Karen Read and Aidan Kearney (aka Turtleboy) Sued for Defamation —

Lead attorney, Chris Mattei, who represented the Sandy Hook Families vs Alex Jones, is now representing witnesses in the Karen Read trial.

The lawsuit claims that Turtleboy has not only relentlessly referred to the witnesses as ‘murderers’, spread misinformation and conspiracy propaganda, but he has benefited financially from this abuse.

Evidence of Karen Read’s involvement in the efforts to defame, and hold a dark cloud of suspicion over the witnesses to avoid her own accountability is also explained in the lawsuit.

Here’s a LINK to the entire filling.

And here’s a short video regarding the impacts of online conspiracy propaganda.

Leaked Messages and Audio of Karen Read & Aidan Kearney —

The lawsuit highlights some of the concerning communications from Turtleboy’s digital extraction which was leaked online.

For example…

Karen shares her excitement that not only has Aidan damaged the witnesses reputations, but that a witness’ family business is the next casualty.

She’s also exclaiming about what Aidan has done to HER potential jury pool.

The most recent audio leak is of Karen Read yelling at Turtleboy.

What we can gain from the audio quote…

1. While Adam Deitch was a sitting US attorney, he was privately conversing with murder defendant, Karen Read. [Note: Deitch’s campaign manager, Michael Lohnes, is married to a former classmate of Karen Read, Tricia Paruti Dicker. Dicker’s twin sister is federal prosecutor, Anne Paruti.]

2. Someone was giving the drunk driver-murder defendant non-public information that she was then ‘leaking’ to Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy).

I highly recommend watching this short documentary which dives deeper into these concerns.

UPDATES on the Pepperdine4 Case:

I’ve been asked for a brief status update regarding the vehicular-homicide case in Malibu, CA. If you need a summary or refresher, here is the article link.

As we know…

The tides of justice can move very slowly at times, and unfortunately the families of these 4 precious lost lives are having to endure the seemingly endless wait.

A trial date is yet to be set, however, it is hopefully on the horizon soon.

There was a win for the victims in regard to the charges remaining as they are. The defense was asking for the Murder2 charge to be dropped (leaving manslaughter as the highest charge), which was denied in both state court, as well as in the Supreme Court appeal.

Please keep the families in your prayers.

Here is the website for this case.

I wanted to drop in to your inbox real quickly to let you know that I’ve teamed up with several other victim advocates (who I admire greatly), and we’ve been discussing the online abuse that so many people have endured regarding the Karen Read case.

We also have future episodes planned to cover the always-evolving conspiracy nonsense, as well as Karen Read PR efforts to put out curated info (filled with omissions, speculations, and misleading narratives) in order to point the finger at a plethora of people (including medics, firefighters, a SERT team, law enforcement, witnesses (and even their own kids) as participating in a coverup to allegedly frame her for recklessly driving.

The last few weeks we’ve covered the lies and omissions in Karen Read’s current lawsuit complaint…

AND we still didn’t have time to get to ALL the disinformation.

If you missed the episodes, you can find them here at FOURensic Room:

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Despite taking an open door approach on YouTube to discussing the facts (and providing evidence supporting it), we’ve already experienced efforts from conspiracy pushers to silence us using ad hominem attacks, derogatory name-calling, blatant slander, and the crop & pasting of our images and words to demean, mock, and smear us.

We know that bringing facts to light is triggering for them.

Their efforts to instill fear in people has been a go-to tactic that allowed the average person who does not believe in Karen Read’s conspiracy allegations to remain quiet for safety measures.

The doxxing of children, spam reviewing of businesses with hateful rhetoric, and the mob mentality to shame supporters was weaponized throughout the last few years by Karen’s fanatical allies.

The beautiful thing is…

So many of the people who have silently supported the witnesses over the years, have now been able to show their solidatory to help the witnesses fight back against the defamation and abuse by donating to the witness abuse lawsuit fund.

In just a matter of weeks, the donation site has raised over $100,000.000.

It’s brought so much hope and strength back to these families. 🩵

On top of all this —

We will be having an exclusive interview with witness, Kerry Roberts this Saturday @ 8PM EST.

If you have any questions you’d like us to ask, feel free to email FOURensicRoom@gmail.com

We will try to accommodate as many questions as we can.
I hope to see you guys in the chat Friday night, and if not, the video will be there to watch when you do have time.

Sending you warm hugs this holiday season! xo

-Tuesday

There’s a lot going on lately in regard to several cases, so I may slide into your email more than usual these next few months.

Here are your PEPPERDINE4 case updates:

Bridget Thompson and Brooke Doherty (friends of the 4 Pepperdine victims) exemplify the power of small voices making HUGE impacts.

Their unwavering advocacy has officially opened the door to improving safety measures along Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, CA.

Pepperdine law student and advocate, Billy Melcher, shared the update…

“The Planning Commission for the City of Malibu adopted Resolution 2569 — a plan allocating $55 million to make safety improvements along PCH from Serra Rd. to Ventura County.

The plan includes the installation of 19 new guard rails, 22 new or upgraded curb ramps, 6,956 linear feet of new sidewalks or retaining walls, 2 realigned intersections, 27 new street lamps, 15 miles of new or upgraded bike lanes, vehicle pullouts for law enforcement use, and median reconstructions.

The commission added two conditions of approval:

(1) that the added street lamps are dark sky compliant to the furthest extent feasible; (2) that CalTrans gather and considers input for the design of the sidewalk on PCH between Malibu Canyon and John Tyler Dr. from LASD, LA County Fire, and Pepperdine University.

Bridget Thompson and Brooke Doherty both courageously delivered powerful speeches during public comment. In fact, Commissioner Kammins quoted Brooke’s speech before changing her deciding vote to ‘yes’ — Commissioner Peak followed suit and also voted ‘yes’. The plan, originally expected to fail, passed by a vote of 4-1.”

These future safety measures will surely save lives on a road that’s been a source of many tragic vehicle accidents.

Now that the plan has passed, there have been several appeals by other community members. It will go before the city council for a final vote on 11/24/25.

On top of all this good news…

The most recent pretrial hearing for the Pepperdine4 case (State of CA vs. Fraser Bohm) was another win for the families. The defense’s efforts to dismiss the charges of 2nd degree murder against the driver was **denied**.

Here is Defense Attorney Alan Jackson arguing that his client, Bohm — who chose to drive at dangerous speeds up to 104 MPH in a 45 MPH zone did not maliciously slaughter people like the Idaho4 killer, Brian Kohberger…

And therefore Bohm shouldn’t be charged with murder.

The judge clearly wasn’t buying Alan Jackson’s argument.

The comparison of Bohm to Kohberger was a hyperbolic swing and a miss for the defense.

For one —

Kohberger was charged with First Degree murder, and Bohm is charged with Second Degree. The requirements to meet these charges are different, so comparing them is ineffective.

The reality is…

A vehicle is a dangerous machine.

Driving a vehicle at such extreme speeds — especially on a road (Bohm allegedly admits he’s familiar with) that’s lined with residential homes, parallel parking, and frequent pedestrian crossings — is a choice by the driver.

A reckless one.

It’s a choice that’s deliberately putting people at risk of injury or death.

And unfortunately, in this case, the high-speed moving vehicle ended the lives of 4 young women who had so much life ahead of them.

This type of reckless driving behavior is a lot like playing Russian Roulette.

A good question to ask ourselves is…

If our loved one was killed by a person who was playing Russian Roulette, is it murder? Or is it simply an accident?

The jury will have their hands full when deciding whether the defendant’s behaviors meet the requirements of these charges.

Former Trooper Michael Proctor was fired a while back regarding the derogatory texts he made about Karen Read on his personal phone following the tragic death of John O’Keefe.

The texts consisted of things like:

• Referring to Karen Read by names like “whack job”. [1/29/22]

• A mocking reference about her bowel issues. [1/29/22]

• A text saying ‘no nudes so far’ when investigating the contents of her phone.[8/17/22]

  (Proctor testified that the latter comment was a poor taste joke with his friends, and denies actually looking for that type of content).

• A text to his sister wishing Karen would *off herself*. [2/4/22]

  (Proctor testified that his “emotions got the best” of him regarding Karen Read leaving an officer to die in the snow).

Michael Proctor’s work related texts - located on his personal phone - were determined to be a sign of potential bias and misconduct, thus leading to Michael Proctor’s removal from his position with Mass State Police.

The deep dive into Proctor’s private messages first began during a federal investigation of the police investigation into John O’Keefe’s death. The effort was to seek out any evidence of ‘conspiring’ to coverup a crime and frame the drunk driver for murder.

Despite big efforts by Karen Read’s team and supporters to push the conspiracy narrative as a fact…

Zero evidence of a conspiracy to frame Karen was ever indicated to be found in Proctor’s communications.

The federal investigation was officially closed (announced by an officer of the court - Atty Hank Brennan - with permission from the DA’s office) during a pre-trial hearing for Karen Read earlier this year.

Although no conspiring was found —

There were a handful of the inappropriate texts discovered.

The judge allowed Karen Read’s defense to present them in her trial as a reflection of Proctor’s character - and potential bias.

It’s important to point out here that —

Conspiring to frame a person for murder AND the use of vulgar language about a person charged with murder are not one-in-the-same.

As the ol’ saying goes…

Correlation does not imply causation.

(image source: Statology.org)

By that flawed inference, one could also say that because Karen called John O’Keefe a vulgar name in her voicemail that she AND Proctor are BOTH guilty.

It’s a highly unreliable conclusion.

What we do know for sure is…

Proctor was fired for failing to keep his opinions neutral and ethical among colleagues, and to keep his private work matters confidential. His language was egregious and indefensible, thus he was removed from his role.

Proctor was recently attempting to appeal for his job to be reinstated, however he dropped the appeal last week after his iCloud extraction (from up to 13 years ago) brought out more concerning content further back.

The details are fairly vague at this point regarding what was exactly said and shared, as well as with whom, but regardless, it has now opened the door for further legal issues with other cases he once worked on.

Defense attorneys are currently requesting data of anything potentially exculpatory in Proctor’s iCloud history that could impact their own client’s case.

A few cases this may impact are:

• Myles King (Current filing below regarding Proctor’s iCloud)

Cw Vs

545KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

• Jovani De Los Santos

• Brian Walshe

Discussion:

A serious conversation - and likely quite controversial - can be had regarding whether or not Proctor’s own rights have been violated at all regarding the dissection of his personal phone from over a decade ago. I’m not a lawyer, so this would be an interesting topic to hear discussed by those who are more well-versed in the legalities of it all.

I’ve also never been in law enforcement, but I imagine officers/investigators — those who see some of the worst of humanity on a regular basis — likely share in dark humor and emotionally charged language on occasion with others who also deal with such heaviness.

But how much do we excuse? Where would the line be drawn at?

As for now…

It appears that the Proctor iCloud saga will be a long legal road that potentially incorporates quite a few cases, and may even impact victims from receiving justice.

A GoFundMe was setup to pay for a permanent memorial at Point Dume in Malibu for Asha, Deslyn, Peyton, and Niamh.

This place was very special for Asha Weir and her friends.

According to the GFM page... “Point Dume was one of Asha’s favorite places, a sanctuary she captured beautifully in her poem, “For a Moment of Peace.” This memorial will feature two custom benches overlooking the stunning bluffs, beaches, and Pacific waters that brought solace to Asha and her friends. The benches will include plaques with a QR code linking to a digital memorial honoring Niamh, Peyton, Asha, and Deslyn, along with Asha’s poem, and serving as a poignant reminder about the importance of road safety—particularly on PCH.”

