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

[Malleeboy]

Karen Read is guilty folk.

How do you explain the failure of any of the medical testimony that John O'Keefe wounds were from a car impact. We have two underdetermined and one not a car impact. (Brennan himself entered the 2nd underdetermined testimony during cross on Dr Russell)?

 

[Malleeboy]

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

Thanks for highlighting to me that Brennan thinks that spouses would impact testimony.
IMHO just show how dodgy he is.

 

[Malleeboy]

Aperture cost at least $450K for a car, some blue paint and a John O'Keefe dress up.
ARCCA cost $50K for actual simulations and science, simulations that Welcher said couldn't be done.

Hope the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are happy with the expenditure.

 

[Warwick7]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931178362980196626

 

[Malleeboy]

For those of you who haven't done physics

KE = 0.5m(v*v)

Kenetic Energry = half times mass times velocity squared

We don't John O'Keefe's arms precise weight but changes to mass is dwarfed by changes in velocity, in the amount of Kenetic Energy created.

 

[mrjitty]

@Tortoise just bringing your post over

There is an additional major problem here which is Dr Wolfe also did not contest 1162 or the Traverse collision so far

So we are left with the defence conceding the data shows Karen drove 24 mph in reverse and the tail light breakage did not happen at 1 Meadows. Given the SERT search began before the Lexus makes it to the Sallyport one can only conclude the tail light was broken at 34F?

MOO

Post in thread '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'

Jun 6, 2025

The pieces of the taillight that was still intact when they towed it from Dighton to the sallyport? Those pieces?
Photos, video and testimony in evidence from the past few days showing that the taillight was not in pieces.
IMO.

No, the light was already broken out, as seen in the dashcam at 1 Meadows at 8am that morning, agreed by Sgt. Barros.

IMO

edited to add link requested

segment starts from timestamp 6.43.53

Attorney Brennan - Is that consistent with what you saw around 3.27 on January 29th 2022?

Sgt Barros - Yes.

• Tortoise

• 

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for highlighting to me that Brennan thinks that spouses would impact testimony.
IMHO just show how dodgy he is.

Again this is standard impeachment and very foolish of Wolfe's wife to do this.

Of course AJ, in Brennan's shoes, would have hit the roof about this were it a CW expert and rightly so.

IMO

 

[AngTxGal]

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.

ARCCA tests reality and limits
Each of the tests are designed with a specific question under specific conditions.
The goal is to isolate variables, to recreate all of the factors possible in a single test or set of tests. The number of tests would be thousands
Using the same type of clothing, shoes, pants, body size, car model, help people visualize the model as being like the actual event- but these tests only focused on a single collision event-
Arm to Taillight

Can a connection be made from arm wounds to taillight damage? The rest is fluff, IMO that confuses the actual issue.

Test E Conditions; Lexus backing 29 mph for lift gate taillight and quarter panel taillight by arm shape of x weight at a given height and angle.

What is the probable damage that could occur to the taillight?
What is the probable damage that could occur to the arm?

The problem with a jury of regular citizens is the expertise required to understand is a LOT.
So the public cannot adequately work through what is fudge, speculation, embellish

So just like we all do with our medical doctor- We get a feel for who they are and if they can be trusted. None of us can be experts in everything.

Were any of these tests even setup to see what would happen with a human body under these conditions- No- they were focusing on the arm and taillight.
Did Wolfe make that clear- he tried to many times.
Would it be ethical for ARCCA for him to remove any of the results? No.
What I didn’t hear is- did they do other tests that were not included in the testimony? I would assume Yes- preliminary tests would help them hone in on creating a good model.

Reality is infinitely more complicated than human attempts to model, picture, diagram, or video.
All we can do is the best try we can do, no more.

IMO

 

[AngTxGal]

Karen Read is guilty folk.

How do you explain the failure of any of the medical testimony that John O'Keefe wounds were from a car impact. We have two underdetermined and one not a car impact. (Brennan himself entered the 2nd underdetermined testimony during cross on Dr Russell)?

I’m not understanding why you connected these observations with these conclusions- which to me seem backwards. How do they support KR would then be Guilty?

Not one testimony concluded that the damage to the body were consistent with impact to a car.
Not one testimony concluded the damage to the taillight was consistent with impact to an arm.
Experts did conclude that wounds on arm are consistent with dog bites.
Experts did conclude cause of death is head injury, not arm wounds.

No expert connected anything with any car to the head injury sustained. So independent pieces are not linked logically.

