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

[Izzylizzy]

Recorded late Friday and posted 3 hrs ago.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[justwannahelp]

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

Gotchya. That makes sense

 

[justwannahelp]

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

Yes. I'm guessing the vertical lines could be from sliding down the edge of the step. The grainy from something like this:



This is all just speculation, ofcourse

 

[justwannahelp]

The forensic pathologist Dr L apparently thought something close to or inside the garage or the house was the cause of John's death, but the judge wouldn't let her speak to that. I find it so weird they bring in credible experts who are not permitted to give their opinions on the full story. So we have to guess.
MOO

It would infuriate me if I was a juror. It's almost like she's begging them to google. Lol

 

[justwannahelp]

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

B&IBM
I really wish I could post that high quality image. You can see the vertical lines she must have been talking about. When searching for the pic, the low quality is all that came up for me until yesterday.

Ok moving on from the head injury -- so there was a body in the snow and a dust line, right? I didn't realize there were 2 "programs"

I saw the dateline when it aired and knew nothing zip nada about this case. I was just flipping channels one night. So all this time I assumed the dateline was called a body in the snow, but am I understanding correctly that a body in the snow is not the dateline episode? Are there any other programs besides these 2?

 

[Warwick7]

Karen was still there near the flagpole after RN & friends had gone. She didn't reverse while they were there, so it had to have been after they'd gone.

No.
Ryan Nagel and his car group saw them at the intersection. All three testified there were 2 people in KR's vehicle. Ryan's car group pulled up seconds behind KR. They also testified there was no body on the ground. They also testified they pulled around her, saw her only in the vehicle with her dome light on.

 

[Malleeboy]

No.
Ryan Nagel and his car group saw them at the intersection. All three testified there were 2 people in KR's vehicle. Ryan's car group pulled up seconds behind KR. They also testified there was no body on the ground. They also testified they pulled around her, saw her only in the vehicle with her dome light on.

It would infuriate me if I was a juror. It's almost like she's begging them to google. Lol

You need to have presented evidence to present evidence in Bev's court.
The fact the garage was within the possible range and direction of John O'Keefe's steps, may have had a surface that may have kind up with his injuries. The whole point of a bowden defence, is to highlight evidence that the cops failed to investigate, to produce reasonable doubt.

 

[justwannahelp]

You need to have presented evidence to present evidence in Bev's court.
The fact the garage was within the possible range and direction of John O'Keefe's steps, may have had a surface that may have kind up with his injuries. The whole point of a bowden defence, is to highlight evidence that the cops failed to investigate, to produce reasonable doubt.

Thx for this

I was wondering what Bowden was but couldn’t find my phone to google it while watching the jury charge on tv. Totally forgot i wanted to know what that was

 

[Younger Sister]

The forensic pathologist Dr L apparently thought something close to or inside the garage or the house was the cause of John's death, but the judge wouldn't let her speak to that. I find it so weird they bring in credible experts who are not permitted to give their opinions on the full story. So we have to guess.
MOO

It is beyond weird…it is suppressing testimony and controlling the narrative.IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Was it proven that Karen did a reverse manoeuvre at 34 Fairview? Some are stating that as a fact but I wasn't convinced it happened like that. It seemed as though she did one 3-pt turn when she took a wrong turn on her way there.

Yes it was proven, by the commonwealth, IMO.

There is no other defence theory for location of 1162-2 in front of the jury.

Very noticeably absent from the defence's closing argument! I expect the jury might have wanted an alternative argument to consider, but alas, nothing in evidence. In the same window of seconds that John's steps stopped.

Whatever happened to it occurring after the Lexus was in the custody of police? Counting numbers backwards to the tow truck. Sshhh! They were wrong all along, Trooper Paul was right.

We have the timestamps for both the 3-pt turn and the reversing triggers, all in the same cycle 1162.