If you’d like to help play a part in the memorial benches for the families, feel free to donate at the link below. Anything helps. 🩵

https://www.gofundme.com/f/PCH-Pepperdine-Student-Memorial

Clips of a recorded phone call between blogger Aidan Kearney (Turtleboy) and Karen Read were leaked online. Although the entirety of the call is claimed to have been heard by several people within the FKR (Free Karen Read) circle, including journalist Jessica Machado, only a few short clips have been put out on social media for the public to hear.

Karen Read asserts that Aidan Kearney illegally wiretapped this call between them.

Massachusetts is a two-party consent state in regard to recording conversations. Aidan initially denied recording her, but was caught in his own lie when the audio was leaked.

(*Note: Aidan Kearney has a history of wiretapping people. In 2024, he was indicted on a charge for the illegal behavior, adding to his long list of witness intimidation charges.*)

According to Journalist Jessica Machado during a Spaces Live on 10/3/25…

The leaked call in its entirety is “not great” for Karen Read or Aidan Kearney.

What Machado means by this is unclear because she has chosen not to elaborate any further on the details of the leaked audio (that I’m aware of).

With that said…

One of the short clips that DID make it onto social media (X) is of Karen Read screaming at Turtleboy over an incident that happened back in 2023.

In the call she angrily yells…

“Do you have any clue what’s on my phone they took?”

Mhmmm.👀

The phones (there are actually two of them seized at that time according to the PCA despite Karen referencing just one) are still in the custody of the Commonwealth, and Karen has been actively trying to get them back. She refuses to give the state the passcodes to quicken the extraction procedure, and the CW is working with a taint team to further the process.

A YouTuber named Sean McDonough was sent this particular short clip I speak of from an anonymous email, which he posted on X. You can hear it below.

[Context of the clip above:

Karen Read is mad that her blogger pal, Aidan Kearney, went to his ex-girlfriend Lindsey’s house one evening (December 2023) after Lindsey received a subpoena to testify in a pending Grand Jury Trial regarding Aidan’s numerous felony Witness Intimidation charges.

The notion of his ex-girlfriend testifying to what she knows regarding the abuse against witnesses in Karen Read’s pending murder trial (at that time) allegedly rattled Aidan so much that the encounter became volatile between them, and led to his arrest days later.

Karen is accusing him of having her “phone” seized due to this incident.

It’s unlikely that Karen’s phones were seized due to Aidan and his ex-girlfriend’s domestic dispute, and more likely that it was due to Karen’s own involvement with the man who was harassing witnesses. It’s not a surprise that police/prosecution would want to do a thorough investigation.

You can dive into the details about the domestic dispute HERE. The entire video (well-documented by Masshole Mafia YouTube) is definitely worth watching, however if you want only the specifics regarding this topic, it starts at 11:11.]

Karen Read has yet to file any charges against Aidan Kearney for the wiretapping activity.

However —

I think it’s safe to assume she won’t.

These two have been so intertwined in their efforts to spread conspiracy narratives and impact the public optics of this case that they unfortunately need each other as much as they equally seem to despise the other. A legal war would only *metaphorically* burn their own house down in order to burn the other’s.

Which means it’s basically almost Friday.💁🏼‍♀️

I want to give a LARGE MARGARITA-SIZED THANK YOU to all of you who were able to stop by during the YouTube Lives last week. I truly appreciate all of you, your encouraging words, and your big hearts for truth and victims.

I’ve had lots of requests for access and links to different things regarding the Pepperdine case, so this brief newsletter is focused on giving you a more organized menu of all the items (court docs, etc.) that I currently have access to.

(The words in blue font are links.😉✅)

◉ INTERVIEWS:

👉PART 1 Friends and advocates of the 4 female victims (Asha, Deslyn, Peyton, and Niamh) share with us who each of the young women were independently, as well as how much of an impact they had on the lives around them. We also touch on the basic details of the tragic event that happened on 10/17/23.

Note: The first video had to be re-uploaded several times now (and still has some small glitches😵‍💫), but overall it was a success.

👉PART 2 Advocate and law student, Billy, dives a bit deeper into the legal side of the case with me, so that we get a stronger understanding of what’s happening in the courtroom.

(An extra thank you to my friend, Lydia, who helped mod for those interviews.)

◉ Pepperdine 4 Advocacy Account on Instagram:

• JusticeFor4angles

◉ COURT DOCS:

The CA court system is a bit more difficult with gaining access to documents than I’ve experienced with covering other cases, but the victim advocates have been so kind to share what they currently have with me.

The documents below are not necessarily in the correct order of time filed. I had problems adding them onto substack in proper order, but you easily can find the filed dates on the docs themselves.

Arrest Warrant

8.18MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

People V

8.13MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

People V

5.39MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Opposition To Motion To Compel Discovery 08

8.41MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

People V

1.62MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

State'a Statement Of Facts

13.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Preliminary Hearing Minute Orders 04

5.55MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

◉ PRELIMINARY HEARING:

I was able to get a portion of the recent pre-trial hearing transcript. The transcript is of the defense attorney questioning what appears to be an accident reconstruction officer about the blackbox data of the vehicle. (Keep in mind - this is one small portion of a larger hearing transcript, but it gives some insight into the defense’s approach against the state’s allegations of Bohm’s clocked speed).

Transcript Defense Accident Recontructionist

5.12MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

◉ WHAT’S NEXT?

✅ OCTOBER 8, 2025 - Preliminary Hearing

I will keep you guys updated as I learn more info in the coming weeks.

An outline of the heartbreaking tragedy that killed four young Pepperdine students in Malibu back in 2023.

Like all cases…

Details are layered within a storyline, and not all things can be covered in one article.

But — we’ll get to it all as best we can as the trial approaches closer.

It’s important that we understand and really get to know who the victims were, as well as grasp the legal aspects of the case. Friends & advocates of the victims will be joining me both on Monday and Tuesday this week so we can deep dive into it, as well as answer any pending questions you guys may have.

Make sure to set your calendar reminder if you don’t want to miss the live.

(click on the times below for the link)

• Monday evening (9/15/25) at 6 PM PST/ 9PM EST

• Tuesday evening at (9//16/25) 6 PM PST/ 9PM EST

Ok. Let’s get into it…

OUTLINE OF THE CASE:

• On October 17, 2023 (at around 8:30 pm), four vibrant, young female Pepperdine students were on their way to a sorority mixer event located not far from their school in Malibu, CA.

ASHA, DESLYN, NIAHM, and PEYTON.

• The females exited their vehicle after parallel parking along the scenic beach road known as PCH (Pacific Coast Highway). The road is lined with residential housing on both sides, and is designated for parking along the street.

• As the females began walking west on the north shoulder of the road, a 22-year old male driver, Fraser Bohm, came barreling down the curvy road going west at an extremely high speed in his vehicle.

• Fraser’s BMW side-swiped and crashed into parallel parked cars along the roadside where the females were walking, ultimately killing all four of them on impact.

• The speed limit is 45 MPH in this location, and the state claims that the driver’s vehicle techstream data shows that the defendant accelerated up to 104 mph moments before impact. His vehicle set off 3 trigger data points of collision as he collided into multiple cars.

  (Defense is arguing that the state’s claims of Bohm driving at 104 mph speed is false. It appears their argument is that the wheels increased to that speed when spinning while potentially airborne mid-collision. They also spent time in the preliminary hearing splitting hairs over ‘half a second’ regarding velocity speed change. I will cover this in another article since it will clearly play a large role in the trial.)

  In CA, driving over 100 mph can be charged as a felony, so I suspect the defense is really trying to get Fraser’s speed data to fall under the 3-digit number as an effort to discount the 2nd degree murder charges.

  

  (Source)

Here is part of the state’s motion explaining the techstream info they assert shows Bohm was driving at a criminal speed.

• When Bohm’s vehicle came to a halt after hitting the parked cars (and 4 female pedestrians), it’s reported that a witness pulled him out of the vehicle, and several people held him down until the officers showed up. (I’m unclear on the specifics of this part of the narrative at the moment, but we will uncover the details in an upcoming article).

• Fraser Bohm was interviewed on-scene by law enforcement, and then brought into the sheriff’s station for a second interview.

• Both interviews are on camera, and sources say he never mentions escaping or fleeing from a road rage incident during these interviews. According to an advocate of the victims, the I-was-fleeing-from-another-driver narrative first arose 8 days later when Bohm’s attorney spoke with a local radio show.

• Bohm’s attorney told the radio station that Bohm did tell law enforcement that another driver pushed him off the side of the roadway. (This should be easy to prove or disprove because the interviews are recorded). Bohm’s attorney also claims they have proof that the other driver admitted being responsible of steering Bohm off the road to his family member.

  (Unfortuantely, I’ve learned to have low expectations in claims made by defense attorneys who market their cases on radio shows, so we shall see if the evidence he speaks about is tangible and validated, or just a fancy game of semantics.)

  You can find that radio clip HERE if you want to listen.

• Bohm claims that shortly before the crash he was texting on his phone while at a stoplight.

• Bohm says the driver in the other lane (Victor) began screaming at him, and when the light turned green, Bohm took off. He says he was chased by the other driver. The other driver tried to drive Bohm’s vehicle off the side of the road, thus causing the sequence of events of the collision.

• Victor has a very different story. He says Bohm was driving recklessly prior to arriving at the red light, and when they both came to a stop, he saw Bohm texting. Victor allegedly yelled at him to slow down and get off his phone. The moment the light turned green, Bohm sped off very fast. Soon after, Bohm crashed into the parked cars — killing the 4 pedestrians.

• Defense claims it is actually the other driver, Victor, who is the dangerous one who set off the sequence of events, and that he has a history of angry driving. Bohm was just speeding away to escape.

• A source who attended the preliminary hearing tells me that the video(s) played in court contradicts the pro-defense narrative being shared online. We will be discussing the video(s) on the upcoming interviews on Monday and Tuesday evening.

Other details that we know:

• Fraser Bohm, the defendant, had just turned 22 years old the day before he caused the tragic accident.

• There are no allegations of alcohol or drugs in his system.

• Bohm has no prior criminal history.

• Fraser is familiar with this area, and is well-aware of how pedestrian-heavy PCH is at that location. He is noted as saying in a police interview that he drives PCH all the time, and that he knows it like the back of his hand.

• This area of PCH is known as ‘Dead Man’s Curve’ because the road is curvy and quite active, and has incurred many vehicle accidents in the past. Speeding in this area is very dangerous.

• Fraser mentioned in his interview that he knows ‘speed kills’, and he has had two friends die in motor vehicle accidents from speeding.

• A court document shares a stipulation showing that no texts were made at the exact time of the accident.

• Fraser Bohm is out on a 4 million dollar bond, and has hired multiple attorneys including high-priced Attorney Alan Jackson. Jackson represented clients like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Karen Read.

Join us Monday and Tuesday as friends close to the victims help us go deeper into the details of the case, as well as shine a light on the four beautiful women the world lost in 2023.

The truth is…

A defense attorney with a near 100% success rate isn’t coming out on top simply because he is very good at choosing innocent clients…

It’s because he’s willing to play dirty at the expense of victims. Muddying the waters of transparency and obsessing over public optics seems to be the mode of operation he works in to dominate.

His past behaviors include things like:

• Demeaning a sexual assault victim on the stand in Harvey Weinstein’s trial back in 2022.

  

  

• Violating court orders twice in the Karen Read Trial by not handing over all discovery like payments and conversations with a neutral party. Once the judge became aware of the lack in transparency, she gave a direct order to hand everything over. Conveniently, about 100 texts were “deleted” by both Alan Jackson and the ‘neutral’ party, Daniel Wolfe.

