Karen Read Trial - Take 2 (1 Viewer)

[ASHES]

Asked if nowhere in his May 8 report does he even discuss why he's not addressing the 3 second offset from the January report, he says "I do not discuss it but that offset is adjusted in the readjustment we do with the 3 point turn."

He's really got to get his excuses out there.

Asked if there's simply no discussion in the May 8th report about the 3 second offset. He agrees.

Asked if he testified on direct that accident reconstruction was part of his work, he says it's not.

Asked if he understands that there's an issue as to whether a collision actually occurred in this case, does he understand that's an issue. Brennan objects, sustained.

Asked if he has any understanding that Dr Welcher in his slide presentation was addressing that issue in this case. He says "No I do not."

Asked if he has no idea what his colleague Welcher who is working on the same case was addressing in his slide presentation? He answers yes generally he knows but he can't speak to it.

Asked what understanding he had after reading Welcher's slide presentation. Several different ways, Brennan keeps objecting.

Bev is being obstructive here sustaining unfounded objections and not allowing the defense to ask what should be permissible questions.

 

[ASHES]

After a lengthy sidebar, the cross of Burgess by Alessi continues.

He would like to start with Burgess's conclusion referenced from the May 8 2025 report. They both turn to the conclusion section of the report on page 7. He starts with having Burgess read conclusion number one to himself.

Alessi Read's from the May 8 report conclusion:

"The following can be stated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty:

One: as noted in my initial report the only call logs that can be used to compare and synchronize the clocks between Ms. Read's Lexus and Mr O'Keefe's iphone are those occuring between 5:21am and 5:30am which occur approximately 5 hours after the collision"

Burgess agrees that conclusion one says that.

Asked now to go back in his same May 8 report to page 3.

He is asked to read the 4th full paragraph that starts with "2 events near the time", when he is done he is asked if he stated that "2 events near the time of the collision were recorded by the Lexus system as identified by Dr. Welcher and referenced by Mr. DeSobra. The first event is a text string event labeled 1162-1 and associated with a 3 point turn on Cedarcrest Rd. The second event, labeled text string event 1162-2, is associated with a reverse maneuver on Fairview Rd. These events will be referenced below for clock synchronization analysis. The timestamps associated with those two events are based on a combination of the Lexus infotainment power on event, and text string time count."

Burgess says that's all correctly said.

Asked if he just said in the same paragraph that he's discussing a couple of text string events 1162-1 and 1162-2, that he's also talking about a collision?

He agrees that is correct. Asked whether that paragraph was part of the basis for conclusion one, he says no, it's not related to conclusion one or a predicate discussion of that.

Says his view of that paragraph has no relation at all to his conclusion one.

He's asked to go back to paragraph 4 on page 3, and he's asked if he used the word collision. Agrees it is in the same paragraph he is talking the text string events.

He's asked where he got the basis to use the word "collision" at that part of his report. He says "that would have been from crash reports." Asked whose crash reports, he says MSP.

Asked if he used Massachusetts State Police reports to discuss allegations of a collision. He says yes. Asked if he states anywhere in his May 8th report that he used those reports, did he list them in his references? He says no, he didn't do that in this report.

Asked if this is the first time, this very moment, that he is mentioning those reports at all, he says no he mentioned those in his initial report. He's corrected that they're talking about the May 8th report. He says "yes, sorry, yes."

Asked if in his testimony, it is not his conclusion that every text string data event means a collision, he agrees that is not his conclusion.

Asked if it's correct that you can have text string events and they're not collisions. He says yes you can.

 

[ASHES]

Asked if a text string event can also be called a trigger event, he agrees, asked if it's not like an airbag deploying, it's just something that happens with a Lexus vehicle that can cause the vehicle to register a trigger event. He agrees that's correct.

Asked if there's many things with a vehicle that can cause a text string event (I'm switching to trigger) or trigger, he agrees that's correct.

Asked if he agrees that a trigger doesn't mean there was a collision or airbags deployed or impact. Burgess agrees.

Asked if a trigger merely refers to Lexus's practice of capturing real time data from applications and databases, he says he wouldn't call it applications and databases, asked what he would call it, Burgess says "so from various sensors or other modules on the vehicle."

Corrects his question to Lexus's practice of capturing real time data from various sensors and modules. Then he says agreed.

Taking a break now. I'm almost 6 hours behind. Going to just have to have a listening fest the rest of the evening then post any final happenings later.

I thought it was funny how he was so eager to say he wasn't lying under oath about his education on direct he got ahead of the question and ended up saying he didn't talk about his certifications, which he did. The point is, he and the prosecution discussed ALL his good expert attributes but completely skipped his education. That means that the prosecution knew. Also let's don't forget he still thinks this happened on January 30 not January 29 and he still hasn't accepted that not one page of his slideshow timeline has correct data.

