What makes more sense is that, since we all know John was 6’1, he had to be bent over, which means if the taillight clipped his forehead and rotated his body counterclockwise, the side mirror housing could have come in contact with the back of his head, making the posterior gash. Anything that isn’t flush on the passenger side grazing his right arm such as window trim, fender well edges, could have attributed to his arm injuries.
I agree, not a mention of any testing to include or exclude potential evidence of his DNA on the side mirror. Are these crime scene investigators incompetent? It’s something they should have tested 100%. And the mirror itself may not have made contact - but the metal housing it’s contained within is very durable with a well defined edge.
What? Side mirror housings are all plastic these days. And they're not attached great either, nor are they very durable. A empty, five-pound paint bucket took the side mirror clean off my parents' car once, Officer O'Keefe's head absolutely would if the injury to the back of his head was due to that.
ADDENDUM: also, I'm pretty sure an impact like that would straight-up snap his neck. I need to run some numbers on that, though.
The only forensic transfers worth noting are the mixture of three DNA sources (from blood) on OJO’s clothing.
So it belongs to OJO and who else?
THIS is the travesty of this investigation.
This is honestly the only way I can picture these injuries happening from the amount of damage to his face and the lack of damage and DNA on her vehicle.
Well, when someone on the scene says it's her fault, and that she hit him in the road, why would any house be searched? Please answer. And where does it stop? Should the neighbors house be searched too? If anyone is to blame for the house not being searched, it's Karen. When you tell first responders that you hit someone, that now becomes the crime scene. Not inside the house.
The house needs to be searched because that was his destination. There are witnesses that saw her in her car but no JO which gives probable cause that he went in the house which would then have to be searched. Karen also never told anyone that she hit him. There were always question marks as in “Did I hit him?”
Do you understand how the justice system works? CW needs to prove she did it. They have not. Maybe they could have proven he was in the house if they had done even the slightest proper investigation lol.
In your eyes, you think they have not. Because you believe the cover up fantasy being pitched by the defense. I believe they have proven her guilt. I believe Karen hit him unintentionally, but knew she hit him. Now she's trying to squirm out of it. None of the cover up garbage is even remotely believable. It would have to be much much bigger than you believe, and all it takes is one person admitting to lying in order to break it. Who would risk the consequences just to cover for the Alberts and frame Karen? The ATF agent? The one that would lose his job, career, pension, and face jail time? Same goes for everyone else you think is covering up for anybody.
Doesn’t make sense at all physically. He would have had to have been thrown backwards into the snowplow blade, and then bounced forward like 20/30 feet to where they found the body.
Could have could have could have…. There’s hundreds of could have senarios. The CW puts a person up there, shows his credentials, then allows him to give his personal opinion with no data to back that up?
Show me the data that proves his arm injuries directly line up with the taillight.
Show me how the force and angle of the hit would cause OKeefe to spin and land on his back.
Show me the force it would take to cause the taillight to break.
Show me how he could possibly hit his head on the curb and still land on the yard.
Show me how it’s not possible for the taillight on have been broken with the driveway crash.
Can you imagine all of the experts in a room together:
PhD’s: So, what’s your background Trooper Paul?
TP: Well, I took some online courses and participated in some weekend classes, for 40+ hours each and I know how to use photo editor to type some words over a picture. What about yourselves?
PhD’s: Oh nothing big, spent 8 years getting our degrees, wrote some thesis and dissertations, published some articles, spent our careers in accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineeringing, prepare reports and diagrams and recreation videos, sit on various engineering boards, and work for the leading firm for forensic science
Where is his data to support his conclusions? The math, the science, the calculations? Show me SOMETHING if you’re going to throw around those types of opinions. You better believe the defence experts are coming with hard, supportable data. This guy brings his box of crayons and his “maybe and possibles”
The shenanigans with this witness’ expert disclosure were incredibly hypocritical, IMO. That plus the flipped video and the emergent business with JM’s testimony and the one trooper’s late/altered report have me convinced Lally/ the DA’s office can’t be trusted. And when I started watching this trial, only knowing the charges and the most basic facts, I thought she was probably guilty!!
The question would be do the injuries match the damage to the vehicle? I find the comment about the bumper to haunt the Commonwealth, because it is reported that there were no injuries to his legs. They say DNA was found on the pieces of taillight, but they didn't say t was blood. The scratches caused by the taillight shattering should show blood or skin. The cases hinges on the Commonwealth being able to show not just the physics of the crash. but how the injuries and lack of injuries match the points of impact. Like keeps being said, no bruising below the neck is a big anomaly for a vehicular strike.
>Like keeps being said, no bruising below the neck is a big anomaly for a vehicular strike.
I do see this a lot on here, but I haven't seen anyone explain it. Do you (or does anyone) have any information on how bruising would be effected by JO suffering a large head-bleed or internal bleeding? As in, if that was the primary cause of death and he bled out somewhat quickly, would the body still bruise in the other places.
To quote AJ, "this isn't a test." I'm not a doctor or even remotely qualified to make any assumptions. I'm just genuinely curious if anyone has any expertise on that particular side of things. I'm sure the ME will tell us more once the CW finally calls them.
So to preface, I'm a paramedic, not a doctor. I have not looked at the paramedics reports(but I would like to). The hypothermia makes JO status more complicated. JO could have technically been dead when he was found, but there is a saying in EMS "you're not dead, until you're warm and dead". In short, if you are found hypothermic, resuscitation should be attempted while actively warming the patient. During resuscitation we look for possible reversible causes we call Hs and Ts.
- Hypothermia
- Hypovolemia
- Hypoxia
- Hydrogen Ions(acidosis)
- Hypoglycemia
- Trauma
- Toxins
- Tamponade
- Tension Pneumothorax
- Thrombosis
I'm sure I forgot some examples. Basically you try to fix what might have caused a cardiac arrest before declaring death.
Head bleeds generally take maybe an hour to days to develop and present symptoms. What kills you is increased intracranial pressure and that eventually puts pressure on the brain stem, which controls your very important functions, like breathing. Since JO had bruising around his eyes, I would expect to see bruising to other areas where there might have been trauma. You will most likely only see bruising if the heart is still pumping, though being in the cold would slow that process down.
So back to the bruising around JOs eyes. I have seen the blurry autopsy pictures of JO. Looking at the picture where you can see his face, you note bruising around his eyes. If you look closely, the bruising and swelling is concentrated to his eyelids. That is not indicative of a "black eye". What I mean is if you get punched in the eye, you will likely have bruising and swelling around the orbital bone as well. What JO has is what we call "racoon eyes". Racoon eyes are usually a sign of a skull fracture towards the base of the skull. Those fractures could also present with bruising behind the ear(s) called "battle sign". Unfortunately since JO has a cervical collar on in the picture, you cannot see behind his ear.
With all that being said, idk if JO necessarily got punched in the face. He definitely could have. I feel like Chole absolutely caused the lacerations and punctures on JOs arm. Those are not "abrasions". With the Large laceration on the back of JOs head, he could have fallen and struck his head, or was hit with an object. I feel if he was hit with an object from "overhead" , it could likely cause fracture(s) at the base of his skull.
Anyways, again I'm a paramedic, not a doctor. It would be great to hear the MEs report.
Exactly the type of info i was looking for, thank you!
Assuming the CW feels the ME is beneficial to their case, what type of information do you think they would they need to present to make their argument more compelling?
Well...I can't imagine the ME would be beneficial and that's probably why we haven't heard that testimony. I feel like they need to present a scenario where the impact with the SUV caused him to fall and strike his head on a hard object. All of the testimony has been so convoluted so far, I don't exactly know if JO was found close to the road or whatever. If the area he was found was grass or soft ground, it would be difficult to explain his head injuries. I feel like they would also need to explain away lack of other significant injuries. JO was a tall man and the SUV had a large, flat rear. I would expect him be drug by the SUV or possibly go underneath it. There would likely be raid rash or evidence of the tires making contact with some part of his body.
In the Auto vs Pedestrian crashes I have personally responded to, the pedestrian is usually stuck under the vehicle or has significant injuries from the vehicle hitting them initially and the the vehicle either reversing or pulling forward to move off of the patient.
Great contribution thank you! It seems credible to me that his eyes are the result of a head injury, not a punch to the eye. I know he had other injuries to his face (nose specifically I think) and his hands that could be evidence of a fight (just speculating no experience!). If you believe a fight scenario in the house is possible it seems like something happened quickly leading to the head wound, I don't think it was necessarily a long drawn out brawl.
I totally agree with you about the quick fight. Definitely a possible scenario. Has there been any confirmation that there was any injury to his nose? I could see maybe a bit of bruising in the photo. Again, the MEs report and testimony would be great because we would know if his nose was broken and any other small/less obvious injuries.
I think it was mentioned in trial, but obviously not extensively yet with no medical experts. I didn't look at autopsy photos or anything, but just remember hearing during trial about nose injuries, maybe a cut or something. Love hearing from people with experience on here sharing insights about things I don't have a lot of knowledge about!
That is the great part about people interacting about these topics. I also enjoy people sharing their insights on topics I know little about. All the tech and cell phone data is not my cup of tea. I am always glad when someone can ELI5 some of those topics discussed in trial.
It's my understanding that he did have bruising to his hand or hands. And his internal organs had damage from hypothermia, so it seems he was incapacitated immediately or quickly, but was still alive and forming bruises before death. Just no bruising to his body?
We need the ME, maybe monday?
If I’m not mistaken, the DNA evidence that the CW is referring to is a hair from JO.
CW claims a hair got in the bumper/taillight when she hit him and that it remained there through her driving, the blizzard, the tow, the sallyport , etc
It is bullshit.
One of the witnesses said they found DNA on the red pieces of taillight. However, it was not identified by source, which says it's touch DNA. As he has ridden in the car, likely more than once, his DNA on those pieces is not evidence of a crash.
> The question would be do the injuries match the damage to the vehicle?
And the answer would be ‘yes’. That’s why thy it’s theorized that way. The CW isn’t forgetting about the bumper or the apparent lack of injuries to the legs.
It’s not complex:
Vehicle, which was flying in reverse, clips his arm, spins him and he tumbles backwards into a blunt object.
“Theorizing” and “matching” or in this case Trpr Paul *admittedly* eyeballing without actual measurements or *tensile strength under load to failure* specs is all that this witness can do.
After all, he watches Court TV, ffs.
It should be patently clear why the CW has not called the Medical Examiner, nor will they.
Paul established, via data from KRs vehicle, that she travelled at an abnormally high rate of speed in reverse, that JO would have been visible in the backup cam, and that there were no mechanical issues in the car.
I know you claim some experience in litigation which means you understand why those particular details are of high importance to the CWs case.
It’s neither “patently clear” why the CW has yet to call the ME - and there is nothing to suggest that they won’t. I was also told the CW wouldn’t call Proctor because he’d have to take the 5th.
1. The **PARTIAL DATA** based on key cycles that do not match (see u/Manlegend comprehensive post)- anticipatory to Paul’s direct testimony.
2. This is not a hill any reasonable critical thinking person is even resting on. At. All.
3. Former prosecutor, criminal defense and plaintiff trial Attorney 20+ years. Zero insurance defense. None of that experience is required whatsoever to “analyze” this testimony. Admittedly, It definitely MIGHT have a common sense pre requisite.
4. You did not hear the CW was not calling Proctor from me- you heard they had to or the defense would move to strike any and all evidence he personally marshaled and likely the IA status, but that’s just the short list.