  At one point, Alan Jackson even requested Wolfe to use the encrypted text app, Signal, for their communications. The defense team also had to go back and ‘correct’ a new motion they had filed making false claims about their relations with the company, ARCCA.

• Jackson blatantly boasting about the ‘damage’ he has done to witness Jen McCabe in court. The judge even asked him to repeat his comment to make sure she heard his statement accurately.

• Disseminating non-public information using manipulation tactics. He also made efforts to schmooze with journalists.

  

  (Note: To my awareness, Journalist Gretchen Voss did not participate in any behaviors that crossed ethical journalistic standards despite being approached with Alan Jackson’s scheming. She has maintained her truth-seeking duties with integrity.)

  

• Questionable relations with his client Karen Read. Alan Jackson is currently married to another attorney, but many people have side-eyed the ‘closeness’ and flirtation of him and the former murder defendant.

  (Photo on bottom left source: Grant Smith Ellis, Right image source: unknown)

• Alan Jackson’s connections with ‘Turtleboy’, the man who is charged with 16 felonies for tormenting and intimidating witnesses in Karen Read’s trial. Turtleboy (aka Aidan Kearney) has referred to the victim’s mother as a “maggot” because she doesn’t believe in the defense team’s conspiracy narrative. He has even boasted about how it ‘makes him so hard’ when people tell him to stop being mean to the victim’s family.

  Here’s a few other examples of Aidan’s public statements addressing witnesses in the murder trial that was pending at the time…

  

  The Commonwealth called out Jackson’s connections with Aidan Kearney.

  

  You can read the entire motion below if you’d like. It’s very interesting.

Commonwealth’s Opposition To Defendant’s Motion For Sanctions & Disqualification

21.2MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

• Vanity Fair’s articles covering the Karen Read Case were smothered with disinformation and misleading narratives. The long-form, 2-part puff piece that came out lacked basic inculpatory details of the murder defendant’s case, while also spreading disinformation like claims of ‘jury tampering’. The writer, Julie Miller, seems to be operating more as a PR-writer than a truth-teller.

  Karen Read and her defense team were providing her with the information that she reported on. Karen said two nice things about the victim, her boyfriend at the time, John O’Keefe. (#1 She thought he was cute when she met him. #2 He did things around the house for her), but spent most of her efforts highlighting herself while passive aggressively disparaging her deceased boyfriend.

  The writer even misled readers regarding important details over the 2:27 controversy. The writer has still yet to respond to my emails, nor has she corrected her misinformation. You can find my articles on this HERE and HERE.

  (Vanity Fair also did a whole salute article to Alan Jackson after trial 2 ended with a posed glamour shot of him, which was quickly promoted onto his business website.)

• Publicly denying that the federal investigation into the investigation of John O’Keefe’s death is closed despite that it’s been confirmed multiple times. He needs the public to disregard that there were zero findings of anyone conspiring to frame his drunk driving client, Karen Read.

WHAT’S NEXT:

As you can imagine, many people are concerned about how the victims in his new case (four young Pepperdine students killed by a driver on PCH) will be treated by Alan Jackson’s defense efforts.

Now, let’s be clear…

The goal is not to be pro-prosecution.

It’s to be victim-aware, leading with sensitivity, and educating with facts so the public can analyze the situation appropriately.

An honest and fair trial honors both parties, and we should always encourage a healthy legal process.

(Hello 6th Amendment).

And the best way to ensure that these victims, witnesses, and loved ones are not abused online by sensationalized tabloid click-artists operating as a platform for fuzzy optics is to simply not engage in the rumor parties.

⭐️Stay tuned for the next article where I introduce you to the case of Fraser Bohm, as well as upcoming (date TBD) interview with those close to the victims as we discuss their legacies left behind, as well as the close details of the pending trial.

I’ll leave you with this mini excerpt that was on Pepperdine’s instagram honoring the 4 girls who died tragically…

Niamh. Peyton. Asha. Deslyn.

❤️

(Cover photo taken by: Frederick Brown - New York Post)

Karl - and his beautiful wife - continued for years to bravely show up to court in support of their good friend, John O’Keefe, who was tragically killed.

You see…

Karen Read’s conspiracy mob made huge efforts to silence people who supported the victim.

They shamed and demeaned ANYONE who dared to oppose the conspiracy narrative, and they did it with the most vile of behaviors.

Doxxing people and their children.

Degrading them online.

Chasing them down with loudspeakers and cameras.

Spamming hate reviews on business sites of employees and owners.

Threatening to show up at child sporting events to humiliate them.

There can only be one victim in the story, and Karen needed to be it.

The underbelly of her campaign to turn the blame and accusations elsewhere is one that I don’t think the general public is fully aware of.

The mob that Karen played into was part of an already ugly online culture bred by a middle-aged man who refers to himself as things like “Turtleboy” and “Daddy”. He uses his blog as a weapon to scare people into silence, and he’s even admitted to lying to his youtube fans.

Turtleboy really was the perfect person for Karen Read to use for her propaganda.

Erratic.

Boisterous.

Attention-seeking.

Lacking integrity.

He gets his thrills from shaming people, and he clearly loves to shock the public with his gross behavior. (example: He refers to the grieving mother as a maggot and a cunt, and he bragged about how it ‘makes him so hard’ when people get mad about him verbally attacking John’s family).

Turtleboy is the Alex Jones of the Karen Read case.

(The Alex Jones who exploited the Sandy Hook school shooting tragedy, leaving grieving parents to endure the vile impacts of a public who accused them of faking the deaths of their own children.)

DEMANDING a government conspiracy based on speculations and absurd red herrings.

Anyone willing to look at the actual records of the Karen Read case (and not the nonsensical rumors that circulate and morph into new rumors) can easily see that…

The corruption narrative is a farce.

Even a Federal Investigation AND an independent audit came to a close empty-handed of anything that would indicate a conspiracy to frame the drunk driver.

But her defense sold the illusion anyways.

Trooper Proctor’s personal texts messages using derogatory words was all they needed.

And so…

The conspiracy narrative was pushed out, thus causing mass hysteria, igniting a mob of hatred towards innocent people, and simultaneously reassigning the murder defendant as the real victim.

Many people who saw the disturbing manipulation of silencing going on had to remain silent themselves to avoid social media abuse and protect their own livelihoods.

SO it wasn’t easy for John’s grieving loved ones to show up among the wolves to support one another in their communal love for John, as well as their belief that he died by domestic violence.

BUT some still bravely endured the firestorm and showed up in person consistently.

Like John’s buddy, Karl (and his wife).

They chose love over fear…

And I applaud them so much for representing what goodness looks like in a world that seemingly feels unnecessarily tribal in viciousness and often devoid of human decency.

I asked Karl if I could share the words he wrote back in 2023 regarding the passing of John (and his thoughts on Karen), and he agreed. I hope you feel the weight and the lightness in them as I did. ❤️

The remainder of this article is written by him.

The morning of Jan 29, 2022 I came inside from shoveling and got a phone call that my friend John O’Keefe was found dead.

I got off the phone and called Karen Read immediately. I left her a voice mail saying I was sorry and please call, I’m on my way. I drove to the hospital then to Johns house in Canton. By the time I got there Karen was already gone.

I have not heard back from Karen to this day. No return call in the days in between his death and her arrest. No explaination of what happened; no “Karl, could you please help me figure this out” or “Karl I’m sorry you lost your friend”.

Prior to that night, Karen was my friend as well. We had her over at our house several times. She spent time with my wife and our kids. She went out with my wife and her friends. We had dinner the four of us together, and watched Patriots games. She tearfully confided in my wife on more than one occasion.

Karen already knew the truth.

If it were me, or any decent person who knew they did not just kill somebody, no amount of lawyers, or concerned fathers or screaming and grieving mothers could drag me away from that house and that family until I found out what or who caused my significant others death. I would be shouting from the rooftops that I was not the person responsible; I would be asking questions of anyone and everyone until I knew. It certainly would not take me 18 months to give a contrived, rehearsed statement from the courthouse steps.

When Steve Cooper from Channel 7 asked her if she was saying she did not do it, she froze, then gave a non answer. This is similar to how she admitted to hitting him that morning numerous times to several different people without even being asked. “I know he is dead maybe a snowplow hit him,” is an odd thing to say to fringe- acquaintances well before you even come upon his dead body. Parapraxsis (a Freudian slip, an error in speech, memory, or physical action that occurs due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought.) There was no state of shock or trauma at that point unless Karen had already driven by and saw him and/or she knew she hit him hours before.

She did it, she knew it then, she knew it when Cooper asked her, and she knows it now. Karen’s attorney knows it as well, as he could not even speak the words “she didnt…. There is something else going on here,” when he and I spoke on the phone post-arraignment. Parapraxis.

It’s her, manipulating you all the way she manipulated John into staying with her longer than he would have liked. Manipulating my friend into believing her lies, with her phantom brain tumor and constant need for attention, just a couple of the many deceptions she spoke and continues to speak.

John was a guy who was the salt of the earth who NO-ONE in that house had an issue with or would have had reason to strike. A person who would never leave someone in need. John was a great man and friend who has been sadly forgotten behind all the sideshow nonsense she is fueling. Please do not invoke his name during your next pre planned pep rally. You insult his legacy, his family, and the multitude of people who tried in vain to help him, who tried to help you that morning.

The story they have created out of thin air is a pathetic lie orchestrated by her and Harvey Weinstein’s (former) attorney:

The poor, innocent, well-educated college professor with the great job who was somehow “tricked” into believing she had killed her boyfriend. The unbelievable 100+ person (and 1 dog) conspiracy to frame her is equal parts desperate and weak. But no amount of lies, accusations, terrorizing of witnesses or internet bullying will change the fact that Karen Read got drunk, put her full size SUV in reverse, hit my friend at speed and left him incapacitated on the side of the road to die, alone in the cold, like an animal.

Here’s a brief update in case you were living under a rock and fell behind the recent events of the trial plastered all over the media…

Followed up by some thoughts I wanted to share for those who feel deep sadness and dismay over the verdict. ❤️

If you missed the closing arguments…

HERE is Defense Attorney Alan Jackson’s closing.

HERE is Prosecutor Hank Brennan's closing.

As you likely already know…

A verdict was reached while the judge was at lunch this past Wednesday.

Before alerting the attorneys, Judge Cannone received a knock on the door from a juror basically saying -

JUST KIDDING. We have no verdict. Someone has changed their mind.

The attorneys were summoned to the courtroom to receive this false-alarm-verdict news, and then headed back out of the courtroom to wait again.

BUT alas…

Everyone made a swift u-turn back into the courtroom because the jury officially agreed on a verdict again.

The jury found that Karen Read is…

👉Not Guilty of Murder in the Second Degree

👉Not Guilty of Manslaughter

👉Guilty of OUI (She was sentenced to a year of probation.)

As the verdict was read, Karen, dawned in her powdered blue designer pantsuit and standing with her high-priced attorneys, including Alan Jackson (Harvey Weinstein’s former attorney) that she hired from across the country, all celebrated.

Karen Read’s supporters (cloaked in pink attire) who crowded out front of the courthouse cheered and screamed so loud that it echoed throughout the courtroom.

The pain that must have caused John O’Keefe’s loved ones is hard to fathom.

The cheering replicated that of the crowd that celebrated OJ Simpson’s acquittal back in 1995.

(I have A LOT to say about the similarities of OJ Simpson’s trial and Karen Read’s trial, and I plan to write about it soon.)

