VERDICT WATCH MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #36 Retrial

[AngTxGal]

This is what you posted:
I disagree, the ME and other forensic experts described that wound in the same way and as the cause of death. It wasn’t described as a ridged object- it was blunt force trauma.

But it was, in fact, described as a ridged object. Not sure where the disconnect is, but we can agree to disagree.
IMO.

I was responding to a post= Some people are seeing images of the split in his scalp and discussing how deep it is, they are thinking it was caused by something cutting him like a tool.
Then you described a ridged object.

The word ‘ridge’ is irrelevant. I was trying to clarify that he was not hit or cut by an object- his scalp split open from the force of his fall.

It is hugely different- If someone thinks he was hit by a ridged object- they will assume a weapon and a murderer. Or they will think he fell onto something that poked into his head.

My point in responding was to clarify what the ME and other experts described as his injuries and cause of death- not to argue about the word ‘ridge’.
Best-


IMO

 

[jepop]

ouch!

It didn’t look like blunt force - a hammer, weapon or baseball bat per se, but it looked too deep to just be the ground?? The steps would still cause coup counter coup, right?

There’s one image in particular that i saw for the first time yesterday. It is much better quality than the others, and you can see pretty deep into his head.

Imo, hard surface, ridged hard surface ( eg. step) fall under the umbrella category of blunt force if they are surmised as the cause/mechanism leading to the wound. ie when the ME says the wounds are the result of blunt force trauma that is simply the widest categorical description. At that level of description, all blunt force excludes is sharp force ( for e.g a knife). Moo

Dr Laposata simply went into more detail about the mechanism of the blunt force according to her analysis of the wound from the whole of the autopsy report. From memory I don't think testimony was elicited from the ME beyond blunt force, but that is not inconsistent with Dr Laposata's more detailed testimony. Jmo

ETA, the ME is simply using the terminology of wound categorisation in her field. None of her testimony is inconsistent with the other medically trained witnesses. Jmo

 

[keek]

Imo, hard surface, ridged hard surface ( eg. step) fall under the umbrella category of blunt force if they are surmised as the cause/mechanism leading to the wound. ie when the ME says the wounds are the result of blunt force trauma that is simply the widest categorical description. At that level of description, all blunt force excludes is sharp force ( for e.g a knife). Moo

Dr Laposata simply went into more detail about the mechanism of the blunt force according to her analysis of the wound from the whole of the autopsy report. From memory I don't think testimony was elicited from the ME beyond blunt force, but that is not inconsistent with Dr Laposata's more detailed testimony. Jmo

She also spoke of the pebbly appearance that seemed to be inside the wound, Dr Laposta's very detailed observation.

 

[AngTxGal]

I found these posts strange myself. My understanding is he died of blunt force trauma to the head caused by falling backward onto a ridged object. It seemed to me both posts were pretty much saying the same thing though. Yes, blunt force trauma. Yes, falling back onto a ridged object.

Look a few posts above and you will see some people implying the cause of death was not falling backwards and not blunt force trauma-
but being hit in the head by an object that caused a deep wound.
That isn’t true

IMO

 

[missy1974]

Imo, hard surface, ridged hard surface ( eg. step) fall under the umbrella category of blunt force if they are surmised as the cause/mechanism leading to the wound. ie when the ME says the wounds are the result of blunt force trauma that is simply the widest categorical description. At that level of description, all blunt force excludes is sharp force ( for e.g a knife). Moo

Dr Laposata simply went into more detail about the mechanism of the blunt force according to her analysis of the wound from the whole of the autopsy report. From memory I don't think testimony was elicited from the ME beyond blunt force, but that is not inconsistent with Dr Laposata's more detailed testimony. Jmo

ETA, the ME is simply using the terminology of wound categorisation in her field. None of her testimony is inconsistent with the other medically trained witnesses.

It's not inconsistent with what Dr. Wolf testified to for the CW either. He just suggested that it was the grass.

I do not see how it could have been the grass, especially after Dr. L described it so well, but that is JMO.

 

[Forest_Wood]

It didn’t look like blunt force - a hammer, weapon or baseball bat per se, but it looked too deep to just be the ground?? The steps would still cause coup counter coup, right?

Dr L stated that the ground would not give him that pattern of wound. If he had just fell back onto the ground, his wound would have been more like a star shape. But his wound had a pattern of fine vertical strips from something ridged and grainy, in addition to the horizontal tear in his scalp.
That's my understanding anyway.
MOO

 

[jepop]

It's not inconsistent with what Dr. Wolf testified to for the CW either. He just suggested that it was the grass.

I do not see how it could have been the grass, especially after Dr. L described it so well, but that is JMO.

I go with Dr Laposata's testimony. She has the relevant experience not the neurosurgeon.

 

[turaj]

I'm not convinced everyone here has watched all or even most of trial. The jury, on the other hand, has seen it all.

you make an excellent point...watching it from stream or better yet in person makes the reasonable doubt impossible to ignore.

 

[AngTxGal]

She also spoke of the pebbly appearance that seemed to be inside the wound, Dr Laposta's very detailed observation.

The texture is above and below the laceration- she described the surface as not being smooth but having a granularity to it that caused many little lined vertical scratches in his scalp.
When I looked at the images I just see redness- above the laceration, I can’t make out the scratches.

When listening to the testimony I remember thinking to myself a concrete step- it is raised, has a rough surface and a horizontal ridge, and wondering if the steps in front of the home were that kind of step.
The images of the house from the front show a brick path and brick steps. I can’t tell what is on the top where a person would walk- if it is concrete or more bricks.

