros said he learned from Proctor that a towing company would be coming to Read’s parents’ home to retrieve Read’s vehicle in connection with the investigation into O’Keefe’s death. Earlier in the day, Read had driven to her parents’ house.

As state police investigated, Barros said, he was outside and saw damage to Read’s SUV.

“I saw there was some damage to the right rear tail light,” he said. “It was cracked. A piece was missing. But it was not completely damaged.”

Barros said there was some snow covering a portion of the tail light and agreed with Lally, saying it was “caked on there.”

Barros said he waited between 30 and 60 minutes for Proctor and Bukhenik to come out and never saw anyone messing with the tail light.

Barros finished testimony near 10:50 a.m. and the defense declined to cross examine him.

State Police Trooper Michael Proctor takes the stand in Karen Read murder trial - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - State Police Trooper Michael Proctor took the stand in the Karen Read murder trial Monday, beginning his testimony after weeks of<a class="excerpt-read-more" href="https://whdh.com/news/state-police-trooper-michael-proctor-takes-the-stand-in-karen-read-murder-trial/">Read...

whdh.com

6.10.2024

bbm

Thanks...
“I saw there was some damage to the right rear tail light,” he said. “It was cracked. A piece was missing. But it was not completely damaged.”
This is what I recall him saying last year. Seems pretty consistent to me. A PIECE was missing, NOT COMPLETELY DAMAGED. I think his words today were... a PIECE was missing, not completely SMASHED. those are the words that stuck out to me while listening at 2x speed

 

[missy1974]

He absolutely wasn't shredded on cross

It was an excellent cross, but it nullified by an excellent redirect and the sheer power of Barros' unequivocal claim about the condition of the taillight. Defense was aided by Barros' perfect demeanor and his willingness to acknowledge he didn't remember the photo properly. This prosecution is on life support. And the ARCCA guys haven't even come in yet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1929995544899747958

I don't think it was even an excellent cross, I was still stunned about what he said on direct lol I will have to watch it back later

 

[keek]

BAM!!!

Officer Barros just nuked the DA's case and just made the MSP frame entirely possible. This is DEVASTATING to the DA.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1929976417430683802

No one even needs a site like that to say this, it was clear, ABSOLUTELY not it looked like the tail light in Canton sallyport. (after proctor and Berk got through with it) IMO

 

[Warwick7]

It's been a good day! Now off to mow and all that fun stuff. Meet you all back here later!

 

[keek]

Thanks...
“I saw there was some damage to the right rear tail light,” he said. “It was cracked. A piece was missing. But it was not completely damaged.”
This is what I recall him saying last year. Seems pretty consistent to me. A PIECE was missing, NOT COMPLETELY DAMAGED. I think his words today were... a PIECE was missing, not completely SMASHED. those are the words that stuck out to me while listening at 2x speed

He ALWAYS said a piece. It was clear evidence of a non Canton cop involved in this. IMO

 

[BUF]

Seriously, well said!

When I hear that voice, I think it sounds like he has cotton between his cheeks and teeth like when you’re about to have dental work.

Same. I’ve always had a hard time listening to him as he sounds muffled like he has a mouth full of cotton

 

[LittleSeaTree]

Same. I’ve always had a hard time listening to him as he sounds muffled like he has a mouth full of cotton

Right? I was so happy when I had the ah-hah moment realizing what he sounded like to me

 

[jepop]

It doesn't make a bit of sense. This is a guy who has zero reason to make crap up and actually may hurt him going against dirty cops.

It's ok. Jmo he made nothing up. The tow truck video shown on direct is extremely damning and supports his testimony. But all on his own, he was credible, trustworthy and believable.moo

 

[Stlouisgrammy]

I see Brennan try to make it something untoward. RIDICULOUS. The defense team IS staying at a hotel. Conference rooms are exactly for meetings of business meetings such as this.. NORMAL. Starbucks would be a bit noisy and not private for example. Officer Barros is what a decent and honest police officer is, for example all. IMO

I’m pretty sure Yanetti has a office.

 

[tara83]

I’m pretty sure Yanetti has a office.

I'm not getting the point?

 

[bobbymkii]

Just caught up. I was not expecting that from Barros' evidence!

In Trial 1 I thought his testimony was a glitch in the matrix. I did not expect him to go into that much detail when the defense called him. And then we had the cross. That was Brennan's best performance in the whole trial by a country mile, he literally saved the CW's case.

I don't believe he "shredded" Barros in that cross, actually I think it's because he didn't shred that it was such a good cross-examination. No badgering, no 'gotcha' moments, no patronising or dirty tricks.

Maybe the jury have regained some faith in humanity, for once they've sat and listened to someone in LE who actually answers questions honestly and openly!

MOO

 

[dlsully62]

So just to clarify: Barros, a seasoned police officer, testified under oath that the tail light was mostly intact after Karen dropped John off, when he saw it the afternoon of 1/29. And instead of engaging with that, the takeaway is where he met with the defense team? Are you implying he committed perjury or conspired with the defense because of the location of a meeting? If not, why bring it up?

Brennan was absolutely trying to imply that Barros collaborated with the defense. That's exactly why he asked if the guy at the far left was in the meeting. Of course, he had to eat crow when Barros responded.

 

[tara83]

Just caught up. I was not expecting that from Barros' evidence!

In Trial 1 I thought his testimony was a glitch in the matrix. I did not expect him to go into that much detail when the defense called him. And then we had the cross. That was Brennan's best performance in the whole trial by a country mile, he literally saved the CW's case.

I don't believe he "shredded" Barros in that cross, actually I think it's because he didn't shred that it was such a good cross-examination. No badgering, no 'gotcha' moments, no patronising or dirty tricks.

Maybe the jury have regained some faith in humanity, for once they've sat and listened to someone in LE who actually answers questions honestly and openly!

MOO

How did he save the CW's case when this guy had zero reason to make anything up?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Ring video with BUSTED OUT TAILIGHT played in court today at 3:29:43 PM

 

[Linda7NJ]

The defense attempted to mislead Barro by showing him a photo of a totally busted out tailight when in FACT there were red pieces still attached - as shown to Barro on redirect

IMO

 

[bobbymkii]

How did he save the CW's case when this guy had zero reason to make anything up?

Because he wasn't accusing him of making things up. His examination was aimed mostly at how his memory may have been incorrect. It was exactly the right approach for Brennan to take IMO.

 

[tara83]

Because he wasn't accusing him of making things up. His examination was aimed mostly at how his memory may have been incorrect. It was exactly the right approach for Brennan to take IMO.

Totally disagree he strongly implied he was in with the defense making this up.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I’m pretty sure Yanetti has a office.

And? Im pretty sure the CW has a driver other than Tully, yet Tully drove Welcher around. Why are some things considered improprieties and other aren’t?

 

[Fruit]

The video is clearly edited to enhance certain colors. It’s been discussed multiple times on this thread since Brennan initially used it. Here is the original:

Additionally, “the white” spot is a glare that disappears just a frame later. I’ve even included a screenshot from your video that shows a completely red taillight

Yes!!! Thank you for this.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The video is clearly edited to enhance certain colors. It’s been discussed multiple times on this thread since Brennan initially used it. Here is the original:

Additionally, “the white” spot is a glare that disappears just a frame later. I’ve even included a screenshot from your video that shows a completely red taillight

It’s what the jurors saw today - I was watching and it played at 3:30:08