MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #10

[arielilane]

@BienickWCVB

Guarino says they also found a Waze search on O'Keefe's phone for 34 Fairview Road, says it shows phone arrived at the address at 12:24am and stayed within a 3-feet area for the entire night.


10:05 AM · Jun 20, 2024

 

[Derph]

So IF she hit him why on Earth would she purposely call him and leave such angry, hateful messages leaving a perfect trail of breadcrumbs right to her door so to speak? You would have to be a complete idiot to do something like that on purpose!! You might as well leave a message saying " I'm going to kill you", then call the cops and tell them that you said you were going to kill him and then go down to the police station to turn yourself in to the front desk!

IF she hit him wouldn't it make sense that she would leave more kind and loving messages to cover-up any anger so as to deflect any suspicion AWAY from herself?

Also why would she call JO if he was standing right outside the car at 12:37??? Who calls someone standing 3 ft away??

 

[Curiousobserver]

Well I don't want to be rude, especially as there seems to be a tendency for dogpiling in this thread whenever someone expresses a "Karen is guilty" opinion and you're being very respectful. I'll just take your word for it that you will listen to the defense experts and balance their evidence's credibility with that of trooper Paul and the CW's two medical examiners which we should hopefully hear from tomorrow.

I am a professional scientist, I don't take robust debate over the evidence as rude. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, please use sarcasm and humor, I enjoy it.

If the defense does not engage in a vigorous rebuttal I will be disappointed, and I would be thrilled (but surprised) if they proved misconduct, if that is what happened, and even better, if that resulted in a bad cop loosing his job and reputation.

I do not think that is what happened here.

The basic elements of the criminal statute the CW needs to show is pretty simple and all of the evidence presented supports those charges; if I were a juror. They need to show: She was drunk at the time, she was operating her car drunk, it might not have been completely an accident because they were fighting, she hit this man, he died as a result, she left the scene. 6 things.

The defense has artfully used the "muddy the water strategy" to make a simple case look very complex. It's very common and very difficult to defeat if there are a lot of issues they can bring up. The more complexity they inject, the easier it is for the jury to find reasonable doubt. I can relate to their basic story and it is entirely possible, but I am trained to ignore that stuff and focus on the actual "measurements". It doesn't matter who didn't like who, who kissed who, it doesn't matter that Proctor is a jerk who sent stupid texts, it doesn't matter that the Alberts know so and so and they know somebody else, it doesn't matter if they have a dog and it was a mean kind of dog they had to get rid of, it doesn't matter that they sold their house, and it doesn't matter if they all called each other that night 90 times and did talk about this case.

It only matters if one of those things makes "she hit this man and he died as a result" not true, or not the most reasonable explanation.

I will tell you that I weigh expert's opinions, defense or prosecution, at zero value. There is a huge body of literature that basically tells you expert witness testimony in court is worthless and that they will tell you whatever you are paying them to tell you. That includes scientific experts, medical experts, ME's, crash reconstructionists, and my own opinion as well. I will be focusing on measurable, empirical, provable, testable evidence.

 

[arielilane]

@TedDanielnews

Trooper Guarino says JO's Apple health data shows him ascending/descending 3 flights of stairs between 12:21a and 12:34am but then he says that doesn't actually mean he's going up or down stairs. This is from a previous filing from Guarino

 

[arielilane]

@BienickWCVB

Guarino says the geo-location precision depends on the cell phone signal strength. Says the signal at 34 Fairview Rd is "not great."

Guarino says he and Proctor went to scene on Feb 8 and took measurements, including distance between where O'Keefe was found and the house.

 

[Trailbum74]

So, he just said you could wave the phone around and get false movement actions?

Funnily enough, back when the 10,000 steps a day craze was peak, I accidentally discovered I could “cheat” the step count by just moving my arms as I would while walking while holding my phone in my hand.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

"The evidence says this but just ignore it because I said you don't need to worry about it being accurate"

 

[jepop]

I don't see the point of Lally playing these voice mails other than to try and get the jury to vote guilty based on the emotions invoked rather than evidence and logic. She's already left the scene. Lally's a fool. All the voice mails have proven is 1. no consciousness of guilt in KR (she obviously does not think she hit him and there's no mention of hitting him) and 2. she was at JO's at 12.36am which means credibility issues for other cw witnesses and even the supposed timing of when KR is meant to have struck him. Moo

 

[arielilane]

@SueNBCBoston

Explains GPS can be weak based on many factors.
Degree of accuracy is that you’re in a “bubble”
He went to Fairview in 2023 to map.


Testified that there was no speed recorded between 12:25-6:15.


All jurors are paying attention, many taking notes.

 

[mzmarymac]

Funnily enough, back when the 10,000 steps a day craze was peak, I accidentally discovered I could “cheat” the step count by just moving my arms as I would while walking while holding my phone in my hand.

I once had insurance that gave me a discount if I got a certain amount of steps/activity/heart rate etc...and I used to tease that I was going to put my fitbit on my kids for the day and my numbers would look incredible!

 

[Wishbone]

I am a professional scientist, I don't take robust debate over the evidence as rude. Don't worry about hurting my feelings, please use sarcasm and humor, I enjoy it.

