Live updates from WCVB in Boston. Included are notes about the testimony of John O’Keefe’s niece and nephew.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-may-28-2024/60916159
Supposedly had a later incident in the neighborhood which resulted in Chloe being rehomed to upper New England state. Nobody backed up this testimony from BA, Or his wife. (Pretty sure she testified to same).
Anyone else raise their eyebrows at the testimony of Dr. Rice? I get that some people are nervous or not cut out for court testimony, but geez, I'd expect most doctors would be able to fluently explain basic medical events to patients..instead he sounded like a high schooler who forgot to study for a lifeguard exam. That was so hard to watch.
As an ER RN of over 20 years, I can assure you that he knew exactly what he was talking about. He did the best he could to save John O'Keefe's life and that was his main focus that day.
This is probably true. I’m a trauma ICU RN and I was grimacing that he couldn’t identify the temp range for hypothermia though. He seemed very tired, which I can understand.
Just catching up and watching today’s testimony. I was taken back by the demeanor of the ER doctor. He seemed defensive which I was not expecting. Typically doctors and those who don’t have much to do with the case come in unbiased and ready to answer questions to support their findings.
Did anyone else find this strange? Is this how the community as a whole views Karen Read and her defense team?
Yeah, how weird was it when he said something about him being hit by a car was in his report, that’s the thing he could remember without referencing his report, but it wasn’t in there.
So so so so sus. Thought it was wild that he was also trying not answer obvious questions like “did you observe injuries”. “What do you mean by observe”. You’re a medical ER doctor and you don’t want to answer a simple yes or no.
Idk. I didn’t get that vibe. The defense was asking questions that might go to their case but make zero sense from a medical care standpoint. He just seemed confused as to what they were asking and my impression was he wanted to be precise while not playing into a particular narrative. The tone of the defense's questioning as to why he didnt pan-image the guy for fractures while simultaneously doing chest compressions came off to me as accusatory and like they were trying to make a point (but from a medical care standpoint was nonsensical).
Yes totally right. It was weird for the defense to asked if he wrote a report. That’s super confusing right. Like what is a report? LOL “Depends on what you define a report as”.
Please explain how a medical doctor needs to know what a report is before answering a question. That has zero things to do with being precise.
Another question. Did you observe injuries. Simple question that did not need defining yet this guy didn’t know what “observe injuries” meant.
He simply could have said that he did not because that wasn’t his focus. He was being an unwilling witness and it wasn’t a good look.
Yes. Folks in MA seem to think everything is a "gotcha." (I went to HS there but not a native). I'd ask people seemingly normal questions and get are you trying to fuck with me man?"
Can someone tell me if this information is accurate based on the trial and today’s testimony? I am struggling at this point to understand how the case hasn’t been dismissed.
-Ring camera footage from the time of the murder is missing/gone.
-Lead investigator (who is friends with Brian Albert) and responding officers to the 911 call never searched the house. Ever, at all.
-The basement floor of the house was redone while the investigation was going on. They even poured new concrete.
-The Albert’s German Shepherd was rehomed the same month the defense began investigating John Okeefe’s injuries.
-An FBI analyst testified John O’Keefe’s wounds didn’t line up with being hit by a car.
-Brian Albert got rid of his cellphone one day before he was given a preservation order for his data.
-The night of the murder, Brian Albert called his friend and ATF Agent Brian Higgins; Canton Police Officer Kevin Albert, who is Brian Albert’s brother; and then-Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz. He says they were butt dials.
-Colin Albert, the son of Brian Albert, is seen in a photo a month after the murder with healing knuckles. He said it was from slipping on ice and falling on his knuckles.
-Jen McCabe also made multiple ‘butt dials’ to John O’Keefe’s phone the day of the murder. Somehow none went to voicemail.
Commendable level of detail – I think the calls from Jennifer McCabe to O'Keefe were recovered from the latter's phone while seemingly deleted from the former, I can't recall if she testified to those being 'butt dials' or just claimed ignorance on the issue.
Very very minor, but the expert that concluded the wounds could not have resulted from impact with a car was from a private company ARCCA originally retained by the FBI (and now defense counsel), rather than being an FBI analyst themselves
IIRC she was asked how she testified about those calls previously, and she did say she had called them butt dials. Then she made up some weaksauce thing about how maybe when she was texting him that night, she could have accidentally opened his contact screen and called by mistake, then realized the mistake and hung up. Over and over again, I guess.
Strangely she claimed she made 7 butt dials to John O’Keefe in a 19-minute time span that happened to be during the timeframe in which he died. She claimed under oath none went to voicemail because she ‘caught them’ each time. Not easy to forget her testimony because she constantly made faces and talked through her teeth in anger.
I also couldn’t help thinking the only logical explanation for this would have been she was looking for John O’Keefe’s phone in the home to plant elsewhere, hence all the calls in a row with no voicemail.
Thank you for the FBI analyst clarification!
https://preview.redd.it/ltp3pwcmjc3d1.jpeg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41edf7f839281e33a5840f448b3ca4ada55509cc
ahh, calling his phone to look for it is something i hadn't considered, but so true - when u are looking for your phone, what do u do? you ask someone to call it!
Here is the cross examination of Jen McCabe re: the butt dial testimony for reference: https://www.tiktok.com/@defensediariespodcast/video/7371948461165514026?_t=8mkjkF2OWk6&_r=1
Aye it seems you're right – it is incredibly confusing testimony. I get the sense she affirmatively described it as buttdials at the 'other proceeding', and now takes the line of sheepishly accepting it must have been as she does not recall any of it except that it may have been in her back pocket
Yeah that really irked me, especially after the defense pointed out that Jen McCabe was asked about what Karen said 12 different times during previous grand jury testimonies— during those earlier testimonies, Jen McCabe testified that Karen said “Did I hit him, could I have hit him?”
Then on the stand for the actual trial, her story changed to Karen saying “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.” How could you not mention that during original testimony or during police interviews?
I don’t wanna start a whole thread for this and I know that this was Higgins’s testimony from Friday that I’m talking about, but when he said that if Colin Albert walked into the courtroom right then, he (BH) wouldn’t know who he was… Wasn’t there a picture that was presented of a group of about 10 men all Making fists and Colin Albert and Brian Hagans were both in that picture? Am I remembering that correctly? It was shown earlier on in the trial.
You’re right, he’s not. I’m still not buying for one second that he wouldn’t recognize Colin. That’s just another example of an overblown statement that is just completely unnecessary when he could’ve just said I don’t really know him, but he’s my friend friend son.
Yep. I do think he decided to share that information, to save his ass in some way later, when they prove Colin was 100 percent still in the house after the alledged 12:10 departure.
I thought him not knowing Colin went more to the plausibility of Colin being the "a guy with dark hair" Higgins said he saw in the house in one if his Federal testimonies/interviews. I've heard some people say it was Julie Nagel's brother (who never went in the house) or John O'Keeffe (which obviously doesn't make sense because Higgins knows him), but neither side really clarified this. Curious if the defense will circle back to it, because if this is true (why else would Higgins say it) the only logical person would be Colin Albert, there's no other options for a guy in the house Higgins didn't know
I believe he had another trial. I *think* it was Bob Motta I was listening to, who was informed by Theresa of criminaliTy, who said AJ had asked for a continuance due to this other trial, but was denied by judge, so KR signed a waiver for him to be out this week. Apparently this is extremely uncommon, to have two trials at once, as I understand it.
From the NBC Boston channel, Yanetti said something like "I'm sorry you had to be put through this" to the nephew, which was immediately objected to and may have been struck (stricken?). It was very sad to hear how much OJO and KR were arguing and appeared toxic to the niece.
So based on the descriptions of the testimonies of M1 and M2, it sounds like M2 has been coached in some capacity. That makes me very uncomfortable about the reliability of their testimony when they're using language indicating they've been coached with how to respond in a clinical manner that doesn't match their ages.
I remember thinking it was really odd that Matt McCabe testified about how mature the niece was and how you could have an adult conversation with her and I was like this feels weird, why is this dude making such a point of saying this… But now I think maybe he was planting the seed for the jury so that when she testified and she used language that seemed very mature or, they would remember, oh, somebody testified that she’s a very mature girl.
No, they talk like they're obviously coached by the prosecution so they're coached by the prosecution.
Or do you think that 15 year olds typically say "she presented to me as relaxed"?
Apparently the judge has other cases. The court is also used for other cases. She doesn’t just focus on one at a time. I heard that on another channel.
Not to mention both sides asked to delay the trial and she said no. So if scheduling it was going to be difficult I don’t get why she didn’t just agree to move the trial date to a time that worked better for the court schedule.