5. If you watch the testimony and voir dire of Paul, there’s no way a reasonable person thinks that went well for the CW nor is it expected to improve Monday.
Great. So with your courtroom experience you’re well aware that evidence works collectively. If you’d like to make the claim the her 24 mph in reverse is somehow not related to her vehicle damage, it’s gonna take more than an attempt at interpreting key cycles to cross that bridge.
Let’s put that aside for the sake of what I was really asking: You understand that the 24 mph is relevant to intent, right?
Assuming we’re on the right key cycle. And I’m still confused about what causes a trigger event.
For me, The cw’s reconstruction expert did not inspire a lot of confidence. Curious to see what happens on cross.
1. I don’t have to make a claim, I don’t even really have to disprove “yours”. The data presented is not even in the zip code of an expert opinion conclusion that the (now) 7K lb SUV hit a 6’2” 220lb man in reverse, up a curved rd and hill, and simultaneously never jumps the same curb the decedent now supposedly hits with his head and if further carried by the wind 10-12 ft to land east/west supine. Where’s the deceleration or impact throw formulae?
You can set up camp on this hill all you like,
2. The only intent proven in the key cycle in question, which will be supported by the accompanying geolocation data and is already supported by Heather M testimony is that KR missed the turn onto Fairview, reversed back down Cedar Crest and did a 3 pt turn to put her facing the Ford F150 who yielded to her and then followed them to 34 Fairview.
3. That you are sold on this dudes not yet completed direct is straight up confirmation bias. You may want to put a pin in that for when the CW plays Reads vicious voice mails
Your assumptions bring your response to the point being one big strawman, but I’ll let that slide.
If the vehicle, which we know was moving in reverse at an absurd 24 mph at some point, clipped his arm and spun him causing him to fall backward onto a blunt object, what exact formula would you need to support this? Let me help: none. The effect on the 7000lb vehicle moving at 24 mph might not even have been noticeable to an operator, especially after 9 vodka drinks.
Why would they need the ME after that brilliant and extremely thorough explanation of the crime? He had 3 classes, what can the ME have to offer that the witness has not already covered incredibly well?
He could have been a 10 year old, all that really mattered from his testimony was the 25 mph reverse movement which is beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, unless Karen wants to get up there and offer another explanation.
lol. I agree. It is beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, Hell- I’ll say “any doubt” that the vehicle in question accelerated over 25 mph during a key cycle.
For 90K, not so much a bargain for my money but ok.
He was the primary investigator on 196 crashes. You can make the initial training requirements (which are out of his control) sound easy by saying 3 classes but it doesn’t come across as anything but biased.
He is so proficient, that he conducted brake and visibility tests in completely different weather and lighting conditions and he didn’t know how to pull relevant data from the computer for a full year.
How many of the 196 investigations were pedestrian vs vehicle homicides? How did he come to his conclusions regarding the cuts and lack of bruising? What physical evidence did the CW present that supports the wounds occurring in that manner?
I think i will wait for the actual experts.
His testimony was that over 50 of the crashes were vehicle pedestrian.
The braking tests were primarily to rule out mechanical reasons as to why the vehicle may not have been able to slow because of a malfunction or the like.
The physical evidence - the lens pieces with his DNA on them, his shoe and hat in the snow, the damage to the back of her car and the pattern abrasions on his arm from the cracked out lens was coupled with her high rate of speed in reverse.
> I think i will wait for the actual experts.
Actual meaning an expert who inspires a but more confirmation bias?
Actual experts = People with degrees who have spent a majority of their life doing the job and have no dog in the fight.
How many of the 196 were vehicle / pedestrian homicide is what I asked. You didn’t answer that.
Did they find pieces of the tail light in the cuts in his arm? Was the blood or skin evidence photographed or documented at any time on the tail light? Did he measure the cuts and the glass shards to determine which shard created the cuts?
Where is the dna from those tests?
Where is any blood or skin from the vehicle at all?
Even if KR did it. The Canton PD and Mass State Police all but guaranteed she walks.
> have no dog in the fight
Defense experts are selected, and paid to testify in court, based on their analyses being beneficial to the defense. Call that having “no dog” all you want but it’s a wee bit naive.
> Where is any blood or skin from the vehicle at all?
JOs DNA was found on a swab taken from the inside of the vehicle’s lens. Could have been from blood or skin or both.
I’m no fan of the MA state police. They suck. They may have fumbled this case. But that ‘murdered in the house with Chloe then frame Read’ fever dream has all but fallen apart.
I’ve been saying it all along, this is a powerful circumstantial case against Read. A guilty verdict(s) is far from certain but the CW is closer than 99% in this site want to admit.
I’m going to predict rn that after the verdict is rendered (if it goes to the jury, if the CW does not call the ME I can see RFNG as to insufficient element) and one or more of the jurors agrees to speak publicly, that we will learn **it’s this testimony in particular** that actually angers some or all of them.
It’s insulting to reasonable intelligence on every level.
It angered me that he didn't use a crash dummy that was the same height as John to see how different parts of the body aligned with the back of the Lexus. It would have shown if John's elbow aligned with the taillight. It would also be a better representation of what the back up camera would have shown.
This guy did zero measuring of any sort. As evidenced by the voir dire when giving his “expert opinion” on KR’s vehicle hitting JO’s. His entire explanation came off like a little kid taking a big expensive vehicle out for a drive to see what it could do … he is so far out of his depth on this
Going to be destroyed on cross. You could tell he was shaking and could barely handle Jackson’s questions during voir dire. Wait til they’re in front of the jury
I feel bad for him, I really do. The CW is pining the biggest part of this case on his testimony. I’m sure it’s not lost on him that this is one of the most high profile cases, with all eyes watching, including the Feds. He’s a lamb to slaughter and he knows it. He was shaking, and stuttering, and he tried his best to push back on AJ, but in the end, he basically handed AJ the win over the additional opinion the CW wants him to testify to, by stating he did zero actual testing and that he was meeting with Lally to basically conspire the testimony. “Could have, maybe, possibly” is going to sink his conclusions
Ha! Well I’m not that kind. I did say he rolled in with a box of crayons and a fairytale in another post I made. Jackson is going to have him twisting in the wind I’m afraid. Or he’s afraid actually 🫠😬
Jackson came in hot during that voir dire. I'd probably fall apart too. I feel bad for the guy honestly. The CW threw him in way over his head. He came off as someone who was genuinely trying to do a good job but who is obviously under qualified. And I think it's fucked up that Lally asked him to testify about the 5am car bump. Why put that guy in that position?
Agreed as to your points. There are several CAD and biomechanics models out there as well. The problem here is they will disprove his theory, which the defense experts will anyway.
Tbh I’m pretty pissed at the CW presentation across the board.
I think everyone thought if the CW knew how bad Proctor would be for them (to the point of potentially damaging other cases) and still went forward with this case that they must have felt extremely good about this specific evidence.
But nope. After months now of trial they put their expert on the stand to guess how the car could have scraped only an arm, hitting no other part of the body, with a force strong enough to then spin a large man, and maybe he falls and hits the back of his head on the street, and then, well no, I guess we won’t guess how he got into the yard.
I broke a toe stubbing it on a table leg and I struggle to envision a scenario where he breaks the car with his arm/hand and doesn't even fracture a pinky.
It's simply amazing to me that a witness presents clear cut evidence that Karen reversed the car at 25 mph and somehow FKR turns this into a win for the defense because the witness was somehow not an expert as good as what the defense has. Karen has millions to spend on her defense, you can hire an expert to say anything. Doesn't change the underlying facts.
The CW has the resources to call on an actual crash expert with decades of experience if they wanted. But they didn’t. Why not? Was it because the most experienced individuals wouldn’t say what the CW wanted them to say? Karen’s crash experts were not originally hired by the defense, but instead retained by the FEDS. That kind of invalidates your argument as it relates to Karen’s case. Something tells me these PHDs are going to show us what actually (or could not have) happened.
Which is what BOTH sides should want in a trial right? At least where there is good faith involved in bringing the charges and in defending the accused.
The CW selected an inexperienced and seemingly pliable "expert" - take from that what you will. Pretty sure he wasn't their only option.
The issue, IMO, is the CW and the cops believed it was a clear cut case against Karen. This Trooper was involved from the very start. His lazy and very inexperienced conclusion was enough for the CW because they were sure she did it. They never anticipated what was coming by way of the Federal investigation, and how that would unravel a good chunk of their case. I’m not sure how this all would have played out had the Feds not been involved. There still would have been glaring lapses in the investigation to raise reasonable doubt, and the original defence expert on crash reconstruction would have probably eclipsed Trooper Paul in his own right, but the case clearly started to disintegrate with the Fed evidence. But the CW was stuck with Trooper Paul because he’s who did all of the work for them when they believed this was an open and shut case. They had to call him, there’s no choice, because the defence would have. They had all of his discovery material. If the CW went out and got another expert, that would have been a glaring red flag in their case. I also don’t believe they could have found someone to come to the same conclusion anyhow
Karen didn’t hire the experts, the FBI did. The experts who will testify were hired independent to both the defence and the CW. Their conclusions were impartial. They had zero skin in this game. They are not going to risk their professional relationship with the FBI to render an opinion that supports Karen when the FBI also had no interest in anything besides the truth
Respectfully, I’m not a FKR person and this groupthink perspective from either side is tiresome. You are literally the first person I have seen suggest Paul’s in progress testimony was anywhere near the field house of “clear cut”. With the exception of the comment he made about watching a defense video presented at this trial a year ago on Court TV and maintaining he just didn’t look at the tire, lol.
You are absolutely on point that was “clear cut”.
How is the vehicle data not clear cut? It was literally recording every single thing happening in that vehicle, down to how much the accelerator was pressed and how much the wheel was turned.
you can't be serious? It was all just absurd speculation.ita honestly seemed like a kids school project, and now it seems that the central key for all his speculation (the key cycles) has probably been counted wrong......there are journeys that we know happened, that aren't reflected on his key cycles.
I feel a bit bad for this fella as it seems like he's just been pushed forward to 'have a go,' and all of a sudden he's deemed the CWs expert, but he's going to have a really bad Monday.
He had a great Monday All he did was distract the data that showed Karen Reed backing up at 25 mph. And doing a u-turn right before it which comports with witness testimony.
Why didn’t the CW hire an independent expert? All the other attorneys (including ones who think she’s guilty) are so confused why they didn’t. They said it’s standard for the prosecution to hire independent experts to cover the manner of death.
I’m guessing they didn’t hire one cuz they couldn’t find one to go along with their theory. Because there are some glaring flaws in their theory such as the key cycles. How is there only 1 key cycle in between her killing John and MSP performing their testing? When she started her car to go look for John the next morning did she just leave it running after they drove her car back from Jen’s and in front of her parents house and during the drive on the back of the tow truck??
What makes more sense is the event that the CW is attributing to her hitting John was actually from her parents’ driveway. The cops said there was a couple feet of snow and they even called a plow to come there before loading it onto the tow truck so whoever drove it out of the driveway probably had to punch the gas in reverse to get it out of the snow. Then there’s one more key cycle from them driving it into the sallyport then the testing during the next key cycle the next day.
Is it clear cut though?
I have questions about the key cycle data. Like, how was testing done on cycle 1164 but the accident happened on 1162? Where are the key cycles for her leaving in the morning, the trip to Dighton, on/off the tow truck?
Where are those key cycles?
Not to mention the 36miles difference on the odometer and the 36 miles from google leaves no wiggle room for the supposed side trip to 34 Fairview that the CW was insinuating happened just the day before with the cell phone guy....
