DAY 17: Karen Read Retrial
Tiny shards of plastic matching Karen's taillight cover were located in the debris scraped out of John O'Keefe's clothing.
Well, would you look at that…
Friday rolled up on us faster than a 90’s rollerskating duo in scrunchy leg warmers.
Before you skate away into the abyss of your weekend plans...
Here are the Karen Read Trial highlights from the day.
Prosecutor Brennan started the morning off by announcing a stipulation (defense and prosecution agreement) to the jury confirming that Trooper Proctor was not an attendee at John O’Keefe’s autopsy.
Although the cause for this announcement was not shared in court…
It’s fair to infer the purpose of it was due to the defense falsely labeling an autopsy photo they shared with the jury yesterday. The photo had a label on the top left that included Proctor’s name, however the man in the photo is not Proctor.
(Opinion: The defense has not been immune to violations of the court in this trial, so it’s very hard for me to believe this was unintentional on their part, however it doesn’t appear they were reprimanded for it by the judge.)
After the stipulation was stated…
CW had a VIDEO CLIP played in court prior to any witness taking the stand.
ON THE STAND TODAY:
Andre Porto (MSP Forensic Scientist)
Ashley Vaillier (MSP Forensic Scientist)
Andre Porto (MSP Forensic Scientist)
Porto managed the DNA testing of evidence. He explains the steps he took, as well as the protocols used to avoid cross-contamination.
The process of identifying DNA requires a positive control and a negative control in testing.
Positive control: A sample with a known DNA profile that is used in every step of the DNA analysis process to make sure that each step and instrument works as expected and properly.
Negative control: A sample that has no DNA in it. It only receives the chemicals that they use and that's to ensure that the chemicals included do not have any DNA inherent to them.
DNA testing was performed on the swabs collected from:
SUV taillight housing
Broken cocktail glass
Singular hair (found on side-paneling of the bumper area)
Victim’s clothing.
John’s DNA was confirmed matching the DNA located on:
✅back right taillight housing ✅the cocktail glass ✅his own clothing.
Andre Porto said that the MSP crime lab is not equipped to perform mitochondrial DNA testing, so he was unable to generate any DNA from the singular hair root. They could not even detect it as human hair. The hair shaft was also sent to Bode Technology for testing.
(We learned last trial that the Bode lab was able to conclude that the hair is a match to the victim. I think we can safely assume this will also be testified to in this trial.)
The evidence items found to have John’s DNA on them, also had DNA sources from unknown individuals:
Taillight housing (external) 3 unknowns
Sweatshirt had 1 unknown
Sneaker had a mixture of up to five contributors
Drinking glass had 2 unknowns.
Jeans has at least 2 unknowns
(Opinion: This not a surprise given that John was not only out socializing at a bar for hours with friends, but he also received CPR efforts by Kerry Roberts, Jen McCabe, and the defendant, Karen Read. Medic-Firefighters and medical staff were also manually handling John when attempting to save his life.)
Ashley Vaillier (MSP Forensic Scientist)
Vaillier was responsible for analyzing the singular pieces of plastic/glass collected as evidence and fitting them together into a singular item.
The scientist spends a lot of time identifying the plastic shards. Photos of them were presented from different evidence containers, and then photos displayed after Vaillier was able to connect them together like a puzzle. One ‘empty spot’ was noted as not located.
(In a clip played for the jury a few weeks ago, Karen mentions pulling a piece of her broken taillight off her SUV in John’s driveway the morning of 1/29/22 right before John was discovered in the snow).
Vaillier states that the debris that was scraped out of John’s shirts included tiny red shards matching the taillight pieces.
Defense asks if Vaillier is aware of how evidence was handled prior to her receiving the items. Vaillier cannot confirm things she was not present for.
Trial ended early today.✨
However, after the jury departed…
Defense Attorney Alessi began arguing (again) that the CW’s opinion regarding the variance in seconds between the Lexus vehicle clock and John’s Apple iPhone clock is a change in the timeline, and that it unfairly impacts their own defense preparation.
Prosecution said it’s not a change in the time of impact claimed by the CW, it’s simply an acknowledgment of the variance of seconds in the differing clocks. This information was already acknowledged by the defense’s own expert.
The judge said she was not persuaded by the defense’s argument of ‘trial by ambush’, and so the CW is permitted to introduce the time of impact matching the time of John’s last steps.
I don't know how you do it, but thank you for your valuable and hard work.
Thank you :)