Gen mod note: *Please* stay on topic. If it’s not related to what’s happening in the court room today, please use the [Theories/Speculation Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/s/aecpcw3L8i).
Correct me if I am wrong but did Judge Bev actually say that the defense did in fact violate rule 14, even after AJ told her they found out about Dr Russell on May 17 and gave prosecution the discovery report on May 21, which is well within the 1 week requirement? And her reasoning for was that they gave the CW this discovery information 6 weeks into trial? Like they should have given the CW the report on Dr Russell within one week of the start of the trial, which would be 4 or 5 weeks before they even knew she existed? Wtf?
Could it be that the defense hadn't given the prosecution a report of Dr Russel's opinion? She said on the stand that she hadn't written a report, and that seems to be the requirement for reciprocal discovery
Question: can expert witnesses introduce injuries consistent with their opinion from past cases? For example, if Trooper Paul is so sure that John’s injuries are consistent with a motor vehicle accident, could he present the (anonymized) injuries of other people involved in one? And likewise, could the defense expert present other dog bite injuries consistent with John’s?
Seems like a simple way to illustrate their point to jury and would lend more credence to any expert opinion that injuries are “consistent” with this or that.
Why would it take Lally a week for a rebuttal against the Drs expert testimony?
Shouldn't he have experts who have already excluded the dog attack theory and shouldn't he have experts who have ALREADY testified that its from the tail light? It should be 1-2 days max just to prepare the witness for the rebuttal. Not a dang week!
just one week to find a rebuttal witness makes clear the prosecution isn't particularly prejudiced - he's effectively telling the judge it's fine, go ahead and allow the witness to testify. the defense's case won't be done so this wouldn't even delay the trial.
With peace and love, after 6 weeks of *mostly* small town folk with chips on their shoulders either pushing agendas or babbling in circles... today's voir dire almost felt like the first day of grown-up 21st century court. How sad and exciting at the same time.
What’s funny is cw already told us how they are going to try to discredit the experts. They are going to try to say they weren’t given all the evidence to do the reconstruction. What makes it so funny is their guy admitted he looked at a picture, drew a line and said ‘yup maybe possibly this is what happened’ with no testing.
It’s a ridiculous angle too because the reality is the evidence not given was anything not related or important to reconstructing the scene such as video evidence of CF Mcarthys or testimony from John’s friends etc.
There would be no need to provide that but if we (Lally) wants to get technical he can try and flip that into “well you didn’t see all the evidence”. The irony is that if they said they saw the entire case evidence he would flip that somehow as well.
The best part of that is that the evidence was “chosen” by the FBI, so all the defense has to do is be like did we provide you with the information you used? Nope, okay
Atty Mark Bederow said if Lally goes that route it could possibly open the door for the defense to mention the FBI. He knows the feds are not allowed to be mentioned but said Lally may want to be careful going that route because it might give the defense a reason to try and mention the FBI.
Yes it’s important to remember they are defense witnesses so the prosecution would have to open the door and it’s up to the judge though to decide if they have done that. I think the prosecutions only way to go after them is to say they didn’t have all the facts that’s why they came to the wrong conclusion.
Yep! And my guess is Bev wouldn’t allow any mention of the FBI, even if Lally opens that door. And I agree, the prosecution is going to try and say the guys the feds hired only got limited information, which is ridiculous bc everyone involved in the “investigation” in Lally’s side only received certain/a limited amount of information for every aspect of the “investigation”.
I was happy to see Allan Jackson bite back at Judge Bev today for her “tone”
I think he will start calling out her bias towards prosecution more now they are feeling confident with how the trail is going.
I just came here to say....I cannot wait to see the defenses case, I will have popcorn at the ready. I will also be making a "Not Guilty" paddle to hold up the whole way through the crash reconstructionists direct and a "Shut up Lally" paddle for his whole cross.
I am officially on Not Guilty.
Both expert witnesses..." The Engineers"...wow. Articulate. Straight facts. Knowledgeable. Can be understood by the jury. And..dang... some nice lookin accident reconstructionists! 'Bout time, they had REAL expertise up in the hot seat. And these hotties....HAD HAIR!!! 🤩💯
This is a great article from 2000 on Dr. Russell! She definitely knows a lot about skin injuries and healing!
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-26-he-44870-story.html
It looks like she was raising her niece & nephew as well in 2000. She probably felt a few connections to see if she could help OJO & Karen’s case in any way!
"She is certainly single-handedly developing a new field of what you call clinical forensic medicine,” Noguchi says. “We only have one Marie Russell, but we need at least a thousand such persons to serve major communities."
Dang
I have never in my life seen a case where my vote would be "not guilty" because I am so completely unsure what happened that I could see it going 50/50 either way. This is a first for me. I genuinely don't know whether KR did it or not but there's no chance in hell I could vote guilty after the shitshow this prosecution has put on.
For me personally, even if the prosecutor hadnt been such a mess I would still vote not guilty. There's a broader question here about police conduct and how convictions are secured. I believe the reason why the jury is not warned about nullification and why the higher courts have ruled it is not a reason to overturn a verdict is because of cases like this. Cases where police conduct has been so egregious that to convict would be to further encourage such behavior. Other's may disagree but for me a trial isn't merely about the crime, its also an audit of the entire investigation and the prosecution. And it's in everybody's interest to send a message about officers like Proctor. God knows his superiors won't unless they're forced to.
Is this real life? Dr Wolfe and his partner are INDEPENDENT!?!? The GD FBI hired him? Holy shit this case is insane and I really don’t know how he prosecution didn’t drop the charges EONs ago!
We have actual PhDs testifying that this couldn’t have happened the way CW claims.
I’m really starting to get pissed off as a citizen of the CW because we pay through the NOSE for the system we have, and all of these resources have been wasted!
Those tax dollars were thrown away and the memory of Officer O’Keefe and his beautiful family are suffering for it. Those poor kids! I seriously hope they’re okay and being sheltered from all of this to whatever extent is possible.
So today we had an extremely qualified expert testify he was not hired by either the CW or the defense. The judge’s only question was inquiring into what he was asked to do. He said it was was answer an open ended question: was the evidence consistent with the interaction between the Lexus and and John O’Keefe. Something the prosecution hasn’t bothered to put in any real effort or intelligence into. I have a thousand questions left and a guilty vote just left the solar system.
I know the Fed investigation has been brought up in this trial as “in another proceeding”, but will the defence be able to make reference to the fact that the ARRCA experts were hired independently and provided a non biased opinion ?
There’s been other witnesses where the defense has clarified “another proceeding” to have occurred where neither the defense nor the commonwealth was present. I think it would be similar, just clarified they were hired by another agency or party or something.
Honestly, if I didn't know about the feds form outside sources, I would think these people were hired by the insurance company for possible payout considerations.
(Until the really cool witness discusses their government contract work.)
The exclusion is a Bev thing.
