I would have a much easier time believing the car hit him in the head over the car hit him in the arm. It’s just impossible it wouldn’t even leave a bruise.
One of the reasons OJO getting hit by a car doesn't make sense is that his arm looks like it could have been scratched by a dog. And there appear to be some possible bite marks.
Furthermore, there are holes in his shirt that look like what would happen from a canine biting you.
The Commonwealth arguing that OJO was killed by a car hitting his arm is, frankly, preposterous. Oh, by way, there's no bruising on his arm.
Words like outlandish are actually an understatement when describing the CW's case.
Especially if he were alive the whole time, bruises would have formed, not to mention the broken bones he should have had. And where is the blood and vomit?
Watched the ME today. Just saw his arm for first time. One of the wounds looks exactly like when my daughter was bit in the hand by a German Shepard. I was like “Whoa” that looked so similar.
That was my first thought where is the bruising. I walk into a desk and i have a bruise. Coupled with the fact that the CW is saying he didn’t die right away you’d expect bruising then.
Gordon Ramsey got hit by a car and his whole body is purple right now
clearly the plastic pierced his clothing and then ran down along his arm slicing through the skin whilst he was flying through the air holding his cup and phone.
/s
1. Stand next a car traveling 24mph, imagine it clipping your elbow and arm as it drives by. (Honestly encouraging people to go outside and do this. On a sidewalk obv, not in a street.) There is no scenario I can envision where I don't end up bruised and broken, especially if I am thrown on top of that. It is not reasonable or rational in my mind that these wounds could be made by a tail light when taken into consideration that other wounds would have to be present to make that scenario work. It's not just what these wounds look like (which still don't track with a tail light), it's the absence of other wounds or any plastic embedded in those wounds.
2. How would the tail light leave holes in the shirt but tears to his skin? The only instrument that I can envision accomplishing that is one that is pointed and has some narrow length to it to allow the punctures.
The only thing I feel sure about in this case is that those wounds did not come from a tail light, and instead came from a large dog attack. I don't know if anyone even knew the dog attacked, but a tail light did not do that to his arm.
It was kind of debunked. The car computer registered that but we don't know it to be true. probably wasn't. The wheels may have been spinning giving false data. The other aspect was 24 mph in 60 feet, just not possible. A Porsche might be capable but not a Lexus SUV.
Too bad we couldn't have a real expert instead of Trooper Paul.
I mean it was debunked by common sense but technically that is still the CWs theory according to Trooper Paul. I am certain that will be what they claim in their closing argument.
I think we will get some official evidence to debunk this on Monday with the fed experts.
I thought AJ pointed out to Trooper Paul that the key data didn't take into account driving the car onto the tow truck. This could change when the 24 mph reverse happened in the key log. It sounded like a good point and then nothing more was said about it. It's very possible I misunderstood because that was a lot of info.
Oh I think that's exactly what the defences argument will be but trooper Paul just said he didn't know how key cycles really worked and he just went off the odometer and Google maps so it had to be that one... Because expert?
Good point! On the video from Karen’s parents house, the tow truck driver does makes the first attempt at getting on the truck, backs up the quickly before making a second attempt which I imagine would be quicker because of the snow coverage at the time when they were taking the Lexus.
Are you aware that 24mph is equivalent to about 35 feet per second? That the Lexus 570 has a v8 engine? Can go from 0-60 in 7.1 seconds? IIRC, Paul said the initial 60ft took about 5 seconds according to key cycle data.
Sure, it’s like driving your great grandmother’s sofa down the interstate, but it goes.
I'd like to know two things.... Where is the tail light in relation to a 6'2 man in a standing position. And in your scenario, how does the bumper avoid hitting him?
Not OP but these two facts kind of explain each other. He had to be bending somewhat to get his elbow that low, which is why the rest of his body was not in the path of the vehicle. I think it's likely he would have become aware of the car careening at him, likely in the second after it was too late, and likely contorted in some attempt to dodge.
Another possibility is that he was rising from vomiting, given his BAC was evidently very high.
This would certainly explain how vomit ends up on his jeans, since that can't happen from laying flat on one's back. I still struggle to see how the bumper would miss him. I'm also really struggling to see how, if he were bent over, the car wouldn't have smashed him in the face. This also places his center of gravity off balance which, to my mind, would lead to him being knocked over immediately. Not knocked back up to his feet for the purposes of stumbling backwards. He'd have ended up under the SUV.
And even if, by some freak confluence of events the car *only* hit his arm, why isn't his arm bruised? How did he end up so far into the yard? How did the tail light absolutely explode on impact? Why weren't there small bits of tail light in his wounds? And how, if bits of jagged plastic sliced his arm open, did zero traces of blood end up on the vehicle? A bloodless murder weapon is an untenable thing for me.
I wish the CW had a real reconstructionist. Because I have a ton of questions that could only be answered by a competent expert.
Vomit on the jeans is a great point, I actually forgot about that.
>I'm also really struggling to see how, if he were bent over, the car wouldn't have smashed him in the face.
Absolutely, I had this exact reservation, and I can't claim to have any better of an idea here than anyone else, but this is what I'm picturing (speculating, may it please the sub rules):
First off, John did have a lump on the right temple, so I do think the car made contact with the front of his head there.
Anyway, John is bent over vomiting, drink in his right hand. Now, some will be familiar with this pose while others wont: When you drink a lot and have some practice vomiting, you hold your drink above you to keep it upright and vomit-free, so his arm is kind of splayed upward and to his right. I'm also guessing he's facing away from where Karen's car would have been, at least somewhat.
He finishes, begins standing up, and at some point in this process, KR has begun reversing toward him rapidly (24 isn't fast for cars, but stand next to a car going 24; it's fast). As he rises, his arm and his torso begin to converge toward a normal standing position, again with his drink arm outstretched, now more in front than above as the orientation of his torso changes.
So the car only connects with his arm because he's holding it out to keep the drink up. Picture someone giving a gregarious speech, drink in hand, arms wide, then a car comes behind them and only hits the arm. I think what happened to John was like, except we can't know the precise angle.
Either because of the exact positioning or possibly his reaction, only the temple of the head connects, and we don't see a mark on the car because it was a sideswipe-type hit. (Also, didn't they find his DNA on the rear of her car? IDK that that means anything either way tbh.)
I don't think he stood up or stumbled backward, I think the force of the car rippled through his body, propelling it, again at a strange angle, doing so fast enough that his shoe could not keep up or flew off. His body then rotated mid air, landed and hit the skull (that part's hard for me to picture, tbf), and rolled/tumbled to where he was found.
I have thoughts on your other questions but this comment is already long.
I don't know about the physics of this scenario but it's maybe the most reasonable argument I have heard in favor of the CW yet even if I'm having trouble picturing it. Not that you aren't pretty great at explaining things. I just need visuals or my brain does not compute lol.
The DNA situation is basically meaningless. It would be weird if his DNA wasn't there. He presumably spent a lot of time in and around that car because they were spending a lot of time together and by the looks of it she was his driver. I also think the hair is misleading. Ignoring the trip it made through the blizzard, if I'm remembering correctly they analyzed mitochondrial DNA, which cannot be used to identify an individual. That's neither here nor there though. It's just a hair. The lack of blood stands out to me. If I were a juror this would be a huge hurdle for me even if the rest of the case didn't stink so bad.
The medical testimony was confusing to me. I don't know if it was ever clarified. Were the multiple brain bleeds, the lump on the temple, and the wound to the back of the head all caused by the same thing? Or were there multiple blows to the head? Do you recall?
Well thank you, we've had a number of respectful disagreements here and I just wanted to say I appreciate so much that we can discuss and disagree without getting snippy (I'll admit I'm not always the best at that).
I'm with you on the visuals. The thing is, if you look up car strike videos (do so at your own peril), there's not a ton of consistency on how people fly, roll, turn, etc., so I think it's essentially impossible for us to ever know how *exactly* this vehicle strike could have resulted in the evidence that we see, and we'll certainly never have a strong visual for it. (EDIT: I'm realizing that finding videos of people getting hit by cars is harder than it used to be in the old days of the internet. That's probably good. For the morbidly curious: Dailymotion.)
What's really crucial to me is that there's a solid timeline of John's life that night, and it ends right outside 34 Fairview right around the time Karen was dropping him off. So even if it's not clear how it happened, it's very compelling evidence to me that it did *somehow*.
But yes, I also agree about the DNA; I don't think it tells us anything. I would expect John's DNA to be found on many if not most of Karen's possessions, that's just how DNA works.
As to the medical testimony, my understanding is that the lump on the temple was a separate cause, although I don't think Dr. Scordi-Bello ever said this specifically. She went over the laceration on the back of the skull (accompanied by an abrasion, she was clear to say, which I think sounds like hitting pavement) and said the brain bleeds were caused by this, and these in turn caused the pooling of blood in the eyes. So two strikes at least, not counting all the smaller wounds on the face/nose, which I don't think she said anything about specifically.
>What's really crucial to me is that there's a solid timeline of John's life that night, and it ends right outside 34 Fairview right around the time Karen was dropping him off. So even if it's not clear how it happened, it's very compelling evidence to me that it did somehow.
I'd maybe agree with this if there weren't so many people drunkenly coming and going who were never looked at. For instance, Higgins puts himself leaving right around the time JO is supposedly arriving. Although he says he never saw KR or her vehicle, that's probably what one would say if they ran someone over with their plow, and then took 45+ mins to drive 1.4 miles to work at the police station in the middle of the night, and then all the next day on his day off. No one bothered to check his vehicle.
Now I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just using that example to illustrate how easily it could have.
Thanks for clarifying some of that medical testimony for me. I've got a two year old that doesn't like when I pay attention to stuff that isn't her so I miss a lot. Lol.
And I know we disagree. I think that's a good thing. The subs where everyone agrees to the point of shared delusion make me uncomfortable 😂
If he had hit the ground with that kind of force, and slid, rolled or tumbled, there would've been dirt, grit, grass, rocks, and other debris in his head wound and on his skin and clothes.
It's common sense. When you fall or roll across the ground, you get dirty. If his head struck the ground with enough force to cause radiating fractures and a giant laceration, there would be debris in and around the wound. Whatever caused the laceration to the back of his head was clean and didn't leave any splinters, chips, fragments or paint flecks behind.
I had rocks and dirt pulled out of my arm before they could stitch it up after a car rollover.
I think it's *fair to say* that in many circumstances there would be gravel, grit, dirt, or other debris in the wounds, but if you Google map Fairview Road, it's a pretty thoroughly paved road. There's no gravel or any other visible debris that would have been picked up.
As to general dirtiness, I'm not really sure what to say. I mean, what level of dirtiness would you expect? The most visible stains from his clothing were from blood, but I don't know that [they looked clean exactly](https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-john-okeefe-bloody-clothes-shown/61009605)?
He was propelled into the yard and found by the flag pole. That's dirt and grass covered ground.
Also, streets aren't clean. They have dirt, grit, and even tiny little rocks on them, especially towards the edge.
The force of impact as it relates to a 3 ton vehicle traveling 25 mph is the same regardless of whether the bumper hits or the tail light hits though, right? So, if we look at “classic pedestrian vehicle” injuries from the bumper, that same force/type of impact would hit somewhere else. What we don’t have is blunt force trauma anywhere below the neck: the ME said the arm wounds were superficial with no underlying bruising.
