It’s a shame they don’t have a majority vote in jurys.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Correct. It stores 200 calls. She rolled 200+ calls within a few days of the event. That’s…a lot.
Yes, this thread Is just confirming my belief that the only ever outcome with this case will be a hung jury and mistrial. It is so divided!
There were meant to have been problems between Colin Albert and John O’Keefe and Helena Rafferty confirmed John had reported something to do with drug activity in the area. Whether that’s linked or not I don’t know.
It’s weird that the Alberts didn’t come out at all, there was enough commotion to wake the neighbours across the street so you’d think they’d hear it when it’s in their own front yard
Didn’t go to his funeral, nothing in their texts about concern for him or his family but they did text about “tell them the guy never came in the house” and “if she takes a plea this will all go away” before Karen was even arrested.
There’s absolutely no confirmation of who went to his funeral though, so that’s just speculation. I am sure it was Matt McCabe who texted that to Jen. They did read out some texts that expressed concern but it wouldn’t be in the defences interest to have done thatThere were meant to have been problems between Colin Albert and John O’Keefe and Helena Rafferty confirmed John had reported something to do with drug activity in the area. Whether that’s linked or not I don’t know.
It’s weird that the Alberts didn’t come out at all, there was enough commotion to wake the neighbours across the street so you’d think they’d hear it when it’s in their own front yard
Didn’t go to his funeral, nothing in their texts about concern for him or his family but they did text about “tell them the guy never came in the house” and “if she takes a plea this will all go away” before Karen was even arrested.
This isn’t my work, but it’s a very good read.
This is long but really interesting and from [email protected]
"While the witness testimony over the last two days was relatively uneventful (largely just a repeat of expert testimony provided in the first trial), the arguments between counsel outside of the jury’s presence have been fascinating to watch and highly significant.
At issue was the most significant datapoint yet to be presented at the trial, specifically the precise timing of the so-called “trigger event” in which Karen Read’s SUV accelerated rapidly in reverse and – according to the prosecution – collided with John O’Keefe. As I noted in a previous post, the analysis of John’s phone paints a pretty clear picture of when he arrived at 34 Fairview, when he got out of the SUV, and when he and his phone stopped moving. These time points are known down to the second. What has yet to be presented is the prosecution’s evidence (derived from the Lexus’s onboard computer system) as to when the collision occurred.
At the end of the session on Thursday, the defense (via Robert Alessi) asserted that the prosecution had “changed” its story at the last second via a supplemental expert report. He stated that the prosecution was now claiming that the collision occurred at 12:32:16 (the exact same time that John’s phone recorded its last movement) as opposed to 12:31:43, which he claimed had been the time stated in prior reports. He asserted that this late-breaking change amounted to a Rule 14 discovery violation and that it badly prejudiced the defense’s case because they had already spent a lot of time on cross-examination of key witnesses (in particular Ian Whiffin) developing testimony that John had been alive and operating his phone after the supposed time of the collision. He claimed that the only way to remedy this violation was to exclude expert testimony about the magnitude of this “time variance” and the explanation of that variance provided in the recently amended report.
Unsurprisingly, the folks in FKR world took all of these claims at face value and are now completely bent out of shape about the supposedly dirty tactics of the prosecution and their attempt at “trial by ambush.”
With the caveat that all we know about this dispute is what Alessi and Brennan said in court (the expert reports are not public information), there is every reason to believe that the defense’s claims are deeply misleading.
First, as Brennan noted in court, it’s clear that the prosecution has always asserted that there was a time variance between the timestamps taken from the Lexus data and the timestamps from John’s phone. Brennan made exactly this point in his opening statement, in which he said the following.
"We also have the information from the defendant's Lexus black box. The clocks run differently, there's a 30 second variance, but it's right in the heart of that time. And you will see through the data, at that time, when he makes the last movements with the phone, is when her car leaves, 34 ft at least, stops, neutral, and then shoots into reverse..."