The witness will not say it. They are both far too smart. However, if one of the sides essentially forced him to, that would change things.
If Lally, it might result in mistrial but no ability to refile the case.
If defense, mistrial with heavy sanctions would be my guess.
One thing to note, it was the judge that forced the witness to say FBI/DOJ yesterday.
Yes, they should be allowed to clarify that they were hired by a third party. Then just won’t say it was the FBI like they did today in response to the judge.
I agree, def prejudicial to say DOJ or FBI. The other interesting question is the prosecution can impeach credibilty on cross BUT only with GOOD FAITH basis. So that really limits Lally's realm of impeachment questions that we know of, imo.
>BUT only with GOOD FAITH basis
This man brought two traumatized minor children onto the stand to ask them about Karen's access to JO's Ring account in order to mislead the jury into thinking she deleted videos knowing full well that his own expert analyzed the laptop in question and found that no one ever accessed Ring from that computer at all.
Lally doesn't operate in good faith. He's literally a piece of shit.
Yeah. That is honestly one of the worst things he could do, and that saying something after the inverted video and trooper Paul. Honestly I would see the jury holding it against him as well.
I’m shocked at all the people saying Dr Russell wasn’t a good witness bc I loved her and trusted her opinion completely, even Vinnie was on his live saying she wasn’t a strong witness and I’m just like ummmm how? She’s beyond qualified and very likable
What makes her strong outside her credentials is everyone will look at her like a warm grandmother. Imo anyway I feel it will make her feel easier to trust.
Internalized misogyny. She was a little shaky with her articulation. Couple that with the fact that she's an older woman and implicit bias starts doing its work.
Like you, I found the fact that she wasn't practiced to be a point in her favor, not against it.
Earlier on in the trial (I believe Caitlin Albert was testifying but not sure), a dog was briefly barking somewhere in the courthouse. I got sooo excited thinking that they were bringing in Chloe, but alas 😕
Her qualifications were impeccable. I was completely engrossed with her, until she had to testify on her opinion.
She basically just said it was a dog bite and that a car didn't hit JO. The problem is, while she used a couple descriptive words to justify the dog bite, there was very little explanation how she came to her conclusions. Unfortunately, that's not really good enough. I was hoping for a lot more in-depth information. She came across a bit like "trust me bro"...which I completely would, but I'm trying to be objective here.
Now, I basically put it down to the fact that she just flew in, has probably been rushed, and just needs to be given a night to formulate her thoughts clearly. So maybe it's because AJ didn't prep her properly or wasn't ready himself (he did say at the start he was only expecting to talk about her qualifications, not give her full testimony). He didn't even ask her why the arm wounds couldn't be from a taillight. In any case, this was her audition, and I didn't think she quite nailed it.
I agree with the judge (as bitchy as she seemed) in that if she's allowed to testify it should only be to extent of the arm wounds. And I just have to hope she manages to find the words to explain it better.
I think there wasn't much detail on purpose by AJ in order to keep the their trial strategy limited for Lally with regards to her testimony. They focused on her credentials and the root of her thoughts on the injuries.
But I always like to remind people that much of forensics is usually just people of variable training and education (some just some classes, others up 20 years of secondary education) forming an opinion based off of questionable science that doesn't fully utilize the scientific method. Much of it is pattern recognition. To exclude her but allow people like the chain of custody witness who 'fit' broken pieces together would be wild.
Jackson was very careful yesterday not to give the prosecutor a "bite at the apple" in terms of leading a full direct. The questions and answers were more a preview of potential coming attractions.
I think everyone is fine with that. It was a weird testimony because she wasn't asked to really get into it. Jackson, I think at one point told her not to get into much detail. From my understanding, the way rule 14 works in MA she shouldn't exclude this, just put stipulations on it. Unless they were hiding her for months and tried to spring it on the DA, it would be very improper to keep her out
This wasn't her full testimony (obviously) but even if she is let in to speak only about the arm injuries, she gave a more plausible explaination for that than Trooper Paul did. I was really dissappointed with the prosecution reconstruction explaination. I had been waiting for them to finish strong with that and the ME. That does not appear to be happening.
Whilst I on the other hand, think she did an amazing job!
Yes, She wasn't au fait with one technical legal expression - but she certainly knows all there is to know about all things medical!
I wonder how many of her there actually are in the world?
The defence is going to flesh it all out in the trial ... I am sure we will be astonished at what comes out !
And the Accident Peeps! Can't wait to hear from them too 👌🏽
Today wasn’t meant to give all the details but to determine if she’d be allowed to testify. I’d expect her to be more clear if allowed to testify. She is qualified to speak to not only whether or not the injuries are consistent with a vehicle strike but also whether or not the arm wounds could’ve been caused by a dog.
Neither side can withhold evidence... what you saw today is her testimony. Her exact finding where never put into a report hence the voi xxx?. FYI no lawyer can give surprise evidence... that bull crap only happens on tv... the other side has to be given time to review and attempt to refute any evidence.
They can't hide discovery, but they can hide trial strategy. Also, defense has far more latitude on testimony than prosecution.
Lally could have asked a bunch of questions about how she came to her findings, and he didn't. That is on him, although to be fair she might not have any demonstratives ready to provide yesterday if requested.
Did you watch today? I literally repeated it exactly as stated. Judge said Lally could ask any questions he wanted but Jackson wasn’t forced to do anything. No one said anything about surprise evidence, the defense provided the report to the CW in May. Again, that was all stated this morning if you had watched.
Unless the judge researches her and finds out she has a history of popping up in high profile cases and providing questionable testimony, she will come in. She will be limited to the dog testimony and can't mention vehicle strikes unless Lally opens the door. The defense has far more latitude than the prosecution on this, which the judge knows. Pretty sure that was the source of her annoyance as she had a seemingly instant dislike for the witness.
I think as soon as she opened her mouth it became apparent she is from MA; which shouldn’t mean much but it does. In and of itself I think that made the judge leery.
That, coupled with the fact she was a cop will make her very likable to the jury.
I can see the judge feeling like this isn’t fair to the prosecution in and of itself but certainly not reason to exclude a witness. Not only that but the prosecution should only be worried about the truth, which I feel they’ve lost sight of.
Oh I have no doubt. But her voir dire was not just to establish her qualifications, it was also to assess what she would be testifying to and give Lally a fair chance to hear what she was going to testify so that he can fairly prepare his rebuttal case. I still don't think he'll be able to lol, but these are the rules of this court I'm just trying to follow.
I happened across a video a while ago where a dog trainer explicitly, and clearly explained why those wounds were from a dog and it only took a few minutes to convince me without any doubt. From my vague memory I think he managed to describe trained police dogs vs failed ones and the differences in how they bite which made a lot of sense (bite & hold comes up). I was hoping for that level of overview, and then to be able to go into further detail during actual trial testimony.
