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

[Forest_Wood]

Yes, they do. Dever was working a double shift already. She was on the overnight shift and stayed on to work the day shift.

No! It was never described as a "double shift". She worked overtime only. It might have been 1 or 2 hours of OT, we don't know. But we do know she began her regular shift when it was still dark before 06:00. If her shift was 06:00-14:00, and she finished her overtime at 15:45, then she worked 1h45m OT, as an example.

 

[Anniesflowers]

Do they need it when so much of the evidence shows John was never hit by an automobile.

YES!!

 

[Anniesflowers]

And actually the big question in my mind, why didn't the defense pursue it? Very telling non action , IMO.

The commonwealth, IMO, have no evidence that JOK was hit by a vehicle. Why did the CW pursue the case? That’s very suspicious to me.
ETA: fix grammar.

 

[Butt dials r us]

Agree. The defense didn't dispute that Dever stayed at the police station after her double shift ended at 3:45. They did not present evidence she did. It's well-documented that the Lexus arrived at the Canton PD about 5:30 or so.

The evidence in front of the jury is Dever's recollection to federal agents a year and a half after the incident was mistaken. Ironically, it was information from the defense that made her realize her memory was not accurate. She informed the federal agents her statement a year and a half after the Jan 29 shift was inaccurate.

She told the defense team she could not have seen it, too. Dever even emailed the federal agents after the phone call from the defense attorneys. She testified they pressured her to repeat the false memory and was concerned an attorney brought up perjury. The federal agents assured her perjury did not apply to a mistaken memory. Jackson asked if Dever had a "report" from the agency. She said no. A witness does not have access to FBI internal documents. Jackson did not ask Dever to produce the emails that would document she felt the defense pressured and threatened her to repeat the false memory.

Calling Dever was bad strategy from the defense, in my opinion. It didn't advance their case because the defense agrees that the Lexus arrived hours after her double shift ended and there is no evidence that contradicts her statement that she was not there then.

The defense argues the time the lexus arrives in the sally port they brought that in through barros

 

[sunshineray]

So she saw random people and conjured up an image of a big black Lexus SUV that day. Where these folks hung out around the conjured up Lexus for a wildly long time.

The defense’s job is to poke holes. And stop while they’re ahead.

Regardless of anything else this awful attitude woman said on the stand, the fact that she angrily blurted out that SHE CONTACTED THE FBI was more than enough of a win for the defense. Finally, someone said it. Out loud. Couldn’t have happened to a better witness either, short of Jen McCabe blurting it out. That would’ve been even more satisfying.

I disagree Officer Dever had an awful attitude. I think she testified truthful but that was not what the defense wanted to hear. They wanted her rattled and fumbling but she stood her ground and refused to let the defense attorney bully her about her testimony. She stood up for herself and the truth. If it wasn't the truth why did the defense not call her on it showing proof otherwise? IMO because there was no proof otherwise or the defense would have submitted it into evidence. AJMO

 

[Seattle1]

I agree -- very true...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1930704464824160337

 

[Tortoise]

If I'm a juror I'm thinking yep, you just showed an arm breaks a taillight. How it breaks, the exact pattern, depends on where the arm hits.

Dr Wolfe did not demonstrate to me that a dummy arm would react in the same way as a human arm, in terms of movement against jagged broken edges and causing damage to fabric.

He did demonstrate to me how John would have spun around and left his shoe behind, in test E.

Dr Wolfe compared apples and oranges, using an arm dangling on a string, and a dummy which he did not show reacts in the exact same way as a body with muscles. He showed bias when he said the results were inconsistent with the damage seen on Read's car, meaning the arm didn't hit in the exact same spot and therefore the exact same pattern of breakage was not replicated.

I've seen plenty of video now to show that an arm breaks a taillight at lots of different speeds. I don't think Brennan needs to do much work this afternoon.

JMO

 

[tara83]

If I'm a juror I'm thinking yep, you just showed an arm breaks a taillight. How it breaks, the exact pattern, depends on where the arm hits.

