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

[MerlinFalcon]

What's so remarkable, that she has a fan base?

What’s remarkable is so many people can see corruption with their own eyes and make educated decisions by seeing the lack of evidence.

 

[Tortoise]

You can do that experiment yourself. No need for a PhD, ME, whatever. Got out to your car, swing your arm fast and hard enough to break your taillight consistent with what observed in the evidence of this case. Then, take pictures of your arm and the broken taillight. Post the pictures for all, of us to review. Pretty simple, really.

Not really. That doesn't replicate any of the known or unknown conditions, speed/force, body and feet position, reaction instead of intention, pull instead of push and drag, condition of taillight etc.

Randy's arm didn't break but the taillight did.

Not so simple.

 

[Malleeboy]

RSBM

The ME does not know how the vehicle impacted John, so how can she make any determination? She's not an accident reconstructionist, and the only information she has is broken taillight plastic, not crushed-in car bodywork. She doesn't know that his arm measures up exactly to the taillight because she didn't inspect the car or do those measurements. She doesn't know his eyelid is the same height as the wing. She doesn't know if he could be hit at such an angle in a split second that he could be spun away from the car, causing no lower body injuries.

She couldn't determine how his arm injuries occurred because she's not a biomechanic to determine speeds, forces and properties of materials, and even if she'd said it could be consistent with a car side-swipe, she wouldn't be able to determine whether that was accident or homicide - that is for a jury to decide if no one is forthcoming about knowing he was there, or deliberately or recklessly driving at speed in reverse towards him in the dark. An example of accidental collision could be driving carefully but braking sharply and skidding on ice.

This is the way I see it. If my elbow is hit by a lump of metal traveling at say 20 mph, I would certainly expect bruising and bone fracture. If my elbow is hit by a sheet of frigid plastic, which is travelling at the same speed, and my elbow shatters that plastic for a split-second, I might not expect a bruise or fractured bone, but I would expect skin damage. Because it's broken through the plastic which immediately reduces the force/impact on my bone. IMO bone is stronger than frigid plastic, but it's not stronger than a lump of metal, and it's not going to break the metal.

ARCCA didn't prove that his arm bones would break by breaking through plastic, or bruise him, so they can't give that opinion IMO. They weren't interested, but it's their claim to prove, if that's what they contend. They used a dummy arm to show taillight damage, not arm damage. An arm which is not human bone and flesh, an arm which wouldn't react and bend like a human arm with muscles and ligaments attached to a body which pulls the arm away as the body is spun away and transfers the force to the body, IMO. The commonwealth doesn't have to prove his arm wouldn't break, they can and did certainly show statistics and car accident victims whose bones didn't break, but those circumstances also aren't identical to this collision, and there are unknown variables that cannot be demonstrated without hundreds of human volunteers in hundreds of different positions at hundreds of different speeds and temperatures. There was a man, a sole survivor, who just walked away from a plane crash in the news.

It's the totality of the evidence that the commonwealth has, the car, the scene, the body, the clothing, the DNA, the phone, the defendant, the weather, which proves the collision and the cause of John's injuries and death. Not the ME.

MOO

Not one doctor said John was hit by a car, 4 medical opinions, 2 undetermined, 2 not a car, not one is a car.

ARCCA were hired by FBI, run tests and analysis, gave it to both sides, and said car didn't hit John and John wasn't hit by a car. Was the FBI biased?

Commonwealth doesn't have a crime scene that can be used to prove anything, as proudly asserted by both Welcher and Brennan. We don't know where precisely where John was, we don't know where the shards where, according to Bukhenik they were "precisely in the general area".

As for the clothing, how does 9 holes cause 36 abrasions?

As for DNA, there was no blood or DNA on any shards. They only DNA was on the exterior of the car, in a location that had two other males DNA, and John contact with for months.

As for the ME, if they don't determine what causes death, why do they exist?

AI overview
A Medical Examiner (ME) is a medical doctor, often a forensic pathologist, who investigates deaths to determine the cause and manner of death

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Not really. That doesn't replicate any of the known or unknown conditions, speed/force, body and feet position, reaction instead of intention, pull instead of push and drag, condition of taillight etc.

Randy's arm didn't break but the taillight did.

Not so simple.

Isn't it?