I can’t see any medical/physical evidence to link Car to Arm to Head injury to Death- other than a story people can imagine could occur.

I would logically conclude there is Reasonable Doubt.
Reasonable Doubt = Not Guilty

IMO

 

[Malleeboy]

I’m not understanding why you connected these observations with these conclusions- which to me seem backwards. How do they support KR would then be Guilty?

Not one testimony concluded that the damage to the body were consistent with impact to a car.
Not one testimony concluded the damage to the taillight was consistent with impact to an arm.
Experts did conclude that wounds on arm are consistent with dog bites.
Experts did conclude cause of death is head injury, not arm wounds.

No expert connected anything with any car to the head injury sustained. So independent pieces are not linked logically.

I can’t see any medical/physical evidence to link Car to Arm to Head injury to Death- other than a story people can imagine could occur.

I would logically conclude there is Reasonable Doubt.
Reasonable Doubt = Not Guilty

IMO

The first sentence is to direct the people who believe that Karen Read is guilty to engage with the following points. Often this forum is two parallel groups posting without engaging with the otherside.

 

[AngTxGal]

For those of you who haven't done physics

KE = 0.5m(v*v)

Kenetic Energry = half times mass times velocity squared

We don't John O'Keefe's arms precise weight but changes to mass is dwarfed by changes in velocity, in the amount of Kenetic Energy created.

The Arm Weight Doesn’t Matter
The factor that makes the arm weight irrelevant is that the force comes from car and speed.
The arm wasn’t considered as if it was moving.

Force = 6000 lb Lexus x 25 mph

Force = mass x acceleration

The taillight material can handle only a certain amount of force before it breaks.
The arm isn’t moving- so the point of the arm is to have a similar sized point of impact, and show something that can give. A tree or garage door doesn’t give like an arm.
The arm can move when hit, and the arm material can absorb some force-
Which is why we expect a bone should have broken
The model arm can also wear clothing- to answer a curious question about shards and wounds.

An arm model was used to combine multiple tests in the same impact- to see how the arm reacts.
Damage to the taillight happened overwhelmingly due to the car weight and its speed.

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

ARCCA tests reality and limits
Each of the tests are designed with a specific question under specific conditions.
The goal is to isolate variables, to recreate all of the factors possible in a single test or set of tests. The number of tests would be thousands
Using the same type of clothing, shoes, pants, body size, car model, help people visualize the model as being like the actual event- but these tests only focused on a single collision event-
Arm to Taillight

Can a connection be made from arm wounds to taillight damage? The rest is fluff, IMO that confuses the actual issue.

Test E Conditions; Lexus backing 29 mph for lift gate taillight and quarter panel taillight by arm shape of x weight at a given height and angle.

What is the probable damage that could occur to the taillight?
What is the probable damage that could occur to the arm?

The problem with a jury of regular citizens is the expertise required to understand is a LOT.
So the public cannot adequately work through what is fudge, speculation, embellish

So just like we all do with our medical doctor- We get a feel for who they are and if they can be trusted. None of us can be experts in everything.

Were any of these tests even setup to see what would happen with a human body under these conditions- No- they were focusing on the arm and taillight.
Did Wolfe make that clear- he tried to many times.
Would it be ethical for ARCCA for him to remove any of the results? No.
What I didn’t hear is- did they do other tests that were not included in the testimony? I would assume Yes- preliminary tests would help them hone in on creating a good model.

Reality is infinitely more complicated than human attempts to model, picture, diagram, or video.
All we can do is the best try we can do, no more.

IMO

I'm focusing more on Dr Wolfe giving the jury that visual.

It was possible for Randy to break the taillight with his light arm, reel off the car, not suffer any lower body damage, not leave any damage on the side panels, twist his foot in the reeling around, and that was even with Randy being harnessed not to move away, which is a trajectory that reeling sets in motion.

He also left the jury with visuals of a large debris field.

IMO

 

[AngTxGal]

I'm focusing more on Dr Wolfe giving the jury that visual.

It was possible for Randy to break the taillight with his light arm, reel off the car, not suffer any lower body damage, not leave any damage on the side panels, twist his foot in the reeling around, and that was even with Randy being harnessed not to move away, which is a trajectory that reeling sets in motion.

He also left the jury with visuals of a large debris field.

IMO

Yes, and we will hope the jury can combine what they heard and saw with what is coming up with the bio mechanical expert.

These tests showed at the angle, location, an arm model can be hit by a Lexus taillight moving at 29mph and cause damage to the taillight.

