• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karen Read Trial - Take 2

I'm a bit fascinated by the court reporter. How does she keep up?
 
I'm a bit fascinated by the court reporter. How does she keep up?
She talks into a transcriber thingy. Easier than using a manual stenographer I think.
 
She talks into a transcriber thingy. Easier than using a manual stenographer I think.

I know. I just don't know how she keeps up.
 
Defense finished their cross, got pretty much everything they needed. She admitted she looked for injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident like bleeding, broken bones, bruising and found no evidence of a vehicle impact site or collision. On redirect Brennan asked a bunch of nonsense that was objected to and sustained by the judge.



Another thing, Trooper Keefe testified he attended the autopsy alone. However, a photograph was produced from the location of the autopsy at the time and it shows Keefe and former trooper Proctor. Scordi-Bello also testified there were two law enforcement officers present, not just one.

IMG_7909.jpeg


And after the ME testimony, there was some dramatic arguments about motions. The Commonwealth previously had their expert Whiffen testify about phone data, and he proved O'Keefe was alive after their crash reconstructionist says the collision happened (12:31am). So their crash reconstructionist has a new report that changes the timeline of the Commonwealth again to comport with the previously conflicting information, based on Whiffin's testimony. Defense is fighting it's admission because they have based their defense around the time that has been in the report all trial. Judge hasn't ruled on that issue yet. The other motion argued was regarding ARCCA. Brennan recieved all the ARCCA reports on how they plan to rebut his expert crash reconstructionist. Now he says it's too much stuff, he doesn't have time for his expert to review all the rebuttal evidence so he thinks his expert should get to testify again at the end of the defense case. Judge hasn't ruled on that yet either.

Don't know who's up today yet. Maybe the Commonwealth crash reconstructionist.
 
Last edited:
One other thing yesterday, the federal appeals court shut down Judge Bev's unconstitutional speech free zone around the courthouse, so that's being dismantled and the charges against the person who violated it will be dismissed.
 
Defense finished their cross, got pretty much everything they needed. She admitted she looked for injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident like bleeding, broken bones, bruising and found no evidence of a vehicle impact site or collision. On redirect Brennan asked a bunch of nonsense that was objected to and sustained by the judge.



Another thing, Trooper Keefe testified he attended the autopsy alone. However, a photograph was produced from the location of the autopsy at the time and it shows Keefe and former trooper Proctor. Scordi-Bello also testified there were two law enforcement officers present, not just one.

View attachment 67570188


And after the ME testimony, there was some dramatic arguments about motions. The Commonwealth previously had their expert Whiffen testify about phone data, and he proved O'Keefe was alive after their crash reconstructionist says the collision happened (12:31am). So their crash reconstructionist has a new report that changes the timeline of the Commonwealth again to comport with the previously conflicting information, based on Whiffin's testimony. Defense is fighting it's admission because they have based their defense around the time that has been in the report all trial. Judge hasn't ruled on that issue yet. The other motion argued was regarding ARCCA. Brennan recieved all the ARCCA reports on how they plan to rebut his expert crash reconstructionist. Now he says it's too much stuff, he doesn't have time for his expert to review all the rebuttal evidence so he thinks his expert should get to testify again at the end of the defense case. Judge hasn't ruled on that yet either.

Don't know who's up today yet. Maybe the Commonwealth crash reconstructionist.
So he changed his report because it didn't work to prove Read guilty.

The Judge has to know that that can't be admitted, more reasons for appeal. Plus the Jury would just dismiss it out of hand if they have any intelligence.
 
Here's a short clip of the argument regarding the changing of the report by the Commonwealth crash reconstructionist. Argued by Alessi for the defense.


The reason given by Mr. Burgess, the Commonwealth expert, for changing his report/testimony, is "to align the trigger with Mr. Whiffen's analysis."

So dirty. Even if it wasn't planned.
 
