MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #9

[fluffypaste]

I watched Emily D. Baker's stream and she had some great comments regarding the witness meeting with the cw and forming a new opinion without documenting it and sharing with defense.

It's so frustrating how little they care about basic fairness.

 

[MyJoey]

The way I see it, it's a hard object (your car) hitting a single point on the brittle plastic of the taillight of the car in front of you.
Reversing that brittle plastic taillight into the cushioned body of a fat man, well this is very different. The force over the taillight will be applied much more evenly. So you might get a crack, but not a lens shattered into 45 pieces.

Wonder if a larger piece shattered hitting the frozen ground? Just a thought.

 

[fluffypaste]

Yes, hitting a car at 2 mph can at least crack a taillight. Perhaps shatter it. That's why it's believable that Karen broke her taillight when she hit John's car the next morning.

However, hitting a person is a completely different situation. A parked car is stationary, a human is not. If you hit a person at 2 mph, you will knock the person down, but your taillight would remain undamaged.

The state claims that Karen was reversing at 24 mph. I still doubt that you would shatter a taillight at this speed, although I'm open to a convincing argument (beyond anecdotes). I expected the accident reconstructionist for the commonwealth to explain why it's possible. It's a simple matter of physics: force equals mass times acceleration. But he didn't actually provide any actual scientific basis for his claims.

I know the defense has a couple of PhDs lined up to testify, and I expect that they will be more analytical in their arguments.

I'm really interested in hearing what those PhDs have to say about the situation. My expectation is that their analysis will make all the prosecution witnesses look like driveling idiots. I'm only worried that the biased judge won't let them testify.

 

[seekingjustice**]

You obviously didn't watch the Troconis trial! Schoenhorn, the defense attorney in that trial. was so much worse when it comes to aggressive and rude.

I actually did watch the Troconis trial as well. I couldn't stand Schoenhorn either but I found him to be more 'clown like' and annoying rather than aggressively rude.

 

[ch_13]

I'm really interested in hearing what those PhDs have to say about the situation. My expectation is that their analysis will make all the prosecution witnesses look driveling idiots. I'm only worried that the biased judge won't let them testify.

I'm pretty sure they will testify. Massachusetts is a Daubert state, which basically means that the defense experts' testimony will be admissible as long as they can show that it's a relevant and reliable argument that's accepted within the scientific community.

Daubert standard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[seekingjustice**]

Maybe stroll over to the Suzanne Morphew threads. The defendent there has a lawyer that is a piranha - and misrepresents the facts. Iris Eytan. And screeches.
Or how about the bottom feeder lawyer Schoenhorn who is the rudest I have seen by far, in the Jennifer Dulos thread.

Alan Jackson is smart and strategic imo and gets a little sarcastic when the witnesses try and bamboozle him. He also has facts and receipts.
Just a diff of opinion!
IMO

I'm on the Suzanne m threads as well and completely agree that Iris is like a piranha and just commented to another member about my thoughts on Schoehorn. AJ still tops the list for me though.

 

[arielilane]

After a juror was dismissed, remaining jurors heard from a digital forensic expert and an accident reconstruction investigator Friday as the Karen Read murder trial continued. 7’s Jonathan Hall was in the courtroom and has day 25’s Karen Read trial recap.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1801759100671250438

 

[nodamselindistress]

I'm on the Suzanne m threads as well and completely agree that Iris is like a piranha and just commented to another member about my thoughts on Schoehorn. AJ still tops the list for me though.

Understandable, when you buy what the CW is selling, you are not going to like the def atty who continually pokes holes in their theory and shows their witnesses up for the liars and amateurs that they are.

 

[rrsafety]

I'm really interested in hearing what those PhDs have to say about the situation. My expectation is that their analysis will make all the prosecution witnesses look like driveling idiots. I'm only worried that the biased judge won't let them testify.

They will testify. They clearly meet the threshold of "expert".

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #10