• 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

Asked if his clients and courts relied on his CV and credentials in order to make determinations about whether he's qualified to testify in his area of qualifications. He agrees.

He is asked if he provided the Commonwealth, the defense ,and the court with his CV letter in this case. He agrees he did.

The questions are only going to get harder. (We heard rumors over the weekend about fudges on his degree.)
 
He is shown a document about to be entered into evidence. He recognizes it as his CV. Says he or his company prepared it and it appears to be accurate. It is entered into evidence. (Not displayed yet.)

He is directed to look at the "education" section of his CV, and asked if underneath that it says "BGS, Bachelor of General Science and Mathematics and Business Administration, University of Alabama - Birmingham - Currently Pursuing". He agrees that was read correctly.

He testified on direct he had that degree.

Shown another document, he is asked to identify it. Says it is another CV of his as well. It is also being introduced as evidence.

Asked if the latest document handed to him (not the CV that was given to the Commonwealth, Court and defense) is his April 2025 CV letter, he says "yes it appears to be." Now they agree on what the document is and Burgess has had a chance to read it, he will now be questioned about it by Alessi.

He is asked if those two CVS in the exhibits in front of him, the first is from November 2024 and the second April 2025, he doesn't know off the top of his head so he's reading the documents.



He says that is correct.
 
Asked if in both CVs he indicates that he has not yet earned a bachelor's degree. He agrees that is correct. Asked if he has not earned a Bachelor of Science degree in any educational field according to those 2 CVs, he agrees that is correct.

Asked if, as he sits here today, he doesn't possess any bachelor's degree, he says that is correct.


This is the guy that's going to refute what the PHDs at ARCCA have to say?
 
He is asked about a public profile of his on the Aperture website. He agrees he has one. Asked if it's in the form of a biography page, he says yes he believes so.

Asked if that biography page has his education listed, he says "very possible yes."

Alessi hands copies of the biography page to Brennan and then Burgess.

Burgess recognizes the document and identifies it as his biography page from Aperture's website.

He is asked to turn to page 2 of his biography page, and focus near the bottom where the Education header is.

He is asked if it's correct that it states "BS Mathematics and Business Administration", he says it's correct that it does state that. (It sounds like he's dying to explain why, but he doesn't get to say until redirect.)

Asked if there's no qualification there about it being currently pursued, it says BS Mathematics and Business Administration, he agrees that's what it states.

He is asked if he has a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Business Administration, he says "no I do not."

Wow he is cooked and they haven't even gotten to the changed report yet.
 
Asked if he knows where clicking on the CV link on his biography page takes you, he says he does not.

Asked if to any judge, jury, client, etc, the page would lead them to believe he's achieved a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Business Administration, Brennan objects, Bev sustains.

He is asked if he's aware of the page on Aperture's website that speaks about him and generally presents him, he says he's vaguely aware of it. Asked if he's aware Aperture has 2 links on that page, one that says CV, one that says LinkedIn, he says "Yes, I am now."

Agrees with the description of LinkedIn as social media for professionals used to attract clients or potential clients.

Agreed that includes the Commonwealth who are now their (Aperture's) client.

Agrees he is notified when someone checks out his LinkedIn profile.

He is asked if he got an alert in the last 72 hours that someone from the defense had accessed his LinkedIn, he says he wasn't aware of such access.
 
Asked if he was aware in the past 72 hours that the hyperlink from his biography page to his LinkedIn profile was disabled, he says he wasn't.

He's asked if he's aware that clicking on the link on the page now no longer works, he's not aware of that.

Asked if he knows whether anyone from Aperture directed someone within Aperture to disable his LinkedIn account within the last 72 hours. He says he's not aware of that happening.

Asked if he's spoken to anyone at Aperture about his LinkedIn account. He says no he has not.
 
He may shortly be "Former Aperture employee." Just like a certain former trooper.
 
He's got it all over various CVs and the company website but he has no BS. It's inaccurate on at least 3 occasions giving him credentials he doesn't really have.

Agrees his LinkedIn still contains 7 year old inaccurate information giving him degrees he doesn't have.
 
He doesn't agree that it is contained in more than one document that he's obtained a BS of Mathematics and Business Administration in error. Asked if it's stated incorrectly in the current document (LinkedIn profile) he agrees it is. Asked if the previous document (website biography page) incorrectly stated it, he can't say. He is shown both documents. Asked if they both show incorrect information about achieved degree of education.

Now he says they both have errors, that is correct.
 
Just an observation, I haven't seen one iota of pain or grief elicited from Read since either trial started. Just the opposite, she laughs, smiles, smirk's and blows kisses in Jackson's ear. I can only wonder what the O'Keefe family think of her just a few feet away. Make no mistake about it, she's not a victim, O'Keefe is the victim.





 
ASHES said:
Not evidence. Argument from emotion.
Click to expand...
It speaks to her character, you might not understand, the jury does. They see it all and give it weight.
 
gboisjo said:
It speaks to her character, you might not understand, the jury does. They see it all and give it weight.
Click to expand...

