Watch Killer Or Cover-Up Murder Trial with Fubo
Plans start at $79.99/mo
Additional taxes, fees and regional restrictions may apply.
Killer Or Cover-Up Murder Trial
S1, EP172 "Where's The Bruising?"
Karen Read's defense called in the services of a retired medical doctor for the second time in her murder trial. This time jurors listened to the expert testimony of a forensic pathologist. He gave a different take on how John O'Keefe died. Dr. Frank Sheridan went straight to the point about the injuries he saw on the victim. To him, it didn't look remotely at all like O'Keefe had been hit by a car. Why? His body lacked any significant bruising.
S1, EP173 "No Evidence To A Hit-And-Run"
According to the Defense's forensic pathologist, there's no evidence of John O'Keefe being fatally hit by a car. This was contrary to the State's argument on how he lost his life. The cross-examination was not over yet on Dr. Frank Sheridan. He told jurors that he had not done any autopsies on people hit by the back of a vehicle. For jurors, Karen Read's defense brought in experts in the same field as the State's experts. The goal was to challenge their testimony.
S1, EP174 "An Accident Reconstructionist"
Jurors were brought back in the topic of accident reconstruction. Karen Read's defense wanted to challenge the State's assertion that she reversed her car at over 20 miles an hour to hit her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, and then drove away leaving him to die in a snowbank. Dr. Daniel Wolfe tried to make clear to the jury that he was not hired by her lawyers. Instead, he and his team independently examined the photographic evidence of the crime scene.
S1, EP175 "Inconsistencies In The Pedestrian Collision Theory"
The expert witness on the stand testified that his firm was hired by an outside agency to analyze the damage to Karen Read's SUV which the State claimed she used to hit John O'Keefe. That third party in question was the FBI and the Justice Department. Prosecutors ad more questions for Dr. Daniel Wolfe. He told the jury that O'Keefe's injuries and the images of the defendant's car were not consistent with a collision between a pedestrian and car.
