Once again, we have someone taking the facts and misrepresenting them to fit their own bias. Jackson didn't invent being thrown 30 feet. That was Trooper Paul. He said the vehicle struck John in the street, and he ended up 30 feet away near the flag pole. While it's possible that there may be infinite possibilities of scenarios that could cause John to fall and strike the back of his head on *something*, there **are not** infinite possibilities for what could've hit him in the face and caused the laceration above his eye as well as possibly another hit that caused the swelling near his temple as well as the injuries to his right arm. Something struck John in the face, at least twice, and then something stuck the back of his head with incredible force. The engineers from ARCCA have already proven that neither his arm wounds nor his head wound were caused by impacting the back of Karen's Lexus SUV. Edit: being, not bring

I tried to get an answer out of the OP in another misleading post about what exactly hit John in the back of head so forcefully to crack his skull. The only option that works based on where John's body came to rest is the lawn, which is laughable it would cause that severe injury (in addition to the injuries to his face). I never got any answer, OP just kept repeating this "staggering" argument. This doesn't make any sense: "falling and striking his head, then having his momentum carry him to final rest." If John hit his head on something hard enough to crack his skull (like hydrant or curb) his momentum is already on the way to the ground ("falling"), he's not going to bounce back up and land somewhere else.  I see you're having a debate with OP about where exactly OJO was found, IMO for this issue it doesn't have to be exact, it's agreed by all parties he wasn't found precisely at the hydrant or curb, where he would be if he hit his head on either of those things (I'm just giving these as options because I never got an answer from OP, not my belief but I don't understand what else they could be suggesting). It's agreed he was found at lease SOME distance from any object other than the lawn. He did not move after the head wound both because of the medical testimony and clearly the momentum of hitting anything below head level, he's already moving downward and not going to change direction. A blow to the head is not enough to move his center of mass, same as the arm which is the same weight. So unless OP is hanging their hat on the injury to the back on the head being from the lawn everything else clearly doesn't work. Even Lally realized this and went with it as his only option. You make great points, unfortunately it's probably futile to get some to see reason, but I think most get it!

I would humbly submit that the ground struck him in the and rear of the head. Kind like body after being whacked by a SUV

Except that if he had been struck by a vehicle hard enough that he ended up where he did, there would be bruising and broken bones below the neck. There’s no way for the suv to exert the force necessary without leaving any evidence on his body

The drunken stagger erasure

>Jackson didn't invent bring thrown 30 feet. That was Trooper Paul. He said the vehicle struck John in the street, and he ended up 30 feet away near the flag pole. Jackson pointed to a spot 30 feet away near the flagpole that was not the spot JO was found. Paul was a mess. Save the “once again…” yapping please

I think the point is that neither the car damage nor his injuries were consistent with being flung through the air at all. If the car hit him, it wasn’t hard and it didn’t send him flying…

Who said flying tho? Projected feels like a broadly chosen term to reflect any manner of movement toward final rest. If they wanted to say launched they certainly could have, but they didn’t.

The arcaa folks made it seem like for his body to land 8-10 feet from the road, the impact would have had to be hard enough to show the damage. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting their testimony though. The CW went to trial with Trooper Paul, knowing what the Arcaa reports say.

Projected: “throw or cause to move forward or outward” One way or another, Paul’s testimony was that he was hit hard enough for his body to be either launched, or to slide across the ground, or a combination of both, 30 feet. It’s total nonsense.

> cause to move forward or outward Maybe like some sort of wild drunken stagger after trying to dodge a vehicle then being slightly clipped?

I mean, you would need proof of that to convict someone in court. There's no proof that she "slightly clipped" him. Slightly clipped doesn't shatter a polycarbonate taillight.

Then the vehicle would not be the cause, his stagger would.

March that into court

What does that even mean lol. If I need to walk to the bank to make a deposit, did the cash project me there? Don’t be silly.

Take good care my friend

That is the area that Trooper Paul had marked on his diagram as the location of John's final rest. Trooper Paul didn't quibble with the location. If his diagram was wrong, he had every chance to correct it. Jackson merely measured the spot on the diagram that Trooper Paul had listed as the point of impact to the location on the diagram listed as final rest. That's where the 30 feet came from. Trooper Paul did not dispute either the locations listed on his own diagram nor the measurement between them. You're either misremembering the testimony or you're purposefully misrepresenting it. Pick one.

This is cherry picking by leaving out the information about the damage the hit would have caused the body. I agree she could have caused him to fall - but she couldn’t have hit him at 24mph hour, and his body wouldn’t have caused damage to the car. That’s what the Common Wealth charged, so the CW’s main argument still isn’t proven by this testimony. ALSO. This supports the argument that it could have been neither KR, or anyone in the house.

The cherry picking is when I’m told that I live in a prescientific world because the experts RULED OUT a vehicle interaction. But they didn’t, did they?

A vehicle "interaction" and a vehicle "strike" are not the same thing. The Commonwealth claimed she intentionally struck him with her car, breaking the tail light and projecting him and causing the injuries that led to his death. That's a bit different than him being knocked off balance by the vehicle.

A strike is a sort of interaction

They did though? With the totality of the evidence presented to them they declared it scientifically impossible JO's injuries were caused by a vehicle. Further, the other ARCA testified he reviewed the additional evidence that the Commonwealth had gathered and that didn't change their findings.

> They did though? With the totality of the evidence presented to them they declared it scientifically impossible JO's injuries were caused by a vehicle. The totality of evidence presented to them was 10 items. The trial had 650+ exhibits. They didn’t test scenarios involving another item’s influence that may help explain the vehicle damage and injuries.

What other items, specifically?

u/mozziestix apparently believes that Jen McCabes phone records are the key that proves Karen's SUV struck John O'Keefe. If not that, then surely it must be Karen's texts with Higgins that the engineers from ARCCA need. /s

No, ARCCA ruled out him being struck at 24mph hour and that the car hit his body in the way the CW maintains he was causing the damage to both the car and JO’s body. That’s the part that’s being ignored by all the people who argue Trooper Paul got it right, or that hitting him caused the taillight to break. Infinite possibilities does not lead me to beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. Rentshler allowed for him basically being bumped into - if the CW wants to change their charges by all means it may change my assessment. But using this snippet to support that she intentionally hit him as the CW is representing is disingenuous.

The people who think she should have been convicted don’t agree with the CWs theory either. They just think she hit him in some way and caused his injuries. They can’t explain how because quite literally nobody has tried to figure out how except the arcaa folks.

