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

[Seattle1]

"with no evidence" -- Actually, this is one ruling in which JudgeB ruled fairly and got it right. And, while it would be nice for KR to have the legal mind of Bederow on staff, adding him to the team created potential pitfalls for both KR and TB. (Bederow is TB's attorney IIUC.) JudgeB's ruling avoided them.

BTW - KR couldn't get Bederow's help in an informal way, because unless she has actually hired him, there is NO attorney-client protection for what he might learn. You don't want to open that door where he's being put on the stand in some Brennan fishing expedition for information.

Anyhow - The conflict of interest was factual! It stemmed from the reality that the cw had charges looming against both KR and TB. Their actions intersected. It's possible that one or the other might need to say 'They did that, and I wasn't involved at all' for something or another.

AT THE SAME TIME, the cw wanted to link KR and TB together, claiming they had coordinated illegal actions (supposed witness intimidation by TB at the request of KR). JudgeB wouldn't let them have the same attorney, saying each needed their own independent attorney in dealing with the nuances of such charges - who did what, why, who knew, etc. Each being able to work for their own best interest would be vital when one or the other was on trial for such actions. That was 100% the right ruling.

That separation of attorneys worked liked it was supposed to, in fact (and in a way that the cw didn't like when it got there). Early in the KR case pre T2, the cw tried bring TB into the KR case, to force testimony/evidence from TB that supposedly was relevant to the KR trial. It was a classic Brennan fishing expedition on the flimsiest of pretenses and probable falsehoods, as always, but it was quashed legally because, with TB and KR fully separate and independent, TB's team asserted that the cw was just trying to use the occasion to violate TB's rights to refuse to testify against himself re his own case. Not having the same attorney made that separation very obvious and JudgeB had to rule for TB (which also helped KR, because it shut the door on that fishing expedition where Brennan had hoped to create side issues to later make KR look bad to the jury).

Not the place but IMO, I think we should let Attorney Bederow speak for himself on the matter.

 

[Angelwatch]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
Dunning Kruger effect in perfect display, IMO.

 

[keek]

Science may say differently. JMO

WHOSE common sense is the key to any speaking of 'common sense' on anything. Obviously. IMO

 

[kuromiiiilove]

common sense says he was hit by Karen. mOO

Common sense, IMO, would say that given that John’s body wasn’t struck by a vehicle, and Karen’s Lexus damage isn’t consistent with striking a pedestrian, that no collision occurred…

 

[themonk]

common sense says he was hit by Karen. mOO

If only the experts at ARCCA, hired independently by the FBI, had used common sense instead of science...

 

[sapphire blue]

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/34-Fairview-Rd_Canton_MA_02021_M39682-88235

Dropping the house pics from 34 Fairview when it was on sale, that Dr L started to talk about yesterday until the panic alarm set in with Hank and Bev. They don't want us /the jurors to see the inside of the house....
So lets take another look... anything to make that head wound inside?
(Sorry if these have been posted I am not yet caught up )
IMO

Raised Fireplace hearth seems the most obvious
Gym equipment

Selling because it reminds them of what happened there? Guilt factor?

 

[mrjitty]

common sense says he was hit by Karen. mOO

Right - it's a circumstantial case where the broad sweep of evidence is highly incriminating.

It's not seriously denied anymore that Karen drove 24mph in reverse or seriously contended she broke her tail light at 1 meadows.

The defence wants to engage in a form of circular reasoning whereby one can assume the ultimate answer (no collision) and thus sweep aside all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The basis for this is a bunch of people they hired to say it.

Rentschler for me is by far the best defence witness. But he is severely hindered because Wolfe already demonstrated an accident that looks a lot like the one alleged. Is it exactly the same? Or course not - because we can never know all those variables.

IMO

 

[missy1974]

Personally... I don't know how anyone watches this testimony and concludes he was hit by the SUV.

Rentschler's explanations, using science, peer reviewed literature, just doesn't support that at all.

I would want to know how my loved one died, whether it was a freak accident or whatever. I don't think I'd believe he was hit by a car at this point. JMO

 

[themonk]

How can people still think the tail light caused the abrasions?

I will never understand

Speaking of, how do we make sense of the discrepancy between abrasions and sweatshirt holes?

Someone help me

How might this be explained?

 

[missy1974]

Raised Fireplace hearth seems the most obvious
Gym equipment

Selling because it reminds them of what happened there? Guilt factor?

cement stair in the garage.

It was mentioned by Dr. L but was struck from the record.

 

[missy1974]

Speaking of, how do we make sense of the discrepancy between abrasions and sweatshirt holes?