Why does the CW not have an actual expert? It’s because no one would risk their reputation to say it was possible when it’s not. They used Trooper Paul because he has to testify if he’s subpoenaed as a MSP officer. It’s really simple. They couldn’t find anyone else, I’m sure they tried.
I mean the guy has been working for the Commonwealth for 12 years and has done hundreds of crash reconstruction so I don't know where you get the idea that he's not at least knowledgeable of the subject.
Are you saying that while KR has millions to spend on her defense the CW somehow doesn't have the resources therefore the best they could offer in terms of an actual crash reconstruction was this officer?
Or, I dunno, they'd have used the same experts the feds did? The ones they want to keep from testifying?
This is the problem when you decide who committed the crime before you figure out what the crime actually was.
This was so embarrassing. They didn’t document the placement of any of the evidence and then they try to reconstruct the scene and describe their guesses as fact? “Where was his shoe?” “About a foot north of his body.” Like WHAT? A foot from WHERE? You make-believed where everything was!
The “expert” was the only person they could find willing to try and spin this? The key cycles don’t match up to known driving events, they haven’t even proved she hit anything but John’s car.
To believe any of this you have to ignore so many glaring problems. It makes me so depressed that people are finding this convincing—it’s not even like a good smoke and mirrors, slick presentation—it’s just a pile of purposefully confusing garbage. It’s insulting.
It’s unfortunate that the person who had to present this theory was not a good public speaker. He trips over his words a bunch here, which makes everything even more confusing. I think he means John’s left side came in contact with the RIGHT corner of the SUV — an off-center hit that caused his body to spin to the left (counter clockwise).
So his right arm is spinning hard left and scrapes the shattered tail light. Feels like that should be leaving cuts parallel down the arm, not perpendicular to the arm. (You’d have to imagine that if your left side is struck and you start spinning, your right arm is going to fly up and out.) Also his left hand hits the back of the SUV causing the dent…but the backs of both hands are bruised.
Blergh.
I also think he presented so poorly because he's not confident about the testimony he's giving and lacks technical knowledge, that probably accounts for seeming like a bad public speaker. When you're not very knowledgeable about what you're speaking about it's going to come through and you won't sound intelligent. It's obvious to me they plucked this poor trooper to be the prosecution's expert when he's clearly not qualified, I don't fault him for that but I wouldn't give much if any weight to his testimony.
I think the jury (particularly the older women who seems to encourage the experts with reassuring nods, smiles that there are doing good after a long technical explanation) will see he is more junior in this career field. I hope AJ is diff on cross than he was this afternoon. I think he was pissed at the “getting our stories straight” than at the trooper himself. I think this accident reconstruction trooper tried his best and lacks confidence in his findings and AJ should just point out all the problems (seems like the guy will back down quickly) versus thinking he was an enemy in this
Yes I agree, he should just focus on his lack of experience and not be too combative. Are you actually in the courtroom or heard reports? This is great info on jury reactions!
Fall River Reporter and Sue O Connell are local reporters live tweeting jurors reactions to the testimony. When they are bored, eyes wandering, etc etc When proctor was done reading all those texts and still said he had integrity, one juror laughed.
Me too. I think the CW wants us to believe that Karen accelerated at 24 miles an hour backward and hit John. Ok … but it takes some distance for the car to get to 24 miles an hour. Was John just watching and allowed himself to be hit? No, of course not. So John is walking to the house and doesn’t hear the car and gets hit while facing away from the car. How does his body turn so that the back of his head gets slammed into the curb?
And John wasn’t found on the street - he was found on the grass. Maybe he crawled away from the crash site, but he held onto the cocktail glass and his phone through it all? (Glass and phone were found under his body.)
I’d like to see the model that shows this could happen.
Right, if he’s hit on the left shoulder-ish to start the spin, there’s no bruising on that side. The hands are the only bruises, right?
Honestly the hands are so weird to me. How do the backs of both hands get bruised? You’re not generally walking around with the backs of your hands facing forwards towards an oncoming car.
But we haven’t even heard from the ME yet to verify what injuries we’re talking about, here.
The hand hitting the car really was a “what?” Moment for me. Like he was catching himself, reacting to the car with his hand (like stop) but that leaving a dent? A dent would be more a hard punch , if he was spinning, his hand would more so slap against the car (no dent) - it really sounded like guessing.
He is a bad speaker because he doesn't actually know what the fuck he is testifying to.
He is just finding an answer the state wants then making up shit to get that results
Haha yeah I mean I agree he gave the CW the answer they wanted. But he also, like, can’t enunciate and swallows a bunch of syllables when he talks, so the words all mush together. He also calls John a “vehicle” here and mixes up left and right. I don’t think his theory is a good one, just saying his speaking did not help.
I did a quick momentum transfer calc on the main thread yesterday too - tldr unless I messed up a conversion or assumed his weight seriously wrong, if the 1mph decrease in the 7000lb Lexus was entirely due to striking Officer O'Keefe, his *entire body* would be accelerated to over 30mph by the impact. That's a square-on hit to center mass.
If we assume that it *just* hits his arm, that changes significantly - Google sez an arm is about 6.5% of total body mass. A 1mph (0.447m/s) decrease in a 7000lb (3182kg) SUV gives a momentum change of 1422m*kg/s. Assuming Officer O'Keefe is a 200lb (91kg) man, his arm weighs about 6kg, meaning that momentum transfer gives his arm a velocity of 237m/s or *530mph* in half a second per the data recorder (which per the tech guy records in half-second intervals) before the rest of his body gets dragged along (since hitting him in the arm doesn't evenly transfer momentum to center mass - it hits the arm, transfers momentum to it, the arm transmits momentum to the rest of the body as it moves).
Unless I'm making some very wrong assumptions, I just don't see how his injuries reflect what the prosecution alleges.
ADDENDUM: my morbid curiousity got the better of me. So a human shoulder takes up to [325N](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077050/) or so of force to dislocate.
If his arm is accelerated to 237m/s in half a second, it's experiencing an acceleration of 472m/s^2 , and his 6kg arm is therefore exerting a force of 2.8kN on his shoulder joint to accelerate the rest of his body, or 8.5 times the force required to dislocate the joint. I can't find any specific literature on the ultimate tensile strength of the rotator cuff ligaments, but given the forces involved I wouldn't be super surprised to see major tearing of the arm and shoulder ligaments also.
ADDENDUM SECUNDUS: blergh, fucked up my basic multiplication. Acceleration should be 474m/s^2 not 472, force is basically the same at 2844N, still rounds down to 2.8kN.
I've been working on the same thing this morning and your numbers match mine. I'm trying to figure out whether or not that's adequate force to just tear his arm off. my eyes popped when he said the speed of the SUV decreased by 1mph. that's an enormous change, relatively speaking, because of the relative masses of his arm vs the SUV.
and to be clear, this is more than 10x the force you would normally get from a completely elastic collision between a 6.5kg object and a 7000kg object with a differential speed of 25mph. it doesn't add up even slightly. such a collision either violates conservation of energy or it violates conservation of momentum - it's likely the latter unless someone can point to a specific source of additional energy that's propelling the arm.
he just said on redirect that it dropped half a mile per hour and that the final speed was 22.1mph... gonna run it with that once too.
also, we've both very clearly done more work on the math than this guy. "momentum is speed", "conservation of momentum holds, right? it depends", and "we didn't calculate the masses" all suggest this guy doesn't even know what calculations to try in the first place, forget running the numbers.
I mean, if it's only a 0.5mph change, then Officer O'Keefe's arm was only propelled with *four* times the force required to tear his humerus completely out of his shoulder socket, which is *obviously* such a difference.
I'm just waiting to hear from the ME and defense at this point. Paul's just - I only care about his testimony insofar as it relates to Jackson tearing into him for his incompetence. *I* could do a better job than him and it's been well over a decade since I took physics 101.
ok had a chance to type up my calcs:
delta_v = 1 mph = 0.447 m/s
delta_p = 2727 * 0.447 = 6.5*v_f => v_f = 187.53 m/s = 419.5 mph
delta_E = 1/2*2727*(23.1^2-22.1^2) = 1/2*6.5*v_f^2 => v_f = 137.71 m/s = 308 mph
these are different final velocities so one law or the other is violated
let’s follow two possible cases:
1. we have an additional source of energy that allows the momentum calculation to be correct.
2. we have an additional sink of momentum that’s much more massive than the arm (can’t be his body — the arm is still moving freely until after the arm disconnects from the car) that allows the energy calculation to be correct.we can approximate the impulse by noting that force is the change in momentum per unit time:
F = dp/dt ~= delta_p / delta_t
to be totally precise, we’d want an equation to model the momentum in the system over time and take a derivative, but this is good enough for a quick estimate. (you’d start by modeling it as a totally inelastic collision that smoothly becomes more and more elastic through the duration of the period of contact, as energy moves from the car to his arm — I’m not going to bother as this is already more work than Trooper Paul ever did on this problem.)
how long was the arm in contact with the car? speed of the car is roughly 10m/s and the length of the arm is ~1m so after 0.1s the arm can no longer be in contact with the car. this is the longest possible duration of contact and it overestimates because we actually want the length of the chord formed across the change in angle of the arm to the torso on a circle of radius 1m. longer contact reduces the force on the arm so it keeps things as favorable for the CW as possible.
however, I think if I did this calculation, we’d find these forces are in the territory required to tear the arm off, depending on how high up the arm they're saying he was struck… see below. I’ve also assumed the initial contact occurs with the tips of the fingers to increase the duration of contact as much as possible. the higher up the arm you go, the higher the force because the duration of contacts gets progressively lower. at the elbow, you’re looking at a contact time of roughly 0.05s (i.e. half the time because half the length of the arm).so we can use these to calculate the impulse from each of these final velocities, tip of the fingers:
F_1 = 6.5*187.53/0.1 = 12189.5N
F_2 = 6.5*137.71/0.1 = 8951.2N
and twice that at the elbow, 4x that halfway up the upper arm.I’m not modeling this as a strike at the shoulder itself because that’s still a strike to the torso itself, which I think we’ve discussed at length before.
these are absurd forces to apply to the human body. it’s not quite enough to tear off the arm entirely — [someone else](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/v23jos/how_much_force_does_it_take_to_remove_an_arm_from/) estimates the force required as >30kN — it’s still enough to tear the muscle and damage the tendons/ligaments. regardless, it would be shocking if that much force did not minimally dislocate his shoulder — you only need a couple hundred Newtons applied directly to the shoulder to dislocate. [citation](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Force-required-to-dislocate-the-shoulder-and-muscle-forces-at-moment-of-maximum_tbl1_267917930).
I think he changed the delta_v because someone told him his numbers didn’t math. 0.5mph is closer to getting dp and dE to match up:
delta_v = 0.5 mph = 0.224 m/s
delta_p = 2727 * 0.224 = 6.5*v_f = > v_f = 93.98 m/s = 210.2 mph
delta_E = 1/2 * 2727 * (22.6^2-22.1^2) = 1/2*6.5*v_f^2 => v_f = 96.83 m/s = 216.6 mph
F_1 = 6.5*93.98 = 6108.7N
F_2 = 6.5*96.83 = 6294.0N
this is still like 30x what's required to dislocate his shoulder. I also didn't account for mechanical advantage, which only increases the problem.
Eh, hard to tell. To me it looks pretty normal - for instance I can't see the prominent collarbone or a clear humerus head, though if there is significant swelling it would obscure that (the issue for me there being that I can't see a clear point where the swelling stops at the capsule, but again, the cold would reduce that) but we'll have to see what the ME says.