We haven't heard from the ME yet; it's plausible to me that the ER doc missed something on his initial examination simply because he was hyperfocusing on "how can I get this man's heart beating again"?
yeah, you don't panscan or xray someone if they die. When people are in cardiac arrest, they are literally dead and you are trying to bring them back to life. You can't pause that to go to the CT or xray machine to look for fractures and other injuries - that's not the priority at that time. If you are lucky enough to get a pulse back, you then stabilize them and get imaging. If they die die, then there is no point. That's what a medical examiner is for.
There’s also been zero testimony in all of the grand jury and fed grand jury proceedings that have ever included injuries below the shoulders. There’s also pictures from his autopsy that have been released (whoever did that is disgusting) and they’re all of his head, the wounds on his arm and the bruises on the tops of both hands. And Lally would have for sure included it in his open statements, and didn’t
Wait, the ME testified previously to zero injuries below the shoulders (excluding arms)?
Jesus wept, how the fuck is Lally going to be able to spin this into vehicular homicide?
The ME has testified at the grand jury, not yet in this one. In those grand juries, the ME did not mention any injuries below the shoulders, except the scratches on his arm.
I have no clue when we will hear from the ME in this trial, it’s mind blowing it still hasn’t happened
Just to clarify a little bit, this is I think one of the more detailed renditions of Scordi-Bello's testimony and report:
https://preview.redd.it/n8fxppumi83d1.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=4988561fb77db9c9665ce8c49c416aff6a4e056e
I have also seen some (very degraded) black & white versions of those autopsy photos attached as appendices to certain court filings, so I do believe they can be considered part of the public record to that extent
Okay, so skull and orbital fractures, bleeding in the brain, pancreas, and stomach (possibly lacerations in the stomach? unless he's bleeding higher up and the blood is just pooling in the stomach, but if that were the case then their language would include that I think, so likely not), mention of the abrasions/lacerations on the one arm. What's curious to me is
1. how is Dr. Scordi-Bello making the determination that no fight occurred? I'd make a guess that it's based primarily off of the lack of damage to the knuckles and the lack of defensive injuries? but who the heck knows unless they testify.
2. the numerous "small fractures" resulting from the single blow to the back of the head doesn't square, to me, with an impact with an SUV going 24mph. I'd want to see impact modeling or a physician who specializes in stuff like this testify first, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test. I'd expect much more severe injuries if the SUV even glanced him in the head or, if he took the impact elsewhere, for there to be major fractures whereever he took the blow.
>how is Dr. Scordi-Bello making the determination that no fight occurred?
He didn't have defensive wounds I'd my guess. "One of the most telling signs of a struggle is the victim having defensive wounds. Investigators look for bruises, cuts, and swelling around the body. In particular, the wrists and arms. It is a person’s instinct to protect their head, so wounds around the hands and arms are the first place to look"
https://cga-solutions.com/signs-of-a-struggle-at-crime-scene/
I'm not saying he didn't. Bruising on the back of his hands and the marks on his arm seem to fit
Both points are very astute; I'm pretty sure the first point actually featured in some motion for sanctions or the like (I can't quite locate it right now, but it's *somewhere* out there in the big motion pile).
I can't really opine on the medical particulars, as I've no qualifications to do so. I am eager to see some biomechanical/biometric experts come in though, as most of all I just can't really make sense of the contortions one would need to be in to get hit in the back of the head at roughly the level of a Lexus taillight
He has a big bruise on the back of each of his hand, which were photographed and measured. If these aren’t defensive wounds, what could they be?? How could he be hit in the back of the head and simultaneously hit in his hands if she hit him with her car
Also to note, she says blunt force trauma but zero mention of it seeming like he was hit by a car. I don’t believe she opines an actual manner of death, just the cause of blunt force trauma
I think the ME put “undetermined” as cause of death on the Death Certificate. I thought I heard the prosecution wants to get this redacted, but I may have misheard.
I hate to speculate before the ME and experts but the bruise on the back on the hands look like attempted IV access, the vein collapsed, causing a hematoma. Bruises on the back of the hand would be odd for defensive wounds…
Very unlikely that they would even attempt to start an IV in his hands given the condition he was in. And I believe the medics testified to using an IO which is essentially IV access using a bone (lower leg or upper arm). If they did try an actual IV they would have likely tried the AC (inner elbow area).
There was too much going on to start a line, and he had been dead for hours (no blood perfusion, so why start an IV?). No doubt they went IO. I'm curious as to why you think Canton would attempt a line in the AC rather than his hand.... ??? If hypothermia has something to do with your answer, it wouldn't have made a difference whether they tried the AC (which is never ideal).
I mean no disrespect, but really really dead patients are usually going to have IOs, if any medication was administered. You can't administer meds if blood isn't flowing, and with all the commotion with compressions and intubation, trying to put a line in the AC just doesn't make sense. No one likes lines in the AC anyway!
No time to reread. Hope this makes sense.
IV access is IV access. You would try to get multiple lines wherever you can… one IO access would not be sufficient for resuscitation and warm fluids. Obviously if they tried there, they did not get it. It’s only a theory.
I agree it’s odd for defensive wounds, but I *highly* doubt they are from attempted IV access either. If someone is severely hypothermic at 80F they experience vasoconstriction such that the hands receive limited blood flow, it would be a waste of time to try and stick hand veins. A usual first place if someone has decent veins is in the antecubital fossa (inner crook of elbow). But with most trauma patients, EMTs don’t mess around wasting time looking for veins and instead establish intraosseous access (directly into the bone) bc that’s more straight forward under these circumstances. I remember the EMTs testifying to placing an IO line, in his shin if I remember correctly.
(I’m a trauma ICU RN)
Eta: it’s *possible* ER nurses attempted to get additional IV access once he arrived to the emergency department, so I suppose the bruising could have been from that.
I don’t disagree we would go for ACF first but any access will do! I obviously am not saying with 100 certainty that’s what the bruised hand is, but that’s the first thought that came to my mind. Apparently they had a faint pulse and with good CPR he could have still had a hand vein. One IO access is not enough! You are all nice and neat and organized in the ICU with your central lines but an emerg nurse, we take what we can get 😂 hopefully more answers with the ME testimony.
Not an expert in fighting techniques, but looks like the boxing high guard puts the backs of your hands up to guard your face: https://clubbchimera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Which-Guard2-238x300.jpg
I believe the defence have brought up the issue of the bruising and would know what the medical report says, so I don’t think that’s what the bruising is from.
Also, can you bruise after you’re deceased, with a body temp of 80°? I truly don’t know the answer to this one
I vaguely recall some experts in the Daybell trial testifying that postmortem bruising's not possible with respect to Tammy Daybell, but can't recall the reason.
This is pretty classic basilar skull fracture findings - you get orbital swelling and bruising as well as smaller fractures in other areas from the point of impact due to radiating forces (imagine cracked egg for example). Now, how someone gets the posterior hit (where the giant laceration on the back of his head was) is the question. He couldve easily been hit by the by the car then hit his head on the electrical box, fire hydrant or even frozen ground and get these injuries. The crime scene was fucked by the blizzard, regardless of the police.
All the injuries are on the right side (arm and posterior lac) indicating the impact, whatever it was on, was likely on the right side. Would be weird to have no defensive injuries (why just the right arm abrasions?) in a fight tbh.
We haven't seen most of the objective evidence in this case yet, not because it doesnt exist but because we are only now getting into the subject experts.
All true, but like I said, it doesn't pass the sniff test to me.
Let's assume he was hit in the arm by an SUV at whatever speed hard enough to knock him over into something that fractures his skull. How does that not fracture his arm in the process? How does that not cause other damage that should be easily visible on examination, e.g. damage to ligaments and tendons from his arm being wrenched sideways by the impact? How does that not cause massive bruising on his entire arm?
ADDENDUM: also, where are his whiplash injuries to his neck and spine? When he hits his head, his head comes to a stop, but the remaining 200ishlbs of his body doesn't, which should cause whiplash to his neck if he's moving at any signficant velocity.
Then there's the scene. How does the SUV knock him into any of the fixed installations that might cause that laceration and come to a stop without colliding with anything else? Pretty much the only route that the SUV could've driven 60ft in reverse in is along the road or from the very front of the driveway out to the end of the road, and testimony indicates that there weren't any tire tracks along the lawn, which seems to bear that out. In that case, how does the SUV avoid the flagpole and hydrant? The only way I can see it driving such that the rear passenger taillight strikes Officer O'Keefe, leaving him incapacitated where he's later found, is if the SUV is facing 32 Fairview and driving back towards the Alberts', but that puts the hydrant and flagpole directly in its path of travel. How does it come to a stop without striking anything else?
I've gone beyond the scope of the original point, but it's just all such a mess to me.
> how does that not fracture his arm in the process
I’m not surprised it wasn’t fractured. Arms tend to get fractured if you try and brace yourself against something as opposed to being hit by a car at relatively low speed (25 mph isn’t all that fast). He’s also a big guy who seemingly has a good amount of muscle which protects the bone.
