Karen Read Trial - Take 2

[gboisjo]

How can you objectively argue a case if all the evidence is a rabbit hole, and all you can talk about is how terrible the lawyers, defendant, and everyone arguing their side are, and long debunked lies.

I don't argue evidence with you, I follow the case my own way. The evidence isn't a rabbit hole, its where you go with it I'm not interested in. Your completely biased and have been from the very start, I want no part of that. Don't for one minute call yourself objective, your not.

 

[gboisjo]

Not taking advantage of the opportunity to rebut by Brennan was a mistake IMO. Its was golden ticket to get the last word in. I couldn't believe when he rested, left me confused. Closing arguments should be something to behold, Jury might get the case by Friday.

 

[ASHES]

I don't argue evidence with you, I follow the case my own way. The evidence isn't a rabbit hole, its where you go with it I'm not interested in. Your completely biased and have been from the very start, I want no part of that. Don't for one minute call yourself objective, your not.

You don't argue evidence at all, you just regurgitate debunked garbage and ad homs.

 

[ASHES]

Not taking advantage of the opportunity to rebut by Brennan was a mistake IMO. Its was golden ticket to get the last word in. I couldn't believe when he rested, left me confused. Closing arguments should be something to behold, Jury might get the case by Friday.

Brennan argued his way into telling the jury he had no idea what happened and neither does his expert. If he had anything to rebut the testimony of Wolfe, Laposata or Rentshler, he would have.

 

[gboisjo]

In Jackson's world Read is the victim, forget O'Keefe, he matters only as it relates to his case. I would give my left nut to see him lose. And if the jury comes back with manslaughter, I will have been right from the very beginning.

 

[ASHES]

What does it tell you, the reader, that the Commonwealth could find not one medical doctor that would say O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with the Commonwealth car striking arm theory? 2 of the defense's medical experts and 2 of the Commonwealth's all agreed with the defense about the consistency of the injuries, and nobody, not even their own ME under pressure from Proctor, would say that the injuries were consistent with being struck by a car or that a homicide even occurred.

 

[ASHES]

In Jackson's world Read is the victim, forget O'Keefe, he matters only as it relates to his case. I would give my left nut to see him lose. And if the jury comes back with manslaughter, I will have been right from the very beginning.

 

[gboisjo]

Brennan argued his way into telling the jury he had no idea what happened and neither does his expert. If he had anything to rebut the testimony of Wolfe, Laposata or Rentshler, he would have.

More bullshit, it was tactical mistake. He could have come up with a million things, he didn't. Its your bias showing your ass again.

 

[ASHES]

More bullshit, it was tactical mistake. He could have come up with a million things, he didn't. Its your bias showing your ass again.

Which expert could he call?

 

[ASHES]

For those that don't know, in order to put on a rebuttal case, the prosecution has to call witnesses that have previously testified, or were pre-approved to respond to a specific expert, and they can only testify to things they've testified to, things in their reports, or their opinions on the defense experts' reports that have been presented during the defense's case.

Brennan had a few people lined up for his rebuttal. He had Burgess, Welcher, the dog bite expert, and the crime tech.

Burgess was out because of his faked CV, Aperture biography and LinkedIn, as well as ARCCA not really talking about the techstream data at all.

Dog bite expert was out even before the defense decided not to call Garrett Wing. Perhaps they saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to throw away their career.

The crime tech was out after the scissors to the back of the hoodie fake evidence from Brennan incident. Can't be asking her why her report was missing the pages that showed what she did to the hoodie when it came into evidence.

Now Welcher is out, not only because Wolfe, Rentschler and Laposata took a hatchet to the Commonwealth case, and it would be incredibly embarrassing for him to attempt to defend his 2mph paint tests while dressed up as O'Keefe, but also because of the x-rays Brennan hid from him. If the defense asked him about the existence of the x-rays that show no fractures that he had said didn't exist, he would know Brennan hadn't given him everything and his entire conclusion was erroneous. And he would have told the jury that.

 

[ASHES]

I don't argue evidence with you

Just one thing, please. We can take everything one thing at a time, so no unexpected trips into holes.

I just want to focus on the x-rays. What is a legitimate reason Brennan didn't show them to his biomechanics expert, who then went on to state that there could have been a fracture, but we wouldn't know because there weren't any x-rays?

Here's Welcher's testimony:
Watch from 1:19-2:20

(Don't care about or mind the commentary, I'm only interested in the testimony)

"They didn't actually x-ray, from the records I've seen, either his hand or his arm" and when asked if he saw fractures on O'Keefe's right arm, he says "not that I saw, again it wasn't x-rayed."

Here's the x-rays Brennan didn't give him:

That's a full arm and a hand x-ray of John O'Keefe from the autopsy report.

What's up with that? Another excusable error? Do you think perhaps it has something to do with why Welcher isn't coming back?

 

[ASHES]

Probably not going to do a lot of live updates today. They're starting around 10am with drafting the MA equivalent of jury instructions. That's all they'll be doing in court I think. Maybe there's a motion or two to be argued. But no jury until closing arguments tomorrow.

 

[gboisjo]

Having had time to think about Brennan's decision not to rebut probably had something to do with jury fatigue. The jury is off today, thanks to Brennan.

 

[ASHES]

Having had time to think about Brennan's decision not to rebut probably had something to do with jury fatigue. The jury is off today, thanks to Brennan.

