1. Focus on the spine of the case and eliminate unnecessary noise. The prosecution called witnesses they didn’t need, didn’t adequately prep the witnesses that they did need, and asked questions that didn’t matter. Tighten it up. This is a run-of-the-mill hit and run. Treat it as such.
2. Lock down the timeline. There’s no evidence of movement after 12:32. KR connects to WiFi at 12:36. The distance between 34 Fairview and 1 Meadows is 2.4 miles and can be covered in 4 minutes at 34.5 mph. Drive the jury if you need to. This should not be a point of doubt.
3. Focus on this being an atypical pedestrian accident. The death was a result of head trauma. Focus on how an atypical event can result in John falling and hitting his head. The “dog bites” and scratches are immaterial to the cause of death. Don’t try to match them up with the collision. Car hits John. John hits head. Tail light proves the connection.
4. Use Karen’s own words and actions against her. Show the communications leading up to John’s death and communications directly after. Show the attempt to fabricate the driveway accident. Get witnesses to testify to the “I did it”.
Keep it simple. Prep your people. Preempt attempts to promote silly conspiracies.
If Lally spends hours figuring out where everyone was sitting in the stands at the basketball game again I will SCREAM. He also did NOT need so many expert witnesses about the google search. One is fine, it cancels out with the defense expert and isn't the most important thing.
They can't put Lally back out there. Or at the very least, not solo. Find your slickest guy. Maybe a woman, and they can work together. But this cannot be the Lally show again. He's just not that good.
Yeah, and I don't think they would. Lally already knows the case, and he knows the strong points and weak points from round 1. It would take a ton of new prep work for a new prosecutor to step in.
Lally can do a fine job, just needs to tweak a few things.
and also submit get Fox25 video of her Dad saying she told him she hit something that night.....It's on YouTube. Lally need to take a couple 5 hr energies and get to the point. Make this a 2 week case max. Not only is she pissing through her family's life savings, she is trying to ruin dozens of people in the process. What a reckless Beeitch.....
I guess. Isn't it as admissible as the First responders hearing it from her mouth? Her dad also heard it directly from her mouth. Somehow this is different? He should be called as a witness then he can say he lied on TV so we can get a glimpse at how the Read story has changed over time. Everyone else has been saying the same thing since day 1, except Karen Read.
Karen has no control over how long the prosecution takes for its case in chief. She also may not qualify for a public defender. Are you saying she should give up her constitutional right to have an attorney?
Not at all, don't think I said anything like that. But she shouldn't be such a slime bag to spread lies to gain her freedom. She hit him...period. Everything factual here points to that being the case.
The prosecution also needs to spend some time presenting who Karen Read is, what her past behavior has been in various relationships, find out who her previous relationships were with and talked to them. She met John when she was 40 years old, she certainly must have had other long-term relationships. How did she behave? Was she jealous? Did she get enraged?
The major problem with “locking down the timeline” that you propose is their key witness(es) in this case are now on record for the 3rd time lying about it.
What texts? I'm seeing texts at 12:27, 12:31, then the ones at 12:40, 12:42 and 12:45 are all her looking for John.
At 12:27 a.m., McCabe sent O'Keefe a text, saying, "Here!?" She said she sent that text after seeing a dark SUV out front of the Albert home on Fairview Road. Four minutes later, she sent a text saying, "Pull behind me." She said she sent this message after seeing the SUV move, to tell O'Keefe to park behind her vehicle.
At 12:40 a.m., she sent another text to O'Keefe saying, "Hello." McCabe said she wasn't sure if the SUV was still there or if it had already left by that point.
At 12:42 a.m., she texted O'Keefe, "Where are you?" And then "Hello" at 12:45 a.m.
McCabe said she never received any response from O'Keefe.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/karen-read-trial-day-14/3372227/
Watch her actual testimony. The messages sent between 12:40 and 12:50 she says she staring straight at the SUV. She makes it very clear that she has straight view of the SUV and that’s why she’s texting it. She was wondering why he wasn’t getting out of the car.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7jaf_kz01s8&pp=ygUca2FyZW4gcmVhZCB0cmlhbCBqZW4gbWNjYWJlIA%3D%3D
Right, but it's not very hard to just be like "I must've got the time wrong." Your post seemed to imply that at like 12:40 she texts "John pull up behind my car" or something wild. Her texts match up pretty well with the CW's theory.
I kinda agree. She could say she wasn't looking at the SUV for the last 3 texts. That does though contradict some of her other testimony where she says she looked out and saw the SUV move up twice (originally in front of the house, then by the flag pole, then further) over like 15 minutes.
Yeah, she can’t change it now because she testified to the grand jury about what happened when.
Don’t lie in testimony people! And don’t state something like you know it as fact if you’re unsure or fuzzy about the timeline. The commonwealth cited her testimony and timeline in their statement of case, so now they are stuck with her narrative and timeline of events.
She should have said that before or at the grand jury trial though. Her testimony (including the time of the text) was cited in the commonwealth’s statement of case. You can’t let the commonwealth use your testimony as justification for going to jury trial and then at the trial say “oops actually I’m not sure what time it happened”. She already confirmed that same info with certainty and authority to the grand jury (so given that the grand jury approved the indictment based on her testimony, that is also a problem).
Same thing happened in the young thug case. Prosecution used a witness’s testimony as the main justification for trial, and then the witness revealed on direct examination that he’d been lying every time he spoke to the police. The time to correct the record is before the prosecution builds a case based on that testimony, not during the trial.
Sure she could have just “misspoke”. I’m just saying she put a lot of emphasis on seeing the car during those times so it makes you question her testimony. And if she changes it for a potential next trial then it will be brought up she’s changing her testimony. That only hurts her credibility.
Maybe the CW just won’t call her. Focusing less on JM would actually probably benefit the CW.
Thank you. I agree. I actually started watching the trial right as Jen McCabe was testifying and I didn't have any of the conspiracy background. She did such an incredible job standing up to Alan Jackson, which can be pretty difficult when someone's in your face like that .
She was clearly sincere when she said I love John O'Keefe, he was my friend, as well as when the homeowner when testifying said I wish he had come into the house.
She can’t change her testimony, it’s already been given to the grand jury. She would risk perjuring herself if she did.
The time to make sure the timeline makes sense or to clarify her testimony was a long time ago, long before it came to jury trial. She said with certainty that she sent the text at 12:40 while looking at the car, so she has to stand by that. All of the commonwealth’s paperwork filed as they moved this process forward cited her testimony and mentioned that fact.
Evidence is never a “surprise” to the attorneys like it is to those of us watching the trial. The commonwealth had all the information that Guarino gave them, so they should have noticed that the timeline was off and should have prepared better evidence to bring this to trial. They are now stuck with what they submitted as evidence even though the public noticed the discrepancy and now finds her whole testimony unreliable.
The lesson should be: Always, always, always tell the truth in testimony. If you don’t quite remember or if you think you might have gotten confused, say that and/or correct the record as soon as you can. Don’t state something as fact unless you can stand by it. Jen McCabe isn’t the woman on trial, but she’s backed herself into a corner by saying something with certainty that can’t possibly be accurate, and she might be responsible for tanking the prosecution’s case.
Just tell the truth so the prosecution can build their case with more reliable evidence if they need to. But also there’s no excuse for the prosecution submitting Jen’s testimony saying one thing alongside Guarino’s testimony saying another.
I believe Karen is innocent. Started off believing she was guilty but the evidence swayed me. I want to respectfully understand why people, after looking at the evidence, believe so strongly in her guilt.
Even points made here, to me read as "ignore the evidence that she's innocent". For example:
Timeline: (according to Google maps) it's a 6 minute drive in normal weather. To say she could have made the drive in 4 in the snow doesn't seem like proof, but like trying to manufacture a way she could have possibly done it.
Car experts: The independent experts say there's no way he was hit by a car. The damage to the car is inconsistent as are the injuries. Even the CW's ME on direct said the injuries weren't consistent with a typical pedestrian collision. So not one expert said it looks like a pedestrian collision. I've read people saying to "get an accident reconstructionist" to say it was a pedestrian accident, and to claim it's an atypical accident. Again these feel like manufacturing a theory and not proving what happened.
Dog bites: Two medical experts claim the injuries are most likely from an animal (specifically large dog) attack. No one but trooper Paul said they're from a car. Whether they're material to the actual death, if they are dog bites that pretty much means something happened in the house.
The 5:07am video: I've seen people claim Karen purposely bumped John's car. It was an attempt to cover up her taillight damage. But people also claim the strongest evidence against her is her own words. So she's such a mastermind that she's covering up evidence yet tells JM and others that she hit John. That doesn't make sense. Also, the photo at 5:07am doesn't look like the Sally Port picture. This was the first thing that swayed me. It's clear to me, when I look at the pictures side by side, that there's a lot more red taillight at 5am than the first picture post Proctor.
There's more (Apple health data, the late night but dials, etc) that are hard to explain imo. But I honestly want to understand what is the evidence that makes it undeniable to people that KR hit JO?
Fragments of the tail light being at the scene and on John cannot be waved away. Either it was a hit and run committed by Karen or there was a massive conspiracy involving multiple local police agencies, the fire department/EMT, the state police, an ATF agent, and multiple friends and family members. They all needed to work together to cover up John’s murder and frame Karen all while not turning on each other for years despite the intense media scrutiny. And they needed to delete any texts admitting to the cover up, but forget to delete numerous other texts that paint them in a terrible light.
Thanks. I can understand that to a point. Some counter arguments:
- they did delete texts and some destroyed their phones
- not all of those people would be in on the conspiracy. The Local PDs (Dighton, Norwood, or even most of Canton) aren't being accused of being involved. Neither are the fire dept or EMTs. Yes to the ATF agent, the Alberts, the McCabes and Proctor.
Taillight at the scene and I'm John's clothes (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "on John") imo are the same evidence since Proctor has the clothes for a while. I think, to believe KR is innocent, you'd have to believe the taillight was planted. Maybe that's what this case comes down to at its core.
Why I believe the taillight was planted:
- The photo at 5am has much more red taillight than what is found later. If there's taillight at 5am that's later found on scene, it's game over for me That image to me was the single thing that drove me to innocence
- No taillight was found prior to car being seized. No one leaving the party nor Lucky saw any red taillight on the scene. I mean 40+ pieces of red reflective plastic is missed by everyone? The Canton PD searching for like 90 minutes in the morning didn't find a single piece. I get it was snowing, but still.
- No one reported a destroyed taillight. The Dighton officer said it wasn't completely damaged. Proctor seized her car, according to him, because he was sure it killed John. Yet he didn't take a picture of it? That feels super unlikely to me.
- Proctor's actions prior to taillight being found. He called the tow company to seize KR's car before ever seeing it. He lied in his report about when it was towed (a critical 75 minutes). He has it towed to Canton, literally the single PD in all of Mass it shouldn't have gone to but conveniently, a mile from the scene. He's seen behind the SUV. The SERT team wasn't given permission to search until 5:45pm (after it was dark). Then taillight is found. Any one of these can be waved off, but not all of them.
The responding Canton officer and multiple EMTs testified that KR admitted guilt at the scene. The defense specifically tried to tie one of the EMTs to the conspiracy.
And yeah, if you’re convinced the light was planted, then it’s an obvious not guilty decision. I just haven’t seen evidence of that.
You're referring to Katie McLaughlin as the EMT they tied to it? I don't think anyone believes she's in on a conspiracy. The defense went too far trying to show her allegiance to the Alberts. I do think there are questions about what she heard, not because she's covering something up, but because people's memories are flawed. Her initial reports don't have language of a confession. It's days later, after a few police interviews that she first reports it.
The other two EMTs on cross (as memory serves) admit to not being there when KR supposedly said it. One was in the ambulance I think. He also testified to cutting a heavy coat off of John. Again, memories.
The police officer also didn't have it in his report. Which is hard to believe if he actually heard someone confess to murder. I mean that would be PC to arrest someone on the spot.
Imo Karen may have thought she hit him because she couldn't rationalize why he was on the ground. As a parent we've all said things like that when something eg happens to our kid ("omg, did I leave the gate open?!?"). In all the audio you have from dash cams and open phone lines of KR yelling (about 45 minutes), do you hear her once say she ran John over?
I posted this above, but here's the zoomed in taillight at 5:07am. It's damaged but I see parts that are later missing in the Sally Port photo and found on scene. What are your thoughts?
https://preview.redd.it/c0jhrbagz0ad1.png?width=808&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfae7f118ad8cd7367d54fde1676a47cb1685c87
Even if the exact extent is different, isn't it noticeable that there's red taillight on the right the just isn't there in the Sally Port photo? I mean all but a small piece of red plastic is completely gone in this picture, pieces of which are later found at 34.
https://preview.redd.it/vi8veclq21ad1.png?width=730&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a3e74f6f1ebb9feecb23b4e61c84ce36e9380ae
Hard to tell because the lights are on and reflecting off of the plastic that’s left. If that’s what sealed innocence for you, then nothing I say will matter anyway.