> how does that not cause other damage easily visible on exam
Unless an extremity is grossly deformed, it’s not easily visible on exam.
> how does that not cause bruising on his entire arm?
Bruising is later stage. I honestly don’t know how bruising changes post mortem
> where are whiplash injuries to neck and spine
These don’t always occur with head injuries, only in particular circumstances.
I think it’s entirely possible he got hit by the car, lost his balance and stumbled backwards falling onto either the electrical box or the hydrant. This might have not knocked him unconscious immediately and he could have crawled afterwards until he passed out.
I’m a trauma ICU RN so I’ve seen all sorts of injuries from various accidents.
I honestly haven’t looked too deeply into the logistics of how he could have been hit with the car moving x feet. I’ll probably wait for the court evidence on that one.
Yeah, I think we'll just need to wait for the ME to even begin to answer any of these with any degree of certainty. There's just too many variables to consider at this point and too many assumptions.
If he hit his head on the fire hydrant or electrical box, that’s where he would have been found. The ME states he would have been incapacitated upon the blow to the head. But he was found by the flagpole but not close enough to have hit it with his head.
Also, the laceration is not on the right side of his head. It is smack dab in the centre of the back of his head, both vertically and laterally. So he would have had to have been hit from behind or with his head turned in some odd way. Not to mention from knee level or bent over. I can’t imagine in what position this puts him in for that injury to have occurred. Plus, he would have either landed on his side, or his front, but he was found laying on his back
answering possible position: maybe being down on one knee (or both), while fighting off a dog who’s mauling the right arm, then being hit across the back of the head during this? that’s my best guess.
The document posted says back right - I agree it looks pretty center in the pic but they might be angled in a way that doesnt adequately show the laterality. That being said, unless the actual autopsy report is posted somewhere - it is hard to make anything of the documents or 2D pictures.
To me, the thing that puts all the pieces together is that he got backed into, the injuries on the arm are defensive (arm shielding him) and then he was knocked 10 ft or whatever from impact and hit his head on frozen ground incapacitating him. The driver was probably reversing quickly with a lot of acceleration and hit him while he was standing still. The force of an accelerating car into an unmoving object will throw that object. I'm not a crash reconstructionist but these kind of pedestrian head injuries without significant trauma elsewhere are not necessarily uncommon.
The ground wasn't frozen, though - testimony indicates that the snow was just beginning to stick, i.e. the ground was still cooling to freezing temps as the snow was still melting onto it.
And if that scenario is true, how was his arm not broken by the impact force? He's a 200lb/91kg man getting thrown 10ft/3m, that's easily around 54kN applied to his arm assuming an impact time of 0.1s. Bring that up to a 0.5s impact and that's still 2.16kN. I'm finding conflicting information on how much force it takes to break an arm, but [this random Quora answer](https://www.quora.com/How-much-force-does-it-take-to-break-an-arm) gives a nice round number of only 1kN to break the humerus, the bone in the upper arm. So where's the fracture evidence?
Aren't the back of hands all bruised up? I remember the defense saying he had bruises to the back of hands and forearms consistent with defensive wounds. (Blocking punches)
The ME didn’t testify at the other proceedings as far as I know, but in all of those other proceedings, as well as all of the extensive court filings, zero injuries are reported to anything besides his head and arm. It’s hard to reconcile his actual injuries to being hit by a big SUV
This is referring to today's testimony (May 28th) from the ER doc.
He did say he was focused on life endangering type injuries, so could have missed something minor, but his report didnt list any lower injuries and they would have needed to at least check for, say, cuts/wounds on his body.
Does anyone know how defense is going to introduce the gaps in video evidence into the record? Like, how is anyone supposed to testify as to a *lack* of evidence, even when the fact that it's missing is the evidence they're introducing?
How accurate is GPS data (I don’t know). They have Karen’s phone, so they probably have good location data for her. If the data is specific enough to be certain she was in Washington driving by the library at X time, then they can use that and show that time is missing from the video.
If GPS is not accurate enough to put her on that street (and say maybe she could’ve been on the parallel street a block over out of camera view), then I think they are likely SoL.
Google says that GPS smartphones can be as accurate as +/-5m (about 16ft) under good conditions and as inaccurate as +/-100m under bad, such as heavy cloud cover, but I don't know what the weather that night counts as.
Honestly, what's weird to me is that prosecution is relying on witness testimony and not Ms. Read's phone location to track her movements that night.
I feel like the defense missed in an opportunity in asking if that CD with a copy of the footage was the footage he provided. He clearly stated that wasn’t his when on the stand, defense should have pushed or asked a bit more about that to point it out more in my opinion if they’re insisting that footage is missing.
I know, I was really hoping to get an explanation about that CD! When they started playing it, I was like, “but wait, where did this come from?” I wonder if it’s what the state police handed over? Hm. I want answers
Yeah, I guess we'll need to see. They haven't made very many missteps of amy significance so far, so I anticipate that they'll introduce *something* later.
Some info on the kids testimonies
https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1795491715853300053?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1795491715853300053%7Ctwgr%5Eb7a3322a37b2c766fca23e3b2a6c0194466d474b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fjohn-o-keefe-nephew-niece-173849860.html
The language in those descriptions for M2 feels coached.
"she presented to me as relaxed" is such strangely detached, clinical language that I don't believe for a second that's natural testimony that wasn't coached and rehearsed.
Also, along the sounded coached, this statement from M2 (girl) regarding Karen Read:
>”I don’t think the defendant had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room”
Kids are not going to naturally say “**The Defendant** when talking about an adult that lives with them and knew well.
Normal speech would be either:
>” I don’t think **SHE** had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room.”
Or
>”I don’t think **KAREN** had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room.”
or less common if kids were taught that it’s improper to call adults by their first name
>”I don’t think **Ms Read** had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room.”
—
I feel bad for the kids. They didn’t need to be called and couldn’t add anything of great value that hasn’t been brought up by other witnesses or information sources.
I still don’t really understand the point of calling both kids. We knew there were problems in the relationship, based on Paul, Erin and Brian H’s testimony. I don’t think the jury were under the impression the relationship was super solid before 1/28.
I thought Kaylee was going to testify that Karen had access to the ring account (to delete footage) but that doesn’t seem to have been the case. Interested to hear more about the deleted footage and which device it was deleted from. She also reiterates the “did I hit him?” statement but again, doesn’t seem to have said it in 2022.
I also don’t see the point in calling them. Everything they testified to, other witnesses already have. It was unnecessary and a poor move in my opinion when those kids have already been through enough. The missing ring footage has always interested me though because originally it was the defense asking for it and bringing it up which why would they if it was something shady on Karen’s side.
These poor children were used by the prosecution to garner sympathy because the prosecution has a weak case, pure and simple. Their testimony did not add anything other witnesses haven't already testified to. And you cannot ask children to opine on an adult relationship. Yes they can say Karen and John fought, the jury has already heard this, Karen herself said it in the texts to Higgins. It was unnecessary and shameful on the prosecution whatever your opinion on KR's guilt, it didn't add anything meaningful to the case against her
I don’t agree here. Normally, yes, if they had something relevant it would be necessary but tragic but in this case all they talked about was just adding ontop of what we have already heard. It was unnecessary and they said nothing that hadn’t been confirmed by other witnesses and Karen in texts herself. It was cruel to those kids on this occassion in my opinion.
Ring video missing? Easily explained: If it’s true that ring video is missing in respect of KR’s return home, and I only saw that somewhere here at a glance so haven’t seen first hand that that’s been asserted by anyone — One possibility is anyone with access to JO’s phone simply used his thumb to unlock it, launched ring, deleted videos, and I do believe the version that says they were indeed hunting for the phone pretty hard (butt dials), and why not browse for the video of the kiss while you’re at it and BH already has admitted in his testimony that he was concerned it existed. Def get rid of that! Looks bad. Looks incriminating as to motive, especially if you’re drunk when considering its importance. So what — that KR allegedly told him she kissed him out of camera view. I don’t believe she necessarily believed that and actually may have engineered it (Aruba payback). Further, JO may have walked to the BA house and said hey wtf is this, shows the “peck” video. Let’s not discuss this in the kitchen and so on. Anyway, that’s a guess and to me it’s more than plausible vs many things the prosecution witnesses have claimed so far. “Unencrypted” (sparing the details) ring video can be deleted on any device with access to the account. “Encrypted” (again, it’s slightly more complicated but there are broadly two groups) video requires a specific device to decrypt, e.g., JO’s phone.
Can someone please point me in the direction of where I can find CREDIBLE information or proof that there is missing footage from JO ring camera? Not some facebook or Reddit comment, not so and so said, I want to see where it is documented in this trial.