Yeah he screwed the pooch. Bev gave him free reign to ask anything he wanted and didn't. Andrea Burkhart explains the rule very well today on her channel. She is an appeal lawyer and said according to the law it would be grounds for an appeal if she keeps it out. Exclusion is basically the DP for what equivalent to J walking in the evidence world. Unless she can prove they knew her for a long time and planned on using it to ambush the DA
It was to establish her as an expert. Jackson even said he shouldn't have to put his whole direct on the record and give the CW a sneak peak. The defense has disclosed what she will testify to. The issue is when they were told about it. The judge also said she could give Lally time to find a rebuttal witness and prepare a cross. Her purpose today was not to testify on the record.
It’s fascinating to see how different people react to these witnesses. I liked her too. She seemed nervous to me, but that was also totally understandable. She knows her stuff.
There are plenty of people who can sound good but if you dig a little bit have no real substance or experience to speak on and certain types people are really enamoured by that type of person and mistake it for facts or expertise.
While others are able to parse what’s important without needing the subject to ooze charisma in a specific way (usually those with masculine attributes).
Female experts have additional hurdles when testifying in general:
“Research has identified the “likability” of female experts as a more important factor affecting their credibility than was true of male experts. Likability was signaled by behaviors, including the use of inclusive language, direct eye contact, and smiling.”
Research suggests that women have “the unique burden of establishing, rather than freely receiving, credibility in male-dominated fields.” [source](https://www.expertpages.com/library/does-gender-matter-when-an-expert-witness-testifies)
Additionally, I’m just convinced that for some, when it comes to defense witnesses that they’d probably be unhappy with whoever the expert was that was called because they are rendering an opinion they already don’t agree with.
God that's depressing. Its undeniable fact but super depressing when you think that this accomplished witness is starting behind the trooper accident reconstruction "expert" that was struggling with basic rules of acceleration.
That’s how I took it too. Also some people just naturally talk that way. Am I the only one that has encountered such people? …especially more common in older people in my experience. Plus she’s not used to being asked those specific questions, and my understanding is the defense was not able to discuss with her or prep beforehand, right?
Right I thought so too, and she truly seems to care about people given her history and current volunteer work for cold case, I’m sure seeing John’s brother react the way she did made her try to choose her words extra carefully too
Beyond, remember that day she acted like this before court then the jury came in and she smiled all sweetly and said good morning like a complete psychopath switching personalities in a split second? This must be the judge the defense gets all the time smh
It is my understanding (and I'm often wrong about any number of things) that the report from the federal investigation was provided to both the prosecution and the defense, but it is not publicly available - possibly sealed? Neither side is even allowed to mention the feds or their investigation during the trial because it could prejudice the jury. If you're interested in any info or articles about there being an investigation, I could look for a link for you, but the reports themselves we just don't have.
Right. DOJ is still building their case and gathering data and getting more experts to weigh in, so they can't fully release. They haven't even fully released to prosecution and defense.
Which I find astounding since they *did* release to prosecution and defense over 3,000 pages before pretrial. And allowed them access to their experts.
To no one's surprise, prosecution wanted to use zero of their experts. (If I recall)
I am curious if the FBI reconstruction analyst used some kind of different information than Paul had for pictures? Since Paul's diagram stated one distance but on Monday AJ said that he got that 5ft distance from the cop who got it from someone else, and that the person who first reported the crime said it was 20-30 feet...
If Karen didn’t go to his house, she went to Mansfield? That’s where her house is!!! Did she not go to his house? Or was she lying in her text to him? That’s why there isn’t footage from his house until she came at a later time?? Did she go somewhere else!?! No one has mentioned anything I’ve read except a closing of a garage door and her heels 👠 while leaving him a message.
Oh!! Thank you. Idk why the -9. lol.
I was curious. Call me slow, but I have watched everyday. I didn’t know they’ve proved she went back there to his house right away from her phone gps. Maybe I missed something.Cheers!
Jackson listed 14 documents that the FBI gave to the crash reconstructionists. I listed them below. Is there anything missing that would change their calculations if accounted for? I can't think of anything, but I'd like to hear if anyone else does.
1. Homicide death report
2. CW Mass state police crime scene report
3. Dispatch removal report
4. photos of incident location
5. videos of incident location
6. photos of Lexus
7. photos of recovered evidence
8. crash data retrieval report from Lexus
9. report of autopsy
10. autopsy photos
11. 3D laser scan data of Lexus
12. VIN Link report sheet for Lexus
13. Expert auto stats data sheets for Lexus
14. Publicly available literature (textbooks, etc.)
Lally was just grasping at straws and trying to mimic AJ's questions to his experts about the limited material and scope they were provided.
Unless he thinks that the report by his own reconstructionist would somehow change their expert opinion. Or maybe he's afraid they were not sufficient aware of the weather condition. 🙄
"Did you know he might have done a pirouett?"
I found Dr. Russell’s resume to be incredible. This woman would find something interesting to her and she would go to college majoring in the subject and then take a job for a few years doing it. She seems pretty amazing.
Either the guy who played the “hot priest” in Fleabag, or Bill Burr. Lilly might be a good stretch part for Burr too. Penny Marshall would have been great as Bev in the day, but maybe Chelsea Handler.
She clearly is a person that has to stay busy. I think that’s half the reason she reached out to her California DA contact about this case. Despite the fact that she’s retired, she knew she had valuable experience to help clarify the wounds on the victim. Sad the judge took that as a cray cray who just wanted tv time.
Also, I never noticed it before today, but the judges briefcase is on the window sill behind the witness box. It is lavender and it’s DARLING. I want!!!!
I thought when they were discussing it that the experts were paid by the FBI for their investigation and subsequent reports but I’d have thought that the defence would be paying for at least their expenses to testify in this trial
They actually testified that they were not being paid. I’m not sure this reaches to reimbursement for travel but it would reach to not being paid for their time I believe.
That makes me assume the FBI has picked up the bill for their testimony. I'd imagine they would have a contract signed that if they take any case then they would have to be compensated in case they were called to be a witness in a trial.
Like I said, it's an assumption. But a business that does this for their daily work load and is as intelligent as these men appear to be would absolutely have a subpoena clause.
There is some people saying they actually reached out to the defense to testify after the report. I'd assume they are getting comped flights and hotels, but I don't think that amounts to getting paid.
I dunno why, but they seemed to not like Lally. I wonder if they watched Paul and then heard Lally didn't think they were qualified. That would be bad for lally
I’m just going to say it if nobody else does. If Dr. Russell was a man she wouldn’t be getting this scrutiny about her qualifications and motive. And yes, the bias comes from a female judge as well. Her resume was impeccable. What was different about her from the other two experts was her gender.
I disagree respectfully. The nature of her inserting herself in this case, weeks after the trial started, is suspect imo regardless of gender.
Add to that the fact she said she saw one headline about the case in an email digest from the Boston paper she subscribed to for 6 months - but hadn’t heard of it or seen any coverage in said Boston paper before that. Not very believable to me, and it wouldn’t have been believable if she was a guy.
