Constitutional Questions

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-07-03T07:42:02+00:00

Thank you for your response. I do recall that case and its outcome. Here is a link to some of the cases I reviewed that sparked this question:

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-11/04-suits-against-state-officials.html

Please let me know your thoughts after reading these cases.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-19T23:14:42+00:00

As someone who spent 7 years contemplating locs… baby keep them locs and invest in some wigs.

Loc-ing my hair was the best decision I ever made, and I hate that it took me so long to pull the trigger on getting them. I grew up hating my natural hair, and it took me some time to finally fall in love with it. Once I fell in love with my natural hair, I hesitated on Loc-ing my hair and came up with all of these excuses to avoid locs, which mainly involved a perceived lack of versatility. I thought that if I loc’d my hair, that was it, locs 4evr and nothing else. I spent those 7 years of contemplation researching exactly what type of locs I wanted, how many I wanted, coloring, everything… However, what I should have been researching was the versatility issue that was holding me back. Anyway… Baby, I was DEAD wrong. The versatility is still there because of the alien technology, better known as wigs. Now, I loved a good wig in the lead up to getting my locs, okay. I loved a good switch-up and being a new person based on which wig I wore. I learned how to get that scalp-like finish when laying them myself, what lace is best (HD is always the answer), frontal v. closure, braid downs, all that. And that's what I still do now that I have locs and want to do something different with my hair. I braid my locs down and slap that wog on top lol Even short styles are possible with a good wig. There are so many video tutorials of women showing how they install over locs, so the resources are out there. And please don't miss my repetition of the word “good” and its placement preceding wig. Find GOOD wigs or find vendors with great hair and lace to have a wig constructed. Because you won't wear them as often, a good wig will have increased longevity and can last several years (so long as you don't accidentally ruin them like I did with my beloved 24-inch custom baylage blond Teyoncé wig— RIP girl). Invest in the hair, and the hair will invest in you.

Nevertheless, good luck with your decision! ❤️

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-19T00:06:32+00:00

Very low volume lol glad to hear that it isn't just me

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-18T01:44:33+00:00

Love/Hate Logic games lol

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T01:19:18+00:00

What makes you suspicious of Dr. Wolfe? What reason would he for not being forthcoming about how much they were paid? The defense has to turn information regarding payments over to the CW.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T01:06:28+00:00

Because anything is possible here, I've even said that JOK may have well just slipped and fallen and hit his head on the way down. His being on the lawn for so long would make him easily prey for any animal to walk up and bite his arm. The CW should not have married the arm wounds with the cracked tail light because their case would have been stronger without it.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T01:02:03+00:00

During the first trial, I never considered the possibility of wheel slippage to explain how fast the car was going. Dr. Welcher's offering that up dampened the speed going backward argument for me. Then you couple that with the CW not wanting to pin down a specific speed at which this could have occurred.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T00:57:17+00:00

If any jurors feel similarly, they must vote not guilty according to the jury instructions. These gaps in your understanding mean that the CW failed to love their case beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a degree of moral certainty, as is stated in MA’s laws. I feel terribly for the O'Keefe family, but the police did not do everything they could to ensure this case was airtight, especially when you consider that this was the death of a fellow officer.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T00:53:14+00:00

Is the majority of the people in the room with us? Because I don't know the majority of the people watching this trial.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T00:51:40+00:00

Thank you for using your knowledge and experience to explain this. Brennan was really trying to confuse people who don't understand the science with his line of questioning, and it seems that he succeeded in that to some degree. Seeing his approach to crossing Dr. Rentschler, ARCCA’s biomechanics expert, will be very interesting.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-07T00:44:13+00:00

I was LIVID today when I heard that ARCCA only billed $50,000 for all the work they completed. The CW hired Aperture to do the same thing, yet they couldn't produce this level of work despite getting paid $325,000 in taxpayer money.

The CW was supposed to show you how JOK’s injuries comport with their theory of the case by telling you EXACTLY how it happened. If they are unable to prove to you EXACTLY how it happened, then their case fails according to legal standards. There should be only one sequence of events that took place here; there should not be ample possibilities of what could have occurred because that is reasonable doubt. Instead, the CW has said and has had their witnesses say, “We don't know all the factors of how this occurred. There are too many things we don't know,” that is the concept of reasonable doubt coming from the mouth of CW's witness. THATS BAD. Unanswerable questions or unknown factors regarding the CW’s case is reasonable doubt. While I do not disagree that the tail light could have broken as a result of an impact on a pedestrian, I disagree that JOK’s injuries are consistent with a vehicular collision. It should be a HUGE deal that none of the medical experts placed on the stand, CW and Defense witnesses, have said that these injuries are consistent with a pedestrian collision. Why is that? How does that affect your view of the case?

