Which if they really thought her car was involved from the very beginning, makes what they did and didn't do make even less sense. IF they had really thought that their supposed friend, a fellow cop, was murdered by somebody hitting him and fleeing, why did they not do nearly anything correctly? No chain of command on what questionable "evidence" they found. No labeling of said "evidence". All "evidence" they did have all bagged together. No calling the real CSI team. The team that they did call in having no real command hierarchy. Nobody seemed to gather any security/Ring footage that might have shown them exactly what car was possibly involved...
I don't know how to respond except to say that events unfolded the way I'd expect they would.Which if they really thought her car was involved from the very beginning, makes what they did and didn't do make even less sense. IF they had really thought that their supposed friend, a fellow cop, was murdered by somebody hitting him and fleeing, why did they not do nearly anything correctly? No chain of command on what questionable "evidence" they found. No labeling of said "evidence". All "evidence" they did have all bagged together. No calling the real CSI team. The team that they did call in having no real command hierarchy. Nobody seemed to gather any security/Ring footage that might have shown them exactly what car was possibly involved...
All I can say is here in the circumstance where they even suspected a fellow officer was murdered there would be nearly every cop in the area on site immediately. Immediately CSI would be called. Immediately the scene would be preserved. Immediately doors would be knocked on asking every neighbor what they might have seen and any video available gone through. Why was this not done? How would anybody expect this lack of response out of their police force? People should expect no chain of custody with evidence?I don't know how to respond except to say that events unfolded the way I'd expect they would.
What are you saying, all tail light pieces laid on the bumper? Don't think that's how I understand it.LAID on stationary objects. That stuff didn't travel 60+miles, sitting on vertical metal, in a blizzard with inches of snow that had melted away that would have been on top of it. There is no comparison on that at all
You specifically mentioned the hair and not the glass. And today we find out those pieces on the bumper weren't even plastic tail light pieces, but glass. Glass that didn't match the cup they found BUT how convenient that ONE piece that was turned in by Proctor that was not in with the pieces found on the bumper and turned in by another person, was the only match to the glass. Now, where did that come from and why was it not with the other pieces that were with the bumper and where and when was it actually found. Again, turned in by Proctor with no chain of evidence. Are we seeing a pattern here yet?What are you saying, all tail light pieces laid on the bumper? Don't think that's how I understand it.
More likely you mean the hair. I don't know. Have a fly wing stuck to your windshield or bumper and drive around for a year with no wash and see if it is still there... They don't seem to come off. Nor bird sh*t, etc. I am not sure the reason to discuss anyhow as it was not tested either was it or WAS IT and found to be his...?
What I asked about was the tail light pieces, were they not under sn*w?
Haven't seen the pics, don't know. I worked for insurance adjusters though for 20 years and people who tried to claim they hit a deer were found to be lying on many an occasion (comp was no deductible then but collision was or at least lower deductible as the years went on) because no matter how many weeks later there was no deer hair to be found on the car. Always, always, there is deer hair. Also to the idiots who use a balteen hammer is it to make hail dents with a cloth over it, are indeed idiots Hail doesn't make the same sized dents with the same impact n all hits. I learned a LOT of things in that job over 20 years.Plus, the piece of hair also appears to have moved, by itself, between two pics that were taken inside, in a controlled climate. This, after it had supposedly stayed clung onto that vertical surface during 60+ miles of transport and snow melt.
yeah a lot of things seem to never be mentioned here. I didn't know the niece and nephew both testified to constant arguments between the two of them and more. Never saw it here but maybe I missed it in some link. The sneaker I either never knew about or forgot about.From yesterday's testimony, I'd been wondering where the sneaker was found and hadn't known that it and most all of the taillight pieces were recovered that first day.
And there's more damage to the vehicle than I'd been aware of.
Most don't disagree this was less than stellar investigation. That's a far cry from that they did it and she didn't.Which if they really thought her car was involved from the very beginning, makes what they did and didn't do make even less sense. IF they had really thought that their supposed friend, a fellow cop, was murdered by somebody hitting him and fleeing, why did they not do nearly anything correctly? No chain of command on what questionable "evidence" they found. No labeling of said "evidence". All "evidence" they did have all bagged together. No calling the real CSI team. The team that they did call in having no real command hierarchy. Nobody seemed to gather any security/Ring footage that might have shown them exactly what car was possibly involved...
Why? Are you thinking they'd actually put someone else's in it? For what purpose?I'd really like to know who's blood was put in the cup.