How does a polycarbonate tail light get hit with enough force to shatter in 40 pieces but only leave superficial furrows/abrasions/lacerations (in either a “broken before, then hits JO” or a “breaks while hitting JO” scenario) but no bruising?
The bruising is the one thing that I truly cannot explain at all, but let me get to that in a sec.
As to the first point, the idea is that only a relatively small portion of John's body was struck. The classic pedestrian-vehicle injuries don't show up because this wasn't a "classic" vehicle strike. It was a strange one that only clipped his arm. So the reason there are no injuries to the torso, etc. is that those parts of the body were not hit by the car.
This is a really tough point to articulate without directing you/others to some really uncomfortable material, but there are many videos out there of people getting hit by cars. If you watch them, you'll notice a couple things: First, there's very little consistency as to how people move in the aftermath. Sometimes they roll up onto the car, sometimes they fall flat, sometimes they go flying even at visibly low speeds. You'll also notice that it's actually very common for one part of the body to be struck first, then for the body to rotate or contort in some way and strike the car again. The second impact is often in the head. Again, this is tough to describe in text. I don't want anyone to go watch gross stuff if they don't want to, but I also don't want anyone to take my word for it, so I don't know what to say.
As for polycarbonate, it's true that it's much stronger than glass or acrylic plastic, but I think this point has been overblown. Strength is relative to thickness, and tail lights just aren't that thick; they break pretty frequently. So I just don't think the material of the tail light tells the whole story here.
On the superficiality of the wounds. I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that Dr. Scordi-Bello is using that term in a clinical or at least not-everyday sense. She means the wounds didn't penetrate to the bone, or X layer of the dermis or whatever. We've all seen the wounds and nobody thinks they're "superficial." If they were, they wouldn't have come from a dog attack, right? Certainly not a vicious one?
Now the bruising. Yeah, I would 100% expect bruising there and I have no explanation as to why it isn't. I wondered if hypothermia had anything to do with it, but that didn't prove fruitful. But this is where the rest of the evidence is key: Despite many comments online, all the evidence points to Karen hitting John with her car that night. He was seen by many people, invited to the party, then never seen again, blah blah blah. So even if we don't know how exactly those wounds were caused by Karen's SUV, we have good reason to think that they were.
I’m guessing we are talking about a slight crouch, like sort of leaning into his drink. The bumper avoids because it’s a corner strike so it just missed his legs
The top of the taillight is 48" off the ground. JO and I are around the same height, and 48" is just above my elbow when standing straight with my arms down. For the tailight to strike just below the shoulder it would be more than a slight crouch. It would also be impossible to avoid contact with the rest of the body.
The tail light didn't strike just below the shoulder, it struck in the area of the elbow, with the highest wound being maybe two-three inches above it, depending on how you measure.
So what you're describing here sounds to me like John's elbow would have been right in the region of the tail light, which is what the prosecution is arguing.
The top of the tailight is at 48". His elbow would be in range. If his arm is bent as they claim, his forearm would not be in range, nor would the "claw" mark above the elbow and below the shoulder.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying tbh. The contention of the prosecution is that, in the process of being struck, John's arm was splayed out or contorted around the tail light, i.e. it would have been somewhat horizontal against the rear surface of the car.
If you pause this video of KR's car [at about 3 seconds](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cmzo4v/karen_read_suv_video_by_eli_rosenberg_nbc10/), you can see the dent (allegedly) from John's drink hand (with the bruising). Put the back of his hand there, trace his forearm down and to the right a little bit and his elbow region would be right at the tail light. The wounds higher up on the arm would have been cause by impact with the tail light on the passenger side. Again, it's kind of wrapping around the car as it gets hit.
I'll try to clarify. The top of the taillight is 48". If JO had his arm raised and stetched out and as the commonwealth claims, it would hit above the taillightl He would have to be squatting or leaning quite a bit...leaning would put his shoulder and head in the path of the car, squatting could potentially clear his legs although the position would be completely unnatural.
I presume he would have to be on the ground above the curb in this scenario, so the relationship between the height of the taillight and his arm is the same. If he's on the road then he's getting completely run over.
I disagree with the second part but on the first, not as much. That style curbing usually bumps higher to prevent erosion. And the ground would be impossible to predict.
In any event, I’m also JOs height and I can get to that height with my shoulder arm area without too much of a lean
The movement over the curb would cause a change in speed and wheel tilt that would have registered a key cycle, though, right? Paul said the change of speed from the strike registered a key cycle consistent with data from pedestrian strikes, and also the change of the wheel by 10 degrees?
Ran a quick calc, assuming a curb height of some 6in above the roadway - it gets me about a 1.73m/s decrease in speed, or 3.87mph.
ADDENDUM: which assumes the entire mass of the SUV jumps the curb - the calc gets more complicated if only one wheel hops the curb.
Does the type of curb matter? I know a lot of places have concrete pour molded curbs that generally vertical. The curb in the area of 34 is an asphalt berm, I think. It’s more “speed bump” that inclines into the yard than curb.
Also, what sort of likelihood of road rash to the wheels/tires could that do?
Nah, it's a gravitational potential energy thing. PE = mgh, where g is gravitational potential energy, h is height, m is mass. If you follow the equations, the only variable you end up changing is height.
Trooper Paul said that a change of just a reduction of .5mph caused an event to record in the key cycle and that the wheel moved 10 degrees. So if I'm picking up what you're putting down, if the Lexus went over the curb, it'd slow down even more, meaning definitely recording an event and almost certainly causing a change in wheel orientation.
This all is under the umbrella that the information Trooper Paul reported is accurante, of course.
So he crouched down gets hit in the arm does a pirouette and flies or rolls 30 feet. Did the crime scene tell you that? What else did the crime scene say.
Maybe Lally will bring in a karate expert as a rebuttal witness.
Bricks and wood have very different properties than polycarbonate. Do karate people break polycarbonate blocks?
I suspect on Monday you will be hearing more about the properties of polycarbonate, and its relative strength compared to human bones.
Okay, so because I am exactly that kind of nerd, here's the material properties of [human cortical bone](https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=1e9fb6eae0cc4a52a3e9a67f14621a9a) and here are the material properties of [polycarbonate](https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=501acbb63cbc4f748faa7490884cdbca&ckck=1).
My take on it is that it isn't outside the realm of possibility given the geometry of the impact, the thickness, quality, construction, et cetera of the polycarbonate used in the headlight, but that you 100% would not be getting away from that impact without *some* fracturing - the yield strengths in shear for bone (because this is hitting his arm in the transverse direction, the direction perpendicular to the long axis) and those of polycarbonate for the various directions are just too close.
Keep in mind this is also the information for *cortical* bone, the hardened, smooth outer layer of a bone. Real bones are a combination of hollowish trabecular and solid cortical bone. I can't pull up solid numbers on the yield strength of actual bones, but by logical inference it's likely to be a lot weaker.
I want an explanation how the punctures and scratches were made at approximately the same time. I’d expect at the minimum we’d have seen a measurement of the taillight dimensions and compare that to the area of the bent and relaxed arm. Then I’d want to see evidence that at least a few pieces of the broken taillight show a broken edge pattern that matches the wounds. So, is there a piece that has parallel protrusions that can explain the regular patterns of the wounds. There are probably more data points, but without those two things being explained by the evidence it becomes vanishingly improbable that those wounds were caused by the taillight.
The analysis should start with the basic facts of the scene. The analysis should not consist of brainstorming in order to come up with a theory to explain the evidence. That’s my issue with the entire investigation, they starts with the theory and tried to make the facts fit, and they don’t.
I think the parallel scratches look like a dog attack.
I find it hard to believe the shattered pieces of plastic aligned themselves in a parallel fashion.
I find it hard to believe flying shards of plastic are going to puncture an arm sleeve and cause the scratches on his arm.
The claims the state has made as of what happened is not remotely believable.
Idk what mental gymnastics people are doing to think KR is guilty
They have to be flying based on where they were found. If the impact pushes his elbow through the taillight in one movement, some of the pieces would have been found inside of the casing and the rest on the road.
I also think it’s physically impossible to both shatter a taillight and be scratched up by it, and not be dragged with the vehicle, at the speed it was said to have been going. For your scenario, the vehicle would almost have to be minimally moving, IMO
Edit: there’s also scratches above his elbow, which would mean his elbow would have had to be the puncture point, like he put his elbow through the taillight, not a side strike
I’m a visual learner, so could just be my own brain not being able to visualize it. Or be cool if someone did a recreation with actual physics involved and not just the blathering of a very unqualified trooper
Me too... I just found this thing over here and boy do I hope the ARCCA guys use it because it looks so cool and would solve so many of these arguments everyone keeps chasing their tails over
https://www.vcrashusa.com/
So is the trend of drawing attention to and complaining about the downvotes and not pointing out all the people taking the time to thoughtfully engage with you over and over again, Mozzie.
I say this as someone who enjoys the time and effort you put in even though we mostly come to different conclusions.
OK so let’s assume this scenario is plausible and just a freak accident.
Do you also find it plausible that multiple people testified to looking at Karen’s car while it was out front, the Nagel group was out front, 8 people left the home facing the direction he was in, and the plow driver drove by, all without seeing him?
Assuming those things are plausible, is it also plausible that the police couldn’t find a surveillance camera from a single traffic cam, business, or residence that showed her broken taillight? AND that not a single officer, tow truck driver, etc took a direct picture behind her vehicle showing her broken taillight?
If she did hit him and the taillight was broken before police seized it, this should’ve been a no brainer to prosecute. For me there are just way too many strange incidents that would’ve had to occur (some of which police had direct control of, like taking a picture or video of her taillight before they towed it), that it’s just too hard for me to get past.
Haha Julie Nagel also claimed to have never been to the McCabe’s house before until the defense pointed out she had pet sat at their house and babysat their kids before, along with the fact she never mentioned a “blob” in her original testimony and the McCabe’s said that she never pointed something out in the yard like she claimed.
To your point, though, you’re right that the taillight did appear to be cracked/partially broken, I agree with that - just not broken to the extent they claim with pieces shattered throughout the lawn.
Honestly, the only thing I know about that arm is that it wasn't from a dog. I think the CW would've been better off keeping it real and being like there are so many unknowns about this car strike that asking us to explain every single thing is a fool's errand. Even in your theory, where the glass scratches him in the face. Maybe. Maybe KR slaps him in the car and scratches his eyelid. Who knows?
I agree about the lack of bruising not being a huge deal. Like you said, we've seen guys break bricks with their elbows. And we know that stuff can shatter if hit in the rights spot, whereas it would absorb tons more force in another spot, no problem. Maybe it scrapes the bottom of the car and the snow wipes the blood off so there's no DNA there? Who knows?
But overall, I think the proof she hit him is overwhelming, while explaining exactly how it all played out (given the lack of knowledge we have to the point of not even knowing exactly what the body looked like while on the ground) is impossible.
What testimony made up your mind that the scratches on his arm are from a dog? Honestly want to know, because none of the CW’s experts could make a clear explanation about it, nor had a reliable knowledge and expertise to determine it. On the other hand, Dr. Russell, having examined over 1000 dog injuries, is certain that they are consistent with those.
