MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #34 Retrial

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for your perspective! I'm curious if you have watched all the trial?

Brennan has asked questions, as if they were fact, when they are not, or have not been introduced into evidence at all. I didn't know much about Brennan pre-trial, apparently he did this a lot even in pre-trial hearings.

I tried giving him and the judge the benefit of the doubt... I am over it now lol

All JMO and I am not a lawyer

No, I have not watched all the trial, far from it. If it was deliberate, well …

 

[Leilei]

I mentioned earlier that defense showed a photo of two men at the autopsy and named one of the men as MP, when MP did not attend the autopsy. He is not in the photo.

For the record:


Timestamp: 3:13:05

Alessi: if you could please um zoom in on the two individuals in that picture

-- Top left corner of picture (small print) it notes "Proctor and Keefe"


And....


Timestamp: 6:18:28

Alessi: you noted uh these injuries to these wounds to Mr O'Keefe in your autopsy report


Top left corner of picture (small print) it notes "Arm with dog bites"



1) attempting to mislead the jury
2) Done by design
3) Creating the narrative
4) Trying to fool the jurors
5) honest mistake

The defense's record hasn't been up to par, thus far. jmo

From Day Sixteen.
We're way, way past that now.
IMO.

 

[Lost mittens]

The tofu was the best exchange!

I rewound to watch it twice. She’s so cute, I love her!

 

[LvsAMystry]

Brennan lied by omission??? Nooooooo

I know. shocking!

 

[waldojabba]

She finally agreed it CAN happen, she does not agree that it happened in this case... he asks the question with "someone", not John. Here is the exchange.. which I will note is right after the exchange in my last post. She makes it pretty clear that she does not believe that happened in this case.


HB: Do you disagree that somebody could be alive, lose body temperature out in the cold freezing temperature below 32 they could lose body temperature a certain rate then pass out pass die and then continue to lose body temperature, Is that possible?

Doc: anything's possible. It's just what's important, is what happened in this case

HB: I'm asking for your medical opinion though rather than to be an advocate as far as your medical opinion

Objection...sustained and I'll strike that.

HB: As far as ...

Judge: Dr Would you listen to the question please

Doc: of course Thank you your honor

HB: As far as your medical experience could somebody be alive outside in the cold below 32 degrees not moving covered by snow still alive and lose body temperature?

Doc: sure

HB: And then could they after an hour or two hours could they then die and continue to lose more body temperature

Doc: sure

I took that “sure” as a dismissive “ sure” and the same with the second sure.
She had been answering Brennan’s question but her answer was too nuanced for Brennan. And I don’t think the Judge was even listening.
Hank did not really want to understand the process he just wanted to pin her to an answer he could perhaps try and twist later.
That’s the way I heard her answer in the overall context/ big picture of her testimony.
Just my 2 cents.
Hank had hired Dr L himself in the past. He knew what he was up against. He knew when to walk away. She was a great witness for Truth. And bless Hank that most of his questions allowed Dr L to hammer home the truth.
John’s injuries were not caused by Karen’s car or anyone’s car.
JMO

 

[keek]

From Day Sixteen.
We're way, way past that now.
IMO.

It also took up A PAGE here, we need to be current in order to have or read updates as they are happening and rational and thoughtful discussions. We know a lot of dedicated members are unable to follow in real time and so appreciate the current trial's daily doings and factual updates. This would be ever so helpful to interested members on this trial and other cases on WS. IMO

 

[keek]

I took that “sure” as a dismissive “ sure” and the same with the second sure.
She had been answering Brennan’s question but her answer was too nuanced for Brennan. And I don’t think the Judge was even listening.
Hank did not really want to understand the process he just wanted to pin her to an answer he could perhaps try and twist later.
That’s the way I heard her answer in the overall context/ big picture of her testimony.
Just my 2 cents.
Hank had hired Dr L himself in the past. He knew what he was up against. He knew when to walk away. She was a great witness for Truth. And bless Hank that most of his questions allowed Dr L to hammer home the truth.
John’s injuries were not caused by Karen’s car or anyone’s car.
JMO

She knew to just stop his nonsensical questions and statements. The 'sure' was very clearly dismissive. Her long time on the stand both days were filled with articulate and incredibly detailed knowledge and pathology information on JOK and any deceased bodies. Have to watch her entire testimony and careful listening for the knowledge she gives us which is why we are here I would think. IMO

 

[GGbankster]

It's my understanding KR cannot testify anyway because she made an admission to her attorney David Yannetti. Is this correct? Any attorney on board to weigh in. Though, I didn't think she would testify anyway. jmo

He cited media interviews and a five-part docuseries called “A body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read" in which Read says, “And then when I hired David Yannetti, I asked him those questions the night of Jan, 29th. ‘Like David what if, I don't know, what if I ran his foot over, or, or, what if I clipped him in the knee and he passed out and or went to care for himself and he threw up or passed out and David said, ‘Yeah then you have some element of culpability.’ So that's how I thought about things for about three days.”

Prosecutors hope to use Turtleboy's phones to show Karen Read's 'consciousness of guilt'

Karen Read wisely opted to exercise her right not to testify, as protected by the 5th Amendment.

There is no proof that she confessed to her lawyer. I've noticed these claims circulating repeatedly on X platform and Reddit by various anonymous users. They lack validity and are simply false. imo

 

[keek]

Karen Read wisely opted to exercise her right not to testify, as protected by the 5th Amendment.