 

[gboisjo]

Two things that will put the prosecution over the top are the small pieces of tail light found in O'Keefes shirt and Read's own words. The confessions via the multiple documentary's she starred in. And what makes these shows so unbelievable is Jackson signed off on them for the money. I mean you talk about a tactical error, this tops Brennan's by a thousand miles. And then there her own words early that morning, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him".

 

[ASHES]

Two things that will put the prosecution over the top are the small pieces of tail light found in O'Keefes shirt and Read's own words.

The pieces of taillight in Proctor's possession who didn't testify, without proper chain of custody. Nah.

The confessions via the multiple documentary's she starred in.

No, they just chopped up her interview and took things out of context. She's never confessed.

And what makes these shows so unbelievable is Jackson signed off on them for the money. I mean you talk about a tactical error, this tops Brennan's by a thousand miles. And then there her own words early that morning, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him".

Who do you believe? They all contradict each other. Officer Sarif contradicts them all and says that didn't happen. And the story wasn't told anywhere in any report that day, or in any interview report, or at the first grand jury. It wasn't until the second grand jury that BS started, and ever since then, people like you uncritically believe and repeat it.

Who do you believe:

Flematti: says he heard it at the first trial. Didn't testify at the second. Contradicts Mcclaughlin and Sarif and the video.

Nuttall: Also believed O'Keefe had a big puffy jacket and his memory is better today than 3 years ago. Testified he was there and heard it. Video and Mcclaughlin and Sarif contradicts him.

Mcclaughlin: contradicts Nuttall and Flematti, says they were in the ambulance with O'Keefe, which agrees with the video. Says Read said "I hit him" 4 times, which contradicts Jennifer McCabe. She also contradicts officer Sarif.

Jennifer McCabe: Says Read said "did I hit him, could I have hit him" until the second grand jury where she changes it to "I hit him" 3 times. Her story about who was there changed after the video. Her story still contradicts Mcclaughlin and Sarif.

Officer Sarif: was closer to Read at the time of the alleged confession than Jennifer McCabe or Katie Mcclaughlin, says he never heard Read say "I hit him I hit him I hit him"

The video captures the entirety of the time of the alleged confession, but it can never be heard, even though other things being shouted are distinguishable.

None of them wrote it down or told anybody anything about it until the second grand jury.

Every time you bring up the bullshit made up confession, I will repost these facts you omit.

 

[daeler]

Two things that will put the prosecution over the top are the small pieces of tail light found in O'Keefes shirt and Read's own words.

There is a question on how that evidence got there. It really depends on how the jury looks at it. As for Read's words again there is a question there. The witnesses were all caught in lies about the comments, and one person stated the comments came out as questions not statements.

There is also the fact that experts testifying on the lack of damage that should be there if there was an actual collision.

Outside of that, the jury has to wonder why the lead prosecutor did not testify and why he was fired, as well as why Brennan lied about the damage to the shirt, these kinds of things can sway juries.

I think we either have a hung jury or a not guilty verdict. I could be wrong but based on the trial this should be the way they go.

The confessions via the multiple documentary's she starred in. And what makes these shows so unbelievable is Jackson signed off on them for the money. I mean you talk about a tactical error, this tops Brennan's by a thousand miles. And then there her own words early that morning, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him".

 

[ASHES]

There is a question on how that evidence got there. It really depends on how the jury looks at it. As for Read's words again there is a question there. The witnesses were all caught in lies about the comments, and one person stated the comments came out as questions not statements.

There is also the fact that experts testifying on the lack of damage that should be there if there was an actual collision.

Outside of that, the jury has to wonder why the lead prosecutor did not testify and why he was fired, as well as why Brennan lied about the damage to the shirt, these kinds of things can sway juries.

I think we either have a hung jury or a not guilty verdict. I could be wrong but based on the trial this should be the way they go.

The jury knows why Proctor was fired. Brennan opened the door during the questioning of Bukhenik. He claimed multiple times that Proctor was fired just because of the texts to his friends. Then the defense was able to get in he was also fired for his poor handling of the case and his bias, as well as conduct unbecoming for incidents like drinking with Kevin Albert in his squad car on duty to the point Albert forgot his gun and badge, bringing himself and the MSP to disrepute. That all came in.

 

[ASHES]

There is a question on how that evidence got there.

That question will weigh heavy for the pieces of taillight at the scene and the glass on the bumper. The Commonwealth has no answer for the bumper glass, and are ignoring the issues with the huge pieces of taillight found by Proctor weeks later after dozens of officers have swept the area after the snow was gone.

If there was no collision, (which all the medical and accident reconstruction evidence suggests), then how did the taillight and glass get there?

 

[ASHES]

Trying to watch the hearing on instructions, but Lally is droning on and not speaking into the mic so I can't understand anything he's talking about.

 

[gboisjo]

Rentscheler's powerpoint excluded from jurors eyes. Early on today defense is losing a bunch of arguments by the judge

 

[gboisjo]

Trying to watch the hearing on instructions, but Lally is droning on and not speaking into the mic so I can't understand anything he's talking about.

I agree, he's the reason why there was no conviction in the first trial. The man is simply boring, no bump in his step.

 

[gboisjo]

We shouldn't under estimate the weight jurors give to the likability of all the lawyers in the case. Cases are won and lost based on not just the facts but the way they are presented.

 

[gboisjo]

3rd party culprits, how can the defense argue 3rd party culprits when they didn't even call Colin Albert or Brian Higgins. DUH! Denied.

 

[ASHES]

Rentscheler's powerpoint excluded from jurors eyes. Early on today defense is losing a bunch of arguments by the judge

No surprise there. Won't help the Commonwealth in the long run.