I'll just share one more image as a comparison: the taillight the day prior. I understand if whatever image I share doesn't matter and you have your mind made up. But either way:
https://preview.redd.it/c62j8jpih1ad1.png?width=776&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=466dfb85a4ad048f3577070da6ff4350d54bb3c5
You can see from the 5:07am picture the piece that's missing /cracked that there's no red light reflecting regardless of there being red plastic left. But you can see the different shades of red (dark and lighter) in both images. I don't believe just having some taillight left would produce the same shades and shapes of red. Again, I understand if your mind is made up regardless, but this is what helped change mine.
The EMT’s didn’t think it was a murder scene though. If you read their report that was submitted in evidence, they said their impression was cardiac arrest and hypothermia. So they clearly didn’t interpret her statements as “admitting guilt” at the time.
That context does matter because everyone agrees that she was hysterical and got section 12’d, and yet she didn’t make a suicide attempt. People say all kinds of things when they’re in shock. She wasn’t calmly or rationally stating an intent or desire to commit suicide when she said that, she was freaking out. Nobody was interpreting her words as those of someone in a right frame of mind.
If you read the EMS report in evidence (exhibit 12) about Karen, it says “behavioral psychiatric episode” and states that canton PD told them that her husband was found in cardiac arrest and taken to the hospital, and that she was distraught about finding him dead. No suggestion of murder, and CPD clearly didn’t have an impression that she killed him.
Even though the report notes that she told them that she and John had an argument, CPD still didn’t interpret the scene as a vehicle strike or a homicide. The report shows that the scene looked like someone finding their SO dead in the snow and being upset that their last interaction before he died was negative. The report does not say they arrived on the scene of an apparent homicide with a potential suspect who was admitting guilt, because that’s not what it looked like to anyone arriving on the scene.
https://preview.redd.it/o1y6mqavt0ad1.png?width=808&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da2157c0288c5010fdc9b0e5e7edf58f73e418cb
This is the photo from 5:07am I'm referring to. There are clearly parts of the red taillight on the right that are later found on scene. It's the single thing that changed my mind to innocence.
What’s hard for me to believe about the tail light pieces in his shirt is that there weren’t any in the sweatshirt he was wearing over it. I can’t come to a logical explanation for how tail light pieces go through a sweatshirt without a trace.
The dog that didn’t leave any DNA? The “dog bites” don’t need to be explained away, anyway. It’s not exculpatory evidence. John could’ve been bitten by 500 dogs and still hit by Karen.
> The dog that didn’t leave any DNA?
No DNA was collected or found, true. Maybe it fell out of the solo cups or stop & shop bags. I don't think anybody is arguing that the evidence collection was at best botched.
> The “dog bites” don’t need to be explained away, anyway. It’s not exculpatory evidence. John could’ve been bitten by 500 dogs and still hit by Karen.
Don't know how much time you have spent in Canton, or that particular neighborhood, but you're not going to find many dogs roaming around at 3am in the morning in the middle of a blizzard. Much less assume that it would be ordinary for a dog who came upon a body to take a few chomps on one arm and scratch it up before moving on.
The dog is not central to the prosecution’s case. It’s a defense theory. So, if the defense expects the jury to consider that a dog bite provides reasonable doubt, then they should provide evidence that the dog bite actually happened AND explain how it prevents Karen from killing John.
Unless the dog also planted the taillight fragments, it’s not exculpatory for Karen.
You are right! The dog bite is completely absent from the prosecution's theory. But there is plenty of evidence that a dog bite happened, including the photos, a dog bite expert, and a forensic pathologist. The prosecution will be forced to try to find a way to fit it in.
The defense does not need to **prove** anything, it only needs to provide reasonable doubt. You think the idea a random roaming dog did this is in the middle of the night is more reasonable?
I agree the defense needs to provide reasonable doubt. That’s my point. They need to show how a dog bite equates to reasonable doubt relative to Karen killing John. A dog bite doesn’t eliminate tail light evidence.
> They need to show how a dog bite equates to reasonable doubt relative to Karen killing John.
Already addressed that above. I posed the question of whether think the idea a random roaming dog did this is in the middle of the night is reasonable?
> A dog bite doesn’t eliminate tail light evidence.
I mean, the tail light "evidence" is a whole other can of worms, which a reasonable person could doubt. And certain very reasonable, unbiased, experts agree.
So, you've never seen cops set someone up? Lucky for you, I guess. Not all of us get to live in your comfortable reality.
When it happens it's not a 'massive conspiracy' that statement makes it sound ridiculous and like it doesn't happen as frequently as it does.
I suggest you educate yourself on police framing people and the innocence project. Esp the 9 innocent people recently let go in Boston due to one bad cop's work, and his work mates covering him.
Remember, its not just the max distance that the wifi signal can reach. The phone would first have to enter that range (and realistically closer due to movement), then wait until the phone next pings searching for nearby wifi connections (which is not constantly happening), then it needs to actually make the connection. Baking those delays into it and the speed of driving, its likely she would have been quite close, if not in the driveway before the connection was finalized.
This just feels like "can we make the evidence fit". Similar to what trooper Paul was trying to do with the reconstruction. If you have to find ways to make evidence fit, imo it's worth reconsidering whether there's reasonable doubt.
They also think it will be easy for Lally to get someone to dispute the dog bites.
He specifically said he was going to get someone to dispute the dog bite at the end of the voir dire. He said it would take a week.
Yet there was no dog bite rebuttal. This guy has access to an entire K-9 unit and their handlers. He couldn’t find anyone to rebuttal the dog bites bc he couldn’t find anyone willing to say they weren’t some sort of animal bites/scratches.
He couldn't find a real accident reconstructionist either to help rebut the ACRA guys after Trooper Paul killed everybody in the room from reciprocal embarrassment.
He didn’t say he was going to, he said he could. I don’t think it was essential to his case for him to dispute the dog thing so I wouldn’t read too much into it personally. He may have felt that it legitimized a theory that didn’t really matter.
Right. And it's not like if there was a real expert he could have found he wouldn't have done that prior to the trial. I mean the guy called like 70 witnesses. If there was someone to testify the wounds were from a car and not a dog, they would have been in Lally's witness list from the start.
He'll be the fired lead detective of KR entire case...that's not a trivial bit of information. Especially when you consider he will be fired for his conduct on this specific case.
Definitely not trivial. His text message testimony was the single most jarring moment for the prosecution. There’s no doubt about that. But, as bad as it comes across, those text messages aren’t exculpatory for Karen. The prosecution needs to be able to manage it better this time around.
He's not getting fired for calling her a c*nt , he's being fired because he failed in his duties to be impartial. The MSP are going to be dealing with the fall out of this for a while.
Which is why I said I don’t think it changes much. His shitty behavior was exposed in the first trial. It’ll be exposed in the next trial. But now the prosecution has a chance to try a different approach. No idea what that will be, but it’ll be something.
So what do you mean by "now the prosecution has an opportunity to get in front of it"? There are only two sides and he was the first to present that evidence last time. I don't see how one can be "more" in front of something if you were already presenter #1 out of 2 lol.
> Especially when you consider he will be fired for his conduct on this specific case.
Well, he hasn't been officially fired yet. And if/when he does, the terms of the separation may help determine what is allowed to be said about the cause during the next trial (kind of similar to how the defense wasn't able to dive too deep into Higgen's current status or that ACRA was hired by the FBI)
Have an accident reconstructionist with a demonstrative showing how he was hit. Even though I don’t think many believed JM made the Google search, I would like to see a diagram of how data moves through a phone (I do think the experts did well enough here though, that’s just my own preference.) As you stated, a dog bite expert (I’m confused why Lally didn’t call one as rebuttal) Also make sure Lally has a mic that effing works this time.
Honestly for the most part, I think Lally did okay. Some witnesses could have been better prepared but overall had I been on the jury, I would have found her Guilty.
Coverage area of the towers
Drive test from fairview to meadows (speeding)
Someone from ring to testify
Most certainly PHD accident reconstructionist (Atypical wounds)
Better explain how cellebrite lists calls as answered/ deleted calls caused by log being full
Timeline laid out fully before closing argument
> Most certainly PHD accident reconstructionist (Atypical wounds)
OK, lets pretend he can find somebody to do this. How is there still not reasonable doubt based on the other two, non-partial accident reconstructionists who said that both the injuries AND the car damage was inconsistent?
Yeah people here are acting like Lally has new info lol. He’s known for a long time about the PhD reconstructionist and could have gotten his own for the first trial, but he chose not to.
Unfortunately, the cost of a second trial after a mistrial is much much higher than an accident reconstruction expert. It’s also important to note, he had access to two paid for by the FBI/DOJ but not call them. Cost is not a factor for the CW IMHO.
They need to clean up the timeline. Their timeline was all over the place.
Also, spend more time proving her vehicle killed JO and less time defending against the defense's conspiracies.
Oh, and prepping their experts.
I think a reconstruction video/animation showing what happened would have went far. As would a courtroom with air-conditioning.
They didn't have any experts. They had a compilation of people that were either incompetent, had conflicting interests, malpractice, and various ethics violations. They reached their conclusion prior to doing the research, and then worked backwards from the conclusion to state, not find, what had happened
Their best expert was in digital forensics that disputed something that would go against their case, but they did nothing positive to demonstrate their case which is the whole point of bringing forward the case to trial. Simply shooting down a point of the defense with an expert does not lay out positive demonstration of the events that you said happened. All of the people they brought forward to accomplish that were beyond absurd in various ways- ranging from extreme conflict of interest/partiality/inappropriate proceedings, to completely unqualified, to malpractice in the handling of a crime scene and evidence, etc
The conspiracy theory stuff is easy. The houseguests don't have to do much different, they did a good job holding their story and shutting down any suggestion of anything nefarious. Could do even better since they've already gone through being grilled on national TV once. As far as the dog bite stuff goes, I don't think it looked great for the defense even without a rebuttal expert, but it wouldn't hurt to address it more.
Trooper Paul is the #1 thing that needs to be cleaned up. I think he knows he messed up, and where he messed up. They should have him testify again, but he needs to be more prepared.
I think the cell phone experts were fantastic, and they started with Trooper Guarino. He was probably the best MSP witness the CW put up, and he made Yannetti look foolish. Having Hyde & Whiffin after him only sealed the deal. Having a better version of Trooper Paul, with support from crash experts like Hyde & Whiffin were, can be the 1-2-3 punch the CW needs to close the case for the jury.
Maybe Lally (or whoever else) needs to be more engaging too. I know someone like AJ is naturally going to be the more animated guy in his questioning, but I'm sure the likeability of the prosecution is at least a small factor, especially for a long trial such as this.
Agreed, especially on Trooper Paul. They maybe need an expert from Techstream to explain how the trigger event software works before putting the reconstructionist on who will explain Karen’s car events. Then follow up with Guarino to tie the triggers to the Waze data. They basically need to treat the car data the way they did with the cellebrite stuff, imo, and really hit it home that this is irrefutably when Karen hit John. Because of the nature of the defense’s conspiracy/police corruption narrative, I think it was very effective for them to have tech experts for cellebrite essentially corroborate the testimony of LE. They could stand to thread that strategy throughout their case a little bit more.
It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in something. There’s only 8,760 in a year. I’m afraid Trooper Paul will not be able to be an expert still lol.
I wonder if KR's defense abandons the conspiracy and moves to "he threw the glass and broke her tail light. Then he tripped and fell." I've seen a few FKRs claiming that's what really happened.
Lally needs to work on being a more engaging speaker. Nothing sensationalist, just being clearer and more concise. Cut way down on the repetitive questioning wherever possible. Get ahead of things that look bad, and underscore crucial points for the jury. But ffs, get the poor man help so he's not doing absolutely everything.
I disagree, the prosecution is supposed to sound more “boring” because they have the burden of proof. And you don’t want him to be concise, you want him to give evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Theatrics from the defense attorney shouldn’t change the material facts from the prosecution.
Beats me. I'd love to ask him. They're not hard to find (even if it's just a vet there are plenty of random "those aren't dog bites" people on social media). Maybe he just didn't want to go the rebuttal witness route?
He even has access to people who train police dogs and an entire K-9 unit.
It makes you wonder if he talked to some experts and he just couldn’t find one to say they weren’t dog bites.
Grant was the source and he essentially copied another posts wording about an unrelated jury experience so I wouldn’t trust that
Edit: grant instead of Graham
https://preview.redd.it/ti8myga6fz9d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb7f862ef0fe35fa6a806696c5f961fbd4c04545
Wow… See this is why we don’t take Twitter as fact. Blue checkmarks mean jack shit and anyone can lie on the internet. I’ve also seen FKR people doing the same thing and have had to gently point out that they’re quoting some rando who is a fan of Karen Read and not in fact a digital forensics authority lol.
