MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #33 Retrial

[AngTxGal]

The taillight was already missing hours earlier, that morning, as seen on the photograph from the dashcam, as posted above from Sgt. Barros' testimony.

This post is extremely misleading-

Sgt Barros was called by the Defense for the purpose of telling what he saw regarding the taillight.
He said he saw the taillight mostly in tact at the Read’s home before it was taken into custody on a tow truck.
The Prosecutor Brennan on cross repeatedly asked questions that confused Barros, until it appeared Barros agreed that it was not mostly in tact but broken just like the prosecutors claimed.
Barros did not clearly state at any time that the taillight he saw was broken up and looked the same before being towed as it did later.

So- the degree to where the taillight was broken before being towed and photographed in custody is still in question.

The car appears in a video at JOK’s when KR is backing up that morning, and bumps JOK’s car.
It also appears in a photo at her parents house with snow on the back.
There is a video of the car being loaded on the tow truck that shows the taillight.

IMO

 

[Tricia]

Continue here please

 

[ShadyLady]

The prosecutor then highlighted photos from the 29 mph test that showed small holes in the sleeves of the dummy’s sweatshirt, similar to those found on O’Keefe’s clothes. Wolfe said the rips were consistent with “road rash,” the friction that occurs when clothes slide on a hard surface like gravel.

Upon redirect, Read's attorneys emphasized that the sweatshirt in the 29 mph test was damaged much more than O’Keefe’s clothing.

Karen Read trial: Can crash reconstruction expert help the defense?

Karen Read's defense team has sought to prove that she was framed for the death of her cop boyfriend John O’Keefe.

www.usatoday.com

Not sure there was gravel at 34th?? And damage to sweat shirt was all over, not just one arm.

 

[nightowl1975]

Not true. If he put a piece of the taillight into a bag with the clothing and break the taillight into more pieces, it is absolutely possible to "plant" the microscopic pieces - IMO

Also of note, the pieces weren’t actually microscopic. They were visible to the naked eye. Tiny? Yes. Microscopic? By definition, no.

 

[Luna20]

Wolfe is great. Composed, professional and talented.

I’m tired of all this technical stuff. So much time is spent on a sliver of this or that. On and on and on. It’s not going to meet in the middle so there is reasonable doubt.

The jurors have to be exhausted, brain dead and bored. If I were a juror the Daybell and Diddy trials would have a bit more pep and drama to keep my attention. lol

 

[KSwizzle]

Just got through a bunch of today’s proceedings

Brennan is so unlikable, wow, fits right in with the MSP and other LE from the area. Judge Cannone was also in her zone with blatant bias for the CW.

Hopefully it’s a NG verdict because a third trial with judge Cannone and whoever they roll out to prosecute, I don’t even think I’ll be able to watch a condensed version, may god have mercy on those jurors lmao

Moo

 

[Mony Mony]

This post is extremely misleading-

Sgt Barros was called by the Defense for the purpose of telling what he saw regarding the taillight.
He said he saw the taillight mostly in tact at the Read’s home before it was taken into custody on a tow truck.
The Prosecutor Brennan on cross repeatedly asked questions that confused Barros, until it appeared Barros agreed that it was not mostly in tact but broken just like the prosecutors claimed.
Barros did not clearly state at any time that the taillight he saw was broken up and looked the same before being towed as it did later.

So- the degree to where the taillight was broken before being towed and photographed in custody is still in question.

The car appears in a video at JOK’s when KR is backing up that morning, and bumps JOK’s car.
It also appears in a photo at her parents house with snow on the back.
There is a video of the car being loaded on the tow truck that shows the taillight.

IMO

Barros stated a piece of taillight was missing when he initially saw at Mr. Read’s home in Dighton , right before it was to be towed.

He estimated the missing piece to be about the size of a dollar bill,

He was also very clear that the light wasn’t completely busted out.

MOO

 

[Warwick7]

This post is extremely misleading-

Sgt Barros was called by the Defense for the purpose of telling what he saw regarding the taillight.
He said he saw the taillight mostly in tact at the Read’s home before it was taken into custody on a tow truck.
The Prosecutor Brennan on cross repeatedly asked questions that confused Barros, until it appeared Barros agreed that it was not mostly in tact but broken just like the prosecutors claimed.
Barros did not clearly state at any time that the taillight he saw was broken up and looked the same before being towed as it did later.

So- the degree to where the taillight was broken before being towed and photographed in custody is still in question.

The car appears in a video at JOK’s when KR is backing up that morning, and bumps JOK’s car.
It also appears in a photo at her parents house with snow on the back.
There is a video of the car being loaded on the tow truck that shows the taillight.

IMO

BBM
I beg to differ. Barros said there was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged.

Jackson showed Barros the sallyport picture asking, "Is this the condition of the right rear tail light when you showed up at the Read household?"

"Absolutely not," Barros answered. “That taillight is completely smashed out” in the photo, he added said. “That middle section was intact when I was there.”

 

[themonk]

BBM
I beg to differ. Barros said there was a crack missing, but it was not completely damaged.

Jackson showed Barros the sallyport picture asking, "Is this the condition of the right rear tail light when you showed up at the Read household?"

"Absolutely not," Barros answered. “That taillight is completely smashed out” in the photo, he added said. “That middle section was intact when I was there.”

Could it be any more clear?

Does anyone at this point actually think tail light evidence was NOT planted?

Anyone?

 

[AngTxGal]

Not sure there was gravel at 34th?? And damage to sweat shirt was all over, not just one arm.

I think there could be gravel on Fairview as the small curbs were described as being asphalt.

Yes- the sweatshirt from Wolfe’s tests on the dummy and had holes him them after some of the tests had damage in many places, according to his testimony.
The dummy also suffered scuffs on the face and other parts of the body on that same test.

JOK’s sweatshirt had several holes confined to his right arm, and those holes align with the abrasions on his right arm.


IMO

 

[arielilane]

First disclosure or pathological; and he's under oath.

Timestamp 5:18:22

Brennan: Do you ever heard the terms confirmation bias

Wolfe: Yes

Brennan: Do you know what confirmation bias is generally

Wolfe: Generally yes

Brennan: Do you think that you suffer from any confirmation bias in this case

Wolfe: No

Brennan: Do you have any close family that supports one side over the other Not the facts or the data but one side over the other

Wolfe: close family

Brennan: Yes

Wolfe: Not that I'm aware of No

Brennan: Wife

Wolfe: My wife

Brennan: Yes

Wolfe: I I don't really know what her thoughts are on the case

Brennan: May I approach

Judge Cannone: Yes

Brennan: Look at that document Have you seen that before

Wolfe: No I have not

Brennan: You haven't seen that

Wolfe: No

Brennan: You're unaware of anything that may influence you to lean one way or another

Wolfe: Correct

 

[Spider92]

First disclosure or pathological; and he's under oath.

Timestamp 5:18:22

Brennan: Do you ever heard the terms confirmation bias

Wolfe: Yes

Brennan: Do you know what confirmation bias is generally

Wolfe: Generally yes

Brennan: Do you think that you suffer from any confirmation bias in this case

Wolfe: No

Brennan: Do you have any close family that supports one side over the other Not the facts or the data but one side over the other

Wolfe: close family

Brennan: Yes

Wolfe: Not that I'm aware of No

Brennan: Wife

Wolfe: My wife

Brennan: Yes

Wolfe: I I don't really know what her thoughts are on the case

Brennan: May I approach

Judge Cannone: Yes

Brennan: Look at that document Have you seen that before

Wolfe: No I have not

Brennan: You haven't seen that

Wolfe: No

Brennan: You're unaware of anything that may influence you to lean one way or another

Wolfe: Correct

What was that whole wife thing about and what was on the document? I don’t think it was entered into evidence.

 

[KSwizzle]

My guess is a social media post by his wife about the case

 

[Leilei]

I can't believe that ARCCA even showed that the crash dummy's lower body didn't make contact with the car, in test E.

JOK had no injuries to his lower body, aside from a tiny spot on his knee.
IMO.

 

[keek]

What was that whole wife thing about and what was on the document? I don’t think it was entered into evidence.

A VERY weird no relevant comment. B in desperation which we see in his behavior for a while, grabbing a FB blot of Wolfe's wife supposedly 'liking' FKR. Could of been planted, could be real, that is her own conclusion as most. No relevance to Wolfe and his scientific ARRCA testimony and background at all. Weird and cringey of B but no surprise, def not worth repeating, does nothing to change or show any facts, right? IMO

 

[keek]

JOK had no injuries to his lower body, aside from a tiny spot on his knee.
IMO.

I have more and a tiny spot on his knee?? Pretty sure slammed in one way or another by a massive weight lexus would do a lot more than THAT you must see. IMO

 

[keek]

What was that whole wife thing about and what was on the document? I don’t think it was entered into evidence.

No need as it is not evidence of JOK's death or showing impossible the Lexus ran him down IMO

 

[Angelwatch]

The jurors were reported to be extra attentive today. The defense has given them the science and data the CW failed to provide, IMO. I’m looking forward to the rest of ARCCA’s testimony. Hoping KR sleeps a bit better this weekend.

 

[geevee]

A VERY weird no relevant comment. B in desperation which we see in his behavior for a while, grabbing a FB blot of Wolfe's wife supposedly 'liking' FKR. Could of been planted, could be real, that is her own conclusion as most. No relevance to Wolfe and his scientific ARRCA testimony and background at all. Weird and cringey of B but no surprise, def not worth repeating, does nothing to change or show any facts, right? IMO

Exactly; as a defense attorney, HB's whole bag is to generate doubt in the juror's minds, and pulling a stunt like that was only for that reason, and to try to get under Dr. Wolfe's skin and shake him up. Wolfe is far better than that, completely confident in his knowledge and abilities. He could go toe to toe with HB all day and his findings still stand undiminished.

 

[Forest_Wood]

At the beginning of testimony, again at 20:40 and again when Hank cross examines:
I rewatched the Kelly Dever testimony and I'm correcting something I wrote in the previous thread. At the start of testimony, AJ asked her if she had begun her shift some time on Jan 28 going into Jan 29 and she agreed. Then in the morning when it was still dark out and towards the end of her shift, she was in her patrol car in the parking lot of the Canton Police when she heard the call over the radio from 9-1-1 about a man in a snowbank, after which her supervisor called her to fill in on the dispatch desk for him, which happened to be around 06:00. Then she goes on to say her shift ended at 3:45pm and she left at that time. She pretty much worked a double shift in that case as @Bodhi said previously.
I still think she somehow saw what she told the FBI originally, that BH and KB were seen by her in the sally port during the day of Jan 29, 2022 on her day shift, but there was no way to prove it after all this time, otherwise AJ would have.
I still can't figure out why she presents as such an angry woman just because she was subpoenaed, except that she didn't want any of this to be made public and affect her reputation IMO.
I don't even think AJ was going to state what she actually told the FBI until she gave so much attitude on the stand. He only brought up her exact words that she told the FBI on his re-examination after she went at the defense saying they threatened her with perjury.