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.