Before Brennan calls his next witness, there's a stipulation read into the record by him. He and the defense agree that the two MSP troopers who watched the autopsy (and were in the photo) were Keefe and Watson, Proctor wasn't present. Still, Keefe wasn't alone like he testified.

Now he's playing a Dateline clip.
 
In the clip she says O'Keefe had a piece of glass in his nose, and when she pulled it out, blood gushed out of it. 🤷🏻

Ok.

Next witness is Andre Porto. He's a MSP DNA lab technician.
IMG_7911.webp
 
He testifies at length about his education and employment history, and then into the proper protocols taken at his lab to prevent contamination of the evidence (only the best always followed protocols for this state lab surely, no solo cups or grocery bags in sight.)

He testifies an item tested positive for a known blood sample. Says another tech replicated his process and results.

Says it was a sample from "taillight passenger." Identifies Read's SUV as the source of the taillight. Asked if he was able to generate a DNA profile from the taillight piece item, he says he was. Asked what those results were compared to the O'Keefe known sample, he says he found a mixture of 3 contributors in the taillight swab including male DNA, and his conclusion is 1 of the 3 contributors is O'Keefe, the other 2 being unknown.

I can already see the cracks of doubt forming.
 
Regarding the hair that was found near the taillight, he tested the root for DNA and there was no human DNA detected. The rest he sent off to another lab for mitochondrial testing.

Asked if he could generate a DNA profile from the cocktail glass, he said he was able to. He says there were multiple contributors including male DNA, concludes the DNA came from O'Keefe and 3 other unknown individuals.
 
O'Keefe's jeans were swabbed and testing revealed 3 DNA contributors, only 1 of which was suitable for comparison to a known sample, and it was consistent with O'Keefe's DNA. There wasn't testing for the presence of blood.

Another spot on the jeans was swabbed and tested. Again 3 contributors of DNA were found, including male DNA that after comparative analysis was O'Keefe's. The other 2 are again unknown. On another spot on the jeans he took a swab, and did generate a DNA profile of 2 contributors, including male DNA. One of the DNA profiles from that spot was suitable for comparitive analysis and it was again found to be O'Keefe and an unknown individual.

On another part of the jeans, he found a sample with 4 DNA contributors including O'Keefe and 3 unknown individuals.

Testing on the sweatshirt, 2 DNA contributors including male, with 1 being O'Keefe and the other being unknown.

Testing the sneaker resulted in 5 contributors, none suitable for comparison. (Not specified which shoe that was.)

Other items had multiple contributors not suitable for comparison.
 
He reads a long list of all the spots he tested on the orange t-shirt and gray sweatshirt. Says from all those items he was able to generate a DNA profile. He concluded a male DNA profile was from a single contributor, and that it was O'Keefe.

He tested fingernail clippings from O'Keefe's right and left hand. He concludes there's a single male contributor, O'Keefe. That is all for direct. Now Yenetti doing cross.
 
They're going to start with questions about item 3-1.1, the swabs from the passenger side taillight. He's asked if that was the taillight attached to the vehicle, he agrees it was. He's asked if he was ever asked to do any comparison on any other pieces of taillight connected to the case, he checks his report and says he tested a piece of glass found on the bumper.

He's asked if since the taillight is plastic, that glass wouldn't be a piece of taillight would it, he says that's beyond his scope of testing.

Asked about the 3 contributors he agrees he found on the taillight cover swab, he is asked if O'Keefe appeared to br one of them. He says O'Keefe was included in the profile.

He's asked who the other 2 contributors are. He says they could be anybody.

He's asked if he was ever asked to compare samples from Canton police detective Kevin Albert, or Canton Police chief Ken Berkowitz, to the DNA profiles he analyzed on the taillight cover.

He says "I was not."
 
Asked about the broken drinking glass, he agrees he also found 3 DNA contributors on that. Agrees 1 of those appeared to be O'Keefe. Asked who the other 2 contributors are, he says he doesn't know, "they could be anybody."