So the notion that the prosecution somehow sandbagged the defense into believing that the prosecution’s theory was that the collision happened at 12:31:43 is absolutely ludicrous. As Brennan noted in court today, the prosecution has always been clear (via its expert reports) that it believed the two clocks were off from one another, that there was a variance of roughly 30 seconds. What appears to have happened here is that – per Brennan – the defense offered an expert report arguing that there is no time variance and, in the process of analyzing and rebutting that report, the prosecution’s expert was able to put a more precise value on the magnitude of the variance (apparently between 21-25 seconds, as opposed to 30 seconds).
I absolutely think that Judge Cannone made the right call by ruling against the defense on this. The notion that the prosecution is “changing its theory” is absurd. There’s no question that its theory is (and has always been) that John and his phone stopped moving because John was hit by the SUV. So the variance between the clocks was obviously always going to be a point of dispute and an issue explored by the parties in their respective experts’ testimony. It would be absurd to bar the prosecution’s expert from explaining why he thinks there is a variance and what he estimates that variance to be. Both sides have had access to all the same raw data for quite a while and the point of calling these experts to help analyze its meaning. Hamstringing just the prosecution expert’s analysis would not be reasonable under the circumstances.
But the buried lede here is that the defense no longer seems to have any real answer to the Lexus data. In the first trial, in part due to the bungled presentation and analysis of this data by the prosecution, the defense was effectively able to argue that the rapid reversal trigger event could have happened at a completely different time and place, that the prosecution hadn’t established that they were even focused on the right “key cycle.”
Implicit in the legal argument we witnessed today, however, is the fact that this argument seems to have been put to bed. Both sides have now referred several times to timestamps from the Lexus’ “infotainment system.” So it seems pretty clear that the prosecution can now establish that the trigger event occurred in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022, within 30 seconds of the time when John’s phone recorded its last movement.
So even if the prosecution can’t conclusively establish the existence or magnitude of a time variance between the Lexus’ clock and the clock in John’s iPhone, the defense is forced to assert that the close proximity of these two events is purely coincidence, that John was somehow attacked by others (or at least had his iPhone taken from him) within 30 seconds of Karen throwing her SUV into a rapid reversal. That’s a really tough story to sell to a jury, particularly when you take into account all of the other evidence.
To tell a remotely coherent story, the defense will need to argue that John got out of the Lexus sometime just before the non-adjusted trigger event time of 12:31:43 (which, by the way, is not at all consistent with his Apple Health data, which shows its first post-arrival movement at 12:31:56). He would then have to have walked straight into the house or garage and immediately been set upon by his attackers and/or had his phone taken from him. Either way, the phone needs to have spent the rest of the night in a “pocket state” (camera covered), in a cold environment, and not moving. To reconcile the GPS data, the phone would also need to have (shortly thereafter) made its way back to the flagpole area without recording any movement and somehow have been shielded from the elements until John’s body was later dragged outside and placed on top of it.
Needless to say, these are not the ingredients of a story that makes even the tiniest bit of sense.
Given the way the prosecution face-planted in the last trial in its presentation of the techstream evidence and crash reconstruction expert testimony, I don’t want to get too far ahead of the trial and assume the prosecution’s presentation of this evidence will be as compelling as it seems like it should be. But I am beginning to wonder why the defense felt this was a winnable case. I expect that whatever ARCCA presents will sound at least superficially plausible, but in order for that type of testimony to convince jurors, the defense needs to at least offer some kind of plausible alternative theory. And I’m just not sure at this point that it’s possible to even construct such a theory."
This is long but really interesting and from [email protected]
"While the witness testimony over the last two days was relatively uneventful (largely just a repeat of expert testimony provided in the first trial), the arguments between counsel outside of the jury’s presence have been fascinating to watch and highly significant.
At issue was the most significant datapoint yet to be presented at the trial, specifically the precise timing of the so-called “trigger event” in which Karen Read’s SUV accelerated rapidly in reverse and – according to the prosecution – collided with John O’Keefe. As I noted in a previous post, the analysis of John’s phone paints a pretty clear picture of when he arrived at 34 Fairview, when he got out of the SUV, and when he and his phone stopped moving. These time points are known down to the second. What has yet to be presented is the prosecution’s evidence (derived from the Lexus’s onboard computer system) as to when the collision occurred.
