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

[kuromiiiilove]

So there were no injuries to John’s hand, wrist, shoulder, and only abrasions to his arm - no fractures or major trauma/injury. I guess his arm must have been made out of titanium to shatter Karen’s tail light with no indication of acute injury. MOO

 

[themonk]

There is video of it broken while Karen was still in possession of it.

Yes, I watched Officer Nicholas Barros' testimony.

 

[BUF]

And here come the X-rays that “this” witness reviewed

 

[Wishbone]

There is video of it broken while Karen was still in possession of it.

There is no evidence that proves that taillight and JO collided. JMOO

 

[Oakland CA]

Rentschler.

Not a likeable witness.......if I was on the jury.
Won't just answer the question but feels he needs to "add-on" to every answer.

Can't blame the CW for the multiple objections and I agree with the Judge on sustaining most of them.

 

[Wishbone]

So there were no injuries to John’s hand, wrist, shoulder, and only abrasions to his arm - no fractures or major trauma/injury. I guess his arm must have been made out of titanium to shatter Karen’s tail light with no indication of acute injury. MOO

And to shatter the taillight into more pieces than actually belong to that specific taillight. JMOO

 

[Amber29]

Rentschler.

Not a likeable witness.......if I was on the jury.
Won't just answer the question but feels he needs to "add-on" to every answer.

Can't blame the CW for the multiple objections and I agree with the Judge on sustaining most of them.

Oh wow complete opposite for me. I like that he wants to explain everything in pretty simple terms.

 

[missy1974]

And here come the X-rays that “this” witness reviewed

I can hear it in Rentschler's voice.... don't think he has much respect for Welcher and what he did in this case IMO Blue paint test, taking the sweatshirt off for his blue paint test, calling the arm wounds lacerations when they are abrasions, not looking at the xrays or even knowing from the reports that there was no fractures/injuries. That is just what he has pointed out so far and I have probably missed things lol

I would love to hear their analysis outside of the court after this case is over, what ARCCA really thinks about what Aperture did and didn't do... what they really think happened... but we probably never will.

 

[lohrtabitha]

Rentschler.

Not a likeable witness.......if I was on the jury.
Won't just answer the question but feels he needs to "add-on" to every answer.

Can't blame the CW for the multiple objections and I agree with the Judge on sustaining most of them.

Not likeable you must have him confused with Brenan.

 

[missy1974]

Oh wow complete opposite for me. I like that he wants to explain everything in pretty simple terms.

AND make sense while doing it!

 

[pcrum12]

so confused why another sidebah when I didn't even hear Brennan object or ask for one - what is wrong with him opining on the sweatshirt holes?

 

[nodamselindistress]

IMO Dr Rentschler is an excellent witness. As noted above, he explains things very well and is more involved in the science of what happened than that imposter Dr. Welscher ever was.

 

[mrjitty]

I see what you’re saying about reasonable doubt and you’re right that it applies to the case as a whole. But I do think it’s an oversimplification to say that if the jury rejects the defense’s version, they must accept the CW’s. The jury isn’t picking between two stories. They’re deciding whether the prosecution has proven their version beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if they think the defenses version is unlikely or flawed, that does not automatically mean the CW has met that high burden. Also, individual facts CAN raise reasonable doubt. If the evidence about where the tail light isn’t clear or reliable to the jury, that uncertainty can contribute to reasonable doubt about the CW’s broader narrative.

So no, rejecting the defenses account doesn’t make the CW’s version ‘inevitable’, unless it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is still the CW’s burden throughout.

All MOO

I agree if the jury believes there is a reasonable possibility, given all the circumstances, the tail light was broken at 1M, then the CW must fail.

What I am saying is as a practical matter, if the Juror does not believe that to be the case, it is inevitable they must conclude it was broken during the high speed reversing, as no other evidence is before them. Especially the jury should not speculate into existence some other explanation(s) for how it was broken that the defence has not claimed. There really are only two possibilities here, and the defendant knows which version is correct.

I do also agree with you that you can have a version of the trial where the defendant does not advance any positive version, and thus need not establish anything. But given the SERT recovery at 34F which is not contested, the defendant does in fact in this case need the jury to believe to a reasonable possibility both that the tail light was originally broken at 1M AND that pieces were subsequently staged to 34F. Especially because the defendant said this on video.



IMO

 

[Oakland CA]

I'm curious, if you were a juror, how you would react to the witness taking the time to wave to and wish his son a "Happy Birthday" while on the stand of a murder trial.

1) Commend him for being a great father?

2) Be disgusted by the fact he's doing so in the middle of a murder trial where the defendant's future is at stake?

I'll go first

#2 for me

 

[waldojabba]

I can hear it in Rentschler's voice.... don't think he has much respect for Welcher and what he did in this case IMO Blue paint test, taking the sweatshirt off for his blue paint test, calling the arm wounds lacerations when they are abrasions, not looking at the xrays or even knowing from the reports that there was no fractures/injuries. That is just what he has pointed out so far and I have probably missed things lol

I would love to hear their analysis outside of the court after this case is over, what ARCCA really thinks about what Aperture did and didn't do... what they really think happened... but we probably never will.

I think he thinks what most of us think - junk science for 400k.

I like this witness - he is earnest-he is thorough - he is smart
And he does like to talk -
Other expert witnesses were given a wide berth.

Both Hank and Bev are determined to give this guy a narrow a passage as possible

Obvious reason it is that his testimony is very damaging to the P case and shows Welcher is perhaps not the best and brightest or on the details.
JMO

 

[missy1974]

He counted 36 abrasions on his arm. (conservative estimate)

Needs 36 different points of contact, through the sweatshirt to get to the skin.

9 defects in the sweatshirt.

(the yellow marks are Rentschler's marks on the photo)





From Welcher's report... the only reference to the sweatshirt in his report:

 

[Oakland CA]

AJ being very smart now by cutting off the witness' answers short.
Before he gets a chance to add-on or embellish which the jury might not appreciate.

Great work by the defense attorney

 

[missy1974]

AJ being very smart now by cutting off the witness' answers short.
Before he gets a chance to add-on or embellish which the jury might not appreciate.

Great work by the defense attorney

What you don't see or hear in the feed is that Brennan is objecting or standing ready to object, so the lawyers will usually preemptively change their question, stop the witness, etc.

This has been reported lots by the reporters that are in the courtroom .... usually comes up when people think that the Judge is signaling Brennan (this is not happening, we just don't see Brennan getting up to object on the feed, they "see" it coming before we do)

 

[kuromiiiilove]

So the number of holes in the sweatshirt do not match the number of abrasions to John’s arm.

Also, it was not possible to line up 36 abrasions with the damage to the tail light. There were not 36 points on the tai light that could be aligned to John’s arm wounds.

 

[Oakland CA]

Not likeable you must have him confused with Brenan.

Isn't Brennan prosecuting this case?

Was there a witness named Brennan?

I was posting about witnesses and how they come across on the stand.

::