QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Russell has maintained that wounds on O’Keefe’s arm were “inflicted by a dog attack,” the same opinion she offered during Read’s first trial. “I considered various possibilities of a car accident — a pedestrian accident, I should say,” she said during a hearing last week. “And I went through many scenarios in my head, and no car accident scenario could create that configuration of wounds that’s on the arm.”
——————————————————————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Separately, prosecutors are seeking to exclude testimony from defense digital expert Richard Green, who was adamant that witness Jennifer McCabe Googled “hos long to die in cold” hours before O’Keefe was found in the snow. Last week, prosecutors said they also plan to ask Cannone to block testimony from Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler, two crash reconstructionists who testified for the defense in Read’s first trial."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Karen Read’s dog bite expert will be allowed to testify at retrial, judge rules," by Reporter Abby Patkin, published by Boston. com, on January 13, 2025. (Abby Patkin is a general assignment news reporter whose work touches on public transit, crime, health, and everything in between.)
SUB-HEADING: "While she said Dr. Marie Russell's eligibility as an expert witness was a “close question,” Judge Beverly Cannone will allow the retired physician to take the stand.
GIST: "Judge Beverly Cannone has given the green light for Karen Read’s dog bite expert to testify at her upcoming retrial.
Prosecutors sought to keep Dr. Marie Russell off the stand, arguing the retired emergency room physician and forensic pathologist wasn’t qualified to offer her opinion that Read’s boyfriend, John O’Keefe, was wounded in a dog attack.
Russell recently spent two full days fielding questions about her credentials and methodology, and Cannone acknowledged in her ruling Monday that it was a “close question” of whether Russell met the legal standards for an expert witness.
However, the judge ultimately concluded, “the recognition of dog bite wounds is not within the common knowledge of a layperson and requires expert testimony, and Dr. Russell is a qualified expert as to these topics.”
Prosecutors say Read, 44, drunkenly and intentionally backed her SUV into O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, after a night of bar-hopping with friends in January 2022. She’s accused of leaving O’Keefe to die outside the home of Brian Albert, another Boston officer who was hosting an afterparty.
But Read’s lawyers allege she was framed in a coverup, theorizing that O’Keefe was beaten as he walked into the party, attacked by Albert’s dog, and ultimately dumped outside in the snow. Read’s first trial ended with a hung jury in July of 2024, and she’s due to stand trial again April 1 of this year.
Russell has maintained that wounds on O’Keefe’s arm were “inflicted by a dog attack,” the same opinion she offered during Read’s first trial.
“I considered various possibilities of a car accident — a pedestrian accident, I should say,” she said during a hearing last week. “And I went through many scenarios in my head, and no car accident scenario could create that configuration of wounds that’s on the arm.”
In her ruling, Cannone acknowledged that prosecutors had demonstrated Russell’s expertise primarily concerns the treatment of dog bites, not their identification, and that Russell “failed to consider all available information” in her evaluation. Russell’s opinion is also inconsistent with test results from the University of California Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory Forensic Unit, which found no signs of canine DNA on swabs taken from O’Keefe’s shirt, the judge noted.
“However, the Court concludes that these issues go to the weight of Dr. Russell’s testimony, not its admissibility, and can be addressed during cross-examination at trial,” Cannone wrote.
Separately, prosecutors are seeking to exclude testimony from defense digital expert Richard Green, who was adamant that witness Jennifer McCabe Googled “hos long to die in cold” hours before O’Keefe was found in the snow. Last week, prosecutors said they also plan to ask Cannone to block testimony from Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler, two crash reconstructionists who testified for the defense in Read’s first trial.
Read’s case returns to court Jan. 31.
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