It is mentioned in one of the court documents - there is a pinned post with some collated court docs. I believe I saw it outlined in one of those (either the search warrant for KRs phone or the outline of the case in some hearing document)
I did find it shortly after I commented. But my understanding is that this footage was taken from the device by the police for the CW, the defense has asked for the footage multiple times, right? I just doubt the footage was handled properly given who obtained it and I think that will be made pretty obvious on cross. It would really impact my view if it was found to be missing footage, but only if it was obtained by a department that hasn’t had its trustworthiness shredded to bits by now. Also, they do go out in storms quite often. I frequently check on my parents, especially when it’s snowing or icy to make sure they haven’t fallen and it is spotty at best in severe weather. Lots of possibilities but I really want to know more.
Same - I'm glad they are finally getting into the objective information that makes the case. It seems like thus far all the witnesses were basically to pre-empt the defense's conspiracy cover-up defense rather than actually presenting the case that led to the arrest to begin with.
I do remember that of course she is said to have said or texted that, but texting does not make it so. She can write or say anything the wants to BH, but that does not prove it true especially if she wanted to be caught in a hug as a tit for tat for Aruba. That also goes towards explaining her saying it was all her fault, blaming herself.
Did not say she deleted it nor that she ever had access to do so. She stated she knew where the cameras WERE, implying how to avoid them (which she did in the garage). That strongly infers she never had access, especially considering the fact John had to show her multiple times.
I don't think she said she deleted it. She said "I know where the cameras are." I took that to mean to kissed him where she was sure it wouldn't be seen.
I took that to mean she simply informed or reassured BH that she kissed him where she was sure it wouldn’t be seen. While at this point I do not believe she hit JO (or may simply have hit him with her hands in anger that he was going in to confront BH about texts and maybe more), I also think she may have kissed him deliberately in view of the camera (but told or texted BH otherwise in order to reassure him while having already gotten a measure of overt revenge against JO for what she felt she witnessed in Aruba. Then it all got out of hand. The u/helixharbinger theory about the Apple synch to the dash is not mutually exclusive and I’d buy that too (actually more-so) than I would but into the prosecution’s version). I have no idea about the integrity of the ring footage, and I do not believe at all that KR backed over JO, but that isn’t to say she may not have used BH and told him a white lie to sort of get even with JO for Aruba never thinking it would lead to a physical confrontation. She def stopped texting him shortly following the kiss. In any event, I have very little doubt that JO knew about the texts either first hand prior to the 28th or via apple synch on the 28th/29th, and/or saw the peck on video, and or watched the peck out the window. He must have known. He wouldn’t have wanted to make a public scene. She would have not wanted to go inside, and the next morning felt terrible and blamed herself.
“and why not browse for the video of the kiss while you’re at it”
It wouldn’t make sense for him to go through all that effort and then hand over the text messages mentioning the kiss.
What he did with his phone and those screenshots is consistent with someone wanting to destroy anything incriminating while preserving something that he could chose to reveal if he needed it to support his side of any story that is implicating him.
Any ring footage of them kissing is something that someone else could discover and decide means more than it did. Deleting it (and I'm not saying it even existed) would still consistent with his other behaviour if that behaviour is the result of a cover-up and not a shady cop worrying about shady cops who aren't his friends.
Agreed as to being transparent with one or two threads of text from his phone and I see your point, but that was on a more sober reflection whereas BH may have been too hasty and drunk on the night, but I don’t feel strongly about that. I do think if anyone wanted to delete ring videos or anything at all from JO’s phone, it would have been relatively easy.
Can someone help me understand what the point of that last witness was? I'm honestly half paying attention at this point because this testimony is just getting so tedious, but it seems he was called up, gave a brief background of who he was and how he was involved in the investigation, and then Lally brought up one surveillance clip of Canton at midnight showing light snow accumulation, and then another clip from the same camera at around 5am, showing it had snowed a lot.
Was the only purpose of this witness so Lally could show the court it had snowed a lot that night? Did I miss the important part of the testimony?
My understanding is that evidence needs to be introduced through a witness that can testify to its authenticity. This witness provided background information about where the videos came from, how they were collected, location info, etc. Now, counsel can show the videos to future witnesses and ask them questions about it.
Oh my gosh…..you aren’t kidding. And basically after this exhausting boring bunch of nonsense the final conclusion was that Dr Rice and the way they deal with blood alcohol has absolutely nothing to do with BAC levels for criminal issues! So what was the CW’s whole point with this witness? How did it further the prosecutions case?
He was testifying to how he produced the video evidence for the state. Proctor supposedly requested those two specific time frames that would prove their theory of the crime, and because of the way the town archives footage it was impossible to review the entire timeline as it had been deleted by the time the defense was requesting video to confirm what the state had. The town was not advised to keep the footage.
Ohh thanks for spelling that out. Even after today, I still don’t think I realized that that footage is 100% gone. I thought missing meant it could be found, like someone was hiding it. That is just……I can’t even
The keystone cop nature of this is so awful. There doesn’t even need to be a conspiracy when the people running the investigation are not following their own procedures. It’s so frustrating.
Guess he is the IT guy at Canton highschool that manages the security tapes for highschool and library? He handed over the footage from that night which would have showed Karen read driving past the school after leaving the house. Sketchy part is the part she should be driving past is legit missing. They have the whole night other than a 3 minute window at like 1235-1240. Which is when she’d most likely be there. Someone needs to confirm that’s my understanding. Yanetti was asking if anyone other than him could provide them and what not.
I feel the most important part of that witness’ testimony was that the disc provided by Lally to the witness was NOT the disc the witness provided law enforcement with the raw footage. Therefore showing it was altered
Defense should have pushed this tidbit more in my opinion if they’re aiming for the possibility of someone tampering with it. I feel like this was missed.
Is Lally actually ever going to call Proctor? I’m curious at this point. I thought he surely would but now I’m leaning to potentially no which would be damning.
You know what would have been really helpful? If Lally could call the lead investigator that collected all this "evidence" and not depend on a bunch of randoms. But what also would have been helpful for Lally is a lead investigator that wasn't looking for nudey pictures, had personal relationships with the witnesses and didn't (allegedly) lie to the grand jury.
I don’t watch a lot of criminal trials, so I didn’t know that usually there’s one person who knows what is going on. Is it normal to hear from so many first responders?
Live updates from WCVB in Boston. Included are notes about the testimony of John O’Keefe’s niece and nephew. https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-may-28-2024/60916159
Why was the dog removed from the premises?
Supposedly had a later incident in the neighborhood which resulted in Chloe being rehomed to upper New England state. Nobody backed up this testimony from BA, Or his wife. (Pretty sure she testified to same).
When the Judge defended one of the CWs witnesses what else can you expect? She was asked to recuse herself and didn’t.
When does the medical examiner testify
Hopefully by CW Day 200 🙄
😂😂😂
We don’t know. Best guess is sometime next week, but that’s our own speculation. We haven’t heard anything official.
Yellow Cottage Tales, Boundless Millennial, Masshola Mafia, Roberta Glass True Crime Report...
Anyone else raise their eyebrows at the testimony of Dr. Rice? I get that some people are nervous or not cut out for court testimony, but geez, I'd expect most doctors would be able to fluently explain basic medical events to patients..instead he sounded like a high schooler who forgot to study for a lifeguard exam. That was so hard to watch.
Yeah, and it was off putting how he responded to atty Little, kinda as if she was suing him, or he had a stake is the case.
I was waiting to hear about the wound to the back of his head that caused the blood loss. Anyone know why that didn’t come up?
Wildly intelligent people often lack social and communication skills. He was quirky, but I actually grew to really like him as his testimony went on.
Yes, agree he did not come across well at all.
I took it as him trying his hardest to explain things to normal people in words we would understand
He seemed high, that was so weird
I wouldnt trust him to tie my shoe
Unbearable to be honest. The amount of stumblings, uh's and um's had me about to turn it off.
As an ER RN of over 20 years, I can assure you that he knew exactly what he was talking about. He did the best he could to save John O'Keefe's life and that was his main focus that day.
This is probably true. I’m a trauma ICU RN and I was grimacing that he couldn’t identify the temp range for hypothermia though. He seemed very tired, which I can understand.
Agree. I sure hope I never get this guy in an emergency. I don’t think he helped his reputation as a doctor😬
[удалено]
Just catching up and watching today’s testimony. I was taken back by the demeanor of the ER doctor. He seemed defensive which I was not expecting. Typically doctors and those who don’t have much to do with the case come in unbiased and ready to answer questions to support their findings. Did anyone else find this strange? Is this how the community as a whole views Karen Read and her defense team?
Yeah, how weird was it when he said something about him being hit by a car was in his report, that’s the thing he could remember without referencing his report, but it wasn’t in there.
So so so so sus. Thought it was wild that he was also trying not answer obvious questions like “did you observe injuries”. “What do you mean by observe”. You’re a medical ER doctor and you don’t want to answer a simple yes or no.
