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

[ch_13]

This is also not professional and minus for Yanotti.
We have people with accents, with articulation problems, with stuttering. The defence is "reasonable doubt"-based, not reducing to personal attacks.

So that wasn't Yannetti (who's a Boston-local and would have understood the witness). It was the Californian, Alan Jackson.

And I just don't see the exchange the same way that you do. I don't think he was being unprofessional or making a personal attack on the witness.

Jackson couldn't understand the witness's pronunciation of "furrows" and asked for clarification. Afterwards, he apologized and said "I'm on your turf". The whole courtroom was laughing and the witness then referenced My Cousin Vinny.

If anything it was a lighthearted moment in what's looking to be a very tense trial.

 

[ch_13]

Merits of the case aside, the prosecution is getting badly out-lawyered by the defense, IMO.

As previously discussed, there was a huge gulf in the quality of the opening statements of Lally and Yannetti yesterday. And to me, Lally's questioning of the witnesses is so ploddingly slow and he keeps wasting time with irrelevancies and going over the same ground. It's got to be annoying the jury.

But what struck me today are the missed opportunities. Alan Jackson gets the EMT to admit that JO's injuries are consistent with a physical fight. On re-cross, why doesn't Lally ask if the injuries are consistent with being hit by a car? He doesn't. Instead he gets the EMT to reply that the wounds are also consistent with being hit by a golf ball! Unless they found a 9-iron in Karen's SUV, I don't see how that helps the prosecution.

 

[bobbymkii]

Merits of the case aside, the prosecution is getting badly out-lawyered by the defense, IMO.

As previously discussed, there was a huge gulf in the quality of the opening statements of Lally and Yannetti yesterday. And to me, Lally's questioning of the witnesses is so ploddingly slow and he keeps wasting time with irrelevancies and going over the same ground. It's got to be annoying the jury.

But what struck me today are the missed opportunities. Alan Jackson gets the EMT to admit that JO's injuries are consistent with a physical fight. On re-cross, why doesn't Lally ask if the injuries are consistent with being hit by a car? He doesn't. Instead he gets the EMT to reply that the wounds are also consistent with being hit by a golf ball! Unless they found a 9-iron in Karen's SUV, I don't see how that helps the prosecution.

I agree with everything you've just said.

I just can't get over how low energy the commonwealth's strategy has been so far. I fall asleep every time Lally opens his mouth!

I'm wondering if they're hoping that the entire "FKR" movement just outdoes itself. They're very loud. They have supporters outside court shouting and raising placards every day. The defense attorneys are clearly rubbing the judge the wrong way and the commonwealth are just trying to win through objections and sidebars.

But we're two days into the trial by now, I would have expected to at least see something solid to suggest that Officer O'Keefe died from being hit by Karen Read's car by now.

 

[rrsafety]

This is also not professional and minus for Yanotti.
We have people with accents, with articulation problems, with stuttering. The defence is "reasonable doubt"-based, not reducing to personal attacks.

Disagree. It was a light-hearted moment. You are reading this entirely wrong.

 

[Weki]

Merits of the case aside, the prosecution is getting badly out-lawyered by the defense, IMO.

As previously discussed, there was a huge gulf in the quality of the opening statements of Lally and Yannetti yesterday. And to me, Lally's questioning of the witnesses is so ploddingly slow and he keeps wasting time with irrelevancies and going over the same ground. It's got to be annoying the jury.

But what struck me today are the missed opportunities. Alan Jackson gets the EMT to admit that JO's injuries are consistent with a physical fight. On re-cross, why doesn't Lally ask if the injuries are consistent with being hit by a car? He doesn't. Instead he gets the EMT to reply that the wounds are also consistent with being hit by a golf ball! Unless they found a 9-iron in Karen's SUV, I don't see how that helps the prosecution.

When he brought the victim's SIL right after the brother and asked her the same questions I was like.....whaaaaa....seriously Lally?? "What is your defintion of a long term relationshio?" "How many relationships did John have around this time?" We.JUST.went.over.this.with.the.brother!!

Anyway, I agree. Now I know why this trial is going to take 6-8 weeks. This trial should take 2 weeks max. It's absurd how inefficent these high profile cases have been lately. Seeing a lot of bad lawyering on both sides in many cases too. IMO the defense's frame-up theory strains credulity so they will lose credibility with the jury over time if it hasn't happened already. The defense in this case should've just been she didn't do it. Period! The prosecution can win this case if they can firmly establish motive but I'm not sure Lally is up to the task so far. We'll see how things progress.

JMO, of course.

 

[LvsAMystry]

Merits of the case aside, the prosecution is getting badly out-lawyered by the defense, IMO.