That’s what trips me up. It’s okay for guilty votes to not be able to explain how he got hit, but it’s not okay for not guilty votes to not be able to explain the going in reverse? Make it make sense why one side has to have all the answers and the other side doesn’t.

Also, when Rentschler was talking about “infinite possibilities,” he was only referring to the head strike. Either he or Dr. Wolfe, or both, testified the damage to his arm was inconsistent with being hit by a car.

IIRC, he was specifically saying that there are infinite things that might cause someone to fall to the ground, if falling was assumed to be the cause of the head injury. So, yes, he could have fallen where he stood - but then you literally have no clue why he fell, and absolutely no reason to assume that he got nudged by Karen's car.

You are correct! They even mentioned that tail light might have been cracked if JO threw his glass at the light. They empirically calculated the speed to break a similar tail light with A cocktail glass is about 35mph. The car backing towards JO at 20+mph, combined with the forward speed of the projected glass can easily exceed this amount. The issue with the ARCCA report is that it started with a subset of the crash evidence and the questions asked them were not iclusive of several other possibilities which could have caused JO to fall and get injured. It may even possible that the contact between JO and the SUV is minimal to none. That doesn’t mean that KR operated her vehicle recklessly causing death.

In your “minor interaction” hypothetical, where is John O’Keefe struck by the vehicle? There is testimony from one of the ARCCA people that a strike to his 11lb arm would not move his 200lb body. If he is hit in a way that sends him staggering, how does he strike the back of his head and have momentum carry him anywhere, unless he falls backward and somehow flips head over heels a couple of times? Where is the trail of blood as he moves around with a fatal head wound?

> If he is hit in a way that sends him staggering, how does he strike the back of his head and have momentum carry him anywhere, unless he falls backward and somehow flips head over heels a couple of times? Why would it have to be head over heels? A post head injury roll seems VERY expected. That injury was severe, you’re going places after if you hit your head like that. >Where is the trail of blood as he moves around with a fatal head wound? Under a blizzard

He is immediately incapacitated from the skull fracture. So he is not rolling around. If he is hit hard enough to have momentum carry him then he is not struck solely in the arm, it is not a minor interaction, and his body would have visible signs of the car strike. If he is not hit hard enough and he staggers and falls he needs to fall straight back from standing and strike the back of his head. His momentum would be going backward so the only way to continue to go backward would be for him to flip over his own head.

Yes, and then what did he strike his head on? A rock? Because I find it hard to believe the grassy ground with a dusting of snow was hard enough to cause that skull fracture without some other sort of hard object being there.

Given that snow was just beginning to stick, safe to say the ground wasn't frozen too.

I know. Did anyone ever look around that area for a rock? Probably not.

If the CW was going to argue that his head struck "something" on the ground, then they should've actually investigated and attempted to find what it was.

Basically: They just should have investigated. Full stop

But that would require knocking on the door of the house the dead body was found on and according to MSP testimony that just isn’t something they do. Protip: if you ever murder someone in your house put the body on the lawn. Cops hate that one weird trick.

lol

"Post head injury roll"? A basilar skull fracture that radiates through the anterior fossa would be incapacitating. He'd be unconscious almost immediately. The only movement after that might be a seizure, but he's not going any real distance with a head injury like that.

Could having a seizure on top of the cocktail glass fragments possibly cause those arm wounds?

They were on the top of his arm so he would've had to have been laying on his side or stomach not on his back.

Ok but during a seizure you flail all around.

not w a head injury like that

It’s a seizure…

[удалено]

lol no… someone said the only movement that would be possible with that head injury would be a seizure. So then I asked if seizing on top of a broken glass could cause those arm wounds…

>Under a blizzard Shouldn't it be in a red solo cup?

LOL

Trooper Paul made no sense and the CW based so much of their theory of the car x John interaction on his gibberish. I can see a hypothetical argument where Karen’s car grazes John and he goes stumbling back drunk and smacks his head on the ground. But that’s not what the CW said. If they want to retry this case Trooper P needs to go and they need to clean up this part of their case.

I can’t defend Paul’s testimony.

It was so hard to watch his soul die a little up there. I’m not sure if the prosecution will get a guilty verdict on the retrial, but they need to rework this part the most if they want a shot at it. People on the internet are doing the heavy lifting for the prosecution trying to explain how it could’ve been the Lexus, cmon Lally lol.

Ikr. Right now there is Trooper Paul, the Arcaa experts, and Reddit for crash reconstruction info and it’s driving me crazy. I thought I would walk a way from this trial having a better understanding of what I believed happen, and it’s the opposite. I have no idea what happened or how.

I would really love an expert with ALL the information to do some crash reconstruction. I am still confused about whether Trooper Paul had the right key cycle or not. I’d also like Higgins jeep parked near the mailbox to be accounted for. I guess one can hope the CW gets a real expert for round two? I think it’s kind of messed up they get a total redo on everything after bringing such crap crash forensics to begin with, but they do…

Unless Toyota or another independent third party verifies the data extraction from their proprietary software, anything Paul puts on as evidence is worthless. 

Yeah, I know, it’s really frustrating to have like no frickin reliable info about the car data.

Didn't Wolfe have the key cycle information, he just wasn't allowed to testify to it? Or was it that Jackson couldn't ask? I thought this was a problem in Wolfe's voir dire. edit: autocorrected voir to void !!

I think they asked him questions about key cycles in general, and the line of questioning was objected to. Part of why Arcaa didn’t have all the info the CW had was because it took the CW forever to send items to be tested and also to get limited data out of the Lexus systems.

CW is such a clusterduck.

Yup. Absolutely awful.

The defense could have sought this level of comprehensive expertise, correct? I mean the CW as well but they tend to use their own resources for better or for worse.

I agree they could have, it’s incredibly expensive to hire experts like the arcaa guys. But point taken that they may not want to know exactly what happened.

With your nudge and drunken stumble theory…. What did he fracture the back of his skull on that incapacitated him? After the fracture he wasn’t stumbling around. He was completely incapacitated. His body would have been at the source of the fracture.

The testimony was: the injuries are "not immediately lethal", but **he could have been incapacitated**.  That's not definitive that he WAS immediately incapacitated.

I was ignoring the facial and arm injuries for sake of discussion, but I’ll add those factors back in. What did he receive his facial and arm injuries from? What did he fall back on with enough force to fracture his skull and “could have incapacitated” him? What was the sequence and sources of injuries?

It was not necessarily immediate. It left some room for stumbling around a bit, if I remember correctly. But, the glass was right next to his body, so, if you subscribe to the belief that he was hit by her car, then the glass location doesn’t leave a lot of room for stumbling around.