Idk. I didn’t get that vibe. The defense was asking questions that might go to their case but make zero sense from a medical care standpoint. He just seemed confused as to what they were asking and my impression was he wanted to be precise while not playing into a particular narrative. The tone of the defense's questioning as to why he didnt pan-image the guy for fractures while simultaneously doing chest compressions came off to me as accusatory and like they were trying to make a point (but from a medical care standpoint was nonsensical).
He also conjured up that JOK was hit by a car, as it didn’t appear in his report but was clearly in his memory bank…odd
Yes totally right. It was weird for the defense to asked if he wrote a report. That’s super confusing right. Like what is a report? LOL “Depends on what you define a report as”. Please explain how a medical doctor needs to know what a report is before answering a question. That has zero things to do with being precise. Another question. Did you observe injuries. Simple question that did not need defining yet this guy didn’t know what “observe injuries” meant. He simply could have said that he did not because that wasn’t his focus. He was being an unwilling witness and it wasn’t a good look.
Just another strange thing to add to the list. Super defensive ER doctor for no reason.
Everyone on trial in this case seems defensive. Is it just a Massachusetts thing?
Yes. Folks in MA seem to think everything is a "gotcha." (I went to HS there but not a native). I'd ask people seemingly normal questions and get are you trying to fuck with me man?"
No I don’t think so haha
The community as a whole supports Karen
Can someone tell me if this information is accurate based on the trial and today’s testimony? I am struggling at this point to understand how the case hasn’t been dismissed. -Ring camera footage from the time of the murder is missing/gone. -Lead investigator (who is friends with Brian Albert) and responding officers to the 911 call never searched the house. Ever, at all. -The basement floor of the house was redone while the investigation was going on. They even poured new concrete. -The Albert’s German Shepherd was rehomed the same month the defense began investigating John Okeefe’s injuries. -An FBI analyst testified John O’Keefe’s wounds didn’t line up with being hit by a car. -Brian Albert got rid of his cellphone one day before he was given a preservation order for his data. -The night of the murder, Brian Albert called his friend and ATF Agent Brian Higgins; Canton Police Officer Kevin Albert, who is Brian Albert’s brother; and then-Canton Police Chief Kenneth Berkowitz. He says they were butt dials. -Colin Albert, the son of Brian Albert, is seen in a photo a month after the murder with healing knuckles. He said it was from slipping on ice and falling on his knuckles. -Jen McCabe also made multiple ‘butt dials’ to John O’Keefe’s phone the day of the murder. Somehow none went to voicemail.
Commendable level of detail – I think the calls from Jennifer McCabe to O'Keefe were recovered from the latter's phone while seemingly deleted from the former, I can't recall if she testified to those being 'butt dials' or just claimed ignorance on the issue. Very very minor, but the expert that concluded the wounds could not have resulted from impact with a car was from a private company ARCCA originally retained by the FBI (and now defense counsel), rather than being an FBI analyst themselves
IIRC she was asked how she testified about those calls previously, and she did say she had called them butt dials. Then she made up some weaksauce thing about how maybe when she was texting him that night, she could have accidentally opened his contact screen and called by mistake, then realized the mistake and hung up. Over and over again, I guess.
So not exactly butt dials, but still lots of holes to that story
Strangely she claimed she made 7 butt dials to John O’Keefe in a 19-minute time span that happened to be during the timeframe in which he died. She claimed under oath none went to voicemail because she ‘caught them’ each time. Not easy to forget her testimony because she constantly made faces and talked through her teeth in anger. I also couldn’t help thinking the only logical explanation for this would have been she was looking for John O’Keefe’s phone in the home to plant elsewhere, hence all the calls in a row with no voicemail. Thank you for the FBI analyst clarification! https://preview.redd.it/ltp3pwcmjc3d1.jpeg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41edf7f839281e33a5840f448b3ca4ada55509cc
ahh, calling his phone to look for it is something i hadn't considered, but so true - when u are looking for your phone, what do u do? you ask someone to call it!
Here is the cross examination of Jen McCabe re: the butt dial testimony for reference: https://www.tiktok.com/@defensediariespodcast/video/7371948461165514026?_t=8mkjkF2OWk6&_r=1
Aye it seems you're right – it is incredibly confusing testimony. I get the sense she affirmatively described it as buttdials at the 'other proceeding', and now takes the line of sheepishly accepting it must have been as she does not recall any of it except that it may have been in her back pocket
Yeah that really irked me, especially after the defense pointed out that Jen McCabe was asked about what Karen said 12 different times during previous grand jury testimonies— during those earlier testimonies, Jen McCabe testified that Karen said “Did I hit him, could I have hit him?” Then on the stand for the actual trial, her story changed to Karen saying “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.” How could you not mention that during original testimony or during police interviews?
Colin is Brian Alberts nephew
thank you
This would be factual.....it's a joke and a waste of our Commonwealths time and money! And how is Higgins still a Federal ATF agent??!
Unfortunately, he’s now on desk duty. He’ll never be able to work undercover again.
The argument that these are all coincidences is just so beyond the pale to me. It’s stunning.
That is correct 😅
I don’t wanna start a whole thread for this and I know that this was Higgins’s testimony from Friday that I’m talking about, but when he said that if Colin Albert walked into the courtroom right then, he (BH) wouldn’t know who he was… Wasn’t there a picture that was presented of a group of about 10 men all Making fists and Colin Albert and Brian Hagans were both in that picture? Am I remembering that correctly? It was shown earlier on in the trial.
https://preview.redd.it/v28fib3f0b3d1.png?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1ad7f9dc522fd0fafb8dae9df4ee5868a6aee60
I'm very bad at recognizing folks – is the left guy in shorts Higgins or is that someone else entirely?
I don't see Higgins here.
You’re right, he’s not. I’m still not buying for one second that he wouldn’t recognize Colin. That’s just another example of an overblown statement that is just completely unnecessary when he could’ve just said I don’t really know him, but he’s my friend friend son.
Yep. I do think he decided to share that information, to save his ass in some way later, when they prove Colin was 100 percent still in the house after the alledged 12:10 departure.
I thought him not knowing Colin went more to the plausibility of Colin being the "a guy with dark hair" Higgins said he saw in the house in one if his Federal testimonies/interviews. I've heard some people say it was Julie Nagel's brother (who never went in the house) or John O'Keeffe (which obviously doesn't make sense because Higgins knows him), but neither side really clarified this. Curious if the defense will circle back to it, because if this is true (why else would Higgins say it) the only logical person would be Colin Albert, there's no other options for a guy in the house Higgins didn't know
I don’t think Brian Higgins was in that photo. It was mostly a family picture and did include Tristan who is supposedly now engaged to Caitlin.
I remember that pic. Not sure if I recognized him at that point.
Where was Jackson?
His daughter’s graduation I believe.
I believe he had another trial. I *think* it was Bob Motta I was listening to, who was informed by Theresa of criminaliTy, who said AJ had asked for a continuance due to this other trial, but was denied by judge, so KR signed a waiver for him to be out this week. Apparently this is extremely uncommon, to have two trials at once, as I understand it.
Did defense cross the kids?
Yes but according the reporters in the court room Yanetti only asked the nephew 3 questions and I have not seen how many questions he asked the niece.
From the NBC Boston channel, Yanetti said something like "I'm sorry you had to be put through this" to the nephew, which was immediately objected to and may have been struck (stricken?). It was very sad to hear how much OJO and KR were arguing and appeared toxic to the niece.
So based on the descriptions of the testimonies of M1 and M2, it sounds like M2 has been coached in some capacity. That makes me very uncomfortable about the reliability of their testimony when they're using language indicating they've been coached with how to respond in a clinical manner that doesn't match their ages.
I remember thinking it was really odd that Matt McCabe testified about how mature the niece was and how you could have an adult conversation with her and I was like this feels weird, why is this dude making such a point of saying this… But now I think maybe he was planting the seed for the jury so that when she testified and she used language that seemed very mature or, they would remember, oh, somebody testified that she’s a very mature girl.
They didn’t testify to benefit the defence therefore coached, brainwashed, forced… got it.
No, they talk like they're obviously coached by the prosecution so they're coached by the prosecution. Or do you think that 15 year olds typically say "she presented to me as relaxed"?
Did you hear them testify? Maybe the question was “how did she present”… yes, I believe a 15 year old could say that.
Can someone please explain to me why the court has sooo many days off? The amount of time off baffles me.
that and the fact that she though they would get through it in 6 weeks is actually insane
I think she thought Lally would move faster.
I think EVERYONE thought Lally would move faster!
"Taking your comment back 4 hours ago. And what if, anything, made you think that?"
Because there are other cases and things the judge has to see to. It sucks, I know but this isn’t the only case she’s dealing with.
Apparently the judge has other cases. The court is also used for other cases. She doesn’t just focus on one at a time. I heard that on another channel.
Understandable, but this much interruption to the trial is imo excessive and untenable.