As previously discussed, there was a huge gulf in the quality of the opening statements of Lally and Yannetti yesterday. And to me, Lally's questioning of the witnesses is so ploddingly slow and he keeps wasting time with irrelevancies and going over the same ground. It's got to be annoying the jury.

But what struck me today are the missed opportunities. Alan Jackson gets the EMT to admit that JO's injuries are consistent with a physical fight. On re-cross, why doesn't Lally ask if the injuries are consistent with being hit by a car? He doesn't. Instead he gets the EMT to reply that the wounds are also consistent with being hit by a golf ball! Unless they found a 9-iron in Karen's SUV, I don't see how that helps the prosecution.

Thank you for saying this! I was trying to watch every moment but sometimes the pesky needs of my employment interrupt me and I was trying to figure why goof ball injuries came into the mix

 

[twall]

I must have missed it, what personal attack? Everyone was laughing because he did not understand the Boston accent.

I could not understand what he was trying to say and I am from NE IN and laughed along when it was explained and the "My Cousin Vinny" comment. It happens! No ill will intended on anyone's part jmo.

Also, I am surprised the Lexus SUV KR was driving does not have a safety feature so you cannot back into anything. I drive a 2018 low end model Jeep Grand Cherokee (Laredo) and you cannot back into anything. It has sensors and will beep then stop when you are too close.

 

[sunspun]

Shouldn't they be able to look at the vehicle that KR may have hit as she backed out of her own parking space that morning, to see if it shows any damage from being hit, even lightly? Defense claims that was how her taillight got broken, not from hitting JO. That seems easy to prove or debunk.

 

[browneyes]

I could not understand what he was trying to say and I am from NE IN and laughed along when it was explained and the "My Cousin Vinny" comment. It happens! No ill will intended on anyone's part jmo.

Also, I am surprised the Lexus SUV KR was driving does not have a safety feature so you cannot back into anything. I drive a 2018 low end model Jeep Grand Cherokee (Laredo) and you cannot back into anything. It has sensors and will beep then stop when you are too close.

My car has those sensors too. Didn’t stop me from backing into something. By the time I checked my mirror, it was too late.

 

[arielilane]

I could not understand what he was trying to say and I am from NE IN and laughed along when it was explained and the "My Cousin Vinny" comment. It happens! No ill will intended on anyone's part jmo.

Also, I am surprised the Lexus SUV KR was driving does not have a safety feature so you cannot back into anything. I drive a 2018 low end model Jeep Grand Cherokee (Laredo) and you cannot back into anything. It has sensors and will beep then stop when you are too close.

Thank you for bringing this extremely important factor up. Been wondering about her Lexus not having a safety feature/camera, but I wrote it off as she possibly ignored it because of intoxication and/or (both) weather conditions. moo

 

[arielilane]

Karen Read murder trial includes paramedic testifying he heard "I hit him, I hit him"
Updated on: April 30, 2024 / 6:34 PM EDT / CBS Boston




Court video & updates: Canton officers, firefighters testify on day 2 of Karen Read murder trial

April 30, 2024 at 1:52 pm EDT

 

[twall]

My car has those sensors too. Didn’t stop me from backing into something. By the time I checked my mirror, it was too late.

Oops! Yeah, I'm bad about backing into things, glad this vehicle has that feature. My husband didn't believe it when I told him what it did so he got behind it and I backed up (slowly). Then he wanted to see what it did so I stood behind it and he backed up. You don't have to have your foot on the brake, it makes a noise and stops.

 

[ch_13]

Snipping a couple of comments.

IMO the defense's frame-up theory strains credulity so they will lose credibility with the jury over time if it hasn't happened already. The defense in this case should've just been she didn't do it. Period!

I've already said that I'm not 100% on-board with the frame-up theory. However, I think the defense has an issue in that they have an interesting collection of facts that only make sense in context if KR is being framed:

• The lack of taillight shards at the scene until the late afternoon
• The Alberts refusing to come out of their house when JO is discovered, the re-homing of the family dog and selling the long-time family home
• Jen McCabe's google search and her immediate insistence that JO's body wasn't visible that morning
• The various partygoers not seeing JO's body on the lawn as they walked past it

IMO, leaving out a third-party defense would just make the jury scratch their heads in confusion.

The prosecution can win this case if they can firmly establish motive but I'm not sure Lally is up to the task so far.

I thought we'd hear about motive with the testimony of JO's brother and SIL. Based on pre-trial scuttlebutt I was expecting them to say that KR and JO fought like cats and dogs, that she had a hair-trigger and that the family was hoping that JO would come to his senses and break up with her. But they actually said the opposite: the couple fought no more than average and that the family loved Karen. The 'big fight' that KR & JO had the day before was over her spoiling the niece with Dunkin' Donuts. That's not a reason for murder.