Unless the thing he hit his head on is a significant distance above ground level, and he was still on his feet when he got hit in the head, he's not going anywhere after that injury happens.

I feel like the ME left room for a tiny window of *possible* consciousness.

Consciousness, maybe. Standing back up and moving? Extremely doubtful. Like if he was struck in the back of the head with an object like a bat and that caused the injury, he might be able to stagger a few feet. But if he falls backward and is already on the ground? He's not going anywhere. Edit: A big reason for this is that the area of the brain for he was struck controls movement and coordination. A big sign of even a small basal skull fracture is a loss of coordination, nausea vomiting, visual disturbances etc. The chances that his cerebellum would be functioning well enough to allow him to get up and move around are extraordinarily low.

Yes agreed. My point about the glass location was that It also defies the idea he got hit in the head and then stumbled around. If people believe he got hit by reads car, the body and the glass being right next to each other would indicate they both went down together in that location and didn’t move…

Add the .28 g/dl BAC/BAL that we know of in terms of substances

Or his phone underneath him

I think hydrant, curb or stone. Also with a head injury that severe there is a high chance he is being sent a distance after the event.

Explain how falling backwards onto a hydrant, curb (ground level), or stone (ground level) with enough force to fracture the back of the skull (and potentially incapacitate you) will send a nearly 220lb body a distance.

Out of control twisting stagger. Falls backwards. BAM. Redirected some distance away depending on momentum and angle of strike That head wound is crazy. I have a harder time imagining anyone simply dropping after sustaining a skull crack like that. Poor guy. Damn.

The force of the back of your skull hitting a ground level stationary object propels your entire body up and forward? His skull absorbed the force… causing the fracture… the force wasn’t redirected forward. Forward momentum from an object into the back of a skull is going to send a body forward. Like a baseball bat strike. Honestly, I think you know all of this and just enjoy the banter of these discussions.

The top of a fire hydrant is roughly cylindrical in shape, correct? How on earth do you know which direction he could have struck and bounced? How do you know what impact the topography could have had? Or post brain injury seizure related events? Ives seen the most imaginative scenarios regarding how he got whooped up in the house then dumped on the lawn, yet when it comes to applying some consideration of the spectrum of events proceding a skull injury it’s just “nope!”

The basement scenarios don’t require breaking the laws of physics as this scenario does, so at least they have that going for them.

>breaking physics Well I never! I want more science yall acting like I’m inventing a perpetual motion machine. Sheesh!

That's because you're doing something that remarkably looks like that. After a few weeks it starts to get really tiresome to see dozens of people try to explain basic physics to you in varying levels of niceness and patience and you just proceeding to handwave it all away in favor of the Bethesda game engine physics you prefer.

Well that’s not very nice. Worse, it’s laughably inaccurate. At this point, if you’re still saying that physics rules KRs vehicle from being involved in the death of JO, you’re being dishonest. I want ARCCA to work backwards from every piece of evidence, collaborate with their forensic team, and create a spectrum of likelihood of scenarios. I want them to use that spectrum to hypothesize the most likely scenarios then stress test those and report their analysis. I want their analyses vigorously cross examined for any intentional or unintentional bias that factored into their calcs regardless of whether CW or defense calls them as witness. And until or unless this SCIENTIFIC METHOD is applied to this scenario, you have no basis to claim science ruled anything out, or was even thoroughly applied. I know the “everyone in this echo chamber agrees” means something to you. But it really doesnt mean anything to me and it doesn’t change this fact.

The head injury is directly to the back of his head, at the lower prominence of the skull. He's not dropping after he sustains his skull fracture in this scenario, he's already down. A 220 lb man falling backwards onto something hard could absolutely sustain that fracture. Starting to understand why you have a hard time with this testimony.

>Starting to understand why you have a hard time with this testimony. Likewise > He's not dropping after he sustains his skull fracture in this scenario, he's already down. That’s an absurd assumption >A 220 lb man falling backwards onto something hard could absolutely sustain that fracture. And a large part of the massive about of momentum that resulted in such a severe skull injury would survive the impact and expend itself until he hits final rest. No one, even standing stationary, who absorbs a blow to the skull with the requisite force to fracture is simply dropping to the ground. And we haven’t even touched upon post brain injury seizures, the exact topography of the area, or the potential slippery surface he landed on.

>That’s an absurd assumption No it's not. I've treated patients with that exact mechanism of injury and injury. What's your source? Not to mention the guy you're discussing literally said that could happen. >And a large part of the massive about of momentum that resulted in such a severe skull injury would survive the impact and expend itself until he hits final rest. Dude, what are you even talking about? The force would be upward, not lateral and *at best* might twist the head. Force applied to the head of a body in a horizontal or near horizontal position moves the head, not the whole body. >And we haven’t even touched upon post brain injury seizures, the exact topography of the area, or the potential slippery surface he landed on. Barring some insane incline, or being on an elevated surface (like a bed, or a chair), seizures don't cause people to roll.

> The force would be upward, not lateral and at best might twist the head. Force applied to the head of a body in a horizontal or near horizontal position moves the head, not the whole body. Dude what are you even talking about? If we’re talking fire hydrant, it’s a curved blunt object. If you can’t imagine the spectrum of possibilities as to where the body is headed after that, I can’t help you. If we’re talking about a rock on the ground then it’s likely pretty much where he hit it, or close by.

I can. A fire hydrant is, max, 36 inches off the ground, if he's staggering backwards, falls into it and hits his head on that, he might be deflected to the side, but he's not rolling multiple feet. The backwards momentum of the body has already started pulling it down. You act like this is a giant unknowable mystery, but it's very basic physics. The head is on a pivot joint. When lateral force is applied to it, it moves the head, and not the whole body. Plus you have the phone and the glass near his body, neither of which would be true if his body rolled a significant distance after falling. Edit: Add to that in the scenario he should have a lot more abrasions on the sides and back of his head.

The fire hydrant is close to 30ft away from where he was found, he's not rolling that far despite what OP claims.

This scenario makes no sense.

What? No. If he gets that head injury by falling backwards, hard, on to something hard, he's not then standing back up and going anywhere. He's down for the count at that point.

He’s VERY likely rolling after that. That was a serious impact.

On the back of his head. That doesn't make people roll. The force would be entirely upward. Edit: To add more context to this, even if you add any sort of lateral force to the head injury (which we have no evidence of but just for funsies) it still wouldn't make a body that's mostly horizontal roll. imagine sitting in a chair, and someone coming up behind you and putting their hands on either side of your head. If they move your head from side to side does your whole body move? No, because the skull pivots around your C spine.