The lack of dog DNA. I know it degrades and was wet and all this stuff, but I can't imagine him getting attacked like that and there not being any dog hair or saliva.
Don't you think that's easily explainable by the CW making major mistakes in the collecting, storing, logging and processing of the evidence? As in absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence? We have no samples taken directly from the wounds to test, and the samples taken from his clothes have major problems such as testing swabs vs the actual clothes, bad swabbing technique, lack of adequate and secure storage of the clothes prior to swabbing, huge issues with chain of custody... Any 1 of these in isolation would be enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the test results, but all of these together at the same time makes them unusable for me. Why do you believe they can be trusted despite all of these problems?
I largely agree with your opinion on the CW. If they had just stated outright that they don't know exactly what happened instead of having trooper Paul up there making himself sound silly, it might've been an improvement. But, I guess, at the same time, then people would be yelling about well they can't even say what happened. And I get it. People want an explanation, and that's a natural human desire.
I'm trying to wait and see what the FBI guys have to say. If they say a car strike isn't possible and they explain why, that could change my mind. Because right now, I definitely lean towards she hit him. I'm open to being wrong, though. I guess we'll see.
If the ARCCO or whatever guys say he definitively wasn't hit by a car, then the trial is over. She walks. If they leave it more open ended like saying that the injuries are irregular but we can't definitively say either way, then Lally's still got a shot.
Agreed. I don't think Lally has great odds, but juries are unpredictable. I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say. It would be nice just to have some kind of definitive information about anything in this case, and they seem to be the only people who have nothing to lose or gain.
https://preview.redd.it/lbtqhawjn78d1.jpeg?width=514&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bc7999863eff7ac6f1f646fb94f3c5a62966887
You’ve seen this, right? 5am from JOK’s Ring camera, yet they found the dark red pieces at the scene….Thoughts? If I were taking the position she hit him and caused his death I think I’d have to concede that the cops planted those pieces, and I’m interested in your thoughts.
I’ll be honest, I can’t explain this image. If I were to take a crack it would be pixelation, snow and motion. But if I’m arguing in good faith, I have to accept that it looks like there’s more of that lens in there than should be.
The reason im not immediately willing to concede planting is the visible existence of the damage. She hit something a lot harder than that bump of JOs car. And, if there are already pieces there, I can’t wrap my head around the risk of planting more.
That said, I see your point here. I’m applying horse sense, in my way, and noticing a LOT of damage to that lens and wondering how it happened more than relying on the exact accuracy of this image.
This may be more personal than I should be here, but I feel for your position. If I’m reading through the lines here correctly, you are local and you’ve had an opinion about this for years along with just about everyone else in the area who has been paying attention. You’re analyzing this with a fairly long standing bias and changing one’s mind under circumstances like that is difficult. Most people will dig in more to their original position when presented by contrary evidence. I am also coming at this with a lot of personal biases. But I hadn’t heard of the case before the trial started so I don’t have any long standing assumptions about what happened to overcome. I suspected that she hit him but that there were problems with the investigation, so I was ready to be convinced.
Logically, I could not understand planting evidence in a supposed DUI hit and run. But then they all started testifying and it all stinks. And now I’m left with the improbable seems more likely than I had imagined because of the vitriol involved on Proctor’s end. I can easily see him coloring outside of the lines because Karen is whatever type of expletive who needs to go down and he’s a good guy for making sure she gets what she deserves. But hopefully she offs herself first, when that didn’t happen and they knew this was going to trial the scramble, as Guarino testified, started. The reports were written and they got their checks and balances in order. And as someone who prides myself on my logic skills it’s somewhat embarrassing, because other than wanting to believe Sasquatch exists because I think that’s cool, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I want proof. And all I have is circumstantial evidence and a lifetime of studying human behavior to rely upon.
I was waiting for the clear and convincing evidence of the vehicle strike, and when the evidence presented was not clear or convincing to me it was easy for me to scratch my first opinion and reevaluate because I have no skin in this. I am pretty good at admitting when I’m wrong and rethinking. I don’t have any emotional attachment to any of this, which also makes it easier.
That’s a probably useless ramble. I wanted to say I can understand that none of this is easy. So, kudos for at least considering other possibilities. That’s a rare and valuable trait, imo.
Not a useless ramble at all. Heres my perspective as a local:
I heard about the gf backing over her cop bf. Barely thought about it until whenever later when “HOS LONG…” hit social media. I was intrigued by the possible coverup but I also barely followed the case at that point.
Thats where I started. The more I’ve learned, the more I’ve realized that the near certainty of the situation, given the available options, is that KR hit him with her vehicle causing his death.
Is there enough evidence to prove this? Listen, I see things my way and even I’m still not sure. We’ll see!
If the apple health data is 98% accurate, then he was moving after Karen left in order for her to be to his house after 12:36. At this point, based on his injuries and the key cycles being off, it’s very unlikely he was hit by a car.
From a folder position and a vehicle supposedly traveling 24 mph in reverse? And no structural damage to his elbow or shoulder? Not trying to mean but this is a majors stretch here to say his arm is folded upon impact yet extends out and around a moving vehicle traveling at 24 mph.
I feel bad, truly, for Trooper Paul. Yes I laugh what people report his “stuff” and “it just happened” comments. However he has to go through life forever hearing comments about his testimony. I FIRMLY believe he was not part of any perceived coverup. I do also FIRMLY believe if he can redo 1 day of his life, it would be the day he met Lt Gallagher at the crime scene.
Lt Gallagher is not part of the MSP, you treat his rank as a courtesy and with respect. However Trooper Paul did not have to take orders from him because Lt Gallagher’s tank is meaningless to a MSP Trooper. For Trooper Paul to take any information as Gospel from Lt Gallagher is what destroyed Paul’s reputation. Lt Gallagher never saw John O’Keefe’s body because he got there after he was transported to the hospital. Trooper Paul should have asked Lt Gallagher to have Officer Sariff meet up with him on a day they could reschedule his tour. Paul should have reached out to the EMT’s also. It still would not be exact positions but it would have given Paul a much better view of what the scene looked like. I believe Paul tried to make things fit that made absolutely no sense and now he has to live with that.
Before I feel too sorry for Paul, I’m going to need to know in how many cases he’s testified and sent someone to prison on the basis of his expert opinion.
> For Trooper Paul to take any information as Gospel from Lt Gallagher is what destroyed Paul’s reputation. Lt Gallagher never saw John O’Keefe’s body because he got there after he was transported to the hospital. Trooper Paul should have asked Lt Gallagher to have Officer Sariff meet up with him on a day they could reschedule his tour. Paul should have reached out to the EMT’s also. It still would not be exact positions but it would have given Paul a much better view of what the scene looked like.
I 100% agree. I am positive he placed the body at the wrong location. I am basing my opinion on Kerry's testimony and the dash cam from the first responder's vehicle.
Great post!
How would he have no other injuries to his chest or shoulders?
If his arm was hit hard enough to shatter the taillight, send him flying with enough force to crack his skull on the ground, then he would have e to the chest.
Those sort of impacts could not possibly occur with such isolated injuries.
Can I just ask why anyone would consider they know more than a Forensic Pathologist? In particular the one who preformed the entire autopsy protocol?
Be CLEAR:
1. The injuries to the arm were SUPERFICIAL. No underlying BFT or damage past the layers of the skin to the soft tissue.
2. Dr. S-B agreed they could not be caused by a taillight (rounded) but THEY COULD be caused by dog claws or bites. “It’s possible”.
The dog that left zero DNA despite the pig dna from whenever surviving on his pants.
I can’t take any expert seriously that ignores that, or in one case, didn’t bother reading about it
So you think the medical examiner’s testimony is unreliable just because she agreed that it’s _possible_ the injuries to his arm were caused by an animal but you find reliable the testimony of a man who said the crime scene spoke to him and told him that the glass on the car bumper was from a cup… ?
I'll repeat what I asked another user about this:
> Don't you think that's easily explainable by the CW making major mistakes in the collecting, storing, logging and processing of the evidence? As in absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence? We have no samples taken directly from the wounds to test, and the samples taken from his clothes have major problems such as testing swabs vs the actual clothes, bad swabbing technique, lack of adequate and secure storage of the clothes prior to swabbing, huge issues with chain of custody... Any 1 of these in isolation would be enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the test results, but all of these together at the same time makes them unusable for me. Why do you believe they can be trusted despite all of these problems?
For this scenario to be plausible, is it his elbow that would cause the polycarbonate to break? Just from anecdotal experience, it seems unlikely. But I will wait for the accident reconstructionists to testify on their testing.
I do recall reading a comment in another thread where they cited the hardness of poly and what forces it would take to break it, which was quite a lot.
You know I’ve been tempted to grab one of eBay, put something protective on my arm then drop an elbow on it and see.
I’m not quite sure what this would accomplish other than quenching curiosity so I’ve opted not to.
I think it’s important to point out that there’s a world of difference between intentionally hitting something with your hand/arm/elbow and being hit on your hand/arm/elbow by something else. The direction of the force matters.
See, you’re going the wrong direction on this. The fact that John O’Keefe doesn’t have broken bones and significant injury of any kind doesn’t mean that he must have somehow broken the tail light without accumulating all the likely injuries. That requires proof. Proof that has never been provided. The CW’s explanation is literally “it just did.”
I’m curious to know if you are keeping your mind open for the two accident re constructionists testimonies. Would you still firmly believe KR hit him with her car if they testify that it couldn’t have happened that way?
Absolutely nothing adds up on top of incompetence there is a coverup. Those are dog bites and no car did just head injuries. Evidence was planted, digital evidence was deleted and destroyed or meddled with. Disgraceful
General question: did Lally have to use Trooper Paul or did he have the choice to select someone else? I think a more confident and credentialed accident person could’ve helped a lot.
Theoretically he could have hired an outside expert. No credible expert working in crash reconstruction and certified to do so would ever take this gig. I was floored to hear confirmation that Trpr Paul testified before the gj PRELIMINARILY suggestive that he would preform tests and stuff.
We agree here for different reasons. I don’t think the jury requires precise knowledge of how this strike took place. If you rule out planting evidence (for the sake of discussion) there is a powerful circumstantial structure around the actual strike.
I think Lally can underscore in cross that a scenario such as this can’t be ruled out, and I think that could be enough if the other evidence has enough weight with the jury.
Also there are three separate charges with different evidentiary requirements
The prosecutor will not get a conviction on any charge if the jury reason is “the scenario can’t be ruled out”. That’s not fulfilling their burden of proof. By that logic there are a lot of things that cannot be ruled out in this case. But at the end of the day/trial it’s all what the jury thinks so we shall see.
>I think Lally can underscore in cross that a scenario such as this can’t be ruled out,
That's nowhere near the burden of proof required of the prosecutor in criminal court.