How does he have absolutely no injuries on his lower body that would HAVE to happen if he was hit by a vehicle? Did the back end of her vehicle launch up about 6 feet to hit him in the head? How is there this one mystery hair, that I'm pretty sure they didn't even test, and no other evidence of him being hit on her vehicle? How did he get those scratches on his arm with the pierced holes in his sweatshirt about where those scratches on his arm are? They aren't snags and if they were, woudln't there be some fibers on her vehicle from his sweatshirt? There was no blood or fibers found on her vehicle.Most don't disagree this was less than stellar investigation. That's a far cry from that they did it and she didn't.
Personally I think at the outset they were all worried about what did happen, and even not going to go after Karen, as one of "theirs" and covering their own drinking and more as people of "position". There is very typical although wrong sh*t here that can explain this WITHOUT it being the defense ridiculous theory and that she didn't do it.
That being said, I'm not thinking they are going to win this case due to a not so stellar investigation.
It doesn't change the fact I think she did it. A jury may think so as well but be unable to convict because of such things or some might. Feeling fairly certain she did is a lot different than enough evidence she did to convict. However, it isn't over yet.
The amount of things someone framing here would have to do is ridiculous. Tail light on him, near the area, some found at this time, more found another time, they took off his sneaker I guess and thought to do so and placed that. And then plucked a hair. And so on. So many many things and so LARGE of a conspiracy to frame some woman for what isn't even a first degree murder charges and who was AT THE SCENE and admitted it as well that she hit him and who was drunk.Karen Read trial: Key Mass. police investigator testifies, with focus on SUV
Massachusetts State Police Trooper Yuriy Bukhenik took the stand Wednesday in the murder trial of Karen Read, after jurors heard testimony on evidence from the night Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe died. Jurors had heard from two forensic scientists on what was found at the scene of the crime...www.necn.com
By Munashe Kwangwari and Asher Klein • Published June 5, 2024 • Updated 2 hours ago
<snip>
Forensic scientist Ashley Vallier continues her testimony
Vallier continued her testimony Wednesday morning and was asked questions by Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally about photos she took of pieces of taillight collected from 34 Fairview Road.
After she explained details on the texture and surface area of varies pieces of evidence, Vallier explained the process of documenting them, including comparing pieces that may fit together and how.
After Lally concluded his testimony, defense attorney David Yannetti asked about one set of evidence, pieces of debris collected from an orange shirt and grey hoodie, and established through the questioning that Vallier didn't have any knowledge about who had access to it before it arrived at the state crime lab.
Vallier said that Massachusetts State Police investigator Michael Proctor delivered that evidence to the lab on March 14, about six weeks after O'Keefe's death.
Proctor was the lead investigator on the case, whom the defense contends (and which the prosecution denies) as part of its claim of a cover-up is connected to other witnesses in the case.
Yannetti then showed a different evidence package, from Feb. 3, submitted by a different trooper, that included lots of small pieces of a vehicle's taillight. He followed up by showing other pieces, larger ones found by Proctor five days later, then more sets found in the following weeks.
He ended by showing the final reconstruction of the taillight, which had one large piece missing, a hole on the upper left side of the exhibit. Vallier confirmed that the whereabouts of those missing pieces was unknown.
Forensic scientist Christina Hanley testifies
After a break, Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory forensic scientist Christina Hanley was called to the stand. She established her areas of expertise, and that she trains other forensics investigators at the lab.
Lally began asking about glass that was discovered at the scene of O'Keefe's death, which Hanley subsequently analyzed.
Hmmm.Karen Read trial: Key Mass. police investigator testifies, with focus on SUV
Massachusetts State Police Trooper Yuriy Bukhenik took the stand Wednesday in the murder trial of Karen Read, after jurors heard testimony on evidence from the night Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe died. Jurors had heard from two forensic scientists on what was found at the scene of the crime...www.necn.com
By Munashe Kwangwari and Asher Klein • Published June 5, 2024 • Updated 2 hours ago
<snip>
State police Trooper Yuri Bukhenik testifies
Massachusetts State Police Trooper Yuri Bukhenik, a supervisor in the state police detectives unit at the Norfolk District Attorney's Office, took the stand shortly after 12 p.m.
Lally started by asking him about how long he has known Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case. He said he has known Proctor since about 2019, and has supervised him for that entire time.
Bukhenik said he was contacted on the morning of O'Keefe's death and traveled to Canton to meet Proctor there. He said he arrived at the Canton Police Department around 9:15 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022.