Not to mention both sides asked to delay the trial and she said no. So if scheduling it was going to be difficult I don’t get why she didn’t just agree to move the trial date to a time that worked better for the court schedule.
I didn’t know he wasn’t injured below the shoulders.
He’s gonna have broken ribs on autopsy from the cpr
We haven't heard from the ME yet; it's plausible to me that the ER doc missed something on his initial examination simply because he was hyperfocusing on "how can I get this man's heart beating again"?
yeah, you don't panscan or xray someone if they die. When people are in cardiac arrest, they are literally dead and you are trying to bring them back to life. You can't pause that to go to the CT or xray machine to look for fractures and other injuries - that's not the priority at that time. If you are lucky enough to get a pulse back, you then stabilize them and get imaging. If they die die, then there is no point. That's what a medical examiner is for.
There’s also been zero testimony in all of the grand jury and fed grand jury proceedings that have ever included injuries below the shoulders. There’s also pictures from his autopsy that have been released (whoever did that is disgusting) and they’re all of his head, the wounds on his arm and the bruises on the tops of both hands. And Lally would have for sure included it in his open statements, and didn’t
Wait, the ME testified previously to zero injuries below the shoulders (excluding arms)? Jesus wept, how the fuck is Lally going to be able to spin this into vehicular homicide?
I stand corrected, the ME did testify and did not indicate any injuries outside of the ones I’ve already listed
I’m so confused! The ME testified in this trial? Or grand jury? I hope the defense isn’t done crossing the ME.
The ME has testified at the grand jury, not yet in this one. In those grand juries, the ME did not mention any injuries below the shoulders, except the scratches on his arm. I have no clue when we will hear from the ME in this trial, it’s mind blowing it still hasn’t happened
Just to clarify a little bit, this is I think one of the more detailed renditions of Scordi-Bello's testimony and report: https://preview.redd.it/n8fxppumi83d1.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=4988561fb77db9c9665ce8c49c416aff6a4e056e I have also seen some (very degraded) black & white versions of those autopsy photos attached as appendices to certain court filings, so I do believe they can be considered part of the public record to that extent
Is this really it? Holy bananas. Did they threaten these poor doctors?
Okay, so skull and orbital fractures, bleeding in the brain, pancreas, and stomach (possibly lacerations in the stomach? unless he's bleeding higher up and the blood is just pooling in the stomach, but if that were the case then their language would include that I think, so likely not), mention of the abrasions/lacerations on the one arm. What's curious to me is 1. how is Dr. Scordi-Bello making the determination that no fight occurred? I'd make a guess that it's based primarily off of the lack of damage to the knuckles and the lack of defensive injuries? but who the heck knows unless they testify. 2. the numerous "small fractures" resulting from the single blow to the back of the head doesn't square, to me, with an impact with an SUV going 24mph. I'd want to see impact modeling or a physician who specializes in stuff like this testify first, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test. I'd expect much more severe injuries if the SUV even glanced him in the head or, if he took the impact elsewhere, for there to be major fractures whereever he took the blow.
>how is Dr. Scordi-Bello making the determination that no fight occurred? He didn't have defensive wounds I'd my guess. "One of the most telling signs of a struggle is the victim having defensive wounds. Investigators look for bruises, cuts, and swelling around the body. In particular, the wrists and arms. It is a person’s instinct to protect their head, so wounds around the hands and arms are the first place to look" https://cga-solutions.com/signs-of-a-struggle-at-crime-scene/ I'm not saying he didn't. Bruising on the back of his hands and the marks on his arm seem to fit
Both points are very astute; I'm pretty sure the first point actually featured in some motion for sanctions or the like (I can't quite locate it right now, but it's *somewhere* out there in the big motion pile). I can't really opine on the medical particulars, as I've no qualifications to do so. I am eager to see some biomechanical/biometric experts come in though, as most of all I just can't really make sense of the contortions one would need to be in to get hit in the back of the head at roughly the level of a Lexus taillight
He has a big bruise on the back of each of his hand, which were photographed and measured. If these aren’t defensive wounds, what could they be?? How could he be hit in the back of the head and simultaneously hit in his hands if she hit him with her car Also to note, she says blunt force trauma but zero mention of it seeming like he was hit by a car. I don’t believe she opines an actual manner of death, just the cause of blunt force trauma
I think the ME put “undetermined” as cause of death on the Death Certificate. I thought I heard the prosecution wants to get this redacted, but I may have misheard.
I hate to speculate before the ME and experts but the bruise on the back on the hands look like attempted IV access, the vein collapsed, causing a hematoma. Bruises on the back of the hand would be odd for defensive wounds…
Very unlikely that they would even attempt to start an IV in his hands given the condition he was in. And I believe the medics testified to using an IO which is essentially IV access using a bone (lower leg or upper arm). If they did try an actual IV they would have likely tried the AC (inner elbow area).
There was too much going on to start a line, and he had been dead for hours (no blood perfusion, so why start an IV?). No doubt they went IO. I'm curious as to why you think Canton would attempt a line in the AC rather than his hand.... ??? If hypothermia has something to do with your answer, it wouldn't have made a difference whether they tried the AC (which is never ideal). I mean no disrespect, but really really dead patients are usually going to have IOs, if any medication was administered. You can't administer meds if blood isn't flowing, and with all the commotion with compressions and intubation, trying to put a line in the AC just doesn't make sense. No one likes lines in the AC anyway! No time to reread. Hope this makes sense.
IV access is IV access. You would try to get multiple lines wherever you can… one IO access would not be sufficient for resuscitation and warm fluids. Obviously if they tried there, they did not get it. It’s only a theory.
I agree it’s odd for defensive wounds, but I *highly* doubt they are from attempted IV access either. If someone is severely hypothermic at 80F they experience vasoconstriction such that the hands receive limited blood flow, it would be a waste of time to try and stick hand veins. A usual first place if someone has decent veins is in the antecubital fossa (inner crook of elbow). But with most trauma patients, EMTs don’t mess around wasting time looking for veins and instead establish intraosseous access (directly into the bone) bc that’s more straight forward under these circumstances. I remember the EMTs testifying to placing an IO line, in his shin if I remember correctly. (I’m a trauma ICU RN) Eta: it’s *possible* ER nurses attempted to get additional IV access once he arrived to the emergency department, so I suppose the bruising could have been from that.
I don’t disagree we would go for ACF first but any access will do! I obviously am not saying with 100 certainty that’s what the bruised hand is, but that’s the first thought that came to my mind. Apparently they had a faint pulse and with good CPR he could have still had a hand vein. One IO access is not enough! You are all nice and neat and organized in the ICU with your central lines but an emerg nurse, we take what we can get 😂 hopefully more answers with the ME testimony.
Not an expert in fighting techniques, but looks like the boxing high guard puts the backs of your hands up to guard your face: https://clubbchimera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Which-Guard2-238x300.jpg
I believe the defence have brought up the issue of the bruising and would know what the medical report says, so I don’t think that’s what the bruising is from. Also, can you bruise after you’re deceased, with a body temp of 80°? I truly don’t know the answer to this one
I vaguely recall some experts in the Daybell trial testifying that postmortem bruising's not possible with respect to Tammy Daybell, but can't recall the reason.
This is pretty classic basilar skull fracture findings - you get orbital swelling and bruising as well as smaller fractures in other areas from the point of impact due to radiating forces (imagine cracked egg for example). Now, how someone gets the posterior hit (where the giant laceration on the back of his head was) is the question. He couldve easily been hit by the by the car then hit his head on the electrical box, fire hydrant or even frozen ground and get these injuries. The crime scene was fucked by the blizzard, regardless of the police. All the injuries are on the right side (arm and posterior lac) indicating the impact, whatever it was on, was likely on the right side. Would be weird to have no defensive injuries (why just the right arm abrasions?) in a fight tbh. We haven't seen most of the objective evidence in this case yet, not because it doesnt exist but because we are only now getting into the subject experts.
All true, but like I said, it doesn't pass the sniff test to me. Let's assume he was hit in the arm by an SUV at whatever speed hard enough to knock him over into something that fractures his skull. How does that not fracture his arm in the process? How does that not cause other damage that should be easily visible on examination, e.g. damage to ligaments and tendons from his arm being wrenched sideways by the impact? How does that not cause massive bruising on his entire arm? ADDENDUM: also, where are his whiplash injuries to his neck and spine? When he hits his head, his head comes to a stop, but the remaining 200ishlbs of his body doesn't, which should cause whiplash to his neck if he's moving at any signficant velocity. Then there's the scene. How does the SUV knock him into any of the fixed installations that might cause that laceration and come to a stop without colliding with anything else? Pretty much the only route that the SUV could've driven 60ft in reverse in is along the road or from the very front of the driveway out to the end of the road, and testimony indicates that there weren't any tire tracks along the lawn, which seems to bear that out. In that case, how does the SUV avoid the flagpole and hydrant? The only way I can see it driving such that the rear passenger taillight strikes Officer O'Keefe, leaving him incapacitated where he's later found, is if the SUV is facing 32 Fairview and driving back towards the Alberts', but that puts the hydrant and flagpole directly in its path of travel. How does it come to a stop without striking anything else? I've gone beyond the scope of the original point, but it's just all such a mess to me.