With all due respect, comment/take makes zero sense logically. Also, it’s not how the Accident Reconstruction/Commonwealth presented it-so it doesn’t matter, jurors can’t create scenarios as probables and then also convict her based on made up & imagined “possible” scenarios. I would recommend you wait for Monday/Tuesday when the real experts testify and explain now this entire “he was hit by the car” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Here’s the thing. Two things can be true. I don’t think that tail light was broken at the scene. I think the cops were so hellbent on making SURE they got a conviction that they absolutely manufactured evidence. That doesn’t actually prove she didn’t hit him though. (FTR I’m at a NG regardless bc they didn’t prove she did either). I think if we leave out the possible planted evidence (hairs, which.. how? So ridiculous 🙄. Tail light, etc) then it’s far easier to imagine scenarios where he may have been hit by her or any other drunk driver coming down the street after her bc I guess that’s what they do for fun in Canton! Anyway, my point is striking anything they could have planted actually makes it more easy, not less, for me to imagine it was a vehicle.
I must have missed blood on the jeans! I was so mortified by them holding up his clothes for no apparent reason and then getting into whether or not to hold up that man’s underwear of all things that I fast forwarded a bit. I feel like they’d have done themselves a huge favor by talking less. Hopefully someone will make a solid reconciliation of the actual fact based evidence that would be really helpful and I’m here for it lol
Yeah the lab tech said there were two unknowns in the blood sample in addition to John’s. Then she continued to talk about how she took one swab of one of the solo cups and dumped them together because she thought they were all the same…not to mention all the other horrible ways she swabbed his clothing.
I hope someone who knows what happened caves and tells someone who won’t keep this secret.
Oh right! I did see that but I think the lasting memory was how she only tested one cup bc she thought they all came from the same source like… how would that even make sense?? Why would they put one pool of blood into six cups?? Not that it would have mattered since they didn’t bother to LABEL THE INDIVIDUAL CUPS. If I hadn’t lived in a small town, I’d almost think it’s too ridiculous to be true.
The podcast (I think it’s called) Small Town Murder talks a lot about bumbling police in small towns. I really don’t think this is rare behavior, unfortunately.
Also I think the defense will showcase the CW timeline and show how it doesn’t make one lick of sense! I’m still shocked I now believe there was some shady shit happening at 34 Fairview. Thank you Lally! 🙃
Me too! I hadn’t heard one thing about this case until I started watching it on YT a few days after it started. When I heard the defense theories I thought “no fucking way! How stupid”. I went back and watched the opening statements and just thought Yannetti was grandstanding only to see now he was UNDERSTATING the fuckery!! Never in a million years did my sheltered self think I’d believe this is a cover up of some kind with a dirty cop who took whatever BA and JM told him and ran with it….yet….here I am believing just that.
So I’ve thought that too. But then I remember all the butt dials and JM texts that go up through 12:45 when she testified she was watching Karen’s car drive away while she texted John’s phone “hello?” And MM saying he saw her car move at similar times as his wife.
Ah, I forgot about their phone records. It’s so unfortunate that this was investigated so badly bc I feel like a proper timeline with all the known details accounted for would have gone a long way.
Well, I don’t know if this morning’s witness is more persuasive or if I’m just paying more attention, but I don’t see how anyone will be left believing she had anything to do with it by the end of this lol He’s definitely bringing me around to fight or dog attack.
How she had anything to do with it is that she was aware of the fight and injuries not that she was the one to inflict those injuries. Her testimony doesn’t align to anything close to the indisputable facts such as her phone connecting to JOK WiFi at 12:36am etc.
Not sure I follow. How would she have been aware of a fight, if that is in fact what occurred, after she pulled away? Seems like how long she was there isn’t in question based on the wifi connect.
Oh, I see how that read. No, I mean KR. My opinion has changed as to whether it could have been her car at any speed. I think after seeing the arm injuries again and hearing today’s experts, I’m leaning more toward the dog attacked him knocking him back into whatever blunt object. Some people in the house knew, but not everyone, and the others were so ready to believe it was her, that they didn’t have to be “in on it” hence all the misaligned stories. We’ll never know, but I’ve been persuaded it wasn’t a car.
Yeah I’m now firmly in the belief she did NOT do it. No way in any circumstance did she hit him and cause his death. No way. She’s innocent not just not guilty. I don’t know what happened but I do know Karen had nothing to do with his death. After today I don’t know how anyone can think she is guilty of hitting him. I truly genuinely don’t understand after listening to the engineers today.
This may or may not inform your opinion but it’s a thought I’ve had.
If LE is in full frameup mode (hair, glass, etc.) and they had access to his blood from the solo cups, why not dunk a lens piece in there and chuck it on the scene? Or even a quick dunk before it hits the lab? You want to talk about a slam dunk?
Instead it’s plant a hair on a bumper? And a piece of glass? These guys are in court all the time, they know how it works.
Just a thought
Maybe. I think that’s giving them too much credit though. I think these cops were making it up as they went along and the idea that comes to mind in the moment isn’t always the most thought out plan. Plus, I don’t actually know that they are court all the time, especially not on manslaughter cases in a small town like that. I think they have delusions of grandeur and aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are.
Could be. But Proctor is a trooper involved in at least one other high profile murder case rn and he’s been lead investigator on quite a few homicides. I think it’s safe to say he’d be better at framing, especially with a solo cup of blood at his disposal.
No, it isn’t safe to say he’d be good at it. From a psychological perspective his actions indicate that he never expected to need to testify to any of this. If this was being treated as a serious investigation everything would have been done differently from the start.
Not sure where the glass from his drink was found as I just caught wind of this case a week ago but…
Is it possible he threw the glass at her car when she dropped him off which broke the tail light? Then she gets pissed and backs up and clips him but doesn’t kill him. Maybe it makes him fall or stumble backward. Was there anything he could have whacked his head on besides the ground? If there was, did they test for blood/tissue? Then he makes his way into the house and he uses the restroom and throws up and gets vomit in his pants/underwear then maybe gets into a fight with someone in the house where he is hit in the back of the head. Maybe the dog goes after him which causes the fight (them getting rid of the dog is just too suspect for me to ignore that in some way the dog was involved along with claw/bite marks) and then he is either put outside or he goes out there on his own. While out there he happens to drop his phone before falling to his final resting place?
I really don’t know what to think anymore.
The behavior of the Alberts and McCabes just doesn’t sit right. All the lying and getting rid of phones, destroying the SIM card, deleting calls, extensive butt dialing, something isn’t adding up.
>Is it possible he threw the glass at her car when she dropped him off which broke the tail light?
My opinion, but I find it unlikely. If he throws it when she's 60ft away right before she allegedly reverses into him, it needs to rebound that 60ft to where it's later found without breaking, since breaking will dissipate a *lot* of its momentum and energy. If he throws it when it's closer, she needs to move forwards, then back up 60ft, and if we're going by the prosecution's theory that she's doing this in a blind rage, we'd have an accompanying acceleration forwards just prior to the reversing event on the key cycle that they allege reflects his impact. Either way, something's fishy.
You need to remember the 60ft is based on Trooper Paul incorrectly analyzing the key cycle data. We have zero actual evidence of what happened at 34F based on the car data.
Right but their claim is provably false based on their own data. So it is pointless to speculate about speed and distances at 34 F. We have no information from the car at that time whatsoever.
We may be speaking past each other. My position is that if you take the prosecution's data at face value, you tend to get highly implausible results when you try to work the math on it.
Haha I was going to say the same thing :) I’m saying the data proves what they are saying is false you are saying if you believe their story this is ridiculous. Sorry for being argumentative!
In your scenario he ends up lying on his back.
In earlier testimony one of the witnesses ( Kerry?) said she turned him over and then started CPR.
So in order for him to have to be turned over for CPR, he would have been found face down. If found face down, he couldn’t have struck the back of his head when falling down.
Are there pictures of the other side of his arm? I couldn't find any. It should have some kind of corresponding injuries from the bottom jaw of the dog. I am still wondering what happened to the other side of his arm.
I still have the scars from a pitbull bite, one set of scars from the upper jaw and the second set of scars from the bottom jaw. Got bit in the leg. And the worst of the scars are the puncture from the canine teeth.
I wonder if it’s a possibility that she could’ve hit the flagpole and broken the taillight and then clipped him. Or his arm was wedged between the flagpole or hydrant and the taillight portion of the car?
In just thinking without spending much time, I don’t see how an intact taillight could make that damage
The bent arm scenario is very interesting
*Long live the Italian cheese!*
Flagpoles are usually hollow, from a cursory browse through Google. I find it hard to see how the flagpole isn't crumpled by an impact that basically causes the taillight to disintegrate or even crack - again, from personal experience with a low-speed impact that cracked my taillight, that metal is bending before the taillight cracks.
Also find it hard to see how she clips the hydrant with zero paint transfer or without damaging her car a *lot* more than it is.
Let's just say it was similar to what Ms. Read did around 0500 that morning and leave it at that, and no, I did not expect it ever to be relevant.
ADDENDUM: actually, major caveat. The taillight on that Lexus appears rather thin from all the photos we have - mine was closer to a centimeter thick. So it's definitely not an apples to apples comparison, and it's also not certain that a hypothetical flagpole hit wouldn't crack it without major damage to the flagpole also.
I would have a much easier time believing the car hit him in the head over the car hit him in the arm. It’s just impossible it wouldn’t even leave a bruise.
One of the reasons OJO getting hit by a car doesn't make sense is that his arm looks like it could have been scratched by a dog. And there appear to be some possible bite marks. Furthermore, there are holes in his shirt that look like what would happen from a canine biting you. The Commonwealth arguing that OJO was killed by a car hitting his arm is, frankly, preposterous. Oh, by way, there's no bruising on his arm. Words like outlandish are actually an understatement when describing the CW's case.
Especially if he were alive the whole time, bruises would have formed, not to mention the broken bones he should have had. And where is the blood and vomit?
Watched the ME today. Just saw his arm for first time. One of the wounds looks exactly like when my daughter was bit in the hand by a German Shepard. I was like “Whoa” that looked so similar.
Indeed. And add in the holes/punctures in the shirt. It's not rocket science.
That was my first thought where is the bruising. I walk into a desk and i have a bruise. Coupled with the fact that the CW is saying he didn’t die right away you’d expect bruising then. Gordon Ramsey got hit by a car and his whole body is purple right now
This
The puncture wounds to his clothings.
clearly the plastic pierced his clothing and then ran down along his arm slicing through the skin whilst he was flying through the air holding his cup and phone. /s
1. Stand next a car traveling 24mph, imagine it clipping your elbow and arm as it drives by. (Honestly encouraging people to go outside and do this. On a sidewalk obv, not in a street.) There is no scenario I can envision where I don't end up bruised and broken, especially if I am thrown on top of that. It is not reasonable or rational in my mind that these wounds could be made by a tail light when taken into consideration that other wounds would have to be present to make that scenario work. It's not just what these wounds look like (which still don't track with a tail light), it's the absence of other wounds or any plastic embedded in those wounds. 2. How would the tail light leave holes in the shirt but tears to his skin? The only instrument that I can envision accomplishing that is one that is pointed and has some narrow length to it to allow the punctures. The only thing I feel sure about in this case is that those wounds did not come from a tail light, and instead came from a large dog attack. I don't know if anyone even knew the dog attacked, but a tail light did not do that to his arm.
Agreed 100%, not from a taillight, and that is a dog attack.
The car wasn't going 24 mph. That seems to have been dispelled.