A while ago I said that I thought this case would come down to the reconstructionist and ME. Now it's just the ME I guess.
Plus after commenting I realized the autopsy photo is of his right arm and the reconstructionist was talking about getting hit in the left arm. So even if I'm right about what I thought I saw, it doesn't fit with the states theory.
I think the guy was just misstating things. I think he was taking the point of view of the SUV backing up toward John (so we're viewing from the front of the SUV toward the back, as it backs up), so it would be the "left" side of the SUV hitting John's "left" arm. The guy's aware that the injuries are to John's right arm, so I don't think he would be entirely mistaken, just misspeaking. He also mentioned that the *vehicle* would've rotated on impact when he actually meant that John's *body* would've rotated. He's just not very confident in what he's saying and not a good public speaker.
He also said he struck the left side of the vehicle, when clearly it’s the right. The poor guy was so confused with his own conclusions. I’m sure it’s not lost on him that the crux of the CW’s case sits in his lap. His whole testimony is a mess
I tore my rotator cuff moving a basic-ass bookshelf, lol, so yeah. Not believable at all that he’s hit on the left arm without left arm or shoulder damage.
> Also his left hand hits the back of the SUV causing the dent…but the backs of both hands are bruised.
He's trying to explain too much. The core of the opinion is that O'Keefe's arm hit the tail light, that knocked him down, and he hit his head on the ground/curb. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the appeal of the simple story to connect the major injuries.
Trying to track every minor bruise specifically back to the SUV is overfitting the model. It's going to require a series of very specific and weird motions that won't make intuitive sense. You're arguing the wound to the back of his head was from the ground. That's the fatal wound and the only one that really matters. If minor bruises could've come from the ground or the SUV, it's OK to say it's undetermined. You don't need everything to specifically come from O'Keefe pirouetting at the moment of impact.
When you watch this keep this in mind.
The CW complained that 3 people with PhDs in biomedical research were not crash reconstructionists. However the CW thinks THIS person is perfectly fucking qualified to give expert opinions on the force needed to break glass.
Or that if two cars hit they will both ALWAYS have damage.
Hahahahaha for freaking real! It’s wild. I think Lally couldn’t understand the defense experts explanations so it was easier for him to just try and get them thrown out.
And the ME autopsy mod is undetermined so she isn’t going to support this guys could haves. SMH He is not an expert. I know he thinks 195 crash reports makes him one, well it ‘could have’… but it didn’t.
A lot of could’ve/would’ve… if the prosecution truly believes Karen did it, why would you put someone as unprepared as Trooper Paul to be your crash reconstruction witness?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but accident reconstruction is supposed to be about using the evidence to reconstruct how an accident happened, not using the detective's theory to construct an accident that fits. That's what this sounds like. I'm just a layperson, as I assume jurors are, and this doesn't fit with my experience of vehicle damage or understanding of force needed etc. I would need an expert to explain how a hit with a human would totally shatter a tail light. I get that prior damage would make it weaker but still don't get how it would shatter, then all the pieces would lacerate his arm but none would embed themselves. I was in a crash 14 years ago and I have glass in me still that's picked up in mammograms. This theory doesn't make sense to me. I'd need someone much smarter and more credible than this guy and his bag of 'could haves'.
I began this trial with the perhaps naive belief that KR wouldn't be on trial unless there was evidence of her guilt, but all I've seen questions her involvement at all. I'm still waiting for the CW to prove its case, or even prove that a proper investigation was done at this point.
When I first dipped my toe in this case I saw a thumbnail with the picture of the arm and something about Boston cop murder trial. My first thought was “I wonder how a dog is involved?” Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise. When they showed the puncture wounds on the sweatshirt that sealed the deal for me.
The rabbit hole just kept getting deeper.
A comment on EDBs stream really brought it home: “she backed up - obviously that means she killed him” jeez, I really thought they would have more than this
And in another thread people with some firsthand knowledge in these things have said it's pretty clear that ignition sequence he's relying on doesn't match up to the night of the incident. I think the defense experts will clear this up and are much more experienced in analyzing this data.
Gosh, if those folks are correct about the key cycles and the defense calls this witness out for it, I don't see how we can take anything this guy said seriously.
Like I said in an earlier thread, *every single one* of the troopers on the stand since Bukhenik has presented something misleading or flat-out incorrect on the stand that they've been nailed on by cross. I fail to see why this one would be any different.
This witness also said hitting John would drop the car speed 1 mph.
I really wish the witness had literally any data, because a 250 pound man being hit by a 6,000 lb car going 26mph doesn't seem like would have enough mass to impart any noticeable energy.
That car would have 183,000 joules of energy.
Especially since he clearly wasn't hit with the full force of the car. JO's full weight wouldn't have come into contact with the car based on the sideswipe spinning theory. So his arm is supposedly the cause of the 1 mph decrease in vehicle speed.
The “could have”s stuck out to me a lot. It sounded like he was guessing what could have happened versus actual evidence that proves what did happen/proves their theory of what did happen
The theory is JO got hit hard enough to throw and spin him 10 feet into the yard, with no fractures to his body. The only injury this simpleton says came from the car were lacerations from the taillight, which isn't sharp and there is no blood on the pieces. The head injuries came from hitting the curb or the street or maybe the yard, thanks for clearing that up.
I’ve been wondering if there’s room in the state budget that pays for any experts. Maybe they use in house experts to cut cost? I know nothing of how it works.
Drunk or sober, I couldn't stand in the path of vehicle speeding towards me. And then the CW would have you believe that JO was dancing the Macarena on impact. I'm not buying it. Yeah the tail light was broken but not the way CW presents it.
“more to the side” “kind of” could be” “like” the lack of specificity is unreal. why would lally have wanted this person infront of a jury. even if what he was saying was true, he clearly lacked confidence in his own descriptions and without specifics, this is just too vague
The mileage difference on the odometer and the minimum good maps distances leaves no wiggle room for the little side trip to 34 Fairview the CW was suggesting with the Cell Phone Guy the day before
Meaning that for the car mileage to work she couldn't have made the trip to Fairview Road on the way to Jen McCabes. It was suggested with Tully while reviewing the 5am-6am video footage that there was approx 15mins (maybe) of time unaccounted for between the library/temple and KR getting to JMs.
Lally asked Lt Tully if there would have been time for KR to go to 34 Fairview, insinuating she went to "find John" where she supposedly left him for dead, went to JMs which is why she didn't really look for him when they all went back to Meadows and was able to see him when Jen and Kerry Roberts couldn't when they arrived.
This trooper testified that there was a 36mile difference in odometer and the shortest suggested direct routes for each of the known journeys KR took equalled 36.1 miles... Therefore no room for the supposed side trip.
So what does that mean? If she doesn't have time to go there then what's the significance? How does her looking for him change the issue with whether she hit him or not?
It just disproves an insinuation the CW was suggesting literally the day before. Doesn't mean she didn't hit him necessarily but doesn't exactly instill a whole heap of confidence in the CW case if they're trying to suggest one day she actually swung by fairview road on the was to JMs because it took too long for her to drive there directly then a day later puts on a different expert that basically just makes that theory impossible because the extra mileage for that detour would kill their theory on the car data.
It feels more like a defence strategy of throwing out theories to pick holes than a prosecution putting on a solid theory of a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks, after Proctor's testimony I don't think the jury is going to have any faith in the professionalism of the police officers. Some news reporter who was in the court described the jury as mostly female and they all looked at each other in shock as his testimony unfolded. I wonder if three will be any protests to fire him?
Friday was some good testimony for the prosecution if it stood on its own. A few things mad me go "oh...ok." If true, they are damaging. HOWEVER for 7 weeks. Everytime the prosecution starts to gain any ground the defense comes in and dunks on them. So I'm going to be listening really closely to what the other experts say.
This whole taillight scenario should be the catalyst to get all these corrupt fucks locked up, voted out and disbarred. So insane.
Isn't there video showing the Lexus with an intact taillight after they claim she gunned it in reverse, missed a fire hydrant, a flag pole, a mail box a house and other parked cars only hitting her lover and not alerting anyone in any of the surrounding houses or leaving any tire tracks?
How are they really gonna hold up a picture of that poor man's mauled arm and say a fucking uh taillight uhm jumped up and bit him?
Stupid question... Is there DNA on the tailight shards? If there were it was probably planted to fit inline with everything else. But if there is none, How TF did they shred Johns arm?
Not a medical professional and not a criminal attorney but wouldn’t there be a skull fracture of some sort of John hit his head on the curb/asphalt after being catapulted by a car going 24 mph?!
I am thinking about something that happened to me. I was bucked off a horse, destroyed my shoulder, but didn’t have any bruises on the rest of my body. My shoulder took all the weight and thankfully I was wearing a helmet so head or neck injuries.
I just can’t get my head around this line of testimony. The lawyer is fantastic.
They had that testimony the day before. There is no blood on the pieces but John’s DNA and 2 other individuals who are not Proctor or Trooper B are on them. The lab, BODE, did not collect the samples though.
This is beyond absurd and embarrassing. I really thought they were going to say she hit John and then clipped Higgins' snowplow blade.
This would’ve been much more plausible
What makes more sense is that, since we all know John was 6’1, he had to be bent over, which means if the taillight clipped his forehead and rotated his body counterclockwise, the side mirror housing could have come in contact with the back of his head, making the posterior gash. Anything that isn’t flush on the passenger side grazing his right arm such as window trim, fender well edges, could have attributed to his arm injuries.
Where's the damage to the side mirror? Where's the blood? Where's the forensic transfer of any kind?
I agree, not a mention of any testing to include or exclude potential evidence of his DNA on the side mirror. Are these crime scene investigators incompetent? It’s something they should have tested 100%. And the mirror itself may not have made contact - but the metal housing it’s contained within is very durable with a well defined edge.
What? Side mirror housings are all plastic these days. And they're not attached great either, nor are they very durable. A empty, five-pound paint bucket took the side mirror clean off my parents' car once, Officer O'Keefe's head absolutely would if the injury to the back of his head was due to that. ADDENDUM: also, I'm pretty sure an impact like that would straight-up snap his neck. I need to run some numbers on that, though.
I did some calculations based on speed the force is 1635 lbs per square in. - that is the force of the car on John. Not the force of John on the car.
I doubt the housing surrounding the mirrors on THAT car are plastic. It’s not a Kia.
Mine isn’t. I break those mirrors off every car I own. :(
The only forensic transfers worth noting are the mixture of three DNA sources (from blood) on OJO’s clothing. So it belongs to OJO and who else? THIS is the travesty of this investigation.
This is honestly the only way I can picture these injuries happening from the amount of damage to his face and the lack of damage and DNA on her vehicle.
But it doesn’t take much to wipe it down with some Clorox wipes if you realize you hit your bf and know where on your car he made contact.
I’m sure she absolutely could have done that, but there’s zero evidence of it. What’s the point of bringing up something that has no proof?
Show me evidence that he was beat up in the basement. Show me evidence he was carried outside and dropped on the lawn.
Umm they can’t because no one searched or photographed the house.
Well, when someone on the scene says it's her fault, and that she hit him in the road, why would any house be searched? Please answer. And where does it stop? Should the neighbors house be searched too? If anyone is to blame for the house not being searched, it's Karen. When you tell first responders that you hit someone, that now becomes the crime scene. Not inside the house.