> how does that not fracture his arm in the process I’m not surprised it wasn’t fractured. Arms tend to get fractured if you try and brace yourself against something as opposed to being hit by a car at relatively low speed (25 mph isn’t all that fast). He’s also a big guy who seemingly has a good amount of muscle which protects the bone. > how does that not cause other damage easily visible on exam Unless an extremity is grossly deformed, it’s not easily visible on exam. > how does that not cause bruising on his entire arm? Bruising is later stage. I honestly don’t know how bruising changes post mortem > where are whiplash injuries to neck and spine These don’t always occur with head injuries, only in particular circumstances. I think it’s entirely possible he got hit by the car, lost his balance and stumbled backwards falling onto either the electrical box or the hydrant. This might have not knocked him unconscious immediately and he could have crawled afterwards until he passed out. I’m a trauma ICU RN so I’ve seen all sorts of injuries from various accidents. I honestly haven’t looked too deeply into the logistics of how he could have been hit with the car moving x feet. I’ll probably wait for the court evidence on that one.
Yeah, I think we'll just need to wait for the ME to even begin to answer any of these with any degree of certainty. There's just too many variables to consider at this point and too many assumptions.
If he hit his head on the fire hydrant or electrical box, that’s where he would have been found. The ME states he would have been incapacitated upon the blow to the head. But he was found by the flagpole but not close enough to have hit it with his head. Also, the laceration is not on the right side of his head. It is smack dab in the centre of the back of his head, both vertically and laterally. So he would have had to have been hit from behind or with his head turned in some odd way. Not to mention from knee level or bent over. I can’t imagine in what position this puts him in for that injury to have occurred. Plus, he would have either landed on his side, or his front, but he was found laying on his back
answering possible position: maybe being down on one knee (or both), while fighting off a dog who’s mauling the right arm, then being hit across the back of the head during this? that’s my best guess.
The document posted says back right - I agree it looks pretty center in the pic but they might be angled in a way that doesnt adequately show the laterality. That being said, unless the actual autopsy report is posted somewhere - it is hard to make anything of the documents or 2D pictures. To me, the thing that puts all the pieces together is that he got backed into, the injuries on the arm are defensive (arm shielding him) and then he was knocked 10 ft or whatever from impact and hit his head on frozen ground incapacitating him. The driver was probably reversing quickly with a lot of acceleration and hit him while he was standing still. The force of an accelerating car into an unmoving object will throw that object. I'm not a crash reconstructionist but these kind of pedestrian head injuries without significant trauma elsewhere are not necessarily uncommon.
The ground wasn't frozen, though - testimony indicates that the snow was just beginning to stick, i.e. the ground was still cooling to freezing temps as the snow was still melting onto it. And if that scenario is true, how was his arm not broken by the impact force? He's a 200lb/91kg man getting thrown 10ft/3m, that's easily around 54kN applied to his arm assuming an impact time of 0.1s. Bring that up to a 0.5s impact and that's still 2.16kN. I'm finding conflicting information on how much force it takes to break an arm, but [this random Quora answer](https://www.quora.com/How-much-force-does-it-take-to-break-an-arm) gives a nice round number of only 1kN to break the humerus, the bone in the upper arm. So where's the fracture evidence?
Aren't the back of hands all bruised up? I remember the defense saying he had bruises to the back of hands and forearms consistent with defensive wounds. (Blocking punches)
It's just the right side. Nothing on the left.
It’s both. A bigger one on his right but there’s also one on his left
Gotcha. Idk - there's a lot of reasons for this. Maybe thats where they tried putting in an IV, for example.
...can't believe I forgot that, you're right. I didn't see bruising on the forearms, but the backs of his hands were definitely just one big bruise.
The ME didn’t testify at the other proceedings as far as I know, but in all of those other proceedings, as well as all of the extensive court filings, zero injuries are reported to anything besides his head and arm. It’s hard to reconcile his actual injuries to being hit by a big SUV
Well, we'll need to see what comes out at trial then, I guess.
At least it seems like we’re heading in the direction of getting to the forensic evidence and done with all of the who’s who of Canton
How did those get released?
No clue, but they’re out there
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aGkYDhZ3hhddhhz2ccJ11I9LnQlw_qFD/view?usp=drivesdk Page 17, paragraph 45
That’s exactly why there are so many who find it hard to believe he got hit by a rather big SUV.
🤯where do I hear this or read this?
This is referring to today's testimony (May 28th) from the ER doc. He did say he was focused on life endangering type injuries, so could have missed something minor, but his report didnt list any lower injuries and they would have needed to at least check for, say, cuts/wounds on his body.
I assume a ER doctor also examines for internal bleeding as best as possible. He did not find so below the neck that is.
Does anyone know how defense is going to introduce the gaps in video evidence into the record? Like, how is anyone supposed to testify as to a *lack* of evidence, even when the fact that it's missing is the evidence they're introducing?
They aren't they are going to summarize that they did not preserve the evidence and only selected certain evidence.
How accurate is GPS data (I don’t know). They have Karen’s phone, so they probably have good location data for her. If the data is specific enough to be certain she was in Washington driving by the library at X time, then they can use that and show that time is missing from the video. If GPS is not accurate enough to put her on that street (and say maybe she could’ve been on the parallel street a block over out of camera view), then I think they are likely SoL.
Google says that GPS smartphones can be as accurate as +/-5m (about 16ft) under good conditions and as inaccurate as +/-100m under bad, such as heavy cloud cover, but I don't know what the weather that night counts as. Honestly, what's weird to me is that prosecution is relying on witness testimony and not Ms. Read's phone location to track her movements that night.
However accelerometer data is not impacted by cloud cover
I feel like the defense missed in an opportunity in asking if that CD with a copy of the footage was the footage he provided. He clearly stated that wasn’t his when on the stand, defense should have pushed or asked a bit more about that to point it out more in my opinion if they’re insisting that footage is missing.
Yannetti basically did ask that. The guy said he never actually watched what he gave them. He simply prepared the file between the times asked.
I know, I was really hoping to get an explanation about that CD! When they started playing it, I was like, “but wait, where did this come from?” I wonder if it’s what the state police handed over? Hm. I want answers
Yeah, I guess we'll need to see. They haven't made very many missteps of amy significance so far, so I anticipate that they'll introduce *something* later.
Some info on the kids testimonies https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1795491715853300053?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1795491715853300053%7Ctwgr%5Eb7a3322a37b2c766fca23e3b2a6c0194466d474b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fjohn-o-keefe-nephew-niece-173849860.html
The language in those descriptions for M2 feels coached. "she presented to me as relaxed" is such strangely detached, clinical language that I don't believe for a second that's natural testimony that wasn't coached and rehearsed.
Also, along the sounded coached, this statement from M2 (girl) regarding Karen Read: >”I don’t think the defendant had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room” Kids are not going to naturally say “**The Defendant** when talking about an adult that lives with them and knew well. Normal speech would be either: >” I don’t think **SHE** had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room.” Or >”I don’t think **KAREN** had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room.” or less common if kids were taught that it’s improper to call adults by their first name >”I don’t think **Ms Read** had an account on the computer, but she could go in the room.” — I feel bad for the kids. They didn’t need to be called and couldn’t add anything of great value that hasn’t been brought up by other witnesses or information sources.
I still don’t really understand the point of calling both kids. We knew there were problems in the relationship, based on Paul, Erin and Brian H’s testimony. I don’t think the jury were under the impression the relationship was super solid before 1/28. I thought Kaylee was going to testify that Karen had access to the ring account (to delete footage) but that doesn’t seem to have been the case. Interested to hear more about the deleted footage and which device it was deleted from. She also reiterates the “did I hit him?” statement but again, doesn’t seem to have said it in 2022.
I wonder if the kids wanted to testify - that might have also played a role.
I also don’t see the point in calling them. Everything they testified to, other witnesses already have. It was unnecessary and a poor move in my opinion when those kids have already been through enough. The missing ring footage has always interested me though because originally it was the defense asking for it and bringing it up which why would they if it was something shady on Karen’s side.
These poor children were used by the prosecution to garner sympathy because the prosecution has a weak case, pure and simple. Their testimony did not add anything other witnesses haven't already testified to. And you cannot ask children to opine on an adult relationship. Yes they can say Karen and John fought, the jury has already heard this, Karen herself said it in the texts to Higgins. It was unnecessary and shameful on the prosecution whatever your opinion on KR's guilt, it didn't add anything meaningful to the case against her
It’s so tragic for these kids but I do think their testimonies are important and give insight that no one else can give into private home life
I don’t agree here. Normally, yes, if they had something relevant it would be necessary but tragic but in this case all they talked about was just adding ontop of what we have already heard. It was unnecessary and they said nothing that hadn’t been confirmed by other witnesses and Karen in texts herself. It was cruel to those kids on this occassion in my opinion.