No steps outside the car recorded on John's phone at Fairview, until 12.31.56 am.

timestamp 3.04.58
Closing argument - "Collision Timeline"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

He had to have walked somewhere. He didn’t get out and walk in a circle for 36 steps/80ish feet. So I agree with you that he didn’t to and fro the house. I do think he walked TO the house/garage/backyard.

Yes, agree that he could’ve been carried. See above.

Is it just a coincidence that as John locks his phone for the last time (12.32.09), while he is taking his first steps at Fairview outside the Lexus, Karen's Lexus records that she has driven forwards at least 34 feet, must be more because she's already going at 13 mph at the start of the trigger data, she slams her car into reverse, with her wheels spinning, and backs up at 23 mph, 74% throttle, zero brake application?

And his last steps ever recorded are 4 seconds after the end of that 10-second trigger data, while she is still in reverse motion with no brake application?

And Karen says that she found him next morning roughly where she left him and she last saw him? (clip 17, trial day 10)

And there is a debris field in the road, a broken taillight with his DNA on it, a broken drinking glass, drinking straw, shoe against the kerb, his hat is frozen to the ground under the snow, and his phone only gets colder, and is never uncovered again until he is moved off it the next morning?

And that Karen starts ringing him every 30 seconds, only one minute later? Not before? Just as John's phone is covered and has stopped moving?

Trooper Guarino's testimony (trial day 10) -

Unanswered calls to John's phone from KR before she gets back to Meadows:

12.33.35
12.34.09
12.34.38
12.35.09
12.35.35
12.36.09

And 20 minutes later Karen leaves him a voicemail saying nobody knows where he is? That can only mean she knew he hadn't gone to the house.

MOO and testimony

Welcher testimony for Lexus key cycle 1162

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

day 10 testimony

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[GGbankster]

Yes it was proven, by the commonwealth, IMO.

There is no other defence theory for location of 1162-2 in front of the jury.

Very noticeably absent from the defence's closing argument! I expect the jury might have wanted an alternative argument to consider, but alas, nothing in evidence. In the same window of seconds that John's steps stopped.

Whatever happened to it occurring after the Lexus was in the custody of police? Counting numbers backwards to the tow truck. Sshhh! They were wrong all along, Trooper Paul was right.

We have the timestamps for both the 3-pt turn and the reversing triggers, all in the same cycle 1162.

No steps outside the car recorded on John's phone at Fairview, until 12.31.56 am.

timestamp 3.04.58
Closing argument - "Collision Timeline"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

MOO

The defense strategically disregarded the 1162-2 and three-point turn arguments in their closing because they are irrelevant distractions even if true, they do not prove Karen’s guilt.

Consider this, anyone could perform these maneuvers without causing a collision. The defense wisely focused on the core issue, none of the alleged actions, impeached witnesses, the fired officer, phone data, or the three-point turn prove a car collisions. At best, they are neutral circumstances that could happen innocently.

Notably, Trooper Paul never testified a glaring omission suggesting the prosecution itself lacked confidence in his claims.

It could also be argued that the prosecution failed to present any rebuttal witnesses regarding dog or animal bite injuries, despite the defense experts providing testimony on the matter.

The lack of challenge to the dog bites experts and ARCCA’s findings speaks volumes. I’m sure the jury will be curious about that. imo

 

[jepop]

Yes it was proven, by the commonwealth, IMO.

There is no other defence theory for location of 1162-2 in front of the jury.

Very noticeably absent from the defence's closing argument! I expect the jury might have wanted an alternative argument to consider, but alas, nothing in evidence. In the same window of seconds that John's steps stopped.

Whatever happened to it occurring after the Lexus was in the custody of police? Counting numbers backwards to the tow truck. Sshhh! They were wrong all along, Trooper Paul was right.

We have the timestamps for both the 3-pt turn and the reversing triggers, all in the same cycle 1162.