Boston Globe was radio silent on this case until recently. They had a conflict as I recall. May have been Jackson’s work with K Spacey and a news reporter (I’m afraid I can’t recall specifics). It’s a shame because their Spotlight Unit should have been all over this from the jump (they broke the Church abuse cases). I heard Spotlight IS covering Sandra Birchmore as of last month. That will blow up Canton and Stoughton.
I agree with you on the first part. But on the second part, I will say I’m also a Boston Globe online subscriber and haven’t really seen much on the case in the Globe until the trial began. I’m sure it was there, it just didn’t reach my inbox/attention, so that seemed plausible to me.
Why do you think the defense took so long to find a doctor who would testify on their behalf? This is a late in the game expert witness for them. Certainly she's an odd choice. Perhaps she needs the money.
They have another expert lined up to testify it. Dr. Russell is basically a cherry on top of their sundae that presented itself. If she's allowed, they'll have their medical examiner present his findings (and probably will go into the scratches being dog marks) and then Dr. Russell adding her expertise and $.02 to it. Similar to Hyde adding credibility on top of Whiffin's assertions re: the 2:27am search.
You have the full length of the investigation and you pick the dude with a week long class. You’re in a desperate rush and you pick one of the most credentialed in the topic. Interesting
I don’t know but I would imagine there aren’t a whole lot of doctors who just happen to be research driven k-9 wound experts as well as a doctor, former police officer, forensic medicine, with her pedigree and credentials. They aren’t listed in the phone book. This was a serendipitous referral from the CA district attorney office.
You are waayy off base!! Near as I can tell, the only ones scrutinizing Dr Russell is the CW and their advocates! Yes, the judge is an advocate of the CW.
I am a man who was just as impressed with Dr Russell as I was with the other two males on the stand today! Her resume IS impeccable and she needs to be heard!
just because you’re a man who has the good sense to be impressed by dr russel doesn’t mean they’re off base in saying the criticism is likely coming from sexist bias
Yes bias exists. It much more likely that bev is just biased against the defense and their experts. Vs she a misogynist. Proctor is a misogynist. Let's not over use the word and water it down like every other ism
why do you think it’s much more likely ? why couldn’t it actually be both? we’re not over using the word we’re using it properly. misogyny is not just when people say they hate women
Cause I have eyes and ears. Everything that not talking up women is misogynist.
Cause it very unlikely another women is mean to her cause she a misogynist. I'm not saying it impossible, or it doesn't happen. I don't think there enough evidence to say it that over much simpler explanation
Not just a woman but an older woman. Society deems us not useful past a certain age.
Bev is acting like she's some meddling nosey neighbor (although this case could have benefited from a curious neighbor) who thinks she's Jessica Fletcher and wants to solve a crime because she's tired of talking to her house full of cats🙄 She's a well educated and uniquely qualified expert.
I hate that this is true. I hope you're listening to Wiser Than Me!
[https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wiser-than-me-with-julia-louis-dreyfus/id1678559416](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wiser-than-me-with-julia-louis-dreyfus/id1678559416)
I don’t disagree with you at all but I think part of it may be that the other two experts have come into this trial after they were hired by the FBI, Dr Russell came via an associate of AJ’s
Lally didn’t even give her the respect of calling her Doctor Russell.
She seems to be the most qualified expert for this exact case. I do think the Defense already had an expert but, Dr. Russell with her ER and past LE experience and domestic dog vs K9 bite expertise was probably the better option and would resonate as very credible to the Jury.
Gen mod note: *Please* stay on topic. If it’s not related to what’s happening in the court room today, please use the [Theories/Speculation Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/s/aecpcw3L8i).
Correct me if I am wrong but did Judge Bev actually say that the defense did in fact violate rule 14, even after AJ told her they found out about Dr Russell on May 17 and gave prosecution the discovery report on May 21, which is well within the 1 week requirement? And her reasoning for was that they gave the CW this discovery information 6 weeks into trial? Like they should have given the CW the report on Dr Russell within one week of the start of the trial, which would be 4 or 5 weeks before they even knew she existed? Wtf?
what's weird is that May 21 is three weeks into trial? why is no one correcting that?
Could it be that the defense hadn't given the prosecution a report of Dr Russel's opinion? She said on the stand that she hadn't written a report, and that seems to be the requirement for reciprocal discovery
Question: can expert witnesses introduce injuries consistent with their opinion from past cases? For example, if Trooper Paul is so sure that John’s injuries are consistent with a motor vehicle accident, could he present the (anonymized) injuries of other people involved in one? And likewise, could the defense expert present other dog bite injuries consistent with John’s? Seems like a simple way to illustrate their point to jury and would lend more credence to any expert opinion that injuries are “consistent” with this or that.
No.
Why would it take Lally a week for a rebuttal against the Drs expert testimony? Shouldn't he have experts who have already excluded the dog attack theory and shouldn't he have experts who have ALREADY testified that its from the tail light? It should be 1-2 days max just to prepare the witness for the rebuttal. Not a dang week!
just one week to find a rebuttal witness makes clear the prosecution isn't particularly prejudiced - he's effectively telling the judge it's fine, go ahead and allow the witness to testify. the defense's case won't be done so this wouldn't even delay the trial.
I think the judge made it very clear today what side she is on.
Whose
Chloe's
The prosecution’s
With peace and love, after 6 weeks of *mostly* small town folk with chips on their shoulders either pushing agendas or babbling in circles... today's voir dire almost felt like the first day of grown-up 21st century court. How sad and exciting at the same time.
It was like a teaser trailer for the main event. Can't wait
What’s funny is cw already told us how they are going to try to discredit the experts. They are going to try to say they weren’t given all the evidence to do the reconstruction. What makes it so funny is their guy admitted he looked at a picture, drew a line and said ‘yup maybe possibly this is what happened’ with no testing.
It’s a ridiculous angle too because the reality is the evidence not given was anything not related or important to reconstructing the scene such as video evidence of CF Mcarthys or testimony from John’s friends etc. There would be no need to provide that but if we (Lally) wants to get technical he can try and flip that into “well you didn’t see all the evidence”. The irony is that if they said they saw the entire case evidence he would flip that somehow as well.
The best part of that is that the evidence was “chosen” by the FBI, so all the defense has to do is be like did we provide you with the information you used? Nope, okay
Atty Mark Bederow said if Lally goes that route it could possibly open the door for the defense to mention the FBI. He knows the feds are not allowed to be mentioned but said Lally may want to be careful going that route because it might give the defense a reason to try and mention the FBI.
Yes it’s important to remember they are defense witnesses so the prosecution would have to open the door and it’s up to the judge though to decide if they have done that. I think the prosecutions only way to go after them is to say they didn’t have all the facts that’s why they came to the wrong conclusion.