Some have posted that there are steps that go down into the garage, I have not seen pics of those to know what they look like. The implication by the defense is that he went down those steps into the garage and was hit and fell backwards, hitting his head on the steps. At least that is what I’m remembering

IMO

 

[Malleeboy]

It's not inconsistent with what Dr. Wolf testified to for the CW either. He just suggested that it was the grass.

I do not see how it could have been the grass, especially after Dr. L described it so well, but that is JMO.

Not forgetting that with all his expertise and charm, he is an expert neurosurgeon dealing with surgery with the internals of a living brain. Not an ME or pathologist used to dealing with dead people and the wounds that caused their death.

 

[jepop]

Not forgetting that with all his expertise and charm, he is an expert neurosurgeon dealing with surgery with the internals of a living brain. Not an ME or pathologist used to dealing with dead people and the wounds that caused their death.

That's exactly it. No offense to the neurosurgeon. Brennan's bad.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Not forgetting that with all his expertise and charm, he is an expert neurosurgeon dealing with surgery with the internals of a living brain. Not an ME or pathologist used to dealing with dead people and the wounds that caused their death.

I didn't find that surgeon to be very helpful except for him saying that drunk people are known to fall backwards onto their head frequently (paraphrasing).
MOO

 

[Forest_Wood]

Cleverest move in Defence case.
Judge Canone insisted that Dr Laposata couldn't talk about dog bites but only animal bites.
So, she mentioned that there were canine teeth marks, which many mammals have but everybody thinks dog bite when you here canine bites.

I noticed that also! LOL.
She wasn't allowed to say dog bites but then she and AJ kept saying canine teeth and canines.
Dr Russell had already introduced dog bites so I think the jury knew that's what Dr L was actually saying in so many words.
MOO

 

[jepop]

Cleverest move in Defence case.
Judge Canone insisted that Dr Laposata couldn't talk about dog bites but only animal bites.
So, she mentioned that there were canine teeth marks, which many mammals have but everybody thinks dog bite when you here canine bites.

Omg, that was brilliant by Dr Laposata. She had Brennan's number all right. Jmo

 

[Forest_Wood]

I'm not convinced everyone here has watched all or even most of trial. The jury, on the other hand, has seen it all.

I agree. Many people seem to have just watched the documentaries, which is great for introducing the basics of the trial, but which unfortunately don't give the full picture of events, or the people involved, and the nuances of all that was uncovered by the defense team. To see Trial 1 in order with all of those characters was something else.
Even we are tilted because we've seen the previous trial and so much outside media influence, it's hard for me to look at it with fresh eyes.
I do wonder how the jury sees this trial with a more focused lens. There was not a lot of drama or chaos, no protests outside, no major media interviews with lawyers. I found it a calmer trial, and more narrow than last trial.
MOO

 

[AngTxGal]

you make an excellent point...watching it from stream or better yet in person makes the reasonable doubt impossible to ignore.

I wasn’t sure at first, but after watching the experts it is clear to me there is reasonable doubt.
There is a retired criminal profiler I watch who is quite convinced she is guilty, no matter what the jury determines. She thinks she really did back up and hit him and left the scene.

That just isn’t consistent with the evidence

IMO

 

[jepop]

Yes Jen admitted to calling her sister. And then again when they got to 34th.

Although she didn't admit she spoke with her sister, even though records show the 5.07am call lasted eight seconds. Ditto for the call at c6.08am which was also answered. Confronted with the records, at this trial JMc decided to admit placing those calls, but continued to deny they were answered.

Moo JMc lies under oath, left, right and centre. Credibility = zero for me, and I think/ believe at least some on the jury. Jmo

 

[Leilei]

I was responding to a post= Some people are seeing images of the split in his scalp and discussing how deep it is, they are thinking it was caused by something cutting him like a tool.
Then you described a ridged object.

The word ‘ridge’ is irrelevant. I was trying to clarify that he was not hit or cut by an object- his scalp split open from the force of his fall.

It is hugely different- If someone thinks he was hit by a ridged object- they will assume a weapon and a murderer. Or they will think he fell onto something that poked into his head.

My point in responding was to clarify what the ME and other experts described as his injuries and cause of death- not to argue about the word ‘ridge’.
Best-


IMO

Again, agree to disagree.

 

[Forest_Wood]

I wasn’t sure at first, but after watching the experts it is clear to me there is reasonable doubt.
There is a retired criminal profiler I watch who is quite convinced she is guilty, not matter what the jury determines. She thinks she really did back up and hit him and left the scene.

That just isn’t consistent with the evidence

IMO

I think a person really needs to go with their own thinking from watching the trial rather than what any of these online lawyers are convinced of. The evidence says his body was not consistent with being hit by a vehicle. The evidence says the vehicle damage is not consistent with hitting a person. And all the charges are based on her hitting him with her vehicle. There's no other moral choice than a NG vote even if we believe something must have happened. That's the way I see it anyway.
MOO

 

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone
Tomorrow (Monday) at 2 PM Pacific, I will be recording an interview with former Jodi Arias lawyer Kirk Nurmi. The interview will play tomorrow night on our YouTube livestream. I'll post the link to the livestream tomorrow.
If you have any questions for Kirk about the Karen Read case, please post them in this thread. I'll check the thread before I start the interview.
Here is a great article about Kirk Nurmi and how he reclaimed his life after Jodi Arias.
Tricia