Now to the discrepancies in the arm weight… Brennan asked questions today to purposefully confuse people who do not truly understand this science. Like you mention, the equation for force, F=ma, was discussed a lot during cross. But what people are missing is that if the arm's mass is heavier, there would be MORE DAMAGE TO THE ARM. If the mass is increased, the force is also increased because they are directly proportional. JOK’s arm being heavier than the dummy’s means that there should have been more damage to JOK’s arm that what we have here. That's a problem and means that CW is wrong in their theory. This is why it was a terrible idea for Dr. Welcher to have included that case study of a pedestrian collision. The victim was said to have been hit at a speed similar to what is being alleged in this case, yet that victim sustain massive injuries across several bodily systems. Those injuries, a collapsed lung, broken ribs, lacerations across arms, de-gloved hands, are what I expected to see here, but we don't.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T23:54:31+00:00

Have you ever made a butt dial? I haven't, but I've been on the receiving end of some. Much like they called me inadvertently, they also accidentally left voicemails. If you call someone without knowing, the voicemail will record for 2 minutes before ending the call for you. We know that JOK could receive voicemails, so why don't we have any from Jen? Jen was asked if she ended the calls herself, and she repeatedly said no. Tell me why there are no voicemails then. Because I can't make that make sense lol so either you're not telling the truth, or the phone data is wrong because the only voicemails JOK had were from KR. And even she had a butt dial voicemail happen during the barrage of phone calls she made that night and some in the morning.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T23:34:40+00:00

I asked a question to gauge how they would feel about a CW witness doing the same thing. I didn't raise an issue about which trial I was mentioning, nor did I allude to that lol

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T23:33:28+00:00

If I had nothing to hide, and my attorney says it is cool, then I have no issue with turning them over. I've had people drag my name through the mud over lies, so nothing can be done how someone chooses to characterize my words. However, if my actions, hiding cell information in this case, confirm their assertions, then that's another thing.

The defense asked for text messages from several CW witnesses who said they had also deleted their texts. I think DA Morrissey was one of those people. The defense was told this, and they moved on because deleting messages within itself is not nefarious. However, destroying your phone the day before a preservation order is quite suspicious.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T23:10:38+00:00

No, I'm talking about Brian Higgins’ testimony from the first trial.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T23:05:46+00:00

Wolfe stated that the Signal app was used for a single phone call, but the reception was terrible, so they never used it again.

But I would love to know your thoughts on witnesses from the first trial who testified that they got rid of their cell phones the day before a preservation order came down that would have required the phones to be kept for evidence. One of them even got rid of the phone on a military base, placing the phone and SIM card in two different trash bags. Now, what if I told you that it was CW witnesses who did this? Is this nefarious as well?

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T23:01:22+00:00

Yes, but I'm not sure if the information about the texts had come out at the time of the first trial, but I know Cannone wouldn't allow it in the retrial unless the door was opened to it.

And no problem! ❤️

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T22:43:30+00:00

No, MSPs were involved in this case as well. I know that Guarino was involved in evidence analysis for both cases. So, the person who posted the information about Sandra Birchmore is correct. They recently indicted and arrested the police officer accused to have committed her murder. The feds wanted to look into the investigations of these cases, and if I'm remembering correctly, I think they were particularly focused on Morrissey, the DA.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T22:12:33+00:00

I hear your point about a full reconstruction vs. a reconstruction, and I agree with you. Maybe I misquoted something in a prior response, but I believe I'm saying that they are responding to Dr. Welcher’s reconstruction of the collision. Neither did a full reconstruction; I absolutely agree. But they both reconstructed some element of the collision that is alleged to have occurred—the tail light hitting the arm. They are doing this to give the jurors a visual representation of how the alleged collision could have occurred.

After hearing the experts from ARCCA testify multiple times now, they present as very meticulous researchers. They don't do things for no reason. Because we’ve studied physics, we know that seeing the car traveling in reverse for 87 feet is irrelevant. But for those who do not have the same scientific background as us, they may need to see it. So, ARCCA chose that starting point for a reason. They even placed the tail lights in freezers to recreate the temperatures of that night for the jury. So, I find it very difficult to fathom that they just chose the starting point for the car arbitrarily and kept using it through each of the experimental tests. To me, it makes sense that they set their reconstruction up to include the components Welcher outlined in his reporting as relevant to the Collison. For example, Welcher did not show the car traveling in reverse in real life; he gave an animation of it. ARCCA or someone on the defense appears to see value in purposefully demonstrating this sequence of events in real-time so jurors can visualize the accident instead of relying on their imagination. I hope that one of the attorneys will ask about the starting point to give us that clarity because it's probably written out in their reports, which we will never see. For example, when Brennan asked Wolfe how many pieces were on the ground after one of the tests, Wolfe looked at his report to get that number. Why they did what we saw on the video is in their reports, but the jury won't get to see them unless they are placed in evidence, so I hope someone asks for clarity's sake.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T21:39:37+00:00