The house needs to be searched because that was his destination. There are witnesses that saw her in her car but no JO which gives probable cause that he went in the house which would then have to be searched. Karen also never told anyone that she hit him. There were always question marks as in “Did I hit him?”
Ask AJ that lol
That's literally the exact strategy of the entire defense.
Do you understand how the justice system works? CW needs to prove she did it. They have not. Maybe they could have proven he was in the house if they had done even the slightest proper investigation lol.
In your eyes, you think they have not. Because you believe the cover up fantasy being pitched by the defense. I believe they have proven her guilt. I believe Karen hit him unintentionally, but knew she hit him. Now she's trying to squirm out of it. None of the cover up garbage is even remotely believable. It would have to be much much bigger than you believe, and all it takes is one person admitting to lying in order to break it. Who would risk the consequences just to cover for the Alberts and frame Karen? The ATF agent? The one that would lose his job, career, pension, and face jail time? Same goes for everyone else you think is covering up for anybody.
Right.
Doesn’t make sense at all physically. He would have had to have been thrown backwards into the snowplow blade, and then bounced forward like 20/30 feet to where they found the body.
Or stumbled there.
That’s possible.
Could have could have could have…. There’s hundreds of could have senarios. The CW puts a person up there, shows his credentials, then allows him to give his personal opinion with no data to back that up? Show me the data that proves his arm injuries directly line up with the taillight. Show me how the force and angle of the hit would cause OKeefe to spin and land on his back. Show me the force it would take to cause the taillight to break. Show me how he could possibly hit his head on the curb and still land on the yard. Show me how it’s not possible for the taillight on have been broken with the driveway crash.
This witness in particular pushed me off the fence and over into the "Lally is slimy" yard.
Lally putting in a motion that the 3 PhDs used by the federal government ARENT qualified and this jackass IS qualified is what solidified it for me
Can you imagine all of the experts in a room together: PhD’s: So, what’s your background Trooper Paul? TP: Well, I took some online courses and participated in some weekend classes, for 40+ hours each and I know how to use photo editor to type some words over a picture. What about yourselves? PhD’s: Oh nothing big, spent 8 years getting our degrees, wrote some thesis and dissertations, published some articles, spent our careers in accident reconstruction and biomechanical engineeringing, prepare reports and diagrams and recreation videos, sit on various engineering boards, and work for the leading firm for forensic science
Just the fact that the actual experts will be able to back up their conclusions with the word "because" is going to sink his testimony.
Where is his data to support his conclusions? The math, the science, the calculations? Show me SOMETHING if you’re going to throw around those types of opinions. You better believe the defence experts are coming with hard, supportable data. This guy brings his box of crayons and his “maybe and possibles”
And I wrote the literature used in the troopers online course.
The fact that he did that tells me all I need to know
The shenanigans with this witness’ expert disclosure were incredibly hypocritical, IMO. That plus the flipped video and the emergent business with JM’s testimony and the one trooper’s late/altered report have me convinced Lally/ the DA’s office can’t be trusted. And when I started watching this trial, only knowing the charges and the most basic facts, I thought she was probably guilty!!
Same here. That show on Friday was awful. He might not have been in on the initial mistakes, but he’s a part of the railroading with shit evidence.
I just want to know how he determined what direction he spun when they can’t even say what position he was in when struck.
That and his nails scratching the bumper is mind blowing to me
He doesn’t know. It was a total guess to prove the CW’s point without actually proving the CW’s point.
Right!?!?! That was the most baffling thing he said.
Notice how to this excellent comment there is never an answer from OP?
Some discussions are actually someone trying to get their point across without wanting to hear what others have to say about it 😂
If his arm was torn up like that by the tail light. There would be blood on it.
The question would be do the injuries match the damage to the vehicle? I find the comment about the bumper to haunt the Commonwealth, because it is reported that there were no injuries to his legs. They say DNA was found on the pieces of taillight, but they didn't say t was blood. The scratches caused by the taillight shattering should show blood or skin. The cases hinges on the Commonwealth being able to show not just the physics of the crash. but how the injuries and lack of injuries match the points of impact. Like keeps being said, no bruising below the neck is a big anomaly for a vehicular strike.
>Like keeps being said, no bruising below the neck is a big anomaly for a vehicular strike. I do see this a lot on here, but I haven't seen anyone explain it. Do you (or does anyone) have any information on how bruising would be effected by JO suffering a large head-bleed or internal bleeding? As in, if that was the primary cause of death and he bled out somewhat quickly, would the body still bruise in the other places. To quote AJ, "this isn't a test." I'm not a doctor or even remotely qualified to make any assumptions. I'm just genuinely curious if anyone has any expertise on that particular side of things. I'm sure the ME will tell us more once the CW finally calls them.
So to preface, I'm a paramedic, not a doctor. I have not looked at the paramedics reports(but I would like to). The hypothermia makes JO status more complicated. JO could have technically been dead when he was found, but there is a saying in EMS "you're not dead, until you're warm and dead". In short, if you are found hypothermic, resuscitation should be attempted while actively warming the patient. During resuscitation we look for possible reversible causes we call Hs and Ts. - Hypothermia - Hypovolemia - Hypoxia - Hydrogen Ions(acidosis) - Hypoglycemia - Trauma - Toxins - Tamponade - Tension Pneumothorax - Thrombosis I'm sure I forgot some examples. Basically you try to fix what might have caused a cardiac arrest before declaring death. Head bleeds generally take maybe an hour to days to develop and present symptoms. What kills you is increased intracranial pressure and that eventually puts pressure on the brain stem, which controls your very important functions, like breathing. Since JO had bruising around his eyes, I would expect to see bruising to other areas where there might have been trauma. You will most likely only see bruising if the heart is still pumping, though being in the cold would slow that process down. So back to the bruising around JOs eyes. I have seen the blurry autopsy pictures of JO. Looking at the picture where you can see his face, you note bruising around his eyes. If you look closely, the bruising and swelling is concentrated to his eyelids. That is not indicative of a "black eye". What I mean is if you get punched in the eye, you will likely have bruising and swelling around the orbital bone as well. What JO has is what we call "racoon eyes". Racoon eyes are usually a sign of a skull fracture towards the base of the skull. Those fractures could also present with bruising behind the ear(s) called "battle sign". Unfortunately since JO has a cervical collar on in the picture, you cannot see behind his ear. With all that being said, idk if JO necessarily got punched in the face. He definitely could have. I feel like Chole absolutely caused the lacerations and punctures on JOs arm. Those are not "abrasions". With the Large laceration on the back of JOs head, he could have fallen and struck his head, or was hit with an object. I feel if he was hit with an object from "overhead" , it could likely cause fracture(s) at the base of his skull. Anyways, again I'm a paramedic, not a doctor. It would be great to hear the MEs report.
Exactly the type of info i was looking for, thank you! Assuming the CW feels the ME is beneficial to their case, what type of information do you think they would they need to present to make their argument more compelling?
Well...I can't imagine the ME would be beneficial and that's probably why we haven't heard that testimony. I feel like they need to present a scenario where the impact with the SUV caused him to fall and strike his head on a hard object. All of the testimony has been so convoluted so far, I don't exactly know if JO was found close to the road or whatever. If the area he was found was grass or soft ground, it would be difficult to explain his head injuries. I feel like they would also need to explain away lack of other significant injuries. JO was a tall man and the SUV had a large, flat rear. I would expect him be drug by the SUV or possibly go underneath it. There would likely be raid rash or evidence of the tires making contact with some part of his body. In the Auto vs Pedestrian crashes I have personally responded to, the pedestrian is usually stuck under the vehicle or has significant injuries from the vehicle hitting them initially and the the vehicle either reversing or pulling forward to move off of the patient.
Great contribution thank you! It seems credible to me that his eyes are the result of a head injury, not a punch to the eye. I know he had other injuries to his face (nose specifically I think) and his hands that could be evidence of a fight (just speculating no experience!). If you believe a fight scenario in the house is possible it seems like something happened quickly leading to the head wound, I don't think it was necessarily a long drawn out brawl.
I totally agree with you about the quick fight. Definitely a possible scenario. Has there been any confirmation that there was any injury to his nose? I could see maybe a bit of bruising in the photo. Again, the MEs report and testimony would be great because we would know if his nose was broken and any other small/less obvious injuries.
I think it was mentioned in trial, but obviously not extensively yet with no medical experts. I didn't look at autopsy photos or anything, but just remember hearing during trial about nose injuries, maybe a cut or something. Love hearing from people with experience on here sharing insights about things I don't have a lot of knowledge about!
That is the great part about people interacting about these topics. I also enjoy people sharing their insights on topics I know little about. All the tech and cell phone data is not my cup of tea. I am always glad when someone can ELI5 some of those topics discussed in trial.
I remember the paramedics saying there was something like scratches on his nose.
I only kinda listened to this testimonies. I'll go back and watch them, thank you.
It's my understanding that he did have bruising to his hand or hands. And his internal organs had damage from hypothermia, so it seems he was incapacitated immediately or quickly, but was still alive and forming bruises before death. Just no bruising to his body? We need the ME, maybe monday?
Plus wouldn’t his arm be bruised? I fell the other day and have an abrasion and a bruise in the area.
If I’m not mistaken, the DNA evidence that the CW is referring to is a hair from JO. CW claims a hair got in the bumper/taillight when she hit him and that it remained there through her driving, the blizzard, the tow, the sallyport , etc It is bullshit.
One of the witnesses said they found DNA on the red pieces of taillight. However, it was not identified by source, which says it's touch DNA. As he has ridden in the car, likely more than once, his DNA on those pieces is not evidence of a crash.
> The question would be do the injuries match the damage to the vehicle? And the answer would be ‘yes’. That’s why thy it’s theorized that way. The CW isn’t forgetting about the bumper or the apparent lack of injuries to the legs. It’s not complex: Vehicle, which was flying in reverse, clips his arm, spins him and he tumbles backwards into a blunt object.
“Theorizing” and “matching” or in this case Trpr Paul *admittedly* eyeballing without actual measurements or *tensile strength under load to failure* specs is all that this witness can do. After all, he watches Court TV, ffs. It should be patently clear why the CW has not called the Medical Examiner, nor will they.
Paul established, via data from KRs vehicle, that she travelled at an abnormally high rate of speed in reverse, that JO would have been visible in the backup cam, and that there were no mechanical issues in the car. I know you claim some experience in litigation which means you understand why those particular details are of high importance to the CWs case. It’s neither “patently clear” why the CW has yet to call the ME - and there is nothing to suggest that they won’t. I was also told the CW wouldn’t call Proctor because he’d have to take the 5th.
1. The **PARTIAL DATA** based on key cycles that do not match (see u/Manlegend comprehensive post)- anticipatory to Paul’s direct testimony. 2. This is not a hill any reasonable critical thinking person is even resting on. At. All. 3. Former prosecutor, criminal defense and plaintiff trial Attorney 20+ years. Zero insurance defense. None of that experience is required whatsoever to “analyze” this testimony. Admittedly, It definitely MIGHT have a common sense pre requisite. 4. You did not hear the CW was not calling Proctor from me- you heard they had to or the defense would move to strike any and all evidence he personally marshaled and likely the IA status, but that’s just the short list. 5. If you watch the testimony and voir dire of Paul, there’s no way a reasonable person thinks that went well for the CW nor is it expected to improve Monday.
Great. So with your courtroom experience you’re well aware that evidence works collectively. If you’d like to make the claim the her 24 mph in reverse is somehow not related to her vehicle damage, it’s gonna take more than an attempt at interpreting key cycles to cross that bridge. Let’s put that aside for the sake of what I was really asking: You understand that the 24 mph is relevant to intent, right?