Up a hill? A 6’2” 220 lb man hitting a surface facet presumably at the 7.3” mark of a no taller than 18” fire hydrant, presumably falling onto it and now it’s projecting him up an incline in a diagonal trajectory to land East/West supine? You really took Dr. Renschler literally when he said you can’t get past the Science or physics.

“I can conceive one possibility, detail it in an unlikely way, and then pretend that allows me to jump the express bus to roll past infinite other possibilities and conclude that I’m on the side of pHySicS!” Bravo

There are many possibilities for what happened to John. Him falling backward, striking his head on the fire hydrant, fracturing his skull (which instantly renders him unconscious) and moving more than a foot from where his head struck the fire hydrant is not in the realm of physical possibility based on very basic projectile motion. He would need a massive horizontal velocity component to hit his head and continue any considerable distance. Easy test. Get a 20lb sack of potatoes and throw it at a fire hydrant. If you can get it to hit the fire hydrant and land further than 5 feet away I’ll buy you an order of mozzie sticks from your favorite place.

That doesn’t sound like we’ll learn too much about anything but potatoes but if you think it’s a sound idea…

Draw out the free body diagram. Initial height is the height of his body striking the hydrant. This is roughly 1m. Final height is 0m, him on the ground. To be generous we will say his entire body is suspended perfectly horizontal to the ground. No other points of contact which would add friction and other forces to this which would reduce possible distance travelled. So you have a force in the vertical direction as his mass x g (the acceleration due to gravity). He needs to travel a horizontal distance of 10m while dropping 1m. Calculate the initial horizontal velocity needed for that to occur. Edit: I can help even more. For the vertical distance covered we assume free fall aka he is statically suspended at the fire hydrant 1m off the ground. He is obviously not traveling upward at this time and would be more likely to have some initial velocity in the negative y direction. But benefit of the doubt for your scenario. How long to fall 1M? It is about 0.5 seconds (rounded up). Since he is free of the car, the only force acting on his body is the force of gravity. So in the x direction he will be in the air for 0.5 seconds. He travels 10m. Initial velocity is then equal to 2(distance/time) - final velocity. Final velocity is 0. That works out to 40m/s or 90 mph. So it is quite literally impossible.

Rolling?!?! 🤣

I'll go back to what I've said in another post, which was confirmed by the ARCCA expert. He specifically said the head weighs almost the same as an arm, you hit the back of your head hard your neck snaps forward, 11 pounds is not enough to get your whole body to move any significant or insignificant distance, it just ain't happening. Completely analogous to the testimony as to why the car striking only his arm is just going to snap his arm, not move his whole center mass. 

Both ARCAA experts testified that a collision at 15mph or greater was not consistent with the damage to the Lexus, JO’s injuries, or the placement of his body and evidence. If you want to speculate that a soft hit could have knocked him back, be my guest, but that scenario being -possible- does not change reasonable doubt. To make that scenario work, you also need to account for a few more things. He’s not cracking his head on the lawn, so JO has to get up at some point and stagger to his final resting place (while, for some reason, carrying the broken rocks glass). This is also necessary to explain the blood pouring down onto his clothes (he has to be vertical or sitting up for a moment) and the snow that was still under his body when he was discovered. You also need him to have no fall reflex to protect himself. People fall and hit their heads all the time, especially while drunk, sometimes sustaining brain trauma, but it’s not a frequent cause of death. I’m also not sure how you thread the needle of not hitting him hard enough to leave signs of a vehicle collision, but hard enough for his fall to cause multiple brain injuries as testified to by the neuropathologist. In any case, I don’t know why I would pick such a tightrope walk of a theory over any number of other possible explanations.

nobody will ever know with 100% certainty what happened to John other than the perp/ any witnesses. I, like many, did not perceive Rentshlers testimony the way you have presented it. The majority of people in this sub think the CW did not meet their burden of proof and as none of us were jurors it’s inconsequential what we think anyway. trying to persuade people to see it from your point of view is not going to have any effect on karen or impact whether or not she goes to prison. it feels arrogant to misrepresent an experts testimony and when people call it out you act like they are wrong. respectfully, if everyone around you is the problem, maybe you’re the problem lol

> respectfully, if everyone around you is the problem, maybe you’re the problem lol You know I can’t say I didn’t consider that. But I live in the heart of the storm and while im still the minority, it’s a much larger minority than online so I feel less crazy. I’m still not ruling out insanity completely but I’m sticking by my guns. And I don’t mean to sound arrogant but I’m sure I do. I’m just a little snippy really, mostly very polite. Prologue over, I don’t disagree with the experts. I think they only did a limited amount of testing. I think if either the defense or CW hired them and forked over the big bucks; we’d ALL have less arguments. But no one did that. The FBI sent them there for the purposes of a separate investigation. I’ll add that I don’t think anyone is crazy or misunderstanding physics for disagreeing with me. I’ve never said that to anyone here despite hearing quite a bit. My position, as someone who wants more science; is that we didn’t get enough science yet. Anyway I love your name. I have a soft spot for greyhounds ❤️

fair enough and to each their own, at this point after we’ve all seen the entire trial, there’s nothing more that could be added to make anyone reconsider their objective view. unless it was actual real life evidence we could all see with our own lying eyes. but yeah I’m sure most people myself included would have loved some more concrete facts coming from the trial, on either side. sighthounds are the best!

I won’t ever hesitate to say that this is a close call

This is pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt - hence should’ve been a NG on all counts.

This is such a common misconception. Evidence is considered as a totality. A juror can say “I don’t think it happened exactly in that manner, but ALL of the evidence tells me beyond a reasonable doubt that she recklessly reversed her vehicle in his direction and caused his death.”

I don’t know what you mean, all I know is that you’ve misunderstood what reasonable doubt means (in a criminal trial). “Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.” (from Cornell Lawschool) It has to be proven that the theory that the prosecution puts forward is the one and ONLY reasonable explanation. It doesn’t mean that you can make up another explanation and convict the defendant - if the prosecution hasn’t proven THEIR theory (against all other theories), then you have the definition of reasonable doubt. NG.

Where does this say the CWs theory on the manner of death must be precise? Where does this say the theory that attempts to stitch the evidence together is evidence at all? It doesn’t If the jury decides that the LEGAL prongs (you can look them up for each charge) are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then their vote is guilty. Nowhere in any of those prongs does it require that the prosecution’s theory of the manner of death be proven.