There is no proof that she confessed to her lawyer. I've noticed these claims circulating repeatedly on X platform and Reddit by various anonymous users. They lack validity and are simply false. imo

Too much assumptions as facts going on here via blogs and X, etc. Does not add value to the members following with the goals of reading facts from the trial to discuss, the actual trial. IMO

 

[lohrtabitha]

I took that “sure” as a dismissive “ sure” and the same with the second sure.
She had been answering Brennan’s question but her answer was too nuanced for Brennan. And I don’t think the Judge was even listening.
Hank did not really want to understand the process he just wanted to pin her to an answer he could perhaps try and twist later.
That’s the way I heard her answer in the overall context/ big picture of her testimony.
Just my 2 cents.
Hank had hired Dr L himself in the past. He knew what he was up against. He knew when to walk away. She was a great witness for Truth. And bless Hank that most of his questions allowed Dr L to hammer home the truth.
John’s injuries were not caused by Karen’s car or anyone’s car.
JMO

Yes and great post here. I also liked the way she explained that holding a human brain and cutting into it gives you more accuracy than looking at a MRI or CTscan.

 

[keek]

Yes and great post here. I also liked the way she explained that holding a human brain and cutting into it gives you more accuracy than looking at a MRI or CTscan.

She is truly a plus to the world of pathology, crime and science and of course, this trial. B tried cornering someone like her?? It was awful to just a layperson with a clue! IMO

 

[DropthePuck]

Please forgive me if this has been answered, why did the defense not ask Dr. Scordi-Bello about the x-rays during their cross? If they are mentioned in her report shouldn't the defense have been allowed to ask about them?

 

[keek]

Please forgive me if this has been answered, why did the defense not ask Dr. Scordi-Bello about the x-rays during their cross? It they are mentioned in her report shouldn't the defense have been allowed to ask about them?

Someone will know, I know there was fluffle about the xrays and the CW not providing them or ..something.

 

[missy1974]

No, I have not watched all the trial, far from it. If it was deliberate, well …

Thanks, I was curious to know what your thoughts were about both sides if you had I think each situation taken individually, it is easier to conclude that it was an honest mistake (although, he has 2 attorneys beside him that should know the case really well too and they allowed it to happen as well).

I think it's the totality of all the 'mistakes' and calculated filings, etc. that have me at the point that he no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt But again, that is JMO.

 

[missy1974]

From Day Sixteen.
We're way, way past that now.
IMO.

Are the lawyers even responsible for what is shown up on the screens? If the name of the file is there... seems that someone didn't hit "full screen" to me.

Alessi clearly asked if the doctor knew who it was, she did not. LOTS of people did think that was Proctor though. It was later stipulated to who it was, I cannot remember the name.

 

[shotgun09]

Someone will know, I know there was fluffle about the xrays and the CW not providing them or ..something.

All of the players knew there were x-rays. Also, they all knew that JOK had not one other broken bone ( other than his skull ). It wasn't until the fabulous Lone Blue Man Group ' Playa' ( Jud Welcher ) got up on the stand and proudly exclaimed that ' We really don't know if there are/were xrays. ' "Maybe they didn't take any xrays". He suggested that maybe JOK had unknown fractures to his hand, and arm.

Defense wanted to prove that yes indeed there were x-rays, and further dismantle any credibility that might remain of Jud Welcher.
IMO

 

[missy1974]

Too much assumptions as facts going on here via blogs and X, etc. Does not add value to the members following with the goals of reading facts from the trial to discuss, the actual trial. IMO

And for people like me ... I have not followed all through the 1st trial and the numerous pretrial hearings, etc.

I STILL have not gone back to watch all the testimony from all the people that were at the Albert's house that night. And I think the defense may have made the right decision not to call them all, it is MUCH easier and clearer to me without all of that, but I do have the benefit of knowing some of it.

I hope they have planted the seeds with other testimony, that it's possible he went into the home.. the Alberts had a dog... some of the shady stuff going on that night with odd calls, BH lurking around CPD... the cell phone did not have strong location data after he disconnected from Waze... the kids in the truck behind them didn't see JOK... he was not hit by a car.... he has dog bites... the odd/missing/edited videos from CPD... where Proctor was and wasn't (through YB's testimony)... the fact that the CW has backed away from Proctor all together and don't want the jurors to see him... that would all weigh on my decision.

I could probably write their closing argument for them at this point

 

[missy1974]

Please forgive me if this has been answered, why did the defense not ask Dr. Scordi-Bello about the x-rays during their cross? If they are mentioned in her report shouldn't the defense have been allowed to ask about them?

I don't think it was an issue until Welcher made the comment that "the ME didn't do x-rays"

I think it is a normal thing to do when doing an autopsy. She was most likely asked about broken bones, he didn't have any and it was left at that.

When it was challenged by Welcher.. the defense wanted to go into the ME report with him... the Judge denied them that. And then we saw what happened today...

Hope that helps! Many threads... lots to go through... don't need to say 'forgive me for asking'

 

[missy1974]

All of the players knew there were x-rays. Also, they all knew that JOK had not one other broken bone ( other than his skull ). It wasn't until the fabulous Lone Blue Man Group ' Playa' ( Jud Welcher ) got up on the stand and proudly exclaimed that ' We really don't know if there are/were xrays. ' "Maybe they didn't take any xrays". He suggested that maybe JOK had unknown fractures to his hand, and arm.

Defense wanted to prove that yes indeed there were x-rays, and further dismantle any credibility that might remain of Jud Welcher.
IMO

The one thing that also came out today with that testimony...

There was also NO bruising, no damage to the soft tissue when the autopsy was done.

He was not hit by a car.

IMO

 

[Malleeboy]

I wonder if the jury has picked up, Brennan hounding Wolfe on not noticing the hole that were not original. but his expert Welcher asserted there were no x-rays to confirm broken bones and there are xrays.