While many people vocally celebrated…

A large amount of people quietly mourned at what feels like another massive loss for the victim and his loved ones.

The fact that 12 people dismissed evidence that literally fits together in the most cohesive way is baffling. Things like:

• Karen reversing at 24mph, 74.5% throttle in the same exact location and time that John’s iPhone registers his final steps.

• Karen screaming that she “fucking hates” John moments later after driving away, and leaving a voicemail soon after that saying ‘no one knows where you are’ after allegedly dropping him off at a house.

• John’s iPhone temperature steadily decreasing in the timeframe from when his last steps were registered to when he was found hours later.

• Waking up and telling John’s niece that she may have done something bad.

• Admitting in an interview that she said she hit John and that she knew she would find him on the side of the road.

• Medics testifying to her incriminating statements, and forensic scientists and officers discussing the remnants of her broken taillight being found not only at the scene under the snowbank (during a blizzard), but also lodged into the victim’s own shirts.

I don’t have the right words for this moment.😔

But John’s close friend’s words captured it all. The grief he shares in this heart-breaking statement after the verdict was read is going under-reported as Karen Read is celebrated all over the media. (Thank you to Mike Dury for sharing this on X). My heart aches for John’s loved ones.

You - like myself - might be feeling all kinds of emotions since the verdict was reached this past Wednesday.

I went from sadness to anger…

Back to sadness…

And then found myself somewhere settled near ‘okay’.

“Okay” is simply my acceptance that…

More needs to be done to ensure victims and their loved ones receive fair treatment and fair trials.

• The public (and the legal system) need awareness and some form of action regarding how attorneys are using PR tactics to market conspiracy narratives in order to impact public opinion (tainting a jury pool).

• Journalistic integrity needs to be revived as a GOLD standard so the public can blatantly see the difference between those who use primary sources with intent to share truth, not curate truth. (Just because a content creator or a media outlet with huge viewership gives commentary doesn’t make them a GOLD standard of truth-telling.)

Other discussions also need to be had regarding things like —

• Is there an ethical issue with allowing people to monetize off of streaming murder trials?

• Does this Wild West era of the internet change the landscape of our jury system being untainted from influence? Do we need professional jurors like other countries?

• Is society’s obsession with non-stop commentary impacting our own ability to silence the group thought and use critical thinking skills?

• Has the true crime sphere become obsessed with conspiracy ideation? Feeding our need for salacious entertainment? Filling the pockets of tabloid lawtubers?

What many people may not know is that Karen Read’s allies worked hard for years to dehumanize and vilify witnesses.

From hosting dinner parties filled with a group mob mentality towards witnesses and the government…

To hiring a person as part of the ‘defense team’ who markets false information as FACTS.

Like this one:

(Microdots run by Richie Keough also participated in the planned harassment of witnesses at a child’s sport’s game).

And don’t get me started again on how Vanity Fair participated in promoting misinformation despite an expert telling the writer that he felt she misrepresented what he was given for his own analysis. You can find my PART 1 article on this topic HERE.

Guys…

There’s work to be done.

But the most important first step in healing what is broken in our society is moving forward with grace and truth.

Hang in there, friends.

xo

#2490

The expert testimony was bloviated with lots of technical jargon, which can actually cause more confusion to us laypersons.

Muddying the clear water is the antithesis of finding truth (a common defense tactic)…

So I did my best to focus this recap on simplifying and bringing clarity to the main points for better understanding.

Let’s dive in.

ON THE STAND:

Andrew Rentschler (Biomechanical Engineer)

Dr. Rentschler says in order to come to a conclusion that something occurred, you must have:

1. Details - An individual feature, fact, or known variables.

2. Analysis - To examine something carefully and methodically.

3. Evidence - Proof. Rentschler says evidence is found through peer-reviewed articles, research, and/or testing. If there is no previous research to confirm the theory, then a field test should be done.

THE DETAILS

INJURIES:

• Rentschler says that his opinion from the autopsy x-ray(s) is that there is no indication of any type of acute injury on John’s right hand, forearm, or upper arm.

  • Prosecutor points out that X-rays are not an imaging method to view soft tissue damage, nerve compression, and other internal injuries. Rentschler agrees. An MRI would have needed to be done.

  • Rentschler also concedes that bruising is subjective to different variables.

    🚩Basically, Rentschler concludes that there is no signs of an acute injury (soft tissue damage is acute) despite also agreeing that the x-ray would not show if there was soft-tissue damage and other issues involving nerve compression and/or inflammation.

    

    ---

CLOTHING

• Rentschler says that the arm of the sweatshirt worn on the dummy doll during impact testing did not create holes/tears as seen on John O’Keefe’s sweatshirt. He said it’s improper to ignore this.

  • Prosecutor points out several things regarding this conclusion. The dummy doll used in testing is not a proper representation of a human’s arm in regard to things like: epidermal (skin) and tissue. A human arm is softer density to the touch if you were to push a finger into the arm, whereas a dummy arm is made of hard vinyl. This would cause fabric to respond differently in regard to impact of sharp objects pulling and tearing at different angles.

  • A peer-reviewed article is mentioned by the prosecutor regarding how crash dummy dolls are not suggested for experiments that test for soft tissue damage. Rentschler dismisses this by saying that it doesn’t mention abrasions.

• Dr. Rentschler says that he counted 36 superficial abrasions on John’s arm, and there is only 9 defects on the arm of John’s sweatshirt. He concludes that this means it’s impossible that superficial abrasions can occur under clothing.

  • Rentschler also describes at a different time that superficial abrasions are just ‘rubbing or scraping of the top layer of skin’.

🚩(Sorry, but any parent who has EVER had a toddler — or simply has once been a toddler themselves — knows that running and falling can absolutely cause scrapes or rubbing on the skin under clothing. This doctor was truly irking me with how arrogantly he argued common sense events as impossible/unlikely. His bias was deeply troubling.)

BODY MECHANICS & VEHICLE IMPACT

Dr. Rentschler states…

“If Mr. O'Keefe's holding a glass at the time of this impact, think about that. What happens is you're holding a glass? It exposes the knuckles. So if you're holding a glass and your arm's a 90 degree angle and the car comes back and hits your hand, it's gonna strike right on the knuckles.”

(Opinion: Anyone with an a movable wrist knows this is flawed thinking. He doesn’t know how John was holding his glass. If his arm is somewhere around a 90 degree angle, his knuckles do not also have to be aligned straight outward.)

• Rentschler believes that the field test results of the vehicle are inconsistent with the damage to Karen’s SUV.

  (Opinion: Looks pretty dang consistent to me. Especially knowing that a minor deviation of variables will create a slighty different result. Example: No two glasses will break the same exact way when tossed on the ground no matter how precise you try to match it. The mathematical possiblities of outcomes is insurmountable, so claiming the taillight test must occur exactly alike in this accident is just absurd.)

• Rentschler says his opinion that a vehicle impact is inconsistent with John’s body flying back 10-20 feet from road.

  • Prosecutor shows him a screenshot from the police cruiser cam the morning John was found, and asks him if John’s body location looks like it’s 10-20 feet from the road. Rentschler says it’s more like 10 feet, but a vehicle force would make it 20 feet.

  • He is also asked if he knows the point of contact, and Rentschler says. ‘no one does.’

  (Opinion: WHAT? I’m confused if anyone understands his point here please explain to me in the comments. If no one knows where exactly John was standing when hit, how can Rentschler decide that John did not land in the correct distance from the road?)

• Rentschler says that the CW’s expert’s static and dynamic test do not show what the force of impact would be, as well as the direction of abrasion wounds being made.

  • This is true. The testing was done to show the height of the victim and where his body naturally aligns with the right taillight. The pain transfer test was done to see if a vehicle clipping him could impact the same arm area, which it does.

  • The CW’s expert (Welcher) also shares the math behind how much force would occur with different variables, confirming that John did not have to suffer any broken bones in this type of collision.

CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE

• Rentschler was asked by prosecution about all the other evidence at the crime scene that he never referenced in his report or direct testimony, including:

  • Field debris of the taillight shards found.

  • Pedestrian’s shoe located at the curb.

  • Pedestrian’s glass cup shards and straw.

  • Shards of small taillight fragments scraped from the pedestrian’s sweatshirt and undershirt.

🚩Despite that Rentschler stated repeatedly on direct examination that ‘details matter’ when analyzing a case, he refused to acknowledge that the crime scene evidence mattered at all.

POSSIBLE BIAS

HAM SANDWICH PARTY

• After Rentschler testified in the first trial, he was invited to eat a “ham sandwich” with the defense team and their guests.

• Rentschler says he sat in the corner, and doesn’t recall talking to people. He does say people talked to him, but can’t remember the who or what was said.

• Prosecutor Brennan questions him if he recalls a documentary team of videographers there, and he says yes.

• Brennan says, so you know you were being recorded? Do you recall making fun of Prosecutor Lally and boasting about your verbiage of science and physics?

• Rentschler says he can’t recall conversations from a year ago. He says he can’t even remember what he ate for lunch last week.

Ironically, he remembers the ham sandwich though from the party.

DELETED TEXTS

• Prosecutor asks him what happened to the texts between him and the defense that he was required by the court to hand over, and Rentschler says he deleted them.

• He said they were just basic texts about driving directions, so he got rid of them.

Ironically, Attorney Jackson and the other ARCCA expert also deleted their texts.

ID DOCUMENTARY

Rentschler is asked how he heard about John having a sliver of glass in his face, and Karen pulling it out around 6am the morning John was found.

He can’t remember. Says he saw it somewhere.

Ironically, this clip was aired for the first time on the ID documentary that filmed during the HAM SANDWICH PARTY, and that the ARCCA experts are also in.

CLOSING TIME

Guys…

Tomorrow is the BIG DAY. Closing arguments will be made, and deliberations will begin. Say a prayer that truth prevails (whatever that may be) because ultimately truth is what honors victims.

xo

Hi. That’s me on the right. 👋

I’m living off of coffee and memes at this point as we all army crawl our way to the finish line of this trial.

I’m sure the jury is READY for it to be over as well.

Here are the highlights from the day…

ON THE STAND:

1. Dr. Elizabeth Laposata (Forensic Pathologist)

2. Dr. Andrew Rentschler (Biomechanical Engineer)

   ---

   Dr. Elizabeth Laposata (Forensic Pathologist)

• Testimony begins today with Dr. Laposata back on the stand for direct examination.

• She says that the cut above John’s right eye could not be from the back spoiler of the car. (CW’s expert said the spoiler was measured as the exact height as where the cut was located and inferred it was possible to be the cause for that particular injury ).

• Dr Laposata states that brain injuries cause swelling, which can lead to a brain stem herniation. Dr. Laposata says this is what occurred with John, and that it would have caused him to immediately become unconscious and die within 15-20 minutes.

• Dr. Laposata says that John’s back head wound indicates he fell backwards with a very forceful impact. She states the wound was caused by something that had ridges, not a flat surface. Laposata dismisses the possibility that John’s head hit the frozen lawn area.

• Prosecution asks if she viewed the lawn area in person to make that conclusion. She said she saw photos.

• She was asked if she knew what the ground was like under the grass (rocks, etc), and Laposata dismissed the idea of anything being rigid on that ground area despite not actually viewing it in person.

• No depressed fractures in the skull indicating any impact from an object like hammer or bat.

• Dr. Laposata says John’s skull fractures indicate he made a ‘medium to large’ impact with the ground. Death times are different with different patients regarding contrecoup injuries, but Laposata is unwavering on her opinion that John died within 15-20 minutes.

