Karen Read Trial - Take 2 (1 Viewer)

[ASHES]

She is asked how she recovered the glass. She says she used tweezers. Asked how difficult or easy it was to take the glass off the bumper with tweezers, "it was not difficult."

Agrees that means it was easy. (I bet she could have blown it off the bumper with her breath.)

Switching subjects, she is asked about the apparent hair she located on the rear right quarter panel of the SUV.

She is asked if the hair was not sitting on a horizontal portion like the bumper but on a vertical portion of the panel, she agrees. Asked if that's a smooth surface, she agrees. Asked if the hair wasn't secured to the panel, she agrees it was not.

Asked if it wasn't secured in any way, not taped, not glued or stapled, she agrees it was not affixed in any way whatsoever. She is asked if she found the hair at the same time she found the pieces of glass on the bumper, she agrees that it was the same general time. Agrees that the range of time was just one day. When asked what the range of time was between finding one and the other, she doesn't remember specifically, she says she was there for around 2 hours so during that time.

Asked if in just 2 hours she found the pieces of glass and the hair, did her examination and made her notes, she agrees.

Asked if she remembers the journey the SUV took from Canton to Dighton and back, she does, then she is asked if she has any knowledge about whether that hair was part of that journey, she says she doesn't.

Asked if she knows when the hair was deposited on the vehicle, she says no. Asked if it was easy or hard to remove the hair from the panel, she says it was easy and she just picked it up with a pair of tweezers. Asked if there was any resistance to it being picked up, she says no.

Now they're going to look at a picture of the hair. She draws a circle around it with a laser pointer. I circled in red.


Asked if it's fair to describe it as J shaped or if she has a better description, she says "I see 2 ends of the hair arched so I'm going to say more of a C shape"

Asked if she would refer to that as a C shape. She says correct. Asked if that would be a reverse C, she says it's difficult to tell in that picture.

If it's shaped like a C it's either pointing one way or the other! WTH is she talking about?

 

[ASHES]

She insists it looks like a C, but can't say if it is a forward or backward C. Or maybe it's a U. She just can't tell which way the ends are facing. She's waffling because she is about to be shown another photo of the hair and she knows what it's been referenced as.

They agree to call it a vertical line with a hook at the top facing left. Asked if that's the apparent hair, she agrees it is. Asked if they found more than one hair, she says they didn't. Now they go to the next photo of the hair:

Overview:


Close-up of the apparent hair:


She circles the apparent hair again, I don't need to this time. It's the obvious C shape to the right of the scale.

She is asked if the hair is now oriented almost 180 degrees opposite with the hook pointing right, she says "the photo is taken from a different angle so I do see the hook, are you talking about the hook up at the top? Looks now, that it appears to be on the right but I can't you know, tell because they're taken from other angles sure." (That's my best it was a bit mumbly.)

Asked how she knows they're taken at different angles, did she took the pictures, she says no. Asked if she's speculating they're taken at different angles she says "I mean I'd have to see them side by side but it's just the orientation of you know my marking, I'd (stammering) can you put them up side by side?" Alessi: "Absolutely."

 

[ASHES]

Overview side by side. The J shape hair is on the left, the C shape is on the right.


Close up:


She says it looks like one is slightly off the side of the vehicle, o e is more head on. Asked if that's the only difference, it looks the same top to bottom, she says the car didn't move, camera just moved to the side slightly so that's what she meant, when she said the camera angle was different. In one the photographer is right behind the vehicle, in the other they're off to the right.

Asked if the 570 is oriented the same way in both pictures, she says they're in the same location on the vehicle but she doesn't think they're the same orientation.

Asked again if the 570 is oriented the same way in both pictures, she says she's confused, what does he mean by oriented. He says he can read the 570 horizontally, on the same plane, same straight across, it's not upside down in one picture, you can read it left to right 5 7 0, she agrees.

She is asked if she is saying the slight angle changes the shape of the hair that much, that the change in shape is from a different camera angle:


She says no she's not making that conclusion she's just saying she can't make any other conclusion because they're different angles she doesn't feel she can compare the two.

 

[ASHES]

She is asked if it's possible that the hair moved when somebody took a photo of it, she says she can't make that conclusion because she didn't take the photo and the photos look like they're from different angles.

