• 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

He says he doesn't think a competent examiner would have overlooked an entire module. Says he misinterpreted the data.

Good good. Now just admit you changed the report based on Whiffin's timeline and we're done.
 



If I was the jury I might be asking myself when they're going to put her car back together, replace the taillight they ****ed up and return it to her.

These photos are how he recieved them. Taken apart with the chipsets already desoldered.
 
Says they damaged the PCB and pads taking off the chips.


How he received the data in hexadecimal.


Says the previous expert missed an sd card.


The SD card was locked or encrypted with a key and he had to attempt data extraction bypassing the security. I foresee problems there on cross.
 
Says he did testing on similar SUV:


Look at all that work he did, after the first trial. Brennan's tech person is terrible. He's trying to get them to zoom in on something like the defense does. Third time is the charm. No it isn't. He gives up and continues from the whole slide.


He wanted them to zoom in on the 3 columns at the top. First they did one column, then he asked again and they did 2 columns. Then he tried asking again but gave up and continued on with this.


Asked about ignition events, says to get the time he would compare them to a known time from a video.

Says he got "viable information" from the locked SD card. Asked what information, he says contact lists from connected devices, as well as serial numbers and phone numbers associated with the SUV, call logs, and power on power off events.
 


He goes through a process of the time of a logo shown on the screen to arrive at his conclusion of a UTC time.


Says there's a 3 second delay between pressing the power button and the infotainment center powering on.

Waiting for him to say when he says O'Keefe was hit and when he came to that conclusion.
 
Tripping over his own data still on direct. He says this data is supposed to show how 3 seconds after pressing the ignition the logo switches, but it shows UTC the same as local time so he says "that could be an error in how that's reported."


Another oopsy.
 
Slick Willy playing word games and yes or no traps with Nicholas Bradford, DNA Expert and Karl Miyasako, DNA Analyst. Judge had to stop Jackson numerous times, at one point calling him up to her desk. This guy can't help himself, thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. If I saw through his slick bullshit, I'm thinking the jury saw it as well.
 
He says this is showing the first power on event after 12:00am:


Asked if after analyzing the SD card he came to a conclusion about the first power on event January 29th, he did, when asked what the opinion was, defense objection, sidebar.

These new times are not working with other established times. Of course.
 
Defense are supposed to ask leading questions on cross. That's what cross is, asking yes or no questions to get the answers to the questions. Amusing you use normal lawyering as some kind of dig, when Brennan is asking leading questions all over the place on direct and redirect even though he's not supposed to.


PS: the judge had to ask the jury to stop laughing and making faces at the Commonwealth's evidence.
 
Last edited:


Playing video on the left to correspond timestamps of Read returning:
 
Any chance you can post some of that video? lol
 
Used the arrival at her parents house as another time comparison for a power off event.


(Still don't know when he claims O'Keefe was hit.)
 
ASHES said:
Click to expand...
Ahh, seems more basic instruction. From your comment I thought you were talking about today and that the jurors were reacting to the current witness.

That was just basic instruction though.
 
daeler said:
Ahh, seems more basic instruction. From your comment I thought you were talking about today and that the jurors were reacting to the current witness.

That was just basic instruction though.
Click to expand...
It was recent. That last instruction was not basic every day instruction it was new, because jurors have been reacting to evidence and witnesses. She gave it on Friday. Because of reactions in the days before. It was the only time it was read. Which is why the news clipped it.

We're talking about going as far back as red solo cups and Roberts admitting to lying to the grand jury.
 
Not everyday style no, but Judges will say that if there are reactions. Any reaction from the jury can trigger that comment.
 
daeler said:
Not everyday style no, but Judges will say that if there are reactions. Any reaction from the jury can trigger that comment.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't, if it isn't disruptive. Jurors are allowed to react and not be emotionless zombies like Bev says they ought. Nothing from the jury has been seen or heard from the feed so it can't have been too disruptive. I can't recall ever having heard a judge instruct a jury like that.


If you want to see how the jurors have been reacting, check out these tweets by Sue O'Connell who is watching in the courtroom and always watches them.
 
For example, that blatent lie by Bukhenik was funny.
 
He's gotta do a bunch of this and that to sync his data with other known data. (It's not very precise)


He's talking about how he adjusted his information. Said a bunch of random times. I think 12:32:09am is the final time he's giving. Again, very wishy washy with times and how they have to be adjusted to fit his timeline. But he's done. Now cross.
 
It was rather confusing figuring out what he meant. He's using the 3 point turn as a reference for the time of the collision, but the 3 point turn isn't an instantaneous event and he never said when during the 3 point turn was being referenced.
 
So the revised May 11th report says between 12:32:04-12:32:12am on O'Keefe's phone. Before that it was 12:31:56 am.

Changes, just like everything else in this case when refuted by the defense.

O'Keefe's phone button locked at 12:32:09am so that takes up a bunch of variance.
 
Last edited:
Starts off cross by ensuring the correct spelling of his first name, Shanon.

He agrees forensics means for use within the law. He agrees the scientific method used must be accurate and objective, and above all, be unbiased and truthful.

Agrees reliability is also a desired characteristic of forensic science.

Asked if credibility and honesty was a fundamental component of reliability. He agrees.

Asked if he holds his opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific accuracy, he agrees he said that several times on direct examination.

They're going to discuss his professional credentials now. Asked if he understands ethics. He says he does. He agrees that ethics dictate one be truthful in their professional credentials.

Asked if a fundamental credential is what type of college degree someone has, he says it is.

Asked if people rely on those and they're the foundation for his expert opinion and analysis, he says "they can be yes."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…