Dr Wolfe did not demonstrate to me that a dummy arm would react in the same way as a human arm, in terms of movement against jagged broken edges and causing damage to fabric.

He did demonstrate to me how John would have spun around and left his shoe behind, in test E.

Dr Wolfe compared apples and oranges, and showed bias when he said the results were inconsistent with the damage seen on Read's car, meaning the arm didn't hit in the exact same spot and therefore the exact same pattern of breakage was not replicated.

I've seen plenty of video now to show that an arm breaks a taillight at lots of different speeds. I don't think Brennan needs to do much work this afternoon.

JMO

An arm breaks a taillight into 47 pieces? Yeah I don't think a jury would <modsnip> believe that.

 

[Forest_Wood]

the mass of the body rotated, was not projected. Consistent with Wolfe's experience.

Spun around and slid down the street, not on the yard, which would have resulted in intense bruising, scratches/scrapes all over his body. John O'keefe was not hit by a car.
MOO

 

[waldojabba]

I do not 100% understand this line of reasoning because the Boston and Canton PDs are two totally separate employers. I see her as a person who, whatever happened to her in Canton, left. She wanted out of that Dept. I also imagine (?) that the Boston salaries are much higher overall.

I posted links for salary look up - it’s public info - a bit back in the thread. You can google too if you don’t want to hunt back through the thread. There is in my mind a significant diff. I don’t want to quote numbers without re looking.
Working days vs night shift. as has been mentioned is also a huge perk.
Something was up

She kept quiet until the fbi called her. She told the truth and thought she was home free.

It proceeds from there and imo blew up in her face.

Choices meet consequences. Your adult enough to be a cop with a gun? Adult time.
JMO

 

[themonk]

And actually the big question in my mind, why didn't the defense pursue it? Very telling non action , IMO.

Dever did the defense's work for them.

There is no doubt she made a terrible impression on the stand.

The jurors have seen a steady stream of perjurers on the stand. Dever is just another in a long line of liars.

 

[ShadyLady]

If realistically is the criteria, would you hang around after a 16-hour shift? But realistically only goes to the weight someone gives to the evidence presented.

The defense has not disputed Dever's testimony that she left when her double shift ended. They could easily obtain footage from the parking lot at Canton Police Department to discredit her testimony as they did with Higgins.

The defense has known what Dever's testimony would be since at least April 2024. Plenty of time to obtain and review the security camera videos from Canton PD. The long lead time and the lack of evidence presented to discredit her account leads me to believe the defense has seen the footage and it documents she left long before the Lexis arrived.

As for official statements from various police departments after her testimony, that's what I'd expect. The case is not being tried in the press. It's the evidence presented in front of the jury that matters. Jurors assess the veracity of witnesses. They don't have to like a witness when there is no evidence before them that she lied in court.

But, it's been shown that Canton can not be trusted to keep unedited video.

Seems video magically gets deleted.

 

[Anniesflowers]

An arm breaks a taillight into 47 pieces? Yeah I don't think a jury would <modsnip> believe that.

Plus they heard testimony from Sgt. Barros that the tailight was only missing a small piece when it left the Reads’ home. If folks didn’t believe his testimony, they showed a video to corroborate his testimony. IMO. That video was priceless.

 

[sunshineray]

And that’s fair enough. So some on the jury might disregard this specific issue. I doubt they’ll disregard the fact that the whole false memory was initially reported to the FBI, and later retracted, and start wondering if the FBI is the “outside agency” that’s been talked about all trial. She was worth having on the stand just for those 3 letters alone.

They may disregard the testimony as it was irrelevant to the case. They may however come away trusting the defense a little less, JMO.

The FBI have not brought any charges of lying to their agents against Officer Dever to date, so I can only surmise the FBI was satisfied there was no intentional lying and only mistaken memory involved, MO.

 

[Anniesflowers]

But, it's been shown that Canton can not be trusted to keep unedited video.

Seems video magically gets deleted.

…or inverted….