He's asked if he was ever asked to compare the DNA profile (collectively the DNA is one profile) found on the glass with the DNA profiles of Brian Albert or Brian Higgins, he says he wasn't. Brennan objects but Bev says she'll allow it.

Asked now about spot A on the jeans, he agrees there were 3 contributors of DNA to Spot A with O'Keefe being one of them. He is asked who the other 2 contributors are, he doesn't know, they could be anybody again.

Regarding Spot B in close proximity to Spot A, he agrees there were 3 contributors found there as well, including O'Keefe. Asked who the other 2 contributors were, he says he doesn't know, they could be anybody.

This goes on for some time.

Bunch more could be anybody's on shoes and hoodie and jeans and taillight. Defense done, Commonwealth redirect now.
 
Last edited:
Short redirect. Nothing substantial. On to the next witness, Ash Vallier, another MSP crime lab employee, in the trace explosives arson unit.
IMG_7912.jpeg
 
I believe she's the one that reassembled the taillight pieces. I remember from last trial. We'll probably get to see that shortly.

She also testified last time the glass on the bumper wasn't from the cocktail glass. It's just random glass that just showed up.
 
She's shown all the pieces of taillight in the various pictures based on when they were collected.

Makes sense that the 3 biggest pieces would be found last. /s

After awhile of her on direct, there's a break and now the attorneys are arguing motions. Alessi is arguing against allowing the Commonwealth to introduce their brand new report with a new timeline.

He argues that Jennifer McCabe testified to seeing the vehicle in question outside at 12:45am despite evidence Read was home at 12:36am, and allowing the change allows the obvious collusion of witnesses to go on. Seconds matter and they keep changing the times around.
Argues the defense can't go back and recross the witnesses based on the new timeline.
 
Brennan's response is to call the defense very confused and that they're trying to confuse the judge. He says there's never been a change, the government is not changing their timeline, the Commonwealth is not changing any information, the Commonwealth is not offering anything new that affects the testimony of witnesses.

He says it's notable the defense claims have no relationship with the facts or the actual report that was provided, says the Commonwealth has always always provided the data and mumbling mumbling hadn't had a chance to analyze the interpretation of the data between the parties, that they have been clear from the beginning of the time when the infotainment system shows there was a collision. "We've been clear."

No you haven't. It hasn't even come in yet officially. It accidentally came in on cross examination of his own witness once during this trial, that's it. And the time then in that report was 12:31am. And if it's anything different now, we know Brennan and the Commonwealth are lying even more than we know they already are.
 
So let me add this up, first we had Jen McCabe. Then we had two first responder's and now we have the Niece. Before that we had the Netflix documentary, Dateline and 48 Hours. I know I missed a few, all and more show Read confessing to backing up and hitting O'Keefe.

And now we Have DNA evidence. O'Keefe's DNA found on Read's passenger side Tail Light and the hair on the bumper is O'Keefe's as well.

What the Defense has going for it is a very young jury. Median age maybe 40 with at 5 or 6 under the age of 30. Today's youngsters are mostly critical of Government, they don't trust. Slick Willy new what he was doing when he helped concoct this jury.

What gets me about lawyers is this, even if Jackson thought Read was guilty, it wouldn't matter. Its the dark side of our legal and justice system. They sell they're souls, I personally could never be a lawyer, a prosecutor sure.
 
So let me add this up, first we had Jen McCabe. Then we had two first responder's and now we have the Niece. Before that we had the Netflix documentary, Dateline and 48 Hours. I know I missed a few, all and more show Read confessing to backing up and hitting O'Keefe.

And now we Have DNA evidence. O'Keefe's DNA found on Read's passenger side Tail Light and the hair on the bumper is O'Keefe's as well.

What the Defense has going for it is a very young jury. Median age maybe 40 with at 5 or 6 under the age of 30. Today's youngsters are mostly critical of Government, they don't trust. Slick Willy new what he was doing when he helped concoct this jury.