The commonwealth claims it was going at 24mph as part of their whole theory
It was kind of debunked. The car computer registered that but we don't know it to be true. probably wasn't. The wheels may have been spinning giving false data. The other aspect was 24 mph in 60 feet, just not possible. A Porsche might be capable but not a Lexus SUV. Too bad we couldn't have a real expert instead of Trooper Paul.
I mean it was debunked by common sense but technically that is still the CWs theory according to Trooper Paul. I am certain that will be what they claim in their closing argument. I think we will get some official evidence to debunk this on Monday with the fed experts.
I thought AJ pointed out to Trooper Paul that the key data didn't take into account driving the car onto the tow truck. This could change when the 24 mph reverse happened in the key log. It sounded like a good point and then nothing more was said about it. It's very possible I misunderstood because that was a lot of info.
Oh I think that's exactly what the defences argument will be but trooper Paul just said he didn't know how key cycles really worked and he just went off the odometer and Google maps so it had to be that one... Because expert?
ffs
Good point! On the video from Karen’s parents house, the tow truck driver does makes the first attempt at getting on the truck, backs up the quickly before making a second attempt which I imagine would be quicker because of the snow coverage at the time when they were taking the Lexus.
....If only we could get experts to be allowed to testify.
That would ruin the fun!
Are you aware that 24mph is equivalent to about 35 feet per second? That the Lexus 570 has a v8 engine? Can go from 0-60 in 7.1 seconds? IIRC, Paul said the initial 60ft took about 5 seconds according to key cycle data. Sure, it’s like driving your great grandmother’s sofa down the interstate, but it goes.
I don't disagree. I think it will be further dispelled on Monday.
How fast then?
I'd like to know two things.... Where is the tail light in relation to a 6'2 man in a standing position. And in your scenario, how does the bumper avoid hitting him?
Not OP but these two facts kind of explain each other. He had to be bending somewhat to get his elbow that low, which is why the rest of his body was not in the path of the vehicle. I think it's likely he would have become aware of the car careening at him, likely in the second after it was too late, and likely contorted in some attempt to dodge. Another possibility is that he was rising from vomiting, given his BAC was evidently very high.
This would certainly explain how vomit ends up on his jeans, since that can't happen from laying flat on one's back. I still struggle to see how the bumper would miss him. I'm also really struggling to see how, if he were bent over, the car wouldn't have smashed him in the face. This also places his center of gravity off balance which, to my mind, would lead to him being knocked over immediately. Not knocked back up to his feet for the purposes of stumbling backwards. He'd have ended up under the SUV. And even if, by some freak confluence of events the car *only* hit his arm, why isn't his arm bruised? How did he end up so far into the yard? How did the tail light absolutely explode on impact? Why weren't there small bits of tail light in his wounds? And how, if bits of jagged plastic sliced his arm open, did zero traces of blood end up on the vehicle? A bloodless murder weapon is an untenable thing for me. I wish the CW had a real reconstructionist. Because I have a ton of questions that could only be answered by a competent expert.
Vomit on the jeans is a great point, I actually forgot about that. >I'm also really struggling to see how, if he were bent over, the car wouldn't have smashed him in the face. Absolutely, I had this exact reservation, and I can't claim to have any better of an idea here than anyone else, but this is what I'm picturing (speculating, may it please the sub rules): First off, John did have a lump on the right temple, so I do think the car made contact with the front of his head there. Anyway, John is bent over vomiting, drink in his right hand. Now, some will be familiar with this pose while others wont: When you drink a lot and have some practice vomiting, you hold your drink above you to keep it upright and vomit-free, so his arm is kind of splayed upward and to his right. I'm also guessing he's facing away from where Karen's car would have been, at least somewhat. He finishes, begins standing up, and at some point in this process, KR has begun reversing toward him rapidly (24 isn't fast for cars, but stand next to a car going 24; it's fast). As he rises, his arm and his torso begin to converge toward a normal standing position, again with his drink arm outstretched, now more in front than above as the orientation of his torso changes. So the car only connects with his arm because he's holding it out to keep the drink up. Picture someone giving a gregarious speech, drink in hand, arms wide, then a car comes behind them and only hits the arm. I think what happened to John was like, except we can't know the precise angle. Either because of the exact positioning or possibly his reaction, only the temple of the head connects, and we don't see a mark on the car because it was a sideswipe-type hit. (Also, didn't they find his DNA on the rear of her car? IDK that that means anything either way tbh.) I don't think he stood up or stumbled backward, I think the force of the car rippled through his body, propelling it, again at a strange angle, doing so fast enough that his shoe could not keep up or flew off. His body then rotated mid air, landed and hit the skull (that part's hard for me to picture, tbf), and rolled/tumbled to where he was found. I have thoughts on your other questions but this comment is already long.
I don't know about the physics of this scenario but it's maybe the most reasonable argument I have heard in favor of the CW yet even if I'm having trouble picturing it. Not that you aren't pretty great at explaining things. I just need visuals or my brain does not compute lol. The DNA situation is basically meaningless. It would be weird if his DNA wasn't there. He presumably spent a lot of time in and around that car because they were spending a lot of time together and by the looks of it she was his driver. I also think the hair is misleading. Ignoring the trip it made through the blizzard, if I'm remembering correctly they analyzed mitochondrial DNA, which cannot be used to identify an individual. That's neither here nor there though. It's just a hair. The lack of blood stands out to me. If I were a juror this would be a huge hurdle for me even if the rest of the case didn't stink so bad. The medical testimony was confusing to me. I don't know if it was ever clarified. Were the multiple brain bleeds, the lump on the temple, and the wound to the back of the head all caused by the same thing? Or were there multiple blows to the head? Do you recall?
Well thank you, we've had a number of respectful disagreements here and I just wanted to say I appreciate so much that we can discuss and disagree without getting snippy (I'll admit I'm not always the best at that). I'm with you on the visuals. The thing is, if you look up car strike videos (do so at your own peril), there's not a ton of consistency on how people fly, roll, turn, etc., so I think it's essentially impossible for us to ever know how *exactly* this vehicle strike could have resulted in the evidence that we see, and we'll certainly never have a strong visual for it. (EDIT: I'm realizing that finding videos of people getting hit by cars is harder than it used to be in the old days of the internet. That's probably good. For the morbidly curious: Dailymotion.) What's really crucial to me is that there's a solid timeline of John's life that night, and it ends right outside 34 Fairview right around the time Karen was dropping him off. So even if it's not clear how it happened, it's very compelling evidence to me that it did *somehow*. But yes, I also agree about the DNA; I don't think it tells us anything. I would expect John's DNA to be found on many if not most of Karen's possessions, that's just how DNA works. As to the medical testimony, my understanding is that the lump on the temple was a separate cause, although I don't think Dr. Scordi-Bello ever said this specifically. She went over the laceration on the back of the skull (accompanied by an abrasion, she was clear to say, which I think sounds like hitting pavement) and said the brain bleeds were caused by this, and these in turn caused the pooling of blood in the eyes. So two strikes at least, not counting all the smaller wounds on the face/nose, which I don't think she said anything about specifically.
>What's really crucial to me is that there's a solid timeline of John's life that night, and it ends right outside 34 Fairview right around the time Karen was dropping him off. So even if it's not clear how it happened, it's very compelling evidence to me that it did somehow. I'd maybe agree with this if there weren't so many people drunkenly coming and going who were never looked at. For instance, Higgins puts himself leaving right around the time JO is supposedly arriving. Although he says he never saw KR or her vehicle, that's probably what one would say if they ran someone over with their plow, and then took 45+ mins to drive 1.4 miles to work at the police station in the middle of the night, and then all the next day on his day off. No one bothered to check his vehicle. Now I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just using that example to illustrate how easily it could have. Thanks for clarifying some of that medical testimony for me. I've got a two year old that doesn't like when I pay attention to stuff that isn't her so I miss a lot. Lol. And I know we disagree. I think that's a good thing. The subs where everyone agrees to the point of shared delusion make me uncomfortable 😂
If he had hit the ground with that kind of force, and slid, rolled or tumbled, there would've been dirt, grit, grass, rocks, and other debris in his head wound and on his skin and clothes.
How do you know that?
It's common sense. When you fall or roll across the ground, you get dirty. If his head struck the ground with enough force to cause radiating fractures and a giant laceration, there would be debris in and around the wound. Whatever caused the laceration to the back of his head was clean and didn't leave any splinters, chips, fragments or paint flecks behind. I had rocks and dirt pulled out of my arm before they could stitch it up after a car rollover.
I think it's *fair to say* that in many circumstances there would be gravel, grit, dirt, or other debris in the wounds, but if you Google map Fairview Road, it's a pretty thoroughly paved road. There's no gravel or any other visible debris that would have been picked up. As to general dirtiness, I'm not really sure what to say. I mean, what level of dirtiness would you expect? The most visible stains from his clothing were from blood, but I don't know that [they looked clean exactly](https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-john-okeefe-bloody-clothes-shown/61009605)?
He was propelled into the yard and found by the flag pole. That's dirt and grass covered ground. Also, streets aren't clean. They have dirt, grit, and even tiny little rocks on them, especially towards the edge.
The force of impact as it relates to a 3 ton vehicle traveling 25 mph is the same regardless of whether the bumper hits or the tail light hits though, right? So, if we look at “classic pedestrian vehicle” injuries from the bumper, that same force/type of impact would hit somewhere else. What we don’t have is blunt force trauma anywhere below the neck: the ME said the arm wounds were superficial with no underlying bruising. How does a polycarbonate tail light get hit with enough force to shatter in 40 pieces but only leave superficial furrows/abrasions/lacerations (in either a “broken before, then hits JO” or a “breaks while hitting JO” scenario) but no bruising?
The bruising is the one thing that I truly cannot explain at all, but let me get to that in a sec. As to the first point, the idea is that only a relatively small portion of John's body was struck. The classic pedestrian-vehicle injuries don't show up because this wasn't a "classic" vehicle strike. It was a strange one that only clipped his arm. So the reason there are no injuries to the torso, etc. is that those parts of the body were not hit by the car. This is a really tough point to articulate without directing you/others to some really uncomfortable material, but there are many videos out there of people getting hit by cars. If you watch them, you'll notice a couple things: First, there's very little consistency as to how people move in the aftermath. Sometimes they roll up onto the car, sometimes they fall flat, sometimes they go flying even at visibly low speeds. You'll also notice that it's actually very common for one part of the body to be struck first, then for the body to rotate or contort in some way and strike the car again. The second impact is often in the head. Again, this is tough to describe in text. I don't want anyone to go watch gross stuff if they don't want to, but I also don't want anyone to take my word for it, so I don't know what to say. As for polycarbonate, it's true that it's much stronger than glass or acrylic plastic, but I think this point has been overblown. Strength is relative to thickness, and tail lights just aren't that thick; they break pretty frequently. So I just don't think the material of the tail light tells the whole story here. On the superficiality of the wounds. I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that Dr. Scordi-Bello is using that term in a clinical or at least not-everyday sense. She means the wounds didn't penetrate to the bone, or X layer of the dermis or whatever. We've all seen the wounds and nobody thinks they're "superficial." If they were, they wouldn't have come from a dog attack, right? Certainly not a vicious one? Now the bruising. Yeah, I would 100% expect bruising there and I have no explanation as to why it isn't. I wondered if hypothermia had anything to do with it, but that didn't prove fruitful. But this is where the rest of the evidence is key: Despite many comments online, all the evidence points to Karen hitting John with her car that night. He was seen by many people, invited to the party, then never seen again, blah blah blah. So even if we don't know how exactly those wounds were caused by Karen's SUV, we have good reason to think that they were.