No steps outside the car recorded on John's phone at Fairview, until 12.31.56 am.

timestamp 3.04.58
Closing argument - "Collision Timeline"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

MOO

I disagree with your assessment of the cw's electronic data based theory. I don't think it proves the CW's case BARD. Burgess'and Whiffen's testimony and analysis isn't the Gospel, it is a presentation of data in such a way most favourable to the prosecution IMO.

I hope the jury considers all the evidence and when they do, if they are following their instructions, see the doubt the defense weaves into this data via di Sorgha. I hope they further weigh this theory against the scientific, dog bite and medical evidence which shows there was no impact. If they do, Imo the jury comes up ng and acquits. Reasonable Doubt is not just a catchword.

I guess if there is a juror who won't shift on an interpretation of the data such as you present and additionally refuses to consider the more immoveable factual and credible evidence, then Karen Read may end up with a hung jury. That would be a travesty of justice, but in the event it happens, I hope those in the know are right and the CW would not pursue further.

If there was ever to be a third crack at it by the CW, I think this defense team would do it all over again, supported by public funding from those interested in justice, and engage the best experts and witnesses available to lay bare the problems and limitations with the tech stream data and apple health step data once and for all. The CW had all the resources in the world and this theory is the best they could do?

It is not complicated. Based on real evidence, the truth is JO was not hit by a car. It is not medically possible. IMO. His right arm bears wounds inflicted by a dog not a smashed out tail light

Based on your posts, I appreciate you won't change your mind. I'm responding to fill in the bigger picture. Jmo there is objectively better evidence that disproves the CW's case than what you are relying on to decide KR is guilty. Moo

 

[Tortoise]

The defense strategically disregarded the 1162-2 and three-point turn arguments in their closing because they are irrelevant distractions even if true, they do not prove Karen’s guilt.

Consider this, anyone could perform these maneuvers without causing a collision. The defense wisely focused on the core issue, none of the alleged actions, impeached witnesses, the fired officer, phone data, or the three-point turn prove a car collisions. At best, they are neutral circumstances that could happen innocently.

Notably, Trooper Paul never testified a glaring omission suggesting the prosecution itself lacked confidence in his claims.

It could also be argued that the prosecution failed to present any rebuttal witnesses regarding dog or animal bite injuries, despite the defense experts providing testimony on the matter.

The lack of challenge to the dog bites experts and ARCCA’s findings speaks volumes. I’m sure the jury will be curious about that. imo

There are only two theories at play.

The Lexus in the road, and a dog with a fatal fall in the house.

The Lexus left evidence at the scene of John's death, and in his sleeve, and John left evidence on the Lexus. The Lexus is also reversing dangerously in the dark at the same time John stops moving.

The alleged dog left nothing on John, not DNA or a hair. The injuries on his arm are only skin deep and on one side (the posterior side). The commonwealth showed Dr Russell's bias, when she was given new information about absence of dog-DNA on John's sleeve last year, and only looked for all exculpatory reasons why that might be - except considering that it wasn't a dog, or considering that there were fragments of taillight there instead. That's not objective expert evidence to the jury. She also couldn't identify one set of abrasions on John's arm as being identifiable to a dog. That's not pattern recognition or methodology. Identifying a dog bite or scratch should not depend wholly on there being more than one bite or scratch. All the wounds were wildly different and only occurred where John's arm matched up in terms of his height, and dimension of the taillight. Dr Laposata also displayed her bias, by not answering repeatedly, until instructed by the judge, that John's body temperature was consistent with him being outside. She also identified puncture wounds where every other expert agreed there were none. She also was not knowledgeable about the swelling related to raccoon's eyes taking over an hour and more likely a couple of hours to develop. She behaved like a hired gun, IMO. So the defence experts did the commonwealth's job for them - no need to call their own. It really makes no difference whether John died with hypothermia, with his body temperature being consistent with the road accident.