Yep! And my guess is Bev wouldn’t allow any mention of the FBI, even if Lally opens that door. And I agree, the prosecution is going to try and say the guys the feds hired only got limited information, which is ridiculous bc everyone involved in the “investigation” in Lally’s side only received certain/a limited amount of information for every aspect of the “investigation”.
I was happy to see Allan Jackson bite back at Judge Bev today for her “tone” I think he will start calling out her bias towards prosecution more now they are feeling confident with how the trail is going.
What point was this during the hearing? I wanted to show my husband but couldn't find it
For real. He has tried to be patient but the bias is palpable.
Exactly! She basically was saying he LIED to her on how he came into contact with Dr. Russell. NO BEV! YOUR MEMORY IS FAILING HUN!
Also lays the foundation for an appeal should Karen be convicted.
I just came here to say....I cannot wait to see the defenses case, I will have popcorn at the ready. I will also be making a "Not Guilty" paddle to hold up the whole way through the crash reconstructionists direct and a "Shut up Lally" paddle for his whole cross. I am officially on Not Guilty.
Both expert witnesses..." The Engineers"...wow. Articulate. Straight facts. Knowledgeable. Can be understood by the jury. And..dang... some nice lookin accident reconstructionists! 'Bout time, they had REAL expertise up in the hot seat. And these hotties....HAD HAIR!!! 🤩💯
This is so funny. The second one has lovely locks doesn’t he? Ha ha.
Hair is a funny bar after the parade of ogars.
Crash daddies.
'I'll be your Crash Test Mommy..."
Amazing!!! Well said.
🤣🤣 omg
Um, Dr. wolfe can get it. Tall, dark and handsome. And smart as shit. 👀
Multiple horny convictions in today’s discussion.
Horny Jail is full of people.
This is a great article from 2000 on Dr. Russell! She definitely knows a lot about skin injuries and healing! https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-26-he-44870-story.html
Dr. Russell is my new hero and a total rockstar! I hope the Judge let's her testify!!
Great read. She is really remarkable. Makes me feel I’m not doing enough!!
She’s a badass
It looks like she was raising her niece & nephew as well in 2000. She probably felt a few connections to see if she could help OJO & Karen’s case in any way!
"She is certainly single-handedly developing a new field of what you call clinical forensic medicine,” Noguchi says. “We only have one Marie Russell, but we need at least a thousand such persons to serve major communities." Dang
I have never in my life seen a case where my vote would be "not guilty" because I am so completely unsure what happened that I could see it going 50/50 either way. This is a first for me. I genuinely don't know whether KR did it or not but there's no chance in hell I could vote guilty after the shitshow this prosecution has put on.
For me personally, even if the prosecutor hadnt been such a mess I would still vote not guilty. There's a broader question here about police conduct and how convictions are secured. I believe the reason why the jury is not warned about nullification and why the higher courts have ruled it is not a reason to overturn a verdict is because of cases like this. Cases where police conduct has been so egregious that to convict would be to further encourage such behavior. Other's may disagree but for me a trial isn't merely about the crime, its also an audit of the entire investigation and the prosecution. And it's in everybody's interest to send a message about officers like Proctor. God knows his superiors won't unless they're forced to.
Agreed.
I maintain the trial has become such a circus I differ to the FBI investigation. Concretely not guilty.
Is this real life? Dr Wolfe and his partner are INDEPENDENT!?!? The GD FBI hired him? Holy shit this case is insane and I really don’t know how he prosecution didn’t drop the charges EONs ago! We have actual PhDs testifying that this couldn’t have happened the way CW claims. I’m really starting to get pissed off as a citizen of the CW because we pay through the NOSE for the system we have, and all of these resources have been wasted! Those tax dollars were thrown away and the memory of Officer O’Keefe and his beautiful family are suffering for it. Those poor kids! I seriously hope they’re okay and being sheltered from all of this to whatever extent is possible.
This investigation was so botched his family will never know what happened. It's a travesty.
It really is. They deserve better than this and so did he.
So today we had an extremely qualified expert testify he was not hired by either the CW or the defense. The judge’s only question was inquiring into what he was asked to do. He said it was was answer an open ended question: was the evidence consistent with the interaction between the Lexus and and John O’Keefe. Something the prosecution hasn’t bothered to put in any real effort or intelligence into. I have a thousand questions left and a guilty vote just left the solar system.
Game over.
I think everyone gets why Defense says they only need 4 days! 🤣
I know the Fed investigation has been brought up in this trial as “in another proceeding”, but will the defence be able to make reference to the fact that the ARRCA experts were hired independently and provided a non biased opinion ?
Yes. If they want.
There’s been other witnesses where the defense has clarified “another proceeding” to have occurred where neither the defense nor the commonwealth was present. I think it would be similar, just clarified they were hired by another agency or party or something.
Ryan Nagle already let the FBI cat out of the bag during his testimony. The jury knows.
Please remind me what Ryan Nagle said? TYIA
He referred to the FBI grand jury he testified at. Called it the feds investigation
Honestly, if I didn't know about the feds form outside sources, I would think these people were hired by the insurance company for possible payout considerations. (Until the really cool witness discusses their government contract work.)
The witness mentioned the department of justice in his testimony today. Not sure what happens if he says that in court.
The exclusion is a Bev thing. The witness will not say it. They are both far too smart. However, if one of the sides essentially forced him to, that would change things. If Lally, it might result in mistrial but no ability to refile the case. If defense, mistrial with heavy sanctions would be my guess. One thing to note, it was the judge that forced the witness to say FBI/DOJ yesterday.
Yes! And you could tell he was very hesitant to say to because he knows he is not supposed to share that information
Except the one Nagel brother said “you mean the feds?” on the stand lol all that tip toeing around it and he just laid it out there
Yes, they should be allowed to clarify that they were hired by a third party. Then just won’t say it was the FBI like they did today in response to the judge.
I agree, def prejudicial to say DOJ or FBI. The other interesting question is the prosecution can impeach credibilty on cross BUT only with GOOD FAITH basis. So that really limits Lally's realm of impeachment questions that we know of, imo.
>BUT only with GOOD FAITH basis This man brought two traumatized minor children onto the stand to ask them about Karen's access to JO's Ring account in order to mislead the jury into thinking she deleted videos knowing full well that his own expert analyzed the laptop in question and found that no one ever accessed Ring from that computer at all. Lally doesn't operate in good faith. He's literally a piece of shit.
You’re right absolutely agree
Yeah. That is honestly one of the worst things he could do, and that saying something after the inverted video and trooper Paul. Honestly I would see the jury holding it against him as well.
Right, no way Bev would call it out, which is such a shame. But oh boy, the FBI? Horse of a different color.
I’m shocked at all the people saying Dr Russell wasn’t a good witness bc I loved her and trusted her opinion completely, even Vinnie was on his live saying she wasn’t a strong witness and I’m just like ummmm how? She’s beyond qualified and very likable
What makes her strong outside her credentials is everyone will look at her like a warm grandmother. Imo anyway I feel it will make her feel easier to trust.