(This contradicts the CW’s neurosurgeon expert’s testimony that John would not have died immediately.)

• The doctor disagrees with the medical examiner’s report that John O’Keefe’s cause of death included hypothermia. She states that hypothermic bodies show a breaking of blood vessels in the stomach lining, which was not present in the victim’s autopsy.

• The doctor asserts that John died first and then his body got cold afterwards somehow.

• Laposata says that the LUCAS machine used in life-saving efforts could be what caused internal damage to his organs due to the compressions.

• Laposata says that she ruled out a pedestrian-vehicle accident as a cause of injuries. She opines that the arm abrasions are not caused from the taillight impact, but that they’re patterns from animal bites.

• The doctor contradicts the medical examiner’s report in regard to the arm wounds. The ME who did the autopsy reported the arm wounds were all abrasians, however Laposata claims she could tell some were puncture wounds.
  
  (Opinion: Not sure how Laposata can conclude the depth of a wound simply from photos. Her presumptuous attitude throughout the testimony was very off-putting for me.)

• Under cross-examination, Dr. Laposata confirms she is not a neurosurgeon, and not experienced examining the brains of living patients.

• When performing autopsies, she says she would refer to a neuropathologist approximately once a month. Laposata has not performed an autopsy in about 4 or 5 years.

• Laposata states that analyzing all information for a differential diagnosis is important in order to avoid any bias.

Prosecutor Brennan: …If you didn't look at all the evidence and you disregarded some of the evidence because you had already made up your mind, that really wouldn't be the proper study of differential diagnosis, would it?

Dr. Laposata: Right. I don't do that. I always look at all the evidence.

• Laposata later confirms that she made an opinion that the victim was not injured in a pedestrian strike without actually analyzing or considering the following evidence:

  • DNA (found on taillight housing) lab report.

  • Hair (found on side-panel bumper of vehicle) evidence report.

  • Debris on clothing (other than blood).

  • Defendant pulling a small shard of glass out of John’s face.

  • Tech data showing a vehicle reversed at John seconds before his phone registered his final steps on the lawn area.

Prosecutor Brennan asks Dr. Laposata if she knows how tall the victim was.
Here’s how she responds😬…

• Defense Attorney Jackson shows the doctor an x-ray of John’s arm and hand taken during the autopsy. She points out that there are no bone fractures and no abnormal tissue swelling.

• Prosecutor Brennan questions the doctor on the public criticism she’s received regarding her role as a medical examiner for the Station Nightclub fire in 2003.

• Laposata says the media got it wrong. She was never directly called to the scene, and she had her investigator report there instead. Laposota said it was “bullshit”.

• She is also questioned about the audit that was done on her practice right before she stepped down as Chief ME of RI. The audit found that many death certificates were not completed.

Dr. Laposata responds to this questioning…

”There was a flurry of stuff in the papers. There were union issues, new, um, new director of health, new governor. So I think there was a little flurry of stuff, which was not substantive.”

Dr. Andrew Rentschler (Biomechanical Engineer)

• Dr. Rentschler takes the stand towards the end of the day. He shares his educational background and work history.

• Vice President of ARCCA. Rentschler specializes in the field of Biomechanics.

  

• He explains how he got involved in this case alongside Daniel Wolfe and another partner. Instead of repeating this info, you can find that in Wolfe’s testimony HERE.

Trial ended for the day, and Dr. Rentschler will be back tomorrow to continue testimony.

I was not expecting a Shakespearean performance in black latex gloves, but THIS is the Karen Read Trial so I should have been more geared up.

Here’s the recap. You’ll find the theatrics somewhere in the middle.

ON THE STAND TODAY:

1. Daniel Wolfe (Director of Accident Reconstruction at ARCCA)

2. John Tedeman (Private Investigator)

3. Dr. Elizabeth Laposata (Forensic Pathologist)

Daniel Wolfe (Director of Accident Reconstruction at ARCCA)

Testimony starts with Wolfe back on the stand under re-direct examination.

• Defense Attorney Jackson puts photos up on the projector and asks Wolfe what defects he sees on the dummy doll that was hit by a reverse speed of 29 mph. Wolfe points out:

  • Holes on the left sleeve from road rash.

  • A large hole on the back right arm of sweatshirt from road rash.

  • Debris from pavement on sweatshirt

  • Dummy doll also has some chin and nose scuffs

  • Front of sweatshirt has holes and rips.

  • Shoes remained on feet.

• Wolfe says the test doll did not show holes from the broken taillight on the right arm, and his opinion is that the doll’s clothing is inconsistent with John’s clothing.

• Jackson has Wolfe do calculations regarding vehicle speed, weight of arm, and the energy it would transfer when impacted.

  • SUV reversing at 24 mph (arm weighs 11.86 lb) = 3415.68 energy transferred.

  • SUV reversing at 29 mph (arm weighs 9.38 lb) = 3,944.29 energy transferred.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION:

• Yesterday afternoon, while under redirect, Defense asks Wolfe where Prosecutor Brennan got the number 11.86 lbs as the general weight estimation for John’s arm. Wolfe said he didn’t know.

• Today, Prosecutor Brennan asks Wolfe if he recalls telling the court in the first trial that John’s arm weight was about 11 lbs. He agrees that he said that. Wolfe then adds that he doesn’t understand where Brennan got the added .86.

• Brennan asks if Wolfe - or anyone else - weighed John’s arm in isolation. Wolfe says he did not, and does not know if anyone else did.

• Brennan suggests that Wolfe commonly has to use statistics of body mass in his field when things like limbs cannot be weighed in isolation. Wolfe says, “In some instances, yes.”

  Prosecutor Brennan: “So when you are relying on body weight and different parts of the body, there is strong statistical studies that give you a guide. Isn't there?”
  

  Wolfe: “I would agree with that.”

• Brennan then asks Wolfe if John was statistically in the 95% range of

  body weight/ height then why would he choose to use a dummy arm that fits the statistics of someone in the 50% range? There was a weighted dummy arm that was much closer to John’s statistical arm weight, so why did Wolfe opt for the one that weighed less when doing a test where weight is important?

  Wolfe says they did a test with a faster reverse test (29 mph) to account for the difference in weight.

• Brennan follows this up by asking if Wolfe intentionally chose the lighter dummy arm weight to manipulate the testing results regarding the damage to the vehicle. Wolfe says no.

• Wolfe says he was not aware of the studies that say a crash test dummy should not be used to assess injury and clothing on an arm. Brennan points out that a human arm is softer and indents. The pull of fabric would need less force to rip than that of a hard dummy arm. Wolfe agrees.

• The sweatshirts used in testing were new (unwashed), however Wolfe agrees he did not consider how well-worn (and washed) John’s actual sweatshirt was. He did not do any analysis or research on how that fabric changes (or weakens) after use.

• Brennan brings the sweatshirt (in a plexiglass glass-type frame) and has Wolfe examine the back of it. Wolfe agrees that beyond the medical intervention cuts on the shirt, there are some small holes.

DRAMATIC INTERMISSION

After the court takes their regular morning 20 minute break, Defense Attorney Alessi puts evidence gloves on and theatrically demands a mistrial... AGAIN.

He claims that Prosecutor Brennan wrongly alleged that the holes in the back of John’s sweatshirt were from the vehicle accident when the criminologist’s report states the holes were made during her examination process.

Brennan is shown the report, and concedes he was mistaken.

Alessi continues demanding a mistrial claiming that there is no evidence of a collision.

(Insert gigantic eye roll here. We all saw plenty of evidence that points to a collision including ARCCA’s own collision video)

Judge denies a mistrial, and alerts the jury to disregard the sweatshirt holes as part of the accident.

INTERMISSION ENDS.

John Tedeman (Private Investigator)

• Tedeman testified very briefly.

• He measured the distance from the mailbox area to the doors located on the front side, exterior of the home. One measured at 65 ft 9 in, and another 70 ft 1 in.

• On cross-examination, Brennan asked him if he measured distances from the actual flag pole area to the home (walking up the driveway) and Tedeman says yes, but he doesn’t have that measurement on him. Agrees it’s over 80 feet.

Dr. Elizabeth Laposata (Forensic Pathologist)

• Dr Laposata served as Chief Medical Examiner for Rhode Island. Currently runs her own independent consulting practice, and she’s an Associate Professor at Brown University of Medicine. Teaches classes on diseases of the heart. She has done lectures on toxicology and forensic pathology.

• Laposata shares several high-profile tragic events she was involved with as a Medical Examiner. One is the Egypt Air plane crash in ‘99 and the other was the Station Nightclub fire.

• Laposata discusses how John’s back head wound caused his black eyes. Says they were not from a direct hit to the eyes.

• Defense asks if the laceration right above the eye could be caused by a fist. She says it could.

• Laposata says John’s head wound was caused by falling backward and hitting his head. She says his head did not hit a flat surface but some irregular ridge.

Court ended for the day while she was on direct examination.

This past Friday, the defense team called Daniel Wolfe (Director of Accident Reconstruction for ARCCA) to the stand.

However —

His testings seemed to reinforce the state’s own theory by showing a clear visual of not only what the reverse impact would look like, but that it mimics nearly identical results of all evidence found.

You might need to sit down for this recap.

Daniel Wolfe (Director of Accident Reconstruction for ARCCA)

• Wolfe specializes in the fields of Accident Reconstruction, Human Factors, and Lighting.

• He became the Director for the Department of Accident Reconstruction in January of 2024. His education and work history can be found here.

  

• As pointed out by the CW, Wolfe has not taken any classes regarding pedestrian strikes. He also failed his first attempt at becoming certified in Accident Reconstruction, which Wolfe dismisses by saying the test was ‘elementary’.

(Opinion: I don’t think it’s a big deal if a person doesn’t pass a test initially, however, Wolfe’s response to being asked about it was odd. By describing the test as simply elementary, he actually made it seem worse that he failed it.)

Origin of ARCCA’s Involvement

• To avoid any prejudice, the judge has previously ruled that the jury is not allowed to hear that there was once a federal investigation looking into this case. That investigation came to a close earlier this year with zero indictments indicating that there is no evidence of corruption or conspiring to frame the defendant, Karen Read.

• The attorneys are allowed to reference the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts as an outside ‘entity’.

• In late 2023, ARCCA was contracted by the ‘entity’ to give an opinion on whether the victim’s injuries were consistent with a vehicle-pedestrian accident.

• The documents provided to them included: the autopsy report, police reports, and photos of the damaged vehicle. They were given access to view the vehicle in person, but chose not to.

• ARCCA was never provided the techstream data report prior to their original testing. This means they made conclusions without knowing the vehicle reverse speed, throttle percentage, and vehicle reverse distance. They were later provided info about shards of tiny taillight fragments lodged in his clothing.

  (Note: We learned in a past hearing that the federal investigation was at the request of the defendant’s defense team. The State Attorney at that time, Josh Levy, agreed to pursue it. Since the investigation was looking into the state employees, the documents provided to ARCCA were only requested from the murder defendant’s team. This - arguably - causes a concerning issue with how limited and potentially curated the information provided to ARCAA was for that initial analysis. Josh Levy has never spoken publicly about this, and John O’Keefe’s family has shared their frustration with his lack of communication with them.)

• The original testing that Wolfe and several other partners did was boiled down to two main hypotheses they chose to test:

  • Did John’s cocktail glass break the taillight?

    • They built a potato-type cannon to shoot the cup at the taillight.

  • Did Karen Read’s SUV cause John’s head wound from a direct impact?