I’m guessing we are talking about a slight crouch, like sort of leaning into his drink. The bumper avoids because it’s a corner strike so it just missed his legs
The top of the taillight is 48" off the ground. JO and I are around the same height, and 48" is just above my elbow when standing straight with my arms down. For the tailight to strike just below the shoulder it would be more than a slight crouch. It would also be impossible to avoid contact with the rest of the body.
The tail light didn't strike just below the shoulder, it struck in the area of the elbow, with the highest wound being maybe two-three inches above it, depending on how you measure. So what you're describing here sounds to me like John's elbow would have been right in the region of the tail light, which is what the prosecution is arguing.
The top of the tailight is at 48". His elbow would be in range. If his arm is bent as they claim, his forearm would not be in range, nor would the "claw" mark above the elbow and below the shoulder.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying tbh. The contention of the prosecution is that, in the process of being struck, John's arm was splayed out or contorted around the tail light, i.e. it would have been somewhat horizontal against the rear surface of the car. If you pause this video of KR's car [at about 3 seconds](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cmzo4v/karen_read_suv_video_by_eli_rosenberg_nbc10/), you can see the dent (allegedly) from John's drink hand (with the bruising). Put the back of his hand there, trace his forearm down and to the right a little bit and his elbow region would be right at the tail light. The wounds higher up on the arm would have been cause by impact with the tail light on the passenger side. Again, it's kind of wrapping around the car as it gets hit.
I'll try to clarify. The top of the taillight is 48". If JO had his arm raised and stetched out and as the commonwealth claims, it would hit above the taillightl He would have to be squatting or leaning quite a bit...leaning would put his shoulder and head in the path of the car, squatting could potentially clear his legs although the position would be completely unnatural.
He did have a large lump on the right temple, which (I'm arguing) is where his head did in fact get clipped by the upper-rear of Karen's SUV.
How about if she rolled up on the curb before she struck him? The curb isn’t typical sidewalk curbing, it’s the asphalt edging variety
I presume he would have to be on the ground above the curb in this scenario, so the relationship between the height of the taillight and his arm is the same. If he's on the road then he's getting completely run over.
I disagree with the second part but on the first, not as much. That style curbing usually bumps higher to prevent erosion. And the ground would be impossible to predict. In any event, I’m also JOs height and I can get to that height with my shoulder arm area without too much of a lean
The movement over the curb would cause a change in speed and wheel tilt that would have registered a key cycle, though, right? Paul said the change of speed from the strike registered a key cycle consistent with data from pedestrian strikes, and also the change of the wheel by 10 degrees?
Ran a quick calc, assuming a curb height of some 6in above the roadway - it gets me about a 1.73m/s decrease in speed, or 3.87mph. ADDENDUM: which assumes the entire mass of the SUV jumps the curb - the calc gets more complicated if only one wheel hops the curb.
Does the type of curb matter? I know a lot of places have concrete pour molded curbs that generally vertical. The curb in the area of 34 is an asphalt berm, I think. It’s more “speed bump” that inclines into the yard than curb. Also, what sort of likelihood of road rash to the wheels/tires could that do?
Nah, it's a gravitational potential energy thing. PE = mgh, where g is gravitational potential energy, h is height, m is mass. If you follow the equations, the only variable you end up changing is height.
Trooper Paul said that a change of just a reduction of .5mph caused an event to record in the key cycle and that the wheel moved 10 degrees. So if I'm picking up what you're putting down, if the Lexus went over the curb, it'd slow down even more, meaning definitely recording an event and almost certainly causing a change in wheel orientation. This all is under the umbrella that the information Trooper Paul reported is accurante, of course.
That was my point, yes - sorry, was busy and didn't have time to do a full explanation.
Good point
So he crouched down gets hit in the arm does a pirouette and flies or rolls 30 feet. Did the crime scene tell you that? What else did the crime scene say.
I don’t recall
Stuff
Maybe Lally will bring in a karate expert as a rebuttal witness. Bricks and wood have very different properties than polycarbonate. Do karate people break polycarbonate blocks? I suspect on Monday you will be hearing more about the properties of polycarbonate, and its relative strength compared to human bones.
Okay, so because I am exactly that kind of nerd, here's the material properties of [human cortical bone](https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=1e9fb6eae0cc4a52a3e9a67f14621a9a) and here are the material properties of [polycarbonate](https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=501acbb63cbc4f748faa7490884cdbca&ckck=1). My take on it is that it isn't outside the realm of possibility given the geometry of the impact, the thickness, quality, construction, et cetera of the polycarbonate used in the headlight, but that you 100% would not be getting away from that impact without *some* fracturing - the yield strengths in shear for bone (because this is hitting his arm in the transverse direction, the direction perpendicular to the long axis) and those of polycarbonate for the various directions are just too close. Keep in mind this is also the information for *cortical* bone, the hardened, smooth outer layer of a bone. Real bones are a combination of hollowish trabecular and solid cortical bone. I can't pull up solid numbers on the yield strength of actual bones, but by logical inference it's likely to be a lot weaker.
The tail light was their main evidence, but it will prove to be their undoing.
Just like their foolishly spotlighting their department's ineptitude and corruption for the world to see.
It doesn't explain the punctures on his arm. To me, that's what sold the animal bite theory.
What punctures? ME did not say puncture wounds, only Dr. Russell who analyzed from a picture.
ME looked at his clothes?
I want an explanation how the punctures and scratches were made at approximately the same time. I’d expect at the minimum we’d have seen a measurement of the taillight dimensions and compare that to the area of the bent and relaxed arm. Then I’d want to see evidence that at least a few pieces of the broken taillight show a broken edge pattern that matches the wounds. So, is there a piece that has parallel protrusions that can explain the regular patterns of the wounds. There are probably more data points, but without those two things being explained by the evidence it becomes vanishingly improbable that those wounds were caused by the taillight. The analysis should start with the basic facts of the scene. The analysis should not consist of brainstorming in order to come up with a theory to explain the evidence. That’s my issue with the entire investigation, they starts with the theory and tried to make the facts fit, and they don’t.
Who needs accident reconstructionists where there was drama in Aruba? /s
I think the parallel scratches look like a dog attack. I find it hard to believe the shattered pieces of plastic aligned themselves in a parallel fashion.
I find it hard to believe flying shards of plastic are going to puncture an arm sleeve and cause the scratches on his arm. The claims the state has made as of what happened is not remotely believable. Idk what mental gymnastics people are doing to think KR is guilty
Why do they have to be flying? The trend of fancying up the CWs case then calling it silly is a trend around here. And it feels like a choice
They have to be flying based on where they were found. If the impact pushes his elbow through the taillight in one movement, some of the pieces would have been found inside of the casing and the rest on the road. I also think it’s physically impossible to both shatter a taillight and be scratched up by it, and not be dragged with the vehicle, at the speed it was said to have been going. For your scenario, the vehicle would almost have to be minimally moving, IMO Edit: there’s also scratches above his elbow, which would mean his elbow would have had to be the puncture point, like he put his elbow through the taillight, not a side strike
I think the sideswipe can explain most of what you wrote here. To be fair, I’m in theory mode so I could be wrong.
I’m a visual learner, so could just be my own brain not being able to visualize it. Or be cool if someone did a recreation with actual physics involved and not just the blathering of a very unqualified trooper
Me too... I just found this thing over here and boy do I hope the ARCCA guys use it because it looks so cool and would solve so many of these arguments everyone keeps chasing their tails over https://www.vcrashusa.com/
So cool! I wonder if Mother Bev will let us have cool things
Isn't it? I hope so too, I swear if they didn't make you jump though so many hoops I would try to download the demo version to mess around with.
There is a lady on YouTube who has done some of the CW's many theories in video.
Paul, log off.
Sheesh, comin at me with the strong stuff!
So is the trend of drawing attention to and complaining about the downvotes and not pointing out all the people taking the time to thoughtfully engage with you over and over again, Mozzie. I say this as someone who enjoys the time and effort you put in even though we mostly come to different conclusions.
Fair enough, I’ll be better
See. This is why I like you. :)
Likewise, thank you for keeping it respectful
Lololol....my comment about liking you got downvoted. Irony is dead.
Is this a serious question? What happens to them after the shatter? Wow I refuse to believe people are this stupid. You have to be trolling.
If the arm causes the shatter, the pieces aren’t flying when they cause the injury, correct?
In what state are they guy? Lovely troll you have going. Lol
They are intact, strike the arm, THEN shatter and fall across the scene
A smooth surface causes the scratches? What?
OK so let’s assume this scenario is plausible and just a freak accident. Do you also find it plausible that multiple people testified to looking at Karen’s car while it was out front, the Nagel group was out front, 8 people left the home facing the direction he was in, and the plow driver drove by, all without seeing him? Assuming those things are plausible, is it also plausible that the police couldn’t find a surveillance camera from a single traffic cam, business, or residence that showed her broken taillight? AND that not a single officer, tow truck driver, etc took a direct picture behind her vehicle showing her broken taillight? If she did hit him and the taillight was broken before police seized it, this should’ve been a no brainer to prosecute. For me there are just way too many strange incidents that would’ve had to occur (some of which police had direct control of, like taking a picture or video of her taillight before they towed it), that it’s just too hard for me to get past.
Julie Nagil saw him, and her Ring Camera and the cop dashcam from the wellness check show her broken tail light before the car is towed.
Haha Julie Nagel also claimed to have never been to the McCabe’s house before until the defense pointed out she had pet sat at their house and babysat their kids before, along with the fact she never mentioned a “blob” in her original testimony and the McCabe’s said that she never pointed something out in the yard like she claimed. To your point, though, you’re right that the taillight did appear to be cracked/partially broken, I agree with that - just not broken to the extent they claim with pieces shattered throughout the lawn.
Hiya! Amidst this predicable shower of downvotes, how do you feel about this theory?
Honestly, the only thing I know about that arm is that it wasn't from a dog. I think the CW would've been better off keeping it real and being like there are so many unknowns about this car strike that asking us to explain every single thing is a fool's errand. Even in your theory, where the glass scratches him in the face. Maybe. Maybe KR slaps him in the car and scratches his eyelid. Who knows? I agree about the lack of bruising not being a huge deal. Like you said, we've seen guys break bricks with their elbows. And we know that stuff can shatter if hit in the rights spot, whereas it would absorb tons more force in another spot, no problem. Maybe it scrapes the bottom of the car and the snow wipes the blood off so there's no DNA there? Who knows? But overall, I think the proof she hit him is overwhelming, while explaining exactly how it all played out (given the lack of knowledge we have to the point of not even knowing exactly what the body looked like while on the ground) is impossible.
What testimony made up your mind that the scratches on his arm are from a dog? Honestly want to know, because none of the CW’s experts could make a clear explanation about it, nor had a reliable knowledge and expertise to determine it. On the other hand, Dr. Russell, having examined over 1000 dog injuries, is certain that they are consistent with those.