So what would happen to an actual human arm?
JOKs arm had abrasions- no large scale bruising, no broken bones in arm or hand

IMO

 

[AngTxGal]

The first sentence is to direct the people who believe that Karen Read is guilty to engage with the following points. Often this forum is two parallel groups posting without engaging with the otherside.

I read it as a declarative statement, like this…

Hey folks- Karen Read is Guilty

Followed by evidence that shows there is reasonable doubt.

LOL
IMO

 

[statt#1]

I came to have interest in this case fairly recently, came in extremely open minded and not skewed by online dribble as I really hadn't read, researched, or paid any attention to the entire case.

I probably would have made a decent juror

I'm fully expecting another hung jury. Sorry folks, to those who think guilty here, I'm just not seeing it.

Unless, haha......JO was stumbling around the yard, with his sleeves rolled up, the dog cut across the lawn and bit up his arm, yankin' his sleeves back down.....he then lost balance and while screaming to have KR back up and get him, he flung his glass wildly at the dog, missed, but hit the car, bustin' out the tail light, causing it to shatter in to 47 pieces or thereabouts, and resulting in KR getting pzz'd off and throwin' it in reverse, whereby he loses balance at the curb, cuz everybody's drunk ya know, and she backs in to him, hitting only his arm, but maybe nickin' his forehead somehow, while he picks up a bunch of tail light lens in some manner (some of which embeds in his sleeve), swirls around a couple times, and stumbles back out in to the yard, carrying tail light lens pieces (thereby being scattered about), dropping his cell phone, landing on it and hitting his head on a stone or something in the grass there cutting him wide open, none of which was heard or seen by anybody in the house there at the party, or anyone else coming or going past the area, nary being seen by a snow plow operator, or anyone else for that matter for several hours, ad nauseum.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, and we will hope the jury can combine what they heard and saw with what is coming up with the bio mechanical expert.

These tests showed at the angle, location, an arm model can be hit by a Lexus taillight moving at 29mph and cause damage to the taillight.

So what would happen to an actual human arm?
JOKs arm had abrasions- no large scale bruising, no broken bones in arm or hand

IMO

I'm not sure why you've singled out just the arm test at 29 mph.

The tests showed the taillight broke at other speeds, all of which used a dummy arm in some manner.

None of the arms was human however. All of them bounced off the taillight, just as a tennis ball would bounce off a racket. A human arm, being attached to a body, would have more resistance to being hit than a ball and racket, I believe Brennan termed it drag, I would phrase it as very brief entanglement as it broke through the plastic and then the body pulled away, for however brief of a fraction of a second. That is interaction with breaking acrylic, scraping. IMO

Until they can show the wounding doesn't happen, with a human body, which they probably never will, I will believe that hit on the taillight broke it and caused those scrapes. It's too coincidental, for me, that Welcher's arm test showed paint transferred onto him from that light, precisely where John's wounds were. Not underneath, not higher, not lower, but on the mid-section of the posterior aspect of his arm only. Not only that, but the absence of scrapes anywhere else also proves it, for me.

I also can't believe in the dog theory - a dog pulling skin with no lower teeth involved, no puncture/depth, wound sets that look completely different from each other (so no common characteristics between them), no wounds on the anterior arm, or anywhere else on his body, no canine DNA.

There is no evidence that John moved after reverse 1162. The scene around John's body, evidence in his clothing, plus his phone movement and battery temp, the taillight, John's DNA on it, 1162, and Karen, tells the story, BRD.

MOO

 

[statt#1]

This is just my opinion...my recent post, and then the Tortoise's following post, lead me to believe....hung jury.

 

[AngTxGal]

I'm not sure why you've singled out just the arm test at 29 mph.

The tests showed the taillight broke at other speeds, all of which used a dummy arm in some manner.

None of the arms was human however. All of them bounced off the taillight, just as a tennis ball would bounce off a racket. A human arm, being attached to a body, would have more resistance to being hit than a ball and racket, I believe Brennan termed it drag, I would phrase it as very brief entanglement as it broke through the plastic and then the body pulled away, for however brief of a fraction of a second. That is interaction with breaking acrylic, scraping. IMO

Until they can show the wounding doesn't happen, with a human body, which they probably never will, I will believe that hit on the taillight broke it and caused those scrapes. It's too coincidental, for me, that Welcher's arm test showed paint transferred onto him from that light, precisely where John's wounds were. Not underneath, not higher, not lower, but on the mid-section of the posterior aspect of his arm only. Not only that, but the absence of scrapes anywhere else also proves it, for me.