Of course, the view from inside a home can be different than the outside, so we'll see what happens when the kids testify. Maybe they'll have a very different perspective on the relationship. But I think Lally has an uphill battle based on the testimony of his own witnesses.

 

[Charlot123]

I must have missed it, what personal attack? Everyone was laughing because he did not understand the Boston accent.

I doubt that it is Bostonian. What with many students arriving in Boston to study, New England accent is not too thick. It might be "some other accent". One wonders if the witness would encounter this word on paper, but never hear it spoken. ("Furrow" is not a formal word, but it might be falling into disuse. I had similar problem with a non-colloquial "mundane". One could choose "u like in mud", or, "u like in Spanish mundi". I think the witness opts for "furrow like in far", but IRL it is "like in fur". He is mistaken, but no one should laugh at him. His own response is hilarious).

 

[Weki]

Snipping a couple of comments.

I've already said that I'm not 100% on-board with the frame-up theory. However, I think the defense has an issue in that they have an interesting collection of facts that only make sense in context if KR is being framed:

• The lack of taillight shards at the scene until the late afternoon
• The Alberts refusing to come out of their house when JO is discovered, the re-homing of the family dog and selling the long-time family home
• Jen McCabe's google search and her immediate insistence that JO's body wasn't visible that morning
• The various partygoers not seeing JO's body on the lawn as they walked past it

IMO, leaving out a third-party defense would just make the jury scratch their heads in confusion.



I thought we'd hear about motive with the testimony of JO's brother and SIL. Based on pre-trial scuttlebutt I was expecting them to say that KR and JO fought like cats and dogs, that she had a hair-trigger and that the family was hoping that JO would come to his senses and break up with her. But they actually said the opposite: the couple fought no more than average and that the family loved Karen. The 'big fight' that KR & JO had the day before was over her spoiling the niece with Dunkin' Donuts. That's not a reason for murder.

Of course, the view from inside a home can be different than the outside, so we'll see what happens when the kids testify. Maybe they'll have a very different perspective on the relationship. But I think Lally has an uphill battle based on the testimony of his own witnesses.

The prosecution got out from the SIL that Karen said he was cheating and they were arguing leading up to his death. The Aruba fight is a big factor in the prosecution’s case. The victim’s niece and nephew and other relatives will testify about this argument. The state of mind of the defendant is key to showing motive. Of course it’s impossible for the state to prove what she was thinking and they’re not required to prove motive but it helps a lot if they can. Especially in a case like this. The prosecution’s theory is she was mad and triggered by him wanting to end the relationship.

IMO the frame-up defense is dead in the water. All these little details defy Occam’s razor. (The paramedic testifying that she said “I hit him” “I hit him” over and over pretty much kills the frame up defense on the 1st day of trial) There will be a lot of useless expert testimony from defense I’m sure. Ugh. They should’ve just went with she didn’t know she hit him or it was an accident. The defense should’ve been “it’s ludicrous to suggest she murdered him.” Beating the murder rap should’ve been the priority.

JMO

 

[Weki]

I doubt that it is Bostonian. What with many students arriving in Boston to study, New England accent is not too thick. It might be "some other accent". One wonders if the witness would encounter this word on paper, but never hear it spoken. ("Furrow" is not a formal word, but it might be falling into disuse. I had similar problem with a non-colloquial "mundane". One could choose "u like in mud", or, "u like in Spanish mundi". I think the witness opts for "furrow like in far", but IRL it is "like in fur". He is mistaken, but no one should laugh at him. His own response is hilarious).

Turning “u” sounds into “a” sounds seems to be a typical Bostonian accent thing though. I wonder how they say “further” do they make it sound more like “farther.” It was a cute moment in the courtroom as the atty scrambled to make sure no one thought he was trying to make the witness sound dumb and the witness finished it off with a “My Cousin Vinny” reference.

 

[mojook]

Are they taking today off? It usually starts at 9, but I don't see anything. Does anyone know the schedule for day 3?

 

[arielilane]

Court is dark today, no trial for today. Court will resume on Thurs., May 2nd.

 

[mojook]

Court is dark today, no trial for today. Court will resume on Thurs., May 2nd.

Thank you! I guess I'll have a distraction free day at work today. I know this is real life and serious, but it's been a while since a trial has got me hooked.

 

[arielilane]

My opinion only, if I owned an animal which had a history of attacking people, and I believe Chloe may have (not saying she attacked JO), I'd find another home as well.

Also, moo, if a fellow officer died in front of my home, I'd sell said property too. I suspect there's a lot of spectators doing a drive-by or perhaps actually going up to said property.

In addition, the flood issue/removable of carpet, is reasonable due to the weather conditions... isn't it common for flooding after severe winter weather conditions? If property isn't built on higher ground, an elevated lot, you're going to have flooding.

Just some thoughts, moo