Someone help me

How might this be explained?

I can see how a DOG could get through the sweatshirt, bite, let go, bite, let go, bite, let go without their teeth ever coming out of the sweatshirt.

JMO

 

[missy1974]

Break!

Jackson is done.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I can see how a DOG could get through the sweatshirt, bite, let go, bite, let go, bite, let go without their teeth ever coming out of the sweatshirt.

JMO

 

[KSwizzle]

Renschler dismantled Aperture's whole report and testimony, and he even provided peer reviewed journal studies that weren't 50 years old, and made it simple to understand

Expect Hank to be dialed up to 11 with his smug condescending comments that judge Cannone should have shut down a long time ago. I think Hank is going to have a tough time with the cross because Renschler's analysis was very sound, imo

 

[rescuemom]

Speaking of, how do we make sense of the discrepancy between abrasions and sweatshirt holes?

Someone help me

How might this be explained?

Picture the canine, grabbing hold of the arm or scratching the arm perforating certain holes in the fabric, but while inside the fabric against the arm, the scratches a result of either the canine or the arm moving

 

[keek]

Raised Fireplace hearth seems the most obvious
Gym equipment

Selling because it reminds them of what happened there? Guilt factor?

No guilt there, never was and never will. That group is all about self preservation at the cost of other's lives, KR and whoever would be plowing that street that night. IMO

 

[cocomod]

IMO Brennan’s misuse of the hoodie was likely inadvertent. It would be utterly crass to expect to get away with it if he knew how the holes were made. He could not hope to fool the defence. It would (maybe will) be regarded as serious professional misconduct.

OTOH it’s remarkable the defence did not object DURING the cross. Don’t they know by now where & to what extent the hoodie was damaged? It should be seared into their brains! Why weren’t they instantly on their feet?

Finally, the judge made far too little of it & her perfunctory & non self-explanatory instruction to the jury will have occasioned confusion to them & relief to Brennan.

I disagree that it was a mistake. He would have brought it up during cross, not during the second cross. Bringing it in then, he was trying to have a Perry Mason a-ha moment. He also tried to be very sneaky about it when he was showing just the expert, and almost hiding it. If he honestly believed that they were not cut, he would have used this over and over again during the trial to make it known that there was road rash on his sweatshirt. I think the defense was blind-sighted as he intended. They wanted to cross their t's and dot their i's, they wanted to look at the evidence before they made a huge deal in front of the jury. They did what they needed to do legally to bring this up in case of future appeal issues. They don't want a mistrial, they know they have done their job in proving BARD. They don't want to try this case either.

Need to have a missing witness jury instruction I reckon.

Nope, this witness is not someone that was pertinent to the investigation. Proctor absolutely was extremely pertinent to the investigation and should have been called by the CW. The defense is not required to call him to prove his bias, his corruption, and his overwhelming lack of investigation in this case.

It wasn't a complicated question yet Brennan had to ask her three times and the judge had to instruct her to listen to the question before she would answer him.

Turns out she finally agreed it was possible for a person to be alive for two hours and have a body temperature of 80 degrees after a total of six hours in sub zero temperatures.

5.35.14

He kept trying the get her to agree to a supposition that didn't fit the evidence in this case. She answered over and over again. She finally answered sure - it is possible in another case - however, it is not relevant IN THIS CASE.

Reasonable doubt is the overall standard in the case - it is not applied to facts one by one.

The jury has to consider where the defendant broke her tail light and only two options have been advanced at trial. The defendant claims it was at 1M. The CW states it was in an accident while high speed reversing at 34F.

If the Jury agrees she could not have broken it at 1M, then it's inevitable they will find she broke it hitting John.

IMO

The defense only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They do NOT have to worry about a taillight if OJO was not hit by a car - which has been proven by CW witness as well as defense witnesses. OJO was not hit by a car as has been proven by the experts on the stand - my opinion.

 

[waldojabba]

I am so done listening to Brennan but I think this next cross will be interesting.

Dr R obviously much smarter in all of this than Brennan.
So Brennan will try to get under Dr. R's skin and have Dr R get off his details/lash back at him

Dr R has to be used to slimy lawyers at this point in his career but Hank's is a special kind of nasty.

Hank telling Dr R "over here" look at me like snapping his fingers - YIKES
I am not sure Dr R will abide with that.

JMO

 

[mzmarymac]

How appropriate!!!

 

[themonk]

I can see how a DOG could get through the sweatshirt, bite, let go, bite, let go, bite, let go without their teeth ever coming out of the sweatshirt.

JMO

Ah, ok that makes sense.

Reminds me I don't ever want to make a dog too angry