 

[Tortoise]

Not one doctor said John was hit by a car, 4 medical opinions, 2 undetermined, 2 not a car, not one is a car.

ARCCA were hired by FBI, run tests and analysis, gave it to both sides, and said car didn't hit John and John wasn't hit by a car. Was the FBI biased?

Commonwealth doesn't have a crime scene that can be used to prove anything, as proudly asserted by both Welcher and Brennan. We don't know where precisely where John was, we don't know where the shards where, according to Bukhenik they were "precisely in the general area".

As for the clothing, how does 9 holes cause 36 abrasions?

As for DNA, there was no blood or DNA on any shards. They only DNA was on the exterior of the car, in a location that had two other males DNA, and John contact with for months.

As for the ME, if they don't determine what causes death, why do they exist?

AI overview
A Medical Examiner (ME) is a medical doctor, often a forensic pathologist, who investigates deaths to determine the cause and manner of death

Actually Scordi-Bello said she didn't have enough information to say what caused his arm injuries. She didn't say they were not caused by a car.

It was the manner of death that was undetermined, what mechanism caused him to fall and sustain skull fractures, whether that was accident, or homicide. Who are the other three? Russell, Laposata and ?

ARCCA had less information in trial 1, tested a thrown glass to see if the taillight broke, and has ignored the debris field, the other crime scene evidence, DNA, taillight fragments in the clothing, etc, in its conclusions. They also didn't conduct any testing to see what the effects of a sideswipe would be with a dummy of John's height and weight, untethered, they used clothing on a dummy against testing protocols to see if the clothing sustained damage, didn't test with their expensive crash test pedestrian dummy or use magnets. All they were doing was testing the taillight, not the effects on a human body. It's not a question of whether the FBI was biased. They didn't conduct accident reconstruction tests and didn't have the black box data with speeds and braking etc last year.

How does 9 holes cause 36 abrasions with all those dog teeth, canines and incisors, and nails?

They did not swab the shards found on the ground. Linked yesterday in this thread.

It's not that the ME doesn't determine what causes death. She did. When the manner isn't clear it's obviously a case of investigating the circumstances and putting a defendant on trial with the evidence available so a jury can determine the manner and any criminal action and intent.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

JOK was found lying in the snow, dead from a blow to his head. How did he die? While the jury puts their pieces together to put this trial to bed, let's analyze the truth itself (not just a jury decision).

Tail light pieces were claimed to be around him, but plenty of evidence makes it clear that those could not have been there when he was killed. [Whoever put those there to mislead did a real disservice to JOK and the need to find his killer(s).] So we have to remove those from our mental picture.

Now what we have to work with is JOK found lying dead on the ground, and what we can glean from that.

There's a head wound. What do we know about that? The medical experts said it almost immediately incapacitated him, with death following shortly. It could have happened from a backwards fall (although it may be something else). But the wound itself doesn't match a fall to frozen lawn, especially that area. Nor was vomit or blood to any degree found where he was found. That means he wouldn't have actually died there nor could he have been mortally wounded and then moved himself from one spot to another. (That rules out all the variations of stumbled-and-fell backwards to hit his head.) And neither the head wound nor any other injuries match what you would see from a vehicle hit at all. [That further underscores that the tail light pieces were intended to distract from something else that killed him.]

So how did he die? He does have significant dog bites on his arm - no real dispute about that. But the dog bites didn't kill him either. They did happen while he was alive, however, so we have to have a dog in his vicinity BEFORE we have him getting killed. Maybe related? Seems likely, but who knows. But could there be a gap in time between dog bites and head wound? Could dog bites, or the blood from them, have induced vomiting? All we know for sure is that dog bites happened. But they offer a clue to work with.

That's where we are. I'm not even sure why KR is on trial because she obviously had nothing to do with his death other than having driven him from the bar to the party. The extensive evidence in this trial is clear.

Then why did she say (or think) she might have hit him? We don't know. But the evidence makes it clear she was wrong and confused to think that might have happened. His body testifies he was not hit by a vehicle - not by hers, nor by anyone else's. He was killed some other way. It's not about what she might have said, but what she actually did or didn't do (and, more importantly, what actually happened to JOK).