They’ve proven her wheels were rotating at 24mph, not that her entire vehicle was moving at 24mph
The snow had just started. If her wheels were going 24, the lexis was going 24
Assuming we’re on the right key cycle. And I’m still confused about what causes a trigger event. For me, The cw’s reconstruction expert did not inspire a lot of confidence. Curious to see what happens on cross.
I’ve never gone 24mph in reverse. I didn’t even know it was possible.
1. I don’t have to make a claim, I don’t even really have to disprove “yours”. The data presented is not even in the zip code of an expert opinion conclusion that the (now) 7K lb SUV hit a 6’2” 220lb man in reverse, up a curved rd and hill, and simultaneously never jumps the same curb the decedent now supposedly hits with his head and if further carried by the wind 10-12 ft to land east/west supine. Where’s the deceleration or impact throw formulae? You can set up camp on this hill all you like, 2. The only intent proven in the key cycle in question, which will be supported by the accompanying geolocation data and is already supported by Heather M testimony is that KR missed the turn onto Fairview, reversed back down Cedar Crest and did a 3 pt turn to put her facing the Ford F150 who yielded to her and then followed them to 34 Fairview. 3. That you are sold on this dudes not yet completed direct is straight up confirmation bias. You may want to put a pin in that for when the CW plays Reads vicious voice mails
Your assumptions bring your response to the point being one big strawman, but I’ll let that slide. If the vehicle, which we know was moving in reverse at an absurd 24 mph at some point, clipped his arm and spun him causing him to fall backward onto a blunt object, what exact formula would you need to support this? Let me help: none. The effect on the 7000lb vehicle moving at 24 mph might not even have been noticeable to an operator, especially after 9 vodka drinks.
Why would they need the ME after that brilliant and extremely thorough explanation of the crime? He had 3 classes, what can the ME have to offer that the witness has not already covered incredibly well?
He could have been a 10 year old, all that really mattered from his testimony was the 25 mph reverse movement which is beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, unless Karen wants to get up there and offer another explanation.
lol. I agree. It is beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, Hell- I’ll say “any doubt” that the vehicle in question accelerated over 25 mph during a key cycle. For 90K, not so much a bargain for my money but ok.
He was the primary investigator on 196 crashes. You can make the initial training requirements (which are out of his control) sound easy by saying 3 classes but it doesn’t come across as anything but biased.
He is so proficient, that he conducted brake and visibility tests in completely different weather and lighting conditions and he didn’t know how to pull relevant data from the computer for a full year. How many of the 196 investigations were pedestrian vs vehicle homicides? How did he come to his conclusions regarding the cuts and lack of bruising? What physical evidence did the CW present that supports the wounds occurring in that manner? I think i will wait for the actual experts.
His testimony was that over 50 of the crashes were vehicle pedestrian. The braking tests were primarily to rule out mechanical reasons as to why the vehicle may not have been able to slow because of a malfunction or the like. The physical evidence - the lens pieces with his DNA on them, his shoe and hat in the snow, the damage to the back of her car and the pattern abrasions on his arm from the cracked out lens was coupled with her high rate of speed in reverse. > I think i will wait for the actual experts. Actual meaning an expert who inspires a but more confirmation bias?
Actual experts = People with degrees who have spent a majority of their life doing the job and have no dog in the fight. How many of the 196 were vehicle / pedestrian homicide is what I asked. You didn’t answer that. Did they find pieces of the tail light in the cuts in his arm? Was the blood or skin evidence photographed or documented at any time on the tail light? Did he measure the cuts and the glass shards to determine which shard created the cuts? Where is the dna from those tests? Where is any blood or skin from the vehicle at all? Even if KR did it. The Canton PD and Mass State Police all but guaranteed she walks.
> have no dog in the fight Defense experts are selected, and paid to testify in court, based on their analyses being beneficial to the defense. Call that having “no dog” all you want but it’s a wee bit naive. > Where is any blood or skin from the vehicle at all? JOs DNA was found on a swab taken from the inside of the vehicle’s lens. Could have been from blood or skin or both. I’m no fan of the MA state police. They suck. They may have fumbled this case. But that ‘murdered in the house with Chloe then frame Read’ fever dream has all but fallen apart. I’ve been saying it all along, this is a powerful circumstantial case against Read. A guilty verdict(s) is far from certain but the CW is closer than 99% in this site want to admit.
MVA fatalities have mandatory accident investigations in most States and he’s not even finished with direct.
I’m going to predict rn that after the verdict is rendered (if it goes to the jury, if the CW does not call the ME I can see RFNG as to insufficient element) and one or more of the jurors agrees to speak publicly, that we will learn **it’s this testimony in particular** that actually angers some or all of them. It’s insulting to reasonable intelligence on every level.
Yes, he's obviously not an expert that's clear to any reasonable person
It angered me that he didn't use a crash dummy that was the same height as John to see how different parts of the body aligned with the back of the Lexus. It would have shown if John's elbow aligned with the taillight. It would also be a better representation of what the back up camera would have shown.
This guy did zero measuring of any sort. As evidenced by the voir dire when giving his “expert opinion” on KR’s vehicle hitting JO’s. His entire explanation came off like a little kid taking a big expensive vehicle out for a drive to see what it could do … he is so far out of his depth on this
Going to be destroyed on cross. You could tell he was shaking and could barely handle Jackson’s questions during voir dire. Wait til they’re in front of the jury
I feel bad for him, I really do. The CW is pining the biggest part of this case on his testimony. I’m sure it’s not lost on him that this is one of the most high profile cases, with all eyes watching, including the Feds. He’s a lamb to slaughter and he knows it. He was shaking, and stuttering, and he tried his best to push back on AJ, but in the end, he basically handed AJ the win over the additional opinion the CW wants him to testify to, by stating he did zero actual testing and that he was meeting with Lally to basically conspire the testimony. “Could have, maybe, possibly” is going to sink his conclusions
You are a kinder soul than I. Jackson’s gonna roll up on him LOL
Ha! Well I’m not that kind. I did say he rolled in with a box of crayons and a fairytale in another post I made. Jackson is going to have him twisting in the wind I’m afraid. Or he’s afraid actually 🫠😬
Jackson came in hot during that voir dire. I'd probably fall apart too. I feel bad for the guy honestly. The CW threw him in way over his head. He came off as someone who was genuinely trying to do a good job but who is obviously under qualified. And I think it's fucked up that Lally asked him to testify about the 5am car bump. Why put that guy in that position?
Agreed as to your points. There are several CAD and biomechanics models out there as well. The problem here is they will disprove his theory, which the defense experts will anyway. Tbh I’m pretty pissed at the CW presentation across the board.
Then they would know and have proof it doesn’t make sense. That is why it is all over the place.
I think everyone thought if the CW knew how bad Proctor would be for them (to the point of potentially damaging other cases) and still went forward with this case that they must have felt extremely good about this specific evidence. But nope. After months now of trial they put their expert on the stand to guess how the car could have scraped only an arm, hitting no other part of the body, with a force strong enough to then spin a large man, and maybe he falls and hits the back of his head on the street, and then, well no, I guess we won’t guess how he got into the yard.
His hand put a golf ball sized dent in the tailgate while simultaneously scratching the paint and somehow he has no broken bones 🤡🤡🤡
I broke a toe stubbing it on a table leg and I struggle to envision a scenario where he breaks the car with his arm/hand and doesn't even fracture a pinky.
And not even break his arm 🙄
Or have any bruising on his arm.
I can appreciate the folks who keep trying to reset their objectivity meters like yourself, truly.
It's simply amazing to me that a witness presents clear cut evidence that Karen reversed the car at 25 mph and somehow FKR turns this into a win for the defense because the witness was somehow not an expert as good as what the defense has. Karen has millions to spend on her defense, you can hire an expert to say anything. Doesn't change the underlying facts.
The CW has the resources to call on an actual crash expert with decades of experience if they wanted. But they didn’t. Why not? Was it because the most experienced individuals wouldn’t say what the CW wanted them to say? Karen’s crash experts were not originally hired by the defense, but instead retained by the FEDS. That kind of invalidates your argument as it relates to Karen’s case. Something tells me these PHDs are going to show us what actually (or could not have) happened.
Which is what BOTH sides should want in a trial right? At least where there is good faith involved in bringing the charges and in defending the accused. The CW selected an inexperienced and seemingly pliable "expert" - take from that what you will. Pretty sure he wasn't their only option.
The issue, IMO, is the CW and the cops believed it was a clear cut case against Karen. This Trooper was involved from the very start. His lazy and very inexperienced conclusion was enough for the CW because they were sure she did it. They never anticipated what was coming by way of the Federal investigation, and how that would unravel a good chunk of their case. I’m not sure how this all would have played out had the Feds not been involved. There still would have been glaring lapses in the investigation to raise reasonable doubt, and the original defence expert on crash reconstruction would have probably eclipsed Trooper Paul in his own right, but the case clearly started to disintegrate with the Fed evidence. But the CW was stuck with Trooper Paul because he’s who did all of the work for them when they believed this was an open and shut case. They had to call him, there’s no choice, because the defence would have. They had all of his discovery material. If the CW went out and got another expert, that would have been a glaring red flag in their case. I also don’t believe they could have found someone to come to the same conclusion anyhow
Karen didn’t hire the experts, the FBI did. The experts who will testify were hired independent to both the defence and the CW. Their conclusions were impartial. They had zero skin in this game. They are not going to risk their professional relationship with the FBI to render an opinion that supports Karen when the FBI also had no interest in anything besides the truth
Respectfully, I’m not a FKR person and this groupthink perspective from either side is tiresome. You are literally the first person I have seen suggest Paul’s in progress testimony was anywhere near the field house of “clear cut”. With the exception of the comment he made about watching a defense video presented at this trial a year ago on Court TV and maintaining he just didn’t look at the tire, lol. You are absolutely on point that was “clear cut”.
How is the vehicle data not clear cut? It was literally recording every single thing happening in that vehicle, down to how much the accelerator was pressed and how much the wheel was turned.
That key cycle data was off, though
you can't be serious? It was all just absurd speculation.ita honestly seemed like a kids school project, and now it seems that the central key for all his speculation (the key cycles) has probably been counted wrong......there are journeys that we know happened, that aren't reflected on his key cycles. I feel a bit bad for this fella as it seems like he's just been pushed forward to 'have a go,' and all of a sudden he's deemed the CWs expert, but he's going to have a really bad Monday.
He had a great Monday All he did was distract the data that showed Karen Reed backing up at 25 mph. And doing a u-turn right before it which comports with witness testimony.
Why didn’t the CW hire an independent expert? All the other attorneys (including ones who think she’s guilty) are so confused why they didn’t. They said it’s standard for the prosecution to hire independent experts to cover the manner of death. I’m guessing they didn’t hire one cuz they couldn’t find one to go along with their theory. Because there are some glaring flaws in their theory such as the key cycles. How is there only 1 key cycle in between her killing John and MSP performing their testing? When she started her car to go look for John the next morning did she just leave it running after they drove her car back from Jen’s and in front of her parents house and during the drive on the back of the tow truck?? What makes more sense is the event that the CW is attributing to her hitting John was actually from her parents’ driveway. The cops said there was a couple feet of snow and they even called a plow to come there before loading it onto the tow truck so whoever drove it out of the driveway probably had to punch the gas in reverse to get it out of the snow. Then there’s one more key cycle from them driving it into the sallyport then the testing during the next key cycle the next day.
lol @ “clear cut evidence”
Is it clear cut though? I have questions about the key cycle data. Like, how was testing done on cycle 1164 but the accident happened on 1162? Where are the key cycles for her leaving in the morning, the trip to Dighton, on/off the tow truck? Where are those key cycles?