When he arrived, he and Proctor met with the police officers from Canton. He said Proctor had already briefed him about the situation before his arrival and at some point he was informed that O'Keefe had been found in Albert's yard on Fairview Road and taken to the hospital.
He and Proctor traveled together to the residence of Matthew and Jennifer McCabe on Country Lane in Canton, where they spoke separately with the McCabes and then Brian Albert. The two investigators then went to the Good Samaritan Hospital in Brockton, where O'Keefe had been taken.
"Once in the room we obeerved Mr. O'Keefe's body on the medical bed or gurney. His clothing, which had been cut off of him, were on the floor at the foot of the bed a couple feet away," Bukhenik said.
He said they identified and bagged O'Keefe's clothing, which was soaking wet, as evidence.
Bukhenik also testified that he observed bruising on O'Keefe's face, and abrasions on his right arm that appeared to be from "blunt force trauma friction." He said the abrasions appeared linear and concentrated in one area.
While at the hospital, Bukhenik said he and Proctor attempted to speak with Read, but she was not at the hospital. She was reportedly at her parents' home in Dighton at that time.
From the hospital, he said he and Proctor traveled to Read's parents' home.
Bukhenik also displayed some of the evidence recovered from the hospital that day, including O'Keefe's sweatshirt, T-shirt, right sneaker, blue jeans, belt and boxer shorts.
The trial broke for lunch around 1 p.m. after the items of O'Keefe's clothing were entered into evidence. The break lasted about 30 minutes, at which time Bukhenik returned to the stand.
Three new photographs were entered into evidence just after the break, showing O'Keefe's body at Good Samaritan Hospital on Jan. 29, 2022. Judge Beverly Cannone prefaced the display of the photos to jurors by instructing them to separate any emotional reaction they might have to the graphic nature of the images.
Bukhenik described the swelling on O'Keefe's face, lacerations on his right arm and how he saw blood pooling on the bed.
After leaving the hospital, Bukhenik said he went to Dighton, the home of Read's parents.
He said Read's SUV was there when they arrived, and he observed as he walked past it that the rear right taillight was damaged. He said Proctor also confirmed the damage.
"During the initial phase, I observed snow compacted and caked onto portions of the taillight casing. There were pieces missing, and I knew that because the left side taillight was intact," he said.
Bukhenik said he and Proctor were greeted by Read's father, who invited them into the home. When they entered the home they said Read was sitting on the couch with her laptop on her lap and her phone on the armrest of the couch.
Read's mother was also present in the home, he said.
"It was polite, courteous," Bukhenik said of the conversation. "She had just went through a traumatic event, so we were considerate of her losing her boyfriend... We were in the information gathering, fact finding portion of the investigation. We simply wanted to collect her recollection of the events that she remembered."
Read told the investigators that she was willing to answer their questions but said she didn't want to go into too much detail. She told them that she was in a relationship with O'Keefe, and had gotten into a fight with him that morning over what his niece and nephew had eaten for breakfast.
She said she then met O'Keefe at C.F. McCarthy's bar that night, and she was drinking vodka soda while the men drank Bud Light. She explained how they later went to the Waterfall Bar & Grill. She said O'Keefe didn't have any injuries on him at either of those locations and hadn't gotten into any physical altercations with anyone.
He said Read told the investigators that she and O'Keefe left the Waterfall together and she drove them to a location on Fairview Road in Canton, where she dropped O'Keefe off. She said that she didn't see O'Keefe walk into the home, and said she made a three-point turn after dropping him off and left.
Asked about the damage to her SUV, Bukhenik said Read told them, "I don't know. It happened last night."
Read told investigators that she was having "stomach issues," and that's why she didn't accompany O'Keefe to the party on Fairview Road.
She also told the investigators she found O'Keefe in the snow on Albert's lawn on the morning of Jan. 29, 2022 and began performing CPR. She said he had sustained injuries and was bleeding from the nose and mouth and both of his eyes were swollen.
When the interview concluded, Bukhenik said he told Read that her phone and her SUV were being seized as evidence.
Prosecutors also showed surveillance video from outside Read's parents' home, showing Read and her father appearing to gesture toward the rear taillight of her SUV. Further video also showed the vehicle being loaded up onto a flatbed truck to be towed from the scene. In the video, Bukhenik pointed out how the rear taillight was illuminated.
Their testimony was blocked and if there's a reliable source for info re their testimonies, I don't know what it is.yeah a lot of things seem to never be mentioned here. I didn't know the niece and nephew both testified to constant arguments between the two of them and more. Never saw it here but maybe I missed it in some link. The sneaker I either never knew about or forgot about.