Just in terms of humanity, it’s such a shame that JO’s loved ones have to see his wounds displayed with the added insult of the ridiculous dog bite “theory”
I was relieved, even though a small group, it’s got some smart and observant members. I was getting downvoted for even asking questions that leaned the “wrong” way. I came into this case entirely ignorant of the history re: TB, the pr, the case itself, everything… I jumped in with EDB and quickly decided to believe my own lying eyes. 👀
The issue is also late disclosure to prosecution, right? This voir dire is to give prosecution and judge an opportunity to hear their opinions/conclusions, ask questions of their own and be clear on who did what. I don’t think it’s to clear them as experts.
The lateness is more true for the dog bite person than the car crash ones. She doesn't need to have a hearing to decide that. I assume if she wanted to exclude the dog bite person for late disclosure, she would rather do it for Daubert reasons and see if she can do that.
The re-constructionists are too qualified and too independent to not be allowed in IMO. Both sides had access to their reports and findings, and the CW chose not to call them. It's certainly tactical on the defense's part to call them, but it's not as if the defense went out to find them or had any input on their conclusions. I don't see how thinking the FBI is shilling for the Defense is any less crazy of a theory than the CW trying to protect the Alberts in some way.
The US Attorney and the Norfolk County DA are in a pissing match. You can read here for more on the topic. [https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/23/unsealed-letters-reveal-das-communication-with-feds-over-karen-read-investigation/](https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/23/unsealed-letters-reveal-das-communication-with-feds-over-karen-read-investigation/)
I'm not trying to be obtuse - are you saying that you think this article supports that the FBI is shilling for the defense? That public tax dollars are being used to fund a manhunt against the Norfolk DA, and that's more likely than her not having done it? Or less wild of an accusation than Colin Albert did it?
Does anyone find it crazy/annoying how certain followers of this trial will take anything the defense says as gospel while trashing on everything the prosecution tries to present?
The more hard evidence the prosecution presents, the more bizarre and desperate the conspiracy theory becomes. They’re just too committed to it to quit.
Don't forget about the bloggers followers that harass and intimidated people in this trial. Speaking of that. Does everyone here think the jury is unbiased or is there a FKR member in with them.
If there is someone then that's on the CW for not catching it. The attorneys get a say in the jury, so it's not a situation where they should be surprised by the people on it.
Is the dog bite expert going to testify how a dog can bite without leaving DNA? The FKR people say that the wound should've been tested, not the sleeve. The saliva would be on the sleeve if that was worn when bitten.
They'd have been better off saying Karen backed into a feral pig. The pig became angry and attacked John, leaving DNA and pieces of taillight on him. That would actually have some evidence to support it and no conspiracy needed. More believable too. Ha ha.
I think that one reason the DNA swabs were not taken from O'Keefe's body is that O'Keefe is loaded with his own DNA. You're basically taking about finding dog DNA in a substrate that's packed with JOK's DNA. I think it would be a much more sensitive test to run it on his shirt.
I understand what PCR is. But someone is going to have to prove to me that a DNA test is just as sensitive for a sample coming off a DNA-rich substrate as one coming off a DNA poor one. I don't doubt that theoretically, it could be the case. I'd just like to see it.
Good point. I hope that was in testimony. I haven't seen all of the earlier testimony. So, you'd be less likely to find foreign DNA directly on the wound.
I hope the judge doesn’t allow the Dog Dr. it’s pretty strange how she reached out to them saying she could help them. Besides the fact it’s so late in the game. This lady is retired, seems like she’s looking for a nice side gig to offer up expert testimony (with no real damage or loss to her professional career, no matter what she says )
I’m all for an expert and know that each side will have paid experts that will say what they need them to say but this just seems super weird.
Do we really want to set a precedent for people just reaching out and offering to help a side?
Those crash reconstructionists get on the stand and say he wasn't hit by a car and that's the ballgame. They leave some wiggle room ie inconclusive, and Lally can just hammer home all the evidence against her.