(The Commonwealth never claimed the vehicle hit John in the head, nor did they claim the cocktail glass was what caused the taillight damage, so the CW shared their frustration with the misguided focus in the first trial.)

• After this testing, Wolfe and his 2 partners concluded that John’s injuries were not consistent with a pedestrian accident.

Wolfe Critiques the State’s Expert Testing

• On direct, Wolfe dismisses the state’s expert, Welcher’s testing methods. Here is the recap of Welcher’s testimony from a week ago if you missed it.

• Wolfe says that Welcher’s “static test” only shows that an arm can align with the taillight. Wolfe says any arm can align with the taillight depending on body position.

(Opinion: Wolfe is claiming that basic height measurements do not matter when discussing whether John’s arm holding a cocktail glass would naturally align with the taillight. Basic measurements seem pretty important when it comes to whether an object was hit in a specific area, so this came across as a red flag for me in regard to bias.)

• Wolfe also dismisses Welcher’s “dynamic test” (blue paint transfer test) because it was only done at 2 mph to show where the taillight would hit the arm, and how the arm would continue to maintain contact briefly as the vehicle reversed. Wolfe states this doesn’t present what would happen at faster speeds.

Wolfe Shares His New Testing

• Wolfe said he was testing to see if Welcher’s opinions were correct.

• Wolfe and his partner performed a series of tests at different speeds of a vehicle hitting an arm.

• They were seeking how the arm would impact a taillight, as well as how the taillight would impact the arm.

• Some of the tests were done in a lab using a dummy doll and a taillight being projected forward by a machine. Some tests were done outdoors with just a hanging dummy arm suspended in the air from a rope while a vehicle reversed at it. And another one was done with a vehicle reversing at a full dummy doll suspended in a harness.

• Test E was done at 24 mph, which is the highest speed reported on the techstream data of Karen’s vehicle when she reversed. We do know that the SUV was still at 74.5% throttle at the end of that trigger event recording, so it’s likely the speed increased even more than that before she stopped reversing.

  • This test shows how the dummy doll’s arm impacted the taillight and caused the plastic cover to shatter. The comparison of what the damage looks like from the testing to what Karen’s actual taillight damage was is very similar.

  • Not only did the jury see an actual reenactment of what the CW’s theory looks like, but they witnessed how an arm can cause the type of damage that Karen’s taillight endured. They also saw how the lower portion of a person’s body could go uninjured in this type of accident.

• The debris field of how the shards spread all over the place can also be seen in the testing, which again, aligns with the Commonwealth’s own theory presented.

  It’s quite baffling that the defense presented this evidence in an attempt to discredit the state’s opinion, when it only strengthened it even more.

So how does Wolfe justify the testing as proof that John was not hit?

• He points to a clear diffuser piece of plastic that is inside the taillight housing that remained intact during the impact testing (It cracked, but didn’t shatter at one point). The one on Karen’s vehicle broke off completely.

• He also points to the victim’s sweatshirt and says the taillight pieces did not cause any holes/tears in the arm from the impact.

Prosecution Questions Wolfe’s Testing

• Wolfe chose a dummy arm that was 9.38 lbs instead of the 12 lb arm option. John’s general arm weight for his height and body mass is about 11.8 lbs.

  Instead of using the dummy arm closest in weight (only .2 pounds heavier), Wolfe chose the arm that was 2.42 lbs lighter.

  Which means he chose to test the impact with an arm mass that was 20.5% less heavy. He dismisses that this weight difference matters, but then later agrees that weight can change outcomes.

• In another testing, he used a dummy doll that was around 23% less heavy. There was also another doll used who was closer to John’s height and weight, however Wolfe said he is unsure how much the arm actually weighed on that doll.

• Prosecutor Brennan points out that the differing variables used in the testing were all over the place.

• The indoor lab test he performed utilized a machine that projected the taillight housing at the dummy arm, however Wolfe agrees that it doesn’t do a full push through drag motion like a vehicle would in reverse. A full push through would cause the arm to continue having brief contact with it as the SUV moved past it.

• Wolfe disagrees at one point that body position can change the impact results, but then later says it does.

• A photo is presented of the dummy with holes in the sweatshirt despite being told on direct that the sweatshirt remained intact. Wolfe says the dummy’s sweatshirt received holes from the road rash it endured, not the broken taillight. Prosecutor Brennan asks if a frozen ground could also cause road rash, and Wolfe says he doesn’t know.

  

• Wolfe agrees that a dummy on a harness will not replicate full motion of a body when clipped by a vehicle. He also agrees that the floating arm (suspended by rope) will not replicate what the exact motion a real arm would make after impact.

• The dummy test that was harnessed and tethered from a rope showed how the doll’s feet were not planted firmly on the ground because the harness works against the gravity of the dummy’s weight. Thus, removing the amount of weight from the body being hit.

  

• Wolfe says they didn’t add a glass to the dummy’s hand because it wasn’t feasible in the testing process, but holding the cup could potentially have impacted the damage of the vehicle as well.

  ---

  Potential Bias

• Prosecutor Brennan questions Wolfe on the concerning issues that came up in hearings prior to this trial. If you’re unaware of the ARCCA issue (or just need a refresher) that led to the defense being found in violation of the court twice, you can find the first article HERE , and the follow-up one HERE.

• Prosecutor Brennan points out that the defense team and Wolfe were requested to provide communications between them, but those communications were deleted by both parties. You can read about this from the voir dire recap (located at the end of the article) that occurred during the first week of this trial.

• Wolfe’s wife joined a “Free Karen Read” Facebook group after the first trial ended, and received praise from the fanatical supporters for her husband’s testimony. Wolfe testified in trial that he is unaware of how his wife feels about the case.

The day ended with Wolfe on redirect, and will continue again on Monday.

Court was canceled for today due to extremely warm weather, so I took my time with this recap of yesterday’s testimony.

Not gonna lie guys…

Comparing the snowplow driver’s multiple statements over the years made my head spin a bit. Personally, I think he means well, but I also think his evolving recollections are a prime example of how nailing down exact details and timeframes of mundane events can be like trying to hold a slippery fish.

Let me know your thoughts!

ON THE STAND:

• Brian Loughran, known as “Lucky” (Snow Plow Driver)

• Karina Kolokithas (Karen Read and John O’Keefe’s friend)

Brian Loughran, “Lucky” (Snow Plow Driver)

• Lucky was born and raised in the city of Canton.

• Employed with the DPW (Department of Public Works) as a snow plow driver.

• Lucky knows the Albert brothers who also grew up in the same town. He was closer to Chris Albert, but cordial with all the brothers.

• He worked for Chris Albert’s pizza shop as a delivery driver years ago.

WORK SHIFT

• On the early morning of 1/29/22, Lucky arrived for his shift around 2:15 am, and was on the road at about 2:20-2:25. He was responsible for “route 11”.

• He drove what his company refers to as the “Franken-Truck”. Large truck with bright headlights. Lucky says he could “see as far as his eyes would let him see”. He states that as he drives, he looks left, right, and front, and can see “everything”. He scans for animals.

• He plows the middle of roads first, pushes snow to the right of the road.

• Lucky says that his route on Cedarcrest is about 1.5 miles long. It takes about 10 min to reach the cross street of Fairview Road. When he encounters the cross street, he passes by Fairview on left, continues down Cedarcrest and then turns around and comes back. Makes right onto Fairview.

  

• First encounters Fairview Rd at about 2:40-2:45am. No memory if street lamps were working that night. No memory if the Albert house lights were on.

• Lucky says he could see all the way to the Albert’s front door. He did not see a man on the lawn.

• After driving by, he makes a left on Chapman, circles around, and then comes back up Fairview.

• Takes 5-10 minutes to get down Fairview, and 5-10 min on Chapman to come back. Says he saw no body.

• He heads onto Spring Lane (plows top and bottom). Comes back to Fairview for 2nd time about 45 min later. Lucky says his second pass was at 3:30 am. He did not make a left at that point onto Fairview. He continued all the way again on Cedarcrest and turned around.

• Makes right on Fairview again. Snowing fairly hard at this point. Notices a vehicle parked on right-hand side in area near-ish flag pole. It was not common to see a vehicle there. Lucky says it was a Ford Edge. The vehicle was parked nose up toward Chapman Street.

• Lucky says he had to plow around the vehicle twice. Once down the road, once up the road. Saw no body on the lawn.

• Drove to Cedarcrest again and did more of his route which took about 3 full hours. Arrived back at Fairview around 6:15 from Chapman. First responder lights came from behind him forcing him to pull over. He turned down a small side street off of Fairview, made a u-turn, and turned left back down Fairview (away from the emergency scene because it was blocked off).

CROSS EXAMINATION —

DISCREPANCIES:

• Lucky confirms that his memory is very strong and that his testimony has never changed over the years, yet Prosecutor Brennan challenges him on that by reviewing past statements he’s made.

• Lucky first interviewed with the defense team’s private investigator about 2 weeks after John passed away in 2022. He was later interviewed in 2023 by federal agents, and then testified in the first trial in 2024, as well as in this trial today.

  

  Affidavit Of Pi

  807KB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

• Prosecutor Brennan points out discrepacies on the times that Lucky has said things occurred, as well as the route taken when comparing all his past statements.

• In one interview, Lucky generalized that he made “two or three” passes down Fairview Road that night, but in other interviews he confidently made three passes.

• The times that Lucky recalls driving down certain streets, and even the path of his routes that morning are different over the years. In one interview he sees the random Ford Edge when looking down Fairview as he was plowing Cedarcrest Rd. This trial he recalls seeing the car when plowing Fairview, and even says he drove by it twice. Last trial it was once.

• Brennan points out that in the interview report with the federal agents he said his shift began at midnight and recalls emergency vehicles at 3:30 am. However in another interview he saw emergency vehicles at 5:30am, and then that time later became 6:15 am. Lucky states that his math was wrong when calculating time at one point. He denies telling the agents he started work at midnight.

• The affidavit from the PI interview states that Lucky recalls his first pass when coming from Chapman Street while another interview it was from Cedarcrest Road.

• While on direct, Lucky said at about 6:15 am he was on Chapman street and briefly turned onto Fairview Road when an emergency vehicle from behind him passed by. Lucky says he pulled onto a side road, turned around, and headed back to Chapman. Brennan shows dash-cam footage from a police cruiser of Lucky being on the opposite road of Fairview (Cedarcrest Rd) and going in the opposite direction at 6:19 am.

• Lucky agrees that he is making his best guesses at the timeframe of events because he was not focused on the clock, but he’s also a bit stubborn in acknowledging the clear discrepancies.

• Prosecutor Brennan asks Lucky what he means when he says he could see as far as his eyes let him. Lucky responds that as long as his eyes are open, he can see as far as they will let him see.

• Brennan asks Lucky if he’s so confident that he is aware of all things when driving, then what neigbbor had a large dumpster in front of it? Lucky says he can’t recall a dumpster and that if there was one it would definitely have stuck out.

• Brennan pulls up a screenshot of Fairview from that morning (police cruiser camera), and shows him a large dumpster across the street on the neighbor’s driveway.

• Brennan points out that on that same shift Lucky hit a basketball hoop with the snow plow. Lucky responds yes. He saw it, but he misjudged the distance of it.

  ---

  PUBLIC PRESSURE ————

• Brennan asks if Lucky is aware he was being threatened online by a specific blogger. Lucky says no.

• Lucky agrees he received a call from the blogger once, but he was not aware he was bring recorded. Lucky says he is aware the content of that conversation was spread around online.

• He concedes that his friends told him about what was being said about him online.