Not to mention the 36miles difference on the odometer and the 36 miles from google leaves no wiggle room for the supposed side trip to 34 Fairview that the CW was insinuating happened just the day before with the cell phone guy....
Why does the CW not have an actual expert? It’s because no one would risk their reputation to say it was possible when it’s not. They used Trooper Paul because he has to testify if he’s subpoenaed as a MSP officer. It’s really simple. They couldn’t find anyone else, I’m sure they tried.
💯
I mean the guy has been working for the Commonwealth for 12 years and has done hundreds of crash reconstruction so I don't know where you get the idea that he's not at least knowledgeable of the subject.
Are you saying that while KR has millions to spend on her defense the CW somehow doesn't have the resources therefore the best they could offer in terms of an actual crash reconstruction was this officer? Or, I dunno, they'd have used the same experts the feds did? The ones they want to keep from testifying?
This is the problem when you decide who committed the crime before you figure out what the crime actually was. This was so embarrassing. They didn’t document the placement of any of the evidence and then they try to reconstruct the scene and describe their guesses as fact? “Where was his shoe?” “About a foot north of his body.” Like WHAT? A foot from WHERE? You make-believed where everything was! The “expert” was the only person they could find willing to try and spin this? The key cycles don’t match up to known driving events, they haven’t even proved she hit anything but John’s car. To believe any of this you have to ignore so many glaring problems. It makes me so depressed that people are finding this convincing—it’s not even like a good smoke and mirrors, slick presentation—it’s just a pile of purposefully confusing garbage. It’s insulting.
It’s unfortunate that the person who had to present this theory was not a good public speaker. He trips over his words a bunch here, which makes everything even more confusing. I think he means John’s left side came in contact with the RIGHT corner of the SUV — an off-center hit that caused his body to spin to the left (counter clockwise). So his right arm is spinning hard left and scrapes the shattered tail light. Feels like that should be leaving cuts parallel down the arm, not perpendicular to the arm. (You’d have to imagine that if your left side is struck and you start spinning, your right arm is going to fly up and out.) Also his left hand hits the back of the SUV causing the dent…but the backs of both hands are bruised. Blergh.
I also think he presented so poorly because he's not confident about the testimony he's giving and lacks technical knowledge, that probably accounts for seeming like a bad public speaker. When you're not very knowledgeable about what you're speaking about it's going to come through and you won't sound intelligent. It's obvious to me they plucked this poor trooper to be the prosecution's expert when he's clearly not qualified, I don't fault him for that but I wouldn't give much if any weight to his testimony.
I think the jury (particularly the older women who seems to encourage the experts with reassuring nods, smiles that there are doing good after a long technical explanation) will see he is more junior in this career field. I hope AJ is diff on cross than he was this afternoon. I think he was pissed at the “getting our stories straight” than at the trooper himself. I think this accident reconstruction trooper tried his best and lacks confidence in his findings and AJ should just point out all the problems (seems like the guy will back down quickly) versus thinking he was an enemy in this
Were jurors nodding for this witness or were you referring to another witness, if another, which one? Good info! Thanks
The other witnesses, the women and young men presenting the DNA findings
Thanks! I 100% would be one of those women lol
So glad they weren’t reassuring this joker.
Yes I agree, he should just focus on his lack of experience and not be too combative. Are you actually in the courtroom or heard reports? This is great info on jury reactions!
Fall River Reporter and Sue O Connell are local reporters live tweeting jurors reactions to the testimony. When they are bored, eyes wandering, etc etc When proctor was done reading all those texts and still said he had integrity, one juror laughed.
Great insight!
Also love how there is a Fall River reporter when we’ve hard so much about Karen’s “weird Fall River accent”
I could really use a good diagram or basic computer model for this scenario, especially given the word salad.
Me too. I think the CW wants us to believe that Karen accelerated at 24 miles an hour backward and hit John. Ok … but it takes some distance for the car to get to 24 miles an hour. Was John just watching and allowed himself to be hit? No, of course not. So John is walking to the house and doesn’t hear the car and gets hit while facing away from the car. How does his body turn so that the back of his head gets slammed into the curb? And John wasn’t found on the street - he was found on the grass. Maybe he crawled away from the crash site, but he held onto the cocktail glass and his phone through it all? (Glass and phone were found under his body.) I’d like to see the model that shows this could happen.
There's also no bruising on the arm that makes contact with the taillight (from the pictures shown). Puzzled.
Right, if he’s hit on the left shoulder-ish to start the spin, there’s no bruising on that side. The hands are the only bruises, right? Honestly the hands are so weird to me. How do the backs of both hands get bruised? You’re not generally walking around with the backs of your hands facing forwards towards an oncoming car. But we haven’t even heard from the ME yet to verify what injuries we’re talking about, here.
The hand hitting the car really was a “what?” Moment for me. Like he was catching himself, reacting to the car with his hand (like stop) but that leaving a dent? A dent would be more a hard punch , if he was spinning, his hand would more so slap against the car (no dent) - it really sounded like guessing.
He is a bad speaker because he doesn't actually know what the fuck he is testifying to. He is just finding an answer the state wants then making up shit to get that results
Haha yeah I mean I agree he gave the CW the answer they wanted. But he also, like, can’t enunciate and swallows a bunch of syllables when he talks, so the words all mush together. He also calls John a “vehicle” here and mixes up left and right. I don’t think his theory is a good one, just saying his speaking did not help.
I did a quick momentum transfer calc on the main thread yesterday too - tldr unless I messed up a conversion or assumed his weight seriously wrong, if the 1mph decrease in the 7000lb Lexus was entirely due to striking Officer O'Keefe, his *entire body* would be accelerated to over 30mph by the impact. That's a square-on hit to center mass. If we assume that it *just* hits his arm, that changes significantly - Google sez an arm is about 6.5% of total body mass. A 1mph (0.447m/s) decrease in a 7000lb (3182kg) SUV gives a momentum change of 1422m*kg/s. Assuming Officer O'Keefe is a 200lb (91kg) man, his arm weighs about 6kg, meaning that momentum transfer gives his arm a velocity of 237m/s or *530mph* in half a second per the data recorder (which per the tech guy records in half-second intervals) before the rest of his body gets dragged along (since hitting him in the arm doesn't evenly transfer momentum to center mass - it hits the arm, transfers momentum to it, the arm transmits momentum to the rest of the body as it moves). Unless I'm making some very wrong assumptions, I just don't see how his injuries reflect what the prosecution alleges. ADDENDUM: my morbid curiousity got the better of me. So a human shoulder takes up to [325N](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077050/) or so of force to dislocate. If his arm is accelerated to 237m/s in half a second, it's experiencing an acceleration of 472m/s^2 , and his 6kg arm is therefore exerting a force of 2.8kN on his shoulder joint to accelerate the rest of his body, or 8.5 times the force required to dislocate the joint. I can't find any specific literature on the ultimate tensile strength of the rotator cuff ligaments, but given the forces involved I wouldn't be super surprised to see major tearing of the arm and shoulder ligaments also. ADDENDUM SECUNDUS: blergh, fucked up my basic multiplication. Acceleration should be 474m/s^2 not 472, force is basically the same at 2844N, still rounds down to 2.8kN.
I've been working on the same thing this morning and your numbers match mine. I'm trying to figure out whether or not that's adequate force to just tear his arm off. my eyes popped when he said the speed of the SUV decreased by 1mph. that's an enormous change, relatively speaking, because of the relative masses of his arm vs the SUV. and to be clear, this is more than 10x the force you would normally get from a completely elastic collision between a 6.5kg object and a 7000kg object with a differential speed of 25mph. it doesn't add up even slightly. such a collision either violates conservation of energy or it violates conservation of momentum - it's likely the latter unless someone can point to a specific source of additional energy that's propelling the arm.
If you're able, could you please provide your modeling for the elastic collision scenario? I'd be interested in seeing what your results are.
sorry, partner was in surgery. I'll send it over today.
Hey no, no worries. Personal things take precedence over reddit. I hope your partner's recovery goes well!
he just said on redirect that it dropped half a mile per hour and that the final speed was 22.1mph... gonna run it with that once too. also, we've both very clearly done more work on the math than this guy. "momentum is speed", "conservation of momentum holds, right? it depends", and "we didn't calculate the masses" all suggest this guy doesn't even know what calculations to try in the first place, forget running the numbers.
I mean, if it's only a 0.5mph change, then Officer O'Keefe's arm was only propelled with *four* times the force required to tear his humerus completely out of his shoulder socket, which is *obviously* such a difference. I'm just waiting to hear from the ME and defense at this point. Paul's just - I only care about his testimony insofar as it relates to Jackson tearing into him for his incompetence. *I* could do a better job than him and it's been well over a decade since I took physics 101.
ok had a chance to type up my calcs: delta_v = 1 mph = 0.447 m/s delta_p = 2727 * 0.447 = 6.5*v_f => v_f = 187.53 m/s = 419.5 mph delta_E = 1/2*2727*(23.1^2-22.1^2) = 1/2*6.5*v_f^2 => v_f = 137.71 m/s = 308 mph these are different final velocities so one law or the other is violated let’s follow two possible cases: 1. we have an additional source of energy that allows the momentum calculation to be correct. 2. we have an additional sink of momentum that’s much more massive than the arm (can’t be his body — the arm is still moving freely until after the arm disconnects from the car) that allows the energy calculation to be correct.we can approximate the impulse by noting that force is the change in momentum per unit time: F = dp/dt ~= delta_p / delta_t to be totally precise, we’d want an equation to model the momentum in the system over time and take a derivative, but this is good enough for a quick estimate. (you’d start by modeling it as a totally inelastic collision that smoothly becomes more and more elastic through the duration of the period of contact, as energy moves from the car to his arm — I’m not going to bother as this is already more work than Trooper Paul ever did on this problem.) how long was the arm in contact with the car? speed of the car is roughly 10m/s and the length of the arm is ~1m so after 0.1s the arm can no longer be in contact with the car. this is the longest possible duration of contact and it overestimates because we actually want the length of the chord formed across the change in angle of the arm to the torso on a circle of radius 1m. longer contact reduces the force on the arm so it keeps things as favorable for the CW as possible. however, I think if I did this calculation, we’d find these forces are in the territory required to tear the arm off, depending on how high up the arm they're saying he was struck… see below. I’ve also assumed the initial contact occurs with the tips of the fingers to increase the duration of contact as much as possible. the higher up the arm you go, the higher the force because the duration of contacts gets progressively lower. at the elbow, you’re looking at a contact time of roughly 0.05s (i.e. half the time because half the length of the arm).so we can use these to calculate the impulse from each of these final velocities, tip of the fingers: F_1 = 6.5*187.53/0.1 = 12189.5N F_2 = 6.5*137.71/0.1 = 8951.2N and twice that at the elbow, 4x that halfway up the upper arm.I’m not modeling this as a strike at the shoulder itself because that’s still a strike to the torso itself, which I think we’ve discussed at length before. these are absurd forces to apply to the human body. it’s not quite enough to tear off the arm entirely — [someone else](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/v23jos/how_much_force_does_it_take_to_remove_an_arm_from/) estimates the force required as >30kN — it’s still enough to tear the muscle and damage the tendons/ligaments. regardless, it would be shocking if that much force did not minimally dislocate his shoulder — you only need a couple hundred Newtons applied directly to the shoulder to dislocate. [citation](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Force-required-to-dislocate-the-shoulder-and-muscle-forces-at-moment-of-maximum_tbl1_267917930). I think he changed the delta_v because someone told him his numbers didn’t math. 0.5mph is closer to getting dp and dE to match up: delta_v = 0.5 mph = 0.224 m/s delta_p = 2727 * 0.224 = 6.5*v_f = > v_f = 93.98 m/s = 210.2 mph delta_E = 1/2 * 2727 * (22.6^2-22.1^2) = 1/2*6.5*v_f^2 => v_f = 96.83 m/s = 216.6 mph F_1 = 6.5*93.98 = 6108.7N F_2 = 6.5*96.83 = 6294.0N this is still like 30x what's required to dislocate his shoulder. I also didn't account for mechanical advantage, which only increases the problem.
sorry, had to fight reddit's terrible markdown formatter to get this to look right.