Asked if she's speculating about what could be causing the difference in shape of the hair, Brennan objects, Bev sustains, then calls a sidebar to discuss a couple things.

After the sidebar, Alessi asks her if she has any explanation that she's certain of with regards to those two depictions of the hair. She asks explanation for what. He says the two depictions of the hair on the screen. She says they're both depictions of the same apparent hair that she collected from the SUV.

That is all from today. She will probably be back tomorrow, either for more cross or a redirect.

 

[ASHES]

Emily Baker does a review of the evidence from day 15. 30 minutes. Glad to see her channel issues were quickly resolved.

 

[ASHES]

Day 16 today.



Should begin around 9am.

 

[ASHES]

The testimony of the niece is not being reported consistently. What is consistent across several sources is not consistent with how she's ever seen testified in the past, including in the civil suit. For the first time, she is alleged to have been told by read "maybe I hit him" and she now only refers to her as "the defendant" and won't look at her. She is 17 now, was 14 at the time. The nephew didn't testify this time.

 

[ASHES]

The notes from one reporter on CBS:

 

[What if...?]

I should also mention the far left liberal mindset of which many wanted to defund police a few months back entirely. IMO its the same mentality driving the morons outside of the court house.

“Defund the police” was about ending a current regime by defunding to allow a new department to be formed where the contract with the union can’t protect its members from consequences for their actions as completely.

I’m a union member but the ass covering by police unions goes too far.

 

[ASHES]

 

[ASHES]

 

[ASHES]

Cross examination:

 

[ASHES]

And that's it.

 

[ASHES]

In court only about 10 minutes late, but start with a sidebar.

After about 5 minutes of sidebar and bringing in the jury, Hartnett is brought back to the stand to resume cross examination about the physical evidence from the SUV. Let's see if she can avoid any serious issues like yesterday where she called a reflection of a sticker evidence.

 

[ASHES]

Starting off going right back to the taillight housing photograph.

She is asked about the weather that was going on on the 29th. She already said she knew it generally yesterday and was then given specifics. I think maybe they're going to get to the lack of weathering inside the taillight after it went 60 miles in salty snow.

 

[ASHES]

He tells her he's now going to reference the inside area of the taillight, the part she didn't swab for evidence. She is asked if she found any sand or salt or any other debris on the inside of the taillight. She says no she didn't.

She is asked if she remembers being asked about shards of taillight in her earlier cross, she does not. He asks her if to her knowledge there was any testing of any taillight alleged to have been found at 34 Fairview for biological materials, she says there was not (any testing done on any pieces of taillight found at 34 Fairview.)

She is asked what her definition is inclusive of when she says "biological materials."

She says the items (all pieces of taillight found at 34 Fairview) were not processed by the criminalistics unit for any type of biological, meaning no blood, semen, saliva or skin cell collection.

Switching topics to the t-shirt and hoodie.

 

[ASHES]

She is shown a side by side of the back of the t-shirt and the right sleeve of the hoodie.


She agrees that those are the items depicted in the photographs.

She is asked if it's correct she included a handwritten note in her report that she collected "debris" from these two items either individually or collectively.

She says she doesn't handwrite notes in her report so she's just confused about why he's asking that. He agrees to ask it more clearly.

Alessi: "Did you find debris on either of those two items of clothing?"

Hartnett: "Yes I performed a debris collection on each of those items and combined them."


She's speaking quietly so Alessi asks her to speak up. Bev threatens to shut down the AC again if the jurors can't hear the witness.

The question and answer are repeated the same as before except she calls collection 'scrapings.'

Asked to describe how the word 'scrapings' relates to the two items of clothing. She says scraping is the method she used to remove any debris that was remaining on the sweatshirt and t-shirt. She held each up over her lab bench, took a long metal spatula and scraped any debris on them into her evidence collection receptacles. Asked if she doesn't know where any debris came from specifically other than it came from the t-shirt or the hoodie, she agrees.

 

[ASHES]

She agrees that the debris could be from just the hoodie or just the t-shirt, or a combination of both.

Hartnett: "Yes the items were packaged together so they were already co-mingled so there was no way for me to determine which debris came from which item and it would be misleading to label them as such so I combined them."

(PS she didn't examine the clothing until May of 2023. That wasn't until Aiden Kearny 'turtleboy' started reporting on the case and witnesses started getting federal subpoenas. Then they started investigating.)

