Sidebars are required for 3/4 of the day each day LOL.Hello there!
The guide was in a different vehicle and all he (the plow driver) was asked re him was whether he'd informed the defense investigator of his existance.
Re the basketball hoop, as I recall, he hadn't even remembered where it was...
Yeah, I don't think I've seen so many sidebars since the Simpson trial.![]()
The D atty should also be disbarred after trial or a serious complaint put in over the entire ARCCA thing.I'd really been looking forward to Brennan's cross exam of that phoney from ARCCA but I never imagined it could be anywhere near as good as it was!
It was such a pleasure to watch, I'm gonna watch it again!
Re the defense, I've never seen such sleaze!The D atty should also be disbarred after trial or a serious complaint put in over the entire ARCCA thing.
Yeah, I was not impressed with this D expert either. The P's was far better. This guy was boring as heck during direct and just not impressive and then Brennan dismantled him. I enjoyed every minute of that. Might have to watch again as well.
D has one not a single thing in this trial imo.
KR read said they will likely be done early this week and unless they've got something big I'd say she's in very hot water. That of course is IF the jury truly knows nothing prior and so on.
It's been a bit enjoyable being it is a fair trial this time. I'm still ready for it to end. I'm sick of her as I'm sick of Lori Daybell. I want their faces gone.
Yeah it's lucky they were not entirely denied. I guess it's luck, I don't think them that great.Re the defense, I've never seen such sleaze!
Re ARCCA, from where I sit, whomever hired them in the first place is either very ignorant or very sketchy.
Do you think ARCCA was hired because the ME was clueless? (Too bad, so sad but true, lol)Yeah it's lucky they were not entirely denied. I guess it's luck, I don't think them that great.
Jackson is lucky he was sanctioned and sent packing. I don't think it's over yet though. I suspect some of that may come after trial. Judge was MORE than fair to him considering what he did.
As I said I'm ready for it to be over. Supposed to be wrapping up shortly supposedly.
I agree. I guess the thing is it isn't unusual to do it for a jury and then they have the D trying to paint a fairytale and say such didn't happen and so...The thing is, I've never needed anybody- whether it's an ME or a Trooper Paul- to explain to me what happened and it's beyond me why anyone would.
I'm saying I don't understand why the FBI hired ARCCA.I agree. I guess the thing is it isn't unusual to do it for a jury and then they have the D trying to paint a fairytale and say such didn't happen and so...
I heard it all, watched those hearings but don't count on me remembering. I agree that it seems odd to me, they hire them and the D ends up with them. I guess that in and of itself isn't impossible but the sh*t they pulled when the D had them was downright dirty imo.I'm saying I don't understand why the FBI hired ARCCA.
The jury need to hear what happened though based on facts, witnesses, LE and experts plus also the defendant if she testifies. If she doesn't, then the other witnesses' evidence becomes more important, as well as what the defendant has said in interviews and to witnesses. The most damning is her saying to witnesses, "I did it, I did it, I did it!" I cannot see who is left now to testify.The thing is, I've never needed anybody- whether it's an ME or a Trooper Paul- to explain to me what happened and it's beyond me why anyone would.
I heard it all, watched those hearings but don't count on me remembering. I agree that it seems odd to me, they hire them and the D ends up with them. I guess that in and of itself isn't impossible but the sh*t they pulled when the D had them was downright dirty imo.
I wish I recalled more. Did they bring them into assist with something? I mean the feds would never be calling in people to then be taken over as D witnesses. It was in the hearings. Pretty certain. Not sure ALL was explained, just don't recall.
I don't know why you both think I'm referring to the trial- I'm not- I'm referring to the FBI investigation.The jury need to hear what happened though based on facts, witnesses, LE and experts plus also the defendant if she testifies. If she doesn't, then the other witnesses' evidence becomes more important, as well as what the defendant has said in interviews and to witnesses. The most damning is her saying to witnesses, "I did it, I did it, I did it!" I cannot see who is left now to testify.
You said you didn't know why anyone would need it explaining to them. That's what i was answering. They are trying to convince a jury who know zero about the case.I don't know why you both think I'm referring to the trial- I'm not- I'm referring to the FBI investigation.
Now, I don't know how and / or why they became involved in the case in the first place but I was asking for an opinion as to why they (FBI) hired ARCCA.
Bringing this forward as it seems to explain why feds were involved in this case. There was/is a separate federal investigation going on. Higgins is a federal agent.You get one free article, but here:
DEDHAM — During a hearing Tuesday in the Karen Read murder trial, a defense expert testified that the injuries on her police officer boyfriend’s right arm were “consistent with a large dog attack.”