So then, what do we know? The last we know of JOK is that he exited her vehicle, and his phone says he took "36 steps" which would have taken him to the house where the party was, where he was headed. There's also a garage entrance there. Then his phone signal disappears (which can happen when you go inside a building). From T1, there may have been evidence he then went up/down stairs.

Then what? We dunno. That's where the trail ends, and we can't be sure where he was or whether his phone was still in his control or even where it was for sure. The next morning he's outside and dead, with his phone underneath him. How did he die? We dunno.

I know where I would want to look to find the answers (although it may be way too late to find any physical evidence that's still there), which is of course the house and garage. NEVER investigated. Gotta look there, for even the most miniscule clues, however unlikely. But it can't end there -- there's still PEOPLE who know, so that's where I'd pursue this next -- look at ALL the people who were there, every last one, and every dog too of course, and crawl up their butt. More than one person knows the truth. Who might be willing to talk to protect their own butt OR just because they have integrity? The truth is out there somewhere, but it's to be found with the people who were there (not KR).

LE, please quit wasting time, and go after whoever really killed JOK.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Not really. That doesn't replicate any of the known or unknown conditions, speed/force, body and feet position, reaction instead of intention, pull instead of push and drag, condition of taillight etc.

Randy's arm didn't break but the taillight did.

Not so simple.

No. It is that simple. Everyone knows that if an arm provides enough force to a taillight that is bolted into an automobile to break the taillight, the arm would be surely bruised at the point of impact. The reason why you or no one else will conduct this experiment is intuitively obvious. The evidence does not match the CW case.

 

[lohrtabitha]

As a taxpayer here in Norfolk County I think the “fans” recognize what this trial is about.
Injustice, Police Corruption and a Rush To Judgement.
There was not just no impartial investigation. there really was no investigation, just an effort to frame the “girl”.
I am outraged that we may never know what happened to John because of the lack of investigation and tampering with evidence.
What we do know is that John was not hit by a car - John told us that with his wounds - science tells us that.
JMO

100 percent!

 

[lohrtabitha]

Not really. That doesn't replicate any of the known or unknown conditions, speed/force, body and feet position, reaction instead of intention, pull instead of push and drag, condition of taillight etc.

Randy's arm didn't break but the taillight did.

Not so simple.

Then why is the whole world laughing at him? Welcher is the butt of jokes everywhere. AARCA schooled him and the world saw. Jmo

 

[Maat99]

So just to be clear, four medical professionals - none think JOK was killed by a car or even hit by a car. And somehow people who think JOK was not hit by a car are the ones ignoring evidence. Mmmkay.

 

[Alcina]

Very hopeful for a verdict today. If not, it's still not bad news, I will just assume they are going through everything after sitting watching for a month without being able to talk about it. I imagine they all have a lot to say.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Very hopeful for a verdict today. If not, it's still not bad news, I will just assume they are going through everything after sitting watching for a month without being able to talk about it. I imagine they all have a lot to say.

Please please please let today be the day for a NG x3 Verdict

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1934959552505528633

 

[Tortoise]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1934959514991612236

 

[Alcina]

The jury are off to deliberate.
Judge told the attorneys she has been sending a note in at 4pm to see if the jury is ready to go home so she wants all of them there by 4 each day.

 

[minusfour]

Several weeks ago, whilst waiting in a line to sit in on a case at the Old Bailey in England, (as a tourist). I struck up conversation with a father and son, (adult), who were both lawyers, and lived locally to this case. They talked about the contradictory evidence, and the problems exposed in the investigation during the first trial, but what really impressed me is their belief that they, (and the rest of us), would be provided with a real answer from this trial. At the time I wasn't sure that would be the case, and remain worried about it.

 

[Tortoise]

 

[Knitty]

MOD NOTE: Members are allowed to believe KR is not guilty. Members are allowed to believe KR is guilty.

Nobody is better, smarter or morally superior to anyone else on this thread. Members are not allowed to be rude to members who don't believe the same way who they do - there is even a link below this post to help guide you with respect to interactions with other members. Members who insist on personalizing will temporarily lose the ability to post on this thread.

 

[turaj]

So yesterday it seems the lawyers ruined Bev's change to leave right at 4pm as they had to wait for some. She made it clear this morning she sends note in there at 4pm. I assume she asks if they want to go home....hope she does not tell them they have to.

 

[turaj]

An on time start today so maybe today is it?