At the end of the session on Thursday, the defense (via Robert Alessi) asserted that the prosecution had “changed” its story at the last second via a supplemental expert report. He stated that the prosecution was now claiming that the collision occurred at 12:32:16 (the exact same time that John’s phone recorded its last movement) as opposed to 12:31:43, which he claimed had been the time stated in prior reports. He asserted that this late-breaking change amounted to a Rule 14 discovery violation and that it badly prejudiced the defense’s case because they had already spent a lot of time on cross-examination of key witnesses (in particular Ian Whiffin) developing testimony that John had been alive and operating his phone after the supposed time of the collision. He claimed that the only way to remedy this violation was to exclude expert testimony about the magnitude of this “time variance” and the explanation of that variance provided in the recently amended report.
Unsurprisingly, the folks in FKR world took all of these claims at face value and are now completely bent out of shape about the supposedly dirty tactics of the prosecution and their attempt at “trial by ambush.”
With the caveat that all we know about this dispute is what Alessi and Brennan said in court (the expert reports are not public information), there is every reason to believe that the defense’s claims are deeply misleading.
First, as Brennan noted in court, it’s clear that the prosecution has always asserted that there was a time variance between the timestamps taken from the Lexus data and the timestamps from John’s phone. Brennan made exactly this point in his opening statement, in which he said the following.
"We also have the information from the defendant's Lexus black box. The clocks run differently, there's a 30 second variance, but it's right in the heart of that time. And you will see through the data, at that time, when he makes the last movements with the phone, is when her car leaves, 34 ft at least, stops, neutral, and then shoots into reverse..."
So the notion that the prosecution somehow sandbagged the defense into believing that the prosecution’s theory was that the collision happened at 12:31:43 is absolutely ludicrous. As Brennan noted in court today, the prosecution has always been clear (via its expert reports) that it believed the two clocks were off from one another, that there was a variance of roughly 30 seconds. What appears to have happened here is that – per Brennan – the defense offered an expert report arguing that there is no time variance and, in the process of analyzing and rebutting that report, the prosecution’s expert was able to put a more precise value on the magnitude of the variance (apparently between 21-25 seconds, as opposed to 30 seconds).
I absolutely think that Judge Cannone made the right call by ruling against the defense on this. The notion that the prosecution is “changing its theory” is absurd. There’s no question that its theory is (and has always been) that John and his phone stopped moving because John was hit by the SUV. So the variance between the clocks was obviously always going to be a point of dispute and an issue explored by the parties in their respective experts’ testimony. It would be absurd to bar the prosecution’s expert from explaining why he thinks there is a variance and what he estimates that variance to be. Both sides have had access to all the same raw data for quite a while and the point of calling these experts to help analyze its meaning. Hamstringing just the prosecution expert’s analysis would not be reasonable under the circumstances.
But the buried lede here is that the defense no longer seems to have any real answer to the Lexus data. In the first trial, in part due to the bungled presentation and analysis of this data by the prosecution, the defense was effectively able to argue that the rapid reversal trigger event could have happened at a completely different time and place, that the prosecution hadn’t established that they were even focused on the right “key cycle.”
Implicit in the legal argument we witnessed today, however, is the fact that this argument seems to have been put to bed. Both sides have now referred several times to timestamps from the Lexus’ “infotainment system.” So it seems pretty clear that the prosecution can now establish that the trigger event occurred in the early morning hours of January 29, 2022, within 30 seconds of the time when John’s phone recorded its last movement.
So even if the prosecution can’t conclusively establish the existence or magnitude of a time variance between the Lexus’ clock and the clock in John’s iPhone, the defense is forced to assert that the close proximity of these two events is purely coincidence, that John was somehow attacked by others (or at least had his iPhone taken from him) within 30 seconds of Karen throwing her SUV into a rapid reversal. That’s a really tough story to sell to a jury, particularly when you take into account all of the other evidence.
