Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *MISTRIAL*

1691951367971.png

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Try this livestream.


Thanks, but I'll have to wait til lunch in order to get caught up.
 
Try this livestream.


Feel free to post any major developments in his testimony. I'm assuming CourtTV will get caught up after lunch and I'll be able to start watching the other feed afterwards.
 

By Alysha Palumbo and Marc Fortier • Published 5 hours ago • Updated 1 min ago​


<snip>

Fiery hearing before the start of testimony​

Before the jury entered the courtroom on Monday morning, Judge Beverly Cannone held a brief hearing to allow the prosecution to argue a motion they had filed seeking to compel the defense to provide additional information on some of their upcoming witnesses and to exclude one defense witness altogether.

The defense said Dr. Marie Russell, an emergency medicine specialist from Los Angeles, should not be allowed to testify because they received notice only two weeks ago that she was going to testify and has received only a brief synopsis about what she is expected to testify about, leaving them insufficient time to prepare for cross examination. She is expected to testify about the possibility that injuries to O'Keefe's arm might have been caused by a dog.

But Yannettti took issue with the motion, as well as some of the assertions made by the defense.

He cited one "outrageous and false assertion," saying the defense claimed that he said at a hearing in February that the defense was not planning to argue that O'Keefe's injuries might have been consistent with a dog attack. He said all that he said was that they were not going to be discussing canine DNA.

"I was astounded to read that," Yannetti said. "First of all, it is false, it is a lie."

"My integrity has been attacked," he added. "I need to defend myself and my client... I ask you: Have they no shame?"

Cannone quickly shut down Yannetti when he tried to bring up the fact that prosecutors played the inverted surveillance video during last week's testimony.

She did not exclude Russell as a witness, but said she does want to have Russell and three other defense witnesses in court without jurors present later this week for a voir dire hearing to determine whether they will be allowed to testify and what they will be allowed to testify to before the jury. That hearing is expected to last a half day.
 

By Alysha Palumbo and Marc Fortier • Published 5 hours ago • Updated 1 min ago​


<snip>

Is a mirror image video 'true and accurate'?​

Bukhenik returned to the stand shortly after 9 a.m., where defense attorney Alan Jackson continued to cross examine him.

Jackson started by showing the surveillance video from the Canton Police Department sallyport, showing Read's SUV in the garage bay.

He asked Bukhenik why he didn't mention during his testimony last week on two separate days that the video was inverted. Only when the defense began to cross examine him did he mention that it appeared the video was a mirror image.

Jackson asked if the video was an accurate depiction of what happened, given that is inverted.

Bukhenik maintained that the video is "true and accurate," as Jackson put it, even though it was a mirror image.

"If the jurors were actually standing where the camera is recording... the back of the vehicle would be on the right and the front of the vehicle would be on the left, but all activity is accurately depicted in the video... It's a mirror image," Bukhenik said.

Jackson also got Bukhenik to acknowledge that the time stamps for the sallyport video cover 17 minutes of time, but only just under six minutes of time is included on the recording.

"The video that was produced is what we got," Bukhenik said.

Jackson asked if there were obvious portions of the video where people seemed to appear out of nowhere

"It's not a smooth recording of the events... that is due to the triggering of the recording," Bukhenik said.

But he said he has seen other systems where recordings are triggered only by motion to time parameters to save on storage capacity.

Jackson showed a portion of the video where it showed a person appearing at the rear of Read's SUV, apparently out of nowhere.

Shortly after 9:30 a.m., Jackson introduced a flash drive into evidence and show its contents to the jury.

The flash drive contained another video of the sallyport, showing the correct, unmirrored image of investigators going over Read's SUV. He specifically zeroed in on a period of time that was missing from the video, saying that was the time when Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the case, was examining the taillight on Read's vehicle.

During redirect, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally asked Bukhenik if any of the video from the sallyport had been altered in any way. Bukhenik said it had not been changed.

Lally also had the entire 5 minute, 50 second video from the sallyport replayed, and then had Buhhenik confirm that it was time stamped after all of the other video evidence that jurors have seen to this point.

Bukhenik also testified that the video of the sallyport accurately depicted the actions that took place, other than it being inverted.

He also said neither he nor Proctor ever touched the rear quarter panel of the vehicle, where the taillight is located.

Bukhenik also explained why he initially stated that O'Keefe's injuries might have been as a result of a domestic assault instead of being hit by a vehicle.

"Up to that point we had learned that the defendant stated she had hit him. We had collected a broken glass. So based on the physical evidence and the statements made by the defendant to first responders at the scene at that point in time, I had communicated those facts to the medical examiner's office," he said.

But he also said at that point he had not yet been to the hospital to see O'Keefe's injuries, so he was relying entirely on information from police and firefighters at the scene. After going to the hospital and viewing O'Keefe's injuries, he said it he could tell that the broken glass was most likely not the weapon that was used to cause the injuries to the back of O'Keefe's head.
 

By Alysha Palumbo and Marc Fortier • Published 5 hours ago • Updated 1 min ago​


<snip>

Dighton Police Sgt. Nicholas Barros testifies​

The second witness on Monday was Dighton Police Sgt. Nicholas Barros. He was working as the officer in charge from 8 a.m. to midnight on Feb. 29, 2022, and was told that a resident had called the police station on a 911 call saying he needed a ride to the hospital due to the snowstorm to meet his daughter, whose boyfriend had died.

Around 2:30 p.m. that day, Proctor called to say they were coming to Dighton to retrieve a vehicle involved in a homicide from the same address where the earlier 911 call had originated. He said he later learned that the home was the resident of Read's parents.

Barros responded to the Read home with Proctor and another state police trooper. He said he observed a black Lexus SUV in the driveway upon arriving at the home. He said he noticed damage to the right rear taillight. He said it wasn't completely damaged, but was cracked, with a piece of it missing. He also noticed a dent to the rear quarter of the vehicle.

He concluded his testimony at 11 a.m. The defense had no questions for him.
 
Good, maybe CourtTV will catch up now, but they are wasting time on other trials without Proctor finishing up. Will the defense start after lunch?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,087
Members
970
Latest member
NickGoGetta
Back
Top Bottom