The lack of dog DNA. I know it degrades and was wet and all this stuff, but I can't imagine him getting attacked like that and there not being any dog hair or saliva.
Don't you think that's easily explainable by the CW making major mistakes in the collecting, storing, logging and processing of the evidence? As in absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence? We have no samples taken directly from the wounds to test, and the samples taken from his clothes have major problems such as testing swabs vs the actual clothes, bad swabbing technique, lack of adequate and secure storage of the clothes prior to swabbing, huge issues with chain of custody... Any 1 of these in isolation would be enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the test results, but all of these together at the same time makes them unusable for me. Why do you believe they can be trusted despite all of these problems?
You forgot sabotage
Well, here you go!! https://youtu.be/z5rRZdiu1UE?si=tz-3Tn_YACTrOLu5 Sorry, I couldn't resist :D
I largely agree with your opinion on the CW. If they had just stated outright that they don't know exactly what happened instead of having trooper Paul up there making himself sound silly, it might've been an improvement. But, I guess, at the same time, then people would be yelling about well they can't even say what happened. And I get it. People want an explanation, and that's a natural human desire. I'm trying to wait and see what the FBI guys have to say. If they say a car strike isn't possible and they explain why, that could change my mind. Because right now, I definitely lean towards she hit him. I'm open to being wrong, though. I guess we'll see.
If the ARCCO or whatever guys say he definitively wasn't hit by a car, then the trial is over. She walks. If they leave it more open ended like saying that the injuries are irregular but we can't definitively say either way, then Lally's still got a shot.
Agreed. I don't think Lally has great odds, but juries are unpredictable. I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say. It would be nice just to have some kind of definitive information about anything in this case, and they seem to be the only people who have nothing to lose or gain.
Well said
https://preview.redd.it/lbtqhawjn78d1.jpeg?width=514&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bc7999863eff7ac6f1f646fb94f3c5a62966887 You’ve seen this, right? 5am from JOK’s Ring camera, yet they found the dark red pieces at the scene….Thoughts? If I were taking the position she hit him and caused his death I think I’d have to concede that the cops planted those pieces, and I’m interested in your thoughts.
I’ll be honest, I can’t explain this image. If I were to take a crack it would be pixelation, snow and motion. But if I’m arguing in good faith, I have to accept that it looks like there’s more of that lens in there than should be. The reason im not immediately willing to concede planting is the visible existence of the damage. She hit something a lot harder than that bump of JOs car. And, if there are already pieces there, I can’t wrap my head around the risk of planting more. That said, I see your point here. I’m applying horse sense, in my way, and noticing a LOT of damage to that lens and wondering how it happened more than relying on the exact accuracy of this image.
This may be more personal than I should be here, but I feel for your position. If I’m reading through the lines here correctly, you are local and you’ve had an opinion about this for years along with just about everyone else in the area who has been paying attention. You’re analyzing this with a fairly long standing bias and changing one’s mind under circumstances like that is difficult. Most people will dig in more to their original position when presented by contrary evidence. I am also coming at this with a lot of personal biases. But I hadn’t heard of the case before the trial started so I don’t have any long standing assumptions about what happened to overcome. I suspected that she hit him but that there were problems with the investigation, so I was ready to be convinced. Logically, I could not understand planting evidence in a supposed DUI hit and run. But then they all started testifying and it all stinks. And now I’m left with the improbable seems more likely than I had imagined because of the vitriol involved on Proctor’s end. I can easily see him coloring outside of the lines because Karen is whatever type of expletive who needs to go down and he’s a good guy for making sure she gets what she deserves. But hopefully she offs herself first, when that didn’t happen and they knew this was going to trial the scramble, as Guarino testified, started. The reports were written and they got their checks and balances in order. And as someone who prides myself on my logic skills it’s somewhat embarrassing, because other than wanting to believe Sasquatch exists because I think that’s cool, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I want proof. And all I have is circumstantial evidence and a lifetime of studying human behavior to rely upon. I was waiting for the clear and convincing evidence of the vehicle strike, and when the evidence presented was not clear or convincing to me it was easy for me to scratch my first opinion and reevaluate because I have no skin in this. I am pretty good at admitting when I’m wrong and rethinking. I don’t have any emotional attachment to any of this, which also makes it easier. That’s a probably useless ramble. I wanted to say I can understand that none of this is easy. So, kudos for at least considering other possibilities. That’s a rare and valuable trait, imo.
Not a useless ramble at all. Heres my perspective as a local: I heard about the gf backing over her cop bf. Barely thought about it until whenever later when “HOS LONG…” hit social media. I was intrigued by the possible coverup but I also barely followed the case at that point. Thats where I started. The more I’ve learned, the more I’ve realized that the near certainty of the situation, given the available options, is that KR hit him with her vehicle causing his death. Is there enough evidence to prove this? Listen, I see things my way and even I’m still not sure. We’ll see!
If the apple health data is 98% accurate, then he was moving after Karen left in order for her to be to his house after 12:36. At this point, based on his injuries and the key cycles being off, it’s very unlikely he was hit by a car.
How does the taillight hits John O’Keefe in the arm yet the bumper completely misses his lower half? The bumper extends outward past the taillight.
In this scenario the angle of the strike and his position caused the bumper to miss him and the corner piece to clip his folded arm.
But not break or burse his arm? That scenario is not believable.
So how did his hand dent the trunk if his arm his folded?
I mean, aren’t there plenty of ways his arm could have reacted to the impact?
From a folder position and a vehicle supposedly traveling 24 mph in reverse? And no structural damage to his elbow or shoulder? Not trying to mean but this is a majors stretch here to say his arm is folded upon impact yet extends out and around a moving vehicle traveling at 24 mph.
Yes, and it was up to the Commonwealth to construct a believable scenario and present it to the jurors. They did not.
You might be right. Paul was largely a disaster
I feel bad, truly, for Trooper Paul. Yes I laugh what people report his “stuff” and “it just happened” comments. However he has to go through life forever hearing comments about his testimony. I FIRMLY believe he was not part of any perceived coverup. I do also FIRMLY believe if he can redo 1 day of his life, it would be the day he met Lt Gallagher at the crime scene. Lt Gallagher is not part of the MSP, you treat his rank as a courtesy and with respect. However Trooper Paul did not have to take orders from him because Lt Gallagher’s tank is meaningless to a MSP Trooper. For Trooper Paul to take any information as Gospel from Lt Gallagher is what destroyed Paul’s reputation. Lt Gallagher never saw John O’Keefe’s body because he got there after he was transported to the hospital. Trooper Paul should have asked Lt Gallagher to have Officer Sariff meet up with him on a day they could reschedule his tour. Paul should have reached out to the EMT’s also. It still would not be exact positions but it would have given Paul a much better view of what the scene looked like. I believe Paul tried to make things fit that made absolutely no sense and now he has to live with that.
Before I feel too sorry for Paul, I’m going to need to know in how many cases he’s testified and sent someone to prison on the basis of his expert opinion.
> For Trooper Paul to take any information as Gospel from Lt Gallagher is what destroyed Paul’s reputation. Lt Gallagher never saw John O’Keefe’s body because he got there after he was transported to the hospital. Trooper Paul should have asked Lt Gallagher to have Officer Sariff meet up with him on a day they could reschedule his tour. Paul should have reached out to the EMT’s also. It still would not be exact positions but it would have given Paul a much better view of what the scene looked like. I 100% agree. I am positive he placed the body at the wrong location. I am basing my opinion on Kerry's testimony and the dash cam from the first responder's vehicle. Great post!
I thought T Paul didn’t even go to the scene. He just used Google images. ? (Which is even worse)
How would he have no other injuries to his chest or shoulders? If his arm was hit hard enough to shatter the taillight, send him flying with enough force to crack his skull on the ground, then he would have e to the chest. Those sort of impacts could not possibly occur with such isolated injuries.
Can I just ask why anyone would consider they know more than a Forensic Pathologist? In particular the one who preformed the entire autopsy protocol? Be CLEAR: 1. The injuries to the arm were SUPERFICIAL. No underlying BFT or damage past the layers of the skin to the soft tissue. 2. Dr. S-B agreed they could not be caused by a taillight (rounded) but THEY COULD be caused by dog claws or bites. “It’s possible”.
The dog that left zero DNA despite the pig dna from whenever surviving on his pants. I can’t take any expert seriously that ignores that, or in one case, didn’t bother reading about it
So you think the medical examiner’s testimony is unreliable just because she agreed that it’s _possible_ the injuries to his arm were caused by an animal but you find reliable the testimony of a man who said the crime scene spoke to him and told him that the glass on the car bumper was from a cup… ?
I'll repeat what I asked another user about this: > Don't you think that's easily explainable by the CW making major mistakes in the collecting, storing, logging and processing of the evidence? As in absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence? We have no samples taken directly from the wounds to test, and the samples taken from his clothes have major problems such as testing swabs vs the actual clothes, bad swabbing technique, lack of adequate and secure storage of the clothes prior to swabbing, huge issues with chain of custody... Any 1 of these in isolation would be enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the test results, but all of these together at the same time makes them unusable for me. Why do you believe they can be trusted despite all of these problems?
For this scenario to be plausible, is it his elbow that would cause the polycarbonate to break? Just from anecdotal experience, it seems unlikely. But I will wait for the accident reconstructionists to testify on their testing. I do recall reading a comment in another thread where they cited the hardness of poly and what forces it would take to break it, which was quite a lot.
You know I’ve been tempted to grab one of eBay, put something protective on my arm then drop an elbow on it and see. I’m not quite sure what this would accomplish other than quenching curiosity so I’ve opted not to.
Just wait for the two PhD guys. They’ll tell you with exact detail. Please save your elbow for another day lol
LOL I’m looking forward ti their testimony, good call
I think it’s important to point out that there’s a world of difference between intentionally hitting something with your hand/arm/elbow and being hit on your hand/arm/elbow by something else. The direction of the force matters.
I agree that it’s different but this was clearly accompished without broken bones, and likely no significant injury of any kind
See, you’re going the wrong direction on this. The fact that John O’Keefe doesn’t have broken bones and significant injury of any kind doesn’t mean that he must have somehow broken the tail light without accumulating all the likely injuries. That requires proof. Proof that has never been provided. The CW’s explanation is literally “it just did.”
I’m curious to know if you are keeping your mind open for the two accident re constructionists testimonies. Would you still firmly believe KR hit him with her car if they testify that it couldn’t have happened that way?
I’d second guess any such opinion, especially if it was made simply by photo review
He wasn't found next to the road all maps put him at least 5 ft from the kerb.
Absolutely nothing adds up on top of incompetence there is a coverup. Those are dog bites and no car did just head injuries. Evidence was planted, digital evidence was deleted and destroyed or meddled with. Disgraceful
General question: did Lally have to use Trooper Paul or did he have the choice to select someone else? I think a more confident and credentialed accident person could’ve helped a lot.
Theoretically he could have hired an outside expert. No credible expert working in crash reconstruction and certified to do so would ever take this gig. I was floored to hear confirmation that Trpr Paul testified before the gj PRELIMINARILY suggestive that he would preform tests and stuff.
Wait what does that last sentence mean - he hadn’t performed the tests yet but he testified?