 

[ASHES]

Next she is asked what the two items were contained in when she recieved them. She says they were in a brown paper bag and may have been in a larger box but she doesn't remember.

Asked if when she got them and saw them for the first time, they were (her word) 'co-mingled' together, she agrees that is correct. She is asked if there was any debris at the bottom of the paper bag.

Hartnett: "There may have been, when I examine something on my bench I also shake out the bag to ensure that nothing is left behind and that everything is examined and accounted for."

She is asked if it is correct that there is also no description of the actual debris that she found, for example she didn't specify whether it was little fibers or little hairs or little pieces of this or that, she says that's correct she didn't do any examination she only packaged it.

She is asked if therefore she doesn't know if any of the debris was plastic or plasticine in nature, she agrees it would not be part of her analysis.

She is asked if there was any separate identification of any of the debris, she says she didn't separately identify any debris at all.

She is asked of there was a photograph taken of the debris, she says she didn't take one. Asked if she has knowledge of anyone else taking a photograph of the debris she found, she doesn't.

Agrees she has no knowledge today whether any photos were taken of the debris. Asked if when she recieved the hoodie and t-shirt, they came co-mingled with evidence at the bottom of the bag. She says she doesn't know, she just knows there was debris on the items and she did shake out the bag. Doesn't recall anything coming out of the bag or not. Agrees there could have been.

They show her another photograph already in evidence.


She is asked if she generally recognizes what is depicted as an evidence bag, she does.

They zoom on the label:

 

[ASHES]

She is asked if that's the evidence bag the t-shirt and hoodie were in when she received them. She says yes to the best of her recollection.

She is asked if she can read who collected it, she says yes, TPR Proctor. She agrees the date of collection is 1/29/2022. She is asked if it's fair based on her experience and the evidence bag to conclude that Trooper Proctor was the person to collected the evidence and put it in the bag. She says "I have no personal knowledge of who actually collected it and put it in the bag I can only read what I see on the monitor." Evasive answering doesn't look good for the jury.

The evidence bag is taken down and the side-by-side of the t-shirt and hoodie go back up.

She is asked if she knows the journey those 2 items took prior to her receiving them, she says she does not. She agrees she doesn't know the source of the debris. Says she wasn't provided such information.

Asked if whether she was aware or not if those items had been on the floor of an ambulance or the floor of a hospital, she says she didn't have any information about that.

She is asked if it is important to maintain the sanitary condition of evidence, generally to avoid contamination, she says they do their best to avoid contamination once they receive items of evidence.

Asked what some of the protocols are that helps to avoid contamination of evidence.

(Judge wouldn't let the defense have a police expert to rebut the bad policies and protocols in the investigation including evidence collection, so they're using the Commonwealth's own expert to rebut another.)

She says wearing gloves, putting items in packaging, bleaching any materials or utensils they will be using, or using disposable sterile materials when possible. Also wearing labcoats when processing evidence.

Asked if another protocol is to separate out pieces of evidence to prevent cross contamination, she says sometimes they will separate pieces of evidence but if the items are already mixed in with each other then the items can be kept together.

(That answer sounds absolutely wrong. Of course they don't throw random pieces of evidence together just because they were found together.)

 

[daeler]

I think some of the things that really bug me are the evasive answers, the last guy trying to avoid saying he saw a phone, this lady not seeing the reflection. The avoidance on questions as to how the "evidence" stayed on the bumper.

Still confused on how the case went to trial with the lack of proper evidence, the lack of connection to the damage done to the body, and the SUV. The only thing the prosecution has is witnesses saying Read "admitted" to hitting him. Except that can't be proved.

 

[ASHES]

I think some of the things that really bug me are the evasive answers, the last guy trying to avoid saying he saw a phone, this lady not seeing the reflection. The avoidance on questions as to how the "evidence" stayed on the bumper.

Of course, the denial of what we can all plainly see makes her look terrible. And the same for the other witnesses that do it.

Still confused on how the case went to trial with the lack of proper evidence, the lack of connection to the damage done to the body, and the SUV. The only thing the prosecution has is witnesses saying Read "admitted" to hitting him. Except that can't be proved.

And the 4 people claiming it all have uniquely contradicting stories. The video and at least one of the other witnesses to it said 2 weren't there. Everything has holes.