 

[ASHES]

Earlier today when I was on break I did screen cap a couple new slides.


This is the O'Keefe pocket state data that shows changing pocket states after the alleged collision even with the most generous time variance applied 29+3 seconds from 12:32:09 when his cell locks, so 12:32:41 which is nowhere close to reaching the phone activity between 12:33:14 and 12:34:09 when it is switching between pocket states while Read is calling him (while she is still 2 minutes away from arriving at 1 Meadows.)

This is the other one. It's a bit harder to read out of context, but this is the final piece of the forensic protocol that Burgess should have followed and applied the offsets to the event data. Defense expert DeSobra did do that work, and this is the result.



So at no time in the time variances is it possible for the "collision" (the trigger labeled 1162-2 reverse on Fairview Rd) to have happened after the last activity on O'Keefe's iPhone and Apple health data that has him walking and locking his phone well after Burgess and Welcher and Brennan have him run over. You can see at the closest, there was at best a +5 second to O'Keefe's phone activity than the trigger event.

 

[gboisjo]

ONLY A FEW FEET AWAY. As the family and relatives of John O'Keefe struggle to get through the 2nd trial, only a few feet away from them sits Read. Imagine how they feel when they see her laughing, smirking, whispering in Jackson's ear and throwing witnesses the finger. Its no wonder why O'Keefe wanted to dump this bitch, oblivious to the pain only a few feet away.

The reason why Alessi's cross of Burgess didn't work ..is Alessi doesn't know when to shut his big mouth. When lawyers go on and on never really making a valid point, jurors tire of the bullshit and word games. On more than a few occasions he did it with the judge during motion hearings, saying a whole lot but not getting anywhere. Smart lawyers like Brennan don't do that.

Prosecution will be wrapping up there case shortly.

 

[ASHES]

 

[ASHES]

When you have no case, and nobody in your prosecutor's office will take it, you hire shitty lawyers that hire shitty experts that lie about their education because almost nobody with any credibility will testify for the Commonwealth in this case. The people who do testify for the Commonwealth with credibility have not discounted the possibilities raised by the defense, or outright support the defense, like ME Dr. Scordi-Bello, who the prosecution almost didn't call at all. We still haven't seen their lead investigator with his fingerprints all over the Lexus taillight pieces found where days before there had been none.

Can't wait for this to get going.

Best of all is going to be ARCCA, who have compiled additional evidence and videos from experiments done that supports their original conclusions. There's going to be actual taillight demonstrations and they're going to blow away the jury because we've seen what arms and taillights do when colliding at 25 mph and it's not what happened to O'Keefe's arm or Read's taillight and it blew me away. Broken bones and 4 large pieces of taillight.

 

[Josie]

The science doesn't lie. For your information most lawyers don't check experts education, they take them at they're word. Alessi is knit picking around the edges trying to confuse the jurors. Brennan's re-direct will clean it up with succinct, precise sentences, no wasted words. Something the ass wipe Alessi hasn't got a clue about.

Why do you get so emotionally invested in these trials?

 

[ASHES]

He did not analyze any raw data from the SUV trigger events, he was just given the data by Welcher.

Asked if he's aware there were about 30 trigger events in an 8 month period on her SUV, he says he wasn't.

Asked to assume Read got that SUV 8 months prior, he's not saying she's been in 30 collisions since she got the SUV, he says no.

He agrees there were 2 triggers January 29th (not the 30th but he still hasn't got that figured out).

Asked if the first trigger 1162-1 wasn't a collision, he says he doesn't know without reviewing the data.


Asked if as he sits there today, he has no basis to say 1162-1 trigger was a collision, he agrees he does not.

Asked if he had referred to that as a 3 point turn, he says he did. Alessi asks him if he mentioned in his direct examination about the 3 point turn anything about a collision, he agrees he didn't. Asked if as he sits there today, there's no fact or data that he has to conclude that any collision occurred with the 1162-1 3 point turn trigger, he agrees.

He agrees there are lots of ways to trigger an event in a Lexus. While stopped and at speed. Almost countless events? he is asked, he doesn't know exactly how many triggers there are but agrees there are a lot.

Asked if he referred to that event on direct as the three point turn. He agrees. Asked if the 3 point turn registered as a trigger event, he says correct.

Alessi: "Are Lexus SUVs trigger happy?"


Burgess: "I do not know sir."

Asked if any of the information from the black box of the Lexus indicates a collision on January 29th. He says "not by itself."