They'll give it all the consideration it deserves. As much as you give to the evidence. That is, none.
 
He is now being shown another document and asked if he recognizes it. He says it appears to be a CV. Agrees it's his own CV that was prepared "by me or Aperture."

Nice little attempt in there to deflect blame. Let's see how it works for him.

Asked if he had a role at minimum in preparing it, he says yes more than likely. Asked if he would have reviewed it, because it's about him, before it was used by Aperture, he says more than likely yes.

Asked to look at the Education portion of this CV, It again says BSG Mathematics and Business Administration, etc from where, but also has the year 2022. Picture of himself at the top of the page.
Agrees it's full of errors. Agrees it's the third document now to show him as having received a degree he doesn't have.
 
Says he doesn't know if the previously discussed CV was linked directly from Aperture's website. Agrees it had errors or outdated information.
 
Asked about how the information could have been "outdated", isn't it true you either have a BS or you don't, Burgess says he has represented that he does not have a BS degree. Asked to refer back to the CV, if there it shows that he does, he says yes its an error there.

Asked if he's aware that there's no such degree at the University of Alabama Birmingham called Bachelor of General Science and Mathematics in Business Administration, he says he did and that's one of the errors he just identified.
 
Says it's correct he has an associate's degree obtained in 2015.

Asked if he's familiar with the term "mendacity." He says he isn't.

(noun - untruthfulness; lying - Oxford.)


Asked if he's familiar with another CV from 2015. He says he isn't. He is shown another document.

He is asked if he recognizes it. He says he doesn't.

He is asked if he recalls when he started pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree of any kind. He says around 2008. Asked if he's been pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree for 17 years now, he says that is correct.

Asked if he hasn't obtained it as of today. He says that is correct. Asked if there are various documents he has seen that said he has obtained a Bachelor of Science, he agrees "with errors or misinterpretation."

Agrees those errors or misinterpretations have been in place for a long time but he's now aware of them.
 
Agrees the errors and misinterpretations haven't been corrected in a long time.

He is asked if he works for insurance companies. He says he does work for insurance companies, in addition to law firms.

Asked again if he works for insurance companies, he says sometimes.

Downplaying the insurance company connection, why?

Asked if he states it right in his report for this case that he works for insurance companies. He says "again, I do work for insurance companies yes."

Asked what role he plays working for insurance companies, whether he's working for them or the policyholders trying to get payment from an insurance company, Brennan objects and it's overruled, he says he works for the insurance companies themselves. He's asked if any of that work was related to denying claims from insureds. Brennan objects, sidebar.
 
Looks like objection sustained.


Alessi switches topics. He asks Burgess if he's familiar with the phrase "epidemic dishonesty", he says he is.

Asked next to talk about his work on this case. Asked if he was hired by the Commonwealth in October 2024 to work on the infotainment and other module data from the SUV, and on October 10th a proposal was produced which explained why he believed an additional data acquisition was necessary.

This is about him messing up bits and bytes.
 
He mistook 8MB of data taken from the chip and the chip was 64 Megabits (8MB) so he thought there was all that data missing. lol
 
Asked if that was his only mistake in his October 10 report/proposal/protocol, he says he's not aware of any others.

He's told he stated in the report that "the data acquisition of the micron JWB57 was incomplete because the acquisition was only 500 Megabytes in size but the storage was 4 Gigabytes" he agrees that is right. He is asked if the JWB57 chip is 4 Gigabits flash memory, not 4 Gigabytes flash memory, he says that is correct (that he made the mistake again.)
 
Last edited:
Asked if he knew 4 gigabits was 500 megabytes, which suggests all data had been successfully retrieved during the first data extraction, he says that's correct.

Agrees the previous expert didn't make a mistake on that.

Says he misinterpreted the difference between gigabits and gigabytes, not misunderstood.

Agrees that still means he got it wrong, he made an error.

Asked if he stated in his report the "Micron 29F2GO8ABAAEA is a 2 gigabyte chip and that the acquisition should have been 2 gigabytes but it was incomplete because it was only 264MB in size." He agrees that is correct.

Asked if he knows that the Micron 29F2 chip is a 2 gigabit flash memory device, not a 2 gigabyte flash memory device, as he incorrectly stated in his report (the third time now he's made this mistake.) He says yes that is all correct.

Asked if 2 gigabits was 264 megabytes, and therefore all the data had actually been successfully extracted during the first attempt, he says yes "from those chips.”

Says it was another misinterpretation.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like this guy is an idiot.
 
Says his protocol was not peer reviewed by anyone at Aperture. Asked if he had a supervisor review the protocol before he filed it with the court, he says no.

Asked if he submitted his proposal/protocol/report based on his education, background and experience, he says correct.

Asked if it appeared the entire foundation of his proposal was based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the difference between a bit and a byte, he says "no not the entire thing no."

Says it was still "partially correct."

Asked if he got conversions wrong with respect to analyzing 3 different chips, he says correct.

Asked if he's learned the difference between a bit and a byte since then, he says he's "always known the difference between a bit and a byte 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…