• The attention in general was aggravating for him. It use to be worse, but has eased up. Lucky admits he is a follower of the blog.

• Lucky agrees that he was being celebrated by a group of people who sided with the defense team. He found it to be encouraging, but he didn’t want it. He took photos with that group of people and didn’t want to cause any confrontation.

  (The “blogger”, Aidan Kearney, was in the courtroom during Lucky’s testimony. I question if this had any impact on Lucky being transparent about the threats made towards him.)

  

  ---

  Karina Kolokithas (Karen Read and John O’Keefe’s friend)

  

• Karina took the stand briefly.

• She was at the Waterfall Bar & Grill with the group on 1/29/22. Was going to leave, but when John and Karen showed up she decided to stay.

• She hung out with Karen most of the time. Karen asked her about her daughter.

• At one point, John kissed Karen on the forehead and Karina says it was the “sweetest thing” she’s ever seen.

• Defense asks Karina to point out people on the security footage from the bar that night. She is asked what direction Higgins is facing while waving in a “let’s go” type motion. He is near the door and facing in the direction of the bar. The footage is grainy and many people are moving around in it.

• Karen did not appear intoxicated, but Karina did see her drinking a clear liquid cocktail.

• Prosecutor asks her if John was in a good mood at the bar, she said yes. He was very proud that his niece had just been accepted into a particular private school.

• As everyone began leaving, Jen McCabe put her arm around Karen and said ‘you’re coming with me’. The moment stood out to Karina as unusual.

Anyone else itching for this trial to wrap up soon?😬

My guess is that we have another week or so, but that might just be wishful thinking.

Anyhoo…

Here’s your recap! xo

ON THE STAND TODAY:

Dr. Marie Russell (Retired ER Doctor)

SGT. Nicholas Barros (Dighton Officer)

Dr. Marie Russell (Retired ER Doctor)

(Morning started with the doctor back on cross-examination)

• Dr. Russell says that a woman - not one of the defense attorneys - helped her organize her CV report.

• Prosecutor Brennan pulls out a transcript from Dr. Russell’s voir dire where she previously said that it was actually Defense Attorney Alessi who helped her with the CV editing. In response to these differing statements, the doctor says that’s not her memory “but, you know, you have something in writing.”

• Dr. Russell says she rode in a limo this morning with Attorney Alessi to court. He gave her advice to request a transcript during testimony if she wanted to.

• Brennan asks if she is aware that there is a sequestration order and that she and the attorneys were not allowed to discuss the case. She says they didn’t discuss the case, but that she was not aware that would be a violation.

• Brennan asks how Alessi was able to give her advice about requesting a transcript if they didn’t actually discuss the case. Dr. Russell cannot recall how it came up in the limo.

• Brennan reminds Dr. Russell that during a hearing on 06/21/2024, Russell testified that she couldn’t determine with 100% certainty what type of animal caused the wounds, but that it was “possibly a large dog”. Russell agrees yes. However her opinion now is that the wounds are in fact from a dog because she has analyzed them more.

• Brennan shows the autopsy photo of John’s arm and asks Dr. Russell about specific linear abrasions. She struggled to conclude if teeth or claws were the cause of the individual wounds because they both have a similar cone-shape to them.

• There is no recognized standard anywhere for methodology on how to identify a dog bite wound that Dr. Russell is aware of. She said there are some peer-reviewed articles on the topic.

• Dr. Russell made her conclusion that John was attacked by a dog by:

  • Viewing the autopsy images of John’s arm

  • Differential diagnosis analysis

  • Pattern recognition analysis

• Dr. Russell agrees that multiple people can be injured from a vehicular-pedestrian accident and all sustain wildly different injuries (from fatalities to no serious injuries at all).

• Dr. Russell gives her opinion that John was not hit by a vehicle because he had no lower body injuries. (Note: This seems to contradict her statements about how pedestrian-accident victims can have wildly differentiating injuries from mild to severe).

• Russell acknowledges that many dogs salivate more during a dog attack.

• She also acknowledges that the DNA swabs taken from the victim’s clothing (where the wounds were located) showed no signs of K9 DNA. Russell stated that there could have been flaws in the testing process, but she concedes that she has no evidence of that occurring.

*****SPONTANEOUS and DRAMATIC INTERMISSION ****

Defense attorney Alessi demands for a mistrial because Prosecutor Brennan brought up K9 “DNA” testing despite not bringing in the lab tech to testify regarding the findings.

Prosecution says that not only has Dr. Russell been questioned on the K9 testing before, but that the CW would not bring up dog DNA during their case-in-chief to counter a conspiracy theory that wasn’t yet presented by the defense.

Mistrial denied.

Judge allows the CW to discuss the DNA testing results.

*********************************************

• Dr. Russell is also aware that there were tiny fragments of taillight shards scraped out of the victim’s clothing by a forensic scientist.

• In regard to the defendant telling people she “hit him [John]”, the doctor says it could have been due to reactionary grief.

• Prosecutor Brennan questions Russell on another medical examiner’s report who analyzed the injuries. (**I believe this was a doctor contacted for the federal investigation). His name is Dr. John Walsh and he serves for the Armed Forces.

• Dr. Walsh concluded his opinion that the wounds were not consistent with a dog bite. Dr. Russell says she saw that conclusion, but concluded that he might not have experience treating dog bites. She never looked into it.

• On redirect, Russell says that John’s arm should have shown significant bruising if he was impacted by the vehicle.

• On re-cross, Russell agrees that ice is used to help hinder onset bruising, but when the prosecutor mentioned that John was immediately lying in snow/ice, she disregarded the idea that this would help. (She uses hand motions of snow falling and says ‘when snowflakes fall, the temperature slowly drops…’. She never actually answers this question with specificity.)

SGT Nicholas Barros (Dighton Officer)

• On 1/29/22, Karen Read drove her SUV from John’s house to her parents’ home in Dighton. Around 2:30 pm, Sgt. Barros was given a courtesy call from the investigators - Proctor & Yuri - to alert the Dighton police that they were intending to seize/tow the SUV located in their jurisdiction.

• They asked Barros to facilitate a tow company the city uses, and invited him to meet them at the home where the SUV would be seized.

• Barros arrived at the property, and while the investigators went into the home (to interview Karen), Barros spoke with Karen’s mother in the garage. He says the investigators were inside for a while.

• Barros said he saw that the SUV’s back right taillight was not completely damaged. It was cracked and had a missing piece.

• When shown an image of the vehicle’s damage in the sally port garage taken after being towed to Canton, he is asked if the taillight damage he saw looked like the one in the photo. Barros said, ‘Absolutely not… That taillight is completely smashed out.’ Barros said that the middle part was still intact and the side had a missing piece.

• On cross-examination, Prosecutor Brennan asks Sgt. Barros if he has ever talked with the defense team since the last trial ended. Barros says he met them at a hotel once, but could not recall exactly when. ( Attorney Jackson stays at the Omni hotel when in town).

• Prosecutor reaffirms that the investigators invited him to the Dighton property as a courtesy, and he agrees.

• Barros says he never saw anyone touch or tamper with the vehicle taillight.

• Barros says he is confident he testified in the first trial that the taillight in the sally port garage photo was not consistent with how he saw it in Dighton. Brennan challenges him on this and asks him if he’s as confident in that memory as he is that the taillight looks differently. Barros says yes.

• Brennan then shows Sgt. Barros his full testimony from the first trial and Barros concedes that his memory is faulty. He never mentioned a difference in appearance.

• Brennan emphasizes how memories can fade over time, and that’s why people write reports. Sgt. Barros wrote a scant report mentioning there was damage to the back right taillight, but doesn’t go into detail. Barros agrees.

• Brennan shows a security footage clip of Karen’s vehicle taillight (caught on camera around 5am) from before Barros ever saw the vehicle, and Barros says he’s seen this video many times. The media coverage is everywhere.

• The video shows a large hole in the right back taillight.

  

• Brennan then shows a still shot from a police cruiser camera caught at 8:30am (1/29/22). This photo was after Karen’s vehicle had been outside in the blizzard conditions for hours, and the snow was caked on.

• Sgt Barros says that this photo from 8:23 am (left) is consistent with how recalls the appearance of the back taillight in Dighton.

Barros finished up on the stand by the end of the day, so tomorrow morning there will be a new witness called to testify.

ON THE STAND TODAY:

1. Jonathan Diamandis (Childhood Friend of Trooper Proctor)

2. Kelly Dever (Boston Police Officer/ Former CPD Officer)

3. Dr. Marie Russell (Retired ER Doctor)

Jonathan Diamandis (Childhood Friend of Trooper Proctor)

• Defense called Diamandis to the stand to authenticate a group text message thread of friends who have known one another since their youth. The group text chat started years ago, and it includes himself and Trooper Proctor.

• A specific timeframe of texts were presented to Diamandis, and he confirmed that Proctor is on the thread, and that the texts are his.

• Defense Attorney David Yannetti ends direct questioning without asking Diamandis what the texts said.

  (Opinion: I presume the defense wants those texts to come up later in trial. Likely in their closing argument for a dramatic effect. If that’s the case, they oddly didn’t anticipate the CW taking the bull by the horn on cross-examination and presenting them first.)

• Diamandis did not actually engage in this particular text conversation that he was on the stand to authenticate, and he felt uncomfortable reading the derogatory words said in the thread aloud. Instead, Prosecutor Brennan read the harsh ones to the court while Diamandis confirmed them.

• Several of the texts were from the late evening of 1/29/22, and the others read were from 2/2/22.

(NOTE: I quickly transcribed the text convo below, so there’s a chance they might not be 100% accurate. If anyone is able to double-check it for me, let me know! Otherwise, I will try and go back and confirm it when I get a chance.)

Kelly Dever (Boston Police Officer/ Former CPD Officer)

• Officer Dever worked for the Canton Police Department on 1/29/22. She is currently working as a Boston Police Officer.

• Dever was on shift the night the 911 call was made regarding a ‘man in the snow’, and she was requested to handle the dispatch position at the station.

• In August of 2023 (over a year and a half after the day John passed away), Dever was questioned by federal agents about her shift on 1/29/22. She told them she recalls ATF Agent Brian Higgins and Sgt. Berkowitz entering the Sally Port garage where the SUV was stored for a ‘wildly long time’.

• Officer Dever realized later that her memory was flawed because her shift had actually ended several hours before Karen Read’s vehicle arrived at the Canton Police Department on 1/29/22. It was physically impossible that her recollection was the day in question.

• Dever stated that in April, she received a phone call with the defense team and she told them that her original recollection with the agents was incorrect once she realized she was not on shift at that time. She said the defense got very aggressive on the phone with her and threatened to charge her with perjury if that’s how she would testify. Dever says she reached out to the federal agents and reported this incident to them.

• Defense Attorney Jackson suggests that Dever would be implicating two officers if she stuck her original statement. Dever denies his assertion, and says she has no one to protect. Her job requires her to be truthful on the stand.

Dr. Marie Russell (Retired ER Doctor)

• Emergency Medicine Specialist in Los Angeles, CA and has over 36 years of experience in the medical field. She graduated from University of Massachusetts / Boston campus in 1987.

  

  

• Dr. Russell has testified as a medical expert witness in other trials, but has never testified as a ‘dog bite expert’ before this trial.

• Dr. Russell says the types of wounds she treated regarding police dogs were extensive. There would be ripping of the skin and tissue.

• She estimates that she has treated over 500 dog bite injuries in her 36 years, as well as thousands of vehicle accident patients in the ER.

• She says sometimes in the ER setting there are language barriers where she has to use pattern recognition skills to recognize the cause of the wound.