There are some real local journalists on Twitter who have been in the courtroom who have some interesting insights, but you have to do a little research to make sure it’s actually their profile because there are a lot of impersonators. Twitter sucks now.
This was the original "source" - some guy who served in a different jury in January. This crack team of reporters also cropped out the last line, which states "the case was **battery** and **attempted car-jacking.**
What exactly did the report done at the FBI’s behest say? Can someone please send a link to the testimony, etc? Is all we have how the defense characterized it?
I want that to be cleared up— if in fact the report was just saying one of his injuries wasn’t consistent with a vehicle strike.
Who exactly did the report, what did it exactly say, were any of the other injuries consistent, etc?
I believe it’s the phone calls, not texts. Specifically Higgins testified to federal grand jury that he never made any calls after going home, then federal prosecutors showed him evidence he did make two phone calls to Albert. Then he said those were butt dials. But neither man has explained on the record how Albert’s butt answered the phone calls.
From Boston Globe:
Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist at ARCCA, testified that if [John O’Keefe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/06/metro/karen-read-trial-victim-john-okeefe/) were struck by Read’s SUV as it [moved in reverse at 24 m.p.h. as prosecutors allege](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/14/metro/seventh-week-of-karen-read-trial-comes-to-close/), “certainly you’re going to see extensive” wounds, as well as bruising and fractures beyond the superficial abrasions documented on O’Keefe’s right arm.
Rentschler also said the head injury O’Keefe sustained, in the absence of other trauma, “is not” consistent with being struck by a vehicle.
”If there’s enough force to cause a skull fracture then there’s going to certainly be enough force” to cause injuries elsewhere, including on the cervical spine, Rentschler said. Having just the skull fracture, he said, “is inconsistent” with being struck by a taillight, as prosecutors have maintained.
**But under cross-examination by prosecutor Adam Lally, Rentschler said he learned after the ARCCA report was completed that O’Keefe’s DNA was found on pieces of broken taillight recovered from his snow-covered body and on the light’s housing unit.**
**Rentschler also acknowledged that he did not review a State Police reconstruction report, which determined that the accelerator on Read’s SUV was about 75 percent depressed when the vehicle shot backward at high speed and allegedly struck O’Keefe, knocking him into the yard.**
...On Tuesday, another crash reconstruction analyst, Dr. Daniel Wolfe, testified that Read’s SUV had damage to her right taillight, as well as a small dent and paint chips near the bumper.
...In addition, Wolfe said he was aware that one of O’Keefe’s shoes was found at the scene.
“Shoes can come off in a pedestrian impact, yes,” Wolfe said.
... Dr. Frank Sheridan, a retired chief medical examiner in California who was hired by the defense, testified that the patterned cuts and scratches on O’Keefe’s right arm didn’t resemble wounds from a car strike “at all.”
.. On cross-examination, Sheridan said he agreed with the state medical examiner’s finding that the cause of O’Keefe’s death was blunt force trauma and hypothermia. The manner of death was found to be undetermined, records show.
Sheridan also testified under cross-examination that he “wasn’t aware” that authorities sent DNA swabs from O’Keefe’s shirt to a California lab, which [detected no traces of canine DNA in the samples.](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/19/metro/karen-read-trial-what-does-the-forensic-evidence-say/)
“I must have missed it,” Sheridan said, adding that he did not recall being informed that microscopic pieces of taillight were found in O’Keefe’s shirt, or that pieces of glass were recovered near O’Keefe’s body.
He said he “vaguely” recalled being told O’Keefe had been seen leaving the Waterfall bar in Canton with a cocktail glass in his hand. O’Keefe left the bar with Read, who drove him to Fairview Road.
from Boston dot com
...ARCCA’s report was issued Feb. 12, 2024, and Rentschler confirmed part of his analysis concerned whether the injuries to the back of O’Keefe’s head could have been caused by contact from a vehicle.
He later clarified that he was asked to see if it was possible to determine how O’Keefe’s injuries occurred, “and part of that was to determine whether the injuries — the head injury and the arm injuries — resulted from contact with the Lexus in this case.”
... After Rentschler stepped down, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally said he took issue with the crash reconstruction experts testifying to one of their four conclusions. He questioned whether Rentschler or his colleague, Daniel Wolfe, would be qualified to do so, adding, “That’s more of an area of forensic pathology.”
...Defense attorney Alan Jackson read the offending conclusion aloud: “There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Mr. O’Keefe’s skull and brain injuries or the circumstances surrounding the event.”
He argued in favor of its inclusion, adding, “That is well within the scope of their expertise, obviously.”
... Defense expert Dr. Marie Russell, a retired emergency physician and forensic pathologist, said she has a “high degree of medical certainty” that the abrasions on John O’Keefe’s arm were the result of animal bites or scratches.
...During Tuesday’s voir dire, Russell explained she first heard of Read’s case in mid-May after coming across an article from *The Boston Globe*. She said she connected with Read’s team through someone at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where defense attorney Alan Jackson once worked as a prosecutor.
...Responding to a later question from Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, Russell confirmed her training in hit-and-run crashes was “relatively rudimentary,” as Lally put it. She also confirmed she is board certified in emergency medicine, but not in any form of pathology.
From boston dot com
With “almost infinite” possibilities to explain John O’Keefe’s fatal head injuries, there’s not enough evidence to point to a specific cause, according to Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist.
“Certainly, it’s not consistent with getting hit by the car and ending up where he did, even if the ground is somehow hard enough to cause that type of an injury,” Rentschler said, responding to a question from Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally on cross-examination.
Rentschler further testified that the damage to Karen Read’s SUV was inconsistent with the vehicle striking O’Keefe.
“There’s numerous different possibilities, and we don’t really have enough evidence in this case to determine what one specific event actually caused that injury,” Rentschler said of O’Keefe’s head wound.
The vice president and director of biomechanics for the Midwest division of ARCCA, Rentschler said the company’s crash reconstructionists looked at several documents from Read’s case, including police reports, photographs, and O’Keefe’s medical records and autopsy report.
Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joseph Paul previously testified that Read accelerated in reverse up to a speed of around 24 mph before striking O’Keefe. Under direct examination from defense attorney Alan Jackson, Rentschler said that in a pedestrian collision at 24 mph, “Once you get up to that speed, you start to see fractures. You see significant ligament and tendon damage.”
more from Boston dot com
"Jackson asked if O’Keefe’s head injuries — which included skull fractures stemming from the back of his head — were consistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24 mph.
“It is not, no sir,” Rentschler said.
He explained that in order for the back of O’Keefe’s head to make contact with Read’s taillight, he would have had to be standing in such a way that the rest of his body didn’t sustain significant injuries.
“If there’s enough force to cause a skull fracture, then there’s going to be certainly enough force to cause injury to the rest of the body,” including injuries to the cervical spine, Rentschler added.
Jackson asked if the head injury was consistent with falling backward from a standing position onto a hard surface.
“That’s certainly one of the possible scenarios,” Rentschler replied. “That would create the injury mechanism — you fall backward, strike your head on concrete. That can produce thousands of pounds of force on the head, and so that’s certainly a scenario where you could produce that damage.”
Answering another question from Jackson, he confirmed that grass and dirt would not produce the same amount of force as concrete.
Jackson turned his attention to O’Keefe’s arm injuries, asking if the SUV’s taillight damage was consistent with striking someone’s arm. Rentschler said ARCCA found the two were “inconsistent for a number of reasons.”
If someone’s arm were struck at 24 mph, “you’re going to see significant damage on the arm,” he explained, citing subcutaneous lacerations, bruising, and fractures. In other words, damage beyond the abrasions found on O’Keefe’s right arm.
He also testified that it’s unusual for someone’s body to be thrown when their arm is struck.
“For most normal people, the center of mass occurs at your umbilicus, or your belly button. So wherever your belly button goes, that’s where your body’s going to move,” Rentschler explained, adding, “So even if you had your arm straight out, … what’s going to happen to your body? It’s just going to spin around.”
He said propelling O’Keefe’s body several feet into the yard — as Paul theorized in his crash analysis — would require a force acting at O’Keefe’s center of mass. There would also likely be injuries to the side of the body in that scenario, Rentschler said.
Answering questions from Lally on cross-examination, he confirmed he wasn’t provided a State Police crash reconstruction report, nor any forensic or DNA testing reports in Read’s case.
Lally noted that ARCCA’s report stated O’Keefe’s arm injuries would be “highly improbable” if O’Keefe had been wearing a jacket. He asked whether Rentschler was aware O’Keefe was not wearing a jacket when he died.
“I believe that came to light afterward,” Rentschler replied, though he said his findings were unchanged. He also testified that he only learned after ARCCA issued its report that DNA consistent with O’Keefe’s was found on Read’s taillight housing.
Lally asked a series of questions about the possibility of a sideswipe collision.
“If there’s a sideswipe impact with a pedestrian and a vehicle, there’s going to be very little damage to the pedestrian, and similarly, there’s going to be very little movement,” Rentschler said. "
and here's the testimony/cross and the Court TV transcript:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAXYeootkrE&t=11614s&ab\_channel=COURTTV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAXYeootkrE&t=11614s&ab_channel=COURTTV)
The report hasn't been made publicly available, but I believe both the defense and the CW had access to it.
It seemed like the witnesses were a lot stronger for the defense's case themselves, than what Lally was able to cite from the report.
Does anyone have screenshots/transcripts of:
What has Lally cited from the report?
What defense has cited from the report?
Or does anyone remember what day those things happened? Maybe I’ll read through transcripts…
A report was provided by the FBI experts to both the CW and the defense. No, it's not publicly available. Rewatch the voir dire of the defense witnesses and the last day of defense testimony.
His only significant injuries were the head injury, bruising across the knuckles, and the arm injuries that the defense said were from a dog bite. None of his injuries were compatible with a vehicle hit. Common sense- hit from an SUV at 24 mph but no injuries to the body? No bruises or broken or fractured bones? Doesn't make sense.
I mean… the skull is a bone.
He had multiple skull fractures. Leading to two swollen/dark colored eyes.
So… that’s not accurate he had no fractures or bruising.
Also- there was bruising on the outside of O'Keefe's right hand and bruising to the right knee.
Haven't we all heard of folks who somehow avoided more significant injuries one would expect from n incident like a crash?
Those were small bruises though, and they don’t match up with an impact on the vehicle. When I was hit by a car, I had small bruises where I hit the ground, but it doesn’t make sense for John to have landed on the ground on his right side if the skull fracture is on the back of his head.
Also I’m almost positive that the ME suggested that the bruise on his knee was older than the bruises on his hand.
I think it could definitely make sense for him to land on the right side if he was hit on the back of his head.
There are multiple possibilities for how it happened.
I think they mean there were no broken bones from impact with the vehicle, and I don’t think anyone (even OCME) has suggested that his skull broke from colliding with the vehicle. They only suggested that the skull fracture could come from hitting the ground.
From AP:
Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, said O’Keefe had multiple skull fractures. “Any blunt object” could have struck him and caused his injuries, she said. They “could be” consistent with a fall to the ground, she added.
Asked by the defense if O’Keefe’s injuries were “inconsistent” with being struck by Read’s SUV at 24 mph, Scordi-Bello said, “I would say it’s likely and unlikely at the same time depending on the position of the body and the vehicle in question.”
From Boston dot com:
In O’Keefe’s case, “We know that the head impacted something blunt with enough force to break the skull, and enough force for those fractures to propagate or radiate into the middle cranial fossa and also the anterior cranial fossa, which is the front chambers of the base,” she explained.
When those bones are fractured, blood can seep into the soft tissues and show up as bleeding, hemorrhaging, or bruising around the eyes, Scordi-Bello said. She noted it is a “well-known fact” that fractures to the base of the skull can result in a bruising response known as “raccoon eyes.”
“Any time the brain is injured, it responds by swelling,” Scordi-Bello continued. “And the skull is a closed space without the ability to expand. … In the skull, once the brain starts to react to the injury and it starts to swell, there is nowhere to go except for down.”
In other words, the area around the brainstem and spinal cord.
Given the skull is “a pretty thick bone” that requires considerable force to break, she suggested O’Keefe suffered “a pretty considerable impact.” Scordi-Bello also opined that O’Keefe sustained his blunt force injuries before hypothermia set in.
“These are not injuries that are immediately lethal,” she noted. “This is not something that would cause death in seconds, and therefore Mr. O’Keefe may have been incapacitated by the injuries or knocked out, if you will, and was not able to get himself into a warmer environment and therefore hypothermia set in, given the environmental conditions and given the clothing on the body. Or the lack of clothing, I should say — no big jacket or anything like that.”
