MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #35 Retrial

New Posts

Younger Sister said:
Back in March of this year Judge Canone limited a third party culprit defense in this case. This was just one of many limitations this Judge imposed for this trial. There were others IMO (ie)…no pictures of the inside of the house, no testimony from a former FBI agent regarding the shoddy investigation, and not allowing Dr. Laposata to testify about dog bites when she was clearly qualified to do so. Also we will never know what limitations she placed on the defense every time she ordered them to a side bar. JMO
Click to expand...

Yes. There are rules which apply to the admissibility of evidence in every criminal case.

I was simply pointing out that 3rd party culprits do not create reasonable doubt in trial 2.

MOO
 
justwannahelp said:
This!

How can people whether they BELIEVE Karen did it or not think it’s ok to put someone(ANYone, not just Karen) away for for life or the majority of his or her life? they have not PROVEN she did this. PERIOD. We have BARD to protect people who MAY be innocent. We CANNOT put someone away for something we aren’t CERTAIN he or she did. I’d be saying this even if the defendant was a seemingly awful individual, someone with a record of some sort. They would need VIDEO to convince me to charge Guilty BARD.

As much as i think the Albert’s and friends are responsible, if they were on trial and i was a juror, i would have to say not guilty because there’s no hardcore evidence on them EITHER. I don’t think I’d be serving justice if i found them guilty based on the information we have — at this moment. Now, if they’d matched DNA or had ring camera footage of them dragging him out, or pics of blood in the house, then I’d be convinced. But that evidence doesn’t exist because they simply didn’t look for it. It’s terrible!

the fact that there are other POTENTIAL suspects is enough BARD.

We DO. NOT. KNOW.

not directed at you, lorabitha. Just agreeing with you on the BARD allllll over the place.
Click to expand...
Well said. We can not help but have doubt IMO because the investigation was questionable. No matter how they spin it, to fail to timely question separately each person that was at Brian Albert’s house as well as thoroughly search the premises caused doubt. The handling of evidence was also questionable IMO.
 
I am not Sherlock H. said:
Yes @AngTxGal …… and IMO it seems the other question is how long Burgess and Welcher’s CV and ‘credentials’ remain on the Aperture LLC website. With, or without a “Not For Expert Designation” watermark plastered across them. And before or after this trial concludes? IMO maybe someone is waiting for the ‘check to clear’. SMH.

And FWIW Welcher’s downloadable CV still has an apparent incorrect spelling for the email. See attached just retrieved from the Aperture LLC website. SMH. MOO

Our Digital Forensic Experts

Powered by our people and our partners, we amplify our effectiveness and our impact. We provide unequalled access to services, geographies, and vast expertise and leave nothing unturned, unanalyzed, or unexplained.
www.aperturellc.com www.aperturellc.com
Click to expand...

All of those may seems suspicious and could mean something nefarious happened here, I don’t know.
I’m focused on the physical evidence that was used to create and support a fake story.
Questions that need to be investigated-
- When and where did the taillight actually break to the degree that it produced 40+ shards?
- When and where did the bar glass break?
- How did the phone get under JOKs body?
- When and where did JOKs arm become damaged? And by what dog?
- What did JOKs head hit? What patterns did Laposada see that could be matched to a surface?
- Where as BH’s jeep parked during the time he was at BAs home? When did he leave? Where is his jeep with plow now?
- What did BH do at the Canton PD after leaving BAs? Was he wearing the same clothes as he was at Waterfall?
- What can be recovered from the phone clouds of BA and BH beginning on the afternoon of Jan 28? Has a forensic phone data expert been deployed to recover what can be found?
- Follow the money from Commish to experts to BA to BH to OKeefe’s family, and other higher ups in and around the area.
Too many loose ends- this story is not over.

I hope for justice-
KR sues all involved in creating a case to frame her for what could be an accident or murder where there is no evidence she was involved.
Tho OKeefe family sues all involved for justice for JOK and puts money aside for the O'Keefe children. Those two kids have suffered an unimaginable amount of loss, and the public is cruel and nosy and will never forget this trial. Let’s hope they can find peace and happiness- and they leave Canton, Mass to do so.

IMO
 
mrjitty said:
There is no missing piece, if you mean never recovered.

The first 6-7 broken pieces were recovered by SERT team in the 5pm hour on the 29th outside 34F. The defence does not contest that recovery. The crime lab ended up reassembling much of Karen's tail light from the full recovery.

Given the uncontested reconstruction evidence that the defendant did not break the tail light reversing into the victim's Traverse at 1mph, the only conclusion available to the jury is she broke it at 34F at 12.32am which is my original point that started that discussion!

MOO
Click to expand...

If we expect the same level of science to explain the wounds on JOKs arm then we do not know the story of the taillight. The ‘chain of custody’ doesn’t exist.

The story of the taillight is as complicated as JOKs body. We have bits and pieces of a manufactured story that links taillight and body and it isn’t true so neither true story is known.

Why? There was no real investigation, and KR and the OKeefe family deserves answers!

Who when where how many pieces? How? Disconnected links but no ‘chain of custody’
- car to snow?
- snow to sweatshirt?
- sweatshirt to lab?

Huge Questions
- Is there a link between KR’s car/ taillight and JOKs wounds? NO
- What is the true story of the taillight? ?
- What is the true story of JOKs body? ?
- How did the manufactured link between the taillight and JOKs body get created? ?

IMO
 
Last edited:
AngTxGal said:
I’m sure some BLUE PAINT and a model ham sandwich will help us replicate the bite, chew, and swallow actions that took place to the sandwich pieces to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty!

IMO
Click to expand...

RSBM

I can do the blue paint test, try to "prove" what bite you took first.

Argue in court and in filings that the geometry and stellar biomechanical skills and analysis shows it came from the bottom right side of the sandwich.

No one will notice that there is nothing scientific about it all.

And if they do, I'll just tell them that, I know nothing and was not trying to prove the first bite at all, and I was just showing what could have happened, I don't know where the sandwich was, if it was even where you say it was, was it even a ham sandwich???? Maybe it was chicken?

Completely understand why Brennan did not want Welcher back in the court room.

JMO
 
mrjitty said:
On the topic of circumstantial evidence, circular reasoning and the logical fallacy of speculating away the facts one by one.

There is a circumstantial web of facts which has no acceptable answer, and has cascading consequences, which falls out of the debunking of the Traverse incident.

The CW clearly established Karen did not break her tail light in the 1mph reversing incident. The tail light did not even contact John's car. The defence also implicitly conceded that Karen drove at high speed in reverse outside 34F. (They just said it was 20-30 secs later).

These two obvious findings have significant consequences by inference.

First it proves the tail light was broken before the 5am hour and thus by inference at 34F where the first 6 or 7 pieces were recovered same day. The defence does not claim any other time or place the tail light was broken, so the jury cannot speculate some other explanation.

Secondly, Law Enforcement cannot have broken the tail light and planted the first 6-7 pieces as they did not have possession of the vehicle at 12.32, or 5am, or 8am when the damage was documented by 2 videos and witnesses and the defendant's own statement. By the time the Lexus arrives at the Sallport after 5.30pm, the SERT team of 8 people is already well into its search and will find the first pieces - all photographed and documented, under the snow just 10 mins later. Not possible they were planted, and that really disposes of the case.

I understand what the defence is trying to do with the "no collision" argument, but there is an obviously logical fallacy in ARCCA ignoring the digital and physical evidence of the crash - the high speed reverse (uncontested), the tail light debris from the lexus at the scene, the debris on the victim and torn off shoe (replicated in Dr Wolfe's own tests), and rather using an end medical conclusion to try to prove in court the evidence was planted, which is effectively what Dr Rentschler ended up claiming. IMO this is simply circular reasoning. Perhaps if Rentschler were able to run exhaustive testing so he could observe many different set ups and variables I could buy into the idea a bit more. But not on the scant testing conducting.

One of the issues is the injury by tail light is so unusual in the first place, I don't see how MEs can speak conclusively to it, which is why the original ME did not. Especially i don't see how an ME can say 'oh that's animal bites' based on experience, unless they also saw dozens of tail light injuries in their career. How does an ME even know what a tail light injury in this case should look like? This is of course why the original ME is inconclusive on the arm injury, whereas the paid defence experts are all sure it can't be.

It's not 'reasonable doubt' that the CW ME is inconclusive though - that is the point of the broader circumstantial evidence. The ME does not have the option to reverse a tail light into a human arm at 24 mph and see if the tail light breaks and what injuries are suffered. Ironically that is the piece of the picture Dr Wolfe filled in - namely broken tail light, debris in shirt, shoe off, yet no contact to the leg or body.