Black box registered no collision. Liars.

 

[ASHES]

Switching topics now to the original Commonwealth black box expert Maggie Gaffney, as he testified to on direct examination.

Asked if he criticized her for not extracting the microSD card during the initial chip off extraction, he says "so I did criticize her for not identifying it and subsequently not downloading it yes."

Asked if he even tried to lay at her feet the blame for his bits and bytes misinterpretations, by claiming that he assumed a 'competent expert' would not have overlooked a relevant chip, so he became confused about how data could be missing, if that's a fair characterization, he says "no it is not."

Asked if he at all tried to use as a justification for his misunderstanding of bits and bytes that it was her work. He says "it was the overlooking of the SD card yes."

Asked, so he did try to blame her for part of the reason why he misinterpreted the bits and bytes, he says no that's not correct.

Asked if he would agree that the bits and bytes discussion from yesterday had nothing to do with Ms. Gaffney, he says "So, so in part, but that was my mistake yes." (LOL still blaming her!)

Alessi: "I'm trying to understand which is it, Ms. Gaffney's work had some part, in your misinterpretations of bits and bytes, or her work had no part in your misinterpretations of bits and bytes."

Burgess: "Some part."



Alessi: "so you do attempt to lay some blame on Ms. Gaffney for your misinterpretations of bits and bytes correct?"

Burgess: "No I'm not trying to blame anyone."

Alessi: "Ok."

What is bro even saying? What even is this prosecution?

 

[Josie]

This guy remained completely unbothered, not stressed out, not stammering or stuttering the entire time. How? What an embarrassing testimony for him, his company, the commonwealth - but he was just like

 

[ASHES]

He is asked if in his January 30 2025 report if he's consistent with his criticism of Ms. Gaffney.

"As I recall, I believe so yes."

Asked if he provided the explanation for why the SD card wasn't extracted during the initial chip off data extraction.

"Yes that it was overlooked."

He is asked if he does attribute to Ms. Gaffney in his report some responsibility for the microSD card not being extracted. He says "yes".

He's asked to turn to page 5 of his report (1/30/25).

Oh goody I love page 5.

He directs Burgess to follow along from the word "at" in the third paragraph of the 5th page (of the 1/30/25 Burgess report).

"At the time of the incident, Birla (a forensic hardware and software company for vehicle modules) did not offer support for the infotainment and telematics modules removed from the Lexus but it's since released updated software indicating similar modules are supported via in-vehicle acquisition. According to Birla, there are 2 known and documented modules within the vehicle that have the capability to store data. The infotainment module removed from Ms. Read's Lexus is consistent with the MMU documented by Birla and has been identified as containing an internal microSD card not acquired during the initial chip off acquisition by Ms. Gaffney"

Alessi asks if he read that correctly, Burgess says yes he did.

Asked if he said in that report that he said Birla did not offer support for the MMU module in Read's Lexus, he says he needs to explain. He explains and agrees that at the time of the chip off, Birla did not offer support for removing data from the chip he criticized Gaffney for not collecting during the chip off.

That's it for the cross. Gonna listen to Brennan sail the flaming ship in the background. Will share anything interesting.

 

[Josie]

I still say the documentary she did was a horrible choice. If she's convicted, I bet that's why.

 

[ASHES]

I still say the documentary she did was a horrible choice. If she's convicted, I bet that's why.

I can't imagine jurors are that stupid. It's utterly irrelevant to whether or not the SUV collided with O'Keefe, unless maybe she said "I ran him over with my SUV" which she didn't.

 

[ASHES]

Some of the disagreements Burgess seems to have had with DeSobra's report weren't even an issue with DeSobra's work, but he was disagreeing with the work of Welcher that was being used by DeSobra in his report as being inaccurate or wrong.

 

[ASHES]

This is the public LinkedIn profile of Shanon Burgess before he made it private during his testimony. He testified he hadn't updated it in 10 years, that's why there's old information that's not currently accurate. Except you can see he quite regularly updated his LinkedIn, not so long ago.


He's hardly even telling the truth about the accent. It's a weak Alabama drawl. He definitely has a strong following on social media now.



See, updated more recently than 2020. Not abandoned since 2015.



More recent LinkedIn activity. Not as dormant an account as portrayed.

 

[ASHES]

This is the big enchilada. On his currently actively being used LinkedIn profile that he controls that was updated more recently than 10 years ago.

That top one, is a complete fabrication. That school doesn't even offer that BS degree. He doesn't have any BS. At one point he says "still pursuing" but only on recent CVs given to the court, defense and Commonwealth. Others have dates that are totally fabricated. He didn't achieve that degree in 2022. The profile is incorrect, he acknowledges the fact. He just disagrees the widespread false claims of a BS are his own intentional doing and that it's someone else's fault. He does like blaming others.