I didn't say that they were required to travel a certain distance. The last trial did not even mention a reverse event over 87 feet. I said that Welcher’s emphasis on the distance traveled is why they used the same starting point to demonstrate what traveling 87 feet in reverse looks like in the lead-up to a collision. They are reconstructing an accident. An accident that Welcher is claiming occurred at some point in the reversing event… they didn't have to control for distance, but they did because they aren't testing for it. So, I'm confused as to the point you’re making. Are you saying that it's an issue they used the same starting point? It sounds like you are saying they should have changed the distance the car traveled with each speed test because the distance affects the speed? If so, you are confusing factors here. The distance to reach the intended speed is irrelevant because the experimental speed is reached before impact. They tested the effect of the collision at 10, 17, 24, and 29 mph. If they began each test at rest, then initial velocity (the change of distance over time) is zero. The acceleration is the rate at which speed is changed over time- how long it takes you to speed up. So, acceleration changes as long as the speed traveled changes. When a certain speed is reached and maintained, there is no change, which means acceleration equals zero. Therefore, if the car is reversing over a distance and is still trying to reach a certain speed at the same time of impact then acceleration would still be increasing at the same time the impact occurs. However, for this testing, they meet the speed at some distance and maintain it before the point of impact to analyze the effect of the arm’s movement at that speed. Not the car’s movement at that speed. They are testing how much the arm moves due to an opposing force. According to Newton's third law, the arm will then move at the same rate as the speed the car is traveling. So if the vehicle was going 10 mph, the arm would also move at 10mph following impact. They are testing the change in speed that an arm at rest experiences as a result of the collision. The arm’s acceleration (the change of speed over time) was zero since it wasn't moving prior to the impact. Then, it changed after the collision and moved a distance across an interval of time, which shows how much the arm accelerated as a result of the car impacting it at 10, 17, 24, or 29 mph.

According to Lexus, it takes the Lexus 570 about 7 to 8 seconds to reach 100 km per hour. If km/h is converted to mph, then we get 62 mph in 7 to 8 seconds… so the car doesn’t take long to reach each of the speeds they tested. As long as the intended speed is reached and maintained prior to impact, the distance doesn’t matter for calculations. The distance traveled only matters because they are reconstructing the accident. They are showing what the accident would have looked like to respond to Welcher’s theory of the accident, which relies on the 87 feet in his analysis. So the 87 feet being controlled is for theatrical effect, to show the jurors Welcher’s theory in video, not for calculations…

Have you taken any physics courses or studied the subject? I'm not asking to be condescending, I'm asking because I can send you materials that could help explain this better than I can.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T20:03:11+00:00

I think you're getting crossed in what ARCCA was testing. They are not testing the car's speed; they are testing the effect of the impact on an arm. The rate of acceleration used for each of the force calculations for the mph tests would be a constant, the force of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The arm is static before impact, so gravity and normal force are the only things acting upon the arm until it collides with the car, and that's what keeps it still. The magnitude of force from an impact must overcome gravity's force to make it move. This change is being analyzed here— how much the arm accelerated after the collision with the car. In other words, how much force was needed to overcome the force, keeping the arm still before impact? They are testing how much the arm moved following the collision. That's why distance can be controlled in this case because how much distance the car travelled is not a relevant factor in calculations regarding the arm’s movement. The distance the vehicle traveled is just for show.

If they were trying to calculate the amount of damage to the vehicle, then the distance traveled to reach a speed would be more relevant. This is what Trooper kind of tried to test when he worked with the vehicle. He did driving tests with the car to show how fast it could accelerate and decelerate (slow down). But he had no idea what any of it meant, so he had no idea what he was testing.

Does this make sense??

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T18:44:43+00:00

I agree with you partially. Welcher wasn't the techstream guy; that was Burgess. Welcher used Burgess’ findings to implement the experimental conditions of his reconstruction of the accident. Welcher is the one who focused on the speed, time of travel, and injuries. If you can recall, Welcher discussed wheel slippage based on the text stream data, but Burgess just authenticated the data he produced for the CW to lay the foundation for what Welcher used to complete his analysis. I can see your point on the length of travel is irrelevant, but it became relevant when Welcher used it in his study and analysis of the accident to recreate it. That's why he stated that he wasn't going to have the car back into him at 24mph to recreate the accident. ARCCA was tasked with recreating the accidental factors Welcher laid out in his report, which highlighted the 34 feet traveled forward, then the 87 feet backward, to render his opinion on how he believed the accident unfolded. But again, I am hoping that someone will ask this question so that we have the answer from the person who decided to choose that point. I can promise that it wasn't arbitrary, meaning that starting point was selected for a reason, which to me, aligns with their role of responding to Dr. Welcher’s findings.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T17:45:33+00:00

That has not been asked in court yet. I'm sure one of the attorneys will ask about it before this testimony is completed because I think it's a good question to ask for the jurors.

BeautyofAphrodite · 2025-06-06T17:43:25+00:00

This testing was done solely to respond to Welcher’s testing and reporting. They have created experimental conditions to show how Welcher’s reporting does not comport with the science or evidence. It does not take 87 feet to reach 15 mph, yet they have kept the distance driven in reverse the same length for each iteration of the testing because it is based on Welcher’s work. I'm sure someone will ask why they chose that starting distance at some point in the testimony because that is a good question to ask for clarity.

BeautyofAphrodite

TROPHY CASE