As for how, because DA Morrissey really wants it (he told the public he had video of Read hitting O'Keefe,) and he's friends with the judge and everyone else involved. Proctor got him into this mess, now he's getting his own personal cell phone extracted by the defense on a related case. It's all their eggs in one basket cost sunk fallacy. It's do or die. They have to push on or admit the defense was right all along and Proctor planted evidence and they're prosecuting an innocent person.

This is an overview of who I feel is responsible for where we are today, from the first trial. A good who's who.

The people I think are most responsible for this dumpster fire of a ridiculous prosecution:


Brian Albert (Boston PD officer, homeowner where body was found on lawn)
View attachment 67509760
- At the least, orchestrated the coverup of whatever happened at his house that led to O'Keefe's injuries, destroyed the evidence on his phone in a happy birthday coincidence. Sold the house, got rid of the dog shortly after.


Michael Morrissey (Norfolk DA)
View attachment 67509761
- accepted tainted evidence from conflicted PD and State investigators and unreliable biased witnesses, overcharged in an attempt to get a plea, failed, and made Lally the bagman


Michael Proctor (biased and conflicted MSP trooper that was made lead investigator)
View attachment 67509762
- shouldn't have taken the case, worse if it's true he asked for it. Searched Read's phone without warrant. Bragged about doing so to friends to look for nudes of Karen Read. Pieces of taillight weren't found at the scene until he took custody of her car. Under investigation by MSP and FBI.

Ken Berkowitz (Chief of Canton PD)
View attachment 67509763
- Some level of involvement from the beginning, with contact with Brian Albert that morning. Missing sally port surveillance video. Shoddy investigation by incompetent local police at best, helped plant evidence at worst (oh hey look, a piece of taillight I found at the scene as I was randomly driving by, after my officers "accidently" finished breaking Read's taillight)



Brian Higgins (ATF agent at the bars and house that night)
View attachment 67509764
- buddies with Brian Albert, contact throughout the early morning and rest of the day, assisting in coverup and evidence planting most likely, destroyed the evidence on his phone.



Jennifer McCabe (family friend at the bars and house that night)
View attachment 67509765
- "hos [sic] long to die in the cold" at 2:27am, deleted that search, deleted texts around the same time, deleted calls around the same time, deleted screenshots from around that time later that morning, did the "die in the cold" search 2 more times again at 6:23am and 6:24am, supposedly at the request of Read

 

[ASHES]

She is asked if she knows the chain of custody for either the hoodie or the t-shirt. She says she only has chain of custody for when it was delivered to the lab. Agrees that she has no knowledge of the chain of custody before they came to the lab of either of those items, she just knows which agency dropped them off. Asked which that was, she says Norfolk Detective Unit.

Moving along now to other pieces of evidence she collected and separating them into stuff she submitted and stuff other people submitted to the crime lab.

Items collected from the vehicle:
She submitted them.

The swabs from the red solo cups:
She submitted them.

The drinking glass she was given at Canton PD:
She submitted it.

The two shirts:
Submitted by the Norfolk Detective Unit.

Asked if there were any fingernails that were part of the investigation that she had knowledge of, she says yes, there was clippings from the top of the fingernails, by the medical examiner's office. Asked if they were submitted to the lab for testing, and by whom, she says yes, and they were submitted by the Norfolk Detective Unit.

Asked about what "a known blood standard" was, she answers it is a sample of blood collected from an identified person. Says they recieved a tube of blood identified as O'Keefe's. That was also submitted by the Norfolk Detective Unit.

She agrees she knows nothing about the chain of custody or where anything was prior that was submitted by the Norfolk County Detective Unit.


Cross done. Brennan redirect.

 

[ASHES]

Brennan asks her if she'd ever seen blood stored in red solo cups like that before. She says no.

And that's why she only took 2 swabs from one cup and never tested it! Or even know what cup the swabs came from!

There's an objection and a sidebar when she's asked if she knows the circumstances of the cuppening.

 

[ASHES]

Her questioning continues with her knowledge on the circumstances surrounding the cups. She wants him to be more specific and so he asks her if she knows where they came from. She says to her knowledge they were collected from the scene.

Says she's not aware of the circumstances and challenges surrounding the cups because she wasn't there.

Brennan is just going back over her greatest hits trying to make it sound not so bad. Like waffling about the hair shape, calling reflections evidence stickers with corresponding evidence, etc.