I also can't believe in the dog theory - a dog pulling skin with no lower teeth involved, no puncture/depth, wound sets that look completely different from each other (so no common characteristics between them), no wounds on the anterior arm, or anywhere else on his body, no canine DNA.

There is no evidence that John moved after reverse 1162. The scene around John's body, evidence in his clothing, plus his phone movement and battery temp, the taillight, John's DNA on it, 1162, and Karen, tells the story, BRD.

MOO

The totality of the evidence speaks volumes- I chose one test because they all show the same thing to me. Highly unlikely.-
And I believe- not sure here- The diffuser was not broken in an of Wolfe’s tests but was in KR’s taillight.

Flexibility
I have changed my mind on this case, twice. Once I got more information I adjusted to what is likely and ruled out what is unlikely. My ego is not involved, I have no need to be right, my emotions are in check. It isn’t in me to follow the pack, or jump on the bandwagon.
I get no jollies from guessing right in a case, a person died, it isn’t a game.

Trials are open to the public for review to be sure they are fair and justice is served. Is justice being served here? Not sure yet. How is science being presented- that is my interest.

The totality of the evidence doesn’t ‘prove’ anything to me. It suggests a great deal, and those suggestions are plenty for Reasonable Doubt to exist.

Prove??
Science doesn’t ‘prove’, it actually works to disprove. When you can’t disprove you are left with what is the most likely.
‘With a reasonable scientific certainty’ is what they are saying in the trial- which I don’t like at all. It assumes science has certainty. Not so. But most people don’t know that.

Don’t Know
The harder question is- What actually happened? I’m still working on that one, and haven’t landed on an answer that fits all of the evidence neatly.

Unlikely
Do I think it is possible for taillight fragments that splinter and fly in the air to align themselves in a manner to cause patterned wounds? No- not any more than I would expect dog teeth pulled out of a skull and thrown at an arm 30 mph to make patterned wounds. Highly unlikely- impossible
The force of two opposing jaws filled with attached teeth is Highly likely. IMO

Unsure
If JOK was exposed outside from 12:30 to 6AM, wouldn’t his body be colder than the 80F that was measured? I think so and cannot reconcile that info- no matter how he arrived in the snow.
The answer to this question isn’t relevant to KR’s case- so it isn’t coming up in the trial.

IMO

 

[anglolawyer]

Just jumping in with a thought. If they pieced together the fragments of the tail light, jigsawwise, would they find they had a missing piece, about the size of a dollar bill?

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not sure why you've singled out just the arm test at 29 mph.

The tests showed the taillight broke at other speeds, all of which used a dummy arm in some manner.

None of the arms was human however. All of them bounced off the taillight, just as a tennis ball would bounce off a racket. A human arm, being attached to a body, would have more resistance to being hit than a ball and racket, I believe Brennan termed it drag, I would phrase it as very brief entanglement as it broke through the plastic and then the body pulled away, for however brief of a fraction of a second. That is interaction with breaking acrylic, scraping. IMO

Until they can show the wounding doesn't happen, with a human body, which they probably never will, I will believe that hit on the taillight broke it and caused those scrapes. It's too coincidental, for me, that Welcher's arm test showed paint transferred onto him from that light, precisely where John's wounds were. Not underneath, not higher, not lower, but on the mid-section of the posterior aspect of his arm only. Not only that, but the absence of scrapes anywhere else also proves it, for me.

I also can't believe in the dog theory - a dog pulling skin with no lower teeth involved, no puncture/depth, wound sets that look completely different from each other (so no common characteristics between them), no wounds on the anterior arm, or anywhere else on his body, no canine DNA.

There is no evidence that John moved after reverse 1162. The scene around John's body, evidence in his clothing, plus his phone movement and battery temp, the taillight, John's DNA on it, 1162, and Karen, tells the story, BRD.

MOO

Also Karen's tail light was proven to broken that morning and it's been proven it was not done in the driveway at 1M, and the first 6-7 pieces were recovered by SERT too soon for any staging to be possible from the impounded Lexus at the Sallyport.

The defendant must have broken the tail light at 34F when she dropped John off and drive high speed in reverse. I don't see that can be disputed now.

Now sure you can claim the defendant backed into Higgin's jeep or some other theory, but i can't see how you get that into evidence when the defendant has video taped interviews saying none of that happened.

MOO