For those of you who think Brennan is just so "bright" as an unreliable attention seeking source put it today, let me explain a significant problem with Brennan and prosecution's strategy and how Brennan attempted to manipulate or mislead during cross-examination, specifically with Dr. Russell, an expert witness.

What Brennan Did

Prosecutor Brennan asked Dr. Russell a hypothetical question about whether automobile tempered glass leaves distinctive injuries and if John O’Keefe’s injuries could be consistent with those caused by the broken taillight glass.

The issue here is twofold:

1. Speculation Without Evidence: There is no direct evidence tying the taillight glass to John O’Keefe’s injuries. Brennan is trying to create a connection that doesn't exist in the forensic evidence.

2. Redirecting Attention: By focusing on the "distinctive injuries" of tempered glass, Brennan attempts to shift the narrative toward Karen Read’s taillight, despite the fact that John’s injuries are inconsistent with being hit by a car. This is a tactic to distract the jury from the larger inconsistencies in the case.

Why This Matters

Automobile tempered glass does not match John’s injuries: Tempered glass injuries tend to be small, linear, or puncture wounds, as the glass breaks into tiny, rounded shards. However, John’s injuries include severe blunt force trauma, skull fractures, and internal bleeding—none of which align with injuries caused by broken glass.

No Evidence of Glass in John’s Body: 

Beyond the claim that some glass fragments were "found" in his clothing days later, there’s no definitive evidence that John came into contact with Karen’s taillight glass at all. Importantly, no glass shards were found embedded in his skin or consistent with the alleged mechanism of injury.

What It Implies About Brennan

Brennan’s line of questioning seems to reveal desperation to tie Karen Read’s taillight to the injuries, even when the science doesn’t back it up. It also reflects an attempt to confuse or mislead the jury by suggesting speculative scenarios lacking a scientific or forensic basis. One could say he's not so "bright" after all. You could say Brennan is more, what's the word?--Desperate. 
 
Bigger Problems with the Case

This line of questioning is emblematic of a prosecution that appears more focused on pushing a narrative than presenting a coherent, evidence-based case. It highlights their reliance on weak, circumstantial arguments rather than definitive forensic proof, which undermines their credibility.

In essence, I am criticizing Brennan for using speculative, scientifically unsupported claims to bolster a shaky prosecution narrative, further illustrating the flaws in the case against Karen Read.