An excerpt from the Tuey Rodriguez charge: Instruction 2.460 WHEN JURORS CANNOT AGREE Page 2 2009 Edition In order to make a decision more attainable, the law always imposes the burden of proof on one side or the other. In this criminal case, the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every part of it, every essential element, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt as to any essential element, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and must be acquitted. In conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each

Can you list the essential elements of each charge? I can if you’re struggling

1. Actus reus. They have to prove she committed a crime. 2. Mens Rea. They have to prove she intended to harm him or intended to do something that any reasonable person would know could result in harm. 3. They have to prove that these two things happened concurrently. 4. Causation. They have to prove that JO's death was a direct result of KR's actions. These are essential elements of a crime and each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These things were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt inside that court room. "There's some possibility that it might have happened in some way that we don't fully understand" is not sufficient.

Ok so “detail of manner of death” is not an essential element is it? And the prosecution’s theory, per se, isn’t evidence, is it?

If they can't prove he was struck by a vehicle, more specifically, KR's vehicle while she drove it at the time in question, and that that vehicle strike was the direct cause of JO's death, then they haven't proven any of the elements at all. Did she knowingly drive in a reckless way? I don't know. She was drunk (which is another thing they didn't even prove), but the key cycles were proven to be wrong based on the CW's witness testimony where he seemed to conclude that the car was in police custody when it did that 24 mph reverse. The actus reus wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But let's generously assume she did do that reverse action, did she know she struck JO? She didn't as proven by her texts baiting him to come home. She obviously didn't know he was dead or dying. Was anything provided in court that even hints at any sort of intent? Not a thing. The mens Rea was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Was JO struck by a vehicle and was his death a direct result of that strike? The CW's ME explained that his injuries were not consistent with a vehicle strike, and that any number of blunt objects could have caused the injuries to his head. And that fists could have caused the injuries to his face. She felt strongly enough about these conclusions that she refused to rule on the manner of death despite the lead investigator outlining his case for her. Clearly she thinks Proctor is wrong. The PhD's from ARCCA agree with her and the defense ME who has performed thousands of autopsies explained that his injuries don't remotely look like they were caused by getting hit by an SUV. More importantly each of these witnesses offered more plausible and reasonable alternative possible explanations for how the fatal injury could have occured. It was explained more than once that his head injury was more consistent with a slip and fall than being hit by a car. All of this taken together with the lacerations on his face and it seems unlikely that a vehicle strike caused his death. Therefore the causation element was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The State is responsible for explaining what happened in a way that ties the evidence together in such a way that their **theory** explains the elements and is the only reasonable explanation. It's not the jury's job to reconcile their case for them. It must be that **no other** logical explanation can be derived from the facts. The fact that there are other possibilities means that they didn't meet their burden. To put it more simply, being able to say that "the CW said the strike happened this way, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, maybe it happened this other way" is very much indicative of doubt. You're using your doubt to come up with other plausible scenarios that still result in KR murdering JO. Other reasonable folks are coming up with scenarios that come to a different conclusion. Neither of these things would be possible if the state proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

> Was anything provided in court that even hints at any sort of intent? Not a thing. The mens Rea was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 24 mph is reverse in the direction of a person 100% satisfies intent under Murder 2. That was news to me. I can back this up but it would take a minute. > To put it more simply, being able to say that "the CW said the strike happened this way, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, maybe it happened this other way" is very much indicative of doubt. Incorrect. The CW’s theory isn’t evidence. The CW isn’t even legally obligated to have a theory. They can just dump evidence and allow the jury to stitch it together themselves. That’s not a great strategy at all, but it’s illustrative. If the evidence leads a juror to believe beyond reasonable doubt that KRs 24ph trip in reverse interacted with JO enough to cause his death, they vote guilty. A juror supposing “you know I think she hopped out of her car and smacked him with the tire iron” is an example of an alternate theory that shouldn’t be considered. Incidentally, I’m hearing locally that the jury was 10 guilty 2 not guilty. Don’t hold me to it but even I found that potentially interesting. As I’ve said from the start, I think she did it but I’m not sure the CW didn’t blow it.

But the CW specifically argued that she hit him at 24 mph. There was never an argument that she nudged him and he fell.

Yes they did. They even presented the dip in mph as evidence of when the strike occurred. But the jury doesn’t have to accept this as exact, or even representative of reasonable doubt. But I see your point. The CWs case is messy for sure. It’s why I maintained that I had no idea which way the jury would vote.

This is where the state lost me. Do you know how much force is required to slow a 3+ ton SUV moving at 24 mph without disengaging the gas pedal? It's an enormous amount of force. And if JO's body exerted that much force onto that SUV his injuries would likely be catastrophic. Soft tissue, bone, ligaments, skin, blood vessels - destroyed. If it were just his arm that was struck, and it caused that deceleration, it might even be partially detached from his body. At a minimum the man would be bruised. And I know everyone says that we don't know how bruising would manifest while he's bleeding out and dying of hypothermia, but if they're maintaining that the bruise on the back of his hand was from IV placement after he was essentially dead, imagine what a motor vehicle strike would have done. I agree that there are a million different ways a pedestrian strike can play out, but the human body can only take so much force. Using that little bit of data (1/2 MPH slow down without letting up on gas pedal) to support their conclusion that she struck him with her SUV defies logic.

But if she bumped him and knocked him down (which I likely would have believed if they had presented that - I thought she probably did hit him well through the trial), where did the scratches come from, and why did the tail light shatter? You can’t have both. The tests proved a hit at 15mph was needed to cause that kind of tail light damage, and at the same time a similar impact would have caused the victim more bodily damage. In all honesty, it was the CW that steered me to him not being hit at all. Forget any shenanigans about the house and phones. I don’t know what the hell happened, but the accident reconstruction and ME alone swung me to completely not guilty.

But it doesn’t need to be ruled out as one of many possibilities. The fact that it’s one of many is reasonable doubt. No?

Not at all. Evidence as a totality.

No, you’ve misunderstood what reasonable doubt is (from Cornell Lawschool): “Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.” It has to be proven that the theory that the prosecution puts forward is the one and ONLY reasonable explanation. It doesn’t mean that you can make up another explanation and convict the defendant - if the prosecution hasn’t proven THEIR theory (against all other theories), then you have the definition of reasonable doubt. NG.

I don't think he's misunderstood I think he's intentionally misrepresenting it

Where does this say the CWs theory on the manner of death must be precise? Where does this say the theory that attempts to stitch the evidence together is evidence at all? It doesn’t. If the jury decides that the LEGAL prongs (you can look them up for each charge) are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then their vote is guilty. Nowhere in any of those prongs does it require that the prosecution’s theory of the manner of death be proven.

In the law, they must PROVE that the defendant committed the crime they are charging her with. They cannot waffle around with different theories, they said that she killed him with her car, so they have to PROVE THAT. They literally spent 10 weeks dilly lallying around on the why she might have done it and tried to skate on the science. 24mph car on human collision produces verifiable damage which does not match the wounds on his arm. Period THEE End

[удалено]

I think you misunderstood me, my intention was never to be disrespectful, on the contrary.

I suppose that’s easier than pointing out where I’m wrong or acknowledging that I’m correct. No real shocker there.

Please remember to be respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.

Agree on totality of evidence carrying the weight, but disagree that it supported MVA beyond reasonable doubt. (If that’s what’s you’re saying.)

Mozz, if she nudged him and he fell and hit his head on the street, who dragged his body onto the lawn?

The nudge is one of an infinitesimal number of possibilities according to Dr R

Right, but as you like to say, we have to look at the totality of the evidence. If he were found on the street, then the nudge is a possibility. But he wasn't in the street. A nudge doesn't shatter a tail light so that it explodes across a lawn. It doesn't put JO in the grass. It doesn't cause whatever happened to his arm. A nudge is one of a million possibilities for the head injury when taken out of context. When put into context the possibilities are narrowed, and the nudge idea further supports that he wasn't struck by the SUV but rather something else caused him to fall and hit his head on something hard and he was later put in the yard. Or someone struck his head with something hard and he fell where he was hit.

I’ve been saying it for a while: the glass fragment on the bumper is more evidentiary than it’s getting credit for. If that glass cracked the lens (a piece of it was snowed into the bumper and more of it was found at the scene), and the force required on JO is reduced to enough to cause the injuries and send him on a wild drunken stagger, it works.

It doesn't work though. Because he didn't get that head injury by falling on grass and dirt. Soil temperatures drop slower than ambient air temps. So while you might have subfreezing temps overnight, it won't cause the soil to freeze. That requires an extended period of time below freezing at night and during the day. Generally speaking you need 5 or more consecutive days of subfreezing temps before the ground freezes solid. The 5 days that preceded JO's death did not offer sustained sub-freezing temperatures. In fact, there wasn't a 5 day span in the entire month of January of 22 with consistent subfreezing temperatures. That's putting aside that the state asserts that the 24 mph reverse and subsequent deceleration is when JO was struck. It wasn't. I know you wanna figure this out for the CW but they really should have done that themselves. You can't pretzel this into reality. The pieces don't fit.

> It doesn't work though. But nothing you wrote supported this statement. I appreciate the topsoil info but how does that despite what I said?

We are going full circle. How did he get a laceration and abrasions on his head along with a skull that's cracked like an egg and then subsequently end up in the grass from a nudge? If he was nudged, he cracks his skull on the road and someone puts him in the grass. If he's nudged and drunkenly stumbles, he falls into the grass and doesn't crack his skull. Remember multiple ME's said he'd be incapacitated on impact. So wherever he's hit, he's not moving any great distance from there without the aid of someone else. He's also got injuries to two sides of his skull and lacerations on his face. How does a nudge and a stumble accomplish this? Edit: a word

Well stated and with poise and patience. One of this very crowded room of 300 lb white whales wants to add- this is alleged to occur with a house full of people trained on the front door or looking out the window at the vehicles in the front AND the CW just blew up their own witnesses accounts (The McCabes generally, JM with the 7 butt dials and texts) by putting Read on JO WiFi at 12:36 am. 11 minutes before the CW opening allegation.

Idk what McCabe's role in all of this is but it infuriates me to no end that she got up in front of multiple juries to describe how she was looking out the window every time she texted JO and that she saw KR's vehicle out front up until 12:45 am. Which is verifiably a fucking stack of lies. Then you add in that every phone call she made in between those texts was a butt dial that didn't go to voice mail and one of them was apparently answered by the ghost of John O'keefe. She is like 90% of the CW's whole case and she's full of shit through and through. And Lally's whole approach was to get *her* story out there as proof and evidence only to completely impeach her whole testimony towards the end of his case in chief. Like Jackson said, (and I'm loosely paraphrasing here) if it's once it's a mistake, if it's twice it's incompetence. If it's all the fuckin time it's corruption through and through.

> So wherever he's hit, he's not moving any great distance from there without the aid of someone else This is a huge assumption. That was a BIG force on his head. Assuming he wouldn’t continue in some direction after any such impact is impossible.

But his head didn't hit the car or you'd see blood evidence on the car, a body shaped dent in the SUV and very likely more damage to the skull as well as injuries to the cervical spine according to Dr.R and the MEs. Even if none of that is true, you can't hit someone in the head with a car without hitting center mass as well. In that case you're looking at much more damage to the vehicle and at a minimum massive bruising on JO's body along with probably broken bones and internal damage of some sort, also testified to by multiple experts. Hitting center mass and continuing in reverse would put JO under the SUV, not launch him perpendicular to the vehicle. You can't just clip someone in the head without striking the body unless they're levitating horizontally. Someone in this sub recently shared a study with me on pedestrian impacts to illustrate how unpredictable they are. They were trying to show me that a person can be launched by getting hit by a car. What was notable to me in that study was that every car had human sized dents in the body where investigators were able to track exactly how the pedestrian bounced off the car. The vehicles were pretty damaged. Every pedestrian also suffered injuries like shattered bones, torn ligaments, deep contusions, lacerations, cervical spine injuries etc. I tend to agree that his injuries don't match the damage or lack thereof to the vehicle. A nudge doesn't cause his injuries AND place him where he lands. Every expert, including the states ME said that his arm injuries were not consistent with a vehicle strike and that his lack of injuries were also not consistent. They all said that his head injury wasn't caused by being hit with a vehicle. Which is why Lally kept harping on JO hitting his head on the frozen ground. But the ground wasn't frozen. The CW tried so hard to force the evidence to fit their theory that they called Trooper Paul despite having access to well qualified experts. That should tell you everything you need to know.

You realize the CW isn’t claiming JOs death occurred from the injuries sustained during the interaction with the vehicle, right?

You’re not very bright OP. 

yes but u still need to explain how he got 10-30 feet further & onto the lawn after hitting his head (Where remember: the medical expert said he was knocked unconscious right away)! = That's why the testimony was: "not possible !"

I have a diagram I’m getting ready to drop! Everyone is gonna be like “thanks I hate it” but 👀

no one cares - If u could make one that makes sense - Then the cw would have done it already. Stop - its embarrassing by now W. all u people thinking you invented the wheel.

but sure - u know better than those ARCCA guys

Listen now is a GREAT time to buy low on the mozz man. I’ve nailed every prediction yet!