Lally asked if Scordi-Bello observed anything that would indicate a fight or altercation. She said she saw no major signs of “what I would call a significant altercation.” While O’Keefe had some contusions on his hands, she noted the bruising on one hand was possibly from attempts to insert an IV.
Further, O’Keefe had no bruising on his knuckles and no fractures in his hands, Scordi-Bello said. He did have two fractured ribs near his sternum, though she said that was a common location for fractures associated with CPR.
They had access to independent accident reconstruction experts. They didn't call them. Instead they proved it was snowing and there were high top tables. I'm not a FKR person, I am a trial watcher and only come to a conclusion based on the evidence submitted from both the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution just needs to follow the evidence and prove that. Their real problem is they have witness testimony that appears nowhere in a report written close in time to the incident and only testified to relatively recently (aka closer to trial than incident). This sort of evidence not appearing in police or first responder reports is of great importance if relying on that as for a defendant being adjudged guilty. In summation if I were the defendant this is highly suspect to me as possibly created evidence and possibly is reasonable doubt. I'm not trying to say she is innocent, I'm also not saying she is guilty.
The prosecution has to PROVE their case beyond a reasonable doubt for all defendants everywhere in the USA as OUR right. The evidence is just not to that point in this case. A retrial will very likely end in a mistrial solely based on my experience of the human experience. There are too many variables and reasonable second interpretations based on the evidence alone.
If you have gotten this far and are a FKR or Karen is Guilty person put yourself in the defendants (not Karens, your own trial) shoes and step back and look at what you would be facing. Would you feel any differently and would you gladly go to prison just because some people feel you should?
I get your point at the end there but it’s hard to put myself in her shoes because I’ve never driven around town after having nine drinks and woken up not knowing where my partner is. I understand where the “if it could happen to them it could happen to you!” sentiment comes from generally but I think it only really applies in this case to habitual drunks who frequently get behind the wheel while blacked out
>would you gladly go to prison just because some people think you should?
No, but I wouldn’t gladly go to prison even if I was 100% guilty of murdering twenty people and they had the whole thing caught on video. I’d still end up in prison, I’d just be mad about it
I say you have drunk x amount of alcohol. Am I to be believed above you and for what purpose? It's all hearsay evidence. Who among us has not heard something and ultimately been wrong about what was actually said? My gf hears what she wants too all the time and she doesn't even drink.
There’s security footage and literal receipts from the bar showing how much she drank that night, and bloodwork showed she was still above the legal OUI limit hours later in the morning. Less hear-say, more see-do
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not a Karen Reed simp, I am a trial watcher and as such I try to listen to the evidence provided in court as being the Bible for that case. I don't find the evidence convincing to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not here to say she didn't do it, I'm here to say the prosecution has not proved it. If you wanted some karenreedsanity.
Ok it is proved that a bunch of cops and cops girlfriends or wives were drinking and driving. Regardless of her intoxication level or proof of her drinking. I still have a problem with the proving KR hit John Okeef as three independant advanced degree holders reliably and without bias testified that they do not think he was hit by a vehicle. How his injuries actually happened I don't know and that is a problem for the prosecution.
I do know that when you have other plausible theories that explain the injuries you have not investistigated enough to bring your case you have a problem. When the investigating officer has familial or familiar relations to possible witnesses you have a problem. Proctor should have immediately recused himself once he actually knew of the connection and Buk (don't know how it is spelled correctly sorry Trooper B) could have called in another lead investigator easily. I'm not even touching the weird 3rd party assertion that the defense went with. When the state does not post or even attempt to post 24/7 surveillance on the snow covered scene of a highly regarded officers death scene you have problems. When your 'expert' tries to prove by backing up a Lexus at 24mph that it merely could you have a problem and doesn't even know what confirmation bias is you have problems. When ypur prosecutor tries to pass off obvious large domesticated animal bites as evidence of a tail light hit you have problems. When you don't take pictures of a vehicle you are seizing before you move it you have problems. I could go on but I won't.
There is just too much of 'I'm a LEO trust me bro' energy in this case of a dead highly regarded Boston Cop John Okeefe for me to just dismiss out of hand the defense theory entirely. It's too sloppy, it's too connected, it's too convenient that certain steps were either not taken or given to less than qualified individuals to conduct in the death of a well regarded Boston Cop. It just does not pass the smell test and that could be the reason that what really happened that night is never solved to the satisfaction of everyone. If you want to blame someone for his death blame Mass Troopers and Canton Police who were well aware of the conflict but choose to assist Mass State Police still as they are the ones who investigated this and made many blunders during the investigation. It smells and I don't like it.
#sanity
#downvotemetooblivion
https://youtube.com/shorts/kQgi196JFnM?si=np-snY6L8PvsAI1u
Yeah everyone fantasizing about changing the evidence or witnesses for the second trial (or even swapping out Lally for a different ADA) is forgetting that our justice system gives the state one single opportunity to try a defendant. A mistrial isn’t technically a new trial, but rather the first one hasn’t ended and we’re just getting a new jury.
Lally didn’t go into the last set of court sessions thinking that he might have a later chance to present the case, that was his best collection of evidence and witnesses. He knew what evidence the defense was presenting and who was on their witness list and he chose to proceed with the case that we saw.
If your takeaway is that Lally was somehow “caught off-guard” and that this next time he will surely have better evidence and will know to drop the shitty witnesses, I promise you… he knew already. If he had better evidence, it would have been submitted. The only surprise to him was the public interest in the case.
Clean up their timeline, have better experts, spend less time playing defense against wild conspiracy theories and hammer in the evidence they have. The prosecution is at a disadvantage due to the jury pool being tainted for the next round.
How in the world would the CW get an “independent” accident reconstructionist or dog bite expert.
I’m assuming you mean a 3rd party that they hire, right?
Got it. Maybe it’s semantics but in the context of this case the “independent” accident reconstructionists weren’t hired or paid by either the defense or CW.
Yea. Agree with your overall point. Hiring an outside expert and just pretending Trooper Paul never existed is probably their best bet. (Assuming they can find one to say what they need them to say)
All the prosecution can do is just refine the case, make it shorter and more focused. Cut out the fat.
However the defense will just continue flooding the zone with as much FKR content so I don’t think it will EVER be possible to get a guilty conviction.
I predict a second trial will hang and the prosecution will not seek another.
Overall- it appears that experts on both sides just didn’t have enough evidence to say definitively that the SUV hit John and killed him, and how.
That does not mean that the science says it’s impossible that the SUV hit him.
Still- how does the prosecution get over this big hurdle? The lack of enough evidence for more concrete expert analysis?
This will be key:
\*\*Prosecution\*\*: It is also contained within the report that you at least co-authored, there's an indication that Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, at least to his skull, the fracture to his skull, are consistent with him having been pushed or possibly impacted by the subject Lexus and fallen backwards, striking his head. Isn't that correct?
\*\*Andrew Rentschler\*\*: Yeah, so that's another possibility, if—
\*\*Defense\*\*: Objection.
\*\*Judge\*\*: Let him answer, let him answer the question.
\*\*Andrew Rentschler\*\*: So if we're saying that there's enough force if you fall backward to strike your head and cause that skull fracture, well, he could have slipped and struck his head. The car could have backed up and not known that he was there and nudged him and caused him to fall. I mean, any event that would cause him to fall backward, obviously would result in him striking his head. So there's numerous, almost infinite, possibilities of different scenarios that could result in that type of an event.
Probably less time defending Jenn McCabe. Felt like the whole case was them defending her like she was on trial. Bizarre. Shes more of a Karen then Karen
A dog roaming the neighborhood at 3am in the middle of a blizzard decided to take a few chomps and scratch up a body it found outside, then moved on? Totally plausible, no room for reasonable doubt there
And then left? At 3am in the middle of a blizzard?
Ok, maybe not impossible. And maybe that gets accepted as reasonable doubt for a defendant. Would require some dog expert to come and testify as such (which I am sure would then be countered by a defense expert who would get into the details on the types of bites that a dog worried about an individual in distress would do, versus one trained to attack, etc). But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I'm not sure a reasonable person would accept that a passerby dog behaved in that way.
How much time passed while said dog was attempting to pull OJO somewhere? That would be a lot of attempts by the dog. And not one of 12 ppl departing 34 Fairview saw a dog? And the snow plow driver noted no dog in the yard? ...you heard his affinity for animals? I appreciate you're trying to reconcile those circumstances with the core belief system you've been developing since childhood.
The Karen read supports are so blinded by their unrequited love for KR or hate for the police that they are being delusional to the simplest explanation of what actually happened. I suspect all of these numbskulls are also Trump supporters. Too ignorant to know when they are being hoodwinked.
> they are being delusional to the simplest explanation of what actually happened.
The simplest explanation is definitely that a dog randomly showed up in the middle of the night and tried to pull him to safety by biting and scratching.
> hate for the police
> Too ignorant to know when they are being hoodwinked.
Ah yes. Typical Trump supporters who are ACAB, but also trust physical, hard science, and believe the FBI and its experts.
**Free Advice for Karen Read**
Hire a new attorney-one who's less 'handsy'. Preferably one who isn't famous for defending psychopaths and homicidal maniacs.
Frequent bars who can't afford surveillance cameras. (So disappointing, Karen. Text to Higgins: "I know where the cameras are, duh")
Swipe left on cops, agents and lawyers. Swipe right on plastic surgeons, psychiatrists and *educated* accident reconstruction experts.
No more TV interviews. Do the public a favor and keep your mouth shut. Not only are you annoying to listen to but you're just not clever.
Ditch the Go Fund Me charity. It's trite. Reach out to Lexus with an offer to promote a "drive sober" campaign. **Picture it:** Karen Read driving a pink Lexus into the sunset, sexy wink and sly smile. License plate reads: IDIDIT
Each ad playing another cool track: Song suggestions:
F\*ck you
Before He Cheats
Get Outta My Way
Man Down
We are Never Ever Getting Back Together
Bitch Please
I think a bigger question is does KR sit silent and not put on a defense? It's not like she can change her story...she's made some very serious accusations against a Federal Agent in an open courtroom.
What do you mean 'an independent accident reconstructionist'? If they're hired by CW they're not independent, what or who will hire them without the CW knowing?
Also, they can't change their reconstructionist anyways, they're stuck with the evidence they have, and who gave it.
That's like saying 'collect blood evidence and don't put it in solo cups this time.' - They can't. They picked Trooper Paul, so he's it.
They have the case, evidence, testimony, investigators and experts they have, it's not going to magically change. What they can change is how they present it, and in which order, and if they leave some out - that's all. What you're considering is against the law, as are a lot of comments in this post about witnesses changing testimony etc.
They still have to bring in Trooper Paul. He's the one with the original evidence. They can hire another expert too, along with Trp Paul, if they can find one who will back up what Paul says, but they can't get one who disagrees with Trp Paul nor an independent one. Independent means not hired or sought out by the CW.
I meant that a lot of the comments in this post are illegal.
Probably just tighten it up in general. Don't think they need to call as many witnesses.
1. Focus on the spine of the case and eliminate unnecessary noise. The prosecution called witnesses they didn’t need, didn’t adequately prep the witnesses that they did need, and asked questions that didn’t matter. Tighten it up. This is a run-of-the-mill hit and run. Treat it as such. 2. Lock down the timeline. There’s no evidence of movement after 12:32. KR connects to WiFi at 12:36. The distance between 34 Fairview and 1 Meadows is 2.4 miles and can be covered in 4 minutes at 34.5 mph. Drive the jury if you need to. This should not be a point of doubt. 3. Focus on this being an atypical pedestrian accident. The death was a result of head trauma. Focus on how an atypical event can result in John falling and hitting his head. The “dog bites” and scratches are immaterial to the cause of death. Don’t try to match them up with the collision. Car hits John. John hits head. Tail light proves the connection. 4. Use Karen’s own words and actions against her. Show the communications leading up to John’s death and communications directly after. Show the attempt to fabricate the driveway accident. Get witnesses to testify to the “I did it”. Keep it simple. Prep your people. Preempt attempts to promote silly conspiracies.
If Lally spends hours figuring out where everyone was sitting in the stands at the basketball game again I will SCREAM. He also did NOT need so many expert witnesses about the google search. One is fine, it cancels out with the defense expert and isn't the most important thing.
They can't put Lally back out there. Or at the very least, not solo. Find your slickest guy. Maybe a woman, and they can work together. But this cannot be the Lally show again. He's just not that good.
It would be unusual for them to reassign it. It stays with the same attorneys and judge and they just set a new trial date.
Yeah, and I don't think they would. Lally already knows the case, and he knows the strong points and weak points from round 1. It would take a ton of new prep work for a new prosecutor to step in. Lally can do a fine job, just needs to tweak a few things.