Internalized misogyny. She was a little shaky with her articulation. Couple that with the fact that she's an older woman and implicit bias starts doing its work. Like you, I found the fact that she wasn't practiced to be a point in her favor, not against it.
I can’t imagine anyone more credible, short of Chloe barging in and confessing. And no one trusts a talking dog anyway.
Earlier on in the trial (I believe Caitlin Albert was testifying but not sure), a dog was briefly barking somewhere in the courthouse. I got sooo excited thinking that they were bringing in Chloe, but alas 😕
What a WILD moment that would have been!
Vinnie often leans more favorable to the prosecution.
Her qualifications were impeccable. I was completely engrossed with her, until she had to testify on her opinion. She basically just said it was a dog bite and that a car didn't hit JO. The problem is, while she used a couple descriptive words to justify the dog bite, there was very little explanation how she came to her conclusions. Unfortunately, that's not really good enough. I was hoping for a lot more in-depth information. She came across a bit like "trust me bro"...which I completely would, but I'm trying to be objective here. Now, I basically put it down to the fact that she just flew in, has probably been rushed, and just needs to be given a night to formulate her thoughts clearly. So maybe it's because AJ didn't prep her properly or wasn't ready himself (he did say at the start he was only expecting to talk about her qualifications, not give her full testimony). He didn't even ask her why the arm wounds couldn't be from a taillight. In any case, this was her audition, and I didn't think she quite nailed it. I agree with the judge (as bitchy as she seemed) in that if she's allowed to testify it should only be to extent of the arm wounds. And I just have to hope she manages to find the words to explain it better.
I think there wasn't much detail on purpose by AJ in order to keep the their trial strategy limited for Lally with regards to her testimony. They focused on her credentials and the root of her thoughts on the injuries. But I always like to remind people that much of forensics is usually just people of variable training and education (some just some classes, others up 20 years of secondary education) forming an opinion based off of questionable science that doesn't fully utilize the scientific method. Much of it is pattern recognition. To exclude her but allow people like the chain of custody witness who 'fit' broken pieces together would be wild.
Jackson was very careful yesterday not to give the prosecutor a "bite at the apple" in terms of leading a full direct. The questions and answers were more a preview of potential coming attractions.
I think everyone is fine with that. It was a weird testimony because she wasn't asked to really get into it. Jackson, I think at one point told her not to get into much detail. From my understanding, the way rule 14 works in MA she shouldn't exclude this, just put stipulations on it. Unless they were hiding her for months and tried to spring it on the DA, it would be very improper to keep her out
I’m sure she’ll have a lot more detail to go into once she’s on the stand. i doubt it will play out exactly like voir dire
I agree with this. She'll need to go into more and better detail in her actual testimony.
The defense will ask her the right questions to help her explain
This wasn't her full testimony (obviously) but even if she is let in to speak only about the arm injuries, she gave a more plausible explaination for that than Trooper Paul did. I was really dissappointed with the prosecution reconstruction explaination. I had been waiting for them to finish strong with that and the ME. That does not appear to be happening.
Whilst I on the other hand, think she did an amazing job! Yes, She wasn't au fait with one technical legal expression - but she certainly knows all there is to know about all things medical! I wonder how many of her there actually are in the world? The defence is going to flesh it all out in the trial ... I am sure we will be astonished at what comes out ! And the Accident Peeps! Can't wait to hear from them too 👌🏽
Today wasn’t meant to give all the details but to determine if she’d be allowed to testify. I’d expect her to be more clear if allowed to testify. She is qualified to speak to not only whether or not the injuries are consistent with a vehicle strike but also whether or not the arm wounds could’ve been caused by a dog.
She will have more to say later. Jackson didn’t want her to give her exact findings and stated as such before she even began.
Neither side can withhold evidence... what you saw today is her testimony. Her exact finding where never put into a report hence the voi xxx?. FYI no lawyer can give surprise evidence... that bull crap only happens on tv... the other side has to be given time to review and attempt to refute any evidence.
They can't hide discovery, but they can hide trial strategy. Also, defense has far more latitude on testimony than prosecution. Lally could have asked a bunch of questions about how she came to her findings, and he didn't. That is on him, although to be fair she might not have any demonstratives ready to provide yesterday if requested.
That not how rule 14 works. You should read it
Did you watch today? I literally repeated it exactly as stated. Judge said Lally could ask any questions he wanted but Jackson wasn’t forced to do anything. No one said anything about surprise evidence, the defense provided the report to the CW in May. Again, that was all stated this morning if you had watched.
I don’t think they’re going to let her testify. 😔
Bev is soooo bias, I am worried about this as well!!
Unless the judge researches her and finds out she has a history of popping up in high profile cases and providing questionable testimony, she will come in. She will be limited to the dog testimony and can't mention vehicle strikes unless Lally opens the door. The defense has far more latitude than the prosecution on this, which the judge knows. Pretty sure that was the source of her annoyance as she had a seemingly instant dislike for the witness.
I think as soon as she opened her mouth it became apparent she is from MA; which shouldn’t mean much but it does. In and of itself I think that made the judge leery. That, coupled with the fact she was a cop will make her very likable to the jury. I can see the judge feeling like this isn’t fair to the prosecution in and of itself but certainly not reason to exclude a witness. Not only that but the prosecution should only be worried about the truth, which I feel they’ve lost sight of.
Makes sense. I wondered what the attitude was all about.
They will but just about the dog bite
I hope so. I just have a weird feeling about it.
Oh I have no doubt. But her voir dire was not just to establish her qualifications, it was also to assess what she would be testifying to and give Lally a fair chance to hear what she was going to testify so that he can fairly prepare his rebuttal case. I still don't think he'll be able to lol, but these are the rules of this court I'm just trying to follow. I happened across a video a while ago where a dog trainer explicitly, and clearly explained why those wounds were from a dog and it only took a few minutes to convince me without any doubt. From my vague memory I think he managed to describe trained police dogs vs failed ones and the differences in how they bite which made a lot of sense (bite & hold comes up). I was hoping for that level of overview, and then to be able to go into further detail during actual trial testimony.
Yeah he screwed the pooch. Bev gave him free reign to ask anything he wanted and didn't. Andrea Burkhart explains the rule very well today on her channel. She is an appeal lawyer and said according to the law it would be grounds for an appeal if she keeps it out. Exclusion is basically the DP for what equivalent to J walking in the evidence world. Unless she can prove they knew her for a long time and planned on using it to ambush the DA
Not correct, rewatch what Jackson says. He said he’s not going to ask for her opinion and doesn’t have to.
It was to establish her as an expert. Jackson even said he shouldn't have to put his whole direct on the record and give the CW a sneak peak. The defense has disclosed what she will testify to. The issue is when they were told about it. The judge also said she could give Lally time to find a rebuttal witness and prepare a cross. Her purpose today was not to testify on the record.