 

[ASHES]

This is Burgess's masterpiece, it's his coup de grace to the defense experts, he presents: the properly time adjusted timeline for the time O'Keefe was struck where it lines up properly with the phone activity! Ready?



Having trouble reading that expert report? Let me try to help.



Jesus H.


What day is this? Does he know if it's January 29th yet or still on January 30th?

 

[ASHES]

Just to show I'm not cropping out a date.

 

[ASHES]

I forgot to mention, a problem this new time presents the Commonwealth.

I must regretfully inform them that O'Keefe's Apple health data was registering steps until 12:32:16am January 29 2022.

Here's the Burgess time after which O'Keefe needs to not be alive using his phone:


Here's O'Keefe not being dead after 12:32:12am properly adjusted for maximum Burgess time variance


Full table:


He's walking until 4 seconds after Burgess has him "collided" with the Lexus.

 

[ASHES]

Pretty short redirect. Didn't rehabilitate his school lies or solve really any of his issues. Re cross by Alessi now.

 

[ASHES]

Pretty funny return to cross. First question.

Alessi: "Has a filing ever been made in any court in which your educational background has been misrepresented?"

Burgess: "No. Not that I'm aware of."

Alessi: "Pardon me?"

Burgess: "Not that I'm aware of."

(he spit that out pretty quick. It's also setting someone else up for blame again if it is shown such a thing happened. Not to his knowledge guys!)
Asked if he's based out of the Texas Aperture office, he agrees he is. Asked if he's aware of a case in US Eastern District court titled Jeffrey Glover and Theresa Glover vs. Graphic Packaging InternationalLLC, he says he's familiar with that case.

It can't be that easy? He's submitted the fake degrees to other courts!?!

Agrees it was an accident reconstruction case he participated in. Asked his role in that case, he says "accident reconstructionist."

(He just testified today or yesterday he doesn't do that. Weird.)
Asked if he provided any deposition, or testimony in that case, he says he did not. Asked if there were filings made in that case, he says he's sure there were.

Alessi hands Burgess a document and has him read it.

He looks like he's about to have a good time. Alessi that is, not Burgess. Burgess looks red and sweaty.

 

[ASHES]

He's asked if he recognizes the second page of the document he was given and the stamping at the top of the pages.

He does recognize page 2 and the stampings at the tops of the pages.

He identifies the stampings as having a file date of 8/7/23. He is asked it's a stamping of a federal court, Burgess says he's not sure.

Asked if a document might refresh his recollection, as to whether the exhibit is a filing in a federal court. He says it will, he is shown a new document. Asked if that refreshes his recollection about whether the court filing was in federal court, he says yes, and it is a federal filing.

Now he's being shown the second page, asked if it's a curriculum vitae and photo of himself. He says yes it is.

Asked to see where it says Education- Brennan objects here. Bev sustains it. Sidebar so Alessi can ask the judge how she'll let him ask his questions.

I'm going to bed, but it looks like Alessi has him also stretching educational truths in a federal court. Maybe more. Who even knows.

 

[ASHES]

Of course, under education heading on his CV filed in federal court, there it is, the spectral degree. Here it's called "Bachelor of General Science in Mathematics and Business Administration University of Alabama, 2024"

It doesn't say "currently pursuing." He did quickly point out the CV was filed in 2023. Which I guess means the same thing. He also says he doesn't do all the mumbo jumbo legal stuff to be declared an expert. Someone at Aperture does all that for him, so none of this is his fault.

Here is his lie in a Federal court filing we just heard about above:


Zooming in on the education section of the CV somebody swore in an affidavit was true and correct:

He agrees when asked that there's no qualifier next to the degree explaining it at all.


Now it's being shown the CV he filed in this court:



Asked if the '2024' has changed to 'currently pursuing', he says that's correct.

Ahh yes, the predicted excuse. The 2024 is his expected year of graduation. Don't know how he figured that, it's now 2025, he's been pursuing that BS for 17 years now (literally since 2008) and he still hasn't graduated. I don't think that excuse is going to fly any more.

Burgess admits finally after arguing that his inaccurate educational record was filed in federal court. Alessi ends it there. Good place. Brennan actually wants to redirect that, so he can go ahead. I'm going to sleep for real now.

 

[ASHES]

It was only a couple questions on the final redirect. Just redirecting blame for his fake education credentials in a sworn federal court document by blaming someone else at the company.

He also ran away from the stand without ever realizing he got the date of the event wrong and all his timelines in his slides were all wrong.