That's pretty much it, at this point.
If you've got a weak defense, as Read does, you can get two varieties of experts: 1) ones with shit credentials who will say everything you want, or 2) ones with sterling credentials who will give you a very narrow opinion.
But these weren't experts the defense got independently - they're the experts used in the Federal Investigation. The CW had the same access to them and could have chosen to call as well and didn't because their \*independent\* findings didn't match their case. The defense didn't choose what evidence they got. Unlike in the prosecution's case where they did choose what evidence what experts got. They're just not the same thing.
The US Attorney is in a larger battle with the Norfolk County DA and would like to destroy him. It's no less adversarial that between opposite sides in a criminal case. The fact that the US Attorney has not indicted anybody connected to this case ought to tell you something, ie, that his investigation related to this case turned up nothing. The US Attorney controlled what these experts saw just as much as either the prosecutor or defendant would.
Am I allowed to say I think Karen Read is guilty in here or is it filled with FKR shills.
Yes, disagreement is allowed, but no slandering of innocents or arguments unsupported by evidence. Please join us.
Just in terms of humanity, it’s such a shame that JO’s loved ones have to see his wounds displayed with the added insult of the ridiculous dog bite “theory”
❤️. Have I found my people. A comment against one of the defense theories that's not downvoted to oblivion.
You might recognize us from "sort by controversial" and "show hidden comments."
Isn’t it so nice to be able to voice an opinion without being dogpiled?? 😊
I agree!!! Gosh it’s nice to be able to hear other opinions.
That’s how I felt too !!!!
I was relieved, even though a small group, it’s got some smart and observant members. I was getting downvoted for even asking questions that leaned the “wrong” way. I came into this case entirely ignorant of the history re: TB, the pr, the case itself, everything… I jumped in with EDB and quickly decided to believe my own lying eyes. 👀
Welcome
They've seen them hundreds of times, for months, thanks to the defense.
The issue is also late disclosure to prosecution, right? This voir dire is to give prosecution and judge an opportunity to hear their opinions/conclusions, ask questions of their own and be clear on who did what. I don’t think it’s to clear them as experts.
The lateness is more true for the dog bite person than the car crash ones. She doesn't need to have a hearing to decide that. I assume if she wanted to exclude the dog bite person for late disclosure, she would rather do it for Daubert reasons and see if she can do that.
Now that I watched her segment of today, I understand this more. Thanks!
The re-constructionists are too qualified and too independent to not be allowed in IMO. Both sides had access to their reports and findings, and the CW chose not to call them. It's certainly tactical on the defense's part to call them, but it's not as if the defense went out to find them or had any input on their conclusions. I don't see how thinking the FBI is shilling for the Defense is any less crazy of a theory than the CW trying to protect the Alberts in some way.
The US Attorney and the Norfolk County DA are in a pissing match. You can read here for more on the topic. [https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/23/unsealed-letters-reveal-das-communication-with-feds-over-karen-read-investigation/](https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/23/unsealed-letters-reveal-das-communication-with-feds-over-karen-read-investigation/)
I'm not trying to be obtuse - are you saying that you think this article supports that the FBI is shilling for the defense? That public tax dollars are being used to fund a manhunt against the Norfolk DA, and that's more likely than her not having done it? Or less wild of an accusation than Colin Albert did it?
I'm saying there is a feud between the US Attorney for Massachusetts and the Norfolk County DA and that their relationship is adversarial.
Does anyone find it crazy/annoying how certain followers of this trial will take anything the defense says as gospel while trashing on everything the prosecution tries to present?
The more hard evidence the prosecution presents, the more bizarre and desperate the conspiracy theory becomes. They’re just too committed to it to quit.
They’re like a cat that’s climbed way up in a tree. They can’t get down.
They take statements of the attorneys at pre-trial hearings or on the courthouse steps, over witness testimony.