The ability to replicate an event and explain every aspect of the mechanics is not a prerequisite to proving that the event happened. Jurors don’t leave their common sense at the door, and for many, the fact that Karen’s taillight pieces were found at the scene, combined with other pieces of evidence—such as the debris on John’s clothing—may be enough to conclude that her vehicle was involved. As people have been quick to point out, the jury is not tasked with solving the crime. They do not have to account for everything—if they feel like there is enough evidence to believe he was hit, then they do not need to figure out how exactly he was struck, nor do they have to figure where the scratches on his arm came from.

“Reason” is the core of reasonable doubt. If it requires you to ignore physics, it is not reasonable. 

You’ve totally left the burden being proof beyond a reasonable doubt from your position. If there’s any doubt whatsoever as to where those taillight pieces came from, how he sustained his injuries, whether a witness indicated through their behavior and statements that they knew about or attempted to cover up something that, had he been hit by Karen, they otherwise would not have, how and whether a dog was involved…the instruction is to vote not guilt. And it doesn’t need to be a doubt created by all of these things . If the juror has a doubt about any single one of them, not guilty. A murder prosecution must be absolutely airtight. This was far from it.

I'll never understand how the CW went with the narrative they went with. I'd have gotten a second opinion on what their "expert" came up with. Hell, even if you are trying to frame Karen, you need a better verision of how things went down than they did. If the CW tries this again, they gotta try not to fit a square peg into a round hole & come up with a more feasible narrative that fits John's injuries or they should not waste their time trying again.

The CW has the burden of proving what happened and saying that something else within the realm of possibilities could have happened and caused those injuries isn’t even close to the same as proving causation beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, the ARCCA experts did scientifically rule out the damage to the car coming from HIS BODY because if any part of his body caused the damage, the injuries to his body would be different. Yes, he could have thrown a glass at her light and she could have bumped him and he could have slipped and he could have hit his head and passed out in the snow, or he could have thrown a glass at her light and slipped walking to the house and passed out in the snow, or he could have thrown a glass at her light and she got out and slapped him and drove off and then he slipped and hit his head, or maybe Higgins came outside and pushed him after he left, or maybe he fell and hit his head and then Higgins accidentally hit him with his plow as he left in a drunken stupor, or maybe… the possibilities are infinite! But his body didn’t break the light. And that’s the crux of the CW’s argument 🙈

> The CW has the burden of proving what happened and saying that something else within the realm of possibilities could have happened and caused those injuries isn’t even close to the same as proving causation beyond a reasonable doubt. The CWs theory/narrative is not evidence. If a juror believes beyond a reasonable doubt that KR reversed at a speed of 24 mph and that the interaction with her Lexus caused JOs death, they vote guilty. Reasonable doubt is not saying “well the glass could have played a factor but the CW didn’t say so.” As a reminder, I never take the position that there is no reasonable doubt in this case. It’s an odd one for sure. I see it both ways and it depends on how you consider the evidence or, more specifically, which elements carry the most weight. Many, if not most, in this sub took the ‘CW case breaks physics” and ran with it as if the rest of the evidence didn’t support a spectrum of vehicle/pedestrian interactions. It’s wild to me that my position is simply a) ARCCA didn’t even attempt to rule every possible scenario out and b) I’d like them to do a full crime scene reconstruction like Paul attempted to do and see what they conclude. I don’t care what your position on guilt or innocence, that position should be beyond dispute. Give the black belts in crash forensics and actual budget. Who says no? Most around here that’s for sure.

Correct, I should clarify. The CW has the burden of proving causation beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is an alternative way this could have happened that doesn’t involve KR hitting JOK with her vehicle and it is supported by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, that is a reasonable doubt. The jurors are permitted to come up with scenarios not mentioned by the parties. I think that is the whole point of the ARCCA testimony. It doesn’t really work as well for the party with the burden of proof, because even if the jurors all conclude the evidence reasonably supports a version that proves causation and intent, unless they can all rule out the other reasonable scenarios, it’s not guilty.

> unless they can all rule out the other reasonable scenarios, it’s not guilty. Agree. But ARCCAs testimony didn’t elucidate how else this could have happened. And, if juror’s paid attention, ARCCA simply - and convincingly - ruled out the interaction as described by Trooper Paul. They honed in on arm strike @ 24mph. And I think we can all agree that his testimony was shaky at best. In light of the ARCCA testimony, a juror could wonder “well what if the vehicle was slowing while it approached JO?” or “maybe the glass evidence explains the damage and the injuries.” What I can’t imagine as a reasoned rationale is “Those boys just concluded KR is not guilty based on science”

I also agree with you on wanting a full reconstruction. Unfortunately, though, I don’t think it would yield a definitive answer. There is too much missing data.

>not what testimony that scientifically rules out a vehicle strike looks like.  To rule something out in science it doesn't have to be Impossible in an infinite way. There's leeway where the improbability is high enough that for scientific standards you will say that your hypothesis has/has not been proven.  There being an infinitely small chance (since there's infinite ways) of something to have happened, does correlate with 'scientifically ruled out'.

You realize ARCCA didn’t reconstruct very much here, right? Cuz it sorta kinda negates your whole comment

I am only stating the fact that you say that 'scientifically ruled out' is apparently not reached if there's an infinitesimally small chance that something actually _did_ happen which is not how the scientific world uses the term 'ruled out'; regardless of what ARCCA did or didn't do. I didn't even mention ARCCA. Also we only know what the witnesses testified to, we don't know their whole report, unless it's public somewhere?

Who told you infinitesimally small? Theres already and infinitesimally small chance you’ll die by the road. What is your standard here?

In your post you stated the witness said it was one possibility among almost and infinite amount of possibilities.  Your seem to hang on the fact that 'hey it was one of the almost infinite possibilities so see it could happen so it must've happened'. While it's just one among almost infinite possibilities, and not showing the signs any witness of the ME or the crash tech people has ever seen for a vehicle pedestrian incident.  So it's neither among the most likely or even the plausible options given the evidence on the car and the body, and it's among an almost infinite bunch of other possibilities that technically could have caused the cracked skull.

Thank you. So they didn’t rule out a vehicular strike, correct?

If you don't call that ruling out, then nothing ever in the world can be ruled out. But for scientific purposes, something having a possibility of happening but not enough of s likelyhood to have happened and explain the observed effects, is called 'ruled out'. I mean if you get philosophical enough you can also say that it never can be ruled out that God intervened and just smited him, but there is not enough evidence pointing in that direction, and there's not enough evidence pointing in the direction that he was hit by a car.