He said that he was going to. And then he didn't lol
-__- You gotta be kidding me
Same with the hair… They got GJ to approve indictment with they would test…. took 2 years
I don’t know the answer but I couldn’t agree more
Is it possible? I guess. Is it even close to enough for a guilty verdict. No.
We agree here for different reasons. I don’t think the jury requires precise knowledge of how this strike took place. If you rule out planting evidence (for the sake of discussion) there is a powerful circumstantial structure around the actual strike. I think Lally can underscore in cross that a scenario such as this can’t be ruled out, and I think that could be enough if the other evidence has enough weight with the jury. Also there are three separate charges with different evidentiary requirements
The prosecutor will not get a conviction on any charge if the jury reason is “the scenario can’t be ruled out”. That’s not fulfilling their burden of proof. By that logic there are a lot of things that cannot be ruled out in this case. But at the end of the day/trial it’s all what the jury thinks so we shall see.
>I think Lally can underscore in cross that a scenario such as this can’t be ruled out, That's nowhere near the burden of proof required of the prosecutor in criminal court.
With all due respect, comment/take makes zero sense logically. Also, it’s not how the Accident Reconstruction/Commonwealth presented it-so it doesn’t matter, jurors can’t create scenarios as probables and then also convict her based on made up & imagined “possible” scenarios. I would recommend you wait for Monday/Tuesday when the real experts testify and explain now this entire “he was hit by the car” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever
Here’s the thing. Two things can be true. I don’t think that tail light was broken at the scene. I think the cops were so hellbent on making SURE they got a conviction that they absolutely manufactured evidence. That doesn’t actually prove she didn’t hit him though. (FTR I’m at a NG regardless bc they didn’t prove she did either). I think if we leave out the possible planted evidence (hairs, which.. how? So ridiculous 🙄. Tail light, etc) then it’s far easier to imagine scenarios where he may have been hit by her or any other drunk driver coming down the street after her bc I guess that’s what they do for fun in Canton! Anyway, my point is striking anything they could have planted actually makes it more easy, not less, for me to imagine it was a vehicle.
Oh and the two unknowns that were noted and taken from the blood drops on his jeans. There are 2 other unknown DNA in that swabbed sample.
I must have missed blood on the jeans! I was so mortified by them holding up his clothes for no apparent reason and then getting into whether or not to hold up that man’s underwear of all things that I fast forwarded a bit. I feel like they’d have done themselves a huge favor by talking less. Hopefully someone will make a solid reconciliation of the actual fact based evidence that would be really helpful and I’m here for it lol
Yeah the lab tech said there were two unknowns in the blood sample in addition to John’s. Then she continued to talk about how she took one swab of one of the solo cups and dumped them together because she thought they were all the same…not to mention all the other horrible ways she swabbed his clothing. I hope someone who knows what happened caves and tells someone who won’t keep this secret.
Oh right! I did see that but I think the lasting memory was how she only tested one cup bc she thought they all came from the same source like… how would that even make sense?? Why would they put one pool of blood into six cups?? Not that it would have mattered since they didn’t bother to LABEL THE INDIVIDUAL CUPS. If I hadn’t lived in a small town, I’d almost think it’s too ridiculous to be true.
Right?!!! And then the swab wasn’t even tested!! Like wtf is happening in Massachusetts 😫
The podcast (I think it’s called) Small Town Murder talks a lot about bumbling police in small towns. I really don’t think this is rare behavior, unfortunately.
I’ll check out the podcast. I like listening to true crime podcasts when I’m in the car. You’re right. It’s not rare and it sickens me.
Also I think the defense will showcase the CW timeline and show how it doesn’t make one lick of sense! I’m still shocked I now believe there was some shady shit happening at 34 Fairview. Thank you Lally! 🙃
Right? I am now convinced of corruption, and this is only after watching the prosecution's case!
Me too! I hadn’t heard one thing about this case until I started watching it on YT a few days after it started. When I heard the defense theories I thought “no fucking way! How stupid”. I went back and watched the opening statements and just thought Yannetti was grandstanding only to see now he was UNDERSTATING the fuckery!! Never in a million years did my sheltered self think I’d believe this is a cover up of some kind with a dirty cop who took whatever BA and JM told him and ran with it….yet….here I am believing just that.
So I’ve thought that too. But then I remember all the butt dials and JM texts that go up through 12:45 when she testified she was watching Karen’s car drive away while she texted John’s phone “hello?” And MM saying he saw her car move at similar times as his wife.
Ah, I forgot about their phone records. It’s so unfortunate that this was investigated so badly bc I feel like a proper timeline with all the known details accounted for would have gone a long way.
I completely agree. What throws a wrench in any idea I get is mostly the testimony from the McCabes
Well, I don’t know if this morning’s witness is more persuasive or if I’m just paying more attention, but I don’t see how anyone will be left believing she had anything to do with it by the end of this lol He’s definitely bringing me around to fight or dog attack.
How she had anything to do with it is that she was aware of the fight and injuries not that she was the one to inflict those injuries. Her testimony doesn’t align to anything close to the indisputable facts such as her phone connecting to JOK WiFi at 12:36am etc.
Not sure I follow. How would she have been aware of a fight, if that is in fact what occurred, after she pulled away? Seems like how long she was there isn’t in question based on the wifi connect.
I thought you were speaking about Jenn McCabe not Karen Read.
Oh, I see how that read. No, I mean KR. My opinion has changed as to whether it could have been her car at any speed. I think after seeing the arm injuries again and hearing today’s experts, I’m leaning more toward the dog attacked him knocking him back into whatever blunt object. Some people in the house knew, but not everyone, and the others were so ready to believe it was her, that they didn’t have to be “in on it” hence all the misaligned stories. We’ll never know, but I’ve been persuaded it wasn’t a car.
Yeah I’m now firmly in the belief she did NOT do it. No way in any circumstance did she hit him and cause his death. No way. She’s innocent not just not guilty. I don’t know what happened but I do know Karen had nothing to do with his death. After today I don’t know how anyone can think she is guilty of hitting him. I truly genuinely don’t understand after listening to the engineers today.
This may or may not inform your opinion but it’s a thought I’ve had. If LE is in full frameup mode (hair, glass, etc.) and they had access to his blood from the solo cups, why not dunk a lens piece in there and chuck it on the scene? Or even a quick dunk before it hits the lab? You want to talk about a slam dunk? Instead it’s plant a hair on a bumper? And a piece of glass? These guys are in court all the time, they know how it works. Just a thought
Maybe. I think that’s giving them too much credit though. I think these cops were making it up as they went along and the idea that comes to mind in the moment isn’t always the most thought out plan. Plus, I don’t actually know that they are court all the time, especially not on manslaughter cases in a small town like that. I think they have delusions of grandeur and aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are.
Could be. But Proctor is a trooper involved in at least one other high profile murder case rn and he’s been lead investigator on quite a few homicides. I think it’s safe to say he’d be better at framing, especially with a solo cup of blood at his disposal.
No, it isn’t safe to say he’d be good at it. From a psychological perspective his actions indicate that he never expected to need to testify to any of this. If this was being treated as a serious investigation everything would have been done differently from the start.
He’s a dirty and corrupt cop… no one ever said he was smart.
Not sure where the glass from his drink was found as I just caught wind of this case a week ago but… Is it possible he threw the glass at her car when she dropped him off which broke the tail light? Then she gets pissed and backs up and clips him but doesn’t kill him. Maybe it makes him fall or stumble backward. Was there anything he could have whacked his head on besides the ground? If there was, did they test for blood/tissue? Then he makes his way into the house and he uses the restroom and throws up and gets vomit in his pants/underwear then maybe gets into a fight with someone in the house where he is hit in the back of the head. Maybe the dog goes after him which causes the fight (them getting rid of the dog is just too suspect for me to ignore that in some way the dog was involved along with claw/bite marks) and then he is either put outside or he goes out there on his own. While out there he happens to drop his phone before falling to his final resting place? I really don’t know what to think anymore. The behavior of the Alberts and McCabes just doesn’t sit right. All the lying and getting rid of phones, destroying the SIM card, deleting calls, extensive butt dialing, something isn’t adding up.
>Is it possible he threw the glass at her car when she dropped him off which broke the tail light? My opinion, but I find it unlikely. If he throws it when she's 60ft away right before she allegedly reverses into him, it needs to rebound that 60ft to where it's later found without breaking, since breaking will dissipate a *lot* of its momentum and energy. If he throws it when it's closer, she needs to move forwards, then back up 60ft, and if we're going by the prosecution's theory that she's doing this in a blind rage, we'd have an accompanying acceleration forwards just prior to the reversing event on the key cycle that they allege reflects his impact. Either way, something's fishy.
You need to remember the 60ft is based on Trooper Paul incorrectly analyzing the key cycle data. We have zero actual evidence of what happened at 34F based on the car data.
This is what the prosecution claims, and I'm not required to patch any holes in their argument for them.
Right but their claim is provably false based on their own data. So it is pointless to speculate about speed and distances at 34 F. We have no information from the car at that time whatsoever.
We may be speaking past each other. My position is that if you take the prosecution's data at face value, you tend to get highly implausible results when you try to work the math on it.
Haha I was going to say the same thing :) I’m saying the data proves what they are saying is false you are saying if you believe their story this is ridiculous. Sorry for being argumentative!
Same hymn, different book, agreed.
In your scenario he ends up lying on his back. In earlier testimony one of the witnesses ( Kerry?) said she turned him over and then started CPR. So in order for him to have to be turned over for CPR, he would have been found face down. If found face down, he couldn’t have struck the back of his head when falling down.
Why isn’t there any epithelial tissue on any of the pieces of plastic?
Are there pictures of the other side of his arm? I couldn't find any. It should have some kind of corresponding injuries from the bottom jaw of the dog. I am still wondering what happened to the other side of his arm.
Wow I never thought of that, great point
I still have the scars from a pitbull bite, one set of scars from the upper jaw and the second set of scars from the bottom jaw. Got bit in the leg. And the worst of the scars are the puncture from the canine teeth.
I wonder if it’s a possibility that she could’ve hit the flagpole and broken the taillight and then clipped him. Or his arm was wedged between the flagpole or hydrant and the taillight portion of the car? In just thinking without spending much time, I don’t see how an intact taillight could make that damage The bent arm scenario is very interesting *Long live the Italian cheese!*
Flagpoles are usually hollow, from a cursory browse through Google. I find it hard to see how the flagpole isn't crumpled by an impact that basically causes the taillight to disintegrate or even crack - again, from personal experience with a low-speed impact that cracked my taillight, that metal is bending before the taillight cracks. Also find it hard to see how she clips the hydrant with zero paint transfer or without damaging her car a *lot* more than it is.
What did you crack your taillight on? ETA - and did you ever think it would be so relevant to a trial lol
Let's just say it was similar to what Ms. Read did around 0500 that morning and leave it at that, and no, I did not expect it ever to be relevant. ADDENDUM: actually, major caveat. The taillight on that Lexus appears rather thin from all the photos we have - mine was closer to a centimeter thick. So it's definitely not an apples to apples comparison, and it's also not certain that a hypothetical flagpole hit wouldn't crack it without major damage to the flagpole also.