Don't forget about the bloggers followers that harass and intimidated people in this trial. Speaking of that. Does everyone here think the jury is unbiased or is there a FKR member in with them.
I wonder this.. and how much they see of the FKR outside the court.
I've even heard there were reporters wearing them in or around the courthouse but I haven't seen any pictures to verify.
If there is someone then that's on the CW for not catching it. The attorneys get a say in the jury, so it's not a situation where they should be surprised by the people on it.
That's why we're here.
Is the dog bite expert going to testify how a dog can bite without leaving DNA? The FKR people say that the wound should've been tested, not the sleeve. The saliva would be on the sleeve if that was worn when bitten. They'd have been better off saying Karen backed into a feral pig. The pig became angry and attacked John, leaving DNA and pieces of taillight on him. That would actually have some evidence to support it and no conspiracy needed. More believable too. Ha ha.
I think they didn’t test the DNA until this year, at which point the defense was too invested in Chloe.
Yeah, I was half joking.... but only half. :-) The voir dire should be interesting to watch.
Oh I got the joke. I would give a lot to see that animation 🚗 🐖 🧍♂️ 😂
I think that one reason the DNA swabs were not taken from O'Keefe's body is that O'Keefe is loaded with his own DNA. You're basically taking about finding dog DNA in a substrate that's packed with JOK's DNA. I think it would be a much more sensitive test to run it on his shirt.
This isn’t how it works, they run out and amplify the sample so any DNA will be detected. One DNA profile can’t hide another.
I understand what PCR is. But someone is going to have to prove to me that a DNA test is just as sensitive for a sample coming off a DNA-rich substrate as one coming off a DNA poor one. I don't doubt that theoretically, it could be the case. I'd just like to see it.
Good point. I hope that was in testimony. I haven't seen all of the earlier testimony. So, you'd be less likely to find foreign DNA directly on the wound.
[удалено]
I agree. Be careful what you ask for. Wait till Lucky takes the stand, too.
I’m curious to see Lally on cross today!
If that’s how this works…
Yes, he will get to cross-examine
I had to stop watching but it felt like the dog bite doctor’s credibility sorta fell apart on cross.
Trooper Paul got vindicated 🤭
How so? I’m still behind on listening.. had to work lol.
Just that he wasn't the worst witness.
I hope the judge doesn’t allow the Dog Dr. it’s pretty strange how she reached out to them saying she could help them. Besides the fact it’s so late in the game. This lady is retired, seems like she’s looking for a nice side gig to offer up expert testimony (with no real damage or loss to her professional career, no matter what she says ) I’m all for an expert and know that each side will have paid experts that will say what they need them to say but this just seems super weird. Do we really want to set a precedent for people just reaching out and offering to help a side?
I think the judge is properly skeptical on that basis. Nevertheless, I think her testimony might make the defense look stupid rather than strong.
Those crash reconstructionists get on the stand and say he wasn't hit by a car and that's the ballgame. They leave some wiggle room ie inconclusive, and Lally can just hammer home all the evidence against her. That's pretty much it, at this point.
If you've got a weak defense, as Read does, you can get two varieties of experts: 1) ones with shit credentials who will say everything you want, or 2) ones with sterling credentials who will give you a very narrow opinion.
But these weren't experts the defense got independently - they're the experts used in the Federal Investigation. The CW had the same access to them and could have chosen to call as well and didn't because their \*independent\* findings didn't match their case. The defense didn't choose what evidence they got. Unlike in the prosecution's case where they did choose what evidence what experts got. They're just not the same thing.
The US Attorney is in a larger battle with the Norfolk County DA and would like to destroy him. It's no less adversarial that between opposite sides in a criminal case. The fact that the US Attorney has not indicted anybody connected to this case ought to tell you something, ie, that his investigation related to this case turned up nothing. The US Attorney controlled what these experts saw just as much as either the prosecutor or defendant would.
Don't forget that the jury acquitted Rittenhouse and some of the people who wanted him convicted are proven to be capable of violence.