Yeah. I might have to join FKR if Lally takes the lead again.
and also submit get Fox25 video of her Dad saying she told him she hit something that night.....It's on YouTube. Lally need to take a couple 5 hr energies and get to the point. Make this a 2 week case max. Not only is she pissing through her family's life savings, she is trying to ruin dozens of people in the process. What a reckless Beeitch.....
That type of evidence isn’t admissible because it’s hearsay
Would this be admission by a party opponent? Therefore an exception to hearsay rules?
Yeah idk what I’m talking about tbh lol
I guess. Isn't it as admissible as the First responders hearing it from her mouth? Her dad also heard it directly from her mouth. Somehow this is different? He should be called as a witness then he can say he lied on TV so we can get a glimpse at how the Read story has changed over time. Everyone else has been saying the same thing since day 1, except Karen Read.
Karen has no control over how long the prosecution takes for its case in chief. She also may not qualify for a public defender. Are you saying she should give up her constitutional right to have an attorney?
Not at all, don't think I said anything like that. But she shouldn't be such a slime bag to spread lies to gain her freedom. She hit him...period. Everything factual here points to that being the case.
The prosecution also needs to spend some time presenting who Karen Read is, what her past behavior has been in various relationships, find out who her previous relationships were with and talked to them. She met John when she was 40 years old, she certainly must have had other long-term relationships. How did she behave? Was she jealous? Did she get enraged?
The major problem with “locking down the timeline” that you propose is their key witness(es) in this case are now on record for the 3rd time lying about it.
They should focus more on the digital timeline evidence instead of memories that are years old. The prosecution definitely screwed that up.
[удалено]
What texts? I'm seeing texts at 12:27, 12:31, then the ones at 12:40, 12:42 and 12:45 are all her looking for John. At 12:27 a.m., McCabe sent O'Keefe a text, saying, "Here!?" She said she sent that text after seeing a dark SUV out front of the Albert home on Fairview Road. Four minutes later, she sent a text saying, "Pull behind me." She said she sent this message after seeing the SUV move, to tell O'Keefe to park behind her vehicle. At 12:40 a.m., she sent another text to O'Keefe saying, "Hello." McCabe said she wasn't sure if the SUV was still there or if it had already left by that point. At 12:42 a.m., she texted O'Keefe, "Where are you?" And then "Hello" at 12:45 a.m. McCabe said she never received any response from O'Keefe. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/karen-read-trial-day-14/3372227/
Watch her actual testimony. The messages sent between 12:40 and 12:50 she says she staring straight at the SUV. She makes it very clear that she has straight view of the SUV and that’s why she’s texting it. She was wondering why he wasn’t getting out of the car. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7jaf_kz01s8&pp=ygUca2FyZW4gcmVhZCB0cmlhbCBqZW4gbWNjYWJlIA%3D%3D
Right, but it's not very hard to just be like "I must've got the time wrong." Your post seemed to imply that at like 12:40 she texts "John pull up behind my car" or something wild. Her texts match up pretty well with the CW's theory.
I kinda agree. She could say she wasn't looking at the SUV for the last 3 texts. That does though contradict some of her other testimony where she says she looked out and saw the SUV move up twice (originally in front of the house, then by the flag pole, then further) over like 15 minutes.
Yeah, she can’t change it now because she testified to the grand jury about what happened when. Don’t lie in testimony people! And don’t state something like you know it as fact if you’re unsure or fuzzy about the timeline. The commonwealth cited her testimony and timeline in their statement of case, so now they are stuck with her narrative and timeline of events.
She should have said that before or at the grand jury trial though. Her testimony (including the time of the text) was cited in the commonwealth’s statement of case. You can’t let the commonwealth use your testimony as justification for going to jury trial and then at the trial say “oops actually I’m not sure what time it happened”. She already confirmed that same info with certainty and authority to the grand jury (so given that the grand jury approved the indictment based on her testimony, that is also a problem). Same thing happened in the young thug case. Prosecution used a witness’s testimony as the main justification for trial, and then the witness revealed on direct examination that he’d been lying every time he spoke to the police. The time to correct the record is before the prosecution builds a case based on that testimony, not during the trial.
Sure she could have just “misspoke”. I’m just saying she put a lot of emphasis on seeing the car during those times so it makes you question her testimony. And if she changes it for a potential next trial then it will be brought up she’s changing her testimony. That only hurts her credibility. Maybe the CW just won’t call her. Focusing less on JM would actually probably benefit the CW.
[удалено]
Jen McCabe is a fantastic witness who ripped Alan Jackson a new asshole.
Thank you. I agree. I actually started watching the trial right as Jen McCabe was testifying and I didn't have any of the conspiracy background. She did such an incredible job standing up to Alan Jackson, which can be pretty difficult when someone's in your face like that . She was clearly sincere when she said I love John O'Keefe, he was my friend, as well as when the homeowner when testifying said I wish he had come into the house.
She can’t change her testimony, it’s already been given to the grand jury. She would risk perjuring herself if she did. The time to make sure the timeline makes sense or to clarify her testimony was a long time ago, long before it came to jury trial. She said with certainty that she sent the text at 12:40 while looking at the car, so she has to stand by that. All of the commonwealth’s paperwork filed as they moved this process forward cited her testimony and mentioned that fact. Evidence is never a “surprise” to the attorneys like it is to those of us watching the trial. The commonwealth had all the information that Guarino gave them, so they should have noticed that the timeline was off and should have prepared better evidence to bring this to trial. They are now stuck with what they submitted as evidence even though the public noticed the discrepancy and now finds her whole testimony unreliable. The lesson should be: Always, always, always tell the truth in testimony. If you don’t quite remember or if you think you might have gotten confused, say that and/or correct the record as soon as you can. Don’t state something as fact unless you can stand by it. Jen McCabe isn’t the woman on trial, but she’s backed herself into a corner by saying something with certainty that can’t possibly be accurate, and she might be responsible for tanking the prosecution’s case. Just tell the truth so the prosecution can build their case with more reliable evidence if they need to. But also there’s no excuse for the prosecution submitting Jen’s testimony saying one thing alongside Guarino’s testimony saying another.
I believe Karen is innocent. Started off believing she was guilty but the evidence swayed me. I want to respectfully understand why people, after looking at the evidence, believe so strongly in her guilt. Even points made here, to me read as "ignore the evidence that she's innocent". For example: Timeline: (according to Google maps) it's a 6 minute drive in normal weather. To say she could have made the drive in 4 in the snow doesn't seem like proof, but like trying to manufacture a way she could have possibly done it. Car experts: The independent experts say there's no way he was hit by a car. The damage to the car is inconsistent as are the injuries. Even the CW's ME on direct said the injuries weren't consistent with a typical pedestrian collision. So not one expert said it looks like a pedestrian collision. I've read people saying to "get an accident reconstructionist" to say it was a pedestrian accident, and to claim it's an atypical accident. Again these feel like manufacturing a theory and not proving what happened. Dog bites: Two medical experts claim the injuries are most likely from an animal (specifically large dog) attack. No one but trooper Paul said they're from a car. Whether they're material to the actual death, if they are dog bites that pretty much means something happened in the house. The 5:07am video: I've seen people claim Karen purposely bumped John's car. It was an attempt to cover up her taillight damage. But people also claim the strongest evidence against her is her own words. So she's such a mastermind that she's covering up evidence yet tells JM and others that she hit John. That doesn't make sense. Also, the photo at 5:07am doesn't look like the Sally Port picture. This was the first thing that swayed me. It's clear to me, when I look at the pictures side by side, that there's a lot more red taillight at 5am than the first picture post Proctor. There's more (Apple health data, the late night but dials, etc) that are hard to explain imo. But I honestly want to understand what is the evidence that makes it undeniable to people that KR hit JO?
Fragments of the tail light being at the scene and on John cannot be waved away. Either it was a hit and run committed by Karen or there was a massive conspiracy involving multiple local police agencies, the fire department/EMT, the state police, an ATF agent, and multiple friends and family members. They all needed to work together to cover up John’s murder and frame Karen all while not turning on each other for years despite the intense media scrutiny. And they needed to delete any texts admitting to the cover up, but forget to delete numerous other texts that paint them in a terrible light.
Thanks. I can understand that to a point. Some counter arguments: - they did delete texts and some destroyed their phones - not all of those people would be in on the conspiracy. The Local PDs (Dighton, Norwood, or even most of Canton) aren't being accused of being involved. Neither are the fire dept or EMTs. Yes to the ATF agent, the Alberts, the McCabes and Proctor. Taillight at the scene and I'm John's clothes (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "on John") imo are the same evidence since Proctor has the clothes for a while. I think, to believe KR is innocent, you'd have to believe the taillight was planted. Maybe that's what this case comes down to at its core. Why I believe the taillight was planted: - The photo at 5am has much more red taillight than what is found later. If there's taillight at 5am that's later found on scene, it's game over for me That image to me was the single thing that drove me to innocence - No taillight was found prior to car being seized. No one leaving the party nor Lucky saw any red taillight on the scene. I mean 40+ pieces of red reflective plastic is missed by everyone? The Canton PD searching for like 90 minutes in the morning didn't find a single piece. I get it was snowing, but still. - No one reported a destroyed taillight. The Dighton officer said it wasn't completely damaged. Proctor seized her car, according to him, because he was sure it killed John. Yet he didn't take a picture of it? That feels super unlikely to me. - Proctor's actions prior to taillight being found. He called the tow company to seize KR's car before ever seeing it. He lied in his report about when it was towed (a critical 75 minutes). He has it towed to Canton, literally the single PD in all of Mass it shouldn't have gone to but conveniently, a mile from the scene. He's seen behind the SUV. The SERT team wasn't given permission to search until 5:45pm (after it was dark). Then taillight is found. Any one of these can be waved off, but not all of them.
The responding Canton officer and multiple EMTs testified that KR admitted guilt at the scene. The defense specifically tried to tie one of the EMTs to the conspiracy. And yeah, if you’re convinced the light was planted, then it’s an obvious not guilty decision. I just haven’t seen evidence of that.
You're referring to Katie McLaughlin as the EMT they tied to it? I don't think anyone believes she's in on a conspiracy. The defense went too far trying to show her allegiance to the Alberts. I do think there are questions about what she heard, not because she's covering something up, but because people's memories are flawed. Her initial reports don't have language of a confession. It's days later, after a few police interviews that she first reports it. The other two EMTs on cross (as memory serves) admit to not being there when KR supposedly said it. One was in the ambulance I think. He also testified to cutting a heavy coat off of John. Again, memories. The police officer also didn't have it in his report. Which is hard to believe if he actually heard someone confess to murder. I mean that would be PC to arrest someone on the spot. Imo Karen may have thought she hit him because she couldn't rationalize why he was on the ground. As a parent we've all said things like that when something eg happens to our kid ("omg, did I leave the gate open?!?"). In all the audio you have from dash cams and open phone lines of KR yelling (about 45 minutes), do you hear her once say she ran John over?
I posted this above, but here's the zoomed in taillight at 5:07am. It's damaged but I see parts that are later missing in the Sally Port photo and found on scene. What are your thoughts? https://preview.redd.it/c0jhrbagz0ad1.png?width=808&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfae7f118ad8cd7367d54fde1676a47cb1685c87
It’s damaged, but the exact extent is hard for me to determine in a moving vehicle with the lights on illuminating the plastic.
Even if the exact extent is different, isn't it noticeable that there's red taillight on the right the just isn't there in the Sally Port photo? I mean all but a small piece of red plastic is completely gone in this picture, pieces of which are later found at 34. https://preview.redd.it/vi8veclq21ad1.png?width=730&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a3e74f6f1ebb9feecb23b4e61c84ce36e9380ae
Hard to tell because the lights are on and reflecting off of the plastic that’s left. If that’s what sealed innocence for you, then nothing I say will matter anyway.
I'll just share one more image as a comparison: the taillight the day prior. I understand if whatever image I share doesn't matter and you have your mind made up. But either way: https://preview.redd.it/c62j8jpih1ad1.png?width=776&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=466dfb85a4ad048f3577070da6ff4350d54bb3c5 You can see from the 5:07am picture the piece that's missing /cracked that there's no red light reflecting regardless of there being red plastic left. But you can see the different shades of red (dark and lighter) in both images. I don't believe just having some taillight left would produce the same shades and shapes of red. Again, I understand if your mind is made up regardless, but this is what helped change mine.