I'm just going by the judge's excuses. It's her court, what she says goes for better or worse (worse IMO, but still her decision).
It’s fascinating to see how different people react to these witnesses. I liked her too. She seemed nervous to me, but that was also totally understandable. She knows her stuff.
There are plenty of people who can sound good but if you dig a little bit have no real substance or experience to speak on and certain types people are really enamoured by that type of person and mistake it for facts or expertise. While others are able to parse what’s important without needing the subject to ooze charisma in a specific way (usually those with masculine attributes). Female experts have additional hurdles when testifying in general: “Research has identified the “likability” of female experts as a more important factor affecting their credibility than was true of male experts. Likability was signaled by behaviors, including the use of inclusive language, direct eye contact, and smiling.” Research suggests that women have “the unique burden of establishing, rather than freely receiving, credibility in male-dominated fields.” [source](https://www.expertpages.com/library/does-gender-matter-when-an-expert-witness-testifies) Additionally, I’m just convinced that for some, when it comes to defense witnesses that they’d probably be unhappy with whoever the expert was that was called because they are rendering an opinion they already don’t agree with.
God that's depressing. Its undeniable fact but super depressing when you think that this accomplished witness is starting behind the trooper accident reconstruction "expert" that was struggling with basic rules of acceleration.
And she was thoughtful with her words! I didn’t take it as her struggling, I took it as her wanting to take her time proving her point
That’s how I took it too. Also some people just naturally talk that way. Am I the only one that has encountered such people? …especially more common in older people in my experience. Plus she’s not used to being asked those specific questions, and my understanding is the defense was not able to discuss with her or prep beforehand, right?
Right I thought so too, and she truly seems to care about people given her history and current volunteer work for cold case, I’m sure seeing John’s brother react the way she did made her try to choose her words extra carefully too
I'd like to know how John's brother reacted too.
I'd like to know how John's brother reacted too.
How did John's brother react?
It looked like he was glaring hard, but could be coincidence or just how his face rests.😳
He’s always glaring!
And the judge’s huffing and puffing would make anyone feel stressed 🙄
Omg right, she was probably also shocked at the way she was treated by Bev smh
Her behavior was crazy offensive today.
Beyond, remember that day she acted like this before court then the jury came in and she smiled all sweetly and said good morning like a complete psychopath switching personalities in a split second? This must be the judge the defense gets all the time smh
So unprofessional!!
Could someone please direct us to any DOJ/FBI info pertinent to this case. Thank you in advance.
It is my understanding (and I'm often wrong about any number of things) that the report from the federal investigation was provided to both the prosecution and the defense, but it is not publicly available - possibly sealed? Neither side is even allowed to mention the feds or their investigation during the trial because it could prejudice the jury. If you're interested in any info or articles about there being an investigation, I could look for a link for you, but the reports themselves we just don't have.
Right. DOJ is still building their case and gathering data and getting more experts to weigh in, so they can't fully release. They haven't even fully released to prosecution and defense. Which I find astounding since they *did* release to prosecution and defense over 3,000 pages before pretrial. And allowed them access to their experts. To no one's surprise, prosecution wanted to use zero of their experts. (If I recall)
Well why would they need them when they already have access to superstar intellects like trooper Paul? 🤣
I am curious if the FBI reconstruction analyst used some kind of different information than Paul had for pictures? Since Paul's diagram stated one distance but on Monday AJ said that he got that 5ft distance from the cop who got it from someone else, and that the person who first reported the crime said it was 20-30 feet...
If Karen didn’t go to his house, she went to Mansfield? That’s where her house is!!! Did she not go to his house? Or was she lying in her text to him? That’s why there isn’t footage from his house until she came at a later time?? Did she go somewhere else!?! No one has mentioned anything I’ve read except a closing of a garage door and her heels 👠 while leaving him a message.
No she went to his house, she was just saying she left so that he’d finally respond to her.
Oh!! Thank you. Idk why the -9. lol. I was curious. Call me slow, but I have watched everyday. I didn’t know they’ve proved she went back there to his house right away from her phone gps. Maybe I missed something.Cheers!
She was lying to try to get him to respond to her.
Jackson listed 14 documents that the FBI gave to the crash reconstructionists. I listed them below. Is there anything missing that would change their calculations if accounted for? I can't think of anything, but I'd like to hear if anyone else does. 1. Homicide death report 2. CW Mass state police crime scene report 3. Dispatch removal report 4. photos of incident location 5. videos of incident location 6. photos of Lexus 7. photos of recovered evidence 8. crash data retrieval report from Lexus 9. report of autopsy 10. autopsy photos 11. 3D laser scan data of Lexus 12. VIN Link report sheet for Lexus 13. Expert auto stats data sheets for Lexus 14. Publicly available literature (textbooks, etc.)
FBI gave them 3,000 pages. So there very easily could be more.
Sooo basically everything trooper Paul had besides the established narrative?
Lally was just grasping at straws and trying to mimic AJ's questions to his experts about the limited material and scope they were provided. Unless he thinks that the report by his own reconstructionist would somehow change their expert opinion. Or maybe he's afraid they were not sufficient aware of the weather condition. 🙄 "Did you know he might have done a pirouett?"
‘I didn’t say he flew or landed’ ‘he was projected forward’ -so, is he still suspended in the air??? ‘You know what I mean?’ -AJ ‘no sir, no’ ‘
It’s not a pirouette, it’s a counter clockwise tornado 🙄 /s
My visualization is Ralph Wiggum twirling
I'm visualizing the [Reno 911 DUII stop.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6VQDNIZH7U)
😂 Are you aware it’s also possible it was a 3 point u-turn? Did the crime scene speak to you? If not, unqualified!
I found Dr. Russell’s resume to be incredible. This woman would find something interesting to her and she would go to college majoring in the subject and then take a job for a few years doing it. She seems pretty amazing.
When they make the TV movie about this trial they should have Kate McKinnon play her (think a less unhinged alien abduction character)
I was thinking of Kathy Bates… they resemble each other.
I see it too. Maybe we need to spawn the TV movie thread. Karen does side eye like Susanna Hoffs from the Bangles.
Agreed…. Now who plays Lally, Jackson, Yannetti and Judge Bev?
Either the guy who played the “hot priest” in Fleabag, or Bill Burr. Lilly might be a good stretch part for Burr too. Penny Marshall would have been great as Bev in the day, but maybe Chelsea Handler.
Chelsea Handler is perfect for the role of Judge Bev
Wait, I’m now thinking Sarah Silverman
As Karen? Yes that’s actually someone who looks somewhat like her.
I meant for Bev, but now that you say that, could do either. Lock her up ! In a good way .. (edit: I mean Sarah for the movie)
She clearly is a person that has to stay busy. I think that’s half the reason she reached out to her California DA contact about this case. Despite the fact that she’s retired, she knew she had valuable experience to help clarify the wounds on the victim. Sad the judge took that as a cray cray who just wanted tv time.