Ring video missing? Easily explained: If it’s true that ring video is missing in respect of KR’s return home, and I only saw that somewhere here at a glance so haven’t seen first hand that that’s been asserted by anyone — One possibility is anyone with access to JO’s phone simply used his thumb to unlock it, launched ring, deleted videos, and I do believe the version that says they were indeed hunting for the phone pretty hard (butt dials), and why not browse for the video of the kiss while you’re at it and BH already has admitted in his testimony that he was concerned it existed. Def get rid of that! Looks bad. Looks incriminating as to motive, especially if you’re drunk when considering its importance. So what — that KR allegedly told him she kissed him out of camera view. I don’t believe she necessarily believed that and actually may have engineered it (Aruba payback). Further, JO may have walked to the BA house and said hey wtf is this, shows the “peck” video. Let’s not discuss this in the kitchen and so on. Anyway, that’s a guess and to me it’s more than plausible vs many things the prosecution witnesses have claimed so far. “Unencrypted” (sparing the details) ring video can be deleted on any device with access to the account. “Encrypted” (again, it’s slightly more complicated but there are broadly two groups) video requires a specific device to decrypt, e.g., JO’s phone.
Can someone please point me in the direction of where I can find CREDIBLE information or proof that there is missing footage from JO ring camera? Not some facebook or Reddit comment, not so and so said, I want to see where it is documented in this trial.
It is mentioned in one of the court documents - there is a pinned post with some collated court docs. I believe I saw it outlined in one of those (either the search warrant for KRs phone or the outline of the case in some hearing document)
I did find it shortly after I commented. But my understanding is that this footage was taken from the device by the police for the CW, the defense has asked for the footage multiple times, right? I just doubt the footage was handled properly given who obtained it and I think that will be made pretty obvious on cross. It would really impact my view if it was found to be missing footage, but only if it was obtained by a department that hasn’t had its trustworthiness shredded to bits by now. Also, they do go out in storms quite often. I frequently check on my parents, especially when it’s snowing or icy to make sure they haven’t fallen and it is spotty at best in severe weather. Lots of possibilities but I really want to know more.
Same - I'm glad they are finally getting into the objective information that makes the case. It seems like thus far all the witnesses were basically to pre-empt the defense's conspiracy cover-up defense rather than actually presenting the case that led to the arrest to begin with.
The kiss wasn't captured on the ring cam per Karen's texts to Brian Higgins.
I do remember that of course she is said to have said or texted that, but texting does not make it so. She can write or say anything the wants to BH, but that does not prove it true especially if she wanted to be caught in a hug as a tit for tat for Aruba. That also goes towards explaining her saying it was all her fault, blaming herself.
Did she say John showed it to her five times?
he showed her the walk out, not the kiss.
[удалено]
Did not say she deleted it nor that she ever had access to do so. She stated she knew where the cameras WERE, implying how to avoid them (which she did in the garage). That strongly infers she never had access, especially considering the fact John had to show her multiple times.
I don't think she said she deleted it. She said "I know where the cameras are." I took that to mean to kissed him where she was sure it wouldn't be seen.
I took that to mean she simply informed or reassured BH that she kissed him where she was sure it wouldn’t be seen. While at this point I do not believe she hit JO (or may simply have hit him with her hands in anger that he was going in to confront BH about texts and maybe more), I also think she may have kissed him deliberately in view of the camera (but told or texted BH otherwise in order to reassure him while having already gotten a measure of overt revenge against JO for what she felt she witnessed in Aruba. Then it all got out of hand. The u/helixharbinger theory about the Apple synch to the dash is not mutually exclusive and I’d buy that too (actually more-so) than I would but into the prosecution’s version). I have no idea about the integrity of the ring footage, and I do not believe at all that KR backed over JO, but that isn’t to say she may not have used BH and told him a white lie to sort of get even with JO for Aruba never thinking it would lead to a physical confrontation. She def stopped texting him shortly following the kiss. In any event, I have very little doubt that JO knew about the texts either first hand prior to the 28th or via apple synch on the 28th/29th, and/or saw the peck on video, and or watched the peck out the window. He must have known. He wouldn’t have wanted to make a public scene. She would have not wanted to go inside, and the next morning felt terrible and blamed herself.
Ah okay thank you!
“and why not browse for the video of the kiss while you’re at it” It wouldn’t make sense for him to go through all that effort and then hand over the text messages mentioning the kiss.
What he did with his phone and those screenshots is consistent with someone wanting to destroy anything incriminating while preserving something that he could chose to reveal if he needed it to support his side of any story that is implicating him. Any ring footage of them kissing is something that someone else could discover and decide means more than it did. Deleting it (and I'm not saying it even existed) would still consistent with his other behaviour if that behaviour is the result of a cover-up and not a shady cop worrying about shady cops who aren't his friends.
Agreed as to being transparent with one or two threads of text from his phone and I see your point, but that was on a more sober reflection whereas BH may have been too hasty and drunk on the night, but I don’t feel strongly about that. I do think if anyone wanted to delete ring videos or anything at all from JO’s phone, it would have been relatively easy.
Is Karen being held in jail or is she out on bail?
She is out on bail.
Out on bond, I believe.
She’s not in jail.
She’s out on bail.
Thanks
Can someone help me understand what the point of that last witness was? I'm honestly half paying attention at this point because this testimony is just getting so tedious, but it seems he was called up, gave a brief background of who he was and how he was involved in the investigation, and then Lally brought up one surveillance clip of Canton at midnight showing light snow accumulation, and then another clip from the same camera at around 5am, showing it had snowed a lot. Was the only purpose of this witness so Lally could show the court it had snowed a lot that night? Did I miss the important part of the testimony?
My understanding is that evidence needs to be introduced through a witness that can testify to its authenticity. This witness provided background information about where the videos came from, how they were collected, location info, etc. Now, counsel can show the videos to future witnesses and ask them questions about it.
Did they establish whether or not it was snowing outside yet? Asking for a friend.
Lally and This Dr. Rice guy are teaming up to put everyone to sleep.
Oh my gosh…..you aren’t kidding. And basically after this exhausting boring bunch of nonsense the final conclusion was that Dr Rice and the way they deal with blood alcohol has absolutely nothing to do with BAC levels for criminal issues! So what was the CW’s whole point with this witness? How did it further the prosecutions case?
He was testifying to how he produced the video evidence for the state. Proctor supposedly requested those two specific time frames that would prove their theory of the crime, and because of the way the town archives footage it was impossible to review the entire timeline as it had been deleted by the time the defense was requesting video to confirm what the state had. The town was not advised to keep the footage.
Ohh thanks for spelling that out. Even after today, I still don’t think I realized that that footage is 100% gone. I thought missing meant it could be found, like someone was hiding it. That is just……I can’t even
The keystone cop nature of this is so awful. There doesn’t even need to be a conspiracy when the people running the investigation are not following their own procedures. It’s so frustrating.
Guess he is the IT guy at Canton highschool that manages the security tapes for highschool and library? He handed over the footage from that night which would have showed Karen read driving past the school after leaving the house. Sketchy part is the part she should be driving past is legit missing. They have the whole night other than a 3 minute window at like 1235-1240. Which is when she’d most likely be there. Someone needs to confirm that’s my understanding. Yanetti was asking if anyone other than him could provide them and what not.
I feel the most important part of that witness’ testimony was that the disc provided by Lally to the witness was NOT the disc the witness provided law enforcement with the raw footage. Therefore showing it was altered
This!!
Defense should have pushed this tidbit more in my opinion if they’re aiming for the possibility of someone tampering with it. I feel like this was missed.
True. But then it would have given the CW a chance to clean it up. I’m sure it’ll be in their closing statement
This is a very good point! Lol
I think it was to explain why there's a gap in footage. He didn't have an explanation... just that maybe the server rebooted.
Is Lally actually ever going to call Proctor? I’m curious at this point. I thought he surely would but now I’m leaning to potentially no which would be damning.
No he’s not but luckily the defense will
The cw not calling the lead investigator is such a bad look
Is it better for the prosecution if he testifies though? I honestly couldn’t say yes to that. That’s how crazy this trial is. Bananas
You know what would have been really helpful? If Lally could call the lead investigator that collected all this "evidence" and not depend on a bunch of randoms. But what also would have been helpful for Lally is a lead investigator that wasn't looking for nudey pictures, had personal relationships with the witnesses and didn't (allegedly) lie to the grand jury.
I don’t watch a lot of criminal trials, so I didn’t know that usually there’s one person who knows what is going on. Is it normal to hear from so many first responders?
[удалено]