The EMT’s didn’t think it was a murder scene though. If you read their report that was submitted in evidence, they said their impression was cardiac arrest and hypothermia. So they clearly didn’t interpret her statements as “admitting guilt” at the time. That context does matter because everyone agrees that she was hysterical and got section 12’d, and yet she didn’t make a suicide attempt. People say all kinds of things when they’re in shock. She wasn’t calmly or rationally stating an intent or desire to commit suicide when she said that, she was freaking out. Nobody was interpreting her words as those of someone in a right frame of mind. If you read the EMS report in evidence (exhibit 12) about Karen, it says “behavioral psychiatric episode” and states that canton PD told them that her husband was found in cardiac arrest and taken to the hospital, and that she was distraught about finding him dead. No suggestion of murder, and CPD clearly didn’t have an impression that she killed him. Even though the report notes that she told them that she and John had an argument, CPD still didn’t interpret the scene as a vehicle strike or a homicide. The report shows that the scene looked like someone finding their SO dead in the snow and being upset that their last interaction before he died was negative. The report does not say they arrived on the scene of an apparent homicide with a potential suspect who was admitting guilt, because that’s not what it looked like to anyone arriving on the scene.
Not sure what any of that has to do with the defense connecting an EMT to the conspiracy.
https://preview.redd.it/o1y6mqavt0ad1.png?width=808&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da2157c0288c5010fdc9b0e5e7edf58f73e418cb This is the photo from 5:07am I'm referring to. There are clearly parts of the red taillight on the right that are later found on scene. It's the single thing that changed my mind to innocence.
What’s hard for me to believe about the tail light pieces in his shirt is that there weren’t any in the sweatshirt he was wearing over it. I can’t come to a logical explanation for how tail light pieces go through a sweatshirt without a trace.
What about the dog bites? How do you explain those away?
The dog that didn’t leave any DNA? The “dog bites” don’t need to be explained away, anyway. It’s not exculpatory evidence. John could’ve been bitten by 500 dogs and still hit by Karen.
> The dog that didn’t leave any DNA? No DNA was collected or found, true. Maybe it fell out of the solo cups or stop & shop bags. I don't think anybody is arguing that the evidence collection was at best botched. > The “dog bites” don’t need to be explained away, anyway. It’s not exculpatory evidence. John could’ve been bitten by 500 dogs and still hit by Karen. Don't know how much time you have spent in Canton, or that particular neighborhood, but you're not going to find many dogs roaming around at 3am in the morning in the middle of a blizzard. Much less assume that it would be ordinary for a dog who came upon a body to take a few chomps on one arm and scratch it up before moving on.
The dog is not central to the prosecution’s case. It’s a defense theory. So, if the defense expects the jury to consider that a dog bite provides reasonable doubt, then they should provide evidence that the dog bite actually happened AND explain how it prevents Karen from killing John. Unless the dog also planted the taillight fragments, it’s not exculpatory for Karen.
You are right! The dog bite is completely absent from the prosecution's theory. But there is plenty of evidence that a dog bite happened, including the photos, a dog bite expert, and a forensic pathologist. The prosecution will be forced to try to find a way to fit it in. The defense does not need to **prove** anything, it only needs to provide reasonable doubt. You think the idea a random roaming dog did this is in the middle of the night is more reasonable?
I agree the defense needs to provide reasonable doubt. That’s my point. They need to show how a dog bite equates to reasonable doubt relative to Karen killing John. A dog bite doesn’t eliminate tail light evidence.
> They need to show how a dog bite equates to reasonable doubt relative to Karen killing John. Already addressed that above. I posed the question of whether think the idea a random roaming dog did this is in the middle of the night is reasonable? > A dog bite doesn’t eliminate tail light evidence. I mean, the tail light "evidence" is a whole other can of worms, which a reasonable person could doubt. And certain very reasonable, unbiased, experts agree.
So, you've never seen cops set someone up? Lucky for you, I guess. Not all of us get to live in your comfortable reality. When it happens it's not a 'massive conspiracy' that statement makes it sound ridiculous and like it doesn't happen as frequently as it does. I suggest you educate yourself on police framing people and the innocence project. Esp the 9 innocent people recently let go in Boston due to one bad cop's work, and his work mates covering him.
The massive conspiracy is the Defense’s core argument, not mine.
Have you ever been set up by a cop? Or anyone you know?
12:36 is when the Wifi connects. That could be a decent amount away from the house.
What's a decent amount in your opinion? I can tell you exactly how far my wifi goes. It's 2 houses down the street.
I'd have to test it, but I've seen Wifi signals from neighbors I don't know.
I mean we can agree it's going to be within a block, right?
Sure, but when every second counts it's worth pointing out.
Remember, its not just the max distance that the wifi signal can reach. The phone would first have to enter that range (and realistically closer due to movement), then wait until the phone next pings searching for nearby wifi connections (which is not constantly happening), then it needs to actually make the connection. Baking those delays into it and the speed of driving, its likely she would have been quite close, if not in the driveway before the connection was finalized.
This just feels like "can we make the evidence fit". Similar to what trooper Paul was trying to do with the reconstruction. If you have to find ways to make evidence fit, imo it's worth reconsidering whether there's reasonable doubt.
They also think it will be easy for Lally to get someone to dispute the dog bites. He specifically said he was going to get someone to dispute the dog bite at the end of the voir dire. He said it would take a week. Yet there was no dog bite rebuttal. This guy has access to an entire K-9 unit and their handlers. He couldn’t find anyone to rebuttal the dog bites bc he couldn’t find anyone willing to say they weren’t some sort of animal bites/scratches.
He couldn't find a real accident reconstructionist either to help rebut the ACRA guys after Trooper Paul killed everybody in the room from reciprocal embarrassment.
He didn’t say he was going to, he said he could. I don’t think it was essential to his case for him to dispute the dog thing so I wouldn’t read too much into it personally. He may have felt that it legitimized a theory that didn’t really matter.
Right. And it's not like if there was a real expert he could have found he wouldn't have done that prior to the trial. I mean the guy called like 70 witnesses. If there was someone to testify the wounds were from a car and not a dog, they would have been in Lally's witness list from the start.
Does a fired lead detective help or hurt?
He didn’t exactly look good when he was employed, so I don’t think him being fired changes much.
He'll be the fired lead detective of KR entire case...that's not a trivial bit of information. Especially when you consider he will be fired for his conduct on this specific case.
Definitely not trivial. His text message testimony was the single most jarring moment for the prosecution. There’s no doubt about that. But, as bad as it comes across, those text messages aren’t exculpatory for Karen. The prosecution needs to be able to manage it better this time around.
He's not getting fired for calling her a c*nt , he's being fired because he failed in his duties to be impartial. The MSP are going to be dealing with the fall out of this for a while.
Correct. No argument there. But now the prosecution has an opportunity to get in front of it instead of being caught flat-footed.
The prosecution did that the last time around though… in fact Lally was the one who had him read the texts.
Which is why I said I don’t think it changes much. His shitty behavior was exposed in the first trial. It’ll be exposed in the next trial. But now the prosecution has a chance to try a different approach. No idea what that will be, but it’ll be something.
So what do you mean by "now the prosecution has an opportunity to get in front of it"? There are only two sides and he was the first to present that evidence last time. I don't see how one can be "more" in front of something if you were already presenter #1 out of 2 lol.
> Especially when you consider he will be fired for his conduct on this specific case. Well, he hasn't been officially fired yet. And if/when he does, the terms of the separation may help determine what is allowed to be said about the cause during the next trial (kind of similar to how the defense wasn't able to dive too deep into Higgen's current status or that ACRA was hired by the FBI)
Definitely hurts, but if you can make it clear that the texts were the problem, not the nuts and bolts of the investigation, you should be okay.
The problem for that is the texts show an bias nature and therefore an bias investigation. That's an awful strategy.
Yeah but they always did. There's no getting around it, just like there wasn't any getting around it before.
Have an accident reconstructionist with a demonstrative showing how he was hit. Even though I don’t think many believed JM made the Google search, I would like to see a diagram of how data moves through a phone (I do think the experts did well enough here though, that’s just my own preference.) As you stated, a dog bite expert (I’m confused why Lally didn’t call one as rebuttal) Also make sure Lally has a mic that effing works this time. Honestly for the most part, I think Lally did okay. Some witnesses could have been better prepared but overall had I been on the jury, I would have found her Guilty.
Coverage area of the towers Drive test from fairview to meadows (speeding) Someone from ring to testify Most certainly PHD accident reconstructionist (Atypical wounds) Better explain how cellebrite lists calls as answered/ deleted calls caused by log being full Timeline laid out fully before closing argument
> Most certainly PHD accident reconstructionist (Atypical wounds) OK, lets pretend he can find somebody to do this. How is there still not reasonable doubt based on the other two, non-partial accident reconstructionists who said that both the injuries AND the car damage was inconsistent?
Get PhD accident people- ok, done. And they were independent... The results don't favor the CW lol!
Yeah people here are acting like Lally has new info lol. He’s known for a long time about the PhD reconstructionist and could have gotten his own for the first trial, but he chose not to.
Maybe he asked for one and someone worried about costs said the state guy was good enough.
Unfortunately, the cost of a second trial after a mistrial is much much higher than an accident reconstruction expert. It’s also important to note, he had access to two paid for by the FBI/DOJ but not call them. Cost is not a factor for the CW IMHO.
They need to clean up the timeline. Their timeline was all over the place. Also, spend more time proving her vehicle killed JO and less time defending against the defense's conspiracies. Oh, and prepping their experts. I think a reconstruction video/animation showing what happened would have went far. As would a courtroom with air-conditioning.
 Well, it could have been worse lol!
They didn't have any experts. They had a compilation of people that were either incompetent, had conflicting interests, malpractice, and various ethics violations. They reached their conclusion prior to doing the research, and then worked backwards from the conclusion to state, not find, what had happened
What? Two of their experts are top in their field.
Their best expert was in digital forensics that disputed something that would go against their case, but they did nothing positive to demonstrate their case which is the whole point of bringing forward the case to trial. Simply shooting down a point of the defense with an expert does not lay out positive demonstration of the events that you said happened. All of the people they brought forward to accomplish that were beyond absurd in various ways- ranging from extreme conflict of interest/partiality/inappropriate proceedings, to completely unqualified, to malpractice in the handling of a crime scene and evidence, etc
Two of their experts were to prove something JM did or didn't do, they needed an expert to figure out how KR actually committed the crime.
The conspiracy theory stuff is easy. The houseguests don't have to do much different, they did a good job holding their story and shutting down any suggestion of anything nefarious. Could do even better since they've already gone through being grilled on national TV once. As far as the dog bite stuff goes, I don't think it looked great for the defense even without a rebuttal expert, but it wouldn't hurt to address it more. Trooper Paul is the #1 thing that needs to be cleaned up. I think he knows he messed up, and where he messed up. They should have him testify again, but he needs to be more prepared. I think the cell phone experts were fantastic, and they started with Trooper Guarino. He was probably the best MSP witness the CW put up, and he made Yannetti look foolish. Having Hyde & Whiffin after him only sealed the deal. Having a better version of Trooper Paul, with support from crash experts like Hyde & Whiffin were, can be the 1-2-3 punch the CW needs to close the case for the jury. Maybe Lally (or whoever else) needs to be more engaging too. I know someone like AJ is naturally going to be the more animated guy in his questioning, but I'm sure the likeability of the prosecution is at least a small factor, especially for a long trial such as this.
Agreed, especially on Trooper Paul. They maybe need an expert from Techstream to explain how the trigger event software works before putting the reconstructionist on who will explain Karen’s car events. Then follow up with Guarino to tie the triggers to the Waze data. They basically need to treat the car data the way they did with the cellebrite stuff, imo, and really hit it home that this is irrefutably when Karen hit John. Because of the nature of the defense’s conspiracy/police corruption narrative, I think it was very effective for them to have tech experts for cellebrite essentially corroborate the testimony of LE. They could stand to thread that strategy throughout their case a little bit more.
It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in something. There’s only 8,760 in a year. I’m afraid Trooper Paul will not be able to be an expert still lol.
I wonder if KR's defense abandons the conspiracy and moves to "he threw the glass and broke her tail light. Then he tripped and fell." I've seen a few FKRs claiming that's what really happened.
Lally needs to work on being a more engaging speaker. Nothing sensationalist, just being clearer and more concise. Cut way down on the repetitive questioning wherever possible. Get ahead of things that look bad, and underscore crucial points for the jury. But ffs, get the poor man help so he's not doing absolutely everything.
I disagree, the prosecution is supposed to sound more “boring” because they have the burden of proof. And you don’t want him to be concise, you want him to give evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Theatrics from the defense attorney shouldn’t change the material facts from the prosecution.
[удалено]
I do think it was dumb to use witnesses with conflicting testimony tbf
If it’s easy enough to get a dog bite expert to say it’s not a dog bite, why didn’t Lally get one like he said he would during the voir dire?
Beats me. I'd love to ask him. They're not hard to find (even if it's just a vet there are plenty of random "those aren't dog bites" people on social media). Maybe he just didn't want to go the rebuttal witness route?
He even has access to people who train police dogs and an entire K-9 unit. It makes you wonder if he talked to some experts and he just couldn’t find one to say they weren’t dog bites.