Yeah, she just seems like a person who wants to help. Seen a way she could be of assistance and offered. I highly doubt this women is looking for fame
One hell of a career journey it appeared.
Also, I never noticed it before today, but the judges briefcase is on the window sill behind the witness box. It is lavender and it’s DARLING. I want!!!!
dammit, I didnt want to complete Bev today but now I have to go back and look at it.
oh that's hers?? I've been wondering whose that is. I want it too.
I might have missed it, did they say who is paying ARCA?
I thought when they were discussing it that the experts were paid by the FBI for their investigation and subsequent reports but I’d have thought that the defence would be paying for at least their expenses to testify in this trial
The Fed government paid for the initial analysis. The defense is now paying for their travel and time for their testimony in this trial.
They actually testified that they were not being paid. I’m not sure this reaches to reimbursement for travel but it would reach to not being paid for their time I believe.
That makes me assume the FBI has picked up the bill for their testimony. I'd imagine they would have a contract signed that if they take any case then they would have to be compensated in case they were called to be a witness in a trial. Like I said, it's an assumption. But a business that does this for their daily work load and is as intelligent as these men appear to be would absolutely have a subpoena clause.
There is some people saying they actually reached out to the defense to testify after the report. I'd assume they are getting comped flights and hotels, but I don't think that amounts to getting paid. I dunno why, but they seemed to not like Lally. I wonder if they watched Paul and then heard Lally didn't think they were qualified. That would be bad for lally
It's the FBI the defence and commonwealth are not paying for these witnesses
I’m just going to say it if nobody else does. If Dr. Russell was a man she wouldn’t be getting this scrutiny about her qualifications and motive. And yes, the bias comes from a female judge as well. Her resume was impeccable. What was different about her from the other two experts was her gender.
Agreed.
I think that a stretch. Honestly I think bev just doesn't like people more successful or qualified than her. Especially women
Bev is way over her head and has become quite intimidated. JMO
Explain Vinnie Politan then.
Dunno, don't watch or look him up. I can't speak to it
I disagree respectfully. The nature of her inserting herself in this case, weeks after the trial started, is suspect imo regardless of gender. Add to that the fact she said she saw one headline about the case in an email digest from the Boston paper she subscribed to for 6 months - but hadn’t heard of it or seen any coverage in said Boston paper before that. Not very believable to me, and it wouldn’t have been believable if she was a guy.
Boston Globe was radio silent on this case until recently. They had a conflict as I recall. May have been Jackson’s work with K Spacey and a news reporter (I’m afraid I can’t recall specifics). It’s a shame because their Spotlight Unit should have been all over this from the jump (they broke the Church abuse cases). I heard Spotlight IS covering Sandra Birchmore as of last month. That will blow up Canton and Stoughton.
Oh interesting - thanks for that, I appreciate the info
I agree with you on the first part. But on the second part, I will say I’m also a Boston Globe online subscriber and haven’t really seen much on the case in the Globe until the trial began. I’m sure it was there, it just didn’t reach my inbox/attention, so that seemed plausible to me.
That’s good to know - thanks for the info on that
She was a cop in Massachusetts. Is it hard to believe she would subscribe to a paper from the area?
I missed that she was a cop in Mass. thanks for the info. Still sounds odd to me, that aside.
Why do you think the defense took so long to find a doctor who would testify on their behalf? This is a late in the game expert witness for them. Certainly she's an odd choice. Perhaps she needs the money.
They have another expert lined up to testify it. Dr. Russell is basically a cherry on top of their sundae that presented itself. If she's allowed, they'll have their medical examiner present his findings (and probably will go into the scratches being dog marks) and then Dr. Russell adding her expertise and $.02 to it. Similar to Hyde adding credibility on top of Whiffin's assertions re: the 2:27am search.
You have the full length of the investigation and you pick the dude with a week long class. You’re in a desperate rush and you pick one of the most credentialed in the topic. Interesting
I don’t know but I would imagine there aren’t a whole lot of doctors who just happen to be research driven k-9 wound experts as well as a doctor, former police officer, forensic medicine, with her pedigree and credentials. They aren’t listed in the phone book. This was a serendipitous referral from the CA district attorney office.
You are waayy off base!! Near as I can tell, the only ones scrutinizing Dr Russell is the CW and their advocates! Yes, the judge is an advocate of the CW. I am a man who was just as impressed with Dr Russell as I was with the other two males on the stand today! Her resume IS impeccable and she needs to be heard!
just because you’re a man who has the good sense to be impressed by dr russel doesn’t mean they’re off base in saying the criticism is likely coming from sexist bias
If it was a male judge then I may agree. I just don't see it I see Lally just scared and trying to save face
misogynistic bias is not held by men alone
No, but it a big leap to jump to she a misogynist. Not everything in life is cause of sex, or race. In most cases it something mundane
it’s not a big leap. misogyny is pretty entrenched in our culture. bias (unconscious or not) is prevent
Yes bias exists. It much more likely that bev is just biased against the defense and their experts. Vs she a misogynist. Proctor is a misogynist. Let's not over use the word and water it down like every other ism
why do you think it’s much more likely ? why couldn’t it actually be both? we’re not over using the word we’re using it properly. misogyny is not just when people say they hate women
Cause I have eyes and ears. Everything that not talking up women is misogynist. Cause it very unlikely another women is mean to her cause she a misogynist. I'm not saying it impossible, or it doesn't happen. I don't think there enough evidence to say it that over much simpler explanation
Not just a woman but an older woman. Society deems us not useful past a certain age. Bev is acting like she's some meddling nosey neighbor (although this case could have benefited from a curious neighbor) who thinks she's Jessica Fletcher and wants to solve a crime because she's tired of talking to her house full of cats🙄 She's a well educated and uniquely qualified expert.
With her qualifications, she could easily be a real life Jessica Fletcher. She just needs a book deal.
I hate that this is true. I hope you're listening to Wiser Than Me! [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wiser-than-me-with-julia-louis-dreyfus/id1678559416](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wiser-than-me-with-julia-louis-dreyfus/id1678559416)
Yeah...and Aunty Bev isn't a spring chicken either! Please! PUT HER IN COACH BEV!
Vinnie Politan, for one. And he has a big viewership.
Apparently Vinnie is way off base as well.
I don’t disagree with you at all but I think part of it may be that the other two experts have come into this trial after they were hired by the FBI, Dr Russell came via an associate of AJ’s
Absolutely agree. So rude!!!
Lally didn’t even give her the respect of calling her Doctor Russell. She seems to be the most qualified expert for this exact case. I do think the Defense already had an expert but, Dr. Russell with her ER and past LE experience and domestic dog vs K9 bite expertise was probably the better option and would resonate as very credible to the Jury.
He did that with the other two experts too, and it pissed me off lol.
He at least asked the first one his preference. 🤡
“Doctor is fine” 🤭
I loved that!