If the defense does not engage in a vigorous rebuttal I will be disappointed, and I would be thrilled (but surprised) if they proved misconduct, if that is what happened, and even better, if that resulted in a bad cop loosing his job and reputation.

I do not think that is what happened here.

The basic elements of the criminal statute the CW needs to show is pretty simple and all of the evidence presented supports those charges; if I were a juror. They need to show: She was drunk at the time, she was operating her car drunk, it might not have been completely an accident because they were fighting, she hit this man, he died as a result, she left the scene. 6 things.

The defense has artfully used the "muddy the water strategy" to make a simple case look very complex. It's very common and very difficult to defeat if there are a lot of issues they can bring up. The more complexity they inject, the easier it is for the jury to find reasonable doubt. I can relate to their basic story and it is entirely possible, but I am trained to ignore that stuff and focus on the actual "measurements". It doesn't matter who didn't like who, who kissed who, it doesn't matter that Proctor is a jerk who sent stupid texts, it doesn't matter that the Alberts know so and so and they know somebody else, it doesn't matter if they have a dog and it was a mean kind of dog they had to get rid of, it doesn't matter that they sold their house, and it doesn't matter if they all called each other that night 90 times and did talk about this case.

It only matters if one of those things makes "she hit this man and he died as a result" not true, or not the most reasonable explanation.

I will tell you that I weigh expert's opinions, defense or prosecution, at zero value. There is a huge body of literature that basically tells you expert witness testimony in court is worthless and that they will tell you whatever you are paying them to tell you. That includes scientific experts, medical experts, ME's, crash reconstructionists, and my own opinion as well. I will be focusing on measurable, empirical, provable, testable evidence.

I will tell you that I weigh expert's opinions, defense or prosecution, at zero value. There is a huge body of literature that basically tells you expert witness testimony in court is worthless and that they will tell you whatever you are paying them to tell you. That includes scientific experts,medical experts, ME's, crash reconstructionists, and my own opinion as well. I will be focusing on measurable, empirical, provable,testable evidence.


The FBI paid for the crash experts, their testimony will not be worthless. MOO

 

[arielilane]

@SueNBCBoston

Guarino says he cross referenced the health data & GPS Says the phone passes Fairview at 12:12, reversed direction and came back.


10:16 AM · Jun 20, 2024

 

[arielilane]

@BienickWCVB

Guarino says he was able to map the route O'Keefe's phone took from the Waterfall bar to 34 Fairview Rd. Says they drove on Cedarcrest, went past Fairview Rd and made 3-point turn to come back to the intersection.


10:15 AM · Jun 20, 2024

 

[arielilane]

@SueNBCBoston

The juror on the furthest end of the jury box has been leaning forward during this portion of the testimony. He’s probably straining to hear.

Most have stopped taking constant notes as Lally is trying to establish the accuracy of the data, and that OKeefe’s cell phone did not go in the house.

 

[arielilane]

@TedDanielnews

Trooper Guarino says GPS data shows JO had yet to arrive at 34 Fairview when his health data shows him traveling 3 flights of stairs. This one of several data discrepancies the jury has heard through this trial


10:19 AM · Jun 20, 2024

 

[arielilane]

@SueNBCBoston

We’re cool, but one juror is holding her water bottle against her neck.


10:21 AM · Jun 20, 2024

 

[mzmarymac]

Going back to theories of her NOT hitting him and no attack in the home. Could he have walked toward the door. She moved up and was texting/waiting. He sees one of her texts and decides, nah...I'm just going to go home. Walks back to the car and before he gets to it, slips and falls, bruising his arm and whacking his head on the curb and no one saw it, including KR?

 

[thebedbug]

Funnily enough, back when the 10,000 steps a day craze was peak, I accidentally discovered I could “cheat” the step count by just moving my arms as I would while walking while holding my phone in my hand.

I once had insurance that gave me a discount if I got a certain amount of steps/activity/heart rate etc...and I used to tease that I was going to put my fitbit on my kids for the day and my numbers would look incredible!

OT: the stories I could tell you about this... when rewards are involved, people have/had no shame. (my job).

 

[arielilane]

@BienickWCVB

Guarino says they determined where the phone was located at 12:25am within an area of three feet, says that area is 72 feet from the front door of the house.

Guarino says because of the variable cell signal strength, the geo-location of O'Keefe's phone does encompass the house for 3 seconds but says that's too brief to be physically possible.

 

[jepop]

I will tell you that I weigh expert's opinions, defense or prosecution, at zero value. There is a huge body of literature that basically tells you expert witness testimony in court is worthless and that they will tell you whatever you are paying them to tell you. That includes scientific experts,medical experts, ME's, crash reconstructionists, and my own opinion as well. I will be focusing on measurable, empirical, provable,testable evidence.


The FBI paid for the crash experts, their testimony will not be worthless. MOO

Regarding your first paragraph, how sad that it has come to this. The most important job of the jury would have to be assessing the personal integrity and credibility of experts (ie not just their erudition on paper) and I guess the cross examination of either side is what helps them in that task. Moo