To tell a remotely coherent story, the defense will need to argue that John got out of the Lexus sometime just before the non-adjusted trigger event time of 12:31:43 (which, by the way, is not at all consistent with his Apple Health data, which shows its first post-arrival movement at 12:31:56). He would then have to have walked straight into the house or garage and immediately been set upon by his attackers and/or had his phone taken from him. Either way, the phone needs to have spent the rest of the night in a “pocket state” (camera covered), in a cold environment, and not moving. To reconcile the GPS data, the phone would also need to have (shortly thereafter) made its way back to the flagpole area without recording any movement and somehow have been shielded from the elements until John’s body was later dragged outside and placed on top of it.
Needless to say, these are not the ingredients of a story that makes even the tiniest bit of sense.
Given the way the prosecution face-planted in the last trial in its presentation of the techstream evidence and crash reconstruction expert testimony, I don’t want to get too far ahead of the trial and assume the prosecution’s presentation of this evidence will be as compelling as it seems like it should be. But I am beginning to wonder why the defense felt this was a winnable case. I expect that whatever ARCCA presents will sound at least superficially plausible, but in order for that type of testimony to convince jurors, the defense needs to at least offer some kind of plausible alternative theory. And I’m just not sure at this point that it’s possible to even construct such a theory."
Anonymasslawyer is Kevin from Yellow Cottage Tales, he was FKR and flipped for attention from Kate Peter - MassholeMafia. He keeps claiming there will be a chip off and it doesn’t come to fruition. He’s not even a lawyer he’s a bartender 
Attachments
Well in that case it’s a shame there are so many money making ghouls attaching themselves to this case. She should have been put away last year and none of this would be happening.Anonymasslawyer is Kevin from Yellow Cottage Tales, he was FKR and flipped for attention from Kate Peter - MassholeMafia. He keeps claiming there will be a chip off and it doesn’t come to fruition. He’s not even a lawyer he’s a bartender
In the Amazon documentary, John's friends said that Karen was well liked. She spoiled John's niece and nephew and they loved hanging out with her
That’s not exactly how the niece and nephew testified to
and Karen by her own admission didn’t want the responsibility of the kids.If there's a snowstorm brewing.....make it look he was hit by a snow plough???? They couldn't move him far on a residential street in case there were cameras. Didn't someone park their Ford at the front of where John was found? Also, did Jen McCabe ring her sister (Nicole) at 5am? Was this before Karen rang her?
I know they testified differently now.....but, they would if they held the belief that John has been killed by herThat’s not exactly how the niece and nephew testified to
I was more meaning the actual factual elements; a lot was made of the fact that Karen would take the niece to get her nails done - she clarified that Karen would take her once a month and drop her off there. Not exactly the cosy bonding experience it was painted to be. She also exposed them to verbal abuse on more than one occasion and refused to leave their home even after John requested numerous times.
And after she had woke up the girl screaming at 4.30am, she then left them alone and did not once check on them again, only Jen McCabe did.
At the grand jury the nephew testified that during a meal Karen was really mad at him and called him spoiled for not wanting to eat steak tips. Karen had a video of this and it was them having friendly banter.That’s not exactly how the niece and nephew testified to
Yannetti tried to stop this line of questioning at a sidebar during the first trial because they had a video that proved it to be untrue. The video was given over to the CW during discovery so then the story was changed from steak tips to takeout so they could get around the video.
There’s a narc element to ‘spoiling’ kids too much and together with johns texts to her, it seems it was an ongoing point of contention where he had repeatedly asked her not to buy them things or promise them things. So she was disrespecting his parenting approach and doing what she wanted.
Would that be the same Yannetti who said ‘it was a tragic accident. My client had no intent to harm. She feels terrible about this’.
Seems a strange turn of phrase for a client who didn’t do anything
I suspect there were loads of disparaging messages about KR, poking fun at her, calling her all sorts and black humour about her similar that those found on Trooper Proctor's phone, so they decided to ditch the phones sooner than have those messages exposed.
I really don't believe that men who have spent their working lives in the service of the police would suddenly kill a friend and dump the body outside. They would have had to carry the body past several people who would be horrified and wouldn't join in a cover up. Just think about it, visualize it, it's a massive leap of the imagination.
And KR herself said she pulled a little shard of glass from John O'Keefes nose, are we to believe that he broke the glass and pushed the bit into his own face?
- Status