MOO
Click to expand...
'Sallyport camera footage cuts out'
 
Did I dream it last night, or did HB ask Dr. R if he laughed during the lunch break with the defense last year? Newsflash Hank: just because you’ve never laughed a day in your life, doesn’t make it a crime. Yes, I can imagine your former client shooting someone for laughing, but this isn’t Whitey’s South Boston’s. It’s beer-drinking, drunk-driving, evidence-planting Canton, MA so get over yourself.
If he asked me that on the stand, I’d muster every fiber of sarcasm in my body and say “You got me there, Hank. Guilty as charged. Toss me in jail and throw away the key”.
a clown
 
mrjitty said:
RSBM

The defence did not discharge it's evidential burden to even raise the alternate suspects let alone that they establish a reasonable doubt. The CW does not have to disprove every speculative theory the defence can come up with.

MOO
Click to expand...
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the bedrock of American justice. The prosecution alone bears the burden of proof, the defendant never has to prove their innocence. This fundamental protection exists to prevent convictions based on mere allegations, ensuring no one suffers unjust punishment without ironclad evidence meeting the highest standard in law: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable doubt isn't some abstract possibility, it's a real, evidence based uncertainty. When the prosecution's case depends on speculation rather than proof, when critical physical evidence contradicts their theory, the law demands an acquittal.

The Commonwealth's entire case against Karen Read rests on two flimsy pillars, an alleged statement and a scientifically impossible scenario. They claim she said "I hit him" but where's the physical proof she actually did? Their 24mph reverse speed collision theory defies the laws of physics and the medical evidence.

This would be like prosecuting a wife for allegedly saying "I shot my husband" when the autopsy shows only stab wounds, no gunshot residue exists, no bullet is found, no gun is ever recovered and his body is covered in stab wounds.

Would any reasonable detective close that case based solely on the wife saying "I shot him"? Of course not. Yet that's exactly what the Commonwealth asks you to do here, convict without proof.

Without physical evidence matching their theory, without credible scientific analysis supporting their claims, the prosecution hasn't met and cannot meet their burden. When the facts contradict the allegations, the allegations must yield. The only just verdict is not guilty. IMO
 
Re: the SERT team and tail light shards found and timing and whatnot, is there a source, other than Proctor and Bukhenik, that can confirm they followed the tow truck with the Lexus back to Canton PD?

I would love to take these fine gentlemen at their word...

Oh, wait didn't Proctor lie about the timing in his report re: the Lexus seizure.

Now, why might he do that?
 
Can someone remind me...

Last year, I do recall the defense arguing about the jury instructions and how they weren't clear... or they wanted something changed (that the judge did not change)

What was not clear?

I hope this time, it is clear and I hope the jury understands them and if they don't understand, they ask :P
 
mrjitty said:
There is no missing piece, if you mean never recovered.

The first 6-7 broken pieces were recovered by SERT team in the 5pm hour on the 29th outside 34F. The defence does not contest that recovery. The crime lab ended up reassembling much of Karen's tail light from the full recovery.

Given the uncontested reconstruction evidence that the defendant did not break the tail light reversing into the victim's Traverse at 1mph, the only conclusion available to the jury is she broke it at 34F at 12.32am which is my original point that started that discussion!

MOO
Click to expand...
www.bostonglobe.com

Crime lab analysts testify on DNA evidence on John O’Keefe’s clothes, pieces of taillight found at scene - The Boston Globe

On Friday, Prosecutor Adam Lally called Andre Porto and Ash Vallier, analysts at the State Police crime lab, to the stand. Here's how the day unfolded.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

Vallier repeatedly said the items were “recovered from Fairview Road.”

Vallier said several plastic pieces found on the lawn “fit together mechanically” during a physical match analysis, while other items did not match.
 
missy1974 said:
Can someone remind me...

Last year, I do recall the defense arguing about the jury instructions and how they weren't clear... or they wanted something changed (that the judge did not change)

What was not clear?

I hope this time, it is clear and I hope the jury understands them and if they don't understand, they ask :P
Click to expand...
IIRC, it had to do with the wording and layout of how to mark the verdict.
 
themonk said:
Re: the SERT team and tail light shards found and timing and whatnot, is there a source, other than Proctor and Bukhenik, that can confirm they followed the tow truck with the Lexus back to Canton PD?

I would love to take these fine gentlemen at their word...

Oh, wait didn't Proctor lie about the timing in his report re: the Lexus seizure.

Now, why might he do that?
Click to expand...
Yes, they showed video of the arrival of the tow truck being followed by YB's truck.

6.19.30
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 657 (members: 141, guests: 516)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
516
Total visitors
657
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,474
Messages
18,504,453
Members
240,808
Latest member
zoeep
Back
Top