“Those injuries appear to be consistent with a large animal attack,” retired California emergency room physician Marie Russell testified after looking at an autopsy photo of the right arm of Read’s boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.
Asked by defense lawyer Alan Jackson to further explain her opinion, Russell, who is also a retired pathologist and a former police officer, said the injuries “are consistent with a large dog attack.”
Russell’s testimony in Dedham Superior Court and that of two accident reconstruction experts took place without the jury present. Whether they will get to offer their opinions during the high profile trial of Read, 44, of Mansfield, will be up to Judge Beverly Cannone.
The judge said she would decide on Thursday whether the witnesses will get to take the stand when the defense presents its case. The jury returns to court Thursday to hear more prosecution testimony.
Read is accused of intentionally backing her Lexus SUV into O’Keefe, 46, outside the Canton home of another Boston police officer on Jan. 29, 2022, after a night of barhopping, then leaving O’Keefe to die in a snowstorm.
Read has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and two related charges and claims she is being framed as part of a wide-ranging conspiracy by law enforcement with close ties to Canton and state police.
Her lawyers have argued that O’Keefe was beaten in the basement of the house, owned by Boston police officer Brian Albert, and attacked by a pet German shepherd mix after Read dropped him off for an after party.
Russell said she reviewed autopsy photos and the medical examiner’s report and determined the marks on O’Keefe’s arm were scratches and bite marks from a large dog and that holes in his clothing were caused when the dog bit him.
Russell’s opinion appears to contradict the earlier testimony of a forensic scientist from the University of California, Davis veterinary genetics lab who found no canine DNA on clothing worn by O’Keefe.
Russell said she did not review the veterinarian’s findings or records related to Chloe, the pet dog owned by Brian and Nicole Albert, who the couple testified they “rehomed” in Vermont after it bit a woman.
Her conclusion also contradicts a state police accident reconstruction expert who testified Monday that O’Keefe’s arm injuries were caused when Read struck him with her SUV and her right rear taillight broke apart.
Prosecutor Adam Lally argued that Russell should not be allowed to testify because he was only notified by the defense about her last month while the trial was in its sixth week of testimony.
Lally also said Russell did not review police or lab reports, the veterinarian’s findings about the lack of canine DNA or Chloe’s “bite history,” which included photographs.
During his argument, Jackson said he did not know Russell and was contacted only recently by a friend in the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office who Russell called when she read about the case.
The defense lawyer said he sent the information about Chloe and the veterinarian’s findings but did not know why Russell did not review them.
Despite only recently learning about Russell after the trial started, Jackson said she should not be excluded because Read has a right to rebut the opinions of witnesses for the prosecution who say O’Keefe’s injuries were caused by being struck by Read’s SUV.
If she decides to allow Russell to testify, Cannone said she will allow the prosecution to call a witness to rebut her opinion.
The judge is also considering whether to allow testimony from two accident reconstruction experts who work for a private company and were hired by the FBI as part of a separate federal probe into Read’s case.
The witnesses, Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler, testified Tuesday about their credentials and experience but were not asked about their opinions.
They work for ARCCA Inc., a forensic engineering company in Pennsylvania, and prepared a report for the FBI. The confidential report was given earlier to the defense and the prosecution.
During a pretrial hearing in March, Jackson said the experts hired by the FBI determined O’Keefe’s injuries “were inconsistent” with being struck by Read’s SUV.
The U.S. attorney’s office has declined to comment on its investigation.
And I don't know why you think I meant the trial, just because it came up in hearings doesn't mean it didn't go into why the feds had them in the first place. That's exactly what it was about, I just can't recall it all. I was talking of hearings, not trial. If I could recall, I'd tell you, I did say it could likely be found, it was gotten into somewhat in pretrial hearings. NOT trial, and about over the last things. I'm sure it could be found. As much as they've talked of and that's been let out anyhow. I've taken in too much from too many trials and pretrial hearings and more. I don't have the answer. I did offer my guesses.I don't know why you both think I'm referring to the trial- I'm not- I'm referring to the FBI investigation.
Now, I don't know how and / or why they became involved in the case in the first place but I was asking for an opinion as to why they (FBI) hired ARCCA.
She's talking about why the feds called them in and then the D took them.You said you didn't know why anyone would need it explaining to them. That's what i was answering. They are trying to convince a jury who know zero about the case.
I don't know why the FBI were involved but would guess it is because an LE officer was the victim.