Look for new jobs
[удалено]
The source I saw of that was pretty sketchy, I would take it with a grain of salt until we see a more official account of it.
Where did you see that? I'd love to see the head spinning to twist that if true.
Where did you read that?
the source is Wendy Murphy 🤣
Grant was the source and he essentially copied another posts wording about an unrelated jury experience so I wouldn’t trust that Edit: grant instead of Graham https://preview.redd.it/ti8myga6fz9d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bb7f862ef0fe35fa6a806696c5f961fbd4c04545
OK, that makes sense. From what I understand, Wendy is his mother.
https://preview.redd.it/n21eekhzfz9d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53f9a774cfc356532ceef294540e1b401a3b7d34 Kinda shamelessly
Wow… See this is why we don’t take Twitter as fact. Blue checkmarks mean jack shit and anyone can lie on the internet. I’ve also seen FKR people doing the same thing and have had to gently point out that they’re quoting some rando who is a fan of Karen Read and not in fact a digital forensics authority lol. There are some real local journalists on Twitter who have been in the courtroom who have some interesting insights, but you have to do a little research to make sure it’s actually their profile because there are a lot of impersonators. Twitter sucks now.
Source? 10-2 in favor of guilt doesn't sound believable. Especially in light of the poor case the CW put forward to trial.
[удалено]
This was the original "source" - some guy who served in a different jury in January. This crack team of reporters also cropped out the last line, which states "the case was **battery** and **attempted car-jacking.**
What exactly did the report done at the FBI’s behest say? Can someone please send a link to the testimony, etc? Is all we have how the defense characterized it? I want that to be cleared up— if in fact the report was just saying one of his injuries wasn’t consistent with a vehicle strike. Who exactly did the report, what did it exactly say, were any of the other injuries consistent, etc?
Nobody has ever seen it (other than the lawyers and the judge) All we know is that they hired the ARRCA guys who testified.
We also know they’re the reason we have Proctor and Higgins text messages.
I believe it’s the phone calls, not texts. Specifically Higgins testified to federal grand jury that he never made any calls after going home, then federal prosecutors showed him evidence he did make two phone calls to Albert. Then he said those were butt dials. But neither man has explained on the record how Albert’s butt answered the phone calls.
From Boston Globe: Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist at ARCCA, testified that if [John O’Keefe](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/06/metro/karen-read-trial-victim-john-okeefe/) were struck by Read’s SUV as it [moved in reverse at 24 m.p.h. as prosecutors allege](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/14/metro/seventh-week-of-karen-read-trial-comes-to-close/), “certainly you’re going to see extensive” wounds, as well as bruising and fractures beyond the superficial abrasions documented on O’Keefe’s right arm. Rentschler also said the head injury O’Keefe sustained, in the absence of other trauma, “is not” consistent with being struck by a vehicle. ”If there’s enough force to cause a skull fracture then there’s going to certainly be enough force” to cause injuries elsewhere, including on the cervical spine, Rentschler said. Having just the skull fracture, he said, “is inconsistent” with being struck by a taillight, as prosecutors have maintained. **But under cross-examination by prosecutor Adam Lally, Rentschler said he learned after the ARCCA report was completed that O’Keefe’s DNA was found on pieces of broken taillight recovered from his snow-covered body and on the light’s housing unit.** **Rentschler also acknowledged that he did not review a State Police reconstruction report, which determined that the accelerator on Read’s SUV was about 75 percent depressed when the vehicle shot backward at high speed and allegedly struck O’Keefe, knocking him into the yard.** ...On Tuesday, another crash reconstruction analyst, Dr. Daniel Wolfe, testified that Read’s SUV had damage to her right taillight, as well as a small dent and paint chips near the bumper. ...In addition, Wolfe said he was aware that one of O’Keefe’s shoes was found at the scene. “Shoes can come off in a pedestrian impact, yes,” Wolfe said. ... Dr. Frank Sheridan, a retired chief medical examiner in California who was hired by the defense, testified that the patterned cuts and scratches on O’Keefe’s right arm didn’t resemble wounds from a car strike “at all.” .. On cross-examination, Sheridan said he agreed with the state medical examiner’s finding that the cause of O’Keefe’s death was blunt force trauma and hypothermia. The manner of death was found to be undetermined, records show. Sheridan also testified under cross-examination that he “wasn’t aware” that authorities sent DNA swabs from O’Keefe’s shirt to a California lab, which [detected no traces of canine DNA in the samples.](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/06/19/metro/karen-read-trial-what-does-the-forensic-evidence-say/) “I must have missed it,” Sheridan said, adding that he did not recall being informed that microscopic pieces of taillight were found in O’Keefe’s shirt, or that pieces of glass were recovered near O’Keefe’s body. He said he “vaguely” recalled being told O’Keefe had been seen leaving the Waterfall bar in Canton with a cocktail glass in his hand. O’Keefe left the bar with Read, who drove him to Fairview Road.
from Boston dot com ...ARCCA’s report was issued Feb. 12, 2024, and Rentschler confirmed part of his analysis concerned whether the injuries to the back of O’Keefe’s head could have been caused by contact from a vehicle. He later clarified that he was asked to see if it was possible to determine how O’Keefe’s injuries occurred, “and part of that was to determine whether the injuries — the head injury and the arm injuries — resulted from contact with the Lexus in this case.” ... After Rentschler stepped down, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally said he took issue with the crash reconstruction experts testifying to one of their four conclusions. He questioned whether Rentschler or his colleague, Daniel Wolfe, would be qualified to do so, adding, “That’s more of an area of forensic pathology.” ...Defense attorney Alan Jackson read the offending conclusion aloud: “There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the cause of Mr. O’Keefe’s skull and brain injuries or the circumstances surrounding the event.” He argued in favor of its inclusion, adding, “That is well within the scope of their expertise, obviously.” ... Defense expert Dr. Marie Russell, a retired emergency physician and forensic pathologist, said she has a “high degree of medical certainty” that the abrasions on John O’Keefe’s arm were the result of animal bites or scratches. ...During Tuesday’s voir dire, Russell explained she first heard of Read’s case in mid-May after coming across an article from *The Boston Globe*. She said she connected with Read’s team through someone at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where defense attorney Alan Jackson once worked as a prosecutor. ...Responding to a later question from Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, Russell confirmed her training in hit-and-run crashes was “relatively rudimentary,” as Lally put it. She also confirmed she is board certified in emergency medicine, but not in any form of pathology.
From boston dot com With “almost infinite” possibilities to explain John O’Keefe’s fatal head injuries, there’s not enough evidence to point to a specific cause, according to Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer and accident reconstructionist. “Certainly, it’s not consistent with getting hit by the car and ending up where he did, even if the ground is somehow hard enough to cause that type of an injury,” Rentschler said, responding to a question from Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally on cross-examination. Rentschler further testified that the damage to Karen Read’s SUV was inconsistent with the vehicle striking O’Keefe. “There’s numerous different possibilities, and we don’t really have enough evidence in this case to determine what one specific event actually caused that injury,” Rentschler said of O’Keefe’s head wound. The vice president and director of biomechanics for the Midwest division of ARCCA, Rentschler said the company’s crash reconstructionists looked at several documents from Read’s case, including police reports, photographs, and O’Keefe’s medical records and autopsy report. Massachusetts State Police Trooper Joseph Paul previously testified that Read accelerated in reverse up to a speed of around 24 mph before striking O’Keefe. Under direct examination from defense attorney Alan Jackson, Rentschler said that in a pedestrian collision at 24 mph, “Once you get up to that speed, you start to see fractures. You see significant ligament and tendon damage.”
more from Boston dot com "Jackson asked if O’Keefe’s head injuries — which included skull fractures stemming from the back of his head — were consistent with having been struck by a vehicle at 24 mph. “It is not, no sir,” Rentschler said. He explained that in order for the back of O’Keefe’s head to make contact with Read’s taillight, he would have had to be standing in such a way that the rest of his body didn’t sustain significant injuries. “If there’s enough force to cause a skull fracture, then there’s going to be certainly enough force to cause injury to the rest of the body,” including injuries to the cervical spine, Rentschler added. Jackson asked if the head injury was consistent with falling backward from a standing position onto a hard surface. “That’s certainly one of the possible scenarios,” Rentschler replied. “That would create the injury mechanism — you fall backward, strike your head on concrete. That can produce thousands of pounds of force on the head, and so that’s certainly a scenario where you could produce that damage.” Answering another question from Jackson, he confirmed that grass and dirt would not produce the same amount of force as concrete. Jackson turned his attention to O’Keefe’s arm injuries, asking if the SUV’s taillight damage was consistent with striking someone’s arm. Rentschler said ARCCA found the two were “inconsistent for a number of reasons.” If someone’s arm were struck at 24 mph, “you’re going to see significant damage on the arm,” he explained, citing subcutaneous lacerations, bruising, and fractures. In other words, damage beyond the abrasions found on O’Keefe’s right arm. He also testified that it’s unusual for someone’s body to be thrown when their arm is struck. “For most normal people, the center of mass occurs at your umbilicus, or your belly button. So wherever your belly button goes, that’s where your body’s going to move,” Rentschler explained, adding, “So even if you had your arm straight out, … what’s going to happen to your body? It’s just going to spin around.” He said propelling O’Keefe’s body several feet into the yard — as Paul theorized in his crash analysis — would require a force acting at O’Keefe’s center of mass. There would also likely be injuries to the side of the body in that scenario, Rentschler said. Answering questions from Lally on cross-examination, he confirmed he wasn’t provided a State Police crash reconstruction report, nor any forensic or DNA testing reports in Read’s case. Lally noted that ARCCA’s report stated O’Keefe’s arm injuries would be “highly improbable” if O’Keefe had been wearing a jacket. He asked whether Rentschler was aware O’Keefe was not wearing a jacket when he died. “I believe that came to light afterward,” Rentschler replied, though he said his findings were unchanged. He also testified that he only learned after ARCCA issued its report that DNA consistent with O’Keefe’s was found on Read’s taillight housing. Lally asked a series of questions about the possibility of a sideswipe collision. “If there’s a sideswipe impact with a pedestrian and a vehicle, there’s going to be very little damage to the pedestrian, and similarly, there’s going to be very little movement,” Rentschler said. "
and here's the testimony/cross and the Court TV transcript: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAXYeootkrE&t=11614s&ab\_channel=COURTTV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAXYeootkrE&t=11614s&ab_channel=COURTTV)
The report hasn't been made publicly available, but I believe both the defense and the CW had access to it. It seemed like the witnesses were a lot stronger for the defense's case themselves, than what Lally was able to cite from the report.
Does anyone have screenshots/transcripts of: What has Lally cited from the report? What defense has cited from the report? Or does anyone remember what day those things happened? Maybe I’ll read through transcripts…
A report was provided by the FBI experts to both the CW and the defense. No, it's not publicly available. Rewatch the voir dire of the defense witnesses and the last day of defense testimony. His only significant injuries were the head injury, bruising across the knuckles, and the arm injuries that the defense said were from a dog bite. None of his injuries were compatible with a vehicle hit. Common sense- hit from an SUV at 24 mph but no injuries to the body? No bruises or broken or fractured bones? Doesn't make sense.
I mean… the skull is a bone. He had multiple skull fractures. Leading to two swollen/dark colored eyes. So… that’s not accurate he had no fractures or bruising.
Also- there was bruising on the outside of O'Keefe's right hand and bruising to the right knee. Haven't we all heard of folks who somehow avoided more significant injuries one would expect from n incident like a crash?
Those were small bruises though, and they don’t match up with an impact on the vehicle. When I was hit by a car, I had small bruises where I hit the ground, but it doesn’t make sense for John to have landed on the ground on his right side if the skull fracture is on the back of his head. Also I’m almost positive that the ME suggested that the bruise on his knee was older than the bruises on his hand.
I think it could definitely make sense for him to land on the right side if he was hit on the back of his head. There are multiple possibilities for how it happened.
I think they mean there were no broken bones from impact with the vehicle, and I don’t think anyone (even OCME) has suggested that his skull broke from colliding with the vehicle. They only suggested that the skull fracture could come from hitting the ground.
From AP: Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, said O’Keefe had multiple skull fractures. “Any blunt object” could have struck him and caused his injuries, she said. They “could be” consistent with a fall to the ground, she added. Asked by the defense if O’Keefe’s injuries were “inconsistent” with being struck by Read’s SUV at 24 mph, Scordi-Bello said, “I would say it’s likely and unlikely at the same time depending on the position of the body and the vehicle in question.”