As regards ARCCA, Dr Wolfe refused to acknowledge what his colleague Dr Rentschler did acknowledge, that using a lighter arm meant adjustments should have been made to the speed of the Lexus, in their test results. Dr Rentschler refused to look at the evidence at the scene of the death. Except a piece of glass plucked out of John's face by Karen. They showed they were extremely unethical (IMO) and non-objective, after the FBI released them to the defence. Again, no need to rebut that testimony, they turned out to be good witnesses for the commonwealth, IMO.

The defence really needed to address the Lexus 1162 data, IMO. The reversing happened yet they had no explanation. A sideswipe would not register as a collision on the Lexus, or necessarily cause any lower body injuries after spinning him off.

ALL MOO

 

[GGbankster]

There are only two theories at play.

The Lexus in the road, and a dog with a fatal fall in the house.

The Lexus left evidence at the scene of John's death, and in his sleeve, and John left evidence on the Lexus. The Lexus is also reversing dangerously in the dark at the same time John stops moving.

The alleged dog left nothing on John, not DNA or a hair. The injuries on his arm are only skin deep and on one side (the posterior side). The commonwealth showed Dr Russell's bias, when she was given new information about absence of dog-DNA on John's sleeve last year, and only looked for all exculpatory reasons why that might be - except considering that it wasn't a dog, or considering that there were fragments of taillight there instead. That's not objective expert evidence to the jury. She also couldn't identify one set of abrasions on John's arm as being identifiable to a dog. That's not pattern recognition or methodology. Identifying a dog bite or scratch should not depend wholly on there being more than one bite or scratch. All the wounds were wildly different and only occurred where John's arm matched up in terms of his height, and dimension of the taillight. Dr Laposata also displayed her bias, by not answering repeatedly, until instructed by the judge, that John's body temperature was consistent with him being outside. She also identified puncture wounds where every other expert agreed there were none. She also was not knowledgeable about the swelling related to raccoon's eyes taking over an hour and more likely a couple of hours to develop. She behaved like a hired gun, IMO. So the defence experts did the commonwealth's job for them - no need to call their own. It really makes no difference whether John died with hypothermia, with his body temperature being consistent with the road accident.

As regards ARCCA, Dr Wolfe refused to acknowledge what his colleague Dr Rentschler did acknowledge, that using a lighter arm meant adjustments should have been made to the speed of the Lexus, in their test results. Dr Rentschler refused to look at the evidence at the scene of the death. Except a piece of glass plucked out of John's face by Karen. They showed they were extremely unethical (IMO) and non-objective, after the FBI released them to the defence. Again, no need to rebut that testimony, they turned out to be good witnesses for the commonwealth, IMO.

The defence really needed to address the Lexus 1162 data, IMO. The reversing happened yet they had no explanation. A sideswipe would not register as a collision on the Lexus, or necessarily cause any lower body injuries after spinning him off.

ALL MOO

You're correct that there are only two theories involved, but our interpretations are fundamentally at odds. The prosecution alleges Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle, while the defense has conclusively proven she did not.

Karen Read is not obligated to provide alternative theories of how John died.
The defense's sole responsibility was to disprove the prosecution's vehicular homicide theory which they accomplished by demonstrating that no forensic evidence links her car to John's injuries (no DNA, paint transfer, or corresponding vehicle damage. Medical experts confirmed his wounds were inconsistent with a car strike. ARCCA testing proved no collision occurred

The Commonwealth's entire theory collapses without proof of vehicular contact and their failure to properly investigate alternative explanations for John's death doesn't shift the burden to the defense. If the lead investigators had pursued all evidence objectively from the start, we might already know what truly happened that night. imo

 

[Tortoise]

You're correct that there are only two theories involved, but our interpretations are fundamentally at odds. The prosecution alleges Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle, while the defense has conclusively proven she did not.