 

[sunshineray]

Respectfully, you are imagining what happened. IMO

I disagree, respectfully

 

[missy1974]

If I'm a juror I'm thinking yep, you just showed an arm breaks a taillight. How it breaks, the exact pattern, depends on where the arm hits.

Dr Wolfe did not demonstrate to me that a dummy arm would react in the same way as a human arm, in terms of movement against jagged broken edges and causing damage to fabric.

He did demonstrate to me how John would have spun around and left his shoe behind, in test E.

Dr Wolfe compared apples and oranges, using an arm dangling on a string, and a dummy which he did not show reacts in the exact same way as a body with muscles. He showed bias when he said the results were inconsistent with the damage seen on Read's car, meaning the arm didn't hit in the exact same spot and therefore the exact same pattern of breakage was not replicated.

I've seen plenty of video now to show that an arm breaks a taillight at lots of different speeds. I don't think Brennan needs to do much work this afternoon.

JMO

You should forward your observations to the NHL, Dept. of Defense, car manufacturers, and all departments responsible for Vehicle Safety, it seems that all their work they do for them must be a waste if they are using crash test dummies in any of their testing.

Google tells me:
Crash test dummies are used to simulate human bodies in crash tests to evaluate vehicle safety and identify potential injury risks for occupants. They help researchers and manufacturers assess the effectiveness of passive safety systems (like seatbelts and airbags) and vehicle design features like crumple zones.

All JMO of course.

 

[justwannahelp]

And it's not just Lucky.

Ricky D'Antuono. Ryan Nagel. Heather Maxon. Brian Higgins. Jen McCabe. Matt McCabe. Sara Levinson. Julie Nagel. Caitlyn Albert. Tristan Morris.

All of these people drove or walked and drove past the front lawn and should have seen a large human on the front lawn. They didn't because he wasn't there.

Thx for this. I’ve been hoping someone would post a list of the other 10 witnesses. I couldn’t remember all their names.

 

[Curiousobserver]

Wolfe showed exactly why Dr. Welcher did not use dummy in his tests. No one knows exactly where John O’Keefe was actually standing at the time of the hit/side swipe.

However, imo, the parts showing the sudden shatter of taillight pieces helped the CW’s case. The dummy arm thingy, not so much. Is the jury to believe that because of ARCCA's testing the microscopic taillight pieces found in John’s clothes were planted... Not possible to plant evidence seen only by a microscope. Interesting that Wolfe left out the back door dent, scratches and marks on the SUV. Additionally, the taillight shatters, but clothing doesnt get any tears, by (shifting to reverse, and accelerating up to 24 mph) 6,000 lb vehicle impact, in the cold ... common sense.

My own opinion.

The whole analysis provided by ARCAA is irrelevant and this is the problem with expert witnesses.

Dr. Wolf knows that the huge flaw in his testimony is that they don't know the position of Officer O'Keefe when he was hit, If his injuries were primarily due to contact with the car, or secondary to contact with the car (he fell and hit his head vs his head was crushed by the car), they don't know the condition of the tail light prior to it striking him (it may have already been broken). There are infinite degrees of freedom around each of those factors that they would need to get exactly right to understand what happened. In reality if the CW had hired ARCCA their story would be how easily they figured out how JO broke the tail light.

This is not how good scientists behave, it is how good witnesses make money.

The whole trial is such a waste, if Ms Read had plead guilty to a lesser charge she would already be out of Jail, if she served any time at all, and she would be millions of dollars richer.

 

[Tortoise]

You should forward your observations to the NHL, Dept. of Defense, car manufacturers, and all departments responsible for Vehicle Safety, it seems that all their work they do for them must be a waste if they are using crash test dummies in any of their testing.

Google tells me:
Crash test dummies are used to simulate human bodies in crash tests to evaluate vehicle safety and identify potential injury risks for occupants. They help researchers and manufacturers assess the effectiveness of passive safety systems (like seatbelts and airbags) and vehicle design features like crumple zones.

All JMO of course.

But not to replicate exact past crash patterns, unknown dynamics and injuries?