How we get from probably guilty to reasonable doubt:
- Cassian Creed
- May 29
- 5 min read
Narrative of Today's Key Trial Events Influencing the Analysis (May 29, 2025):
Today, the prosecution concluded its case after Dr. Judson Welcher, their crash reconstruction expert, completed his testimony. Under continued cross-examination by defense attorney Robert Alessi, Dr. Welcher was pressed on his report's reliability, the financial compensation to his firm, the applicability of a 1979 study he cited, his theory on O'Keefe's facial injuries, and the explanation for the taillight damage. Dr. Welcher maintained that Karen Read's Lexus SUV backing into O'Keefe's parked vehicle in her driveway would not have caused the critical taillight damage. Following a brief redirect, the prosecution played a video clip from an April 2024 documentary interview where Karen Read speculated about potentially hitting O'Keefe and her lawyer's advice regarding culpability. The prosecution then rested its case. The defense announced their first witness for Friday will be digital forensics expert Matthew DiSogra.
These events primarily influence the "Vehicle Evidence Integrity," "Vehicle-Impact Scenario," and "Altercation/Cover-Up Scenario" probabilities. Dr. Welcher's firm stance on the taillight damage source and the Read interview clip are efforts by the prosecution to bolster their main theory.
⚙️ Complete GUILT-X (Integrated Guilt Probability) - May 29, 2025 (Comparison to May 28, 2025, values in parentheses)
Export to Sheets
Rationale for Changes to Factors (May 29 vs. May 28):
Vehicle Evidence Integrity (74.25% → 72%): Dr. Welcher’s testimony aimed to definitively attribute the taillight damage to an impact with O’Keefe, directly countering a defense argument that it broke during the driveway bump. This assertion, if persuasive, could slightly reduce suspicion about the taillight evidence itself being entirely misleading or planted, thus a marginal decrease in its "compromised integrity" score. However, vigorous cross-examination by the defense regarding Dr. Welcher's methodology and his firm's fees likely maintained a high level of overall skepticism.
Vehicle-Impact Scenario (44% → 52%): Dr. Welcher's extensive testimony, including his reconstruction and firm opinion that the critical taillight damage was not from the driveway incident but consistent with striking O'Keefe, combined with the prosecution concluding its case by playing Karen Read's speculative video clip regarding her potential culpability, is assessed to significantly strengthen the plausibility of this scenario from the prosecution's standpoint.
Altercation/Cover-Up Scenario (77% → 69%): The bolstering of the Vehicle-Impact Scenario, particularly Dr. Welcher's refutation of an alternative explanation for the taillight damage, correspondingly lessens the perceived necessity or probability of an altercation/cover-up being the primary or sole cause of O'Keefe's death and the source of the key vehicle evidence.
Interlock Adjustment (May 29): Guilt-X (68.50%) measures evidence quality and uncertainty about investigative integrity and third-party culpability. However, as high probability scores for investigative misconduct (80%) and third-party involvement (68% and 55%) strongly undermine guilt, we subtract these credibility impacts:
Adjusted Integrated Guilt Probability: 68.50% - (Investigative Integrity 12.00% + Third-party Higgins 6.80% + Third-party Albert 5.50%) = 68.50% - 24.30% = 44.20% (May 28 Adjusted Integrated Guilt Probability was 44.14%)
Additional Scenario Adjustment (Cover-up vs. Vehicle Impact) (May 29): Because substantial doubts about the vehicle-impact scenario still exist despite today's testimony, and the alternative cover-up scenario remains strong, further reduction is warranted:
Subtract scenario difference: (69% Cover-up - 52% Impact) = 17% This 17% scenario advantage for the cover-up theory translates conservatively into additional doubt, reducing guilt probability by half of this difference (8.5%). (May 28 scenario difference was 33%, reduction was 16.5%)
Final Adjusted Guilt-X Probability (May 29): 44.20% - 8.5% = 35.70% (Rounded: 36%) (May 28 Final Adjusted Guilt-X was 27.64%, Rounded: 28%)
✅ Final Guilt-X (with Interlock) May 29: 36% (May 28: 28%)
This represents the adjusted probability that Karen Read is directly guilty of the charges, factoring all updated forensic, scenario-based, and credibility evidence as of May 29, 2025, and reflecting the impact of the prosecution resting its case. The increase from yesterday's 28% indicates that the conclusion of the prosecution's case, particularly Dr. Welcher's testimony and the Read video clip, has marginally strengthened the perceived likelihood of her direct involvement, though significant reasonable doubt persists.
🧑⚖️ Complete VERDICT-X (Jury Simulation Forecast) - May 29, 2025 (Comparison to May 28, 2025, values in parentheses)
Using adjusted Guilt-X (36%) as the key metric, combined with jury behavioral models (reasonable doubt threshold typically ~35-40%):
Export to Sheets
⚖️ Interlock Justification & Rationale (May 29 Update):
The Interlock Methodology adjusts the initial Guilt-X by current assessments of investigative misconduct and third-party culpability. Today's primary shift comes from the prosecution resting its case with Dr. Welcher's testimony bolstering the vehicle-impact scenario and the introduction of Read's own speculative statements. While this increased the Vehicle-Impact Scenario probability (from 44% to 52%) and decreased the Altercation/Cover-Up advantage (from 33% to 17%), the underlying high probabilities for Investigative Integrity issues and Third-Party Culpability remain significant anchors of doubt. The Final Adjusted Guilt-X score of 36% is higher than yesterday's 28%, indicating a slight strengthening of the prosecution's position at the close of their case, but it still suggests a challenging path to conviction beyond a reasonable doubt for all jurors.
📌 Final Conclusion (Guilt-X & Verdict-X, May 29, 2025):
Adjusted Guilt-X (May 29): 36% (Up from 28% on May 28)
Most Probable Verdict (Verdict-X, May 29): 🟢 Full Acquittal (52%) (Down from 64% on May 28)
The conclusion of the prosecution's case, particularly the testimony of their final expert and the presentation of Karen Read's own speculative statements, has slightly increased the calculated probability of her direct guilt. However, the substantial weight of evidence concerning investigative issues and potential third-party involvement continues to ensure that reasonable doubt remains a dominant factor. An acquittal is still the most probable outcome, but the likelihood of a hung jury has increased as the evidence presented by the prosecution's end may sway more jurors than previously anticipated, making unanimity for acquittal less certain.
Comments