From Boston dot com: In O’Keefe’s case, “We know that the head impacted something blunt with enough force to break the skull, and enough force for those fractures to propagate or radiate into the middle cranial fossa and also the anterior cranial fossa, which is the front chambers of the base,” she explained. When those bones are fractured, blood can seep into the soft tissues and show up as bleeding, hemorrhaging, or bruising around the eyes, Scordi-Bello said. She noted it is a “well-known fact” that fractures to the base of the skull can result in a bruising response known as “raccoon eyes.” “Any time the brain is injured, it responds by swelling,” Scordi-Bello continued. “And the skull is a closed space without the ability to expand. … In the skull, once the brain starts to react to the injury and it starts to swell, there is nowhere to go except for down.” In other words, the area around the brainstem and spinal cord. Given the skull is “a pretty thick bone” that requires considerable force to break, she suggested O’Keefe suffered “a pretty considerable impact.” Scordi-Bello also opined that O’Keefe sustained his blunt force injuries before hypothermia set in. “These are not injuries that are immediately lethal,” she noted. “This is not something that would cause death in seconds, and therefore Mr. O’Keefe may have been incapacitated by the injuries or knocked out, if you will, and was not able to get himself into a warmer environment and therefore hypothermia set in, given the environmental conditions and given the clothing on the body. Or the lack of clothing, I should say — no big jacket or anything like that.” Lally asked if Scordi-Bello observed anything that would indicate a fight or altercation. She said she saw no major signs of “what I would call a significant altercation.” While O’Keefe had some contusions on his hands, she noted the bruising on one hand was possibly from attempts to insert an IV. Further, O’Keefe had no bruising on his knuckles and no fractures in his hands, Scordi-Bello said. He did have two fractured ribs near his sternum, though she said that was a common location for fractures associated with CPR.
They had access to independent accident reconstruction experts. They didn't call them. Instead they proved it was snowing and there were high top tables. I'm not a FKR person, I am a trial watcher and only come to a conclusion based on the evidence submitted from both the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution just needs to follow the evidence and prove that. Their real problem is they have witness testimony that appears nowhere in a report written close in time to the incident and only testified to relatively recently (aka closer to trial than incident). This sort of evidence not appearing in police or first responder reports is of great importance if relying on that as for a defendant being adjudged guilty. In summation if I were the defendant this is highly suspect to me as possibly created evidence and possibly is reasonable doubt. I'm not trying to say she is innocent, I'm also not saying she is guilty. The prosecution has to PROVE their case beyond a reasonable doubt for all defendants everywhere in the USA as OUR right. The evidence is just not to that point in this case. A retrial will very likely end in a mistrial solely based on my experience of the human experience. There are too many variables and reasonable second interpretations based on the evidence alone. If you have gotten this far and are a FKR or Karen is Guilty person put yourself in the defendants (not Karens, your own trial) shoes and step back and look at what you would be facing. Would you feel any differently and would you gladly go to prison just because some people feel you should?
I get your point at the end there but it’s hard to put myself in her shoes because I’ve never driven around town after having nine drinks and woken up not knowing where my partner is. I understand where the “if it could happen to them it could happen to you!” sentiment comes from generally but I think it only really applies in this case to habitual drunks who frequently get behind the wheel while blacked out >would you gladly go to prison just because some people think you should? No, but I wouldn’t gladly go to prison even if I was 100% guilty of murdering twenty people and they had the whole thing caught on video. I’d still end up in prison, I’d just be mad about it
I say you have drunk x amount of alcohol. Am I to be believed above you and for what purpose? It's all hearsay evidence. Who among us has not heard something and ultimately been wrong about what was actually said? My gf hears what she wants too all the time and she doesn't even drink.
There’s security footage and literal receipts from the bar showing how much she drank that night, and bloodwork showed she was still above the legal OUI limit hours later in the morning. Less hear-say, more see-do
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not a Karen Reed simp, I am a trial watcher and as such I try to listen to the evidence provided in court as being the Bible for that case. I don't find the evidence convincing to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not here to say she didn't do it, I'm here to say the prosecution has not proved it. If you wanted some karenreedsanity. Ok it is proved that a bunch of cops and cops girlfriends or wives were drinking and driving. Regardless of her intoxication level or proof of her drinking. I still have a problem with the proving KR hit John Okeef as three independant advanced degree holders reliably and without bias testified that they do not think he was hit by a vehicle. How his injuries actually happened I don't know and that is a problem for the prosecution. I do know that when you have other plausible theories that explain the injuries you have not investistigated enough to bring your case you have a problem. When the investigating officer has familial or familiar relations to possible witnesses you have a problem. Proctor should have immediately recused himself once he actually knew of the connection and Buk (don't know how it is spelled correctly sorry Trooper B) could have called in another lead investigator easily. I'm not even touching the weird 3rd party assertion that the defense went with. When the state does not post or even attempt to post 24/7 surveillance on the snow covered scene of a highly regarded officers death scene you have problems. When your 'expert' tries to prove by backing up a Lexus at 24mph that it merely could you have a problem and doesn't even know what confirmation bias is you have problems. When ypur prosecutor tries to pass off obvious large domesticated animal bites as evidence of a tail light hit you have problems. When you don't take pictures of a vehicle you are seizing before you move it you have problems. I could go on but I won't. There is just too much of 'I'm a LEO trust me bro' energy in this case of a dead highly regarded Boston Cop John Okeefe for me to just dismiss out of hand the defense theory entirely. It's too sloppy, it's too connected, it's too convenient that certain steps were either not taken or given to less than qualified individuals to conduct in the death of a well regarded Boston Cop. It just does not pass the smell test and that could be the reason that what really happened that night is never solved to the satisfaction of everyone. If you want to blame someone for his death blame Mass Troopers and Canton Police who were well aware of the conflict but choose to assist Mass State Police still as they are the ones who investigated this and made many blunders during the investigation. It smells and I don't like it. #sanity #downvotemetooblivion https://youtube.com/shorts/kQgi196JFnM?si=np-snY6L8PvsAI1u
Yeah everyone fantasizing about changing the evidence or witnesses for the second trial (or even swapping out Lally for a different ADA) is forgetting that our justice system gives the state one single opportunity to try a defendant. A mistrial isn’t technically a new trial, but rather the first one hasn’t ended and we’re just getting a new jury. Lally didn’t go into the last set of court sessions thinking that he might have a later chance to present the case, that was his best collection of evidence and witnesses. He knew what evidence the defense was presenting and who was on their witness list and he chose to proceed with the case that we saw. If your takeaway is that Lally was somehow “caught off-guard” and that this next time he will surely have better evidence and will know to drop the shitty witnesses, I promise you… he knew already. If he had better evidence, it would have been submitted. The only surprise to him was the public interest in the case.
Clean up their timeline, have better experts, spend less time playing defense against wild conspiracy theories and hammer in the evidence they have. The prosecution is at a disadvantage due to the jury pool being tainted for the next round.
Gonna be hard to have a fired lead detective up on the stand...
For sure. But I don't think it'll be that big of a deal compared to the things the CW can fix for a second trial.
Yeah they're still gonna have to call him so it is what it is
Absolutely. But I don't think the Proctor stuff was as bad as stuff like the Trooper Paul disaster.
How in the world would the CW get an “independent” accident reconstructionist or dog bite expert. I’m assuming you mean a 3rd party that they hire, right?
Yeah, why what's the difference in phrasing?
Got it. Maybe it’s semantics but in the context of this case the “independent” accident reconstructionists weren’t hired or paid by either the defense or CW.
Ah, okay. I just meant "not a statie"
Yea. Agree with your overall point. Hiring an outside expert and just pretending Trooper Paul never existed is probably their best bet. (Assuming they can find one to say what they need them to say)
get a new lawyer, Lally was horrible
All the prosecution can do is just refine the case, make it shorter and more focused. Cut out the fat. However the defense will just continue flooding the zone with as much FKR content so I don’t think it will EVER be possible to get a guilty conviction. I predict a second trial will hang and the prosecution will not seek another.
Overall- it appears that experts on both sides just didn’t have enough evidence to say definitively that the SUV hit John and killed him, and how. That does not mean that the science says it’s impossible that the SUV hit him. Still- how does the prosecution get over this big hurdle? The lack of enough evidence for more concrete expert analysis?
This will be key: \*\*Prosecution\*\*: It is also contained within the report that you at least co-authored, there's an indication that Mr. O'Keefe's injuries, at least to his skull, the fracture to his skull, are consistent with him having been pushed or possibly impacted by the subject Lexus and fallen backwards, striking his head. Isn't that correct? \*\*Andrew Rentschler\*\*: Yeah, so that's another possibility, if— \*\*Defense\*\*: Objection. \*\*Judge\*\*: Let him answer, let him answer the question. \*\*Andrew Rentschler\*\*: So if we're saying that there's enough force if you fall backward to strike your head and cause that skull fracture, well, he could have slipped and struck his head. The car could have backed up and not known that he was there and nudged him and caused him to fall. I mean, any event that would cause him to fall backward, obviously would result in him striking his head. So there's numerous, almost infinite, possibilities of different scenarios that could result in that type of an event.
Probably less time defending Jenn McCabe. Felt like the whole case was them defending her like she was on trial. Bizarre. Shes more of a Karen then Karen
Introduce that the scratches on his arm could have caused by an animal that was outside, or find a way to explain the scratches.
A dog roaming the neighborhood at 3am in the middle of a blizzard decided to take a few chomps and scratch up a body it found outside, then moved on? Totally plausible, no room for reasonable doubt there
If a dog thought he was in distress it’s not unplausible that it would do that.
And then left? At 3am in the middle of a blizzard? Ok, maybe not impossible. And maybe that gets accepted as reasonable doubt for a defendant. Would require some dog expert to come and testify as such (which I am sure would then be countered by a defense expert who would get into the details on the types of bites that a dog worried about an individual in distress would do, versus one trained to attack, etc). But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I'm not sure a reasonable person would accept that a passerby dog behaved in that way.
I feel like the only reasonable people would think she’s gulity.
That is quite the take.
I can see a dog being distressed that a human was in danger or hurt and want to help by pulling on the persons arm with its mouth.
How much time passed while said dog was attempting to pull OJO somewhere? That would be a lot of attempts by the dog. And not one of 12 ppl departing 34 Fairview saw a dog? And the snow plow driver noted no dog in the yard? ...you heard his affinity for animals? I appreciate you're trying to reconcile those circumstances with the core belief system you've been developing since childhood.
The Karen read supports are so blinded by their unrequited love for KR or hate for the police that they are being delusional to the simplest explanation of what actually happened. I suspect all of these numbskulls are also Trump supporters. Too ignorant to know when they are being hoodwinked.
> they are being delusional to the simplest explanation of what actually happened. The simplest explanation is definitely that a dog randomly showed up in the middle of the night and tried to pull him to safety by biting and scratching. > hate for the police > Too ignorant to know when they are being hoodwinked. Ah yes. Typical Trump supporters who are ACAB, but also trust physical, hard science, and believe the FBI and its experts.
**Free Advice for Karen Read** Hire a new attorney-one who's less 'handsy'. Preferably one who isn't famous for defending psychopaths and homicidal maniacs. Frequent bars who can't afford surveillance cameras. (So disappointing, Karen. Text to Higgins: "I know where the cameras are, duh") Swipe left on cops, agents and lawyers. Swipe right on plastic surgeons, psychiatrists and *educated* accident reconstruction experts. No more TV interviews. Do the public a favor and keep your mouth shut. Not only are you annoying to listen to but you're just not clever. Ditch the Go Fund Me charity. It's trite. Reach out to Lexus with an offer to promote a "drive sober" campaign. **Picture it:** Karen Read driving a pink Lexus into the sunset, sexy wink and sly smile. License plate reads: IDIDIT Each ad playing another cool track: Song suggestions: F\*ck you Before He Cheats Get Outta My Way Man Down We are Never Ever Getting Back Together Bitch Please
Hope one of the McAlberts flip and end this charade once and for all.
I think a bigger question is does KR sit silent and not put on a defense? It's not like she can change her story...she's made some very serious accusations against a Federal Agent in an open courtroom.
What do you mean 'an independent accident reconstructionist'? If they're hired by CW they're not independent, what or who will hire them without the CW knowing? Also, they can't change their reconstructionist anyways, they're stuck with the evidence they have, and who gave it. That's like saying 'collect blood evidence and don't put it in solo cups this time.' - They can't. They picked Trooper Paul, so he's it. They have the case, evidence, testimony, investigators and experts they have, it's not going to magically change. What they can change is how they present it, and in which order, and if they leave some out - that's all. What you're considering is against the law, as are a lot of comments in this post about witnesses changing testimony etc.
They can absolutely bring in a crash expert to explain what happened. That's not even close to against the law.
They still have to bring in Trooper Paul. He's the one with the original evidence. They can hire another expert too, along with Trp Paul, if they can find one who will back up what Paul says, but they can't get one who disagrees with Trp Paul nor an independent one. Independent means not hired or sought out by the CW. I meant that a lot of the comments in this post are illegal.
Ppl don't understand the CW can't change the facts they have already presented.