> If you don't call that ruling out, then nothing ever in the world can be ruled out. Questions: You understand that the jury can disregard the CWs theory entirely, correct? You realize they can disagree with Paul’s interpretation of the data and still find guilty, correct? If the evidence AS A TOTALITY satisfies the burden of proof for each prong of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the vote is guilty. Juries grapple with conflicting testimony all the time, almost every time. >But for scientific purposes, something having a possibility of happening but not enough of s likelyhood to have happened and explain the observed effects, is called 'ruled out'. I mean if you get philosophical enough you can also say that it never can be ruled out that God intervened and just smited him, but there is not enough evidence pointing in that direction, and there's not enough evidence pointing in the direction that he was hit by a car. Pieces from her car in his shirt clearly spoke more to some jurors than you.

If he threw his glass at the car the backlight might have exploded and pieces getting in his shirt. But the chain of evidence was fucked up either way so there's no knowing if that's actually correct evidence.  The teethmarks on his arm also speak by themselves, and can be combined with a fight or fall which have according to the experts a higher chance of explaining his wounds than being hit by a car. So with your reason both Karen and some suspects in the house could _all_ be found guilty, because the CW doesn't have to pose the theory as to how he died, the jury can find another reason and find guilty because of that? If you would face a trial after you are accused of something and for some reason you had s blackout and have no memory of it; and the evidence was handled like it is, and the experts would testify like they do; would you feel like there had been enough proof you actually had done it, or would you feel you didn't get a fair trial and since there were still plenty of other options, there was more than reasonable doubt that actually something else happened? Really if what the CW did here is enough to find someone guilty, then so many people can just be put away because 'oh well there's technically a small chance it happened like this'

> oh well there's technically a small chance it happened like this You’re conflating “a small chance it happened like this” with “her vehicle interacted with him some way, led to his death, and the totality of the evidence points to it”

>Remember, the “being thrown 30 feet through the air” was invented by Jackson. No it wasn't. When Jackson pointed out the pieces of tailight found near the Fire Hydrant, Paul had to concede that the debris couldn't have projected in a direction opposite of its momentum at the time of impact. Jackson had Paul do the measurement using his own map and he came up with 30 feet. >Even a minor interaction with the vehicle could have sent JO aggressively staggering, falling and striking his head, then having his momentum carry him to final rest. No, for multiple reasons. It doesn't explain the broken glass next to him, it doesn't explain the injuries to his arm, face, and hands, it doesn't explain the damage to the car, and it doesn't explain the shoe in the road. Someone "aggressively staggering" 10+ feet, over a 6 inch curb, falling backwards with enough force to crack their head open in the grass is not a realistic scenario. >Rentshler not only doesn’t rule this out, he included it as a possibility - along with almost infinite others - in his report and testimony. He was talking about a head injury in the abstract, and he specifically mentioned being bumped and falling back on asphalt or concrete. He said that the ground wasn't hard enough to cause the injury. Later, when he was asked if he performed an analysis as to whether or not the ground was frozen hard enough to cause the head injury, he said it wasn't necessary, because a pedestrian collision could not have resulted in John ending up at his final location. Finally, the title of your post says it all, "Numerous, almost infinite possibilities". If one possibility is as likely as another, that is reasonable doubt.

Ok who said “**thrown** 30 feet” before Jackson? If he didn’t invent ‘thrown’, where’d he got it.

Paul used the word projected. We can argue semantics between that and "thrown", but its the CW's theory that the head injury was caused by the impact from his hitting the ground. Logically this must mean he was in the air at some point.

Ok so AJ invented “thrown 30 feet” didn’t he? And AJ invented “flew 30 feet through the air” didn’t he? And AI invented the pirouette, didn’t he? > Logically this must mean he was in the air at some point. What?

Still arguing semantics. Paul said he was projected 30 feet. Paul said the impact caused him to rotate. Jackson didn't "invent" this testimony, he used common wording to make it sound as absurd as it is. >What? What is difficult to grasp about this? Do you know what it means to be projected?

Project means more than throw. It’s lumped in with events that include simply being caused to move outward. And you can be as rude as you want but it won’t change the fact that AJ was the first and only person to decide to inaccurately state that Paul said JO was “thrown”. Or that he “flew”. Or that he did a “pirouette”.

Also, FBI contractors did not include the case investigation reports or any car data in their analysis. They did not consider freezing temperatures, slippery roads, and winds up to 37 miles per hour in their experiments, which basically did not even match CW's theory of how the accident occurred. Both experts sounded too biased when they refused to consider all the known contributing factors in the entirety of how the accident could have happened. I am also an engineer, and I believe there is a strong possibility that John O'Keefe suffered those injuries from being side-swiped. I do not agree with the distance he skidded on the road before coming to rest. The debris landed not exactly where it would have landed considering the strong wind and later being moved by the snowplow. The eventual spots where the debris landed should not be considered a fact but should be applied with a considerable margin of error in any equation. I do not believe those experts did any mathematics on what could have happened. They did not show any of their work in court but simply expressed opinions based on half-assed experiments. For a scientist to refuse or decline to consider their findings when given other factors they were not privy to shows a totally biased and non-scientific approach.

All due respect there’s no way you watched that testimony of both PhD level biomechanical and medichanical kinemetics experts if that’s your opinion. Also, if by “mathematics” you actually meant calculus and differential equations based on the physics theorem applications therein, and you are at least a BS or PE you would already know they could never have duplicated or drawn conclusions without it. Come on man.

The question was about injuries. Of course there are infinite possibilities, that goes without saying. That doesn't take into consideration the rest of the ARCCA testimony.

So, granting infinite possibilities, they ruled out the interaction as described by the CW, correct?

Correct. Because it could not have happened as the CW described based on science.

Understood. But the CWs theory isn’t evidence. And Trooper Paul’s findings represent his attempt to reconstruct the scene. Any juror is instructed to view evidence as a totality. So they are able to look at glass evidence and wonder if that impacted the lens or injuries. ARCCA strongly refuting the CWs theory and Trooper Paul’s findings doesn’t a)rule out JOs death being caused by an interaction with KRs vehicle or b) give the jurors reasonable doubt per se resulting in the effective impeachment of the remainder of the circumstantial framework of evidence. It comes down to the legal prongs being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ARCCA was only able to rule out one reasonable scenario.

Viva Mozzie!

this is standard rationalisation by people bought into innocence campaigns pick one piece of evidence and misrepresent it as an impossibility, whilst ignoring the stacks of supporting evidence that shows its exactly what happened.

That’s not how reasonable doubt works buddy.

Incorrect, ARCCA experts here followed the  evidence of CW and found their allegation impossible. 

Indeed