Karen Read is not obligated to provide alternative theories of how John died.
The defense's sole responsibility was to disprove the prosecution's vehicular homicide theory which they accomplished by demonstrating that no forensic evidence links her car to John's injuries (no DNA, paint transfer, or corresponding vehicle damage. Medical experts confirmed his wounds were inconsistent with a car strike. ARCCA testing proved no collision occurred

The Commonwealth's entire theory collapses without proof of vehicular contact and their failure to properly investigate alternative explanations for John's death doesn't shift the burden to the defense. If the lead investigators had pursued all evidence objectively from the start, we might already know what truly happened that night. imo

John's DNA was on her taillight. Hair matching his mitochondrial DNA was on that same rear quarter panel.

Of course there was taillight damage, plus scratches and a small dent on her Lexus rear quarter panel. (testified to by Maureen Hartnett)

Taillight DNA results testified to by Andre Porto Mass State Police crime lab (trial day 17) and independently tested by Nick Bradford of Bode (trial day 18).

Nothing has been proven regarding a collision, until the jury verdict is in.

Karen doesn't have to provide alternative theories but it's a high risk strategy for the defence to think the jury doesn't want her explanation for 1162, given the SD card extractions for the timing of it. IMO.

 

[jepop]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Leilei]

Yes it was proven, by the commonwealth, IMO.

There is no other defence theory for location of 1162-2 in front of the jury.

Very noticeably absent from the defence's closing argument! I expect the jury might have wanted an alternative argument to consider, but alas, nothing in evidence. In the same window of seconds that John's steps stopped.

Whatever happened to it occurring after the Lexus was in the custody of police? Counting numbers backwards to the tow truck. Sshhh! They were wrong all along, Trooper Paul was right.

We have the timestamps for both the 3-pt turn and the reversing triggers, all in the same cycle 1162.

No steps outside the car recorded on John's phone at Fairview, until 12.31.56 am.

timestamp 3.04.58
Closing argument - "Collision Timeline"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

MOO

Closing arguments are not evidence, and should not be taken as such.
IMO.

 

[GGbankster]

John's DNA was on her taillight. Hair matching his mitochondrial DNA was on that same rear quarter panel.

Of course there was taillight damage, plus scratches and a small dent on her Lexus rear quarter panel. (testified to by Maureen Hartnett)

Taillight DNA results testified to by Andre Porto Mass State Police crime lab (trial day 17) and independently tested by Nick Bradford of Bode (trial day 18).

Nothing has been proven regarding a collision, until the jury verdict is in.

Karen doesn't have to provide alternative theories but it's a high risk strategy for the defence to think the jury doesn't want her explanation for 1162, IMO.

A single DNA trace which could belong to John, his nephew, or any relative isn’t the "proof" the prosecution claims especially considering there are two male DNA samples on John's that the commonwealth neglected to test.

John spent time around Karen’s car, just as my husband’s DNA is all over mine. That’s what happens in relationships it’s expected, not evidence of a crime.

As for the one hair strand? It defies logic. It "survived" snowstorms and 65mph winds during a multi-town transfer. Yet dislodged when photographed? and just happened to land on the exact panel the prosecution needed?

That’s not forensic science that’s convenience.

The facts remain, no collision evidence, no paint transfer, no body damage consistent with hitting a person, no injuries matching a car strike.

No credible DNA link. Transfer DNA does not equate to proof of impact.

The prosecution’s case relies on coincidence, not proof. A stray hair and ambient DNA don’t override hard science and medical consensus that John wasn’t struck by a car. imo

 

[cocomod]

Backing up a vehicle doesn’t prove collision. When the biggest piece of evidence - injuries to John - show a collision didn’t occur, then backing up means nothing. Also, the phone data does not pinpoint his location. It is a general area and Wiffin admitted it could have been in the house. There is NO question her taillight was NOT smashed to that degree at 34 Fairview. There is NO way hitting him would have damaged the interior of the light - that was IMO done by an overzealous investigator that went to far with a hammer. It would be almost impossible to damage the interior like it was with a human hand - especially without broken bones. Not to mention, the taillight was mostly intact when it was loaded on the tow truck.