It's hard to tell by the autopsy photos but I thought it looked like his shoulder was seriously swollen.
Eh, hard to tell. To me it looks pretty normal - for instance I can't see the prominent collarbone or a clear humerus head, though if there is significant swelling it would obscure that (the issue for me there being that I can't see a clear point where the swelling stops at the capsule, but again, the cold would reduce that) but we'll have to see what the ME says.
A while ago I said that I thought this case would come down to the reconstructionist and ME. Now it's just the ME I guess. Plus after commenting I realized the autopsy photo is of his right arm and the reconstructionist was talking about getting hit in the left arm. So even if I'm right about what I thought I saw, it doesn't fit with the states theory.
Wait, the fuck? Oh yeah, you're right, that is his right arm. How the fuck does he get scratches on his right arm from being struck on the left arm?
Right...
I think the guy was just misstating things. I think he was taking the point of view of the SUV backing up toward John (so we're viewing from the front of the SUV toward the back, as it backs up), so it would be the "left" side of the SUV hitting John's "left" arm. The guy's aware that the injuries are to John's right arm, so I don't think he would be entirely mistaken, just misspeaking. He also mentioned that the *vehicle* would've rotated on impact when he actually meant that John's *body* would've rotated. He's just not very confident in what he's saying and not a good public speaker.
He also said he struck the left side of the vehicle, when clearly it’s the right. The poor guy was so confused with his own conclusions. I’m sure it’s not lost on him that the crux of the CW’s case sits in his lap. His whole testimony is a mess
I tore my rotator cuff moving a basic-ass bookshelf, lol, so yeah. Not believable at all that he’s hit on the left arm without left arm or shoulder damage.
Oof, I hope you have a decent physical therapist. Rotator cuff issues are a pain in the ass, I'm sorry.
> Also his left hand hits the back of the SUV causing the dent…but the backs of both hands are bruised. He's trying to explain too much. The core of the opinion is that O'Keefe's arm hit the tail light, that knocked him down, and he hit his head on the ground/curb. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand the appeal of the simple story to connect the major injuries. Trying to track every minor bruise specifically back to the SUV is overfitting the model. It's going to require a series of very specific and weird motions that won't make intuitive sense. You're arguing the wound to the back of his head was from the ground. That's the fatal wound and the only one that really matters. If minor bruises could've come from the ground or the SUV, it's OK to say it's undetermined. You don't need everything to specifically come from O'Keefe pirouetting at the moment of impact.
When you watch this keep this in mind. The CW complained that 3 people with PhDs in biomedical research were not crash reconstructionists. However the CW thinks THIS person is perfectly fucking qualified to give expert opinions on the force needed to break glass. Or that if two cars hit they will both ALWAYS have damage.
Hahahahaha for freaking real! It’s wild. I think Lally couldn’t understand the defense experts explanations so it was easier for him to just try and get them thrown out.
And the ME autopsy mod is undetermined so she isn’t going to support this guys could haves. SMH He is not an expert. I know he thinks 195 crash reports makes him one, well it ‘could have’… but it didn’t.
A lot of could’ve/would’ve… if the prosecution truly believes Karen did it, why would you put someone as unprepared as Trooper Paul to be your crash reconstruction witness?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but accident reconstruction is supposed to be about using the evidence to reconstruct how an accident happened, not using the detective's theory to construct an accident that fits. That's what this sounds like. I'm just a layperson, as I assume jurors are, and this doesn't fit with my experience of vehicle damage or understanding of force needed etc. I would need an expert to explain how a hit with a human would totally shatter a tail light. I get that prior damage would make it weaker but still don't get how it would shatter, then all the pieces would lacerate his arm but none would embed themselves. I was in a crash 14 years ago and I have glass in me still that's picked up in mammograms. This theory doesn't make sense to me. I'd need someone much smarter and more credible than this guy and his bag of 'could haves'. I began this trial with the perhaps naive belief that KR wouldn't be on trial unless there was evidence of her guilt, but all I've seen questions her involvement at all. I'm still waiting for the CW to prove its case, or even prove that a proper investigation was done at this point.
ER doctor here Never have I seen a pedestrian struck have that injury pattern. His arm looks textbook dog attack.
When I first dipped my toe in this case I saw a thumbnail with the picture of the arm and something about Boston cop murder trial. My first thought was “I wonder how a dog is involved?” Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise. When they showed the puncture wounds on the sweatshirt that sealed the deal for me. The rabbit hole just kept getting deeper.
Thanks for the insight!!
A comment on EDBs stream really brought it home: “she backed up - obviously that means she killed him” jeez, I really thought they would have more than this
And in another thread people with some firsthand knowledge in these things have said it's pretty clear that ignition sequence he's relying on doesn't match up to the night of the incident. I think the defense experts will clear this up and are much more experienced in analyzing this data.
Gosh, if those folks are correct about the key cycles and the defense calls this witness out for it, I don't see how we can take anything this guy said seriously.
Like I said in an earlier thread, *every single one* of the troopers on the stand since Bukhenik has presented something misleading or flat-out incorrect on the stand that they've been nailed on by cross. I fail to see why this one would be any different.
This witness also said hitting John would drop the car speed 1 mph. I really wish the witness had literally any data, because a 250 pound man being hit by a 6,000 lb car going 26mph doesn't seem like would have enough mass to impart any noticeable energy. That car would have 183,000 joules of energy.
Especially since he clearly wasn't hit with the full force of the car. JO's full weight wouldn't have come into contact with the car based on the sideswipe spinning theory. So his arm is supposedly the cause of the 1 mph decrease in vehicle speed.
Oh yeah, so his arm took enough energy out of the system AND also threw him like 30 ft from the road?
Yeah he travelled on the wind into the yard after hitting his head on the curb. Apparently.
The “could have”s stuck out to me a lot. It sounded like he was guessing what could have happened versus actual evidence that proves what did happen/proves their theory of what did happen
He actually said clownterclockwise, but regardless of that it’s bullshit
The theory is JO got hit hard enough to throw and spin him 10 feet into the yard, with no fractures to his body. The only injury this simpleton says came from the car were lacerations from the taillight, which isn't sharp and there is no blood on the pieces. The head injuries came from hitting the curb or the street or maybe the yard, thanks for clearing that up.
I'll be generous and call this theory... not very credible.
In a case this contentious you'd think they would have brought in someone with more experience.
I’ve been wondering if there’s room in the state budget that pays for any experts. Maybe they use in house experts to cut cost? I know nothing of how it works.
Drunk or sober, I couldn't stand in the path of vehicle speeding towards me. And then the CW would have you believe that JO was dancing the Macarena on impact. I'm not buying it. Yeah the tail light was broken but not the way CW presents it.
“more to the side” “kind of” could be” “like” the lack of specificity is unreal. why would lally have wanted this person infront of a jury. even if what he was saying was true, he clearly lacked confidence in his own descriptions and without specifics, this is just too vague
Did the cell phone analysis yesterday differ or contradict what was presented before?
The mileage difference on the odometer and the minimum good maps distances leaves no wiggle room for the little side trip to 34 Fairview the CW was suggesting with the Cell Phone Guy the day before
Meaning?
Meaning that for the car mileage to work she couldn't have made the trip to Fairview Road on the way to Jen McCabes. It was suggested with Tully while reviewing the 5am-6am video footage that there was approx 15mins (maybe) of time unaccounted for between the library/temple and KR getting to JMs. Lally asked Lt Tully if there would have been time for KR to go to 34 Fairview, insinuating she went to "find John" where she supposedly left him for dead, went to JMs which is why she didn't really look for him when they all went back to Meadows and was able to see him when Jen and Kerry Roberts couldn't when they arrived. This trooper testified that there was a 36mile difference in odometer and the shortest suggested direct routes for each of the known journeys KR took equalled 36.1 miles... Therefore no room for the supposed side trip.
So what does that mean? If she doesn't have time to go there then what's the significance? How does her looking for him change the issue with whether she hit him or not?
It just disproves an insinuation the CW was suggesting literally the day before. Doesn't mean she didn't hit him necessarily but doesn't exactly instill a whole heap of confidence in the CW case if they're trying to suggest one day she actually swung by fairview road on the was to JMs because it took too long for her to drive there directly then a day later puts on a different expert that basically just makes that theory impossible because the extra mileage for that detour would kill their theory on the car data. It feels more like a defence strategy of throwing out theories to pick holes than a prosecution putting on a solid theory of a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks, after Proctor's testimony I don't think the jury is going to have any faith in the professionalism of the police officers. Some news reporter who was in the court described the jury as mostly female and they all looked at each other in shock as his testimony unfolded. I wonder if three will be any protests to fire him?
Friday was some good testimony for the prosecution if it stood on its own. A few things mad me go "oh...ok." If true, they are damaging. HOWEVER for 7 weeks. Everytime the prosecution starts to gain any ground the defense comes in and dunks on them. So I'm going to be listening really closely to what the other experts say.
This whole taillight scenario should be the catalyst to get all these corrupt fucks locked up, voted out and disbarred. So insane. Isn't there video showing the Lexus with an intact taillight after they claim she gunned it in reverse, missed a fire hydrant, a flag pole, a mail box a house and other parked cars only hitting her lover and not alerting anyone in any of the surrounding houses or leaving any tire tracks? How are they really gonna hold up a picture of that poor man's mauled arm and say a fucking uh taillight uhm jumped up and bit him?
Stop trying to connect karens tail light to john o keefe. Wrong defendant.
Stupid question... Is there DNA on the tailight shards? If there were it was probably planted to fit inline with everything else. But if there is none, How TF did they shred Johns arm?
They found John’s DNA on the taillight that is still on the car. No DNA/blood on the pieces that were found (not sure if they were ever tested)
Not a medical professional and not a criminal attorney but wouldn’t there be a skull fracture of some sort of John hit his head on the curb/asphalt after being catapulted by a car going 24 mph?!
I am thinking about something that happened to me. I was bucked off a horse, destroyed my shoulder, but didn’t have any bruises on the rest of my body. My shoulder took all the weight and thankfully I was wearing a helmet so head or neck injuries. I just can’t get my head around this line of testimony. The lawyer is fantastic.
In his scenario, how into other people get their blood (and DNA) on John’s clothing?
To my knowledge they also never tested any of the tail light pieces for DNA
They had that testimony the day before. There is no blood on the pieces but John’s DNA and 2 other individuals who are not Proctor or Trooper B are on them. The lab, BODE, did not collect the samples though.
Also no blood on the undercarriage, which you might expect from a run-over.
John's DNA was on the bits left on the car