• Dr. Russell states that when a dog bites, they usually don't bite with all of the teeth. Often, it's the anterior or the front teeth because a person who's getting bit will pull away.

• Photo diagram of K9 teeth are presented (below), and the doctor tells the jury that this is a “side view” of a K9 skeleton “with no skin”.
  
  (Opinion: The obvious information was overly-stated in her testimony, but her explanations of what the jury likely needed to understand about her analysis seemed a bit fuzzy.)

  

• Dr. Russell explains:

“…canine teeth are so long compared to the others, um, they are the ones that seem to cause the, uh, large puncture wounds. And those are the ones that, uh, appear to get the grip on the on the, uh, person's skin.”

• John’s wounds are mild abrasions, which means the top layer of the skin (epidermis) was injured, but there are zero lacerations or puncture wounds. Despite this, Dr. Russell believes that John’s wounds are consistent with a dog attack and that the dog just never latched on.

She points out the linear wounds and says that she sees ‘groupings’ of bites (multiple attempts in the same area) on John’s arm. She also says she can’t exactly tell the difference from the teeth marks and claw marks in areas.

• She points out that John’s shirt shows holes with the threading coming loose, and that this is seen in dog attacks from the pulling of the tooth.

  

• Dr. Russell came across this case when reading an article in the Boston Magazine last year after the first trial had already begun. She reached out to someone she knew in the Los Angeles DA’s office (where Attorney Alan Jackson is from) to offer her help. Alan Jackson got in contact with her after that.

• On direct examination, the doctor says she was trying to see if she could help rule out the dog bite as the cause, however, on cross-examination she concedes that when she saw the photo of the wounds in the magazine she believed they were dog bites. Thus, calling the DA’s office to offer her expertise.

• Prosecutor Brennan asks if she interjected herself because it was a high-profile case. Dr. Russell says no. She was “reluctant” to be part of it.

• Brennan points out that she updated her marketing as a dog expert around the time of the first trial. Russell agrees.

• Prosecutor Brennan begins comparing previous testimony statements that Dr. Russell made regarding her analysis of John’s wounds over the last year, however court ended for the day, so the cross-examination will resume tomorrow morning.

Friday afternoons are always a bit grueling to finish the recaps, so forgive me for the delay.

Here’s yesterday’s recap!

The morning started with Defense Attorney Jackson making an argument for the required finding of not guilty motion, which is common practice after the Prosecution rests in MA criminal trials. Jackson basically reiterated his opening statement. Prosecutor Brennan followed up with a rebuttal.

The defense’s motion was swiftly denied by the judge.

ON THE STAND TODAY:

Matthew DiSogra (Vehicle Data Expert)

Disogra is the defense’s first witness to be called to the stand, and he spent the entire day testifying. The attorneys on both sides were able to finish up their questions, so he will not have to return on Monday.

• Director of Engineering in EDR Services for the company DELTA |v| Forensic Engineering.

I’m going to attempt this recap a tad differently than I normally do because the entire day (direct-exam and cross-exam) was spent circling around one slight difference in the interpretation of analysis between the experts regarding clock time variances.

Here’s the breakdown…

In order to accurately define a timeline using digital data timestamps, you NEED to make sure the different devices used to build a timeline are on the exact same clock time to the second.

Experts acknowledge that the data pulled from Karen’s SUV and the data pulled from John’s iPhone have a slight time deviation from one another…

• The iPhone’s clock is accurate to the second.

• The Lexus’ internal clock is not. There’s up to a 60 second variance from the real time.

We learned from the CW’s expert, Shanon Burgess, last week that in order to find the difference in seconds between the phones, you have to find a common denominator between them.

Burgess first used Karen’s outgoing phone calls that linked to her SUV’s infotainment device to compare the variance in seconds. However, he later realized that Karen’s calls were made when the vehicle was turned off, which means there’s a delay in the vehicle time-stamping those calls to the second once the vehicle is turned back on.

Burgess concluded there was too much room for error to do it this way.

He decided the most accurate way to find the correct variation in seconds was to do compare John’s geolocation data on his phone, speed of movement, milage of SUV etc, to the known variable of a 3-pt turn made prior to arriving at the Fairview property. You can find this in the recap here for further explanation.

Between the Commonwealth’s cellular forensic experts’ analysis and the vehicle data experts, the CW asserts that the timeline sequence of events are:

1. John’s phone receives a text.

2. John accesses his phone to look at it.

3. He then manually pushed the side button on his iPhone to close the screen. (referred to as ‘locking’), and slid his phone into his back pocket.

4. Within seconds of the locking, Karen’s vehicle reversed at him.

We know from the bar surveillance footage that John keeps his phone in his back right pocket, so the inference is that when John was hit, the force of the hit caused him (and his phone in the back pocket) to hurl back and slam on the frozen ground. This motion caused his phone to slide out of his back pocket, landing underneath his upper back area.

NOW, let’s discuss the defense’s expert, DiSogra’s testimony…

• Matthew DeSogra testified that while it’s possible John locked his phone seconds before Karen reversed, it’s also possible he locked it seconds after she reversed.

Basically —

The defense’s expert isn’t necessarily undermining the Commonwealth’s timeline. He’s suggesting that the time variance can also incorporate the possibility that John locked his phone after the vehicle was reversing.

(It’s important to note here — DiSogra was not asked to do any testing or write a report himself by the defense. They simply asked him to review the reports of the CW’s testing and opinions. He conceded that due to the labeling of a page in the report he reviewed, he inferred it meant one thing, while the prosecutor pointed out that the CW’s expert was actually referencing something slightly different. This ultimately affects the time variance calculations that DiSogra surrounded his opinion on. In DiSogra’s defense, he made a reasonable inference from the way the chart was labeled IMO, but had he done his own report & testing, he likely would have caught this issue. I personally find it a bit too convenient that the defense did not ask him to take any further steps.)

So WHY does this window of mere seconds matter to the defense?

They want the jurors to think that John was potentially still physically moving around after Karen reversed, thus meaning she didn’t actually hit him.

The problem with this theory is that…

John’s phone registers his final steps just seconds later on the front lawn (via geolocation data), and his phone registers as what is known as a “pocket state” (the face of the phone is covered by something as if it’s in a pocket).

The phone never gets turned off, and remains in the pocket state until John was found on the front lawn around 6am. The phone was underneath him, which explains the “pocket state” registering.

On top of that —

We also know the phone’s temperature was dropping throughout the night after Karen drove away, and then went back up once the phone was recovered at 6 am.

IN CONCLUSION:

Defense cannot (nor did they try to) argue against the data that says Karen reversed her vehicle at 24 mph at 74.5% throttle that night.

They spent the day arguing that it’s possible she rapidly reversed 87 feet and John was still moving seconds later (manually locking his phone).

PS- Here’s a great visual of the CW’s timeline created by trial commentator Lydia.

Before the jury entered the courtroom this morning…

👉Defense Attorney Alessi argued to allow him to question the CW’s expert witness — Judson B. Welcher — about Trooper Paul’s analysis/report of the SUV techstream data. Alessi claimed that Welcher relied on Trooper Paul’s report to form his analysis, therefore he should be allowed to question him on it.

(*Trooper Paul was the first expert to analyze the vehicle data after the SUV was seized from the defendant. He has not testified this trial.).

👉Defense also wanted to question Dr. Welcher about the Medical Examiner’s autopsy analysis despite that she already testified.

👉Prosecutor Brennan argued back that if the defense team wants to discuss another witness’ report and testings, they need to call that witness to the stand. He affirms that despite what the defense is claiming, Welcher did not rely on Trooper Paul’s analysis. You can’t have a witness testify through another witness to avoid calling them to the stand.

👉Judge found that the defense’s request was improper, and denied it.

ON THE STAND TODAY:

Judson B. Welcher (Accident Reconstructionist and Biomechanics Engineer)

• This was Welcher’s third and final day on the stand.

• The defense continued their cross-examination, which was followed up by a very brief redirect and recross. Today was a half day in court.

TRAVERSE AND LEXUS COMPARISON

• Defense Attorney Alessi posts one of the laser-scanned photos Welcher took of Karen’s SUV next to John’s Traverse and suggests that the taillight is touching the traverse. Welcher vehemently disagrees. He says this is one photo of many photos they took to capture both vehicles near one another for a full 3D analysis.

  The traverse (right) is actually in front of the Lexus to the right despite the optics in that photo. Welcher says if the defense shows the following images on the slide, they will see the orientation of the cars more clearly. (Alessi does not do that).

• Defense questions if the 3D imagery scans were “photoshopped”, and Welcher said no. The colors (and pixelated appearance) that presented are part of the laser 3D scan.

😬AWKWARD MOMENT: An odd moment occurred during the testimony when Defense Attorney Alessi got upset that the witness motioned to let him finish his answer before interrupting. Alessi cried for the judge and said the witness was accusing him of doing something with his hand. The witness never once mentioned Alessi’s hand during the entire testimony. It was bizarre.

GLASS PIECES

• Defense questions Welcher over the several pieces of glass shards that were not a mechanical match to the cocktail glass (but were an instrumental match).

• Welcher reaffirms that there are several variable unknowns to the accident, and one of them is if John threw the glass at Karen’s SUV before she reversed into him, or if it shattered in his hand, etc.

• Welcher says that despite the variable of those glass shards, the totality of evidence still points to a vehicular-pedestrian accident. It doesn’t change the conclusion.

RING CAMERA

• Defense questions Welcher about the Ring camera at John’s property. The family upgraded the RING camera at some point after John had passed away. Welcher says he is aware.

• Defense asks if he accounted for the change in RING cameras (including a swivel) when doing a laser scan of the driveway. Welcher says the RING video footage was not used during the laser scans. They are added to it afterward in a process called photogrammetry.

THE LEXUS DATA

• Defense asks Welcher if he knew the suspension height of Karen Read’s SUV for the date of John’s death. Welcher says he has the height data from two days after the incident.

• Welcher is asked if the techstream data states when a collision occurs. No, it has to be inferred by other data points.

ON REDIRECT:

• Prosecutor Brennan asks, “The fact that the RING camera was replaced, does that any way affect your opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty about your conclusions relative to that touching between the cars?”

  Welcher says, “Absolutely not. It would’ve shown up as increased air when we overlay the point clouds onto the photos or the point clouds onto the video. If it was an error, it would have showed an error.”

• Do you have any information that the suspension at any point was changed? Welcher says no.

• Dr. Welcher describes what distribution of load is again, and why it matters in regard to an impact…

“So you have to look at the distribution of the load when you're talking about the failure. So when you look at the failure loads, it depends on what you're doing it with. If I hit you with a five pound two by four or a five pound pillow, they're both five pounds, but you'd much rather get hit by the pillow than the two by four.”

• Prosecutor asks, “When you were communicating with members of the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office, did you ever use encrypted apps like signal to communicate?”. Welcher says no.

(This question was clearly strategic to pre-highlight the fact that the defense team not only deleted around 100 texts between themselves and the ARCCA experts, but they also requested that the encrypted Signal app be used for communications. This will surely come up on cross-examination when the ARCCA duo take the stand.)

• After three grueling days on the stand, the attorneys finish their questioning with Dr. Welcher. It ended with some light-hearted laughter by people in the courtroom when the judge said he was free to go and Welcher responded surprised, “Oh my God. Thank you!”. 😂

VIDEO CLIP PLAYED:

AFTER this clip ended, the jury got to hear those magical words…

The Commonwealth rests their case. 📣

Court ended early, and the defense will begin their case tomorrow.