What gets me about lawyers is this, even if Jackson thought Read was guilty, it wouldn't matter. Its the dark side of our legal and justice system. They sell they're souls, I personally could never be a lawyer, a prosecutor sure.
Who are the other 2 people she ran over whose DNA was with O'Keefe's on the taillight? Where is O'Keefe's DNA on any of the pieces of taillight recovered from 34 Fairview? Not there. The unsealed blood evidence was also right next to the taillight for who knows how long. Oopsy DNA!

And no, the forensic tech testified that no human biological material was found on the root portion of the hair.
 
Last edited:
Brennan says he's basing his timeline on the internal Lexus clock, which he says everyone full well knows is different than a clock on an iPhone. Says his expert's time of 12:31:43am has never changed (except at the last trial that wasn't the timeline.)

He says both sides agree there's a variance in the Lexus clock and the iPhone, and the defense knows so much about it they hired an expert to talk about it. Brennan says he never suggested there wasn't a variance, he just believes their expert's analysis was wrong. Says"we" looked at the variance and the data that was available from the extraction, and that was available to experts on all sides, says his expert just matched the 3 point turn 7 minutes before the collision with the Waze data from O'Keefe's phone (doesn't he know the Waze time is off from the iPhone?), And suggests there was a 21-29 second variance (LOL), keeps saying this won't change anybody's testimony.

He should get his way because he himself declares the defense expert wrong, that's funny.

Alessi gets a chance to respond to Brennan's pile of horseshit.
 
First he thinks there should be a voir dire of the expert Mr Burgess, because he has serious concerns the sequestration order had been violated. He says Burgess has changed a very key aspect of this matter after the testimony of Whiffen, and Whiffen presented the O'Keefe timeline. In his new report from May 8th Burgess, he references "to align it (his timeline) with Mr O'Keefe's cellphone". The proposed alteration by Mr. Burgess is the addition of clock drift which now makes it close to fitting in with the cell phone data given by Whiffen. Says at a minimum a voir dire is needed to ask Mr. Burgess "why did he do what he did?"

Another reason given by Alessi for the voir dire, yesterday Brennan said "we were surprised to get the report" and that causes further great concern to the defense as to why Burgess did what he did.

Alessi's last point, he says that yesterday he had to correct Brennan when Brennan said something, and Brennan said it again today. That being that the defense expert witness Mr DeSobra (time variance expert, unknown spelling) made an error and they're trying to correct the error.

Alessi says that's incorrect again, Mr DeSobra was responding to Mr Burgess's report. Mr. Burgess said this, so DeSobra said that. Now Burgess is changing what he's saying, not DeSobra.

There was also the issue of shifting the burden. He says Brennan proposed yesterday a scenario where the Commonwealth gets 3 bites at the apple for a problem that they caused. The problem being talked about is Mr Burgess changing a significant part of a timeline, previously he had picked a range of variance, now he's changed the variance completely. Says that what the Commonwealth is proposing is that their witnesses go first, then the defense witness, then the Commonwealth witness again, judge interrupts, incredulous that Brennan asked his expert witness to also testify after the defense witness (he did.) Alessi keeps trying to explain that's what Brennan said yesterday, she says that's not what she understood. (It was clear.)

Brennan recieved all the ARCCA reports on how they plan to rebut his expert crash reconstructionist. Now he says it's too much stuff, he doesn't have time for his expert to review all the rebuttal evidence so he thinks his expert should get to testify again at the end of the defense case. Judge hasn't ruled on that yet either.
 
Back to Ash Vallier. She showed the assembled taillight and is now on cross.
1747414467872.jpeg

Agrees her recreation was missing a piece. She's walked through her labs chain of custody protocols. He's using it comparatively I think to show how lacking it was before the pieces arrived at the lab.

She didn't know the clothing was collected January 29th from the hospital. She says they weren't delivered to her lab until March 14th. She agrees she has no idea about what happened to it or who had access before she got it. She is done.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom